5 ms·
> As an aside, who exactly was the target viewing demographic for Garfield? Garfield was never funny for me as a kid. Never. Are you comfortable sharing roughl
by retsibsi 6y ago
> As an aside, who exactly was the target viewing demographic for Garfield? Garfield was never funny for me as a kid. Never.
Are you comfortable sharing roughly how old you are? Or the era of Garfield comics you were reading, if you weren't getting them via a newspaper. I'm interested because I really liked Garfield as a kid, but now find it depressingly, cynically formulaic and boring. Obviously I was much more easily pleased back then, but I think there was a certain period when Garfield comics were significantly more vibrant and creative and varied than the rut they eventually settled into. I'm not sure whether the end of this period coincided with Davis farming out the creation of the comic to a sweatshop; my guess is that it predated it, but I don't know the exact dates.
edit: I'm not sure if it literally made me laugh, though, even as a child. I think I (somehow) enjoyed the world and the characters more than the punchlines. I read them in books rather than in a daily paper, which helped; an unfunny strip didn't have to bear any weight, you could pass right over it, take in any narrative/character development in a few seconds and move on.
- Sunspark 6y agoI'm almost 50. I remember Garfield in both the newspapers and in book form primarily. Bloom County, Calvin & Hobbes and the Far Side were lit however and it might be unfair of me to use them to contrast against because they were all masterpieces of creative genius. Maybe Garfield is best contrasted against other generic syndicated formulaic comics like Beetle Bailey, Hi & Lois, Hagar the Horrible, etc. The problem I think with formulaic comics is that there's no vision after the original creator hands them over to someone else. It's just making sure they draw the same way, and don't say or do anything too controversial, oh that Garfield and his lasagnas, ha ha, etc.