![Calvin_and_Hobbes_Original[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/9N09Pg1.png "Calvin_and_Hobbes_Original[1].png")
Was Bill Watterson right about merchandising?
>>84282237
What'd he say?
>>84282237yes but we still hate him for it
>>84282237
Yes and no. That's one of the reasons this is probably one of the most disproportionally obscure compared to quality comic out there. You'll be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't know Garfield, but you can find people who don't know Calvin if you try.
What he should have done, is produce things, but retain full creative control.
>>84282415
/thread
>>84282237
Who cares?no one will ever know.
>>84282400
>>84282419
http://iheartpicturebooks.blogspot.com/2010/04/bill-watterson-on-licensing.html
>Comic strips have been licensed from the beginning, but today the merchandising of popular cartoon characters is more profitable than ever. Derivative products - dolls, T-shirts, TV specials, and so on - can turn the right strip into a gold mine. Everyone is looking for the next Snoopy or Garfield, and Calvin and Hobbes were imagined to be the perfect candidates. The more I thought about licensing, however, the less I like it. I spent nearly five years fighting my syndicate's pressure to merchandise my creation.
>In an age of shameless commercialism, my objections to licensing are not widely shared. Many cartoonists view the comic strip as a commercial product itself, so they regard licensing as a natural extension of their work. As most people ask, what's wrong with the comic strip characters appearing on calendars and coffee mugs? If people want to buy the stuff, why not give it to them?
>I have several problems with licensing. First of all, I believe licensing usually cheapens the original creation. When cartoon characters appear on countless products, the public inevitably grows bored and irritated with them, and the appeal and value of the original work are diminished. Nothing dulls the edge of a new and clever cartoon like saturing the market with it.
>>84282237
Smart merch? No, definitely not.
General merch? Yes. Pissing Calvin still gives me nightmares.
You tell me.
>>84282490
I respect the hell out of that stance. Not to say I wouldn't like C&H merchandise, but it takes next level artistic integrity to refuse to market something that would earn yourself millions.
>>84282597
Do you also agree with Alan Moore's stance against adaptions? I feel there are a lot of similarities
Besides those two, has any other creator come out and spoken against commercialization?
>>84282490
>I believe licensing usually cheapens the original creation. When cartoon characters appear on countless products, the public inevitably grows bored and irritated with them, and the appeal and value of the original work are diminished. Nothing dulls the edge of a new and clever cartoon like saturing the market with it.
That's dumb. If the original truly has value than it can be appreciated purely on its own merit. I'd understand if he wanted to preserve the quality of the derivative works but in that case he could take creative control himself and decide what should be put out. But he seems to just want to be a fucking hipster.
>>84282237
Yes and no.
He had a legitimately heart-warming, thought provoking, and overall comfy comic that stands strong to this day.
However, I don't think that merchandising would have necessarily cheapened the work itself. Paraphrasing Grant Morrison on the film adaptation of Watchmen and it "ruining his comic", his response was "nothing was ruined; all the old comics are still there, still available to be read and enjoyed".
Why can't he just make a new book, he used to make like a shit ton of comics a week, I bet he can release some new material on his own
>>84282771
>Grant Morrison
>Watchmen
I know that it's probably a typo, but still
I can deepthroat an entire ferret.
>>84282490
Oh damn. I respect him for holding that stance but as you've seen here: >>84282514
It's just going to happen anyway.
You'd just open the door for anyone to step up and undercut your own idea. It's admittedly great that we haven't had a terrible cash grab C&H films or animated series but if you kept supplies limited and everything released go the greenlight from you, I don't think it would be a bad thing.
Not the best example but China made more on Minions products than the US did because they fucking stole it. And Minions was CREATED to be profitable.
>>84282771
>Paraphrasing Grant Morrison on the film adaptation of Watchmen
Man, he can't stop trolling Alan Moore, can he.
Bill Waterson is always right
Why is the pissing Calvin allowed?
>>84282771
>Paraphrasing Grant Morrison
People who write superheroes comics should not be taken as a authority on this subject, their whole field is based on writing a character made by a different authors decades who got rewritten and modified by many other writers for years and years. The idea of a character/story being the singular vision of its creator is a alien concept to them.
>>84282952
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Why+is+the+pissing+Calvin+allowed%3F
>>84283147
They're creators of original works too. Having a different perspective doesn't invalidate their opinion.
