Why was he so based? >rejects money >quit his comic when

people forget the doonesbury-tier political nonsense that went on in a lot of sequences

>you will never write a brilliant comic strip, then make millions of dollars and millions of fans then live a quiet hermit life in Cleveland

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.

>>78676182
I unironically don't enjoy Calvin and Hobbes

He's one of the last bastions of genuine artistic integrity.

>>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.

File: Thats your opinion.jpg (113KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1280x720px

>>78676406
That's fine. I absolutely love it but I could see how his over philosophical and political writing can deter some people.

>>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"?

>>78676374
>Still it's a real shame he no longer fills the need to draw or write
He makes a few public things every now and then
But not many

>>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.

>>78676226
But it was toned down because Calvin was just a child, speaking a child-like POV, nothing incredibly groundbreaking or profound, just a conversation between two opposing or differing views

>>78676374
>Still it's a real shame he no longer fills the need to draw or write.
Didn't he do a guest strip for Pearls Before Swine a few years back?

File: B1r_fd5CQAAouB3.jpg (86KB, 599x564px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 599x564px

> receive the Grand Prix from Angoulême
> don't bother going

At least he made a new comic for them

>>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)

>>78676680
I liked that two out of three of the nominees that year were those who were unlikely to go there to accept the award.

>>78676182
>rejects money
>millionaire
do I have to say it?

>Booo merchandising! Money is Evil. Buy this limited edition anniversary book of 90 comics you've seen a hundred times. Yay me!!!

>>78676927
Even rich men rarely turn their nose up at MORE money. Just because you'd be satisfied having all that dumped on your lap doesn't mean someone who clawed their way there would be.

>>78676374
its weird how that didnt stop him from releasing new books all the time.

>>78676471

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?"

>>78676445
>I like this guy because he tells poor artists not to earn money while being rich.

>>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).

File: 438eaf90dec30131719a005056a9545d.gif (48KB, 600x195px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x195px

>>78676964
Someone's testy.

Did your wife's son record over your television show?

>>78677016
there's a difference between merchandising and selling new content

>>78676981
except he tells artists with NO money that if they try to get ANY money they're selling their souls.

It's the classic "no one can be rich but me" attitude that wealthy pinkos have.

>>78677099
Those artists with no money are that way for a reason.

They're in it to get rich. To Bill it was a bonus. Just stop trying to skew the topic anon.

>>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"

>>78676542
It's not everyone's fault Watterson created an iconic as fuck character and then didn't let anyone do anything with it.
Imagine if kids couldn't have Superman and Batman toys?

>>78677099
>>78676927
>>78676964

citation needed

>>78677178
>Look at me guys, I'm an expert on the comic strip business!

>>78677172
>They're in it to get rich. To Bill it was a bonus. Just stop trying to skew the topic anon.

So by that logic, when Bill Waterson was just starting out, he was only in it to get rich?

Maybe there are other artists who also just want to put out content for the content's sake?

There's really nothing wrong with at the very least wanting to actually make a living off of, you know, the work you you do.

You're the one skewing things.

>>78677172
Bill Watterson is filthy rich off his book sales.

He just didn't sell out because he has class.

It's something that jealous poorfags can't understand.

>>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.

The only way C&H would be animated is if Watterson did every frame himself.

>>78677036
>If it's animated and they put in a transformation sequence, , it damages the duality the strip depends on for its charm.

They don't have to show him transforming, Just do the same thing the comics did.

File: watterson_advice_large.jpg (2MB, 980x8097px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 980x8097px

>>78677225

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.

File: Untitleduuuu.png (227KB, 446x338px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 446x338px

>tfw you will never own a Hobbes plushie.

But it's okay. I know why he made he decision not to allow people to make merchandise of the comic. I prefer Calvin and Hobbes the way they are and not as "That kid and the tiger from the T shirts."

>>78677099
Not really. He drew strips for Stephan Pastis, who is FAR from above merchandising his strip.

