>Comics lack the freedom that reading a book gives you.
>Comics lack immersion of a live action or a cartoon.
What do we have? What makes comics special? Are comics just the shitty middle ground that lacks any special feature other than being a consecrated picture book?
Can you put into words what you felt when you looked at some comic book page that felt like it could not be adapted to other media?
Other urls found in this thread:
web.archive.org
twitter.com
It insists upon itself.
Comics is the most direct visual storytelling medium for an artist. It's the place where one person is able to make the most impact. Live action requires wrangling people and reality itself, animation fails because it requires too many hands to bring something to life.
Comparing a visual medium to a written medium is a futile effort
Comics is a good medium but is socially historically inferior to books. Doesnt help the fact that some of the most celebrated comics ever are just iper edgy wankfests who pretentiously tryhard to be some kind of great literature but horribly failed
Grant Morrison's Pax Americana.
Has a spread of a building, but it's divided into multiple panels, and about each third of these panels were a different time of day, allowing the reader to easily read the book from beginning to end or vice-versa.
Are paintings just the inferior medium?
>Paintings lack the freedom that real life gives you.
>Paintings lack immersion of real life.
What do we have? What makes paintings special? Are paintings just the shitty middle ground that lacks any special feature other than being a consecrated picture?
Can you put into words what you felt when you looked at some painting that felt like it could not be adapted to other media?
It's a fantastic medium with no limitations dominated by hacks and people that don't respect it and just want adaptations.
Pax americana is good. Great if you have read not much comics.
According to an actual comic book writer, writers in general aren’t respected and a comic book artist gets way more respect than a writer.
web.archive.org
The comic book in and of itself cannot be adapted into anything because comics are their own medium. You can read a book outloud and still keep the narrative, you can make a movie and all you have to do is watch and follow. But with a comic book, that's something you have to read and experience by yourself in your own head; there's no other way to consume it. You can't read a comic outloud without destroying the pace of the narrative, and you can't just make a slideshow of comics with a voiceover. You have to use your eyes and your mind in order to create this running narrative in your head that's happen as you scan the page, and your brain is automatically combining words and pictures to come up with the beginning, middle, and end. It's completely self contained, and you could say a comic book is a represenation of time itself, with the artist/writer skillfull arraning the pictures and words to make you experience a specific narrative.
So, you can take the story of comic book and adapt into anything, but you can't adapt an actual comic book into anything but what it is; words and pictures in strips/bands on a page. It's its own unique medium. There is literally nothing like it. It's modern day hieroglyphics.
Comics aren't an inferior medium. It's just that they pay dick and so they only attract mediocre (at best) talent. Talented writers and artists work in better paying fields.
In theory you could have a good adaptation. Alan Moore actually did like the justice league episode that was an adaptation of for the man who has everything.
But that is only relevant for the artist, for the reader it's basically the same as a book, without the freedom that the abstraction inherent to words gives you.
But comics are a middle ground, some comics even manage to win literature prizes.
>Are paintings just the inferior medium?
They basically are, that is you are talking about realistic paintings, hence why abstract art is a lot more recognized nowadays.
So are books and movies.
That's a very general answer that applies to anything. Sure, you can't adapt anything into other without losing something from the medium itself, but is it relevant to the work itself? Like will it be just different or objectively worse?
For example most of Lovecraft books are so dependent to the complete abstraction that words provide that you wouldn't be able to adapt his work without butchering it. On the other hand even polemic adaptations such as Watchmen have the flaw lying on the director, not the medium itself, and most of them could've been done differently to a more faithful adaption and present the same idea Moore originally conceived, it would be different, but it wouldn't be worse.
Good answer tho.
I wouldn’t say they’re inferior but with the rise in cgi quality they certainly took a big hit in terms of what films can and can’t do. But I think there are ways a comic can elicit action that a film can’t quite replicate and I don’t care what anyone says the watchmen is unfilmae because you’ll never be able to deal with the ambiguity of deciding what each action is in your first read through against a first watch through
Sorrow. I can't even be upset at you calling comics an inferior medium without a bearing for what's unanimously agreed upon to be the or a goal for civilization. Or this civilizarion, you, Yea Forums independently - Yea Forums - what are your priorities what's you up what's your down. I don't know of any absolute truths besides Jesus and Yahweh and all that traditional stuff describing who individuality and how we all share a relationship via individuality.
So comics might be an inferior medium of you're from the bizarro verse.
A comic eliminates the endless descriptive prose by visualizing it and allows you to focus on the story and character interaction.
Unfortunately, the biggest comics medium (capes) tends to fail on capitalizing on this strength.
>Comics lack the freedom that reading a book gives you.
>Comics lack immersion of a live action or a cartoon.
Under that logic the inferior medium would be painting.
So do movies and cartoons
Sure, of fucking course paintings is the worse medium when we are arguing about narrative mediums considering paintings aren't a narrative medium at all.
Read OPs post, it doesn't say narrative mediums, it just say mediums.
