It's Garfield, pretty much [enterthedream.net].

What does an original goats strip look like, if it's one of the ones that's got cut-and-pasted artwork?

Oh, look.

Idiots, posting crap on the Internet.

Who knew?

Occasionally I cut and paste art within a strip (never from one strip to another), if the characters are staying still for a narrative reason, but that's fairly rare. Like, once in 50 or 100 strips, maybe. The most recent example is here [goats.com]. Usually it ends up being more work than if I had redrawn the element three times, and I don't do it again until I forget how hard it was the last time.

To be fair, I used to criticize other people for doing the same thing.

I think it helps to read this guy's other reviews [enterthedream.net] for a bit of context. Some people try to evaluate all art using one standard, and that's probably a mistake. It helps to understand the artist's intent and to take that into consideration.

In Response to jon (#19284):

>>

I think it helps to read this guy's other reviews for a bit of context.

Oh, I don't even think that's worth the effort. I thought the review was worth a chuckle, that's all.

Maybe someday I'll start a site that reviews standup comedian routines as though they were plays.

In Response to BoxJam (#19285):

Oh, I don't even think that's worth the effort.

I did a quick scan, and most of the reviews are the same. I wonder why this guy spends so much time writing web comic reviews when he obviously doesn't think too highly of any of them.

I'm thinking he doesn't get out of his mom's basement too much.

   

Anyone remember the deisel sweeties review kerfuffle a few months back? That was hilarious. From memory of this site, if it's not emo furry porn, it gets a bad review. Which is pretty hilarious in and of itself.

In Response to tynic (#19287):

I thought those reviews seemed familiar...

That guy is a total retard. He obviously didn't get the idea of goats or ds at all. I bet he's just sad because the characters of both goats and ds (except indie rock pete) get more action than he does.

Loser.

For the most part, critics are people who really wanted to do something with thier life, but lacked either the courage or the dicipline.

So, instead of actually creating, they spend their life throwing metephorical rotten tomatoes.

In other words. Fuck Critics.

In Response to stilllwaiting (#19290):

Only bad critics spend their lives throwing rotten tomatoes. The good ones have better things to do than play with yesterday's salad bar.

In Response to jettaboy20 (#19286):

I'm thinking he doesn't get out of his mom's basement too much.

Lets see:

Only two of the comics got me to laugh, out of 9 years of archives

Ya think?

You know, they do seem to allow user-submitted reviews. Just sayin' is all.

In Response to jon (#19312):

That would be stooping to his level. And I thought us goats readers were above that kind of petty bickering...

In Response to jon (#19312):

That means...

that I...

could write a review...

that compared Garfield...

to my comic!

Oh this is the review site that trashed my comic two years ago.

It hurt me so. And then I realized they were furries.

Heh. Everyone's criticising Benor's review, but not mine.

I feel special.

And no, I won't post here again. I was just checking to see if anyone noticed the reviews.

Just to sum up my feelings without all the vitriol, though:

Jokes get repetitive and predictable.

Shock value and cheap shots often seem to take the place of clever writing.

Characters fall into stereotypes, become stale.

The Comics Board story left a really bad taste in my mouth.

While the art does look okay, it lacks variety.

It's fun to spell it as goatse.

Granted, I'm basing this off of the first two years and random samples from later strips, but the humor seems unchanged, and it is not the kind to make me laugh.

In Response to Lonely Goatherd (#19731):

The Comics Board story left a really bad taste in my mouth

No, no. That is the poop.

Also... the people on the forums are the ones who like the strip. We do not care if it doesn't make you laugh. Jon may, but we are apathetic towards your humorlessness.

Also, like a number of comics, Goats has storylines as well as random punch lines. They are interspersed in a clever and unusual fashion.

Also, you suck.

In Response to Lonely Goatherd (#19731):

It's fun to spell it as goatse.

This shows exactly how clever and insightful you are not.

Go back to your homeroom class, and feel special by correcting your teacher's spelling.

Also,

Poop!

In Response to sakuruth (#19732):

We do not care if it doesn't make you laugh. Jon may, but we are apathetic towards your humorlessness.

No, I don't care either. That post told us everything we need to know about the quality of reviewers on that site.

In Response to zamphir (#19733):

its not just spelling...he's implying he's one of those people that remember that horrible horrible goatsex site that tele* would have enjoyed immensely

In Response to jon (#19734):

I just wanted to hedge my bets. After all, they could theoretically provide you with income, and I would not want to prevent that.

Especially since I am flat broke and cannot contribute nearly as much as I would like to. *mourns for the babydoll Bipartisan pack*

In Response to sakuruth (#19736):

I doubt anyone who will
a) only read through the first two years of strips, and
b) base a review on this incomplete data set
will ever actually purchase anything. Hence: we can mock and abuse them as much as we like.

Anyway, as i said: those guys don't like anything that's not furry porn. I would take it as a massive compliment that they disliked goats. I mean, they criticized Diesel Sweeties for not having storylines. How delusional can you get?

In Response to Dynedain (#19735):

..he's implying he's one of those people that remember that horrible horrible goatsex site that tele* would have enjoyed immensely

I personally wouldn't go so far as to presume that teledildonix would like that site or not.

But, otherwise, duh. THAT was my point! If he thinks that is funny, then the rest of his comments are equally brainless and tactless and thoughtless and useless.

In Response to zamphir (#19743):

And then, I made fun of him for being a preteen nobody who's only source of ego-boosting was correcting the spelling of his 8th grade teacher.

In Response to Lonely Goatherd (#19749):

Go back to your safe newspaper comics like Peanuts then. Better yet, Family Circus for you.

I'm going to close this thread because there's no reason to let this preteen come in here and rile everyone up for his own amusement.

Anyone who would write a review of the first two years of a strip, complain that it never changes, and then fail to look at anything written within the last six years is not looking to be taken seriously.

I myself admit that the first two years are total and complete crap in the introduction to the print collection. That's not a subject that needs any further discussion, wouldn't you say? We've moved on to bigger and better things.