I second Ozy & Millie. If you like Calvin & Hobbes, you’ll like this too.
I also like Zortic which parodies everything from Star Wars to The Smurfs.
Very cool. I know he’s not in my major local paper, I’l see if I can find any close by that run his comics.
Scott McCloud, author of Understanding Comics and Reinventing Comics, has some links to a few interesting webcomics on his site.
I’m kinda partial to the Perry Bible Fellowship at the moment, but it’s already in print in some alternative papers, so I guess it doesn’t really count.
I think Medium Large deserves a mention. It works like a daily strip that might go in a newspaper, but could never be run there. He often draws other comics (especially older pop culture) in humorous (relying often on ‘real-life’ but usually making it actually funny) situations. A recent one had Wimpy offering blow jobs in the parking lot for a hamburger.
I’d almost like to see Get Your War On compiled, but it’s almost too depressing to go over it. Yet another comic that manages to work despite the author’s lack of artistic skills (it’s created out of clip art).
As for Penny Arcade, it’s simply uncriticizable.
Chugworth Academy would be good in its own comic. Wouldn’t work in most newspapers.
Make that Chugworth Academy
You know, it’s fun to watch Miller when he’s arguing with someone who’s not me. 
Didn’t Pearls Before Swine start on the web, then move to the paper world?
That’s because that’s not what I said. What I was saying, in other words, is despite his knack for comedic writing (which I honestly don’t see, but considering it had nothing to do with my argument, I never brought it up. But now, I will - why not?), if he had respect for the medium, he’d recognize that he isn’t up to the task of creating a comic by himself, and do something about it. The fact that his comics are so visually incompetent shows that he really doesn’t care how they look, as long as they can technically tell his jokes and stories. If you say “I don’t care how it looks. It’s all about the content” about a visual medium, it shows you don’t have much respect for it, because you don’t get that how it looks is part of the content (most of it, actually).
He thinks he’s funny and the easiest way to tell his jokes in a narrative context and have people read them is through a webcomic. I suspect that’s his only motivation, not any real interest in comics.
No, I mentioned that it gradually constricted, arranged in one row, to coincide with a startle.
Okay. I didn’t say that was the case. I said mostly.
No, you’re just misunderstanding me.
Fine, I’ll relent. I guess there’s no reason to deem a cartoon standup act invalid as a comic.
I realize that lectures and poems can be recorded onto video and disc, but does merely existing on those formats move them into the cinema and song category? Do you consider the Rodney King video a cinematic piece?
Since the art is a part of the storytelling, I don’t know if the final product can be segregated by “writing” (which I guess refers to the story and jokes, and text when it applies, since a comic doesn’t neccessarily have to be written beforehand) and art for criticism. But I can’t argue with your preference.
Even if it was (which it wasn’t, it was just a part of the overall point), how does that make it a bad strip?
There’s no rule that demands depth from a joke. Besides, you keep dissecting it in order to dissolve its effect. Yes, it requires knowledge of an obscure NES game. You used that against it, for some reason, but that’s a part of what makes it funny. If he pointed out an obvious absurdity from Super Mario Bros., no, it wouldn’t have worked as well. Take it in as a whole and it works. Segment it and try to downplay each part that makes up the whole and you ruin it.
Even still, that’s not necessarily what makes a good parody.
Where else have you seen Bubble Bobble lampooned this way? He hasn’t done that exact joke a hundred times; you merely referring to the fact that his subject matter revolves around videogames. The purpose of his strip is, for the most part, to lampoon videogames. If you’re going to define every videogame parody as the same joke, then yes, he does do that same joke all the time.
I have more of an issue with the talking avatar thing than the amount of panels. Why bother with the comic if the two just want just depict themselves musing? That’s what blogs are for. Or musing columns.
Not to interrupt Miller’s pwnage, here, but they don’t just depict themselves musing. The visuals support the story. I just reviewed every PA back to the beginning of March - at the very least, the facial expressions are used to complement the text by expressing the emotions of the character. They give the words inflections that plain text just can’t provide. And more than half of the strips actually rely on a humorous visual above and beyond simple expressiveness.
I’m not a big fan of the PPG doujinshi. The art style doesn’t impress me much, and the storyline is way too melodramatic for my taste. Plus, Bleedman always seems to keep adding other projects to his plate.