>>78677372
He didn't draw that

>>78677393
Well, you can always commission someone that makes plushies. There are some really skilled people you may be able to find on Deviant Art.

>>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.

Nowhere did Watterson say money is evil in that.

>>78677372
That's fucking Zen Pencils.

Gtfotbqhf

>>78677544
And since Watterson didn't draw it, it's another artist's interpretation of what he meant

>>78676317

>make millions of dollars

lol no

>>78677612
He's not JD Salinger, anon.

>>78677535
So you're saying you should sell out?

>>78677791
No one works for anything anymore, anon.

Bill is a rare breed.

>>78677372
So you're saying that
>>78677099
>>78676927
>>78676964
Based their knowledge of a Zen Pencils comic that might've taken the quote out of context?

>>78676182
One of the most pretentious pieces of shit you'll have the fortune of never meeting because he's too busy stinking up some hermit log cabin.

>>78677535

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?

>>78676182
>everyone is scum and I'm not
>money is the devil

He's a socialist faggot who was a very tiny but significant part of the wave of pop culture the current generation romanticizes because it appeals to their nostalgia.

Basically you can say Watterson's toons were influential on the current generation becoming lazy manchildren who can't into responsibility.

File: 4fd.png (305KB, 601x698px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 601x698px

I'm just baffled by the fact that he never did any projects after CnH.
Perhaps he didn't want to live up the previous's success. Maybe he just didn't want to be hounded by businessmen.

But as far as we know he stopped writing and drawing almost completely. How do you do that as an artist?

>>78678149
Because he made money and didn't need to work anymore.

>>78678149
There were stories that he used to hide drawings inside books at his local public library.
That was until he found out they all ended up on e-bay.

>>78677921
Welcome to the world of old rich white men. They were the only ones who worked hard and are the only ones who deserve to be paid. Fuck everyone else.

>mfw you can work 80 hours a week in this economy and still not be able to afford a house
>mfw old retards call young adults who are living through this hell "lazy"

>>78676317
Just you wait, motherfucker.

>>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.

>>78678149
What if he's been working on his masterpiece this whole time?

File: 1451050481364.jpg (55KB, 444x490px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 444x490px

>>78678422
Don't raise my hopes, anon. I've been hurt before.

"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."

-- Charles Schulz

>>78678189
He used to sign his books in the local bookstore until he found out they ended up on eBay.

>>78678527
Besides the artistic integrity thing, he's probably /r9k/ incarnate.

>>78678569
Charles Schulz was real life Charlie Brown which is pretty much just as bad

>>78678569
He is/was married though.

>>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."

>>78677201
>Imagine if kids couldn't have Superman and Batman toys?

They would probably read the comics instead.

>>78678658
And has at least one child, but that was after he retired.

>>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.

>>78678788
What about Garfield? :^)

>>78678838

As vapid as Garfield is, it is still sadly probably at least in the top 3 or top 5.

>>78676182
He had the talent to do that.

>>78678149
He probably still draws for his wife or something.

>>78678944
>top 5

>Peanuts
>Garfield
>Calvin and Hobbes

What are the other two? Hagar? Beetle Bailey?

I'd put Popeye on there but he's been better known for his cartoons for a long time, while despite the mountains of merchandise everyone still knows Garfield and Peanuts are comics.

>C&H will become public domain one day and be ruined by movies and merchandise.

oh nooooo

>>78679090
We won't be around so it's fine

I was the biggest Garfield fanatic as a kid you could find anywhere.

>>78679134
Early Garfield was alright

It's when he stopped walking on all fours that he lost his charm and became a Looney Tune lite.

>>78679077
Other possibilities:
Blondie
The Far Side
Dennis the Menace
Doonesbury

>>78679090
Not with Disney consonantly pushing public domain dates back.

>>78678149
Its not that he's stop working on artistic pieces. Its just that he's stop selling/publishing them. I remember reading that he likes to spend his days painting landscapes.

>>78679077

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.

