I still have the Garfield Christmas comic. I used to read it a lot during the holiday season. I saw a DVD that had three Garfield holiday specials on it -- Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas -- at my local discount store. I should've picked it up.
Why is it that someone always wants something to be something it's not? Was Garfield ever meant to have a message? Has he ever done anything besides crack wise, sleep, and love food? Can they publish a 3 panel newspaper strip with anything that isn't acceptable and unoffesnive when it's essentially a public display? I'm not saying you should like it, but the whole " It has no growth, no message, no soul." sounds extrememly melodramatic in reference to a newspaper comic cartoon character. Sometimes I think familiars good, and sometimes I want things to be mindlessly enjoyable and sometimes I want stupid little birghtly colored things to distract my senses from the real word. ... All that said, his feet are still drawn ridiculously huge now.
I'm not expecting high drama or expressionism from a syndicated newspaper strip, but garfield is about as far away from sequential art as mussak is from music. Say what you will about the Family Circus or Hi and Lois, at least they're still done an artist, instead of mass produced. Calvin and Hobbes managed to be a syndicated newspaper comic with real artistry, as well as being genuinely funny at times and downright heartwarming at others. The Boondocks injected political and cultural commentary into its strips, and Doonesbury has been a politically charged newspaper comic strip for decades. If a newspaper is not allowed to publish anything that might offend someone because its "a public display", then what's the point of having freedom of the press? There's nothing wrong with wanting newspaper comics to be safe, familiar, and based in fantasy, but there's nothing wrong with expecting more from them, either.
I remember walking through Coleco and my Mom buying me anything I wanted because of eye surgery, and I picked out Garfield. Still got him after 25 years. Jeez I'm old
I love reading the comics in the paper, I like his snarkiness the most. When I was at high school I almost always went into the library during lunch time to read the Garfield books
Ok, I do agree with a lot of the things you say here. Growing up with Garflied through various medias however, I never really remember anything reaching out beyond simple humor, and I'm ok with that for him. His christmas special is about the only thing that's ever touched on sentimentallity. I will also say, that with the exception of Calvin and Hobbes, the other comics your brought up have hardly if ever amused me even close to Garfield, despite having more of a real point behind them.
When I was young, I watched the cartoons and like them very much. But haven't seen anything Garfield in the last decade or so...
Garfield the comic is utter trite. It's rubbish. Jim Davis doesn't even draw his comic anymore. It just ads to what's wrong with syndicated comics these days. Garfield and Friends, the cartoon from the 80's/90's was cool when I was a kid. Not so much anymore. The movies are horrible, the CG movies on CN are worse than that. I am not a fan of Garfield the cat. Can you tell? >:-D
'Garfield' is a cheap knock-off of 'Peanuts,' but without the heart, comedy, and originality necessary to make it worth spending 10 seconds a day reading.
I love Garfield. I still find the cartoon funny and I read the comic pretty often. I even liked the movies.
God damn, Garfield's feet got huge. It's like he's wearing clown shoes or has feline gigantism of the feet or something. Anyway, other than that one bizarre story where Garfield ended up in an alternate reality (or dream sequence) where his house was abandoned, I don't think the comic strip has ever been very entertaining. But I can't really fault it for that, since the strip was designed to support a marketable character, rather than to be entertaining or artistic. It's like the antithesis to Calvin and Hobbes. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Jim Davis and Bill Watterson would explosively nullify each other if they were ever in the same room. I do think the various "Garfield without Garfield" parodies have generally been good, though, and they really highlight that the title character of the strip is a waste of space. As for "Garfield and Friends", the "Garfield" segments were decent at the time, although I can't imagine ever watching them again. The "and Friends" part was a waste of airtime, though, since USAcres was just awful.
