Mandatory Fun Day



  • I decided to make a thread in here about the comic after reading the comments on the front page.

     I figured it would be a more civilized and better conversation here on the forums than in the muck that is front page comments.

     

    Basically what I have to say is, I like the comments and want them to stay.  Some people say they are out of place, but I don't see why.  This website is about curious perversions in IT, and most of the comics are centralized on this theme.  

     PS, if you can't configure your RSS feed to filter it then shut the fuck up, because your too stupid to use this site.



  • I would not mind the comics if they were betterly drawn.

    But P-A also looked exactly like that at first -- though with better writing. And look at it now!



  • @dhromed said:

    I would not mind the comics if they were betterly drawn.

    But P-A also looked exactly like that at first -- though with better writing. And look at it now!

     

    I look at it sucking all the time. 



  • @tster said:

    I look at it sucking all the time. 

     

    This is due to your lack of taste, I'm sure. 



  •  It's like, okay-ish? Each comic has been better done than the one before (so mathematically speaking, it'll be the greatest thing in the universe within 6 months), but he really ought to just stop drawing hands because he's so bad at them.  Perhaps he should consider giving all of the characters hooks instead.



  • And come up with some original material, rather than just regurgitating old sterotypes and pretending that this is funny.

    (It was funny when dilbert did it in 1995; now it is just dull)



  • @dhromed said:

    But P-A also looked exactly like that at first -- though with better writing. And look at it now!

     

    The same is true for almost all other comics I know, especially webcomics. Just look at an early dilbert, the first few episodes of questionable content etc. Compared to the later more routined style, they all kind-of sucked.



  • There's nothing original.  No actual jokes.  Nothing even remotely funny.   It's all setup and no punchline.  How can you have a "comic" that doesn't contain any humor?  That's TRWTF!   As someone else pointed out, Dilbert was doing this same stuff years ago.  It's like he took a bunch of 10 year old Dilbert strips and just substituted his own badly drawn characters.   I would love to say something positive about the strip since the author has probably put a lot of work into it.  But jeez, put a little effort into thinking up some funny material.

     

     



  • @ammoQ said:

    questionable content

    Many long-standing comics show that sort of improvement over the years, and it's quite entertaining to watch. But QQ's art has settled into something that on the surface resembles a good production while still doing a fair bit of sucking.

    But I'm not one to speak, really -- I draw like the damn wind but practice far too little to become really good.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    There's nothing original.  No actual jokes.  Nothing even remotely funny.   It's all setup and no punchline.  How can you have a "comic" that doesn't contain any humor?  That's TRWTF!   As someone else pointed out, Dilbert was doing this same stuff years ago.  It's like he took a bunch of 10 year old Dilbert strips and just substituted his own badly drawn characters.   I would love to say something positive about the strip since the author has probably put a lot of work into it.  But jeez, put a little effort into thinking up some funny material.

    Interesting. I find MFD to be absolutely hysterical, which can mean one of three things:

    1. I'm wrong
    2. You're wrong
    3. Humor is subjective

    Obviously, #1 is impossible. So, we need to figure out if it's #2 or #3. To help determine this, can you share some material (comics, ideally) that you find original, funny, and that has jokes?



  • @asuffield said:

    And come up with some original material, rather than just regurgitating old sterotypes and pretending that this is funny.

    (It was funny when dilbert did it in 1995; now it is just dull)

    In the interest of construtive critisism (especially since I've heard this comment several times before) can you expand on this? Ideally, based on one/more of the six posted so far (or even tomorrow's, the seventh).



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    @asuffield said:

    And come up with some original material, rather than just regurgitating old sterotypes and pretending that this is funny.

    (It was funny when dilbert did it in 1995; now it is just dull)

    In the interest of construtive critisism (especially since I've heard this comment several times before) can you expand on this? Ideally, based on one/more of the six posted so far (or even tomorrow's, the seventh).

    The first one is just a wordy form of "Uphill both ways, in the snow", with no apparent joke.

    I'm pretty sure that the second one actually was a Dilbert strip a few years ago (or very close to one), but unfortunately the Dilbert archives are not available online so I can't check.

    The third one is an illustration of a very old stereotype that originated in corporate FUD back in the 1990s. Again, no apparent joke.

    The fourth one is a redrawing of a Dilbert strip, I remember this one. It's in one of the books. Exactly the same joke, just with different characters.

