posted
Man, I'd love to have that. I don't know if I can justify spending a hundred bucks on it though, especially given that I have most of the collections already.
Hmmm...anybody know if there are there any syndicated strips that haven't already been published in one of the collections?
Any chance that this book will increase in value?
If either of these things are true I might be able to convince myself to buy it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I just had a horrible thought. What if someone tries to turn Calvin and Hobbes into a movie? I think it would be the end of the world as we know it.
Posts: 486 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, Noemon, think of the shelf space you'll save by replacing all your books by this single volume. You could fill it with all the books you purchase at your local used book store using the credit from them. Heck, you're practicly saving money.
Now just don't think about that too hard.
-Cow-Eating Man, master of justifying expensive book purchases.
Posts: 98 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I've never seen an acid-free thong. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen an acidic thong either, although some can be pretty biting.)
Posts: 123 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just had a horrible thought. What if someone tries to turn Calvin and Hobbes into a movie?
They can try all they want, but they'd still have to get Bill Watterson's permission first. And there's no way that will ever happen. Bill Watterson is absolutely opposed to marketing his art--you might say he's the anti-Jim Davis.
posted
I disagree. Charles Schultz was an artist. He had no problem marketing his creations, certainly. But his strip was created as a work of art.
Jim Davis is a marketer. He created Garfield specifically to be a marketing machine. That's why the strip exists. Garfield was not created because Jim Davis loves making art, or humor. Garfield was created because Jim Davis loves making money. He doesn't even draw the strip anymore. He turned it over to a team of employees so he could focus all of his attention toward the marketing aspect.
Jim Davis is the one who is the antithesis to Bill Watterson, not Charles Schultz. Schultz and Watterson are artists who have different viewpoints on marketing. Davis is a marketer who is using art as his medium.
posted
I completely agree with you about Schultz and Davis. I suggested Schultz as the anti-Watterson because (speaking as someone who has never met either of them, and knows next to nothing about them beyond what you can find in the introductions to their collections) they seem almost like mirror images of each other. Actually as I'm sitting here writing this I'm thinking that "anti" isn't really the right word at all--means much more what you're using it to mean than what I was using it to mean. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Schultz and Watterson seem like right and left handed versions of the same molecule to me.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone know what Bill Watterson is doing for a living these days? He's been careful enough about not selling Calvin and Hobbes off to the highest bidder that I don't imagine that it's making him a fortune these days.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the problem with a recluse...only Bill Watterson himself knows what he's up to these days. He avoided the spotlight when the strip was ongoing, and with the strip gone there's been no reason for the media to shine the spotlight on him. It's a mystery.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
