I actually spent a moment trying to see if any of the actors – Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, Robert Vaughn, Brad Dexter, James Coburn and Horst Buchholz.(of whom Dexter and Buchholz i’d never heard) – were being caricatured, but nothing. The detail Piraro has done in this comic is lovely, tho. For me, that was enough.
There isn’t one, just an acknowledgement that The Magnificent Seven is mostly a reskinning of Seven Samurai.
He’s looking for people who like to draw?
I notice that there are eight men in the drawing, counting the speaker. Which one is not going to make the cut?
Hmm, this was a Sunday comic, hence supposed to be all Piraro. I was going to blame Wayno, who I imagine to be younger, who might think the Magnificent Seven connection is geezer territory and a point of explanation. (The blog or newsletter note sort of read that way.)
If you’ll excuse me a couple minutes, I might step into the back yard and enjoy one of them Marlboro cigarettes.
Piraro wrote in his blog “One helpful hint might be the number seven“, but he missed a chance, and overloaded the panel with nine Easter eggs, instead of skipping two.
P.S. @ Usual John – I would bet that the clown on the right with the mini hat and Bozo wig will be the first one eliminated.
I would assume the clown is staying home, as he’s likely NOT a ‘tough hombre’.
Rather confusing, it seems both Piraro and Wayno, separately, blog about the week in Bizarro. The above link (and the email subscription I seem to have) are by Piraro. He does treat the Magnificent Seven connection as something enough readers will be unaware of to make it a suitable quiz item.
The three of us must’ve been typing and hitting ‘post comment’ at the same time. . .
Hey, I missed a /bunch/ of comments in the meantime!
“I’m looking for six other Ambersons…”
The humor is that this strip is set in the Old West of “the Magnificent Seven”, not in 1960 or later.
EXACTLY. If it’d been set in the 1960’s, the woman might’ve had a role, too. Or maybe not.
It’s a joke because this is not a stage in a Hollywood studio but the real Far West where the line is absurd.
Kevin A drew faster than I.
“And barring Ambertons, I’ll take a few men and their flying machines…”
Hat tip to billybob.
Andréa, did Piraro even try to explain what he thought was funny about this? He just seemed to take it as a given we thought it was, and then explained how the sausage was made.
I think he believes in the ‘an explained joke isn’t funny’ philosophy of cartooning.
RE: The heading. Is this related to The Gong Show in any way?
I started looking up “difference between tam-tam and gong” and discovered this remarkable site, the Vienna Symphonic Library.
Anyhoo, scroll this page down and near the bottom (under the examples of how it looks on a score) are two “play” buttons, that will provide the kind of sound you are asking for.
“I think he believes in the ‘an explained joke isn’t funny’ philosophy of cartooning.”
I think that’s only valid if there’s there’s something funny involved. Otherwise it’s an “Emperor’s New Clothes” situation.
Self-referentialism is inherently odd and funny. Sometimes a character saying “we’re in a reenactment of another movie” is enough to be a joke. Sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes a cartoonist will think it is enough but his audience won’t.
Piraro apparently thought it was enough and apparently thought the reference was somewhat obscure and thought the intellectual activity of recognizing the reference heightened the humor.
I think it’s enough but I get CIDU Bill does not. It may or may not be obscure but movie fans are an ardent sub-culture that if a cartoonist were to make a movie joke that’d be obscure to non-fans but well known to fans, I don’t think he should worry at all about the non-fans. I think intellectual activity of recognizing the reference (which is none if you are fan, and irrelevant if you are not) detracts rather than heightens humor. Unless it is *truly* obscure and *really* clever for other reasons than just getting the reference.
>I think he believes in the ‘an explained joke isn’t funny’ philosophy of cartooning.
I think he thinks he *did* explain it. It’s self-referencing the Magnificent Seven. I believe he sincerely believes that the humor in doing so is self-evident.
… which, I suppose, is evidence of an explained joke isn’t funny. “But don’t you see? He’s *in* a movie talking about the move that he *already* is in….” “Uh, yeah, and….” “But he’s talking about being *aware* that it *is* a movie….” “Uh, yeah, and…”
“Self-referentialism is inherently odd and funny.”