>>84283147
>not realizing that was a typo
>not realizing both Grant Morrison have both done superhero and creator owned work
>they both even did shit for Doctor Who Magazine
What I'm saying is, you're a total faggot.
>>84282237
No not really.
>>84282802
He drew this when he was awarded the Grand Prix at Angoulême last year
could you imagine Calvin and hoobes funko pop figures
>>84283321
Is there anything that impedes you to type "Alan Moore"?
>>84283734
So I fucked up. Big whoop.
>>84282237
>>84282490
I respect his view on the issue, but no. If there's demand for it, I don't see the sin in supplying it. It doesn't make the strip any more "soulless", that's just nonsense. It doesn't even have to be much merch, just a Hobbes plush and some coffee mugs with Calvin's dad on it would be enough.
>>84283429
He's still got it.
>>84282952
praying calvin was always the one that seemed more off to me.
>>84283429
That's freakin' hilarious. He's still got it.
>>84283429
That's just straight-up Ms. Wormwood isn't it?
>>84282237
As George RR Martin said when he was asked to make a ASOIaF's movie in the 90's " The most sexy word you can say to Hollywood is No."
Watersoon in the comics strips have few competitors if you compare how much he will fight to find a space in some shelves. in the newspapper he has a name that brings people to his work while in toys he has to compete against Disney' stuff, video games and Lego.
Keeping in newspapers narrows the number of competitors.
It's like asking why Pixar don't make live action movies. The answer is the same, they have less competitors in Animation and a structure that exploits its niche
>>84282237
>We'll never get a Calvin and Hobbes christmas because of his readdit opinions
>>84282656
The biggest problems with adaptions is that, and no matter what mediums are involved, the adaption can't capture exactly what people love about the original. Forrest Gump is a fantastic movie, but it is a terrible adaptation. You have to somehow keep the spirit despite all the changes you're going to inevitably make.
>>84284189
Bah gawd you're right
>>84282237
People often cite Garfield as the example of merchandising run amok, but there's also Peanuts and no one thinks Charles Schultz's masterpiece lost its value because Snoopy is the face of an insurance company.
>>84282663
This assumes that the audience is smart enough to TAKE the work on it's own merits; remember, Calvin and Hobbes is meant, primarily, for children. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to think of something good from 20+ years ago that most of the current 24 and younger crowd remembers from a shitty adaptation.
It's fair to say that nothing will change inherently in the original work, but if your #1 goal as an artist is for people to remember your work as it originally was then selling licensing rights is just going to get in the way.
>>84284521
thank god
>>84284891
I do get a little disappointed when I see excess Peanuts crap. Or crappy pieces of merchandise, like those "thug" Looney Tunes shirts.
But I still love the things they came from. I can respect Watterson's opinion, though.
Did he not think the characters were strong enough to sell life insurance or something?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vFXRVlVIrM
>>84284912
>hating good television
An interesting side effect of zero non-Watterson material is that the characters/artstyle always looks wrong when it's imitated.
There's a reason C&H is still loved and respected decades later.
The Mouse might be more famous, but he's definitely not more loved.
>>84282237
If he doesn't want himself or his work to be associated with merchandise that's his prerogative and that's fine. I've never actually wanted any Calvin and Hobbes stuff beyond the comics themselves even before I learned what his stance on it was, though, so maybe that's just me.
I do think him freaking out when people sold books he'd secretly signed on ebay was kind of ridiculous and weird, because (a) what did he think was going to happen when he went around covertly drawing and writing his name in SOME of his books in SOME bookstores, and (b) aren't the people actually buying those books just fans who might want to feel closer to the creator anyway? Also secretly signing the books was weird in the first place.
But again, his prerogative, whatever.
How do you differentiate between good and bad merchandising?
>>84282597
This. I think a nice middle of the road solution could have been small batches of high-quality merch. Maybe some coffee mugs or something else that wouldn't make it pushed into the public space. If Watterson could be in creative control of the prints, he could make sure they were interesting so nobody tried to make 'Calvin pissing on brand of truck I don't like' stuff.
>>84282237
>Was Bill Watterson right about merchandising?
Yes, but maybe for the wrong reasons:
Watterson should be applauded and respected for his integrity and his -quite commendable- personal motives towards preserving his art, but in not buying into or participating in the merchandising "scheme" he loses control over how things will be merchandised and they WILL be eventually merchandised.
So now there's probably more people who know calvin as "that kid wot pisses on the backs of trucks" because Watterson didn't want to buy into himself.
