Comments on: 365 Reasons to Love Comics #294

By: Comics Should Be Good! » 365 Reasons to Love Comics #309

Comics Should Be Good! » 365 Reasons to Love Comics #309 — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:03:31 +0000

[...] V for Vendetta pretty much defined cinematic comics: there are no thought bubbles, no sound effects– only action and dialogue. Many comics today try to replicate cinema, but they don’t seem to do it well. The graphic novel was translated to film by the Wachowskis a couple years ago, and they did a fairly fine job. They took shortcuts, of course, and the book is better, and fuller, but the movie’s good, too. It’s just different. [...]

By: Comics Should Be Good! » 365 Reasons to Love Comics Archive

Comics Should Be Good! » 365 Reasons to Love Comics Archive — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:08:09 +0000

[...] 294. Thought Bubbles (written and drawn by Tom Russell) More to come! Look for a new Reason every day! (Maybe!) [...]

By: Sanagi

Sanagi — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:12:01 +0000

. o O (Hmm! I enjoyed this column! The comparison between thought bubbles and the dramatic “aside” had never occurred to me!)

By: Omega Alpha

Omega Alpha — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:15:07 +0000

Great column! Maybe Bendis will inspire other writers to use thought bubbles again, and show you can have a good comic, and one that sells well, using them.

By: Tom Russell

Tom Russell — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:05:34 +0000

“The comic seems to be forgetting that not all narration need be first person from one characterâ€™s point of view. Comics can use a third person omniscient â€œvoiceâ€ or the voice of Homer or Stan Lee or whoever to help us get into multiple charactersâ€™ heads.”

This is true. What I was saying was that there are many ocassions when a caption serves the same purpose as a thought bubble, while still limiting our access to the number of characters who can “think”– and that such captions don’t follow the ‘rules’ of first-person narration, and so the conceit falls flat on its face. Someone actually telling the story, whether from a third-person omni POV or otherwise, is a whole other matter.

In a way, thought bubbles used democratically achieves the same affect as an all-knowing narrator, even if there isn’t any narration.

One person who used captions/narration extremely well in regards to delving into multiple headspaces, in my opinion, was Steven Seagal (not the actor) in his Alpha Flight run, which used second-person to devastating effect.

By: sgt pepper

sgt pepper — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:23:04 +0000

Awesome column! But I don’t understand why Spider-man is punching Hutch Owen (hee).

The comic seems to be forgetting that not all narration need be first person from one character’s point of view. Comics can use a third person omniscient “voice” or the voice of Homer or Stan Lee or whoever to help us get into multiple characters’ heads.

And I hate Bendis’s thought ballons. His do not help character development at all. Instead of just trying to write witty dialogue, he’s now trying to also write witty thoughts, which doesn’t even make sense as there’s no audience for them in the world of the story. I’ve heard of stylized dialogue, but now we’re getting stylized thoughts? Weird.

By: David

David — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:22:00 +0000

And yet, without thought bubbles, we get entire stories such as in the recent Marvel Comics Presents #1 where Patsy Walker is walking around her apartment and talking aloud to herself.

Also, the Civil War Spider-Ham special had a pretty funny riff on the disappearance of thought bubbles.

By: Apodaca

Apodaca — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:06:52 +0000

What a wonderful column!

By: TF_loki

TF_loki — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:11:42 +0000

I think that Thought Balloons are great (though I don’t think they’re being used that well in MA). And I think this column was great today. Well thought out. Can it be published in the back of one of Scott McCloud as an appendix?

By: J to the AAP

J to the AAP — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:18:08 +0000

Great post, comics shouldn’t try to ‘be more like movies’ because they simple aren’t movies. It’s a different medium and using the possibilities unique to it only enrich it. People who think thought balloons automatically mean childish comics have obviously never read a comic by Kevin Huizenga, or Lewis Trodheim’s autobiagraphical work, just to name some examples.

By: Ian

Ian — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:59:03 +0000

I thought the use of baloons in Might Avengers was awesome. A great fit for Bendis’ use of asides.

I don’t mind the captions replacing thought baloons in a book when there is one character because I think having a narrator in most comics is silly. However, I can certainly see its use in team and ensemble books.

By: KB

KB — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:33:37 +0000

I’ve often thought that it was stupid to make comics too cinematic. That’s totally handicapping the comic creator’s toolbox and ignores the differences between comics and film. I applaud this reason to love comics!

By: MarkAndrew

MarkAndrew — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:24:25 +0000

(Yeah, that was great!)
o
o
o
o

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:10:13 +0000

I have no problem with thought thought bubbles…as long as Bendis is not the one using them.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:32:22 +0000

The man’s got points.

Also, I do take a kind of psychotic thrill in how the constant use of “bubbles” will infuriate John Byrne.

By: km

km — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:15:34 +0000

Two questions:

What the hell is this ‘abconnect’ thing? Also, more importantly: can those penguins host the rest of the Reasons?

Seriously, bravo Bill and Tom. With the possible exception of Archie Meets the Punisher, I think this might be my favourite reason column so far.

By: abconnect » Blog Archive » 365 Reasons to Love Comics #294

abconnect » Blog Archive » 365 Reasons to Love Comics #294 — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 01:32:44 +0000

[...] check the full story here [...]