I wouldn't have liked Calvin & Hobbs any less if its creator had made massive, life-altering money.Me either, but the fact that he didn't makes it far more special IMO. Not more enjoyable, just something that I look at and admire.The author is mentally ill. I feel sad that he hasn't benefited like he deserved from his creation.Nevada, I totally respect your opinions on many different things, but this is categorically ridiculous. Money has different value to different people, and just because Watterson chose to forgo that money doesn't in any way mean he hasn't benefited in the way he deserved, and certainly doesn't mean he's mentally ill (though maybe you were just being sarcastic on that point).Watterson passed on the money because it meant a loss of control over his creation. His interest wasn't in making massive amounts of money from it. His interest was in retaining total control over it. There's a great point hit on in the film which talks about Peanuts, and how Shultz enabled Peanuts to go the merchandizing route. And they talked about what's "too far," which was specifically noted as Snoopy et al pimping insurance.Watterson would have lost immense control if he'd allowed C&H to start going down that road. He valued his control over his creation at well over nine figures. I don't think that in any way indicates he didn't benefit as much as he should have. Each person will put a different price on the value of that control. I don't know anyone personally that would put that price on their own intellectual property. But Watterson did, and I respect the hell out of it.- C -
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra