I can understand having beat panels for the sake of comedic timing, but it's really lazy when most of the page is made up of literally copy-and-pasted panels. There's other ways to lay out a page that can have that pause beat AND then go on to add more information and detail to the scene that adds to the storytelling.
"decompressed" means stretching out how much is going on within each page. In its best sense, it allows more space for background detail, and is usually used to show off art or spectacle in larger spreads. In its worse sense, it just adds fluff that takes up space but does nothing to add to characterization, story development, or other aspects of the narrative.
>>79074843 Because this clearly shows you just felt like whining about something, and you're too lazy to come up with your own example. Your OP didn't offer anything to say about the topic. There is nothing inherently wrong with the page in question without any sort of context.
>>79074960 >That's still decompressed. Nigga you can't say that based soley on the number of issues. You have to consider the pacing and what information is covered in that time. And you can only judge that on a story by story basis.
>>79075174 >Jump and other manga publications have the benefit of being anthologies That's no fucking excuse. At any given time I'm following multiple series at once. They don't affect each other just because I might read them one after the other.
"Decompression" is not a bad thing anymore than "compression" is a good thing. They are both tools that can be used in various ways to tell a story.
Since everyone loves equating Bendis with decompression, let's take a look at some of his work:
>Ultimate Spider-man #1-7 It's roughly a retelling of the single issue story from Amazing Fantasy #15, done in seven parts (with the double-sized first issue, it's more like eight of today's issues). By adding extra pages, we get to know more about May and Ben, we see Peter's interactions with various classmates, and we're introduced to characters like Octavius and Osborn.
Decompression was a good thing there.
>Miles Morales: Ultimate Spider-man #1-12
In twelve issues, almost nothing happens. Two issues are spent telling Miles's father's backstory for no reason, Miles's girlfriend's family is involved with Hydra and Dr Doom shows up for the most uninspiring climax to a comic I've ever read. Things stretch on and on with no plot OR character development.
Decompression is a bad thing here.
When things are stretched out to tell you more about the characters or the backstory or whatever else, it can be a great thing. "Show, don't tell" as they say ... it's a lot more interesting than text-dump exposition.
However, when it's used just to pad pages or show off big splash panels without actually adding to the story, it's a bad thing as far as month-to-month storytelling is concerned.
I mention month-to-month because that's the only reason decompression matters. If a graphic novel has unnecessary padding, it's not really a bad thing, because it's not like you're waiting four weeks for the next part, it's just a slightly thicker book (if the decompression is adding the the price, then maybe it's a bad thing).
TLDR: It's not always a bad thing, just like every other story telling tool.
Secretly everyone is a Bendis fan. Sure people here like to feel they have superior taste by calling him shit, hack or whatever they want. They feel better knowing their current indy darling is way better than the top dog at Marvel because it somehow validates the comics they are reading and that's fine.
And yeah the things people complain about Bendis are true as well. He likes to write for trades with slow pacing arcs and his characteristic dialogue. Not to mention putting the stories over any kind of continuity fans want to be acknowledged.
But it's also true that what he does is exactly what Marvel needs. He actually puts some effort in trying to change and advance these characters. You people always criticize his changes because you don't want your characters to advance that fast. Maybe if a change is teased and slowly build then in ten years you will accept it but Bendis doesn't have ten years. He wants to move forward himself not wait until his grandsons do the job for him. You hate him for that but it's what Marvel need. His stories also appeal to the readers. He writes what they want to read. Compare Guardians of the Galaxy against Inhumans. Both had the same number of variants but Bendis still won because he writes the team of Guardians people are interested in reading, accuse him of waifuing or whatever but people accpeted Kitty as Star-Lord because Bendis sold her to them in the first issue. He also put the Avengers on the map and some might say he did it by using gimmicks and events but he was the one who dared to pull these gimmicks and events, and they worked. People liked it. Bendis does know what people want. /co/ of course has other ideas, and most likely those ideas would send Marvel into bankruptcy again.
Bendis works, and /co/ loves him. All the hate messages are just the way they have to show their love.
>>79075533 Brian Michael Bendis is a gateway writer of the worst kind. He's a bad storyteller, with a clusterfuck of story and characterization that isn't very well done by any aspect, but which attempts to compensate for its weaknesses by adding in excessive double pages and WORDS. The normal anon can see this as the shit it is, and may enjoy it, hate it or be indifferent to it, but all the while recognizing that the writer himself, regardless of their opinion, is plain bad.
However, these very aspects that try to smear over the shit of his core make him a breeding ground for aspie, unsociable tumblr faggots who engage in every kind of faggotry both online and in the real world. The superpowered characters all trying their hardest to look smart, the unending Bendisspeak, boring personalities, the whole quipping faggotry and everything about his stories fuels their escapist fantasies, while the retconned character backgrounds, emphasis on his waifus, and overall preachiness of the writer make it fit just right with the mary-sueish drives of your average redditor and his sense of unwarranted self-importance towards the world. Exactly the kind of shit that makes redditors and tumblr retards eat this shit right the fuck up.
Bendis is basically THE writer to attract the most hated comicbook fanbase known to /co/, which is why, regardless of individual opinions, it is the responsibility of every anon to shitpost the fuck out of this writer and everyone who likes it, and ensure that no Bendis thread (excpet for story times so we can see the trash for what it is) ever encourage /co/mblr to show their faces here.