>>84285945
a) probably thought people would like having a signed copy of C&H 'cause ebay wasnt that huge yet b) it cheapens the idea if you buy it instead of getting it by luck/chance
>>84286349
But nerds would still ruin it, and buy 'em and just put them in vacuum bags n shit
>>84283838
>If there's demand for it, I don't see the sin in supplying it
I disagree because people are stupid and don't know what they really want.
>>84283429
Seems like his gut should be ripped open from the glass. still good though.
>>84282237
The problem with asking this question of /co/ (and I say this as part of /co/ myself), is that our hobby is especially consumerist in nature. Modern comics and cartoons, like all of modern media, but in some ways especially so, relies upon a large body of acculturated consumers. And that's what /co/ is: a group of cultural consumers, not cultural producers.
Watterson, on the other hand, is not only a producer, but also belongs to an older generation, when consumerism, while present, did not exist on the scale which is does today. We accept this sort of merchandising as a fact of existence in the modern culture, and for Watterson to, in one sense, withhold it from us, seems backward and arrogant from him. But to him, the sort of mentality that is perpetuated by merchandising is unequivocally distasteful to him, and he doesn't think that he's depriving us, his fans, of anything of worth. This is pretty clear when you consider some of the statements he makes in his strips.
Anyhow, that's my attempt at cultural analysis of the situation.
>>84282415
>hate him for it
Yeah, nah. This actually just makes me like him even more.
>>84282490
That's a solid artist right there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONGJs1l19aU
>>84282490
>Nothing dulls the edge of a new and clever cartoon like saturing the market with it.
>>84287436
Honestly, I was thinking Undertale. Sans and Papyrus are a lot less interesting now that they have become literal memes. Dark Souls as well
>>84283838
You realize there is nothing stopping people that want to make them for themselves doing so yeah?
Basically only real fans would have their own items and if they have skill they might be quite nice.
Hes speaking purely on the format of creating things for public consumption, I doubt he would care one whit if you make your own item and didn't sell it.
The demand is there surely, but the will is lacking, he gave people his creativity and he demands theirs in return.
>>84284216
I never got the feeling that Watterson was in it for the money, didn't he leave a much more lucrative job to do comics?
>>84287876
>After threat of a lawsuit alleging infringement of copyright and trademark, some of the sticker makers replaced Calvin with a different boy
>>84283572
Never post again.
>>84284895
>if your #1 goal as an artist is for people to remember your work as it originally was then selling licensing rights is just going to get in the way.
Sure maybe he doesn't want to have an animated christmas special but making plush toys or coffee mugs or some shit would hardly get in the way of people's perception of the original comic.
>>84282237
No. Here are my thoughts. Basically exist the necesity of promoting your product. Not all the world have the right to keep that level of integrity as R. Crumb or him.
>>84288189
>>After threat of a lawsuit alleging infringement of copyright and trademark, some of the sticker makers replaced Calvin with a different boy
That has what to do with my point? They were selling the things, which he explicitly didn't want.
Bill Watterson used to go into book stores near where he lived. He went inside to autograph the inside of his collection books. So people that bought his books would find a nice surprised.
Then ebay types found out about it. So they started stalking the book stores. Waiting for Watterson to go in and do the deed. Then they would go and buy up all the books and flip them online for a huge mark up.
Watterson found out about this and got upset about it. So he just stopped doing it.
>>84288889
I once got the 10th anniversary collection from a used book store and found a newspaper clipping of the last printed strip inside of it. Finding surprises in books is fucking awesome and people who ruin that for others can go to hell.
>>84285248
For something like Calvin and Hobbes? Pretty much. While I don't think it would have hurt things to allow some shirts and plushies, it's understandable that he didn't want to turn them into commercial whores who were only meant to push merch and have the merch push the books. For him, it was about delivering clever social commentary through the eyes of a kid.
In many cases, having merchandise is good because it means revenue that can be fed back into the production of a major work, like a cartoon series.
>>84288889
Seriously, people who do, and the scalpers who buy special editions of books and games are the literal worst. Oh sure, you can trick gullible shitstains with too much money on their hands into buying shit you practically stole at inflated prices, but you're still a piece of shit for ruining what makes those things special by taking them away.
>>84286204
the amount of effort put into the product
for example, a coffee mug with original art or a coffee-related joke would be good, while a coffee mug that just had a stock drawing of calvin on it would be bad
i saw goddamn Frozen fishing poles once, which were just normal child-sized fishing poles but with elsa's face pasted on. this is a perfect example of "bad merchandising"
>>84282812
Shit I didn't even realize. At least /co/ is smart enough to recognize simple mistakes.
