>dude comics are stupid even though i myself make them lmao

>>93162594
The correct term is snob.

>>93162882
This
He would be a hack if his work was shit, as is he's just rude at worst
And it's not like he's ever owed anyone anything so that's not even a bad thing, based Bill

>>93162594

If anything, he'd fit right in here, because he mostly hated mainstream comics and constraints placed on artists by editors and stuff.

Although, it does sound like from certain sources he was kind of a dick at the end of the day, he was mostly just an eccentric weirdo like most artists are.

>>93162594
>Be Bill Watterson
>Make one of the most beloved newspaper strips of all time.
>Push the medium, never give in to advertisers or editors.
>End the comic exactly how you want to on your terms.
>Fuck off and live the rest of your life doing whatever the fuck you want.

Hack? More like genius.

>>93162594
What claim do you have to his time, labor or attention? If he wants to spend his retirement in solitude, that's his right; and you can just fuck off.

Calvin and Hobbes is fucking shit anyway

>integrity is a bad thing

I just feel bad for you if this is really what you think.

>93163146
(You)

Hack has a very specific meaning you can't just call everyone who's work is bad (or worse, someone who conducts themself in a way you don't like) a hack. Hacks are specifically people who have no passion for what they do despite working in a creative industry and intentionally create bog standard work meant to capitalize on the lowest common denominator and either have no vision or willingly compromise it for money. You might also call them sellouts or accuse them of phoning things in figuratively. A Chinese sweatshop of literary output, essentially.

>>93163251
That doesn't work, that means George Lucas isn't a hack.

>>93163289

George Lucas has no passion for his work.

I mean, look at him. He clearly doesn't know what to do anymore, no one talks back to him, so he's just like "whatever, I'll do this and that, man"

He could have sold some merch though....

>dude, cartoonists owe entitled asshole fans like me
This is the most cancerous fan attitude. If you're so sure that you're responsible for cartoonists' success then devote your money to something worthwhile like the Hero Initiative that makes sure artists who were chewed up and spat out by this garbage industry can at least afford hospice care before they die.

Cartoonists don't owe you shit. If anything, you still owe them more .

Also this triggered baby crying about anything negative ever being said about comics is pathetic. I'm sorry that not everyone who makes or reads comics is 100% YAY TEAM COMICS.

>>93163746
He is a guy with so much money he doesn't know what to do. If he was a guy with next to no money to his name and he was scrapping by to survive he'd have some passion in him.

For George he has no challenge, nothing worthwhile to do. Hence why he is so passionless. He probably hated every moment of making the prequels, and it became just a chore for him to accomplish. Since backing out would be a no go.

>>93162594
>too good to even talk to my fans

source

Waterson is a dick because he talk a lot of shit about other cartoonist

>>93162882
>>93162914
There is a point when you earn the right to give your opinion on a medium.

>>93163953
So you do think he's a hack. If he obviously hated every moment of creating, then he's a hack, no matter his circumstances.
It's not about the negative connotation, hack simply means a creator who either creates purely for financial compensation or otherwise creates entirely passionlessly

>>93162594
What put that hate in his heart?

File: 1479045885689.jpg (8KB, 225x207px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x207px

>>93163944
>wahwah stop criticizing muh billy

Protip: we don't owe him our unconditional praise either. Keep whiteknighting for him though, maybe he'll finally appear at a panel one day to give his fans the middle finger one last time.

>>93162594
Bill Watterson is the most intelligent content creator to have ever existed. He does not interact with a proven-worthless fanbase, he did not bend to corporate, he did not drag Calvin on for years and years and empty meaningless years.

Watterson has fucking balls, and I'm glad he's rude to entitled pigshits like you.

>>93164080
>maybe he'll finally appear at a panel one day to give his fans the middle finger one last time.

I sincerely hope he does, as a fan of his work. Why the fuck do I need to know him or hear anything from him to enjoy his work anyways? I don't want to know the guy or hear him. I want to read his shit and move on with other things in my life. The need for content creator validation is a sickness.

File: 9DD6joV.jpg (252KB, 1920x610px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1920x610px

>>93162594
any more of his post-C&H work?
1/3

>>93162994
this guy knows what's up.

Bill fought the good fight, and cashed out before he became the very thing he railed against.