>>78679185
>I remember reading that he likes to spend his days painting landscapes

Well then he seems to have taken up Schulz's suggestion. :^)

>>78679090
All of us will be long, long dead.

>>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.

>>78679171
>Blondie

It is sort of surreal to see 1930s etc. strips still alive. For so many the funny pages are like a time stasis chamber.

>>78679262

Well, yes. I know that, but you know how old people love cats, so they love them some Garfield.

>>78678149
He's done other projects; mostly short subjects.

>>78677372
>Zen Pencils making a quote they know nothing about into a comic
Par for the course then.

>>78676374

He did it for the art, and he has my eternal admiration and respect for that alone.

>>78679338
One of Watterson's pet peeves was strips like Blondie that go on long after the original creator is dead.

>>78677043
>>78677099
>>78677283


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.

File: calvin1.jpg (12KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 320x240px

I know about the bootleg pissing decals, but this is new.

File: 1259340821503.jpg (90KB, 550x387px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 550x387px

>>78678527

Like I'm going to listen to Charles fucking Schultz.

>>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

>>78678810

>>78679586
I like that he wasn't a saint, makes him more relatable. He's a real guy not Superman

>>78677372
That comic seems to describe Scott Adams's life more than Watterson's desu.

>>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

>>78679586
Can't be worse than Jim Davis the fat manchild who says he only got into the business to get rich and sell bazillions of coffee mugs.

>>78679677

Well of course you'd say that, you're a no good punk with an axe to grind.

>>78679815
He liked the dog too much and he was particularly grumpy. He didn't do it, anyway.

>>78679134
K Ben.

>>78679927
>grumpy

So he was not only Charlie Brown but Lucy too?

>>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 any of that is even true at all, of course.

>>78677839
No, you can't flip flop between "Only the old climate allowed for the success Watterson had" and "Watterson only made it because he worked hard.

>>78677016
>that didnt stop him from releasing new books all the time

But that's his unadulterated creation. It's exactly what he wanted people to see. It's his art.

Plushies, stickers, tea cozies, dildos, mudflaps, commemorative plates, etc. are not his art. He didn't create them. They're merchandise.

>>78680100

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.

>>78680499

I mean, not all the time. Sometimes very good artists languish in obscurity. It takes a bit of luck too.

File: 1433021229983.jpg (227KB, 718x720px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 718x720px

>>78676182
>rejects money
>based
The word you're looking for is 'retarded'.

>>78680499
>If your art is good enough, you will make a living wage off of it.

That's not even part of the discussion, though.

The discussion is a guy condoning people for wanting to make money off their comic.

I get and respect that he wanted to keep his work "pure" and not whore his creation out by slapping its images all over everything just for a few bucks here and there.

But at the same time, making a few little pieces of merchandise here or there isn't the end of the world.

There is a grey area here, because Bill Watterson is sort of on one end of the extreme, whereas other people like Jim Davis are on the polar opposite end.

You can fall somewhere in the middle and not be a soulless sellout toward your IP.

File: transformation_by_vivzmind-d7e9psw.png (1MB, 1280x548px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x548px

>>78680499
>If the shit you make can be easily consumed by simple-minded fanbases who have no concept of artistic or storytelling skill, money will come to you.
See also: Homestuck.

>>78680699

Show me an example of a IP with that perfect level of licensing.

(Protip: You can't.)

>>78680765
Toy Story.

File: 1451747862763.jpg (22KB, 640x358px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 640x358px

>>78680733
hot

>>78680920

Terribly licensed games, tons of toys, happy meals, clothing lines, awful children's halloween costumes, shitty spin off children's cartoon.

Need I go on? Try again.

>>78680920
4.

File: 1427072503548.jpg (43KB, 620x470px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 620x470px

There's a difference between desiring a living wage and having a materialistic world view.

>>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.

>>78677393
Make your own bro. It'll have twice the heart and meaning.

Tutorial: http://www.instructables.com/id/Stuffed-Hobbes-with-pattern/?ALLSTEPS

>>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?

