Great list, Jesse. Very positive, very practical and applicable in concrete terms.

1.) EXPANSIVE BACKGROUNDS
4.) FIXED POINT OF VIEW
6.) RURAL & SUBURBAN LIFE
7.) THOUGHT BALLOONS
8.) CREATIVE DEPICTIONS OF VIRTUE

All deal wit POV in one way or another.

#1 deals w/POV wrt context.
By giving us a taste of the character's milieu, we better see how he sees.

#4 deals w/POV wrt portraying a specific scene. Interesting that you mentioned animation wrt this, since the first page of comics that came to mind as I read #4 was page 13 of Paramount Animated Comics #3, very similar to the Bone example you gave.

#6 deals w/POV wrt setting, obviously. The first comics sequence I ever wrote and drew featured Namor the Sub-Mariner in a rural settting, a secluded lake in vast forest.

This is not an issue for jungle comics, westerns, or Indiana Jones -type adventures, all of which generally have plenty of rural action (along with pagan palaces and hidden cities, or saloons and town jails.)

#7 deals w/POV wrt actual POV as they speak of it in Creative Writing class. Sometimes thought baloons really add to a scene. (But when it is just used as a means of inserting exposition, it can become tiresome. One of the graet problems for writers is trying to figure out how to explain stuff without succumbing to tired expository text, in one form or another.)

#8 deals w/POV wrt writer's attitude toward creating characters. You saved the best for last. Yay. CREATIVE DEPICTIONS OF VIRTUE
Yay!

As far as mainstream comics goes, though, I think there's less danger of their being smothered by nostalgic fans than simply hamstrung by an industry that won't stop recycling the characters and concepts of the past. I mean, how do you get away from comparisons to Kirby, Lee, Ditko, et al, when you spend your career playing with their toys? A lot of people have said that the superhero's place in comics is equivalent to a film industry in which every director is expected to make westerns, but it's actually even more insidious than that -- mainstream comics is more like a place where you're expected to, in 2007, carry on production of "Gunsmoke," "Bonanza," and half a dozen other western TV shows that debuted forty-plus years ago. It's kind of astonishing that anything that even seems new ever comes out of mainstream comics! But it's hard to fault people who want those comics to fall in line with the ones they grew up with when, in fact, these are the same comics. I think the best solution for everyone involved is just to do something that really is original, but...well...

Um...wait. Didn't this start out to be about thought balloons or something...?

It's certainly a mix. But comics have matured. It took a century of guys like Lee/Kirby/Ditko testing the ropes for us. I do think that a lot of the guys today, however, learned the ropes from them and now their taking that new car out on the highway and really seeing what it can do.

I also really appreciate the diversity that we have today (at least in the creator-owned/controlled section of the market).

I'm only saying that ,IMHO, comics are better now than they've ever been. Their more clever, more polished and sexier than they've ever been.

No they're not selling in the millions, but that doesn't mean that artistically they're not at a high-point.

Thanks Mike,
Tano

But you WOULD, Tano. People do it all the time. Later on in your post, you invoke Citizen Kane...why? This movie is...what?...seventy years old? That was so long ago it's a miracle that it even still exists in a form that's watchable today. But it's generally acknowledged (right or wrong, and probably mostly by people who've never actually seen it, but regardless) as the high water mark for film. What happens to any art form that people take seriously is the establishment of a canon. There is no art form with the possible exception of comics wherein the majority agrees that the best stuff ever done in that field is what's happening right now. (Okay, maybe television, too. I actually think there's a much better case to be made for television, but that's neither here nor there.)

How did we get from an affirmative, constructive list of suggestions where even the critical comments are phrased in positive terms (see #5 and #8, for example) to a hyper-negative list of personal grievances? It would at least help if the comments were phrased in such a way to fit with the article, but apparently RHJunior would like to see more of less tits. *sigh*

Now, I'm not saying anything to besmirch these guy's legacies. There's a reason why they're the greats.

However, you wouldn't compare TV shows, movies, or any other medium of the present with it's incarnation in the sixties, and I'm damn tired of hearing it done in my chosen medium.

Our Citizen Kane was Watchmen, and I think we're even moving beyond that now. I just get so tired with the nostalgia camp.

No. At best these people are FEEDING THEIR CHILDREN by playing with those guys toys. And it's only because a segment of the market won't pick up a book if it's not from the Big Two's mainstream lineup.

But if you really want to check out where the innovation is going on, it's in the creator-owned stuff. And it's sad that after this long that still need to be said.

And Thanks, Dane. I didn't mean to come down too hard on thought bubbles, but unless they're used with meaning they do kinda suck.

I've read for a very long time, Dane. And you know what?- I actually think you're right-in SOME cases.

You couldn't have Harvey Pekar or Eddie Campbell without interior narratives.

Still, and I'm sorry if I went off on a rant, but thought bubbles are a shortcut and they have no intrinsic value.

So, yes, when properly used, the thought bubble can be used when it makes sense, but we don't have any debt to it (and it was only SO good to begin with), but it's really weak considering all the other choices you could make if it doesn't serve the narrative.
Thanks all,
Tano

on par with other mediums

What? Like literature, which regularly features examples of third person omniscient, limited or otherwise?* You might not personally care for the p.o.v., but it's kinda hard to simply label it "a total cop out" or "lazy." It's like saying that writing a story with a protagonist is a cop out.

*note: thought balloons are the comic medium's version of third person omniscient, in case you were wondering.

It's you people that are the cockroaches that need to be taken care of. I'm sure you'd cream your pants for a return of Stan Lee to all your silly superhero schlock.

Sorry, man, I don't mean to single you out but it seems like so many people who voice opinions like you only read out of a creepy sense of nostalgia while the other half of us are tugging like hell for comics to actually be relevant, grown-up, and on par with other mediums.

Kids comics are a great thing, but when was the last time you actually looked at the demographic of who's buying and the potential demographic of who could be attracted to buy? Adults. With jobs. And little green pieces of paper.

Also, in reply to RHJunior's rule #11. Maybe you're speaking for yourself, because that doesn't include myself or any of the pro's that I follow. Maybe it's time we realize that what you've said isn't how the world perceives us anymore, and maybe it's not how we should perceive ourselves. Let's all climb out of cellars, folks.

If it is written like a movie,

Being written like a movie and being written like a movie PITCH are two very different things. A movie pitch is where you sell the producers on all the marketable points of the film, and convince them to buy the property. Often times, the actual script is a minor part of the deal.

When we say a comic is written like a movie pitch, that means they're using all their effort to sell the idea to someone, rather than focusing on making the idea good.

How is this so? If it is written like a movie, it will no doubt make plenty of since, because it is written to appeal to people who do not know much or anything about the property. If it makes since to the reader, that is not the only thing the story should do, but it is very important, in my opinion.

By the way, regarding this statement...

" 11. STOP TRYING TO BE “CURRENT.” You’re not hip, def, hype, phat, or any other just-starting-to-turn-stale lingo. You are a fat fortysomething PASTY WHITE bastard who draws COMIC BOOKS for a living, and you have NEVER had a clue about what “the kids” think is cool or hip, even back when you were a kid yourself. You’re as annoying as that damn fish with Fresh Prince’s voice. Stop it before we have to HURT you. "

Getting through the obvious bile, I don't see any real point. Who are you addressing, what exactly are they doing wrong, and how would you do things differently?