I particularly like his look in the final frame

  • Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly, the fact that Calvin and Hobbes had an ending makes us all look more fondly upon it.
    Bill Watterson’s approach was the exact opposite of what Jim Davis did, which was selling out completely with no regard to the actual quality of the comics. Garfield is basically a brand at this point, Calvin and Hobbes was art.

    • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      1 year ago

      Jim Davis specifically made a character to sell shit. He did some interesting development with his comic for the first decade-ish, then unabashedly launched a media empire. Good for him, frankly-- not everything has to be high art and hawking shit to the masses is a valid way to live your life.

      Throw in the fact the he appreciates (and has never tried to sue) derivative works like Garfield Minus Garfield or I’m Sorry Jon makes him ok in my book.

      • Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know it was the plan to begin with. I’m just highlighting the difference to how Calvin and Hobbes is regarded today as opposed to Garfield. One is seen as art, the other as a brand.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      At least Jim Davis isn’t the Dilbert guy, though. And he doesn’t live in a Garfield shaped house (although maybe he has a Garfield shaped pool? I forget).