Other than in the humor category making the comparison.
McDonalds is a "fast-food restaurant". Implies that they serve food, quickly. They serve highly repeatable food in many categories, offering options and choice, very quickly.
Garfield is a comic. Which implies a drawn artwork that's funny. (There are some "dramatic comics", but Garfield isn't in that niche.) Well, it's a drawn artwork. But it's not funny.
So, McDonalds serves food, quickly. It's not gourmet, but it's quite acceptable across a very wide range of palates.
Garfield is artwork that's not funny.
No, not really comparable. McDonalds succeeds at serving food quickly, while Garfielf fails at providing humor via art.
Not even that *bad* of food, if you choose correctly. But if you were forced to eat nothing but McDonalds food for a year, you'd be fine. Well, at least, no worse than when you started (For the obligatory comment about Spurlock).
But humor? Totally missing from Garfield. Not even anything Ted Rall-esque that you could point to and say "Well, if you were insane or terminally stupid, that MIGHT be funny."
Egg Mcmuffin, salads, kid's meals. As unix_jedi said, you've got to choose carefully. But I can't tell you the last time we eat at McDonald's. I think it was in 1998 in Paso Robles, CA when I went through the drive-thru to get Goose something to eat so she'd settle down for the drive home to San Jose, CA.
Well they do both provide a very consistent product. In both cases it it is consistently low quality, but it still does an excellent job of making money.
I think I sort of remember Garfield being funny once. But it was a long time ago. And I sorta remember when MacDonalds' fries used to taste good, and one or two of their sandwiches used to be ... well, palatable. (Not sure their burgers ever were.) But that was a long time ago too.
It's the sad state of affairs that safety and the need to not have to think is so rampant everywhere. Both McDonald's and Garfield give people that aspect. They don't have to think about what they're reading or what they're getting when they read Garfield and eat McDonald's. It's just the convenience and simplicity of thought that they choose for those moments.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Other than in the humor category making the comparison.
McDonalds is a "fast-food restaurant". Implies that they serve food, quickly. They serve highly repeatable food in many categories, offering options and choice, very quickly.
Garfield is a comic. Which implies a drawn artwork that's funny. (There are some "dramatic comics", but Garfield isn't in that niche.) Well, it's a drawn artwork. But it's not funny.
So, McDonalds serves food, quickly. It's not gourmet, but it's quite acceptable across a very wide range of palates.
Garfield is artwork that's not funny.
No, not really comparable. McDonalds succeeds at serving food quickly, while Garfielf fails at providing humor via art.
no subject
no subject
Not even that *bad* of food, if you choose correctly. But if you were forced to eat nothing but McDonalds food for a year, you'd be fine. Well, at least, no worse than when you started (For the obligatory comment about Spurlock).
But humor? Totally missing from Garfield. Not even anything Ted Rall-esque that you could point to and say "Well, if you were insane or terminally stupid, that MIGHT be funny."
no subject
How do you figure you'd be fine?
no subject
no subject
McDonalds cannot.
no subject
no subject
no subject
"Garfield, I know you're in my plant. I can see your tail"
Lasagna
"Okay, Monday, go ahead and do it to me." *Splut!*
"It's diet week!"
So, comparison between Garfield and McDonalds....fat?
no subject
no subject
Now both are predictable and...mass produced by formula. And yep, fat is a valid comparison, too...
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject