doctorow — 2014-03-09T23:04:06-04:00 — #1
brainspore — 2014-03-09T23:06:15-04:00 — #2
You owe Mark a coke.
captainpedge — 2014-03-09T23:14:58-04:00 — #3
My all time favourite will always be Googly eyes
fake_tudza — 2014-03-09T23:25:06-04:00 — #4
Then there's Square Root of Minus Garfield
jonrockle — 2014-03-09T23:46:56-04:00 — #5
This kind of turns it into Wallace and Gromit.
l_mariachi — 2014-03-09T23:56:26-04:00 — #6
Jon Arbuckle is cast as a man who carries on detailed conversations with a cat, which is arguably weirder than the idea that he's merely wildly hallucinating.
You must not have a cat. Going by every
cat pet owner I’ve ever met, it would be weird for Jon not to talk to Garfield.
hubrissonic — 2014-03-10T00:36:58-04:00 — #7
he's right isn't he Smoochers...
tedmills — 2014-03-10T00:47:20-04:00 — #8
hanglyman — 2014-03-10T01:39:31-04:00 — #9
Why not take it a step further and have Garfield Without Anything, featuring nothing but a brightly-colored room (which sometimes abruptly changes color in the middle panel) with a chest-high horizontal plane along the bottom?
daneel — 2014-03-10T01:49:39-04:00 — #10
jake0748 — 2014-03-10T03:42:58-04:00 — #11
Um, yeah. Humans have language. Cats and dogs don't. We talk to them because we like them and want them around. There really isn't anything weird about it. I've talked to the cats and dogs I've lived with all my life. They DO understand things you say now and again. "Who's a nice kitty?" and "No, you can't go outside right now", spring to mind.
lemoutan — 2014-03-10T03:48:56-04:00 — #12
Not to over-analyse this or anything but the 'arguably' is problematic whilst the strip is saddled with absence of Garfieldness not being the same as presence of not-Garfieldness. Without wishing to go all Greimas Square on everyone's ass, the onlooker must still contend with the space (not) occupied by (not) Garfield in each individual frame. You'd have to redraw the whole thing before you could really argue about the relative weirdnesses.
Or you could use your imagination of course.
lemoutan — 2014-03-10T03:55:53-04:00 — #13
But that's ... that's >splutter< every strip cartoon ever.
What have you done?
shade_jon — 2014-03-10T04:07:09-04:00 — #14
You can get the same effect by reading every Calvin and Hobbes strip without the last panel.
ribbonquest — 2014-03-10T06:45:54-04:00 — #15
raginghessian — 2014-03-10T07:09:04-04:00 — #16
years ago I did a Garfield Minus Garfield Plus Cathy
link here since I couldn't embed it http://goo.gl/pxK3u6
I had a few of these together but this is the only one I can find at the moment
philipp — 2014-03-10T09:59:20-04:00 — #18
jhbadger — 2014-03-10T10:19:04-04:00 — #19
That's brilliant. Not only because Cathy was always dieting, but I kind of associate both strips together because they were both hugely popular in the 1980s (with lots of merchandise) despite basically being one-joke (if that) strips.
yaanu — 2014-03-10T12:21:51-04:00 — #20
I was about to say, have we gone backwards? Soon we'll start linking people to Bonsai Kittens again as if it were something new.
hypnosifl — 2014-03-10T14:19:41-04:00 — #21
I first saw this idea at the weird site castlezzt.net (made by some of the paper rad comics folks), which still has a sort of best-of of the Garfield strips here--it's mostly just removing Garfield's thought bubbles, but it also has a missing Garfield strip and a bunch of ones with weird psychedelic alterations. I always wondered if the "Garfield Minus Garfield" guy ripped off the idea from them, since I had bookmarked an old message board post with a bunch of examples from 2006, and wikipedia says Garfield Minus Garfield started in 2008.
next page →