[polka_haunts_us]

>Were there in fact legions of people who _did_ find it funny, or entertaining?

I'm sorry ahead of time if this comment comes off as strong, but I'm always confused by people who can't comprehend that there must be people who like thing it's popular to not like.

I hate Adam Sandler, I think he's among the least funny human beings on the planet. I also don't question whether anyone actually enjoys his movies, because obviously people do.

[carls]

My question in the original comment is not meant to mock or poke fun at those who enjoyed it. I, myself, found it somewhat entertaining to read as a kid.

Rather, my question is more in reference to what seem to be incongruous facts: the article points out that the comic was not written with the intention to be funny, so then what explains its popularity as a comic strip?

I don't doubt that there are some (many!) who thought it funny. What I'm trying to understand is the discrepancy between its immense fame AND its apparent lack of humorous intention.

It'd be a little bit like if there was a famous band that was incredibly popular, yet in multiple interviews they reveal that they don't put a great deal of effort behind making appealing music. As such, I would be curious to understand what instead may be the other driving sources of their appeal (ex. good looks, marketing etc.).

For example, here are some other possible candidate reasons the Garfield comics may have been popular. I don't know if any of these are true, rather I would consider them hypotheses that I would be curious to hear others confirm/debunk:

* it was marketed very well and gave people the perception that it was _supposed_ to be funny, and if you didn't find it funny that was perhaps a result of _you_ not getting something. * there was a more limited selection of sources of comic strips, so the standards for what passed as an entertaining comic strip were lower than in our Internet age. * most people knew it wasn't funny, nor that it was meant to be funny. Rather they read it because it was the cultural meme of the day to do so.

[lukey_q]

As someone who also remembers Garfield being funny as a kid, I don't read the OP as saying it was never funny, but that being funny was a secondary concern to Davis after being marketable. I just looked up a random Garfield strip from 1988 [1] and I have to say, it's kind of a funny visual gag. Nothing groundbreaking but for a daily strip in a newspaper, it's not bad, and I'm an adult now, as a kid I probably would have found it hilarious. Combine decent humor like that with recognizable and cute characters appearing in the newspaper daily and it's not surprising that the strip became so popular.

[1] http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ga/1988/ga880101.gif

[bitwize]

Adam Sandler basically ceased trying soon after leaving SNL. Like Jim Davis, he puts no effort into trying to be funny to a wide audience. He makes his movies as an excuse to goof off and hang out with his friends, while trading his name for cash from studios like Netflix.

[DoofusOfDeath]

I don't find Adam Sandler that funny either. But as a dad, I recommend the movie Fast Forward to other dads.

[deberon]

You might be thinking of the movie "Click"? If so, I also recommend it. Hits harder than you'd expect from a goofy Adam Sandler movie.

[DoofusOfDeath]

Sorry, yes, I meant "Click". Thanks for the correction.

[mhh__]

Adam Sandler can actually act e.g. Punch Drunk Love and Uncut Gems

[kgwgk]

That's orthogonal to being funny anyway.

[mhh__]

Perhaps, but making a funny film isn't as simple as getting people who are "funny" and letting them run free.

[bitwize]

Yeah. The difference between making a funny movie and just "being funny" is the difference between Ghostbusters (1984) and Ghostbusters (2016).

[kgwgk]

Maybe I misunderstood your comment and "Uncut Gems" was an example of a funny film :-)

[ausbah]

Sandler can play serious roles very well, check out Uncut Gems