Comments on: burn, garfield, burn

By: glitchinthemind

glitchinthemind — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:25:31 +0000

you have no life.

By: Peter Plant

Peter Plant — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:42:44 +0000

I have to tread carefully here because I draw a strip that got kicked off the comic page of the UK Daily Mail a few years ago to make room for Garfield, so you might say “Of course you hate him”. But I tell you straight I hated that bland, unfunny strip and all its hokey characters LONG before it caused me to get the push. To my mind, most syndicated strips are pretty dead-tired. But yes, Garfield heads the list.

By: Jim Davis Milking All Americans For Money

Jim Davis Milking All Americans For Money — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 06:20:43 +0000

I luv Garfield! rock on fat orange cat!

By: Midnight Lyman

Midnight Lyman — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 03:03:05 +0000

(I seem to have a really long post, so once again, let's shorten it down.) You know, I've done "a little research" myself. At the Official Site and garfield.nfshost.com search site, I looked up two well-known Garfield terms- "lasagna" and "Monday" to see how many results would come up. As it turned out, both sites had less than 100 for "lasagna" and less than 150 for "Monday." With a new strip every day since its debut on June 19, 1978 (that's about 11,000 strips made since.) and with 250 strips made about lasagna and Mondays, that totals up to about 2 percent of the entire Garfield comic. 2 percent! So basically, seeing a few strips or even as much as three books listed by the OP, Jim Davis can be dismissed as having "no funny Garfield books. It’s all a myth. Garfield has sucked from day one and will continue to suck for all eternity." Yep. One "Garfield Greatest Hits" look at the comic and it's all we need to know that it ain't good. According to that logic, then, what's so good about long-time artists like David Bowie? Or Miles Davis? The main idea is that if you truly dislike Garfield, then feel free to do so. But please, there's no need to go forcing your opinion(s) upon others.

By: Midnight Lyman

Midnight Lyman — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 03:00:34 +0000

(I seem to have a long post, so let's shorten it down, shall we?) You know, I've done "a little research" myself. At the Official Site and garfield.nfshost.com search site, I looked up two well-known Garfield terms- "lasagna" and "Monday" to see how many results would come up. As it turned out, both sites had less than 100 for "lasagna" and less than 150 for "Monday." With a new strip every day since its debut on June 19, 1978 (that's about 11,000 strips made since.) and with 250 strips made about lasagna and Mondays, that totals up to about 2 percent of the entire Garfield comic. 2 percent! So basically, seeing a few strips or even as much as three books listed by the OP, Jim Davis can be dismissed as having "no funny Garfield books. It’s all a myth. Garfield has sucked from day one and will continue to suck for all eternity." Yep. One "Garfield Greatest Hits" look at the comic and it's all we need to know that it ain't good. According to that logic, then, what's so good about long-time artists like David Bowie? Or Miles Davis? While I do agree that some of the more modern comic strips tend to be quite mediocre, Jim Davis does seem to be providing a breath of fresh air with some changes brought in. Heck, nates mentioned Charlie Brown hitting a home run back in 1993 just months before this happened- Jon finally gets Liz (and just after Jon proposes to Liz in the second movie- tie in, anyone?) during a rather mixed-up date. All these years of trying to get the right lover, he finally succeeds in late July of 2006. And the strip has gone quite a bit uphill since then. Not as significantly as the strip was in its prime, I'd say, but uphill nonetheless. As far as I'm concerned, at least, Garfield isn't as repetitive as oft-described and deserves more credit than people tend to give it. As Jim Davis himself said on "30 Years of Laughs and Lasagna", "This whole line of work is to make people happy and smile. Getting paid for it is just a bonus." Well, Garfield tends to make me happy (peer pressure from Garfield haters notwithstanding), so it looks like Jim Davis is happy enough for that, not that he's getting another buck because someone bought the newest compilation book or a rare collector's plate. In fact, he even stated on The Daily Record, "I would like to slow down on the business side of it, but I always want to do the comic." I think the main idea is that if you truly dislike Garfield, then feel free to do so, even if, I'm afraid, your "hatred for Garfield burns with the intensity of 1,000 white-hot suns." But please, there's no need to go forcing your opinion(s) upon others just because you find Garfield to be "the epitome of evil and hatred in the world." It just isn’t right.