    The 5th is just Catbert - no particular strip, it could be any of them. This sort of thing is only funny when it's original.

    The top half of the 6th is another Dilbert strip. I think it was with Dilbert and Asok originally, just switched "intern" to "contractor".



  • I don't understand why everyone is crying about the comic.  If you dont like it, don't fucking read it.



  • @asuffield said:

    I'm pretty sure that the second one actually was a Dilbert strip a few years ago (or very close to one), but unfortunately the Dilbert archives are not available online so I can't check.

    The fourth one is a redrawing of a Dilbert strip, I remember this one. It's in one of the books. Exactly the same joke, just with different characters.

    The 5th is just Catbert - no particular strip, it could be any of them. This sort of thing is only funny when it's original.

    The top half of the 6th is another Dilbert strip. I think it was with Dilbert and Asok originally, just switched "intern" to "contractor".

    Having read every Dilbert book and following the comic regularly, I can assure you that, no, these are not as close as you believe/remember. However, I get the point: you feel the concept / office environment is too much like Dilbert. Though honestly I'm a bit unclear on how Mr. Magenta is like catbert... but, point made.



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    these are not as close as you believe/remember

    I just found one of them in a book, so you are full of shit. 



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    Having read every Dilbert book and following the comic regularly, I can assure you that, no, these are not as close as you believe/remember. However, I get the point: you feel the concept / office environment is too much like Dilbert. Though honestly I'm a bit unclear on how Mr. Magenta is like catbert... but, point made.
     

    It's not just the concept and office environment, but the execution.  Dilbert, by its very nature as a newspaper comic, will feature 6 days of essentially throwaway jokes, and one day of story progression.  That's how many comic strips get around having daily syndication in some papers, and only Sunday syndication in others.  Check out a week of Spider-Man comics if you've never noticed this before; nothing really happens except on Sunday.

    There are no such constraints here, but the comic is still structured in that way.  When you have the same concept, the same environment, the same cookie-cutter characters, and the same format, it's damn hard not to seem like a bad copy. These things are common -- and thus feel like the right way to do it -- but they also make a comic feel trite.  A solution?  Take risks, ignore the normal way of doing things, come up with a new hook.  Or alternately, just be funnier than the original, but that's much harder.



  • @asuffield said:

    @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    these are not as close as you believe/remember

    I just found one of them in a book, so you are full of shit.

     

    Proof or GTFO. 



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    In the interest of construtive critisism (especially since I've heard this comment several times before) can you expand on this? Ideally, based on one/more of the six posted so far (or even tomorrow's, the seventh).

    Using the power of your time machine, I was looking at tomorrow's comic.  What did I notice?  This:

    Are we already going the Dinosaur Comics route? 



  • @tster said:

     I figured it would be a more civilized and better conversation here on the forums than in the muck that is front page comments.

     

    @dhromed said:

    @tster said:

    I look at it sucking all the time. 

     

    This is due to your lack of taste, I'm sure. 

    @bstorer said:

    @asuffield said:

    @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    these are not as close as you believe/remember

    I just found one of them in a book, so you are full of shit.

     

    Proof or GTFO. 

    Well, it's a little better than front-page commentary.

    As for the comic, it's surely rough but maybe he will find his footing. I just not sure that it's original enough to compete with (or complement) Dilbert, xkcd, et al. 

     

     



  • @bstorer said:

    Using the power of your time machine, I was looking at tomorrow's comic.  What did I notice?  ....  Are we already going the Dinosaur Comics route? 

    While it may *seem* like copy-paste comicing, it's polymorphism. You see, the later (1.8) inherits from the former (1.3).



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    @bstorer said:

    Using the power of your time machine, I was looking at tomorrow's comic.  What did I notice?  ....  Are we already going the Dinosaur Comics route? 

    While it may *seem* like copy-paste comicing, it's polymorphism. You see, the later (1.8) inherits from the former (1.3).

     

    You know what's funny?  I only noticed that the panels were the same because of the terrible excuse for a fist on the guy sitting down.  I know I'm hammering his inability to draw hands pretty hard, but they're really terrible.



  • @asuffield said:

    I just found one of them in a book, so you are full of shit. 

     

    Ahhh... asuffield shows his charming personality once again.

    Wait! Here's a thought! Post the URL to a website you maintain and post regularly to, so we can all go there and make rude and obnoxious comments too! Asshole.

