As for calling September as Stuffed... well, it has something to do with the stuffed toy that Creed Toys will be rolling out to the public.
With an isolated debut at Comic-Con that resulted in the building of anticipation, it makes sense to match that sooner than later.
It had to be done in stages though... as to not deplete all that accumulation in one go.
As for the decision to go with the Stuffed Hobbes, it's a matter of strategy and Alexander's foreknowledge of significant events.
Some stuff may have changed now but there are still unchanging constants for him to compare and contrast against.
------
On an interesting historical tidbit to contrast to... the original 'Calvin and Hobbes' actually has no merchandising and medium-branching strategy at all.
Which makes Alexander's stuffed toy directive to be very contradictory to everything that the original creator stood for.
Despite the popularity of the original 'Calvin and Hobbes' run, the strip remains notable for the almost complete lack of official product merchandising.
The creator, Bill Watterson, held that comic strips should stand on their own as an art form.
When ‘Calvin and Hobbes’ was accepted by Universal Press Syndicate and began to grow in popularity, Watterson found himself at odds with the very syndicate that helped him out. It was because the company had urged him to begin merchandising his characters and touring the country to promote the first collections of comic strips.
Watterson refused, believing that the integrity of the strip and its artist would be undermined by commercialization. He saw this as a major negative influence in the world of cartoon art, and that licensing his character would only violate the spirit of his work.
He gave an example of this in discussing his opposition to a Hobbes plush toy. If the essence of Hobbes' nature in the strip is that it remains unresolved whether he is a real tiger or a stuffed toy, then creating a real stuffed toy would only destroy the magic.
In spite of being an unproven cartoonist, and having been flown all the way to New York to discuss the proposal, Watterson reflexively resented the idea of "merchandising" and turned it all down.
He refused to license his creation to anyone for any reason other than publishing. No movies, no cartoons, no toys, no hats or t-shirts. Nothing.
When asked in an interview why licensing his characters was out of the question, Watterson said:
"Basically, I’ve decided that licensing is inconsistent with what I’m trying to do with Calvin and Hobbes. I take cartoons seriously as an art form, so I think with an issue like licensing, it’s important to analyze what my strip is about, and what makes it work."
"It’s easy to transfer the essence of a gag-oriented strip, especially a one-panel gag strip, from the newspaper page to a T-shirt, a mug, a greeting card, and so on. The joke reads the same no matter what it’s printed on, and the joke is what the strip is about. Nothing is lost."
"My strip works differently. ‘Calvin and Hobbes’ isn’t a gag strip. It has a punch line, but the strip is about more than that. The humor is situational and often episodic. It relies on conversation and the development of personalities and relationships."
"These aren’t concerns you can wrap up neatly in a clever little saying for people to send each other or to hang up on their walls. To explore character, you need lots of time and space. Note pads and coffee mugs just aren’t appropriate vehicles for what I’m trying to do here. I’m not interested in removing all the subtlety from my work to condense it for a product. The strip is about more than jokes."
"I think the Universal Syndicate would admit this if they would start looking at my strip instead of just the royalty checks. Unfortunately, they are in the cartoon business only because it makes money, so arguments about artistic intentions are never very persuasive to them. I have no aversion to obscene wealth, but that’s not my motivation either. I think to license ‘Calvin and Hobbes’ would ruin the most precious qualities of my strip and, once that happens, you can’t buy those qualities back."
In essence, what makes Calvin and Hobbes so special is the subtlety of its underlying messages, as well as its situational comedy.
The magic of Calvin and Hobbes is its youthful innocence, despite the naughty antics of Calvin and Hobbes.
The commentaries of society from a child’s perspective but seems to all be articulated by an Oxford scholar.
Maybe what has made Calvin and Hobbes such a lasting brand is its lack of commercialism and instead focus on its integrity and consistency.
For it not only entertains but teaches as well.
It teaches us to question.
To be curious.
And that's what makes Calvin and Hobbes so magical.
You just have to go explore.
It was a noble decision and some would even support Watterson as it seems completely justified.
It was his creation, who were they to judge?
Watterson’s path may not necessarily be the right one, however, someone that disciplined and resolute in his convictions can probably teach us all something about integrity.
