Obviously all you’ve done is leaf because honestly, I can’t remember a time in Winnie The Pooh where Christopher Robin and Tigger got in a fight because Tigger wouldn’t eat the kid that’s been bullying Christopher at school.
They’re nothing alike.
Also, the licensing thing is pretty simple: Watterson thought that licensing would cheapen the characters. That’s his call to make and getting mad at him for it seems both childish and silly.
Also also, Garfield stopped being funny about 2 weeks after it’s debut when the jokes started thier first repeat.
Evil Death, I can see where this is headed. I am not going to contribute further to hijacking this thread. This all started when bemoaned Davis’ lack of creativity (which you ultimately conceded when you said the strip was in a rut).
You go on to lambast me for the placing any degree of belief in a Slate article that was referenced and quoted by another poster.
You finish up by throwing out some incredibly ignorant attacks on Bill Watterson’s integrity when all I mentioned is that he demonstrated ultimate restraint in not merchandising his creation. If you feel strongly about Watterson being a thief I suggest you stop hijacking a Garfield thread, start a new thread devoted to your conviction and see it get blown out of the water.
You are right on one point: I do have a busy schedule; one that is too busy to waste by debating with an ignoramus.
If Garfield isn’t over-merchandised, then I don’t know who is. The only other modern comic strip character I can think of that has nearly that much exposure is Snoopy.
You misunderstand me badly if you think I’m getting mad at Watterson. I don’t get mad at him any more than I get mad at David Gemmell for refusing to sell movie rights to his books because Hollywood would screw them up - less, probably, as I’d love to see a movie of Legend now the Massive engine has shown it possible. I also agree that the world would be a better place without shelves full of merchandise for the likes of Pokemon and especially Harry bleedin’ Potter (and indeed, without Harry Potter at all. But that is another rant, Gentle Reader, and shall be told another day).
Thank you for not being a dick and providing the reason, BTW.
Right; back to the real business of the thread.
It took a number of years to get into a cycle of repeats. The strip seemed to hit the bad rut around the early 90s, as best I can tell from my complete archive.
It’s still funny a fair amount of the time, which is more than most strips can manage after running that long (see: BC)
A few interesting coincidences:[ul]
[li]Letterman went to college with Jim Davis (I think they were roommates).[/li][li]Lorenzo Music did the voice of Garfield on the TV version of the cartoon strip.[/li][li]Bill Murray is doing the voice of Garfiled in the movie version.[/li][li]Bil Murray played Peter Venkman in the movie Ghostbusters.[/li][li]Lorenzo Music did the voice of Peter Venkman on the cartoon version of Ghostbusters![/ul][/li]And I’m sure he would have been Garfield on the bigscreen had he not inconveniently died a few years ago…
OK, Evil Death and Hey You!, let’s drop the insults. I apologize, I don’t have time to read this whole thread and decide who started it, and I don’t much care who started it. Terms like “six-year old” and “ignoramus” are NOT appropriate in Cafe Society… at least, not when applied to other posters.
You want to apply such terms to Jim Davis, the movie producers, the movie animators, writers, or directors, be my guest. But you do NOT apply such terms to other posters, not in this forum. Go to the PIT, if you want to do that.
Are we clear?
OK, then, back to dis-ing a vacuous movie made from an over-the-hill comic strip.
Do we have to? I’d rather purge my mind of everything associated with that cinematic litterbox and let this thread die a quiet death. How it’s gotten this far is beyond me.