Posted on 10/22/2005 10:27:04 PM PDT by Charles Henrickson
He looks like Calvin's dad, but with a mustache!
Another thing that I admire about him is that he really stuck to his guns when it came to what he considered his artistic integrity. He didn't allow merchandise, didn't allow his strip to go on after the felt it was finished, and held fast on the way his Sunday strip was to be published.
I always liked the strips where the family car was falling off a mountain... with the last panel showing Calvin holding a Matchbox-sized car.
Thank you.
I notice that the "you don't get it" defense tends to sprout up when people are trying to defend something trite as being a work of high art. They can never actually tell you what you're not getting, and they demand that you spend 20-30 hours of your life watching/reading it before you may dare comment on it.
Mr. Watterson apparently decided that he had acquired sufficient money to live a life doing what he wants to do as he wants to do it. Likely his income was invested well and provides him well. I saw no reference to wife and/or progeny. Perhaps there is no one to leave it all to. That is certainly not how I would proceed in such circumstances but I certainly understand and appreciate it. By not allowing further commercialization he leaves his strip untrivialized (understanding here the inherent triviality of a comic strip)and now somewhat legendary.
There isn't a single creator. They're bootlegged by a lot of different people that have small presses, and sold independently. Since Calvin's not marketed with the dolls, stickers, etc., it doesn't really hurt anyone economically, so there's not a lot of incentive for the legal copyright owners to try and shut them down. There have been a few cases where Calvin stickers have been confiscated from auto shops, but it's been half-hearted enforcement, at best.
Oh, I forgot Baby Blues. Wonderful strip!
I never saw that one. Pretty good.
Yup. Life's too short to spend 6 months finding out how Shakespearian a juvenile comic strip is.
I've got better things to do with my time.
You may be on to something.
The correct response, apparently, is to bow down in obeisance and to graciously and profusely thank him for opening up your puny, little, narrow mind to something as wonderful, awe-inspiring and life-changing as the work of genius that is Achewood.
Personally, I'm still with you. Achewood ranks right down there with Nancy and Sluggo.
Is contrived "humour" funny if it does not make you laugh ... ?
Yep Danae is one funny little kid......
May I politely ask that we give the Achewood bashing/Achewood promotion bit a rest?
One element of comedy is our familiarity with it, our comfort level. Lines like Steve Martin/Dan Akroyds We are two wild and crazy guys!, Jackie Gleasons One of these days, Alice . . . bang! zip! pow! To the moon, Alice!, Don Adams Would you believe . . . , or Bill Danas My name Jose Jiminez, arent funny the first time we hear them but become funny because of their association to funny things we've seen in the past. Three of those (all except would you believe . . . , in context) arent remotely funny on their own, yet people laugh when those lines are merely uttered.
Im guessing one of the hardest things for a comic strip writer to do is to preserve the familiarity of the characters without getting into a rut.
With Calvin, you knew to expect a selfish little boy, fond of all things disturbed and gross, with an amazing sense of imagination, and the ability to state things with an awareness beyond his years without actually being aware of whatever it was he stated (if that makes sense). There were repetitive themes, like the snowmen, but as a whole Bill Watterson wrote Calvin & Hobbs in a way where you know what to expect but didnt know exactly what you were going to get. The same was true with The Far Side, Peanuts, etc.
Sometimes, a creator seems to get bogged down and preserves the familiarity of a character to such an extent that he/she cant seem to create new jokes. Cathy, to me, is an example. It seems like each joke is either about (a) new womens fashions, (b) Cathys desire to eat food without gaining weight, or (b) how men and women think differently. Garfield, to me, is always about (a) eating lasagna, (b) sleeping late, (c) making fun of a dumb dog, (d) bothering a spider, or (e) making fun of Jons lack of a love life.
With Calvin & Hobbs, I knew what to expect but was always surprised. With Cathy and Garfield, I knew was to expect and was rarely surprised. Does that make sense?
As I stated above, we all have a distinct sense of humor, and the fact you may find Garfield (or even Nancy & Sluggo) funny does not make you any better or worse than me. It just makes you different.
I tried the Achewood test, reading several months. I noted some inconsistency on the part of the cartoonist he doesnt know exactly what kind of comic strip he intends to draw, because the direction the jokes go is all over the map. Some of the strips were funny (to me) on their own merit. A couple of the strips were VERY funny (to me). I dont care who draws it, the following strip (Im paraphrasing) was funny to me:
What did you give John for his birthday?
A short respite on his journey to the grave.
Oh. I gave him an Etch-A-Sketch.
I thought it was great and can see it, slightly re-worded, as an exchange between Suzy and Calvin, or Charlie Brown and Linus Van Pelt (or Peppermint Patty and Marcie). My wife didnt see the humor at all.
Some of the Achewood strips were puzzling. Many of the jokes are the we are two wild and crazy guys jokes, where you are required to know the characters and be familiar with the repeated use of lines to find the humor, if any, in the strip. Thats not unique to Achewood. Garfields lasagna jokes are (ostensibly) funnier because you know Garfield likes lasagna. Calvins tormenting of Susie is funnier if youve read a dozen strips on the same subject. The same holds true for Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown.
I dont think Turbopilots trying to be like the elitist artists, trying to convince you that the reason you dont see that the single blue brushstroke represents mans inhumanity to man is because youre not intellectual or sensitive enough. My guess is he shared something he thought was funny and realized was an acquired taste. Its just a case that ONE element of SOME humor is familiarity, hence the need for the acquired taste.
I think the whole Achewood discussion has gotten out of hand. As a Freeper, Ill defend your right to continue bashing or promoting Achewood, but I would politely suggest you either read and enjoy it or ignore it.
All in all, I think most of us miss Bill Watterson and Gary Larson, who drew comics were you always knew what to expect, but were always surprised and never disappointed by the quality.
I don't remember the Kimba/Simba lawsuit, but Calvin and Hobbes are almost certainly trademarked properties (if not the publishers are idiots); since the works are still in print, the trademarks should still be active. The design of the "whiz kid" is certainly such that an ordinary person familiar with Calvin and Hobbes would recognize it as Calvin. I'm not familiar with the "Kimba/Simba" lawsuit, but I would guess the issue there is whether the character design in "The Lion King" was sufficiently distinctive as to render it trademarkable. Calvin certainly should be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.