So I'm assuming everyone here on drunk duck knows about qwantz, the successful webcomic that everyday takes the same art of three dinosaurs interacting and adds new dialogue. It's been regarded as an original idea and critically acclaimed for it's writing.

But is it really that innovative? Think about how many jokes Charles Schultz was able to make about Charlie brown not being able to kick that football. Lucy was able to fool him into trying to kick it hundreds of times and as a result of Charlie's constant failure he became a pop culture icon. How many times has Jim Davis drawn Garfield sitting in the same slouched over position in front of the TV to make fun of the crap on the air or the sedentary lifestyle? Couldn't all those jokes have been done using the exact same art over and over again instead of redrawing it? Couldn't they have done those jokes in the same way qwantz does theirs?

Calvin trying to get into his tree house, the folks of Doonsberry county on the radio, the list of where it can be applied seems endless. Having said that, is the method behind making qwantz really all that new?

Threads questioning the validity of specific webcomics have been locked in this section before, but I think you're taking a better and more logical approach. And I think you're questioning a concept, not just aiming to tear down a comic. So I'm going to see what comes of this.

Any takers on the subject?

While I've gotten a laugh or two out of some pages of Quantz that somebody has linked to, it's simply not a comic I would endeavor to read on my own. And it's for the very same reasons you're saying the comic is critically acclaimed. The humor of a conversation happening during a dinosaur attack wears out pretty quickly, and it all falls back to whether or not the conversation itself is funny. I think that can be directly compared to the repetitive nature of certain print comics like you mentioned.

So I agree, maybe it's not all that innovative, but I won't fault the author finding an unfilled niche in the webcomic world and filling it well.

Oh goodness, I'm not trying to bash it at all. I'm just raising the issue and seeing if anybody would like to make a discussion out of it. I think you could make an argument for both sides. I see what you're saying about the repetitive nature of print comics. That's one reason webcomics have become popular. However qwantz is a successful webcomic despite it's repetitive nature. I guess it's because it hits that niche nobody thought of before, like you said.