File: imrs.gif (164KB, 980x308px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 980x308px

>>93164193
2/3

He, like most people, associated comic books as superhero comics. And he was right, C&H is on a whole other level than the average cape comic or even the higher tier ones. They lack the cartooning skill and sincerity C&H had.

>there will never be a Calvin and Hobbes animated show because the creator is an asshole

File: tumblr_n6t0xpjXgh1qewacoo3_1280.jpg (236KB, 1280x416px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1280x416px

>>93164208
3/3

>>93162594
How does Bill Watterson make money? Calvin and Hobbes probably made an okay-amount, but they never had TV shows, movies, plushies, etc. like the other big strips.

File: dougwinger.jpg (29KB, 220x247px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 220x247px

>>93162594
>Bill Watterson is a hack
No, Bill Watterson is Doug Winger.

>>93164209
Calvin & Hobbes is sort of like Achewood for me. Art with its own personality and hard dialogue work - it doesn't care about the dull fantastical, it wants to explore the human nature as it genuinely is.

>>93164220
Thank Christ.

creator isn't a hypocrite

ends the comic well, and on his own terms

WHAT A HACK

Calvin and Hobbes will always be the GOAT because it was always good and wasn't ruined by shitty toys, a shitty live action movie or some shitty cartoon.

>>93164283
Most /co/ users are slaves to corporate cock and would prefer an IP be driven to the ground just so they can trash it later on and complain about how good it used to be.

>>93163944
>>93164080
Moral of the story: Don't ever have strong feelings about anything, no matter what you do you're wrong and probably an autistic loser.

File: 1493382526494.png (492KB, 600x696px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 600x696px

>>93162594
>HOW DARE HE CALL MY GRITTY CAPE COMICS DUMB
>HOW DARE HE NOT SELL OUT TO CORPORATE COCK AND GIVE ME MY C&H ANIMATED SERIES AND MOOBIES WHICH I WOULD LATER COMPLAIN ABOUT ANYWAY
>HOW DARE HE NOT DRAG HIS COMIC FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND DRIVE IT'S APPEAL INTO THE GROUND DOESN'T HE KNOW THAT I PAY HIM (EXCEPT I DON'T) ?
>INTEGRITY IS FOR HACKS AND FRAUDS

Let me guess OP, are you the same guy who makes posts to complain about Calvin's parents ?

I wonder why he seemed to hate newspaper strip format but still made them, even when same time self-publishing was gaining popularity. I guess he just got the soft spot for it?

>>93164500
>Let me guess OP, are you the same guy who makes posts to complain about Calvin's parents ?
Calvin's parents are objectively terrible parents, though.

>>93164681
And yet, the comic survives and thrives despite your pointless opinion.

Steve Dikto is a hack

>Muh eternal butthurt

>>93163251
That's your own interpretation and it's bullshit. A hack is someone who does a good job by accident but makes it clear they have no idea of how to do it when they run out of luck. That's how everyone uses it, there's a world out there beyond the art/entertainment industry (or shitty website comments in your case).

>today's underage kids of /co/ literally think that they are entitled to celebrity gossip just because they exist
>"Why is he allowed to live a private life? I WANT TO READ HIS TWEETS"

>>93164739
>Comic survives and thrives
>It hasn't had a new strip in 22 years
Uh-oh...

File: sweating-gif.gif (471KB, 188x174px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 188x174px

>>93164229
thicc

Breathed is better.

>>93164851
This.

>>93162594

Calvin and Hobbes had some great moments but overall the comic was way too fucking preachy and tryhard. Always thought this guy was super overrated.

>>93164869
And yet, we have a thread about it. You are thinking about it, talking about it.

>>93164851
Again: Content addiction and the demand for validation from content creators is a sickness, and a pretty damn sad one at that.

>>93164249

The compilation books all sold a shit-ton. He's easily set for life.

He is essentially anonymous. He is a name and one or two pictures attached to a body of work. You criticize him, but he does not hear it. He has personal and political views, but you do not hear them. Except through his body of work. If that is not what you aspire to achieve then you have not grasped the point of the very board you stand on, Anon.

>>93164979
This.

