Comments on: yea, verily, i say unto thee – “THIS!”

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:12:41 +0000

“Nothing is static in this life. Sacred cows make the best hamburgers.”

Dude, I think this is my new mantra.

May your path be straight.

By: Grimmash

Grimmash — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:05:58 +0000

Just a thought – It could be possible that the artist who drew this was not aware of Watterson’s stance on others using his work in way such as this. I’ve always liked C&H, but I don’t spend time reading about Watterson.

By: Emilija

Emilija — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 13:41:10 +0000

to all the people arguing, it’s a fanart. It’s someone who admires the original work, and did their take on it. It’s not for profit, and if you don’t like it, you can exit the browser

By: Sasha

Sasha — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:42:42 +0000

Grief, can’t anyone here appreciate the message without shooting the medium and the messenger?

By: Jenn

Jenn — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:55:49 +0000

Very well said. Bravo, and if I’d like to say, I challenge any artist out there that is bold enough I’d like to see this adult Calvin stuff continued on in a webcomic or something. Nice article on top of the art as well. I’ve been store-housing my old calvin and hobbs comics for when I have kids.

By: Sean

Sean — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:55:54 +0000

“Can anyone pls explain this? I didnt get it.Thx.”

Dodo, it’s based on an American comic strip called Calvin and Hobbes. The guy waving in the background (Calvin?) used to own the tiger, but now he’s grown up and given it to his kid, I guess. Hope that clears things up.

By: Kino

Kino — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:53:51 +0000

Wondering if there’s a bigger version of this image. I’d love to have it on my wall.

As to the whole “rip-off” argument… while I think Watterson might in fact actually like this one, the only way to know for sure is if he were to comment on it himself. Maybe that would resolve the issue…

By: Mork

Mork — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:13:57 +0000

techrat, using the internet to convince us of your point using the biggest words you can muster is pretty lame.

Do you think if you muddle your point with incomprehensible blabber it will make you seem smarter? Your point more clear? More clever?

Sorry. Artists create original art. They don’t manipulate another’s images into some personal distortion of their own, like this cheap peice.

Watterson created these images and has been outspoken on his desire to prevent them from commercialization. It is clear he had a personal connection (obviously) to his characters. For other people to take those characters and create something that was never intended is wrong. Make the statement in your own, original way. You argue that Watterson wouldn’t disapprove because of no commercial gain. Are you saying his characters can be taken, twisted, recreated, and strewn about the internet as long as no money is being made and he would be okay with that?

The fact is, this is the INTELLECTUAL property of one person. If you aren’t that person, well, you don’t have the right to distribute the images and then make claims as to what the owner would approve or disapprove of. No matter how “inspiring” YOU make believe it to be.

By: mattnnz

mattnnz — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 07:22:07 +0000

What a bunch of nattering dorks on this thread. I love sentiment expressed by the pic. I hope when I have kids that I will be able give them all of good aspects from my childhood and heritage with fewer of the negative things. God-willing.

By: bill

bill — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 03:09:12 +0000

We recognize this as Watterson-esque. At first blush, it does not offend, but reminds us of the truth of Calvin & Hobbes. Sometimes this is the best way to reach a lot of people. There is no point in dissing the creator of this piece or the person who posted it. I doubt either are attempting to make money from it, let alone ‘ripping off’ Bill Watterson. It uses the imagery of Calvin & Hobbes to convey a nice message. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of it.