Maybe that’s how you build a lasting brand. That’s how you build meaning!
----
The now capitalistic Alexander and other capitalistic minds would say otherwise though.
Watterson's way is not the only way to make a lasting brand or "build meaning".
From a businessman's perspective, Watterson's method was the most inefficient way to go about it.
Take Garfield and creator Jim Davis for example... it is the same comic strip and comic creator dynamic but Garfield is said to have earned somewhere between 750 million and 1 billion dollars from Garfield-related merchandise sold in an average calendar year.
While Calvin and Hobbes was or is arguably the superior comic strip... Garfield and even Peanuts, are easily the most profitable comic strip franchises.
If Watterson went the merchandising route, who knows how successful he would have been with it?
It is rumored that the estimated value of licensing revenue forgone by Watterson was around $300–$400 million. Maybe even astoundingly more if things really took off.
It was only a matter of time for things to be made clear though...
After all, stubborn Watterson has been removed from the equation entirely.
Alexander, the unashamed plunderer that took over the creator mantle, admittedly has no idea where good ol' Bill Watterson was.
The man may still be part of some advertising company or moved on to formulating his next big comic strip. Poor Bill probably has no idea that his decade's worth of hard work had actually been usurped already.
Just one thing was certain... the man's supposed magnum opus was now owned by others to use on a profiteering whim.
Whether Bill would like it or not, the Comic-Con-acclaimed Stuffed Hobbes were going to be distributed to respective retailers such as comic book stores, toy stores, shops, and markets.
Through this process, Creed Toys had already made a profit but they still have to look out for returned inventory and the sales record of the product as well.
In due course, everything that Bill Watterson has stubbornly missed out on and everything that Universal Syndicate has regretted... will be something for Creed Entertainment to experience.
Instead of being stuffed and stifled by frustration, Creed will advance with a poetically un-stifling stuffed toy.
A monumental toy in its own right since Stuffed Hobbes would just be the start and there will surely be many more to come!
UniVerseLessOne This is a work of fiction and a lot of unresearched topics so don't bash my trashy work too much.
As for calling September as Stuffed... well, it has something to do with the stuffed toy that Creed Toys will be rolling out to the public.
With an isolated debut at Comic-Con that resulted in the building of anticipation, it makes sense to match that sooner than later.
It had to be done in stages though... as to not deplete all that accumulation in one go.
As for the decision to go with the Stuffed Hobbes, it's a matter of strategy and Alexander's foreknowledge of significant events.
Some stuff may have changed now but there are still unchanging constants for him to compare and contrast against.
------
On an interesting historical tidbit to contrast to... the original 'Calvin and Hobbes' actually has no merchandising and medium-branching strategy at all.
Which makes Alexander's stuffed toy directive to be very contradictory to everything that the original creator stood for.
Despite the popularity of the original 'Calvin and Hobbes' run, the strip remains notable for the almost complete lack of official product merchandising.
The creator, Bill Watterson, held that comic strips should stand on their own as an art form.
When ‘Calvin and Hobbes’ was accepted by Universal Press Syndicate and began to grow in popularity, Watterson found himself at odds with the very syndicate that helped him out. It was because the company had urged him to begin merchandising his characters and touring the country to promote the first collections of comic strips.
Watterson refused, believing that the integrity of the strip and its artist would be undermined by commercialization. He saw this as a major negative influence in the world of cartoon art, and that licensing his character would only violate the spirit of his work.
He gave an example of this in discussing his opposition to a Hobbes plush toy. If the essence of Hobbes' nature in the strip is that it remains unresolved whether he is a real tiger or a stuffed toy, then creating a real stuffed toy would only destroy the magic.
In spite of being an unproven cartoonist, and having been flown all the way to New York to discuss the proposal, Watterson reflexively resented the idea of "merchandising" and turned it all down.
He refused to license his creation to anyone for any reason other than publishing. No movies, no cartoons, no toys, no hats or t-shirts. Nothing.
When asked in an interview why licensing his characters was out of the question, Watterson said:
"Basically, I’ve decided that licensing is inconsistent with what I’m trying to do with Calvin and Hobbes. I take cartoons seriously as an art form, so I think with an issue like licensing, it’s important to analyze what my strip is about, and what makes it work."