>>93164912
This is not a good argument as this board talks about stupid and unimportant things that nobody else cares about every day. Not saying C&H is one of them but I hope you get my drift.

>>93163746
>I mean, look at him.
So you draw all these conclusions by *looking* at the guy? How superficial can you get??

>>93164080
>Protip: we don't owe him our unconditional praise either.
Nobody said that either. Your strawman makes an adequate bonfire.

>>93164203
>cashed out before he became the very thing he railed against
Meanwhile Garfield goes on and on and...

I do wish he wasn't, apparently, such a dick. Somebody post the quote by Charles M. Schulz about the time he refused to sign things.

>>93164979
>>93165002
Samefag trying too hard to be deep.

>>93165102
>someone mentions the concept of Anonymous
>some other asshole who doesn't get 4chan tries to identify a "samefag", defeating the purpose of Anonymous

Deepest lore.

>>93165079
Glad he didn't sign them. He doesn't need to sell out his name to people to get it passed around and resold a hundred times to collectors.

Has he sued the Zen pencils asshole yet for copying his style?

>>93165139
He's a fucking weird dickhead.

>>93165136
Hey freak, did it occur to you that a person might apply different standards of behavior to internet arguing than they do to interacting with people who made you rich?

File: charles-m-schulz-national-gallery-portrait.jpg (77KB, 956x640px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 956x640px

>>93165139
Well, yeah, but some people might keep them and cherish them.

And I brought up Schulz for another reason: because from Watterson's perspective he DID "sell out." There's a ton of Peanuts merchandise, Peanuts cartoons, all sorts of stuff. And yet I never see anyone claim that Schulz somehow lacks artistic integrity for it. It makes me think there's an argument to be made that you can commercialize and still produce art.

>>93165139

There was that old story about how Watterson used to go into local bookstores and secretly sign copies of C&H collections, but then he found out they started showing up on eBay, so he put a stop to that shit.

>>93165139
People really overestimate how much value signatures have beyond the sentimental.

Especially when the authenticity can't be 100% verified a signature often adds no value and may even lower it.

>>93164251
no Doug Winger is dead, Bill Watterson is still alive

>>93165184

Schulz is in the middle of the spectrum. Didn't go full mustache-twirling super villain slinking away with bags of money with dollar signs on them.

No, that was Jim Davis. Waterson was an eccentric weirdo hermit, Schulz was a down to Earth normal guy making a living, Davis was a huge Jew.

>>93164008
No, because a single person can only live a single experience. That doesn't give them the authority to have an absolute opinion anymore than Kate Leth, who is also in the comic book industry. He can only share his experience and thoughts on a single narrative which is a very lucky narrative at that. He is a rare story where he just happened to be successful without compromise and the majority of people are not given that privilege. That difference alone makes his opinion almost worthless because it's so inapplicable to most of the people who need to work for food or can't risk turning down jobs/contracts that others may deem as "sell out", especially in the era of "every young artist working has a $50k college debt on their back".

>>93164851
As someone who abhors social media but still wants to make it as a content creator I absolutely hate this mentality (even though social media is the way I can make it in the first place).

>>93162914
his work WAS shit

only pedos and furfags like it

>>93165311
This is fair.

>>93165335
This is just retard contrarianism.

>>93165355
this is not being a sheep ripe for slaughter

>>93162882
This. Although I would disagree with the OP about him not wanting to talk to fans, he doesn't owe a fan jack shit, they enjoyed his work, great, that is as far as it needs to go.

>>93165217
In many collections, signatures can actually hurt the value of the item because they're technically damaging the item.

>>93165396
>liking a 30 year old comic means you're "ripe for slaughter"

This board is getting worse every day.

>>93165463
Yep.

Really a signature only has value to you if it's a memento of meeting the artist or whoever. Not very many people want to buy someone else's mementos.

But there's a lot of speculators who think that market exists who are mostly just buying and selling amongst themselves.

>>93165462
There's a difference I think between not wanting to leave your house and talk to fans and you're already at a convention surrounded by fans and you refuse to talk to them.

I mean he's allowed every right, but it's pretty off-putting.

>>93165102
Cry us a river.

>>93162594
Hard to blame him for not wanting to spend time talking to the fandom, they're the worst.

>>93164936
Really says a lot about the quality of the comic when it can make bank like that on nothing but compilations.