>>84282771
>"nothing was ruined; all the old comics are still there, still available to be read and enjoyed".
I wish more people were intelligent enough to realize this.
Yes, a bad film/game/remake book or whatever of a popular thing can sour the opinions of newcomers and leave a blemish on the popularity of something, but I can't fucking stand how some people go full retard and act like if a film adaption flops they aren't allowed to enjoy the original source material anymore.
>>84282237
I really love C&H and would definitely buy merch if it was available, but I think the fact it isn't everywhere adds to the charm so much. It means that when you read the strip it becomes its own little world and (particularly for a Briton) it seems personal.
>>84290565
I guess that makes sense. Though I don't see how a few plush toys would have devalued that "world". A cartoon certainly would have had a lot to live up to, especially the themes and topics the comic tackled. While things like mugs, bedsheets, and tshirts would have just been empty promotions.
This guy is fucking awesome.
Markets are the reason why artists starve. Artistic integrity means shit in the face of profit. This guy is taking a stance against the bullshit.
>>84282237
yes.
hes no bitch.
>>84282237
Maybe I would have wanted a Hobbes plushie as a kid, but I respect Watterson more than almost any other artist for turning away the chance at maybe tens of millions for what he believed in and thought was right. That takes an amount of artistic and personal integrity that is rare.
I think most comic artists would kill to have their work be so successful that they would never have to mass-merchandise it.
>>84290984
I imagine Jim Davis could have pulled that off with Garfield, though it probably means the orange fuck would have ended long ago.
>>84290608
Different Anon here, but I kinda like Charlie Brown.
Its nice to go back and read some strips about his struggles and triumphs and shit.
I'm living in Japan now, where Snoopy merchandise is everywhere. It just makes it look stupid.
Peanuts isn't sacred or anything, but there's a contrast between Chuck sucking at everything and still trying, and Snoopy staring at you from a pencil case.
>>84287491
>These characters that almost internet exclusive in presence in such a small pocket of time as their games' release date is about the same as multimedia marketing and merchandising at the hands of one of the biggest media conglomerates.
Nah.
>>84282514
Pissing Calvins multiplied on the backs of trucks like ten fold after 9/11.
>>84291042
Yeah, I don't know whether it's just human nature or if I'm just an annoying hipster shite but I could tell you before I'd even read the comic that Snoopy was my least favourite character.
>>84291042
Well when someone is overdone, sure. But really, having a plush Hobbes wouldn't hurt someone's ability to appreciate the world of the comics.
>>84291165
Meant "something".
>>84290608
I seem to recall him saying that he particularly didn't want toys of Hobbes around because if they were "official" Hobbes toys and still simply just toys, it would take the magic away from some of it. Hobbes would always just be a toy now, and nothing else.
He also was against an movie or cartoon made about it for somewhat similar reasons, they would have to voice the characters and suddenly certain people's inner voice for Calvin, or Hobbes, or even the Dad would wrong. And sure many adaptations have done just that and people have been wrong but this seemed to be particularly important to Watterson.
The magic of the imagination never being truly spoiled, it's something I can respect.
>>84291277
I just don't quite agree with that. While I can get that it would mean that there's an "official" voice to the characters, I never got the impression that a plushie would make it impossible for people to still debate if Hobbes was real or just a figment of Calvin's young imagination.
>>84291277
Thinking more on the Hobbes plush, a lot of kids have stuffed animals, with some of those being they're favorites. To me, the best ones are the generic ones, because those kids come up with their own unique names and lives for those animals. There's a profound imagination there.
If Hobbes was a plush, kids would get Hobbes because he's famous, and he would be Hobbes, and his back story would be the same as in the comics. It removes that sense of imagination and creativity.
For Watterson to prevent that loss at his own detriment makes me respect him even more.
>>84282490
How long until Watterson dies and we get a Calvin and Hobbes movie?
>>84291556
>>84291392
I suppose that's true. Though it's not like you couldn't have imagined Hobbes having adventures with you. I mean, plenty of people probably imagined dorky shit like Goku being there to cheer them on while they pretended to fight in their back yards, or doing exercises.
>>84291556
A long time i hope.
>>84291600
I don't think he's asking because he wants one, but because it's highly likely someone will try to pounce on the rights the moment Bill dies.
