Pretty ironic how a popular comic strip where one of the main characters is literally a soft toy managed to avoid the marketable plushie curse so many other IPs inevitably fall into.
*looks at various poor film adaptations of comic strips* Wonder if Mr. Watterson is looking at these and thinking to himself, "Yep, I was right not wanting a film adaptation!" Also, while writing this, I remembered a "Marmaduke" film from years back. Marmaduke was given a voice in the film, despite him never talking in the strip. Didn't see the film, but at that moment from seeing the posters and trailers, I knew it would be a bad adaption. Makes me wonder what type of bad adaptation-isms Hollywood would pull with a "Calvin and Hobbes" film. Only way I could see a "Calvin and Hobbes" film work would be if it was some sort of art-house film, just not feature-length.
This is a man who clearly cares about his brand. If he has that kind of protection, you know how passionate he is about what he does and how much he wants to prevent it from ending up in the hands of evil Hollywood executives. We need more creators like that.
Another reason why he never adapted it is while at one point he was thinking about doing a potential series he just couldn't find the right voices for the characters how he pictured them in his head, so he cancelled any plans for an animated adaptation and just decided to leave it up for the reader's imaginations.
1985-1995 Calvin and Hobbes, by Bill Waterson - Had NO Merchandise 2:17 Peanuts Compared To Calvin and Hobbes 3:58 The Adaptations That Were Rejected 5:46 TV Adaptations of Other Comic Strips had large influence from the Comic Creators 7:51 Hollywood would have sucked the Integrity out of the art 8:52 Waterson took a stand, and preserved his comics and the characters you loved
Calvin and Hobbes is a great comic strip and has potential for a TV series, but given what happens when source material gets an adaptation and falls into the wrong hands... I can definitely understand where Watterson was coming from.
Trying to cheer myself this past holiday season, I hunted down and watched as many weird or obscure comic strip specials I could find, and I have to say that Watterson was very right to protect his characters. Family Circus Christmas is so obnoxious, you wonder why Daddy doesn't go out for a pack of smokes and never come back. The Ziggy special was shockingly good though, with animation by Richard Williams.
Maybe a Calvin and Hobbes movie could be a simple story with no 3 act struction but adapted many different comics and link them together, like Many Adventures of Pooh or Stand By me Doreamon .
@@johntiggleman4686 Okay, got it. I should go soak my head because I'm so stupid that I think that licensed, copyrighted materiels sold in a store, and taxed is called merchandise. I am lucky to have a genius' like you to point my way. You are SO SMART!
One of my favorite comic strips since I first owned the collection books when I was a kid. And while I’m sad that we never got a C&H TV special/series or movie, I can understand why bill turned down those offers given that, excluding the peanuts franchise which is good, most comic strip movie and cartoon adaptations never turn out well.
Bill Watterson wants his comic to stay pure and stay away from becoming ruined by a bunch of corporate fat cats. A similar thing happened to Jeff Muncy when he was trying to turn his Pet Alien toy line into a television series. He pitched it to Splash Entertainment in hopes of creative freedom, but ended up losing creative control anyways and they completely changed his original idea for the show into what it is today. Now he can’t make a new Pet Alien show because he lost his brand to Splash and they don’t seem to care for it anyways. Be careful who you pitch your ideas to and do what you can to keep ownership of the IP.
I did once consider merchandising my Critter Doodles cartoon animals but now, I no longer have any interest because there's already merchandise of Disney characters I buy and I don't want to contribute to landfill waste, also I'd rather keep my Critter Doodles drawing characters as a comic book, cartoon videos and video games and that's it. Also I plan to keep my Critter Doodles cartoon animal videos as silent films with music and even with my video games. Yes I'm aware there will never be an official merchandise or cartoon films for Calvin and Hobbes which is for the best because I don't trust Hollywood people with film adaptations. I'm also glad there's no cartoon tv or film adaptation or merchandise toys for the worst comic strip of all time, The Born Loser 1965-present since the comic strip The Born Loser is running for 60 years with the same old outdated 1960s problematic hurtful jokes about women, weight shaming jokes, outdated Mexican stereotype jokes, characters whining all the time and unfunny insult jokes in almost every panel, Brutus boss Rancid bullying Brutus whenever he wants which I don't find funny. I hope Chip Sansom will retire The Born Loser soon so it will be forgotten. Meanwhile Calvin and Hobbes will live on as one of the best comic strips of all time which I will keep reading.
