"I hate Calvin and Hobbes. I think its a big re-hash of formula kid strips"

Bill Griffith, the cartoonist behind the long-running strip "Zippy the Pinhead", makes quite the strong statement in expressing his distaste for "Calvin and Hobbes". His comment, "I dislike Calvin and Hobbes. I believe it's a huge re-hash of formula kid strips", seems to cut straight versus the grain of widespread admiration for Bill Watterson's work. Griffith's review can be parsed along a number of lines of analysis.

To start with, by stating, "I dislike Calvin and Hobbes", Griffith is positioning himself against a cultural phenomenon that has been almost universally applauded for its wit, creative development, and philosophical depth. "Calvin and Hobbes" is commemorated not just for its humor, but likewise for its expedition of much deeper styles such as imagination, existential musings, and social commentary. Griffith's severe phrasing utilizing "hate" recommends a visceral response instead of a determined review, highlighting perhaps an individual or professional divergence in stylistic or thematic preferences.

The latter part of Griffith's remark, "I think it's a big re-hash of formula kid strips", suggests that he views "Calvin and Hobbes" as derivative instead of revolutionary. By identifying it a "re-hash", Griffith implies that Watterson's strip doesn't use anything new to the genre of children's comics. This view posits that the vibrant in between the naughty child and his anthropomorphic companion simply reiterates well-trodden themes seen in earlier comics, stopping working to break new ground in the way a number of its admirers believe it does.

Griffith's remark may likewise mean a more comprehensive commentary on the nature of imagination and originality within the cartoon industry. From one perspective, this might be viewed as a critique of how the most commercially successful works are typically those that comply with familiar patterns, potentially suppressing more avant-garde or experimental efforts. Yet, this perspective might neglect how "Calvin and Hobbes" revitalizes the classic format with distinctly philosophical concerns and visual innovation.

In amount, Griffith's comment about "Calvin and Hobbes" reveals a schism within creative communities about what constitutes originality and worth in creative works. Whether one agrees with him or not, it opens an intriguing discussion about the role of custom versus development in creative expression.