He was one of a kind. A great artist, a great writer but most of all he had integrity and honor. Granted did he go overboard about it? Maybe, but it's a fresh air seeing someone who is willing to say no for the sake of quality and preservation of the original content. Still it's a real shame he no longer fills the need to draw or write.
>>78676374 >Granted did he go overboard about it? To me, that is the part that makes him no different than someone who milks their work. He's just the other extreme. Hobbes was perfect to sell plushies of and he just refused it "out of integrity". It was so perfect that SOMEONE was bound to do it, the only difference is he won't get the money.
I think when something is perfect for merch, you have to be an idiot to pass it up. So to me, it's just the other end of the spectrum of Disney making Frozen Spaghetti-O's.
>>78676374 >Granted did he go overboard about it? You know you're justified when people rip off your work and plaster it to the back of their cars to carry their "message" to the uncaring masses Would you really want your OC to depicted as pissing on whatever the consumer hates just for "laffs"?
>>78676542 >Would you really want your OC to depicted as pissing on whatever the consumer hates just for "laffs"? He was okay with some of it in the beginning, like a t-shirt, a calender? Stuff like that. But later the company obviously wanted to push for more and more stuff. Like he said, he just wanted to write a great comic, not run an empire.
>>78676471 Again, he probably was paranoid involving the rights to his characters but I feel like the reason I and many people still respect him is how rare that side of the extreme is. Like you said anon, majority of the people would sell out. The idea of someone having the will power to turn down his creation into a brand is mighty noble, at least in my eyes. Money has a way of selling out the best of artist and he didn't even give them the chance. >>78676633 Yeah but I wish for him to continue working full time on something else. Doesn't even have to be Calvin and Hobbes and frankly I'd prefer it to be something new.
I went and read the interview he did in that Exploring Calvin and Hobbes book. It's interesting in that he wasn't interested in the superhero genre (and felt DKR's violent bleakness wasn't his thing) but actually acknowledged Frank Miller and Bill Sienkiewicz's art talent--he wondered why comic strips didn't try to do what Sienkiewicz was doing back in the 80's.
He enjoyed Mad Magazine when he was a teen but as an adult felt it didn't hold up that well. (I kind of debate that though)
I can see his point though. It's not just that Watterson had integrity, the strip he was drawing was uniquely vulnerable to being compromised. Calvin and Hobbes depended on Hobbes acting as both an actual tiger and a stuffed animal Calvin was carting around. There are strips where he flips back and forth panel to panel depending on the POV and the joke. If there are Hobbes plushies out there, that kind of settles the issue doesn't it? If it's animated and they put in a transformation sequence, it damages the duality the strip depends on for its charm.
Watterson had his own calculus of value, and he said that the integrity of the strip was worth more to him than the money. As for "someone is going to do it", someone's going to do a lot of things. Do you really not understand the difference between "something I find repellent is going to happen" and "I am going to profit by doing something i find repellent?"
>>78676700 I getcha. Sometimes it's hard to put the label as sell-out on someone because it might not have actually resulted in a sell-out so much as "getting screwed". Aaron McGruder, for example, was excited about making Boondocks a series and I don't think anyone would fault him for wanting to bring his characters to animated life. But the problem is now Adult Swim owns them so they were able to cast him out and replace him with a new showrunner.
Chris Sanders isn't going to pass up the chance to make a movie with Disney, but as a result, they milked the shit out of Lilo & Stitch. But what was he going to do? Animate the film himself? To get a Disney movie deal is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I feel it's inappropriate to say he sold out and more that Disney milks things.
And I feel like that's why I'm not big on the comparisons of Watterson vs. an artist who sells out, because there aren't actually a shit ton of semi-modern-day artists who sell out, it's the corporations who do it. So you're basically comparing an individual to a corporation who needs to milk work to stay afloat.
That's why I think smart merchandising is the way to go. You're able to capitalize on your own work in ways that doesn't make you seem like a money hog. Harry Potter, for example, I think does a really good job at having a money empire without it feeling like "Now we're scrapping at the bottom of the barrel". We have yet to have Hermionie advertising Verizon, so that's pretty cool. I think it's much more rare when a corporation as big as Warner Brothers actually respects the creator enough to listen to them rather (Ahem, Lemoney Snicket).