By: Midnight Lyman

Midnight Lyman — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:46:27 +0000

Interesting. You know, I've done "a little research" myself. At the Official Site and garfield.nfshost.com search site, I looked up two well-known Garfield terms- "lasagna" and "Monday" to see how many results would come up. As it turned out, both sites had less than 100 for "lasagna" and less than 150 for "Monday." Of course, you might say, "Well, that's still a whole junk load of strips made about lasagna and Mondays," keep in mind that Garfield has been around for 30 (soon 31) years, with a new strip every day since its debut on June 19, 1978. That's about 11,000 strips made since. And with 250 strips made about lasagna and Mondays, that totals up to about 2 percent of the entire Garfield comic. 2 percent! We've had people saying Jim Davis writes thousands of such gags, and yet two search sites show that only 2% of the whole comic actually features either of the two running gags. Two aspects Garfield is so well known for, and it doesn't even make up a majority of the 30 years the comic's been around. Isn't that something? Somehow, there are so many people criticizing Garfield for being bland, repetitive, unimaginative, etc. Considering that there's been over ten thousand strips made, you'd think there were more to the fat cat than typical common knowledge (he eats, he sleeps, he makes fun of Jon, he tells how dumb Odie is). Well, there is. What about the time Jon and Garfield visited Aunt Gussie, someone who "used to double-date with Lizzie Borden" and wanted a pillow "stuffed with John Travolta's chest hair" for Christmas? Or Garfield leaving the faucet running (ending up in a flooded Arbuckle house) just to keep his sponge collection from drying out? Or Garfield's encounter with the world's largest ball of twine? Or Garfield and Odie getting lost and (among other events) working for Binky the Clown? Or even Garfield and his many alter ego forms he occasionally utilized (e.g. Caped Avenger, Judo Cat, Evil Roy Gato)? The sad thing is, then, that much of Garfield has become forgotten today, for some reason or another. And that could be one of the reasons that Garfield has nowadays become something to hate for being "bland, repetitive, unimaginative" based on what critics see. And from the looks of it, all they see are the modern strips, preferably those with little action going on (Caped Avenger? Forget it, kid.) along with a few strips from the past (a little bit of history never hurts, right) to conclude that Garfield must be bad. There's not even a mention of the Garfield specials or cartoon show (as well as the movies, but not like they'd help out here, right?) So basically, seeing a few strips or even as much as three books listed by the OP, Jim Davis can be dismissed as having "no funny Garfield books. It’s all a myth. Garfield has sucked from day one and will continue to suck for all eternity." Yep. One "Garfield Greatest Hits" look at the comic and it's all we need to know that it ain't good. According to that logic, then, what's so good about long-time artists like David Bowie? Or Miles Davis? While I do agree that some of the more modern comic strips tend to be quite mediocre, Jim Davis does seem to be providing a breath of fresh air with some changes brought in. Heck, nates mentioned Charlie Brown hitting a home run back in 1993 just months before this happened- Jon finally gets Liz (and just after Jon proposes to Liz in the second movie- tie in, anyone?) during a rather mixed-up date. All these years of trying to get the right lover, he finally succeeds in late July of 2006. And the strip has gone quite a bit uphill since then. Not as significantly as the strip was in its prime, I'd say, but uphill nonetheless. Then again, maybe it's just that I'm different from others. Maybe it's because I actually own an extensive Garfield collection that included the majority of the Garfield comics made (already up to #47- Garfield Gets His Just Desserts). Maybe it's that Garfield is one of the only comics that I'm particularly into (along with Peanuts, Calvin and Hobbes, and The Far Side, as far as newspaper comics are concerned). And maybe it's just that I don't get the newspaper that much anymore, and thus there's little reason, if at all, for me to complain about any "decline" in the newspaper comics that people on the Web like to nitpick about so much. As far as I'm concerned at least, Garfield isn't as repetitive as oft-described and deserves more credit than people tend to give it. As Jim Davis himself said on "30 Years of Laughs and Lasagna", "This whole line of work is to make people happy and smile. Getting paid for it is just a bonus." Well, Garfield tends to make me happy (peer pressure from Garfield haters notwithstanding), so it looks like Jim Davis is happy enough for that, not that he's getting another buck because someone bought the newest compilation book or a rare collector's plate. In fact, he even stated on The Daily Record, "I would like to slow down on the business side of it, but I always want to do the comic." I know this is quite a long post, but I think the main idea is that if you truly dislike Garfield, then feel free to do so, even if, I'm afraid, your "hatred for Garfield burns with the intensity of 1,000 white-hot suns." But please, there's no need to go forcing your opinion(s) upon others just because you find Garfield to be "the epitome of evil and hatred in the world."

