Dude comics are stupid even though i myself make them lmao

>dude comics are stupid even though i myself make them lmao
>dude i'm too good to even talk to my fans that gave my shitty comic an audience

Bill Watterson is such a hack.

The correct term is snob.

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

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.

>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.

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.

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

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.

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.

>too good to even talk to my fans

source

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

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

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

What put that hate in his heart?

>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.

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.

>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.

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

this guy knows what's up.

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

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

3/3

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.

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

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.

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.

Most Sup Forums 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.

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.

>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?

>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.

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

Steve Dikto is a hack

>Muh eternal butthurt

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 Sup Forums 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"

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

thicc

Breathed is better.

This.

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.

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

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

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, user.

This.

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.

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

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

>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.

Samefag trying too hard to be deep.

...

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

Deepest lore.

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?

He's a fucking weird dickhead.

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?

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.

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.

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.

no Doug Winger is dead, Bill Watterson is still alive

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.

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".

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).

his work WAS shit

only pedos and furfags like it

This is fair.

This is just retard contrarianism.

this is not being a sheep ripe for slaughter

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.

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

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

This board is getting worse every day.

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.

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.

Cry us a river.

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

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

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.

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.

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

>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

>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.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

...

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".

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.

Comedy gold.

That's what happens when we let Sup Forumsirgins in here. They're addicted to e-celeb drama and twitter feeds

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.