I think that’s why the ending of Blazing Saddles was funny; I saw a youtube video of Mel Brooks explaining that one of the people in the ending, where they all spill out of the WB studio lot, was someone who just ‘wandered in’, and MB thought it so funny, he kept him in.
I’ve never seen either ‘Seven Samurai’ or ‘Magnificent Seven’, but I caught the reference immediately and thought it amusing, albeit not LOL-worthy.
I thought it was funny that, rather than explaining what the six men are being recruited for, he tells them they will re-enact The Seven Samurai, as if this were an easier explanation. The guy on the right who looks like a clown should have been far more obviously clownish if that were the intended joke.
Woozy, I wasn’t even thinking about the “obscurity” angle (which I dealt with in the subject line).
“Fine! Be that way! Can anyone at least point me to Michigan Avenue?”
‘an explained joke isn’t funny’
I think it’s right in general, but not in every instance. With other comics, I’ve missed something important that people here pointed out, and then laughed at the comic.
There’s also a 60s or 70s biker movie called THE SAVAGE SEVEN, which, as far as I can recall, didn’t much reference the more famous “SEVEN” movies. On the other hand, I believe there were two or three biker gangs in the movie, and (as best the guy I saw it with and myself could count), none of them seemed to contain exactly seven members. But I suppose the producer felt THE SAVAGE SEVERAL wouldn’t be as good a title.
Perhaps the odd (7th) man out is in the foreground, with a doctor’s satchel next to him,
wearing a string tie, and an *Arrow* shirt?
My wife and I once spent an enjoyable Sunday watching SEVEN SAMURAI, THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, and BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS back-to-back-to-back.
This doesn’t help explain the comic. It’s just a nice memory I wanted to share.
Were there SEVEN stars?
“Were there SEVEN stars?”
Yes, and seven stones and one white tree.
Speaking of Mel Brooks and self-referential, the ultimate self-referential joke is in Spaceballs:
You’re right – you can’t beat that! Pretty funny.
Ha! I’ve never seen that before! Really good.
Drawing?
I don’t see one sketchpad in the comic.
:-P
The guy in the foreground looks a bit like Mitch McConnell.
I sort of recall in early Macintosh models a big part of the graphics subsystem was called Quick Draw.
In terms of self-referential and/or recursive film making, I like this bit from Monty Python (couldn’t find the video online, ironically enough). A bunch of explorers are lost in the jungle, contemplating their fate, which is to die alone and unnoticed, far from civilisation:
Third Explorer: All that’ll be left of us will be a map, a compass and a few feet of film, recording our last moments…
First Explorer: Wait a moment!
Fourth Explorer: What is it?
First Explorer: If we’re on film, there must be someone filming us.
Second Explorer: My God, Betty, you’re right!
(They all look around, then gradually all notice the camera. They break out in smiles of relief, come towards the camera and greet the camera crew.)
Third Explorer: Look! Great to see you!
First Explorer: What a stroke of luck!
Camera Crew: Hello! …
First Explorer: Wait a minute!
Fourth Explorer: What is it again?
First Explorer: If this is the crew who were filming us . .. who’s filming us now? Look!
(Cut to another shot which includes the first camera flew and yet another camera crew with all their equipment.)
I think the “explain xkcd” site’s extended explanations of xkcd comics are informative about arcane subtleties of the comic, and since they are are usually delivered at length with a self-aware dry literalism they are pretty funny in themselves.
This is funny because instead of saying “I’m looking for six tough hombres to take out Black Pete”, he says he wants them for a film remake. I’m not sure if knowing it’s the Magnificent Seven / Seven Samurai helps or hurts.
“I sort of recall in early Macintosh models a big part of the graphics subsystem was called Quick Draw.”
You recall correctly.
“extended explanations of xkcd comics … are … usually delivered at length with a self-aware dry literalism”
I don’t think they are self-aware at all, which can make them funnier, or just informative, or sad… Either way, I see them mostly as over-earnest and extremely geeky; I find it interesting that you ascribe to them the general dry witty English tone — I don’t “hear” that at all…
Comics I Don't Understand 
I actually spent a moment trying to see if any of the actors – Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, Robert Vaughn, Brad Dexter, James Coburn and Horst Buchholz.(of whom Dexter and Buchholz i’d never heard) – were being caricatured, but nothing. The detail Piraro has done in this comic is lovely, tho. For me, that was enough.
