See post #126.
Darryl Zanuck (20th Century-Fox) and Walt Disney weren’t Jews, nor was the relatively anonymous Charles Rogers who took over Universal in 1936.
Oakminister: That line was just the “movie’s” script being accurate. Christmas IS all about money and buying shit you don’t need. That IS the true meaning of Christmas these days. The real reason, though, isn’t because of Jews. It’s because Christians inflicted their stupid holiday on the rest of the country, and guess what? We didn’t really dig on the Jesus part that much.
And, mr.jp: What your train of thought is, is “Christmas movies don’t say anything about real life because they are made by Jews, THEREFORE Jews don’t have anything to say about real life.” Now look up the word “non sequitur.”
But does it really matter if either of you are right or not (which you’re not)? The strip is funny because it’s offensive. If you read what you so deperately want to read into it into it, it’s just all the more asburd and offensive.
The point is, did you think it was funny or not?
Your answers are no. Now fuck off.
Carnick told me to. I’m sorry.
Yay, I’m helping!
I looked up non sequitur. So now I know the definition of every word in the world.
But you agree that the strip says that “christmas movies don’t say anything about real life because they are made by Jews”? The conclusion you state might not be right, but can you tell us what conclusion you can draw about Jews? There must be some property they have that cause them to write movies that say nothing about real life.
Actually I think the strip is funny, which is why I bother even discussing it. I just think it is somewhat ruined by the “real life” statement. Not because it’s insulting, any old stereotypical allegation would have been fine with me, I just don’t think it makes any sense.
I don’t think there is a question that needs answered (by the rolling credits or otherwise) when the char says “Not even the slightest attempt to say something substantial about the the holiday, or even just real life!”
The joke there is that the movie is telling it like it is in real life, cold fact.
When one of the guys says “Who?” after the other mentions Jesus, it tells us that telling the ‘real’ story about the son of a God with magical powers may be akin to fantasy for a lot of people. These guys were pining for CGI and couldn’t wait for Spiderman3.
It’s the old reverse switcheroo with the added twist that the money is in the box and behind the curtain and whatever you get you still feel cheated.
FWIW I also have online strips and my favourite one involves ‘coma rape’ so I wasn’t offended by this strip. I didn’t laugh either but some of the others are great.
[QUOTE=mr. jp]
But you agree that the strip says that “christmas movies don’t say anything about real life because they are made by Jews”? QUOTE]
The characters are just talking at this point. It would make no sense not to have the credits still rolling wouldn’t? The conversation only lasts about a minute. I wish credits rolled that fast. Besides, the guy was on a roll with the funny Jewish names already.
No, that is not the joke. This misunderstandment is probably a factor in explaining that you didn’t find the strip funny.
But it is the joke I saw, and a valid one if I understand comedy at all.
When wrote my first post I had written ‘The joke as I see it’ but on hitting reply I was aked to log in again and when I hit ‘back’ my post was gone. So I ended up giving the short short version.
The Joke is that the characters cannot see what is in front of their faces (like when Scooby asks the monster if he has seen the monster) and the Jewishand Christ thing and the bittersweet real-life stuff and then there are the name gags and more.
And laughing at the ignorance of the characters would be funny in context. I guess, if I knew the characters earlier I may have laughed.
These things are multi-layered dude.
[Nitpick] Well perhaps ‘almost no bearing’. I think any movie subject (Lord of the Rings / war / divorce) is potentially better if you have knowledge of the subject rather than disbelieve in it.[/nitpick]
However even being a Christian covers a wide range of beliefs and opinions. Imagine a fanatical Protestant making a film about Roman Catholicism, or a Creationist making a film about science. :rolleyes:
Very true.
And we could reverse the order:
Most Christmas movies are secular and not spiritual – TRUE …
therefore many Jews are involved in the entertainment industry – not a consequence
And why they make so many sequels :rolleyes: - “it worked last time!”
And think of all those chauffered property-owning Hollywood guys making films with car chases and destruction of property…
Well, Gordon, I have a question…
Didja ever expect a simple comic strip to inspire a discussion where the participants start numbering their arguments, ala geometry proofs and BASIC coding? 
The SDMB: Taking Geekiness to a Whole New Level. 
The strip doesn’t suggest any conclusions. It’s ambiguous.
Maybe the mainstream movie-going market WANTS stupid, vapid non-religious Christmas movies like Santa Clause 3 and Deck the Halls shit out at them year after year, and Hollywood is just more than happy to comply.
I’m not saying this to discount my “responsibility” in creating the strip, but you can jump to any conclusion you like (and the more offensive, the merrier); the strip just doesn’t suggest any.
(And, JohnT: No.)
Just chiming in to say that I enjoyed the comic in question, and have enjoyed other strips in the archives even more. I’m also delighted that you’ve taken the time to respond to your critics substantively.
Also, this strip proves that you belong here, Gordon.
One of us! One of us!
Heh. My thread on this subject from March, in case you want more ice-cream headaches.
Daniel
Moderator interjection: Generally speaking, telling someone to “fuck off” is pretty much a personal insult in my book. In this case, I think it’s pretty obviously a joke, so I’m letting it slide but I don’t want folks to think “Hey, Gordon did it so I can do it.”
And note, please, it’s not the simple word “fuck” that’s the offense: the insult is in telling someone to go away.
So, just makin’ the observation to be careful about such usage in future.
I know, and yeah, I was joking, which is why I apologized in the same e-mail. But sorry again, anyway! 
Great handle, by the way. Philadelphia Story is a favorite of mine.
So Gordon, have you had a chance to look around a bit. You might especially like the Café society forum.You have most of the month left. You should get your feet wet.
Jim
Excellent critique.
More emphasis on the Jesus-free secularism of the holiday’s portrayal is needed to make this joke work optimally. The writer did a good job with filling the credit screen with a ridiculously high number of Jewish names, but IMHO, that’s not where the obviousness should be placed in order to ward against offense. It’s the dialogue itself. The reason why the offensiveness potential is kind of high is because the writer added stuff in there that actually seems tangential to the setup he intended, such as all that real life stuff and the rampant consumerism expressed by the movie dad. I could see how someone who is sensitive to Jewish stereotypes would seize upon these negatively presented details and not appreciate the insinuations or be forced to wonder “exactly what is he trying to say here, with the whole ‘real life’ thing?”, and miss the rather innocuous observeration about Jesus.
The only one who in the strip who said anything specifically about Jesus was the movie kid. All the other observations that came afterwards dealt with things that had less obvious connections to Jews.
Wow- 4 pages of this? Well, the multiplex cartoons link is going straight into my “Bookmarks,” and I, too, think it pretty nifty of Gordon McAlpin to come along here to talk about it. Good Scottish name you have there, as well. Welcome, and I hope you will stick around.
Disclaimer - Celyn is not Christian and not Jewish for what it matters. Also a non-fan of vapid icky films, “Christmas-themed” or not.