>paintings aren't a narrative medium at all
Paintings are absolutely a narrative medium you moron.
For fuck sake I'm OP I thought it was already implied.
>Imagine thinking you can properly narrate a story with a painting.
And I can’t watch movies and cartoons at work, but can read comics at work. Hah!
>Imagine thinking you can't
Hieroglyphs and renaissance painters would like a word with you.
What you must believe is "narrating" something with a painting usually is either a just a representation of a narration that is already in your head (Sistine Chapel) or just older forms of comics (Cave painting or Egyptian hieroglyphs)
case and point.
Have you never heard the phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words"?
Look, I'll dumb it down by using the most blatantly simple example of a single image being used to tell a story, here's a bit of on the nose propaganda. It tells a story, it has characters, it has a goal and antagonist, you can infer the series of events that led up to and follow it. Its an abstracted story, sure, but its almost better than some long schizoid rant about politics because the viewer just gets the idea based off one image.
What about that one guy who did a series of cat paintings while his schizophrenia got worse?
No they are not.
Books > Easy to write, no artistic skill needed.
Animation > Action, immersion and explosive effects
Movies > Easier to film by posing actors, explosive effects and look of reality
Comics > Easier to write than Movies or animation. Less drawing between panels than animation. Drawn effect but without explosive action.
More design and visualisation than books.
Its just different thing in terms of what artistic skill, writing, action and costs.
Or how about this? Sure, at a glance its just a painting of people eating and looking disgusted at something, but are you such a brainlet lacking in imagination that you can't picture the story here? Of a painter, perhaps an outcast, going out to take reference of people in his local villa? Of him settling down in an obtuse and embarrassing way to paint them, maybe expecting praise, only to be met with distaste? And he could be so hurt by this that he focuses on that image of peers looking at you in shame, and so you get this? Sure, you have to read into it, but that's what makes illustrations more versatile than words: a skilled artist can lead the imagination in the right ways to think about abstract and long things in an instant.
>Have you never heard the phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words"
The main appeal of books is BECAUSE less is more.
It still a really bad way to tell a story. Said picture is hardly a story, your mind is creating a story around it based on what you know about the context, someone with a different context might make up a completely different story about the picture because the picture itself is as much of a story as a synopsis.
>your mind is creating a story around it based on what you know about the context, someone with a different context might make up a completely different story about the picture
do you really not see the value in that?
The picture is a inspiration for your mind to fill the narrative with whatever you can make out of it. There's hardly any narrative in the picture itself.
That is not to say that there isn't any, it's just that there's so little in it to the point it still can't be said to be a narrative medium, it's just a representative one.
Almost like a novel can have multiple meanings to different people? It's all subjective.
There is value in it, but judging a painting for its plot is like judging a monkey for its swimming skills, I'm pretty sure some very talented monkey can do, it doesn't mean monkeys are swimming mammals.
Thats a good observation.
You can see that it reequires that minimum of people to make that product.
Books = 1-2 persons
Comics = 1-3 persons
Animation = 2-4 persons
Movie = 4-5+ persons
By that logic you can't call poems or short stories, well, stories. Why does a story have to be long to be good? Maybe you can get more value out of something brief than you can out of something too long that says little? And besides, the point is that you can read INTO a picture and get a lot of different ideas out of it, whereas with literature the author basically has to intentionally obfuscate their meaning to have that same effect
>If I deny reality, then I’m right!
Whoah! I need to know your ethnicity, nationality and race. Because your style of arguing sounds like a fucking offensive as shit stereotype and i’m marking you off as a /pol/ racist trying to discredit the group.
Virgin detected. This painting is 2/3 thirst
Here's a great example of your point user.
"Baby shoes for sale. Never worn." Two sentences, yet you can imagine a whole sad story from it.
>live action or a cartoon
>having more immersion than a comic or even a book
The worst thing to assume about comics is that they are just a collection of static images.
The fact that many comics are just that is also tragic.
I don't even know where you took from that I said anything about size of a text.
A brief story still has more narrative a painting.
Absolute state of this board.
Are fourchan posts being sourced from time traveling brain implants being sent into medieval knights fighting while inhaling hallucinogenic fog of war fumes?
I say again I cannot defend against not support a statement of I do know your values. Inferior implies that you know the function or purpose of literature as a whole and that you've calculated comic books position relative to that over all goal of media. So pray tell what does media do for you?
Look man I like comics, I read more comics than I read books and watch movies, but I know for a fact that I like some pretty stupid shit with hardly any value other than cheap entertainment.
Media should convey information, in this particular case I mean convey information by narrating a story, what I want to ask is are comics just the middle ground for books abstraction and movies visual immersion, not exceeding at anything, or do they have something exclusive really precious that justify their existence other than what said?
>do they have something exclusive really precious
Are you a native English speaker?
If so, I worry that you're unable to articulate yourself clearly, meaning that you are unable to think clearly and rationally as well.
What doesn't carry information?
An important take on an important question of "What isn't virtue signalling? ".
Well it is the cheapest/easiest visual medium.