Its actually funny, because Bill spent a large portion of his life savings buying back the copyrights to Calvin and Hobbs. Because before that, he had no say in whether or not merchandise got made. You see, when you sell your comic, you also sell the copyrights. And back in the day, you had to sell your comic to the syndicates in order to get your comic strip in newspaper's funny pages. So in doing so, you're handing over the rights, and giving the syndicate permission to license it however they see fit, and you don't have a say. You sold your right to a say. But most sane normal people are happy to licensing. It's a good thing. Jim Davis famously paid $10 million dollars back in the 80s to buy back the copyrights to Garfield. Which was the highest amount in history in history at the time. But he did it, so he could have all the say and approval on how Garfield was licensed. Thank goodness he did, because Garfield had an amazing hot streak in the 80s and 90s. But unfortunately Lorenzo Music passed away, and everything with Garfield got completely derailed. Lorenzo was such an integral part of Garfield. Nobody can replicate his voice. Because he wasn't putting on a voice. It was just his natural speaking voice. Even though Bill Murray tried, he's not Lorenzo. But the reason I say it's funny that Bill spent most of his life savings buying back the copyrights to Calvin and Hobbs, was for the exact opposite reason. He wanted to have full control, so nothing could be licensed other than the books. What made Jim Davis a billionaire, Bill refused becoming a billionaire. Its crazy the money he turned down. Had he released just a simple Calvin and Hobbs calendar, he would've made $5 million, on just the calendar alone.
@@nicholassims9837 I have noone in mind for calvin. It should be an actual kid or an adult because calvin is an adult in a kids body. Hobbes anyone will do. Jim Carey could work.
Also one thing why Yotsuba&! can never be adapted. Trying to put an episode with the comics limited pacing and panels that don't translate well to television.
I can appreciate the intent of wanting to keep it a comic strip, and not turn it into a franchise. But you hit the nail on the head, the strip is going to be forgotten about over time. It's going to become Yellow Kid. What's Yellow Kid, you ask? Exactly. Meanwhile Garfield and Snoopy are so popular that they will always be gaining new fans and a new following, because its constantly reinventing itself. Selling out actually preserves art better than than overly protecting it like a helicopter parent. Because how many kids know Superman, Batman, Snoopy, or Garfield? All of them. But how many of them actually read the comics? None of them. But they know Garfield from the posters in their classroom, Snoopy from the metlife ads, Batman from the movies, or Superman from the action figures. They have transcended culture to part of being embedded into the fabric of culture itself. The Grinch has become as synonymous with Christmas as Santa Claus has. Every single kid knows the Grinch. How many of them have read the book? Not a lot. But seeing the Grinch everywhere during Christmas time lets kids know Christmas is coming.
@@huntercoleman460 that's what's its gonna be. There are already things from my childhood in the 90s, that were huge back then and kids today have no idea what that even is. It's part of the reason Disney keeps making those awful reboots. Just to keep those old IP's relevant to the current generation. As much as I have feelings regarding Chris Pratt voicing Garfield, I understand that Garfield will stay relevant for years to come. Sure, my Garfield will always be Lorenzo Music. And to the kids, it will be Chris Pratt. But at least they'll know who Garfield is. Just like how everyone has "their batman," anybody of any age all know who batman is.
@@I_WANT_MY_SLAW look I respect Watterson’s wishes but I do kind of have to agree with you. Watterson himself even admitted as mentioned in the video that he could’ve taken Calvin and Hobbes in the direction of Garfield and Peanuts but he didn’t and it is what it is. Watterson even said he didn’t want anyone else’s fingerprints on Calvin and Hobbes. I can understand being an artist you want complete control over your creation but if you created something that was well loved as Calvin and Hobbes was you’d think you would want the next generation to enjoy your work as well. But as I said it’s want Watterson wants and there’s nothing we can do about it.
I'm all for him being a cartoonist, and decided against licensing. Thats his choice. A dumb one, yes, but his choice nonetheless. But why I dont respect Bill, is that he attacked his fellow cartoonists for licensing. That's why Bill isn't well liked among other cartoonists. You don't attack your colleagues. Thats a huge no-no in any field. But it's especially bad in art. There is a mutual respect you have for the people in your field. You don't attack them. He attacked Charles Schultz and Jim Davis. The two biggest names in cartooning, and that put him on everyone's bad side. Charles and Jim (as well as any other professional cartoonist) have never gone after their own, and attacked another cartoonist. You just don't do that. And its why Bill, despite having a popular strip, is never mentioned by other cartoonists. He broke the cardianal rule. You don't go after your own. You support and protect each other. Build them up. Not break them down. It's also part of the reason he stopped doing interviews, and became a recluse. As well as his overall weird introverted nature.