There isn’t one, just an acknowledgement that The Magnificent Seven is mostly a reskinning of Seven Samurai.
He’s looking for people who like to draw?
I notice that there are eight men in the drawing, counting the speaker. Which one is not going to make the cut?
Hmm, this was a Sunday comic, hence supposed to be all Piraro. I was going to blame Wayno, who I imagine to be younger, who might think the Magnificent Seven connection is geezer territory and a point of explanation. (The blog or newsletter note sort of read that way.)
If you’ll excuse me a couple minutes, I might step into the back yard and enjoy one of them Marlboro cigarettes.
You might like to read his comments about this on his blog –
https://www.bizarro.com/blog/2020/1/19/a-few-good-men-times-two?mc_cid=1491869724&mc_eid=9c1d7f19f7
Piraro wrote in his blog “One helpful hint might be the number seven“, but he missed a chance, and overloaded the panel with nine Easter eggs, instead of skipping two.
P.S. @ Usual John – I would bet that the clown on the right with the mini hat and Bozo wig will be the first one eliminated.
I would assume the clown is staying home, as he’s likely NOT a ‘tough hombre’.
https://www.bizarro.com/blog/2020/1/19/a-few-good-men-times-two
Rather confusing, it seems both Piraro and Wayno, separately, blog about the week in Bizarro. The above link (and the email subscription I seem to have) are by Piraro. He does treat the Magnificent Seven connection as something enough readers will be unaware of to make it a suitable quiz item.
The three of us must’ve been typing and hitting ‘post comment’ at the same time. . .
WaynoBlog on Saturdays – http://waynocartoons.blogspot.com/
Hey, I missed a /bunch/ of comments in the meantime!
“I’m looking for six other Ambersons…”
The humor is that this strip is set in the Old West of “the Magnificent Seven”, not in 1960 or later.
EXACTLY. If it’d been set in the 1960’s, the woman might’ve had a role, too. Or maybe not.
It’s a joke because this is not a stage in a Hollywood studio but the real Far West where the line is absurd.
Kevin A drew faster than I.
“And barring Ambertons, I’ll take a few men and their flying machines…”
Hat tip to billybob.
Andréa, did Piraro even try to explain what he thought was funny about this? He just seemed to take it as a given we thought it was, and then explained how the sausage was made.
I think he believes in the ‘an explained joke isn’t funny’ philosophy of cartooning.
RE: The heading. Is this related to The Gong Show in any way?
I started looking up “difference between tam-tam and gong” and discovered this remarkable site, the Vienna Symphonic Library.
Anyhoo, scroll this page down and near the bottom (under the examples of how it looks on a score) are two “play” buttons, that will provide the kind of sound you are asking for.
https://www.vsl.co.at/en/Tam-tam/Playing_Techniques
That’s a lovely sound; never heard of it before.
“I think he believes in the ‘an explained joke isn’t funny’ philosophy of cartooning.”
I think that’s only valid if there’s there’s something funny involved. Otherwise it’s an “Emperor’s New Clothes” situation.
Self-referentialism is inherently odd and funny. Sometimes a character saying “we’re in a reenactment of another movie” is enough to be a joke. Sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes a cartoonist will think it is enough but his audience won’t.
Piraro apparently thought it was enough and apparently thought the reference was somewhat obscure and thought the intellectual activity of recognizing the reference heightened the humor.
I think it’s enough but I get CIDU Bill does not. It may or may not be obscure but movie fans are an ardent sub-culture that if a cartoonist were to make a movie joke that’d be obscure to non-fans but well known to fans, I don’t think he should worry at all about the non-fans. I think intellectual activity of recognizing the reference (which is none if you are fan, and irrelevant if you are not) detracts rather than heightens humor. Unless it is *truly* obscure and *really* clever for other reasons than just getting the reference.
>I think he believes in the ‘an explained joke isn’t funny’ philosophy of cartooning.
I think he thinks he *did* explain it. It’s self-referencing the Magnificent Seven. I believe he sincerely believes that the humor in doing so is self-evident.
… which, I suppose, is evidence of an explained joke isn’t funny. “But don’t you see? He’s *in* a movie talking about the move that he *already* is in….” “Uh, yeah, and….” “But he’s talking about being *aware* that it *is* a movie….” “Uh, yeah, and…”
“Self-referentialism is inherently odd and funny.”