I mean consider how costly it is to pull off any idea for tv or movies or cartoons compared to comics. Especially surreal visual ideas that might require props or CG when compared to comics just needing a good artists and colorist.
Also in comparison to a non-visual medium like books visual ideas can be much more difficult. It can cause a writer to not go detail in actions in a story or go into details that can span several pages what an image or two could easily convey.
>Well it is the cheapest/easiest visual medium.
That is true, but like you said, it's not impossible to make a movie out of it, just too expensive.
Comic is still just middle ground for books and movies, not excelling at anything other than being the "bootleg" alternative.
Is there something that goes beyond monetary value? Like you said it's better than a book in representing visual ideas, but still inferior to a movie. Is there anything that it has better than both movies and books?
I never said making a movie, even with the money, would be superior.
I mean just look at how often people say how badly CG ages. Even if you spent half a billion to make the movie visuals as best as possible you'll still get people calling it uncanny valley or some other nitpick. It's not just movie trying to do what a comic does, it's pulling it off which for most won't be able.
Maybe it's just the comic reading audience being most lax and are willing to have a suspension of disbelief for crazier visual ideas but there are TONS of story ideas that work in comics that would not work in movies even if you tried.
It wouldn't be a 1:1 adaptation of the visuals but still would do the job. Other than that, we still have cartoons, just look at Young Justice, Timverse cartoons or Spiderverse.
>TONS of story ideas that work in comics that would not work in movies even if you tried.
I wish then people would start making them because at the moment the way I see it there's a handful of comics that fit that bill and all of them are a commentary on the medium itself, which basically cheating.
Abstraction and mood. The ability to have two actions run simultaneously while hindering the flow of neither, i.e. inner thoughts while doing something.
This picture makes me uncomfortable. Stop judging me, you fucks!
You can't do something like pic related in a movie.
Now this is a good answer.
I mean.... yeah.... but Ultra comics is a meta-commentary on the medium itself, it's basically cheating and every medium can do that.
Hah! I didn't even read this comic because the cover told me not to. Gentrification. They say it's a bad thing, huh.
If something like TDKR o TKJ are considered two pillars of comics then i would say so.
This.
I agree, or this comic page.
>cheapest
Yeah, and if Marvel didnt have so many employees, they wouldnt mind having comic series with 5k sales.
Hmmm... how many times did they kill that guy? Pretty sure I read a completely different comic where he also dies to the gentry.
Comics are the true patrician medium.
The comic ends in that they have captured the monsters in a time loop, which is the comic itself.
>Are comics just the inferior medium?
Yes
I have a question, is the whole university books connected or loosely just one-shots.
they're all part of a larger narrative about the Gentry attacking the multiverse
You mean like OP?
But its still contained in the Multiversity books? I only read pax americana but to get the whole story the multiversity books are enough?
yes
although it does connect to Morrison's other DC books (and Annihilator)
First, thanks user. Other books? I knew the gentry theory but i didnt knew he connected them activily.
Is there a list?
Comic artwork is sometimes allowed to have more time and effort to be spent upon it than a single frame from of many animated works.
The first and last issues are a complete story, but each of the in between issues shows the effects of the Gentry.
American capeshit comics are
Its not even a medium anymore. just ads for films
*A single panel of comic artwork is sometimes allowed to have more time and effort to be spent upon it than a single frame of many animated works.
This actually upsets me even though Peter David's an immense piece of shit
I think that what makes comic unique as a medium is the ability it has to play around with time, space, and direction. A comic can be designed to be read from multiple different directions; a panel can show one moment in picture but actually occupy several through dialogue; the very existence of the gutters engages the reader in a sort of audience participation, where they can mentally 'complete' the actions between panels.
You should read Scott McCloud's 'Understanding Comics' if it's a subject that interests you; he's got some pretty neat stuff to say.
>I think that what makes comic unique as a medium is the ability it has to play around with time, space, and direction.
I'd say the best example of it is in Kirchner's the Bus.
>all rectangular panels
I really wish comics were no longer a soft pilot testbed for people trying to get into movies/tv. These boring as fuck rectangular panelfests made by people trying to use them as storyboarding practice are really boring to read.
The again, you have characters like Dr. Manhattan that can only exist in comic form.
It's not the inferior medium but it's been really underappreciated by its own artists.
I doubt Morrison was writing Multiversity as a TV pitch. Especially Ultra Comics.
What’s wrong with him?
I mean, this is the best comics have to offer against the best of literature and films.
Racist as fuck against gypsies and talked about how greedy they were, then turned around and didn't pay his taxes.
lol, Peter David jelly of Moore and Gaiman.
>03/06/19(Wed)02:51:01 No.106266179
>racist
oh, nooooo
>against gypsies
r'you fuckin' kidding me?
get of the internet and go steal some cables from the trash you rat
Oh, I think we can come up with much better than that...
I remember Gypsygate.
Good times.
You need to read better comics.
That's about a 3/10 compared to the actual works of art the medium has crafted