I don't get Calvin & Hobbes

Rebelsun's picture

Calvin & Hobbes came at the time when cartoons like Doug, Bobby's World, and Pepper Ann came out. These cartoons have a similiar premise: kids who's imaginations come alive, while grown-ups (as well as their schoolmates) didn't see what's going on in their heads.

So what makes Calvin & Hobbes stand out from these "imaginative kids" cartoons?

xerexes's picture

Calvin & Hobbes Vs. Garfield?

 Sorry to ressurrect an old thread (it's that darn "last viewed story" feature I added recently) but for some reason the C&H versus Garfield on this thread made me chuckle. 

Now that's real intertubes drama...

____

Xaviar Xerexes

On second thought, let's not go to Comixpedia. It is a silly place.

Xaviar Xerexes Oh yeah... this place is called ComixTalk now.
eldritchmonkey's picture

It's a terrible injustice, regardless.

Duncanzits's picture

Calvin & Hobbes was well-written and had good artwork. What's more to say?

J-Sun's picture

Re:

mcbean wrote:
There was a certain attitude that Bill Watterson had making his comics. He was able to capture that and parlay it onto paper. Get the tenth anniversary book with the essays by Bill Watterson in the front, then you might understand why Calvin and Hobbes was the best comic around.

Bill Watterson = Super Genius :D

n/a
Twentyfour's picture

Re:

eldritchmonkey wrote:
Calvin lived in his own world and occassionally other people stumbled into it. It wasn't so much escapism as it was the way he saw reality.

Ah! yea.. that sounds better :)

careyst's picture

I drew a picture of a stickman.

Why is Leonardo DaVinci's drawing of a man better than my stickman?

Twentyfour's picture

Re:

"Rebelsun" wrote:
Sorry, don't mean to give you some rising. I just need to know how different Calvin & Hobbes is from and above others.
... well... first off you're comparing a comic strip to animated television shows. Secondly I don't really see Pepper Ann or Doug being about the kids imaginations. I saw them being more about their lives and who they were. Doug pining over the cute girl(forgot her name at the moment) and day dreaming about her in a 30 second dream sequence or Pepper Ann planning out her future stardom(I remember the series loosely, forgive me). The characters spent the majority of the show in real life with only the occassional day dream(although I seem to recall a Doug episode where it was close to 50/50, I think it was a Halloween episode...*shrug*) Bobby's World was more about a boy escaping his boring life and imagining exciting things happening to him(I watched 3 episodes, I think I slept through most of them too so let me know if I'm off). I'm assuming it was pretty much Muppet Babies with a little more Howie Mandell and a little less bad Jim Henson impersonations. Calvin and Hobbes differs from Doug and Pepper Ann as his day dreaming moments are just as much, if not more, a part of his life as any other part. Watterson would fill an entire page with a with realistic drawings of anything from a velociraptors hunting on a playground, to the creation of Earth by Calvin.... and then BAM hit us with a punchline panel back in the "real" world The major difference between Bobby's World and Calvin and Hobbes is that Bobby's world sucked... other than that. Bobby used his imagination because the world was too boring for him. Calvin used his imagination because he was to great for the world... that make enough sense? That enough of an answer? Oh yea, Rebel, it almost seems like you're writing a paper about this seeing as you asked the same question three times after people pretty much told you it was a bad comparison to start with. If so, don't plagiarise :D -24
Rebelsun's picture

Sorry, don't mean to give you some rising. I just need to know how different Calvin & Hobbes is from and above others.

mickasso's picture

Calvin and Hobbes was genius.

The end.

Townie's picture

You're not looking at it chronologically or even in the right context. It's like you're saying there are plenty of shows where little kids talk like adults, so what makes Peanuts so special?

n/a
careyst's picture

Doug!?

Good lord, man, do you not own a pair of eyes?!

Honestly, please reread the responses above because they have already answered your question (including the fact that Doug was produced in 1991 - six years AFTER the first Calvin and Hobbes strip ran).

Rebelsun's picture

Alright, let's take this in a few steps. How does Calvin & Hobbes compare to Doug (for example)?

Townie's picture

Calvin and Hobbes began in 1985, if I'm correct. The productions you mentioned mostly came out in the 1990s. If you want to debate content, Watterson says he wanted the world of C&H to be the world of a comic strip - nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't about some sight gag of the contrast between perceptions. It was about this world, these characters, and different ideals. He made various social commentaries, but he also made smaller personal ones. The strip had a lot of zen qualities to it. Not to mention the fanties weren't affraid to go where a lot of other properties were.

n/a
TheTeague's picture

Calvin wasn't a sweet little kid, or a poor-luck nice guy. He was selfish and egostitical, but not because he was a jerk, but because kids that aget have trouble empathizing with others. They havn't reached that stage of cognitive ability yet. Waterson didn't write kids as miniature adults or stereotype kids, he wrote them as kids with thier actual short attention spans, hair-trigger imaginations, self obsorbtion, and naive vulnerability. Some sundays Waterson would free himself up to wax poetic through Calvin about human nature, the meaning of existance, the complexities of time and space, but always remembering to give Calvin a good kick to the face of reality to bring him down to earth.

As for art, Waterson was always trying to do more than the measly space given on the comics page would let him. Giving panels with Calvin's fantasies the vividness, detail, and beauty that a kid with a runaway imagination would see. The Spaceman Spiff stories, the Bullet Tracer storyline, The Dinosaur comics, Calvin outgrowing the world. All wonderful handcrafted peices of art alone that would be fit to hang on your wall.

