Comments on: 1/30 – Derisive Danson says…

By: Comics Should Be Good! @ Comic Book Resources » 2010: The Year We Switch to Digital?

Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:46:35 +0000

[...] well, I don’t know what to call them. Digicomics? iComics? Just don’t let it be motion comics– are these the future? Or are they the present? Is this What The People Want? Is it what I [...]

By: Nick Marino

Nick Marino — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:41:33 +0000

Preach, Danson, preach!!!

By: fanboy d

fanboy d — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:48:45 +0000

THANK you!

By: Jack Norris

Jack Norris — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 02:44:34 +0000

As far as other things that “motion comics” (a term that doesn’t deserve the respect not using quotation marks would imply) might be: A waste of time? A scam?
If you’ve already read the comic, the best way of approximating the experience of one of these things is to remember reading it while damping down your imagination so that the motion you naturally imagined looks way lamer while burning some of your cash in an ashtray.

By: Rob III

Rob III — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:50:04 +0000

A book on tape is not a book, it’s an audio book.
Of course a motion comic is not a comic, or else there would be no reason to call it something else.

By: John Seavey

John Seavey — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:27:01 +0000

I don’t know, I’m kind of on the fence on this one–is there any overlap between the category of “comic” and “hideous abomination and offense to the eyes, the soul, and everything that is good and decent in life”? Because if there is, I think there’s still some wiggle room here.

By: RAB

RAB — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:50:13 +0000

A couple of years ago, when I was asked to review something that was erroneously described as an animated webcomic, I came up with this definition of what “comics” means to me: a comic requires that the reader controls the pace of the reading/viewing experience, whether by clicking to move forward, or turning a page, or just deciding when to look at the next panel. The text has to be written, i.e., presented visually along with images, to be read by the end user at his or her own pace. If you have a soundtrack with someone else reading the words aloud, music and sound effects synchronized to the visuals — and therefore, someone else deciding the speed at which the viewer moves through the story — it’s animation, not a comic.

A corollary of this is that a “book on tape” may be done wonderfully, but by my definition it’s not a book: it’s a recording of someone else reading a book. (Out loud, one hopes.)

By: joshschr

joshschr — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:46:31 +0000

Some books on tape have been done well. I enjoyed Martha Plimpton’s reading of Diary and Stephen King’s reading of one of his early Gunslinger books. Some are godawful, like whoever read King’s Wolves of the Calla (featuring Dr. Doom and Harry Potter!).

And maybe I missed DD’s point. They’re not comics, so maybe they can’t be discussed exactly like comics. But like comics, they should be GOOD. And so far, they’re not.

By: Apodaca

Apodaca — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:39:06 +0000

“A book on tape is still a “book”, even though there is no text.”

No, it’s not. It’s a story, or a biography, etc.

By: Neal K

Neal K — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:45:40 +0000

I haven’t seen Invincible, but Watchmen was a chore to watch. I liked the Batman: Black and White episodes quite a bit more, but they still don’t hold up to the actual comics.

By: Patrick Joseph

Patrick Joseph — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:39:27 +0000

I am in agreement with Neal. Motion comics immediate analog is book->book on tape. It doesn’t make them any less awkward, though. I was certainly open to them, and tried out Watchmen and Invincible on iTunes, but never followed them after the first segments.

By: Neal K

Neal K — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:14:37 +0000

I’m not sure if they are comics or not. My initial thought was that, whether you think they are good or bad, they are not comics. My gut reaction is still that they are not.

But then I started thinking about books on tape. A book on tape is still a “book”, even though there is no text. I think motion comics are pretty analogous to books on tape, so maybe they should be called “comics on tape” or “comics for the illiterate”.

By: sgt rawk

sgt rawk — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:46:19 +0000

Then we are unanimous? No opposition? Nada?

RESOLVED!

Thanks, Derisive Danson!

(um .. I know I’m an idiot but what the what is a “motion” comic anyways? Sheesh!)

By: Scott MacIver

Scott MacIver — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:32:38 +0000

Once the “reading” is removed, then it just becomes a poorly animated cartoon.

Art + Text = Comic

By: Rob Schamberger

Rob Schamberger — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:15:53 +0000

Word.

By: mrclam

mrclam — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:37:01 +0000

Are those 1960′s Marvel cartoons “action comics?” You know, the ones where they simply make the mouths move on old Kirby drawings?

By: Blackjak

Blackjak — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:29:21 +0000

yeah, the Watchmen “motion comic” really sucks… I suppose you could technically qualify it as “animation” but even that’s stretching the term…

By: joshschr

joshschr — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:19:47 +0000

Does this include the Watchmen and Invincible motion comics? Because I can’t say I’m a fan of those. ‘B’ for effort, ‘D’ for final result.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:17:02 +0000

I’ve only been saying it for years.

By: Brack

Brack — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:16:19 +0000

I agree Danson.

And they don’t really qualify as cartoons either.