>>93163251
hack2
hak/Submit
noun
noun: hack; plural noun: hacks
1.
a writer or journalist producing dull, unoriginal work.
"a hack scriptwriter"

By the definition of the word, you're wrong. Basically it's anyone who's making bad or uninspired work. This is regardlesss of vision or ideas put behind it. Typically used for creatives that have had a few outstanding things , and followed it up with dog shit.

>>93165250
Garfield had a quality run for over 20 years though, and now it's pushing 40. You don't go on for that long without running out of ideas when you do a daily strip.

>>93165704
>Bad or Uninspired work
thats a matter of personal taste.

>>93162594
>Does awesome work
>ends on his own term so he doesn't get stale
>turns down millions to follow his creative vision

This is the literal dictionary definition of the opposite of a hack

>>93165862
>Dictionary definition of hack a couple of posts up
>Still uses it incorrectly

Merchandising your work does not define what is and is not a hack.

>>93165885
Hack is not how you describe a master of his form. Call him a dick or a snob or whatever, but "hack" simply doesn't apply to one of the most respected artists in the history of comics

He only stopped actively talking to fans when they started deliberately seeking him out just to get an autograph that they would then sell online.

>>93165931
>le epic precocious child agrees with me le author on social issues!

Listen, I like Calvin and Hobbes. It's fun and entertaining. Mr Waterman is by no means a master of any form. This comic is so wildly overrated it's shocking and disturbing.

>>93162594
Is it really a terrible thing to commercialize on your creation?

Is that bad to see store merchandise of something you created? Stuffed animals and t-shirts of your own characters that kids like and then later get nostalgic for later in life?

What is wrong with that?

...assuming you do not go full Jim Davis and make slapping a character on literally anything and everything to the point of self parody.

>>93165991
No, it's capitalism at its finest and there's nothing wrong with that. Neither is anything wrong with deciding not to do so, and just leaving your work as it is without "selling out". Both are fine.

The only retards are fans who thinks a creator owes them anything.

>>93165991
>>93166166
I would fucking love to see something I came up with one day in a toy store. That something I created is now a piece of modern pop culture and people know what it is.

How that is horribly "selling out" I have no idea

>>93165991
You can merchandise yourself without being a sellout. Iron Maiden was one of the first bands to sell-t shirts at concerts, and they did it because ticket sales alone weren't enough to recoup the cost of putting on concerts with elaborate stage props and theatrical effects. They started merchandising Eddie the Head because it was good marketing. That's a far cry from someone like Gene Simmons or Hulk Hogan, who will lend their name to anyone who gives them twenty bucks.

>>93165991
>>93166166
There is nothing wrong with merchandising your work in a way that makes sense. Plushie Hobbes, Calvin & Hobbes flip books where they're dancing, basic stickers or keychains.

There is something, like you said, whorish about licensing your characters out to any company to use to slap onto soup cans, to advertise their insurance company, as a way to promote your gas-guzzler car when the message of your film is about saving the trees. You can merchandise your work while still retaining creative control over it. You don't need to go as far as allowing the Kraft company to use your characters to print on their box, because now it's not merchandising the characters, now the characters are merchandising Kraft Mac n Cheese.

File: watterson angouleme.jpg (112KB, 599x674px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 599x674px

>>93164193

>>93165974
You keep putting emphasis on "quality" like it's the most important part of the issue here. It's not. It's pretty good, better than average. That's not the point. The point is he made it in a dumb, trite medium (newspaper comics) doing it his way and making the strip he wanted to make, and ending it on his terms, and despite all of that still enjoyed insane popularity. It doesn't matter if you think the actual strip itself is "overrated". You can find a dozen webcomics right now with better quality that suit your special snowflake desires perfectly. Then you can find even more webcomics and tailor them more to your special snowflake desires and have them cast with furries or monster girls or whatever and it will be the highest "quality" comic strip you've ever read.

Watterson made it having to fight the newspaper system and dozens of editors and shit and still managed to reach a generation of people.

It's like saying Weird Al is overrated. It doesn't matter if you can find a thousand parody artists today who are better than he is, he did it at the right time and reached the right people so he became an icon and everyone respects him. It really doesn't matter if ParodyYoutubeArtist3829 with 80 views has better "quality".