But I think that it's the same care and emotion found in classic Disney feature animations, as reminded by the recent passing of the masterful Character Animator Frank Thomas, in the joy and sorrow of the characters, such as Calvin snuggling up to a warm sleeping Tiger belly, Calvin's panic/fear/bravery when after worrying about the repurcusions of accidently crashing his Dad's car in a ditch, he confronts his father with tears in his eyes afraid that after this and all his other agrivations might cause his parents not to love him any more. The way Hobbes tortures Calvin with a daily tackle at the front door and tries to hid his joy at seeing Calvin come home from school as his tigerish instinct to attack weak animals. Or just seeing how lonely and powerless the commonly loud and self-confident Calvin is when he loses his best friend for a week worrying him to death.

mcbean's picture

There was a certain attitude that Bill Watterson had making his comics. He was able to capture that and parlay it onto paper. Get the tenth anniversary book with the essays by Bill Watterson in the front, then you might understand why Calvin and Hobbes was the best comic around.

kiwi's picture

Calvin and Hobbes ended years before Pepper Ann even began. You're a decade off. :)

kjc's picture

Re: I don

It wasn't "cute" really. More often than not it was a little on the rude side. I think that made it more appealing than the cuter works, touching chords for both adults and kids (as the best cartoons - animated or not - tend to do).

Kelly J.

Rebelsun's picture

I don't get Calvin & Hobbes

Calvin & Hobbes came at the time when cartoons like Doug, Bobby's World, & Pepper Ann came out. These cartoons have a similiar premise: kids who's imaginations come alive, while grown-ups (as well as their schoolmates) didn't see what's going on in their heads. So what makes Calvin & Hobbes stand out from these "imaginative kids" cartoons?

eldritchmonkey's picture

If Garfield came out funnier than C & H, there's something very VERY wrong with your newspaper. If I wasn't so lazy, people would suffer my rath! But...you know...I am.

Kathleen_J's picture

Re:

eldritchmonkey wrote:
If Garfield came out funnier than C & H, there's something very VERY wrong with your newspaper. If I wasn't so lazy, people would suffer my rath! But...you know...I am.

My guess would be that something probably was lost in the translation. I suppose Calvin and Hobbes wouldn't lend itself particularily well to being translated into another language, as Watterson's writing style has a distinctive charm. And Calvin's world involves a lot of invented concepts and made-up words, so some poor shmoe in the translation department would've been stuck with the problem of how the hell you say "Transmogrifier" in Portugese. Do translations in general lose a lot of the original feel? It would be interesting to do some comparisons.

eldritchmonkey's picture

Calvin lived in his own world and occassionally other people stumbled into it. It wasn't so much escapism as it was the way he saw reality.

Anonymous's picture

Re:

eldritchmonkey wrote:
If Garfield came out funnier than C & H, there's something very VERY wrong with your newspaper. If I wasn't so lazy, people would suffer my rath! But...you know...I am.

Garfield is actually more due to come out funnier than C&H because there's just too little text attached to it. It's often just body language and slapstick humor, and that kinda thing is, at least to a bigger extent than a particular writing style, universal. There's a reason why the damn cat appeals to so many people around the globe afterall.

RPin's picture

Of all the international funnies that run on brazilian newspapers, C&H was always one of my least favorites (losing only to garfield).

There were some strips that I felt were good, and I certainly respect all that Bill Watterson means, but... Maybe it's due to the fact that the jokes were often so "lousily" (does that word exist?) translated, or maybe it's because when put aside to the brazilian strips, its political correctness didn't stand a chance... I dunno. I always more of a fan of Jim Meddick myself.

n/a
Anonymous's picture

The biggest difference was that Calvin and Hobbes was a comic strip and the rest where animated cartoons. So how people experienced them was completely different. With comics strips we provide the voices and make the connections between panels. So for some people Hobbes is real--and others he's all in Calvins imagination. That makes it unique for each reader and gives it a personal connection.

Structure wise Bobby's World was very similar to Calvin in how you popped in and out of his imagination. But they they controled the comings and goings rather than leaving it up to the audience. I personally still enjoyed that show.

Doug and PepperAnn where very similar to themselves. But I wouldn't compare them to Calvin in Hobbes because they where more slice of life pre-teen "moral tales".

-d

http://www.yaytime.realmsend.com

ToddMeder's picture

Re:

careyst wrote:
I drew a picture of a stickman. Why is Leonardo DaVinci's drawing of a man better than my stickman?

Ha! :lol:

lichkeeg's picture

I've purchased every single Calvin and Hobbes book available. The comic was genius in the way that Bill Watterson managed to capture the exact and intrinsic nature of almost everything he observed. His versatility in subject matter (death, the "system", television, advertising, slimy girls, etc) was just captivating, and having it come through the mouth of a six year old, for whatever reason, gave it more impact.

Watterson's work is the reason I do webcomics. Absolute genius.

ToddMeder's picture

A six year old having grand philosophical conversations with a stuffed tiger whilst(I love that word) speeding down a mountanside in a little red wagon? Maybe that's not everyone's thing, but C&H definitely stood apart in both the originality and sheer unadulterated genius departments. If other strips or cartoon shows seemed similar, they were almost certainly imitators.