I think that’s why the ending of Blazing Saddles was funny; I saw a youtube video of Mel Brooks explaining that one of the people in the ending, where they all spill out of the WB studio lot, was someone who just ‘wandered in’, and MB thought it so funny, he kept him in.
I’ve never seen either ‘Seven Samurai’ or ‘Magnificent Seven’, but I caught the reference immediately and thought it amusing, albeit not LOL-worthy.
I thought it was funny that, rather than explaining what the six men are being recruited for, he tells them they will re-enact The Seven Samurai, as if this were an easier explanation. The guy on the right who looks like a clown should have been far more obviously clownish if that were the intended joke.
Woozy, I wasn’t even thinking about the “obscurity” angle (which I dealt with in the subject line).
“Fine! Be that way! Can anyone at least point me to Michigan Avenue?”
‘an explained joke isn’t funny’
I think it’s right in general, but not in every instance. With other comics, I’ve missed something important that people here pointed out, and then laughed at the comic.
There’s also a 60s or 70s biker movie called THE SAVAGE SEVEN, which, as far as I can recall, didn’t much reference the more famous “SEVEN” movies. On the other hand, I believe there were two or three biker gangs in the movie, and (as best the guy I saw it with and myself could count), none of them seemed to contain exactly seven members. But I suppose the producer felt THE SAVAGE SEVERAL wouldn’t be as good a title.
Perhaps the odd (7th) man out is in the foreground, with a doctor’s satchel next to him,
wearing a string tie, and an *Arrow* shirt?
My wife and I once spent an enjoyable Sunday watching SEVEN SAMURAI, THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, and BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS back-to-back-to-back.
This doesn’t help explain the comic. It’s just a nice memory I wanted to share.
Were there SEVEN stars?
“Were there SEVEN stars?”
Yes, and seven stones and one white tree.
Speaking of Mel Brooks and self-referential, the ultimate self-referential joke is in Spaceballs:
You’re right – you can’t beat that! Pretty funny.
Ha! I’ve never seen that before! Really good.
Drawing?
I don’t see one sketchpad in the comic.
:-P
The guy in the foreground looks a bit like Mitch McConnell.
I sort of recall in early Macintosh models a big part of the graphics subsystem was called Quick Draw.
In terms of self-referential and/or recursive film making, I like this bit from Monty Python (couldn’t find the video online, ironically enough). A bunch of explorers are lost in the jungle, contemplating their fate, which is to die alone and unnoticed, far from civilisation:
Third Explorer: All that’ll be left of us will be a map, a compass and a few feet of film, recording our last moments…
First Explorer: Wait a moment!
Fourth Explorer: What is it?
First Explorer: If we’re on film, there must be someone filming us.
Second Explorer: My God, Betty, you’re right!
(They all look around, then gradually all notice the camera. They break out in smiles of relief, come towards the camera and greet the camera crew.)
Third Explorer: Look! Great to see you!
First Explorer: What a stroke of luck!
Camera Crew: Hello! …
First Explorer: Wait a minute!
Fourth Explorer: What is it again?
First Explorer: If this is the crew who were filming us . .. who’s filming us now? Look!
(Cut to another shot which includes the first camera flew and yet another camera crew with all their equipment.)
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/lostworld.php
‘an explained joke isn’t funny’
I think the “explain xkcd” site’s extended explanations of xkcd comics are informative about arcane subtleties of the comic, and since they are are usually delivered at length with a self-aware dry literalism they are pretty funny in themselves.
This is funny because instead of saying “I’m looking for six tough hombres to take out Black Pete”, he says he wants them for a film remake. I’m not sure if knowing it’s the Magnificent Seven / Seven Samurai helps or hurts.
“I sort of recall in early Macintosh models a big part of the graphics subsystem was called Quick Draw.”
You recall correctly.
“extended explanations of xkcd comics … are … usually delivered at length with a self-aware dry literalism”
I don’t think they are self-aware at all, which can make them funnier, or just informative, or sad… Either way, I see them mostly as over-earnest and extremely geeky; I find it interesting that you ascribe to them the general dry witty English tone — I don’t “hear” that at all…