Too bad you can't sign a contract that says something can't be messed with after you're dead. And trying to hold it off until it hits public domain wouldn't do squat since anything that's PD can go back into copyright.
>>84291646
I gave that anon the benefit of the doubt in my head, but this is one of those "knock on wood" things. It's dangerous to even mention it in a universe as uncaring as ours.
>>84291842
I would imagine Bill has something in mind, probably his wife taking over the rights and keeping them away for as long as she can. Though I can only imagine that'll be it after she's gone. Pretty sure you can't play "keep away" with rights just because you have family to pass it to. Really though, I don't get why a person can't do something to ensure their own creations can't be misused/abused by others. It's not like it would hurt the economy if a lot of people were able to say "My book can't be made into a film or tv show or anything else of profit"
The one thing I wanted more than anything else as a child was a Calvin and Hobbes lunchbox, and it never existed.
I did have pic related though.
>>84292257
Only five people on the planet know who that is, and I'm not one of them.
>>84292257
>Loves Dick Tracy
>Still can't spell the filename right
>>84282237
A hard call
On one hand, Without merch - the comic and the characters will be obscure for generations to come
On the other hand - Artistic integrity could be compromised because of it
>>84292277
Dick Tracy has some relevance thanks to DVD and SVOD (namely the film and the UPA cartoon series)
>>84292397
>On one hand, Without merch - the comic and the characters will be obscure for generations to come
Only if the characters aren't immediately memorable and insanely popular. Plenty of kids these days know who Calvin is, and the series ended over 20 years ago. And long as the comics remain in print, they'll be known by anyone who isn't a piece of shit retarded that doesn't buy it for their children.
>>84292369
Sorry, bad habit from work. Most of the Tracey's names I write are chicks.
>>84292486
Though there is a concern of the decline of the newspaper that can affect Calvin
>>84292622
They still put them in papers? I haven't seen them in a rag for ages.
Still, it's not like the books aren't a thing. And given how addictive the series is, who wants to read them one strip at a time in papers when you can gorge on dozens of strips in the collections and anthologies?
>>84284137
Top fucking kek!
>>84282490
tldr
no more garfield please
>>84282237
If he didn't want the money, he could have built a children's hospital or something, but turning the money down just screwed the fans. Licensing is as old as The Yellow Kid.
anyone have any good wallpapers besides the four normally posted here?
>>84283838
I hope you're the king of irony, because nothing proves your argument wrong harder than the picture you posted.
>>84293307
I wonder if Jim even cares anymore. It woudln't surprise me if this was a simillar case like with Seth and Family Guy; the popularity is keeping it alive and the creator is just rolling with it instead of just putting his foot down.
>>84282490
I never even liked Calvin and Hobbes but this huge rant on commercialism and how horrible it is, is just really hilarious especially since the comics weren't that great to begin with. Bill Watterson's greater than thou attitude is just cringey as fuck seriously is it really that big of a deal to sell some t shirts and maybe a Hobbes doll?
>>84293476
>is just really hilarious especially since the comics weren't that great to begin with
That's your opinion. Plenty of people hold up Calvin and Hobbes as one of the greatest comics of all time
Angoulême, the third biggest comic convention in the world, gave him their lifetime achievement award. The only other Americans who got it were Eisner, Crumb, and Spiegelman
>>84293476
>is it really that big of a deal to sell some t shirts and maybe a Hobbes doll?
Yes.
Steep-slope fallacy aside, one thing leads to another and commercialism has no limits. You license a few dolls, you end up with a shittastic mediocre movie deal that sells your work into a soul-less product, just like all of Doctor Seuss's movies. Just look at how disgustingly they raped the Lorax into filth degrading it's very premise, why would you want a Calvin and Hobbies CGI Smurf-esque film to make bank at the cost of any artistic integrity?
>>84293575
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpgUQYARIsw
Wasn't all bad, we got a fantastic song out of it. Even if it wasn't in the actual movie.
>>84293575
Touche, though to be honest seeing as how fucking insane Bill is about protecting his comics I wouldn't really be surprised if even after he dies no movie is made the license would probably be passed onto someone related to him (if a company doesn't snatch it up first which is rather likely) to be honest I would find it kind of tragically funny if they made a shit ton of Hollywood merch and movies of Calvin and Hobbes.
If you want a Hobbes plush that bad, pay an actual artist to make one for you, or do it yourself.
>>84284189
>>84282237
Yes.