    Seriously - STFU and go away, will ya? Your lack of social skills and intelligence aren't impressing anyone here.

     



  • @El_Heffe said:

    There's nothing original.  No actual jokes.  Nothing even remotely funny.   It's all setup and no punchline.

    Just to slap in my 2 10 50c, I think it simply needs a little re-direction, in as many interpretations of that word as you can think of. Although I know bugger all about comic strips, I've done a bit of stand-up in my time, and have both acted in and directed a few comedies, and I've found that one of the most important things is a fair estimate of your audience's level of humour. </>

    Considering the audience here, and the well-worn-but-still-current theory of humour being a suprise-based reaction, I'd like to see each 'gag' worked a little more, and some space to allow the audience to create their own laugh, as it were. I'm desperately trying to think of a good example here and failing miserably, but a poor example would be the "Chicken crossing the road" - even the best variant of the "straight" gag will barely raise a titter, but mileage can still be gained from indirect reference ("For Sale - free-way-range chicken" , "The road crossed Chuck Norris and turned chicken" - sorry - brainstorming on the fly here, but you get the idea.) The best laugh comes from the audience discovering the laugh, rather than being fed it. That's why Larson is so brilliant - you actually have to look hard to find the gag. It's the same reason that the best TV comedies don't need a laugh-track.

    Failing that, then exaggerate. Rather than simply having Bill tearing at whatever-that-is he's holding, he should be walking out of the door with suitcases packed, a big sign on the window saying "Out of Business" and muttering "I'm going to rip Stallman's balls off" or something. If the basic premise is "Geek sends open letter - Bill gets worried", then take both ends further apart - "Geek considers sending open letter - FBI overhear and tell Bill - Bill jumps off a cliff".

    Characterisation is important too - I still know nothing about the characters other than some very broad (and again, well worn) stereotypes. Again, if your audience know the characters, they predict the gag themselves. A particularily good example of this recently (this side of the pond anyway - no idea how long it's been going on over there) is "The Big Bang Theory". Not necessarily the best sitcom ever, but they worked hard in the first episode to get over all the personality traits of the principals, such that the second episode (shown here last night) managed to rely almost entirely on the audience's awareness of their feelings, to the point that many of the 'reaction lines' could remain unstated - a simple look sufficed.

    It's a worthwhile effort, and the potential's there, but it's only running at 50% at the moment. C'mon boys - make me cry - I know you can do it :)



  • @Benn said:

    @El_Heffe said:
    There's nothing original.  No actual jokes.  Nothing even remotely funny.   It's all setup and no punchline. 

    Just to slap in my 2 10 50c,

    Damned inflation!

    I think it simply needs a little re-direction, in as many interpretations of that word as you can think of. Although I know bugger all about comic strips, I've done a bit of stand-up in my time, and have both acted in and directed a few comedies, and I've found that one of the most important things is a fair estimate of your audience's level of humour.

    A reasonable point.  Part of estimating your audience's level of humo(u)r is knowning that we've all made these jokes already.  Hell, at this point, you might as well just draw pictures of bash.org quotes. 

    Considering the audience here, and the well-worn-but-still-current theory of humour being a suprise-based reaction, I'd like to see each 'gag' worked a little more, and some space to allow the audience to create their own laugh, as it were. I'm desperately trying to think of a good example here and failing miserably, but a poor example would be the "Chicken crossing the road" - even the best variant of the "straight" gag will barely raise a titter, but mileage can still be gained from indirect reference ("For Sale - free-way-range chicken" , "The road crossed Chuck Norris and turned chicken" - sorry - brainstorming on the fly here, but you get the idea.) The best laugh comes from the audience discovering the laugh, rather than being fed it. That's why Larson is so brilliant - you actually have to look hard to find the gag. It's the same reason that the best TV comedies don't need a laugh-track.

    Let's be clear on this: the solution for unoriginality is NOT a Chuck Norris joke.

     

    Failing that, then exaggerate. Rather than simply having Bill tearing at whatever-that-is he's holding, he should be walking out of the door with suitcases packed, a big sign on the window saying "Out of Business" and muttering "I'm going to rip Stallman's balls off" or something. If the basic premise is "Geek sends open letter - Bill gets worried", then take both ends further apart - "Geek considers sending open letter - FBI overhear and tell Bill - Bill jumps off a cliff".