To quote the strip itself: "If they could put rainbows in zoos, they would..." I love that Bill Watterson has always been so protective of this property. It was special, and it feels safe in his exclusive hands...
![Darren Waller - Who Knew (Her Perspective) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GytDjB8u6bM/mqdefault.jpg)
Pretty ironic how a popular comic strip where one of the main characters is literally a soft toy managed to avoid the marketable plushie curse so many other IPs inevitably fall into.
Not ironic at all, if you watched the video. It didn't happen on accident...
*looks at various poor film adaptations of comic strips*
Wonder if Mr. Watterson is looking at these and thinking to himself, "Yep, I was right not wanting a film adaptation!"
Also, while writing this, I remembered a "Marmaduke" film from years back. Marmaduke was given a voice in the film, despite him never talking in the strip. Didn't see the film, but at that moment from seeing the posters and trailers, I knew it would be a bad adaption. Makes me wonder what type of bad adaptation-isms Hollywood would pull with a "Calvin and Hobbes" film.
Only way I could see a "Calvin and Hobbes" film work would be if it was some sort of art-house film, just not feature-length.
Nah Calvin and Hobbes would work best as 2 11 minute cartoons like Spongebob.
Imagine hearing how stupid the voice would sound
This is a man who clearly cares about his brand. If he has that kind of protection, you know how passionate he is about what he does and how much he wants to prevent it from ending up in the hands of evil Hollywood executives. We need more creators like that.
I remembered reading that the creator was protective of his characters, but I never thought much of why. Good video!
Another reason why he never adapted it is while at one point he was thinking about doing a potential series he just couldn't find the right voices for the characters how he pictured them in his head, so he cancelled any plans for an animated adaptation and just decided to leave it up for the reader's imaginations.
Waterson wanted his characters to only exist within the world of the comic strip, where they belong.
My favorite cartoon strip. and I'm glad Bill never gave in. I'm happy with my complete collection.
1985-1995 Calvin and Hobbes, by Bill Waterson
- Had NO Merchandise
2:17 Peanuts Compared To Calvin and Hobbes
3:58 The Adaptations That Were Rejected
5:46 TV Adaptations of Other Comic Strips had large influence from the Comic Creators
7:51 Hollywood would have sucked the Integrity out of the art
8:52 Waterson took a stand, and preserved his comics and the characters you loved
Calvin and Hobbes is a great comic strip and has potential for a TV series, but given
what happens when source material gets an adaptation and falls into the wrong hands...
I can definitely understand where Watterson was coming from.
It would be immediately made gay
Trying to cheer myself this past holiday season, I hunted down and watched as many weird or obscure comic strip specials I could find, and I have to say that Watterson was very right to protect his characters. Family Circus Christmas is so obnoxious, you wonder why Daddy doesn't go out for a pack of smokes and never come back. The Ziggy special was shockingly good though, with animation by Richard Williams.
Something tells me when Calvin and Hobbes enters the public domain, everyone’s gonna make a movie on it
Thank you Mr Watterson. For everything.
This is kinda the same thing with JD Salinger and The Catcher in the Rye. Except that novel actually had all the potential for a feature film.
To this day the only animation adaptation of Calvin and Hobbes ever shown on tv was a stop motion animation on Robot Chicken.
They are never called Calvin and hobbes. Cheap imitation
@@dallassegno what do you mean
I don’t blame bill watterson for not wanting to have merchandise off of Calvin and Hobbes.
Garfield and Friends was a classic .
If it was a movie, maybe it could do what “My Neighbors the Ymadas” did, and have it be more of a series of vignettes than have an actual plot.
Then it falls into the same area that a lot of the Peanuts movies did: being not really meant for the big screen.
Well, Ymadas was released in theaters, but I guess you have a point.
Maybe a Calvin and Hobbes movie could be a simple story with no 3 act struction but adapted many different comics and link them together, like Many Adventures of Pooh or Stand By me Doreamon .
