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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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