Peanuts vs Calvin and Hobbes

[bigbertha 410]

Where does everyone fall on the Calvin and Hobbes vs Peanuts debate?

Personally, I prefer Peanuts because I like the more melancholic tone of it and because it's much more memorable to me. I can see the argument that Calvin and Hobbes had a concise 10 year run while Peanuts slowly declined in quality for half of its run, but not only do I think the golden age of Peanuts lasted longer than Calvin and Hobbes's run (I think the golden age of Peanuts was around the mid 1950s to the mid 1970s. About 20 years compared to Calvin and Hobbes's 10 years), but I think the best Peanuts strips are as good if not better than the best Calvin and Hobbes strips.

What do you all think?

[cuteycindyhoney 13,283]

I never liked Peanuts, because everyone treats Charlie Brown like dirt.

[Dreambiscuit 8,024]

I like Calvin & Hobbes better because of the scope of imagination. I like peanuts as well and it has a lot of great characters, but something about Calvin and his unique connection with Hobbes makes it very special to me. Calvin is a brat, and that's always a lot of fun when its presented in a unique and humorous way. And Hobbes is a perfect partner in crime. 

This one has probably made me laugh harder than anything else in my life. It's so sarcastic.

 

[Concerned Bystander 2,901]

Do I really have to pick one?  I love both of them, and they both come from very different times and play on your feeling in very different ways.  I certainly relate a lot more to Charlie Brown than I do to Calvin, but the surreal hilarity of Calvin and Hobbes tops Peanuts so I like them both in different ways.  If really pressed I would perhaps pick Calvin and Hobbes as my favourite of the two, but that is at this moment in time and if you asked me again tomorrow I might very well change my mind.

[SparklingSwirls 21,261]

Calvin and Hobbes for sure, I don’t think Peanuts is even that funny.

[TBD 17,228]

Neither, I'd read them for the sake of time convenient but never feel drawn by it.

[The Historian 515]

While I adore Peanuts, I am a huge fan of Calvin & Hobbes. I have a lot of the collections and I still read it at least once or twice a year. C&H is easily the best comic strip ever written and it's so surreal, yet always on point. I've been a fan since before the strip actually ended its original print run. Always good for a surreal laugh.

[OdellaLark 185]

Calvin and Hobbes.  But I do quite enjoy Peanuts too. I just enjoy Calvin and Hobbes just a bit more. 

[Sunny Fox 5,929]

While I know a bit about Peanuts, and I like it just fine, I really have to side with the Calvin and Hobbes crew. I just know it better, and it IS GLORIOUS! It just has so much heart. And many of favorite strips rely entirely on the visuals, with no dialogue at all. Those are really where Bill Watterson shines through as a story teller.

Spoiler for size:

Spoiler

I'm not sure if Schultz ever used that approach... I'd love to see one to compare.

I also really respect Watterson for fighting so hard to keep C&H purely as a comic. There was enormous corporate and financial pressure put on him to license merchandise or animationed adaptions, but he stood by his principles and was ultimately successful in keeping his creative control. Imagine how much richer he could have become from royalties if he had agreed to license merchandise. A number of his strips even allude to those battles, which adds another layer of depth to them.

Spoiler for size:

Spoiler

Here, Calvin's dad is representative of the corporation's complaint about his stance, and Calvin's response is pretty much Watterson's.

Again, the same might be true of Peanuts, but if so, I'm not aware of it.

[Twilight Luna 30,940]

Calvin and Hobbes by far. It was so much funnier and speaks to how kids see the world and their parents.

[bigbertha 410]

8 hours ago, Sunny Fox said:

I'm not sure if Schultz ever used that approach... I'd love to see one to compare.

Schulz had a lot of fun with visuals. Here are just a couple of my favorite visual ones:

Spoiler

 

8 hours ago, Sunny Fox said:

I also really respect Watterson for fighting so hard to keep C&H purely as a comic. There was enormous corporate and financial pressure put on him to license merchandise or animationed adaptions, but he stood by his principles and was ultimately successful in keeping his creative control. Imagine how much richer he could have become from royalties if he had agreed to license merchandise. A number of his strips even allude to those battles, which adds another layer of depth to them.

I honestly don't see the problem with licensing. As long as the writer of the comics continues to write the comics with as much care as before, so what if they make animated specials and plushes to go along with it? As long as the creator is in control of their property and controls what is made, I don't see the issue. Sure, if the syndicate has complete control, that can be a problem, but it doesn't have to be like that. It doesn't have to be a Garfield situation in which Jim Davis hasn't written the strip in decades and has a bunch of ghostwriters while he works on the merchandise. Not every situation is like that. Calvin and Hobbes didn't have to be like that. 

 

 

[Dashy 4 Ever 4,832]

While I love Peanuts and enjoyed every comic strip from it, I kinda prefer Calvin and Hobbes because it seems a bit more enjoyable, weird, and not to mention hilarious.

[Aurora Wolf 2,354]

Peanuts has a better place in my heart than Calvin and Hobbes. Maybe it's because I don't really know what IRL parenting can be like.

They never really made anything else for Calvin and Hobbes like a TV Show or a movie, but Peanuts did all of that before I was born. My parents watched Peanuts as kids, and when I was little they watched it with me.

[Here No Longer 5,270]

I never really liked Peanuts much and I generally like the Calvin and Hobbes strips I've seen, so I vote them.

 

Don't have that much of an opinion on either of them, though. 

[Sunny Fox 5,929]

22 hours ago, bigbertha said:

Schulz had a lot of fun with visuals. Here are just a couple of my favorite visual ones:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Thanks for sharing those!

22 hours ago, bigbertha said:

I honestly don't see the problem with licensing. As long as the writer of the comics continues to write the comics with as much care as before, so what if they make animated specials and plushes to go along with it? As long as the creator is in control of their property and controls what is made, I don't see the issue. Sure, if the syndicate has complete control, that can be a problem, but it doesn't have to be like that. It doesn't have to be a Garfield situation in which Jim Davis hasn't written the strip in decades and has a bunch of ghostwriters while he works on the merchandise. Not every situation is like that. Calvin and Hobbes didn't have to be like that. 

It's not that licensing is bad per se. It's more that Watterson didn't want the syndicate to license C&H and stood by that, in the face of enormous pressure and the significant amount of money he would have made if he had let them do as they wished. It's more that he fought the system and won that gets my respect, not simply having the stance of not wanting his creation to be licensed, if you understand me.  (Bonus points for actually turning that into a source of inspiration for some of his material)

As for if licensing merchandise is good or bad in itself, I haven't researched the pros and cons, so I can't really give my opinion on it one way or the other. 

[ZiggWheelsManning 7,368]

Saw a lot of Peanuts strips collected in books in my local library.  Simple stuff and humor to understand in life.  

 

As for Calvin and Hobbes, it's a coffee cup of "what the heck"  It's wild and I don't get it.  We all know that famous art that's used on the back of car windows

 

If you are fans of certain football teams that always lose, never getting the grand prize on the big stage, raise your hooves  There's a lot you can relate to with Peanuts

[Northern Star 1,023]

I had never head of C&H until we got internet in 2011 or so, so...I like "Good Ol' Charlie Brown" as it was in the daily paper.

I don't exactly think it's a fair comparison...from what I've seen of c&h, it's more humor than anything and Peanuts is more "life with humor", such as when Snoopy's dog house BURNT DOWN, and he was worried about his paintings, and Lucy was convinced that he was smoking in bed.(from the late 50s I believe).

Also the fact that Schultz was basically blind and shaking like a sieve for the last 5-10 years and still made them because he wanted to.