By: Dante

Dante — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:47:12 +0000

HEY! Let’s get angry at a blogger for expressing his opinions because
“GARFIELD ROCKS!!!!!! ARE YOU PPL STUPID? I VISITED THIS SITE TO SEE HOW I COULD KILL TIME, BUT I ONLY ENDED UP FINDING OUT THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HATE GARFIELD!!!GO GARFIELD GO!!”

Thanks for the lulz that comment gave me.

I enjoyed reading Garfield when I was four or five. I giggled like a sick cat at most of the strips.

Now I must sit back and take a look in the mouth of that very sick cat.

It’s sick. Fortunately we were able to hook him up to the Merchandiser Life Supporter system and keep him alive through sales of coffee mugs.

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:32:08 +0000

Let him BURRRRRN!!!

When I read my first Garfield strip as a kid, I was appalled at what a complete a**hole that cat was. Soon after, I was appalled at how many people claimed to actually like Garfield. Apparently, for many people, being a complete a**hole suddenly becomes cute if you’re a cartoon cat

By: liza leoni

liza leoni — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:08:26 +0000

Well sir i have a few choice words for you. I also read a similar article about how a man hated christmas and burned up a holiday shoppe. Now i won’t compare himt o you but that doesnt mean that you can bag on something that is probably more well-known than George Bush. He may be cynical and careless to his owner Jon but isnt that teh reality? Burning up a stuffed toy is pretty childish if you know where im coming from. It’s like saying i hate eggs! burn em up all of them. cant you deal your hatred towards something as silly as a comic strip toward something more useful! like politics or something? You know if you hated the strip so much why would you even bother to do things such as write have a page worth of stupidity and pictures of you frying up a stuffed toy?? you dont understand “fun” and “laughter” i suppose.. Garfield is still funny just to let you know. if garfield was crittically accalimed as “not funny” Jim Davis wouldnt be producing comic strips month after year! You obviously do a lot of research on this loving fun strip if you know so much about his new books, and merchandise, and that Jim Davis doesnt do the ink and coloring anymore. He makes the rough copies still and writes the jokes. how would you like to produce millions of strips a day to make others laugh at a guy who is abused my his cat WHO IN FACT loves him dearly. And a dog whos i.q is so low youd have to dig for it! you would need a team of professionals yes?? Another thing is that you say garfield is the source of evil in the world? No he actually makes people happy. Its people like you who burn toys as a way of showing thier dissaproval of a COMIC STRIP. Also do you know why it was so hard to burn him? Because he is a strong cat that is probably more famous than movie stars! To tie things off garfield is a legend no matter how “evil” and “dumb” he is too you. i know that i loved to read him and still look forward to reading his daily strip. Its almost christmas time and garfields getting greedy. (what a fine use of alleteration ehh?)It may be your opinion just know and keep in mind that this is a comic strip..not a bully thats going to come into your house and keep you hostage.
love liza-garfield lover forever too come!

By: csd

csd — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:58:15 +0000

I actually liked the earlier strips, though I rarely laugh at them out loud. Recent ones, however, are absolutely terrible. There’s probably a decent strip once a year from what I can tell. The other 364 days are horrid “I should exercise… oh wait, no” jokes. All the charm and wit is gone and it’s Garfield’s time to go.