He has an ironclad integrity you don't see in people of this generation. Artists, politicians, soldiers, or otherwise.
You create art, you stand by your art. Whatever others may construe your creations as, you will always be the creator. You will always own what was yours to make, unless you choose to fucking let it go.
>>84293713
Or just buy a Tigger and black its nose if you prefer the animated Hobbes version.
>>84293431
doesnt he buckley the strips just dragging the same pose in a different place with a different colour background and call it a day?
>>84282424
Aye. I grew up with some of the paperbacks and saved clippings, thought it was totally normal and well known. Moved around a bit through childhood, the woman I ended up marrying had no idea that C&H was a thing, let alone how fun it is.
>>84295137
Pretty sure Davis has had others making the strips for him for a long time, now.
>>84282237
I don't think there's a right or wrong there. He did what he wanted to do and it's fine. And what Jim Davis did is also fine.
>>84295241
maybe but im pretty sure he did at some point, maybe he got called out and stoped
>>84291556
>starring Michael Cera as Calvin
>>84293575
But I liked the Peanuts movie
I can't take Watterson's message about artistic integrity seriously when he altered two of his strips in the Complete Calvin & Hobbes to remove references to adoption, especially after they appeared unaltered in earlier books and the 10th anniversary book, not to mention online.
http://calvinandhobbes.wikia.com/wiki/Oddities
I want C&H plushies riding a wagon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyXJfUPSQhM
>>84282237
Bill Watterson shouldve done something like Homestar Runner. You can't find Homestar products anywhere else but the official store.
the only merch i want are Spaceman Spiff action figures and a "dormant Hobbes" plush.
>>84295744
i see the point tho
>calvin & hobbes merch hits the market
>every parents buys a hobbes plush
>geeky nerds do too
>movie gets made to sell more shit
>cant walk two steps without some sign
>a cartoon gets aired that butchers the shit out of the original strip
>kids spend hours watching calvin & hobbes on tv, playing calvin & hobbes freemium games on their phones and watching pedwiepie play some fnaf mod with hobbes instead of going outside and making memories
its not so uch about artistic integrity as not wanting to be part of the problem and lose the message, is there any property left thats treated with respect outside of winnie pooh?
>>84295840
Watterson shits on cartoons so much that, even if he did go the merch route, it would have stopped before that.
>>84282656
The difference is Alan Moore, likes to pitch a fit then go around and sell out anyway.
>>84284137
THere are praying Calvins? There are people stupid enough to use praying Calvin outside of sarcasm or parody?
>>84286354
Have to agree with this. He could have controlled what image the (bootleg) merchandise had; but now admittedly, if no-one knows who Calvin is, it's easiest to say "the kid who pisses on truck logos" to get the image of the character into someone's head.
So sorry Waterson, while the intention was grounded in artistic merit, the end result disproved that intent.
>>84295605
According to the comments, the changes were made by his syndicate
>>84295380
>and George Lopez as Hobbes
>>84291556
movie theater shootings
It is all sort of case dependent. At first Watterson didn't even want to publish the books but his publisher eventually convinced him to do it. On one hand you have some comics that do merchandising well like Dilbert who stick with personal office supplies and Pearls Before Swine who released the Plushies around the time he Published Pearls sells out. On the other hand you have some creators that merchandise too much (Garfield) or merchandise with products that dont make sense (Snoopy and Insurance).
>>84290565
i agree with this, i live in a foreign country and so i never even heard of calvin and hobbes until i was like 20 years old on the internet, thanks to /co/ in fact.
whilst i would have liked to have calvin and hobbes as a part of my childhood and it will never have the same nostalgic power that it has to you there is still a certain magic in the fact that i had to go out of my way to discover it, that it is this relatively obscure little thing that is beautiful and pure and not everyone talks about. so it is still special for meon some level
Calvin's Mom
http://i.imgur.com/LHbRKhW.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/iUldCEg.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/oFGNWqk.jpg
Sorry.
>>84303740
noice
>>84303740
Fuck you. I like it, but fuck you
>>84282237
No. The guy is an autist.
>>84303740
>Not a single image has the men telling her "It'll build character!"
ONE JOB
>>84287436
There was nothing new or clever about that bundle of mass marketing appeal m8.
>>84282237
I think he's the reason to why Kaptain Kristian's video was taken down.
>>84295380
>>84301271
>>84303740
You fucker why
>>84285152
>wanting a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon
Just fuck off you hipster faggot.
