Brewster Rockit by Tim Rickard

Brewster Rockit

Comments (28) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Bilan

    Bilan said, almost 4 years ago

    I thought that Honey Boo Boo was the danger.

  2. margueritem

    margueritem GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    A dolla gonna make her holla!

  3. Nabuquduriuzhur

    Nabuquduriuzhur said, almost 4 years ago

    Had to look that one up. One of the drawbacks of ceasing to watch the networks about 2 years ago, I suppose…

  4. Johanan Rakkav

    Johanan Rakkav said, almost 4 years ago

    @Nabuquduriuzhur

    A very slight drawback, if Wikipedia’s article on it is any indication (I had to look it up too).

  5. Randy_B

    Randy_B GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    The Observer sees all… and is VERY easily amused.

  6. cdward

    cdward said, almost 4 years ago

    @Nabuquduriuzhur

    Same here – but that’s a drawback I’m happy to live with.

  7. SciTech Scotty

    SciTech Scotty said, almost 4 years ago

    Honey Boo Boo is mankind’s last hope!

  8. Coyoty

    Coyoty GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    I don’t know… If the fate of the world depends on Honey Boo Boo… Can I get back to you?

  9. pcolli

    pcolli said, almost 4 years ago

    Is “Honey Boo Boo” typical of American TV? I thought we had a load of cr*p over here.

  10. Nabuquduriuzhur

    Nabuquduriuzhur said, almost 4 years ago

    re:pcolli

    It’s bad here. For example, last year by accident I saw a couple of minutes of over the air TV “criminal minds” and it was so sick as to make you think “what kind of a mind could think of that?” Hollywood: makes you wonder how long before we descend to the level of Rome, 3rd Century…
    .
    Not surprisingly, people of my age group tend to not watch TV. We grew up with dumb, but entertaining stuff in the 1980s that at least didn’t assault the mind.

  11. Josh  Lyons

    Josh Lyons said, almost 4 years ago

    What is all this love for “Honey Boo Boo”?

  12. Dampwaffle

    Dampwaffle said, almost 4 years ago

    Who the heck is Honey Boo Boo? And why should I care?

  13. Darren Blair

    Darren Blair said, almost 4 years ago

    Reality shows like that generally tend to be a lot faster, easier, and cheaper to produce than dramas, game shows, comedies, or educational shows.
    []
    What’s more, since there’s no script to be followed and no “actors” involved, such shows are less likely to be sidelined by strikes.
    []
    Thus, reality shows – like talk shows – are now becoming more prolific.
    []
    The trend actually goes back to the late 1980s / early 1990s, when Fox responded to a writer’s strike by unveiling “Cops”. Since it was just camera crews riding around with police officers and filming what took place, no writers were actually needed.

  14. Nabuquduriuzhur

    Nabuquduriuzhur said, almost 4 years ago

    re: Darren Blair

    good points.

    Sci fi’s tended to do well from the 1970s to the present (even the Farscape/Planet of the Apes level of writing had surprising numbers of people watching them, despite the 6th grade writing), but they were so expensive that “sitcoms” and “reality shows” dominated. The over the air networks, with their single digit viewership, really don’t have anyone to blame for it. They chose cheap and thus most viewers went to cable, dish, or simply quit watching.
    .

    One really disturbing trend is desensitization: in the early 2000s I was working in a small town in northern california and because the local cable had about 8 channels, with one over the air channel, I didn’t bother with TV. When I moved elsewhere, I found that the hideous levels of violence in modern TV appalling. (I doubt there was that much change in TV programming in the few years I was down there.) It took about 6 months to be desensitized again.
    .
    That’s scary stuff.
    .
    Movies are even worse. Every once in a while, you get some loon that says what used to be the common “we give people what they want.” In the 1980s it was roughly 30% of the public that would go to a movie once or more a year. By the 2000s it was 20% and less. That does not argue for “giving people what they want” when so few bother with what is produced.
    .
    What about the 80+%? Somebody would clean up if they wrote the kinds of stuff that Americans actually like to see. Two different studies in the last decade indicated that G films did better than other ones (people wanted something to take the kids to), but something like 50% of Hollywood films were R and stupid blastemups and/or sex farces.
    .
    Gack. Having 3 straight years where 9 of 10 movies lost money really should be getting someone’s attention. If it were not for the handful of blockbusters every year, the production companies would have been broke years ago. A lousy business model— 90% garbage, 10% good, and hope to break even…

  15. puddleglum1066

    puddleglum1066 said, almost 4 years ago

    I suspect most of the people who know about “Honey Boo Boo” have never actually watched the show (I know I haven’t). It’s a cheap, space-filler show on a minor cable channel, but it’s become such an icon of our society’s presumed decline that the more popular channels spend a lot of time talking about it, usually in the context of “entertainment news.”

  16. Load the rest of the comments (13).