3 ms·

I love Calvin and Hobbes, and respect Bill Watterson but the following just is not true: "Watterson sacrificed millions (probably hundreds of millions) of dolla

I love Calvin and Hobbes, and respect Bill Watterson but the following just is not true: "Watterson sacrificed millions (probably hundreds of millions) of dollars by never licensing and merchandising Calvin and Hobbes." Sure, you cannot buy a licensed mug with Hobbes on it like you can with Garfield or Snoopy, but Watterson has surely made millions on the many book collections of his work. And book volumes are certainly merchandising. Absolutely, he has given up the lucrative money that other cartoonists like Jim Davis have achieved by licensing/merchandising anything/anyhow, and still more by ending the comic after 'only' 10 years, but it's probably an easier decision to forgo the tackiness when the books have done as well as they have.

breadbox 13y ago
Watterson has surely made millions on the many book collections of his work. Sure, but that hardly invalidates the fact that merchandising can bring in an order of magnitude more money. It may be salient to point out that Watterson made plenty of money, but I have no doubt that he had the opportunity to make Schulzean levels of money, easily. Hell, I hate merchandising and even I would have bought a stuffed Hobbes.
aculver 13y ago
No. Book volumes are not certainly merchandising. Book volumes are selling his work, which was amazing. His argument against the licensing (as I understand it) was that letting other people license it and create derivative works (e.g. mugs, shirts, and other merchandise) would dilute the integrity of Calvin and Hobbes by removing them from their context in his work. This was something he had to fight for and I'm glad he did, because his work maintains the same potency and impact it had originally, having not been diluted by cheap merchandising over time. This is truly remarkable. Unlike almost every other cartoon or comic character ever, there are no "good old days" or "golden years" with Calvin and Hobbes. There's just Calvin and Hobbes. 10 years of amazing work, and nothing else.
- bluedino 13y ago
  Unfortunately, it's so easy to print whatever the heck you want on a t shirt or a cup or sticker, so there's plenty of cheap C&H merchandise out there.
  - Refefer 13y ago
    For me, knowing they are unsanctioned keeps the memories of reading calvin and hobbes completely pure: this isn't them as they were intended to be, but bastardized facsimiles for the purpose commercial gain. It's somewhat poignant; there were many a C&H comic concerning the evils of advertising and marketing - to see subject to it as well completes the message quit succinctly.
graeme 13y ago
I don't think you're interpreting the claim correctly. Someone can be a millionaire and sacrifice the opportunity to earn ADDITIONAL millions. That's what watterson did. Merchabdising, in context, meant making a line of merchandise based on the comic street. This is a standard meaning in the comic world.
SeanLuke 13y ago
> And book volumes are certainly merchandising Certainly not. Merchandising refers to income from products outside of the presentation of the art itself. Movies have box office receipts, television payments for rebroadcasting, and merchandising rights (figurines, happy meals, use of likeness in unrelated advertising, etc.). Under your novel definition, television payments would be merchandising. You'd be alone in that definition.

breadbox 13y ago

Watterson has surely made millions on the many book collections of his work. Sure, but that hardly invalidates the fact that merchandising can bring in an order of magnitude more money. It may be salient to point out that Watterson made plenty of money, but I have no doubt that he had the opportunity to make Schulzean levels of money, easily. Hell, I hate merchandising and even I would have bought a stuffed Hobbes.

aculver 13y ago

No. Book volumes are not certainly merchandising. Book volumes are selling his work, which was amazing. His argument against the licensing (as I understand it) was that letting other people license it and create derivative works (e.g. mugs, shirts, and other merchandise) would dilute the integrity of Calvin and Hobbes by removing them from their context in his work. This was something he had to fight for and I'm glad he did, because his work maintains the same potency and impact it had originally, having not been diluted by cheap merchandising over time. This is truly remarkable. Unlike almost every other cartoon or comic character ever, there are no "good old days" or "golden years" with Calvin and Hobbes. There's just Calvin and Hobbes. 10 years of amazing work, and nothing else.

bluedino 13y ago
Unfortunately, it's so easy to print whatever the heck you want on a t shirt or a cup or sticker, so there's plenty of cheap C&H merchandise out there.
- Refefer 13y ago
  For me, knowing they are unsanctioned keeps the memories of reading calvin and hobbes completely pure: this isn't them as they were intended to be, but bastardized facsimiles for the purpose commercial gain. It's somewhat poignant; there were many a C&H comic concerning the evils of advertising and marketing - to see subject to it as well completes the message quit succinctly.

graeme 13y ago

I don't think you're interpreting the claim correctly. Someone can be a millionaire and sacrifice the opportunity to earn ADDITIONAL millions. That's what watterson did. Merchabdising, in context, meant making a line of merchandise based on the comic street. This is a standard meaning in the comic world.

SeanLuke 13y ago

> And book volumes are certainly merchandising Certainly not. Merchandising refers to income from products outside of the presentation of the art itself. Movies have box office receipts, television payments for rebroadcasting, and merchandising rights (figurines, happy meals, use of likeness in unrelated advertising, etc.). Under your novel definition, television payments would be merchandising. You'd be alone in that definition.