    I enjoyed the concept of Bill Gates clutching his blanket tightly in his badly drawn hands.  It would have been better Gates had been wearing footed pajamas, for the simple reason that footed pajamas are funny.  But really, exaggeration is the way to go.  Also, Microsoft as the Empire is kind of played out.  At least he didn't draw a Borg cube...

    Characterisation is important too - I still know nothing about the characters other than some very broad (and again, well worn) stereotypes. Again, if your audience know the characters, they predict the gag themselves. A particularily good example of this recently (this side of the pond anyway - no idea how long it's been going on over there) is "The Big Bang Theory". Not necessarily the best sitcom ever, but they worked hard in the first episode to get over all the personality traits of the principals, such that the second episode (shown here last night) managed to rely almost entirely on the audience's awareness of their feelings, to the point that many of the 'reaction lines' could remain unstated - a simple look sufficed.

    Characterization would be a huge improvement.  Complex character's would give it a stark contrast to Dilbert.  You know what I want to see?  Too bad, I'm telling you anyway.  I want to see a comic which makes the boss the protagonist, suffering from the stupidity of his employees.  It's far harder to pull off, in part because most people aren't the boss, but much more rewarding if done right.  Of course, it'll take someone far cleverer than me to accomplish -- like, say, a fake plant.

    It's a worthwhile effort, and the potential's there, but it's only running at 50% at the moment. C'mon boys - make me cry - I know you can do it :)

    Agreed.  I mean, about the worthwhile effort with potential part.  Not the part about crying; that's just messed up.



  • @bstorer said:

    Let's be clear on this: the solution for unoriginality is NOT a Chuck Norris joke.

    I know, I know :) - that was sorta the point. I still find it's possible though to amuse my son's 'gang' (jaded 12-14 yr olds) by using Chuck as the punchline of an obtuse shaggy-dog story, say. ("Ever wonder why a bunch of trees suddenly uprooted and became Ents? Well, it was a nice and peaceful day in the woods, the sun shining and the birds singing...")

    Not the part about crying; that's just messed up.
    Awww - you've obviously missed out. I defy anyone to listen to Count Arthur Strong's "Fiddler on the roof" finale without fluid coming out of every orifice capable of producing it.


  • @Benn said:

    I defy anyone to listen to Count Arthur Strong's "Fiddler on the roof" finale without fluid coming out of every orifice capable of producing it.
     

    See that?  That right there is like, at the top of my list of Shit To Keep To Yourself.  It's actually like the top three items on the list.  In fact, I'm thinking of making an entire list of just that, repeated over and over, and then at #1 on Shit To Keep To Yourself, it'll just say "See Orifice Fluid List."



  • @tster said:

    Basically what I have to say is, I like the comments and want them to stay.

    Just the comments? Now I'm confused...

    Anyway, like most everyone else, I don't think it's funny, and that the writing is bad. I guess it just proves that even smart people can fall into the "oh I can do this, it looks easy" trap. (Who would have thought that people who get paid to do things actually have worked at getting good at it?)

    So think about that the next time some non-technical person says "I need an application that can do X; it should be easy, I've already done most of it except a few small bits, right here...".



  • The Real WTF seems to be that, instead of listening to what the community wants (although most of them were probably trolls), Alex instead decided to play the management card (i.e. "I don't care what you think, I'm the boss here so of course I'm right!") and remove comments from MFD altogether.  Like every other person who has a website, the idea that you can ignore/silence your fanbase and that fixes everything is rampant here.



  • @Benn said:

    It's a worthwhile effort, and the potential's there, but it's only running at 50% at the moment. C'mon boys - make me cry - I know you can do it :)

    I appreciate the constructive critisism; this is certainly much more valuable than two weeks worth of useless comments on the main site.

    I think the comic's storyline is a lot of fun - especially once seeing it one after another (I've seen 1-25 now); but you're right, the gap has definitely been breaking it out to be episodic. I think we're getting closer though.

    It'll be interesting to see what the average reader thinks, too - the survey results always offer a stark contrast between what the commentor's always say, so we'll see...



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    instead of listening to what the community wants (although most of them were probably trolls), Alex instead decided to play the management card

    With only a small handful of exceptions, there are three types of comments on MFD:

    • This comic sucks, drop it
    • This comic rocks, keep it
    • No, you're wrong

    Now, I'd normally delete such comments, as it's been a long standing policy of mine to "censor" heckling ("this article sucks", "you suck",  "Error'd is for idiots", "post some more code, asshole"), but I simply don't have the time to babysit.

