Remove this ad

#81 [url]

Apr 8 16 10:21 PM

UtopiaGuy wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

Least I Could Do can not give the characters in-depth personalities because it's a short gag comic.
 

Yeah, no way Charles M. Schultz did that for what, fifty years?

Even with fifty years of developing his characters, they are still short gag characters that are used for short gag humor.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#83 [url]

Apr 9 16 5:25 AM

Ah I see you are just making up shit as you go. It does not matter if you find it tolerable or funny, it is still mysognistic. Though I think crux of your argument is that since it is shit it can't be mysognistic.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#84 [url]

Apr 9 16 2:05 PM

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

UtopiaGuy wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

Least I Could Do can not give the characters in-depth personalities because it's a short gag comic.
 

Yeah, no way Charles M. Schultz did that for what, fifty years?

Even with fifty years of developing his characters, they are still short gag characters that are used for short gag humor.

No, there were actual story arcs in the Peanuts canon, one example being Charlie Brown's decision whether or not to steal a base to home run during a crucial moment during a baseball game.

Quote    Reply   

#85 [url]

Apr 9 16 6:39 PM

The Dying Life wrote:
Ah I see you are just making up shit as you go. It does not matter if you find it tolerable or funny, it is still mysognistic. Though I think crux of your argument is that since it is shit it can't be mysognistic.

What did it make up? I never said it wasn't misogynistic. I never said "x is y it can't be misogynistic" I said that it doesn't matter if it's misogynistic in certain situations. Again, the whole "it doesn't matter if it's funny" thing is the main issue which isn't/can't be argued. Please actually read what I say.

Quote    Reply   

#86 [url]

Apr 9 16 6:41 PM

Long Tom wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

UtopiaGuy wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

Least I Could Do can not give the characters in-depth personalities because it's a short gag comic.
 

Yeah, no way Charles M. Schultz did that for what, fifty years?

Even with fifty years of developing his characters, they are still short gag characters that are used for short gag humor.

No, there were actual story arcs in the Peanuts canon, one example being Charlie Brown's decision whether or not to steal a base to home run during a crucial moment during a baseball game.

I was talking about the characters. They were never developed beyond what was immediately obvious. Even the story arcs were more of just expanded running gags, there was never really anything that changed the status quo.

Quote    Reply   

#87 [url]

Apr 9 16 6:54 PM

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:
The Dying Life wrote:
Ah I see you are just making up shit as you go. It does not matter if you find it tolerable or funny, it is still mysognistic. Though I think crux of your argument is that since it is shit it can't be mysognistic.

What did it make up? I never said it wasn't misogynistic. I never said "x is y it can't be misogynistic" I said that it doesn't matter if it's misogynistic in certain situations. Again, the whole "it doesn't matter if it's funny" thing is the main issue which isn't/can't be argued. Please actually read what I say.


Which is making shit up just to let the comic get by with misogyny. You are only making more and more excuses with LICD.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#88 [url]

Apr 9 16 8:37 PM

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

Long Tom wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

UtopiaGuy wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

Least I Could Do can not give the characters in-depth personalities because it's a short gag comic.
 

Yeah, no way Charles M. Schultz did that for what, fifty years?

Even with fifty years of developing his characters, they are still short gag characters that are used for short gag humor.

No, there were actual story arcs in the Peanuts canon, one example being Charlie Brown's decision whether or not to steal a base to home run during a crucial moment during a baseball game.

I was talking about the characters. They were never developed beyond what was immediately obvious. Even the story arcs were more of just expanded running gags, there was never really anything that changed the status quo.

They're little kids living in a typical middle-class neighborhood.  You can't expect them to have, say, mid-life crises.

Quote    Reply   

#90 [url]

Apr 9 16 9:40 PM

The Dying Life wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

The Dying Life wrote:
Ah I see you are just making up shit as you go. It does not matter if you find it tolerable or funny, it is still mysognistic. Though I think crux of your argument is that since it is shit it can't be mysognistic.

What did it make up? I never said it wasn't misogynistic. I never said "x is y it can't be misogynistic" I said that it doesn't matter if it's misogynistic in certain situations. Again, the whole "it doesn't matter if it's funny" thing is the main issue which isn't/can't be argued. Please actually read what I say.

 

Which is making shit up just to let the comic get by with misogyny. You are only making more and more excuses with LICD.