Not for 100 years thank goodness
Narrator: There was no merchandising!!"
Cuts to picture of little girl reading a calvin and hobbes book...
That’s not the kind of merchandise we’re talking about. That’s a physical release of the product. Merchandise would mean toys or clothes etc.
@@mediamementosofficial Okay, got it. A book is not merchandise. So what should I call it now?
@@TheBeteljuice Aw, go soak your head.
@@johntiggleman4686 Okay, got it. I should go soak my head because I'm so stupid that I think that licensed, copyrighted materiels sold in a store, and taxed is called merchandise. I am lucky to have a genius' like you to point my way. You are SO SMART!
@@TheBeteljuice glad to help.
Calvin and Hobbes! This should be interesting.
One of my favorite comic strips since I first owned the collection books when I was a kid. And while I’m sad that we never got a C&H TV special/series or movie, I can understand why bill turned down those offers given that, excluding the peanuts franchise which is good, most comic strip movie and cartoon adaptations never turn out well.
You need more subs. Hope the channel grows soon.
- There was a lot of Pogo in C&H. Walt Kelly can be re-read hundreds of times too. Their vids, not so much.
For some reason, Hobbes reminds me of Tigger from the "Winnie the Pooh" franchise.
Have you considered perhaps it is because they are both tigers....
Bill Watterson actually made Calvin and Hobbes for his wife Melissa
What about Bloom County?
Bill Watterson wants his comic to stay pure and stay away from becoming ruined by a bunch of corporate fat cats. A similar thing happened to Jeff Muncy when he was trying to turn his Pet Alien toy line into a television series. He pitched it to Splash Entertainment in hopes of creative freedom, but ended up losing creative control anyways and they completely changed his original idea for the show into what it is today. Now he can’t make a new Pet Alien show because he lost his brand to Splash and they don’t seem to care for it anyways. Be careful who you pitch your ideas to and do what you can to keep ownership of the IP.
I did once consider merchandising my Critter Doodles cartoon animals but now, I no longer have any interest because there's already merchandise of Disney characters I buy and I don't want to contribute to landfill waste, also I'd rather keep my Critter Doodles drawing characters as a comic book, cartoon videos and video games and that's it. Also I plan to keep my Critter Doodles cartoon animal videos as silent films with music and even with my video games.
Yes I'm aware there will never be an official merchandise or cartoon films for Calvin and Hobbes which is for the best because I don't trust Hollywood people with film adaptations.
I'm also glad there's no cartoon tv or film adaptation or merchandise toys for the worst comic strip of all time, The Born Loser 1965-present since the comic strip The Born Loser is running for 60 years with the same old outdated 1960s problematic hurtful jokes about women, weight shaming jokes, outdated Mexican stereotype jokes, characters whining all the time and unfunny insult jokes in almost every panel, Brutus boss Rancid bullying Brutus whenever he wants which I don't find funny. I hope Chip Sansom will retire The Born Loser soon so it will be forgotten. Meanwhile Calvin and Hobbes will live on as one of the best comic strips of all time which I will keep reading.
Its actually funny, because Bill spent a large portion of his life savings buying back the copyrights to Calvin and Hobbs. Because before that, he had no say in whether or not merchandise got made. You see, when you sell your comic, you also sell the copyrights. And back in the day, you had to sell your comic to the syndicates in order to get your comic strip in newspaper's funny pages. So in doing so, you're handing over the rights, and giving the syndicate permission to license it however they see fit, and you don't have a say. You sold your right to a say. But most sane normal people are happy to licensing. It's a good thing. Jim Davis famously paid $10 million dollars back in the 80s to buy back the copyrights to Garfield. Which was the highest amount in history in history at the time. But he did it, so he could have all the say and approval on how Garfield was licensed. Thank goodness he did, because Garfield had an amazing hot streak in the 80s and 90s. But unfortunately Lorenzo Music passed away, and everything with Garfield got completely derailed. Lorenzo was such an integral part of Garfield. Nobody can replicate his voice. Because he wasn't putting on a voice. It was just his natural speaking voice. Even though Bill Murray tried, he's not Lorenzo. But the reason I say it's funny that Bill spent most of his life savings buying back the copyrights to Calvin and Hobbs, was for the exact opposite reason. He wanted to have full control, so nothing could be licensed other than the books. What made Jim Davis a billionaire, Bill refused becoming a billionaire. Its crazy the money he turned down. Had he released just a simple Calvin and Hobbs calendar, he would've made $5 million, on just the calendar alone.