>>78677092 A book full of old comics is not, by its very nature, new content. If anything a book of old shit is more of a sell out than a plush. At least someone put effort into designing and creating something new. Watterson just right clicks his Calvin folder and e-mails it to his publisher with his default e-mail application with the subject line "do something with this"
>>78677172 Eat a pile of dicks. No one becomes an artist to get rich. I didnt become an artist to get rich. And the insinuation is insulting and ignorant. This 1%er who hates the 1% had dozens of rivals you've never heard of who were just as good or possibly better but didnt get their chance. Some thing other than the nebulous notion of "talent" got him into the lime light for the first time, and that same thing kept him there. No one becomes a world famous artist by doodling little boys in a dark office and just "letting stuff happen"
It took tenacity, it took pestering, it took serious effort and he denigrates anyone who tries to make a living with their creativity, because he's somehow convinced himself he isnt exactly who he's insinuating WE are.
Man I love Calvin and Hobbes. it was my first "comic book." Sure 3 year old me didn't understand the grown up parts, but the parts that where a boy and his stuffed imaginary tiger drew me in. Made me go out and play with my wagon and imagine crazy cardboard box contraptions to be like Calvin. Even revisiting it as an adult I'm filled with a sense of nostalgia and can finally understand some of its deeper undertones. It's a comic strip you could literally grow up with.
>>78677365 Watterson actually had seriously considered working with an animation studio to do a cartoon back in the day due to his great respect for the medium, but the workload and especially having to cast voices for the characters dissuaded him. There are plenty of strips with no dialogue that could be adapted into shorts, but I doubt it'll ever happen.
>>78677283 Bill was talking about artists nowadays. Back when he was makimg his start, the only source of comics were comic books and b the funny papers. It was harder to be a strong individual strip in those days. Now we have the wonderful internet, and being at least a little successful is a matter of groveling to the masses, as you can just make a webcomic and spread word of it all over the place.
Artists then > Artists now
>>78677310 Yes, he made money because he had a successful series, not because he did what Jim Davis did.
>>78677313 In this day and age, if your sole goal is to be a successful comic artist, then you should've had a contingency plan.
>>78677372 But that dad isn't a bum, is he? I get the impression he's selling those custom-made dino figures online, the "undemanding job" in the narration. It's not a "career" but it's "work". Like Stu and his inventions from Rugrats.
If you're getting into comics/cartooning in order to be rich and famous, you're doing it for the wrong things anyway.
I'd even say that is more true now than ever before.
We're not talking about 100 skilled guys all vying for a spot as an inker for a comic book, or for a slot in the newspapers. You're competing with thousands upon thousands of other webcomics.
You are literally a drop in an ocean of people doing the same thing. You hear all of these comuppance stories of cartoonists of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and they're all stories about "knowing someone" or "Being in the right place at the right time,"
Now it is way more important to be somewhat aggressive in your approach. Advertising on other websites, campaigning across social media, hitting up more conventions, being a part of your follower community.
It isn't about just landing a big break, and then you've got it made like it was 20, 30, or more years ago. The landscape of webcomics changes so much, and so quickly, that you have to be actively involved in everything.
You have to put a fuckton of work and time into it. And Watterson is saying these people are undeserving--or at the very least, less deserving--of being paid for their craft?
>>78678253 >>mfw old retards call young adults who are living through this hell "lazy"
Funny how when these guys were all twenty-something in the 70s and 80s talked about how much the previous generation was a bunch of fuckups and spent all the money, and how they were the ones who had to work hard and fix everything while barely being paid for it.
"I remember hearing that Bill Watterson attended a convention somewhere and announced beforehand that he would not grant any interviews or sign any autographs. I could not understand this attitude. Like it or not, this is a commercial industry we're in and it carries certain obligations. If you want to be a serious artist, then take up painting or something."
>>78678600 Sure was. Like he said in his last interview, "My life has been pretty depressing if you think about it. I mean, I'm 75 years old and the only thing I've ever accomplished in life was drawing a comic strip."
>>78678663 >Sure was. Like he said in his last interview, "My life has been pretty depressing if you think about it. I mean, I'm 75 years old and the only thing I've ever accomplished in life was drawing a comic strip."
That would be worse if Peanuts wasn't debatably the most memorable newspaper comic that ever existed.
Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown was also a metaphor for Schulz's relationship with his wife. Later on, when he had an affair and they got divorced, he drew a story where Snoopy dates a qt girl beagle.
Keep in mind, I am not talking necessarily about how "good" or "bad" these comics are, just how well known they are.