>>78676182
Why hasn't he done OTHER great things after that?

>>78676360
Who is the character in the money pile meant to be? Just sellout creators in general?

File: TSnewmac.jpg (103KB, 768x576px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 768x576px

>>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.

I can't take it seriously because it boils down to "I want my toy"

>>78681797

Selling out is a very slippery slope.

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.

>>78678681
Or they'd make their own.

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.

>>78682008
gasp, susceptible to advertising!! we must protect the children from this MENACE!

or yknow we could just be parents and teach them not to trust advertising

>>78683959

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.

>>78681894
Charles Schulz.

I don't get why he doesn't just sell out and donate his proceeds to charity.

File: 517468.1.jpg (136KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 600x900px

>Guy makes a comic, finds enough success with it to live comfortably for the rest of his life, decides there's no reason to milk it to death and retires when he feels the strip has run its course

>People spend the next 20 years arguing over what it means to sell out and whether or not he's a judgmental prick

We all need to better ourselves

>>78684656

Talking shit about Charles Schulz is a big fat punch in the mouth

>>78679586
Consider yourself lucky son that Schulz is already dead. His mofo ass was there during the D-Day landings.

Granted he was in a reserves core during the whole of the war and didn't see much action

>>78679838

Jim Davis escapes any ire on the KISS Clause. If you're upfront and honest about the fact that you're only in your business to milk every last cent out of it, I can't get mad at you for doing so.

>>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.

Bill Watterson On Jim Davis

>Watterson: Uh...Garfield is...(long pause)...consistent.

>Christie: Ooo-kay...

>Watterson: U.S. Acres I think is an abomination.

>Christie: Never seen it.

>Watterson: Lucky you. Jim Davis has his factory in Indiana cranking out this strip about a pig on a farm. I find it an insult to the intelligence, though it's very successful.

Rest of the interview: http://bob.bigw.org/ch/interview.html

>>78678944
I actually wonder if Watterson is just going insane in his crusade to be as not like Garfield as possible.

That series is probably the worst in appearing in all media all the time everywhere until people are just sick of seeing it.

>>78680765
Someone listed Harry Potter as a pretty good example earlier ITT, but it did have some shitty shovelware games so idk

>>78679838
>fat manchild
>who says he only got into the business to get rich and sell bazillions of coffee mugs.
That sounds like the complete opposite of manchild behaviour

>>78677544
No, the dino figures are the other interests

Bill Watterson is great because he set out to do something and achieved it and quit while he was ahead. All the arguments about money aside that alone already makes him pretty damn great.

>>78677612

He had to make a few millions. He actually is probably worth more than Salinger just by volume of sales since Salinger only really has short stories and Catcher in the Rye.

>>78678527
I would LOVE to see some fine art by Bill Waterson.

Imagine a beautiful giant watercolor painting of T-Rexs dogfighting.

>>78677433
No fucking shit, it's a goddamned tribute.

>>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.

File: 1325295198000.png (6KB, 493x402px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 493x402px

Who fucking care what the "honorable" retard thinks?
When he dies his work will belong to no one, a big company will buy C&H or it will fall to public domain and that's a fate worse than selling out.

>>78679090
what about that bumper sticker? You know the one.

>>78688185
We do. This is /co/, nice to meet you.

>>78679586
>Charlie Brown labeled as "Charlie Brown"

>>78688185
He'll be dead so what does he care

>>78688302
That's what happens when no one controls the merchandice.

I was expecting bootlog Hobbes dolls. I don't think anyone expected Calvin pissing decals would be the smash hit.

>>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.

>>78679838

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.

I think that's why Jim Davis is such an asshole.

>>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.

>>78688520
If I remember right, the rights will fall to his family for at least 70years depending on the copyright laws at the time, 70years after death I mean.

>>78684656

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.

Yikes. Just yikes.

>>78689684
one was my teacher at ringling several years ago. awesome guy and was super into garfield and drawing him at the end of class which was sad kinda because nobody really cared lol.

>>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