• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    136
    ·
    10 months ago

    You know what I love most about Bill Watterson, even more than his absolute genius at comics and amazing insight? The fact that he was never interested on making a bajillion dollars through merchandising. He was regularly offered to have companies make everything from plush Hobbes toys to Saturday morning cartoons and he turned them all down. He could have been as rich as Jim Davis (net worth $5.8 billion) but he cared about Calvin and Hobbes too much. And then, one day, he decided he didn’t want to do it anymore before it got stale. So he quit.

    So much respect for that guy.

    Incidentally, a book just came out that he did the illustrations for. I haven’t read it myself.

    https://publishing.andrewsmcmeel.com/book/the-mysteries/

    • Maeve@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      10 months ago

      You’re right; he wasn’t greedy, so Calvin and Hobbes stayed pure. That’s why it never got yucky. Glad to know about the new book. Thanks for the head’s up!

    • boyi@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      10 months ago

      Jim Davis (net worth $5.8 billion)

      Where did you get this figure? I can only find sources with figure about $800 million.

    • jayandp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      offered to have companies make everything from plush Hobbes toys

      Admit it though, we all would have wanted a Hobbes plushy.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        10 months ago

        All the more reason I respect him. He cared how he wanted his characters to be used even at the expense of what who knows how many other people wanted.

        • Rob T Firefly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          10 months ago

          Also it would have defeated the purpose of the story. Hobbes was a generic tiger doll, not anything magical or secret in itself. The point was that Calvin’s wild imagination brought Hobbes and everything else in his fantasies to vivid life, and selling an “official” Hobbes doll would have flown in the face of that. The heart and soul of Watterson’s story suggests that any kid could have their own Hobbes-style adventures with any toy they happened to have and love and give life, not that they needed their parents to buy them the “real” Hobbes.

    • ditty
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think of this every time I see a pickup with a window decal of Calvin peeing on the opposing truck Brand’s logo. They are so common and all unauthorized usage! Also it’s way more childish than Calvin would ever do.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      This is why I proudly have Stupendous Man tattooed on my body. The comic had such a profound role in my childhood. It’s an honor to have such a special character on my skin, along with other important reminders of who I am as a person. Watterson is a hero for expanding the meaning of imagination.

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I feel like that’s the kind of commodification Watterson would have frowned upon.

        • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          A tattoo is not an example of commodification at all. It’s a piece of artwork, not a mass-produced plushie toy.

          • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yes it is. He went and paid for a licensed image for which he did not have the rights, with the intention of displaying it to society.

            That’s the epitome of commodification.

            The idea that tattoos are personal and therefore don’t count as commodities is bogus. Personal effects are still very much commodities.

            If Watterson didn’t want Calvin and Hobbes on a t shirt or a coffee mug, why would you think he wants it on a tattoo?

            • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              Because a tattoo is created by a tattoo artist, a skilled worker who is paid (relatively) well. A tattoo is unique and cannot be duplicated or resold.

              A T-shirt and coffee mug are manufactured in a sweatshop by a multinational corporation, and have no inherent value beyond the value of the IP itself.

              It’s the difference between having a personal appreciation for Watterson’s comics, and exploiting their value to sell useless junk. Do you honestly think Watterson would be upset about a long time fan getting a tattoo of Calvin? I highly doubt it.

      • Rob T Firefly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

        Which is an old use of “simp,” far predating the modern online slang. “Simp” short for “simpleton” was being thrown around school playgrounds in the early 1980s to my knowledge, maybe earlier than that.

      • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Isn’t that the modern meaning of it as well? You’d have to be a simpleton to donate money to a titty streamer.

    • moistclump@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t disagree with the premise of the article, just feels out of touch to slap as a comment on a 25+ year old comic about 6 year olds. There’s plenty of comments from current people on a forum like this calling eachother morons that you could respond with an article like that.

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      In your opinion should this comic be removed from fediverse circulation, so to speak, or should it only be posted with a disclaimer?