Peanuts, Garfield, and C&H would be in there. I think beyond that it'd probably Family Circus, and maybe Beetle Bailey.
Most people probably don't even know that Popeye was once a newspaper strip, even.
I don't really read too many newspaper comics anymore, but I remember actually reading somewhere that the only reason physical newspapers still even exist today is because old people (we're talking in the 70s, 80s) still always buy newspapers to read the comics with their morning coffee, or whatever.
That's why vapid shit like Garfield and Family Circus never changes, because these old people "love" the wholesome comics, and want them to stay the same way they were when they read them when they were kids.
>>78679225 >That's why vapid shit like Garfield and Family Circus never changes, because these old people "love" the wholesome comics, and want them to stay the same way they were when they read them when they were kids.
Err, Garfield started in the 70s. If you were a kid when it first came out, you'd be only in your 40s.
There is nothing wrong with having artistic integrity. The comic strip can be art as much as any other medium. Compare Calvin and Hobbes to that piece of shit Garfield. That's all Watterson is talking about, make something that's worth reading not some piece of shit that churns out senseless junk that idiots devour.
>>78679225 >but I remember actually reading somewhere that the only reason physical newspapers still even exist today is because old people (we're talking in the 70s, 80s) still always buy newspapers to read the comics with their morning coffee, or whatever
That's debatable. I mean, major papers like the NYT are in a different category all their own, but the typical small town newspaper doesn't seem as if it's targeted at anyone under retirement age. But I should also stress that this is a particularly American phenomenon and in the UK and other countries, papers are still very much relevant.
>>78679586 >The "For Better or For Worse" author told Schulz she was going to kill off the dog >Schulz threatened to have Snoopy be run over (not dead though) and have the strip run on the same day so it would be overshadowed
Can't tell if he was being a dick or he liked the dog too much
>>78679526 >There is nothing wrong with having artistic integrity.
I've always had mad respect for Watterson because of this. Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying it makes me lose a little respect when he can look down on other artists who only want to make a living wage off of their work, and say that they shouldn't be in it for any of the money.
If your art is good enough, you will make a living wage off of it. Do you ever think MAYBE the guys who makes Least I Could Do or Ctrl Alt Del don't exactly deserve to live off of their shitty, bland web comic? So many of these guys are now businessmen first and artists second.
If the shit you make is good, money will come to you. If the shit you make is bad and you have no integrity you will try to find alternate ways to make money off of it.
>>78681187 All those things you listed aren't "selling out" though. Toy Story does merch itself to hell, but not because of that.
Selling out is when you license other companies to use your character to boost their non-related sales. Putting Selling out is allowing Buzz and Woody to be on the boxes of Kraft's Mac n Cheese or Chef Boyardee Ravioli. It is NOT when you make cups and plushies and calendars and put your characters on it, because the company (In this case Pixar) is producing the merch, they aren't handing over their characters to someone else to do God knows what.
If this is the criteria, then the majority of stuff is not "selling out" and you guys are placing some false sense of integrity on an artist to make them out to be better than they actually are out of a faux principle. Gravity Falls doesn't sell out because, as far as I know, there aren't any Campbell's Soup cans with Dipper on it, or Old Navy commercials featuring Steven Universe, or Wander's face on every State Farm envelope.
>>78680765 Honestly, I don't know. I couldn't tell you, because a lot of people really DO whore their properties out. Whether by their own admission, or someone in a suit pulling the strings to make it so.
Are you telling me it would have killed Watterson, or made him a "sellout" to make a Hobbes plushie?
>>78681631 What I listed is exactly what selling out is. Squeezing every penny you can out of your IP regardless of quality, necessity or positive impact on those who are more susceptible to advertising (children).
As to your second point, literally pic related. Literally.
To your third point, you need to become successful before people start wanting to slap your shit on their product because they think they too can make a buck off of it. All of the IPs you mentioned already have stuff out at Newbury Comics and Hot Topic and the like. And as they become more successful you will see more.
"Selling out" is really just advertising when you get right down to it, drawing people to another, unrelated product because you can get some more money from them. Advertising is the devil's asshole.
I'm sorry but Toy Story specifically is one of the most heinous offenders of this type of thing.
Watterson hated finding his stuff being sold on e-bay. How do you think he would handle the collectors market for an ultra rare, only piece of merchandise ever made, Hobbes plushie? It would be worse than the Beanie Babies fad that made America throw up in it's collective mouth.
Watterson was a huge Peanuts fan as a kid and cited the strip as one of his three biggest influences along with Pogo and Krazy Kat.