I honestly cannot wrap my mind around what you’re trying to say here. It makes absolutely no sense. The guy draws a comic because he likes drawing a comic. He’s not doing it professionally. He’s not making any money off it*. He’s just doing something he likes, and putting it on the web. I’m sure he’d like his comic to look better: I don’t think there’s an artist alive who doesn’t feel that way baout their work, in any medium, but that’s the best he can do. How that shows a lack of respect for the medium is entirely beyond me.
Also, I don’t see how you can say his art is incompetent. When you look at one of his comics, can you not understand what’s supposed to be happening? Are the characters difficult to tell apart? Does the action not make sense? In what manner is he incompetent? What do you mean by incompetent in this context?
*He does have a shop section of his comic, where you can buy a coffee mug or a print of one of his drawings. I doubt the profits from these two items is enough to offset the cost of hosting his website, and he makes no money directly off the comic itself.
And what’s wrong with that? What’s the proper motivation for creating a comic?
Fair enough.
No, I’m saying that the barriers between different mediums are not as rigid as you seem to be insisting. Is My Dinner with Andre not a movie, because it’s just two people talking? If it’s not a movie, what is it, exactly?
You earlier pointed out (correctly) that a comic can have no words and still be a comic. But a comic with no story isn’t a comic: it’s just a picture. Therefore, by your own logic, story (plot, characterization, theme, etc.) is more important than art to a comic. Wether this is communicated primarily through words or pictures is a secondary consideration.
Because it’s not that good a joke, obviously.
No, I’m dissecting it to show why it doesn’t have an effect.
I don’t see why pointing out an obvious absurdity in a game most people have never heard of is any funnier than pointing out an obvious absurdity in a game everyone has heard of.
Well, no, it doesn’t work as a whole. It’s not a funny comic. I’m segmenting it to explain why it’s not funny. Naturally, that process is going to kill any humor, no matter how good, but in this case, it’s a mercy killing at best.
I disagree. That’s what seperates good parody from bad parody.
No, I’m not saying all comics about videogames are exactly the same. I even linked to another VGCats video game parody to show how it can be done differently. In these two comics, specifc element of the strip that is supposed to be funny is identical: realisitically depicting an action in a cartoonish video game to illustrate how horrible it really is. It’s exactly the same joke, used on two different video games. It works better with Bubble Bobble because the action being parodied is so much more bizarre, but it doesn’t shake the fact that it’s a pretty tired gag at this point.
Because the author would rather draw a comic than write a blog. Why does this idea bother you so much?
Oh, and here :
PA defying traditional panel format in a brilliant little riff that I rather enjoy. And that seems to have given rise to a current net-meme.
Webcomics. Serious business.
Simmer down before I report this thread to these guys.
I’m partial to Mark Shallow (he’s on vacation so those are guest week strips). His art is meh (its’ actually gotten a lot better. Check out the first couple Adventurers! strips) but the jokes and stories are great. I could see Antihero for Hire as a Sunday strip, but the arcs would take about a year to unfold.
Like someone upthread said, most webcomics work best on the web where they have more freedom. I somehow don’t see Striptease flying in a newspaper.
Is there a rule that demands great artwork from a comic? Is there a rule that every comic artist has to use every tool in the comic toolbox? Why are there rules at all?
All I care about in a comic is if it entertains me in some way.
Not great artwork, but by definition artwork is a necessary component of comics, so better art=better comic is a valid formula. You can’t say the same about depth and jokes.
By that logic, this is a better comic than this. Not to knock Dave Gibbons, but he’s no Michelangelo. And art is, after all, the only valid criteria in judging what what makes a good comic book, right?
That’s not what I said at all! When I said “better art=better comic”, I obviously was speaking about the art in a comic. The painting you linked to isn’t a comic, so it’s irelavant to compare it to Watchmen. And I didn’t say art was the only valid criteria for judgement either. My only point was that it’s more valid to judge a comic by its art than it is to judge a joke by its depth.
This is relevant.
erm…I’d like to recommend Irregular Webcomic …not to interrupt or anything.
.:tugs collar nervously:. mmmm…yes…
I’m not sure how well it would translate to print, as the commentary can be pretty important for some of his more literary jokes.
Also, the photos might not work to well in a black and white newspaper setting