"It’s easy to transfer the essence of a gag-oriented strip, especially a one-panel gag strip, from the newspaper page to a T-shirt, a mug, a greeting card, and so on. The joke reads the same no matter what it’s printed on, and the joke is what the strip is about. Nothing is lost."
"My strip works differently. ‘Calvin and Hobbes’ isn’t a gag strip. It has a punch line, but the strip is about more than that. The humor is situational and often episodic. It relies on conversation and the development of personalities and relationships."
"These aren’t concerns you can wrap up neatly in a clever little saying for people to send each other or to hang up on their walls. To explore character, you need lots of time and space. Note pads and coffee mugs just aren’t appropriate vehicles for what I’m trying to do here. I’m not interested in removing all the subtlety from my work to condense it for a product. The strip is about more than jokes."
"I think the Universal Syndicate would admit this if they would start looking at my strip instead of just the royalty checks. Unfortunately, they are in the cartoon business only because it makes money, so arguments about artistic intentions are never very persuasive to them. I have no aversion to obscene wealth, but that’s not my motivation either. I think to license ‘Calvin and Hobbes’ would ruin the most precious qualities of my strip and, once that happens, you can’t buy those qualities back."
In essence, what makes Calvin and Hobbes so special is the subtlety of its underlying messages, as well as its situational comedy.
The magic of Calvin and Hobbes is its youthful innocence, despite the naughty antics of Calvin and Hobbes.
The commentaries of society from a child’s perspective but seems to all be articulated by an Oxford scholar.
Maybe what has made Calvin and Hobbes such a lasting brand is its lack of commercialism and instead focus on its integrity and consistency.
For it not only entertains but teaches as well.
It teaches us to question.
To be curious.
And that's what makes Calvin and Hobbes so magical.
You just have to go explore.
It was a noble decision and some would even support Watterson as it seems completely justified.
It was his creation, who were they to judge?
Watterson’s path may not necessarily be the right one, however, someone that disciplined and resolute in his convictions can probably teach us all something about integrity.
Maybe that’s how you build a lasting brand. That’s how you build meaning!
----
The now capitalistic Alexander and other capitalistic minds would say otherwise though.
Watterson's way is not the only way to make a lasting brand or "build meaning".
From a businessman's perspective, Watterson's method was the most inefficient way to go about it.
Take Garfield and creator Jim Davis for example... it is the same comic strip and comic creator dynamic but Garfield is said to have earned somewhere between 750 million and 1 billion dollars from Garfield-related merchandise sold in an average calendar year.
While Calvin and Hobbes was or is arguably the superior comic strip... Garfield and even Peanuts, are easily the most profitable comic strip franchises.
If Watterson went the merchandising route, who knows how successful he would have been with it?
It is rumored that the estimated value of licensing revenue forgone by Watterson was around $300–$400 million. Maybe even astoundingly more if things really took off.
It was only a matter of time for things to be made clear though...
After all, stubborn Watterson has been removed from the equation entirely.
Alexander, the unashamed plunderer that took over the creator mantle, admittedly has no idea where good ol' Bill Watterson was.
The man may still be part of some advertising company or moved on to formulating his next big comic strip. Poor Bill probably has no idea that his decade's worth of hard work had actually been usurped already.
Just one thing was certain... the man's supposed magnum opus was now owned by others to use on a profiteering whim.
Whether Bill would like it or not, the Comic-Con-acclaimed Stuffed Hobbes were going to be distributed to respective retailers such as comic book stores, toy stores, shops, and markets.
Through this process, Creed Toys had already made a profit but they still have to look out for returned inventory and the sales record of the product as well.
In due course, everything that Bill Watterson has stubbornly missed out on and everything that Universal Syndicate has regretted... will be something for Creed Entertainment to experience.
Instead of being stuffed and stifled by frustration, Creed will advance with a poetically un-stifling stuffed toy.
A monumental toy in its own right since Stuffed Hobbes would just be the start and there will surely be many more to come!
UniVerseLessOne This is a work of fiction and a lot of unresearched topics so don't bash my trashy work too much.