And a lot of people will give Schulz shit because the 80s-90s strips were less edgy than the 50s stuff, but then it's not at all odd that he mellowed out with age and couldn't be the angry young man he was in 1955 forever. Each character represented a particular aspect of his personality and the strips reflected whatever he was feeling at the time. Yes, the 90s strips when he was over the age of 70 did become more reflective and introverted, as might be expected of an old man who knew he had fewer days ahead of him than behind him.
If you don't think advertising and the things that go along with it (shit television shows, shit movies, shit music) are harmful as a whole to society start thinking about the time television started infesting homes and the time society started turning to shit. Any chance there's a corellation?
You can be the best parent in the world but any under developed mind is still going to be susceptible to loud noises and bright colors.
>>78679838 Well, he did what he set out to do, regardless of if it was admirable or not. I don't mind that he's richer for it, he's put the work in. Nevermind that Garfield hasn't been funny for X amount of years, there's still a punchline in his comics at the very least.
>>78676182 Sadly that is what Calvin is known for to a lot of people these days. Some shitty redneck toon that shows off what car company they don't like on the back of old trucks next to a McCain 08' sticker.
>>78679134 Same, although I don't know why. The only Garfield stirrup strip I can remember laughing at was an early strip where Garfield ties a rope around him, leaps off a table, and scares Odie by screaming OOGA BOOGA.
I don't know, I guess I was amused at the fact that a notoriously lazy cat was willing to go through all that work just to be a dick.
>>78677372 This passage isn't even saying making money or wanting money is bad. It's about the calculus you make when balancing the necessities of life with your non-materialistic dreams. Elsewhere, he might have shit on people for trying to make a buck, but here he is cautioning people that there is rewarding and fulfilling work outside mindless advancing or even being in the usual workforce (ie. being a stay at home dad or a small time artist). These still have material benefits, but you've consciously made the choice to go without in order to allow for the time and freedom to do other things.
The important bit is to be able to recognize what you want out of life and how to achieve it, not simply discarding material or non-material paths.
You know what I find sad? That I don't think Jim Davis started cartooning, just drawing? whatever, because he wanted to make a shitzillion dollars. I think that just sorta happened. He found the golden goose.
And now he fucking hates that cat. It's the only thing he'll ever do, no one gives a shit about anything else he will ever do. And anyone with any sense knows Garfield is complete shit that's been repeating the same joke since the thrid strip, but he's stuck with it. He isn't actually talented enough to do anything better and he isn't creative enough to make anything else.
So he tells himself that he's fine a shit load of money. He says he's happy doing something he hates more than anything because he has literally nothing else. He is Garfield. A worthless sack of shit who people find mildly amusing, and if he ever stopped he'd fade completely into obscurity and probably hang himself as the interest in his merch slowly fades away.
>>78684656 It's not. Peanuts was a huge inspiration for Watterson and he had immense respect for Schulz. But this is /co/ so baseless bullshit is to be expected.
>The overwhelming commercial success of the strip often overshadows its artistic triumph, but throughout its 50-year run, Charles Schulz wrote and drew every panel himself, making his comic strip an extremely personal record of his thoughts. It was a model of artistic depth and integrity that left a deep impression on me.
more like Jim Davis, but to be fair to Davis he's said he went all in on licensing because he was dying of cancer so it didn't seem like a bad idea to do everything he could to get all he could out of his work before he died. he probably wouldn't have been so willing if he didn't think he'd be dead in a few years or less.
>>78688695 I feel more sad for the artists at Paws, Inc. A lot of them love their jobs and have been working there since back when Garfield still had decent tv specials and shows and some funny strips every now and then.
Now some of them are teachers at art schools because outside of Garfield they're incredible illustraters and cartoonists. That would be good if they didn't have to hear from every shithead student about how much their livelihood is a fucking stain on the newspaper comic scene and shouldn't have ever existed.
They have talent. They've done good work. Still get insulted constantly even if just by proxy. And by the very people they teach to even become decent at art.
>>78689762 That guy's still there. I got one of his Garfield drawings actually.
He stopped drawing them in class years earlier because nobody cared or they talked shit. He was sad that from now on there will never be any students old enough to remember when Garfield was half-decent.
What he wasn't sad enough was getting paid regularly. Even the tenure track don't pay like it used to anymore
Thread replies: 167 Thread images: 18
Thread DB ID: 361511
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.