    So, since many of the comments (based on IP) come from a relatively small handful of users who repeatedly post the same thing over and over (no matter how many times it gets deleted), it's just much easier to turn them off altogether.



  • I actually agree with your decision, Alex, I'm just busting your balls ;-)   



  • Huh!

     

    It's a queer bird that summons up a dozen sock puppets to flame a web comic. Latent web comic envy I guess.  The comic's fine with me, FTR.



  • Good or bad, I hope the irony doesn't escape everyone that you're supposed to just ignore the comic if you don't like it.  However, it's much easier to ignore the comments to a post, yet that's what had to go.



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    With only a small handful of exceptions, there are three types of comments on MFD:

    • This comic sucks, drop it
    • This comic rocks, keep it
    • No, you're wrong

     

    Actually the list looks more like this

    • This comic sucks, drop it
    • This comic rocks, keep it
    • No, you're wrong
    • OMFGBBQ take this piece of shit off RSS or I am canceling my subscription!!!!!!!!! 


  • @magetoo said:

    @tster said:

    Basically what I have to say is, I like the comments and want them to stay.

    Just the comments? Now I'm confused...

     

    Apparently people are going to bitch about the same thing every time anyway, so Alex could theoretically just open comments on a blank post...

     



  • @Benn said:

    "For Sale - free-way-range chicken" , "The road crossed Chuck Norris and turned chicken"

    You induced tea into my nose, sir.

    snort 



  • @bstorer said:

    Using the power of your time machine, I was looking at tomorrow's comic.  What did I notice?  This:

    Are we already going the Dinosaur Comics route? 

    Hmmmm. Ok, let's prefix this my saying that I've been reading thedailywtf since the very early days, so don't judge me on my low post count :)

    There's been a lot of criticism so far, some bile infused, some measured and constructive. I'm trying to be constructive. The most constructive points I've seen so far are :

    1) Don't spurt out all of your joke in frame one.
    2) Don't try too hard with the art. You can't draw. This is not a problem. Be minimal, concentrate on the joke.
    3) Try a new angle on things. Thoughts that you think are original and your own could quite possibly be an old dilbert strip. Unfortunately, this has been the case without you realising. It's such a well worn road that this is bound to happen unless you have a brand new angle on things, which at the moment, you don't.

    I agree on these points. Reusing the art from 1.3 in 1.8 is very lazy and does not bode well for the future comic. Not only is the art copied, but the joke is also pretty much the same.

    It's still early days, all these things are to be expected in the beginning of a webcomic.

    What really casts a shadow over the series is that Alex says he's already seen episodes 9 to 25. They've already been done. I'm trying to work out if trying to give constructive input is worth it or if the upcoming episodes are already set in stone?

    No offense intended in any of this, just trying to help :)



  • Look, there's a difference between "simple" and "crude". The very first Penny Arcades and Dilberts were simple to be sure, but still obviously created by people with some basic drawing talent and individual style. MFD's art, on the other hand, is flat-out crude. It looks like something a third-grader came up with.

    But so what, you say. Art isn't everything in a webcomic. Well, that's true, to a point. XKCD, User Friendly, Help Desk... none of these will ever win any awards for their art. But it's basic, it's functional, it communicates what it needs to. With MFD though, the artist's reach is obviously exceeding his grasp. Instead of keeping the art simple and within his skillset, he tries to make it detailed beyond his capacity to do so and end up with something that's simply bad.

    But again, when it comes to webcomics humor makes up for a lot. And that's where MFD terminally falls down. It's just not funny. It's not even that every joke is tired. Even a tired joke can be made funny with fresh delivery. But here, the delivery is unbearable clunky. The author has no talent for writing humorous dialog. Every joke is leaden and strained. It's awful.

    And that's why, if you insist on keeping this thing around, you should restore the comments section. The entire purpose of this site is to let people laugh at failures in IT, and this comic matches that description perfectly. 