And Garfield sucks enough as it is
@@dallassegno Garfield doesn't suck.
Personally I disagree but its Watterson's strip and he knows what's best for it. I would love a Calvin and Hobbes show.
The closest was when they appeared on Family Guy , Robot Chicken and Mad cartoon .
Who do you think should voice Calvin and Hobbes maybe Hobbes should have Jim Carry .
@@nicholassims9837 I have noone in mind for calvin. It should be an actual kid or an adult because calvin is an adult in a kids body. Hobbes anyone will do. Jim Carey could work.
@@icecreamhero2375 are there any famous kid voice actors today ?
If jim Carey was hobbes I would definitely delete myself.
1:47 Did anyone cached that Mattel creations logo? They make Thomas and friends CIG.
Also one thing why Yotsuba&! can never be adapted. Trying to put an episode with the comics limited pacing and panels that don't translate well to television.
Too bad that another author's stories have been used without his permission.
I can appreciate the intent of wanting to keep it a comic strip, and not turn it into a franchise. But you hit the nail on the head, the strip is going to be forgotten about over time. It's going to become Yellow Kid. What's Yellow Kid, you ask? Exactly. Meanwhile Garfield and Snoopy are so popular that they will always be gaining new fans and a new following, because its constantly reinventing itself. Selling out actually preserves art better than than overly protecting it like a helicopter parent. Because how many kids know Superman, Batman, Snoopy, or Garfield? All of them. But how many of them actually read the comics? None of them. But they know Garfield from the posters in their classroom, Snoopy from the metlife ads, Batman from the movies, or Superman from the action figures. They have transcended culture to part of being embedded into the fabric of culture itself. The Grinch has become as synonymous with Christmas as Santa Claus has. Every single kid knows the Grinch. How many of them have read the book? Not a lot. But seeing the Grinch everywhere during Christmas time lets kids know Christmas is coming.
I think Bill Watterson’s okay with Calvin and Hobbes being forgotten about in time.
@@huntercoleman460 that's what's its gonna be. There are already things from my childhood in the 90s, that were huge back then and kids today have no idea what that even is. It's part of the reason Disney keeps making those awful reboots. Just to keep those old IP's relevant to the current generation. As much as I have feelings regarding Chris Pratt voicing Garfield, I understand that Garfield will stay relevant for years to come. Sure, my Garfield will always be Lorenzo Music. And to the kids, it will be Chris Pratt. But at least they'll know who Garfield is. Just like how everyone has "their batman," anybody of any age all know who batman is.
@@I_WANT_MY_SLAW look I respect Watterson’s wishes but I do kind of have to agree with you. Watterson himself even admitted as mentioned in the video that he could’ve taken Calvin and Hobbes in the direction of Garfield and Peanuts but he didn’t and it is what it is. Watterson even said he didn’t want anyone else’s fingerprints on Calvin and Hobbes. I can understand being an artist you want complete control over your creation but if you created something that was well loved as Calvin and Hobbes was you’d think you would want the next generation to enjoy your work as well. But as I said it’s want Watterson wants and there’s nothing we can do about it.
Nope. It won't be
Short answer, because that stuff is dumb.
I'm all for him being a cartoonist, and decided against licensing. Thats his choice. A dumb one, yes, but his choice nonetheless. But why I dont respect Bill, is that he attacked his fellow cartoonists for licensing. That's why Bill isn't well liked among other cartoonists. You don't attack your colleagues. Thats a huge no-no in any field. But it's especially bad in art. There is a mutual respect you have for the people in your field. You don't attack them. He attacked Charles Schultz and Jim Davis. The two biggest names in cartooning, and that put him on everyone's bad side. Charles and Jim (as well as any other professional cartoonist) have never gone after their own, and attacked another cartoonist. You just don't do that. And its why Bill, despite having a popular strip, is never mentioned by other cartoonists. He broke the cardianal rule. You don't go after your own. You support and protect each other. Build them up. Not break them down. It's also part of the reason he stopped doing interviews, and became a recluse. As well as his overall weird introverted nature.
Man, shit takes in this video.
To quote the strip itself: "If they could put rainbows in zoos, they would..."
I love that Bill Watterson has always been so protective of this property. It was special, and it feels safe in his exclusive hands...