>>93166249
>>93165991
Keep in mind a lot of people who are bitter about that sort of stuff and highly respect artists who "retain their integrity" are artists that had work taken from them or are not allowed to retain creative rights to their work. So the artists are mad and share their story and that gets the general audience mad and that idea of "integrity" kind of just forms.

Like how studios can just do whatever the fuck they want with Watchmen even if Alan Moore disagrees.
Or the mere existence of nuPPG.
Or how Alex Hirsch pushed for a GF box set for a long time and Disney said no, that it wasn't worth it.
Or how Brenda Chapman wrote Brave built around her entire experiences with her mother, was pushed off as director, then Disney turned Merida into a glamorous princess for their toy line.
The entire Lorax hypocrisy that happened. And in fact most of the shit adaptations that happened with Seuss stories.

And so forth. That's just some stories people hear that make artists and consumers alike go, "Fuck studios". It's not bad, it just has a bad reputation because it's rarely JK Rowling scenario where WB literally can't do shit without her approval.

File: jakethedoge.gif (870KB, 221x174px) Image search: [Google]

870KB, 221x174px

>>93164229
Comedy gold.

File: ugh.png (3MB, 982x4075px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 982x4075px

>>93164851
That's what happens when we let /v/irgins in here. They're addicted to e-celeb drama and twitter feeds

>>93166497
Yea but a lot of that is working and creating for another major company. Most of these examples being Disney.

And anyone who makes anything for Disney automatically turns over all rights to Disney to do with as they please regardless of the creator's intention. And they are notorious for firing a director mid-production and altering a film. Same shit happened with Bolt, Emperor's New Groove, even Lassiter should be lucky he got to finish Toy Story 2 with his own story. Of course that also came with a very lengthy and expensive legal battle.

>>93164080
nice strawman (You)

>>93166699
Aside from newspaper comics which I honestly don't know how the publication works, most creatives will be working for a company. It's only been until very recently like, the last five years or so, where making money for yourself just by posting online was even a "thing". And I mean beyond commissions of course.

Homestar Runner used to be an amazing anomaly that has now become kind pretty normalized and a path that a lot of artists take. Problem is it's still heavily in its infancy and there really isn't a much better method than Kickstarter and Patreons which still has very flawed models. Another problem is so many people wanting to jump on the e-money bandwagon and now making a web comic has become heavily oversaturated. Even porn artists is verging on over saturation.

>>93165049
>Meanwhile Garfield goes on and on and...

Garfield is a poor example, as Davis had every intention of selling out as hard as he could. In that sense, Davis remained true to himself, just like Watterson.

>>93166908
Jim Davis is to OwlTurd what Watterson is to Nedroid.

>>93166926
what an awful comparison

>>93165974
I grew up reading newspaper comics every single damn day and after going back and re-evaluating them, Calvin & Hobbes is the only one that aged well and appealed to me as an adult and not just a dumb kid. There have probably been better newspaper comics out there, but C&H is easily the best one that was created in my lifetime. Can you think of a better widely syndicated newspaper comic that started in the 1980s or later that is better than Watterson's work? I can't think of a single one.

>>93162924
He was a dick for a time because he had some sort of issues going on. Even his own father (apparently a minor celebrity/politician in his own hometown) noted the guy would go way beyond the pale for a dude who just wanted his own privacy. He got over it. He's better now.

>>93164193
He sneaks shit in to the current run of Bloom County from time to time. Usually single panels. I want to say one was a Cutter John/Starship Enterpoop one. He and Breathed are apparently best bros.

File: 1493774697440.jpg (61KB, 368x368px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 368x368px

>>93165250

>>93165744
The Garfield comic was never quality. It's been the same shitty jokes for over 4 decades now. It's easy to digest and marketable, which is why you and I liked it as 80s children.

I will call the cartoon legitimately good though.

>>93166672
Well what do you expect? Most /v/irgins are also underageb&s. Ironically, we, the cartoon and comics, board, are much less appealing to today's youngsters than discussion about the latest trendy FPS.

>>93170512
Whoa slow down there friend. At least half of /co/ is underageb& too, based on how many Star Vs or Steven Universe threads are going at any given moment.