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    instead of listening to what the community wants (although most of them were probably trolls), Alex instead decided to play the management card

    With only a small handful of exceptions, there are three types of comments on MFD:

    • This comic sucks, drop it
    • This comic rocks, keep it
    • No, you're wrong

    Now, I'd normally delete such comments, as it's been a long standing policy of mine to "censor" heckling ("this article sucks", "you suck",  "Error'd is for idiots", "post some more code, asshole"), but I simply don't have the time to babysit.

    So, since many of the comments (based on IP) come from a relatively small handful of users who repeatedly post the same thing over and over (no matter how many times it gets deleted), it's just much easier to turn them off altogether.

     

    I agree in principle, but I'm counting the minutes until you have to start deleting "why were the MFD comments disabled" comments on the non-comic posts, which could get more annoying more quickly. 

    I kind of like the comic.  The dialogue needs some work; give it time to find its voice though.  The artwork doesn't bother me as much as it does some (except the first one with the bad anti-aliasing, but that seems to have been fixed) as I tend to view most comic drawing sort of peripherally while focusing on the text.  Maybe I'm weird in that regard, I don't know.

    Actually I thought the comments where people posted their own comics in response were pretty funny.  So I'd vote for leaving the comments open but restricting them to images only. :)  At least make the whiners work a bit. 



  • My primary issue: too slowww delivery. And scrap 80% of the dialogue. Really. And hide the post titles until you learn to write one that does not summarize the comic and is in fact especially crafted to avoid any sort of explanation.

    So far, my top 3 in funniness is 3, 4, 5. The rest is too drawn out and overexplained.

    I find 1.8 weak because my hemispheres don't light up for banal anti-M$ jokes.

    But keep at it! :)

    And fuck it's suddenly deleting two characters when the editor adds a space to the end of a line and I backspace it off. I feel special!



  • @EpilepticFridgeBoy said:

    What really casts a shadow over the series is that Alex says he's already seen episodes 9 to 25. They've already been done. I'm trying to work out if trying to give constructive input is worth it or if the upcoming episodes are already set in stone?

    No, they're definitely not set in stone; in fact, through the time-machine, here's a new one to critique: http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/19-Some-Actual-Work.aspx

     



  • @dhromed said:

    I find 1.8 weak because my hemispheres don't light up for banal anti-M$ jokes.

    Interesting comment - what we were actually going for here was an anti-anti-M$ joke.



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    what we were actually going for here was an anti-anti-M$ joke.

    Hm. That wasn't quite in the comic. I think what was forgotten was to offset the nerd idiot's delight against the main character's sane disapproval. Drool versus scowl etc.

    Sarcasm and irony are noble arts, sir; noble arts.

    As is the ability to pull off a poop joke, but that's another matter.



  • I like #19 that you posted. Also the hands in it look a lot better.

    As for thinking that 1.8 was an Anti-M$ joke, dude, WTF are you thinking? You can't see satire from roughly 1.5 feet away! (NOTE: this assumes you sit the same distance from your monitor as me.)



  • @tster said:

    You can't see satire from roughly 1.5 feet away!

    I can't see anything from roughly 1.5 feet away, assuming I'm not wearing my glasses. 



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    No, they're definitely not set in stone; in fact, through the time-machine, here's a new one to critique: http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/19-Some-Actual-Work.aspx
     



  • @Zylon said:

    @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    No, they're definitely not set in stone; in fact, through the time-machine, here's a new one to critique: http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/19-Some-Actual-Work.aspx
     

     

    in case we couldn't follow the link?



  • @tster said:

    in case we couldn't follow the link?

    Well, apparently you couldn't. 



  • @Zylon said:

     

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHa. That last frame made me laugh out loud. I think the key to MFD is to just see the comic itself as the joke. None of the strips posted so far have been very amusing to me, but I am enjoying the discussion around it. I'll stick around for the meta-humour until the end of the batch, especially if more posts like this one show up.

     



  • If the "hot sauce" version had been the actual strip, I'd cheer my approval. Big laugh.

    Unfortunately, the actual 1.9 is another rehash of the "contractor/intern given pointless task" joke. Zylon's modification adds a really evil edge to the company. Not only do they make the contractor do that, but their regular employees do to, albeit with condiments.

    Ok, so I'm telling this from my own point of view, humour being subjective etc. etc., but like I said before, for this to be funny it can't simply retread the same ground as the other office based comics. This has the potential to be something new. The crazy outfit the boss wears hints at that. Zylon's retelling of 1.9 shows it. The "real" 1.9 misses the point, for me.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.