Title Text: mmmm, sweet, sweet pain
Gotta be thorough, I guess.
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_e_confused.gif)
That was in reference to Fido's comment about nooks and crannies.Douglas Collier wrote:Still don’t quite understand Mungo’s statement. How is this like cereal?
Nooks and crannies = cereal? I don’t get it.Bandit1990 wrote:That was in reference to Fido's comment about nooks and crannies.Douglas Collier wrote:Still don’t quite understand Mungo’s statement. How is this like cereal?
It sounds like the name of an off-brand cerealDouglas Collier wrote: Nooks and crannies = cereal? I don’t get it.
I vaguely remember seeing a commercial that used that phrase in relation to the cereal. When I Googled it all I found were old ads for Waffle Crisp, which does fit the bill, but they don't actually use the phrase in the ad. (Also found out it was discontinued this year, coincidences huh?)Gbr23 wrote:It sounds like the name of an off-brand cerealDouglas Collier wrote: Nooks and crannies = cereal? I don’t get it.
Wow. I've never seen her look so good as in that first panel. I wonder if I can ask her out on a date. :3jrh150482 wrote:And here's Sasha for fanservice! (Well, at least for the furries, anyway.)
You can't see the whole pool. We haven't seen the whole pool in any of the shots so we don't even know what shape it is.Champion Wallace wrote:So did everyone leave after Kevin cannonballed in or did he get out of the water after jumping in to find a pool that was still unoccupied, because you can see the whole pool and none of the characters from the previous strip are anywhere to be found.
Fox, along with King, is one of the most complex characters in the comic. They're also among the least pet-like pets; a lot of the other characters get lots of furry reminders, but those two are more human (though of course, given that King is human...). There's a few other characters who have gotten some depth as well - Fido, Sabrina, Jessica, The Opener of Ways (hallowed be thy name), Miles, Grape, Max - but haven't gotten quite as much and/or are less relateable for other reasons. Some of the more pet-like characters have gotten more depth as well, but they always feel a little 2D because of their cartoonier nature (Peanut, Keene, Bailey, and Tarot being fairly big examples there).Tappy Too wrote:Maybe he's just too real. Fox is actually a really realistic, complicated and relatable character. Like, so many other Housepets characters are so cartoony in comparison:
Yeah I agree with you on every point, except for the favorite ship and him being a complicated character. For me he is the closest thing to a everydayman. I think the reason why I don't see him as complicated is, because I can understand him so much. Honestly there had been many instances in the comic where I saw myself in his position, because I was also in situations like that and I never had that with any other character. His characterisation is also very well balanced, he keeps his cool most of the time, but it isn't to the point where he is totally stoic. Sometimes he does get controlled by his feelings, but it is rare and just in situations where it's justified.Tappy Too wrote:This is probably for the best for Fox- It'd be unhealthy for him to keep going ga-ga for Sasha. Especially when she's already taken. (I love Kevin's face in that second panel btw. My man knows what he wants)
Probably an unpopular opinion but I kind of hate Fox.
I'm not exactly sure how to put it. Like he's a good character; he's cute, he's funny, he's one half of my favourite ship.
But like everytime Sasha shows up it's so frustrating to see him like this- (But not frustrating in an actually mad way, more like frustrating in a funny way)
Fox is just so bad with his emotions it hurts. I physically feel something every time he does this.
Maybe he's just too real. Fox is actually a really realistic, complicated and relatable character. Like, so many other Housepets characters are so cartoony in comparison:
Fox kind of stands out when you think about it. I suppose you could fit him into a hopeless romantic type, but not really. It's actually rather interesting. In the earlier years of the comic he was kind of cartoony, but as its gone on he's gotten progressively more realistic. Maybe that's why I feel a dull pain in my chest whenever he wants to be around Sasha. Maybe it's because I see myself in him. Wanting something so bad, but he just can't have it no matter what he does.
But anyways, back to the cuteness. I like how Mungo was practically naked for the entire Temple arc, but now that he has no collar on he feels the need to cover his whole body. What a cutie!~
Interesting.Riff wrote:Wow. I've never seen her look so good as in that first panel. I wonder if I can ask her out on a date. :3jrh150482 wrote:And here's Sasha for fanservice! (Well, at least for the furries, anyway.)
They sure distract HIM when they're around!NHWestoN wrote:That's part of Fox's charm, his vulnerability, and the angels kinda distract. Or so thinks me.
My thoughts exactly x3Welsh Halfwit wrote:Temptation is pulling you in, Fido....
...Sorry, it's Sabrina.
I agree with most of that but I just want to point out that Fox probably acts or at least thinks the most like a dog out of a fair deal of the cast. He's been shown to play with squeaky bones, bark at people, sniff butts, and he literally called himself a "good boy". So he's pet-like, but with a more human mindset.Titanium Dragon wrote:Fox, along with King, is one of the most complex characters in the comic. They're also among the least pet-like pets; a lot of the other characters get lots of furry reminders, but those two are more human (though of course, given that King is human...). There's a few other characters who have gotten some depth as well - Fido, Sabrina, Jessica, The Opener of Ways (hallowed be thy name), Miles, Grape, Max - but haven't gotten quite as much and/or are less relateable for other reasons. Some of the more pet-like characters have gotten more depth as well, but they always feel a little 2D because of their cartoonier nature (Peanut, Keene, Bailey, and Tarot being fairly big examples there).Tappy Too wrote:Maybe he's just too real. Fox is actually a really realistic, complicated and relatable character. Like, so many other Housepets characters are so cartoony in comparison:
Not that I mind that, of course; part of the fun of the Housepets verse is seeing the way that their sort of "animal impairment" bounces off of the less animal characters.
Housepets domesticated animals being unprofessional? Inconceivable!Ryusuta wrote:Not gonna lie... I know it's for the sake of humor, but it's off-putting how unprofessional they're being at the moment.
I personally would have put Keene in the human acting group, maybe tarot as well but to each their ownTitanium Dragon wrote:Fox, along with King, is one of the most complex characters in the comic. They're also among the least pet-like pets; a lot of the other characters get lots of furry reminders, but those two are more human (though of course, given that King is human...). There's a few other characters who have gotten some depth as well - Fido, Sabrina, Jessica, The Opener of Ways (hallowed be thy name), Miles, Grape, Max - but haven't gotten quite as much and/or are less relateable for other reasons. Some of the more pet-like characters have gotten more depth as well, but they always feel a little 2D because of their cartoonier nature (Peanut, Keene, Bailey, and Tarot being fairly big examples there).Tappy Too wrote:Maybe he's just too real. Fox is actually a really realistic, complicated and relatable character. Like, so many other Housepets characters are so cartoony in comparison:
Not that I mind that, of course; part of the fun of the Housepets verse is seeing the way that their sort of "animal impairment" bounces off of the less animal characters.
I feel like there is a level of humor to be achieved from watching a human character make a real, good faith attempt at answering that question.Douglas Collier wrote:“Now, tell me, what does the permit smell like?”