I'm not making shit up. I've been pretty consistant with this. Misogyny in comics doesn't matter a lot of the time.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#91 [url]

Apr 9 16 9:41 PM

Long Tom wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

Long Tom wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

UtopiaGuy wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

Least I Could Do can not give the characters in-depth personalities because it's a short gag comic.
 

Yeah, no way Charles M. Schultz did that for what, fifty years?

Even with fifty years of developing his characters, they are still short gag characters that are used for short gag humor.

No, there were actual story arcs in the Peanuts canon, one example being Charlie Brown's decision whether or not to steal a base to home run during a crucial moment during a baseball game.

I was talking about the characters. They were never developed beyond what was immediately obvious. Even the story arcs were more of just expanded running gags, there was never really anything that changed the status quo.

They're little kids living in a typical middle-class neighborhood.  You can't expect them to have, say, mid-life crises.

Never said they should have in-depth characters, I was just refuting the guy that said they did.

Quote    Reply   

#94 [url]

Apr 10 16 8:11 AM

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

Long Tom wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

Long Tom wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

UtopiaGuy wrote:

[quote="eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23"]
Least I Could Do can not give the characters in-depth personalities because it's a short gag comic.
 

Yeah, no way Charles M. Schultz did that for what, fifty years?

Even with fifty years of developing his characters, they are still short gag characters that are used for short gag humor.

No, there were actual story arcs in the Peanuts canon, one example being Charlie Brown's decision whether or not to steal a base to home run during a crucial moment during a baseball game.

I was talking about the characters. They were never developed beyond what was immediately obvious. Even the story arcs were more of just expanded running gags, there was never really anything that changed the status quo.




 [/quote]
That isn't true. Charlie Brown, Snoopy and Linus all had a great deal of development and depth and character to them. You could say the same thing for Calvin & Hobbes, and many other short gag comics. it isn't about "changing the status quo," but character development. LICD is literally the least anyone could do in this regard.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Kraken

Forum Leech

Posts: 483

#95 [url]

Apr 10 16 8:23 AM

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

fallinq wrote:
This thread is still going?

Unfortunately. It's less of me proving myself right now and more of me just trying to make people understand what the fuck I'm trying to say.

You can't "prove yourself right" here. Your only position is that you don't find misogyny in two comics important enough to talk about. At this point, you've even stopped denying it's there. You're just not offended by it.

You've boiled your position down to an outlier opinion. The only way you are "right" is that yes, indeed, you do have that opinion. Nobody can deny it. It is undeniably yours and belongs to you. Point taken.

Quote    Reply   

#96 [url]

Apr 10 16 12:04 PM

UtopiaGuy wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

Long Tom wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

Long Tom wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

[quote="UtopiaGuy"]
[quote="eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23"]
Least I Could Do can not give the characters in-depth personalities because it's a short gag comic.
 

Yeah, no way Charles M. Schultz did that for what, fifty years?

Even with fifty years of developing his characters, they are still short gag characters that are used for short gag humor.

No, there were actual story arcs in the Peanuts canon, one example being Charlie Brown's decision whether or not to steal a base to home run during a crucial moment during a baseball game.

I was talking about the characters. They were never developed beyond what was immediately obvious. Even the story arcs were more of just expanded running gags, there was never really anything that changed the status quo.






 [/quote]
That isn't true. Charlie Brown, Snoopy and Linus all had a great deal of development and depth and character to them. You could say the same thing for Calvin & Hobbes, and many other short gag comics. it isn't about "changing the status quo," but character development. LICD is literally the least anyone could do in this regard.
[/quote]
I don't know if that's true or not. But if anything, that's an exception to the rule.

Quote    Reply   

#97 [url]

Apr 10 16 12:05 PM

Kraken wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:

fallinq wrote:
This thread is still going?

Unfortunately. It's less of me proving myself right now and more of me just trying to make people understand what the fuck I'm trying to say.

You can't "prove yourself right" here. Your only position is that you don't find misogyny in two comics important enough to talk about. At this point, you've even stopped denying it's there. You're just not offended by it.

You've boiled your position down to an outlier opinion. The only way you are "right" is that yes, indeed, you do have that opinion. Nobody can deny it. It is undeniably yours and belongs to you. Point taken.

Thank you for acknowledging that, I guess. I honestly think I'm starting to make a fool out of myself.

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help