>>79075597 >All Stan Lee added was quick plot progression, which is all classic fans care about. But that is demonstrably false. If there's any one thing that Lee did bring to the table, it was giving characters unique and relatively interesting identities within the confines of the story.
So hold on, compression is adding a shitton of dialogue bubbles and exposition? Cause that's what I get from this thread.
Honestly, I fucking hate that shit. I prefer the art to tell the story sometimes and minimal dialogue can be good. It's a visual medium after all, you don't have to cram a ton of dialogue in every page.
>>79075635 Bendis' decompression, like many other modern comic creators, is absolutely done to maximize the amount of issues he gets published. These are extreme examples, admittedly, but it's really hard to argue that's not the case.
>Can you really not accept that some people like a different kind of storytelling than you do? That's not what this is. Please don't turn this discussion into some passive-aggressive dismissal of others' analyses, either.
>>79075677 >So hold on, compression is adding a shitton of dialogue bubbles and exposition? Cause that's what I get from this thread. No. It's about communication.
You can communicate without exposition, but the problem is most creators use decompression to merely delay the revealing of relevant info. It's being abused as a tool to make sure more issues are made (and therefore bought).
>>79075677 See >>79075582 Because we got a single page telling all of this info, the writer now has all those other pages (even issues sometimes) to use more effectively/substantially. This is not the only way to do this, but it's the easiest to show.
>>79075867 >>79075896 Like I said faster isn't always better. Compression and decompression are tools and both can be used well when its called for. You can never say for sure what information should always be presented faster. It worked in this story but it might not be the best way to present information in other stories. Its a case by case thing.
The kind of decompression creators like Bendis utilize in done so in order to increase the number of issues being purchased. He regularly writes stories that do not need to be as long as they do, and this is the reason why.
>>79075858 >I'm just saying learning more faster isn't necessarily better. Same is true for the opposite. If you go overboard with either, you end up shooting yourself in the foot. You either violate show don't tell so hard that you have become a glossary entry with pictures or the opposite where you have dozens of pages of the art very skillfully communicating nothing in particular.
>>79076154 >>79076166 Most likely because you haven't read Miller's because it's "too old," and therefore do not see how Bendis adds next to nothing to the mythos while even ripping off specific plot points and themes.
To be fair, he mostly ignores the latter, so I suppose it isn't all unoriginal.
>>79075769 The problem with Bendis is less that he uses decompression. It's more of a symptom really. The problem is what he focusses that decompression on. Because really, the guy has no interest in actually telling his knock-off bronze age stories about some generic villain doing some generic villain thing so the heroes can still be called heroes. He really just wants to write flawed characters throwing snappy dialogue at each other. Given those priorities, of course it takes him a fucking year to get one plot line out of the way Claremont would've knocked out in an issue. Because the actual plot doesn't matter. It's only about endless character interaction.
>>79076238 It's a symptom. Decompression on a smaller scale.
>>79076263 No, I just misunderstood. When you originally said faster, it sounded like you meant in regards to how quickly it was presented after starting the story, not how quickly it was presented in the story.
>>79076270 >He really just wants to write flawed characters throwing snappy dialogue at each other. Given those priorities, of course it takes him a fucking year to get one plot line out of the way Exactly.
That IS decompression, though; he's withholding information for the sake of cracking jokes and whatnot.
The people in this thread think that anything that isn't episodic is decompressed, which isn't true. It just means that the writer knows how to write and actually told a proper X-issue long story.
>>79075662 >I was only nine years old >I loved Bendis so much, I owned all his comics and merchandise >I pray to Bendis every night, thanking him for the dialogue I have been given >"Bendis is love", I say, "Bendis is life" >My dad hears me and calls me a faggot >He is obviously jealous of my devotion to Bendis >I respond "I'm a faggot?" >He says "Yes, you're a faggot" >I say "But I'm not gay" >He says "I meant faggot as a generic insult, not to call you gay" >I repond "It's still pretty homophobic" >He punches me and sends me to my room >I am crying now, because I wasn't finished talking >I go into my bed and it is very cold >I feel a warmth moving towards me >I keep feeling a warmth moving towards me for 5 panels >I feel something touch me >2 page spread >It's Bendis >I am so happy >He whispers into my ear, "Wanna read my latest comic?" >"Your latest comic?" >"Yes" >"You came to my room to show me your latest comic?" >"Why else would I come?" >"I thought you were gonna have your way with me" >"You're 9 years old, anyone who could possibly think that would be twisted freak" >"A twisted freak?" >"Yes" >"Can I just read the comic?" >"Go ahead" >He grabs me with his chubby nerd hands and puts me on my hands and knees >I'm ready >I open the comic for Bendis >He wasted several pages on characters eating and doing nothing >It hurts so much, but I do it for Bendis >I can feel my brain tearing as my eyes start to water >I push against his force >I want to please Bendis >He laughs a mighty laugh as he ignores established continuity >My dad walks in >Bendis looks him deep in the eyes and says, "It's all over now" >"Who the fuck are you? I'm calling the cops!" >"You were suposed to say "It's over now?"" >"Fuck you, what are you doing with my son?" >"You're no fun" >Bendis punches the wall and leaves to write about his waifu some more
>>79076294 >>79076344 >>79076361 I just find it really hard to believe that people who enjoy Daredevil for anything more than "Matt Murdock suffers" could enjoy a run that treads almost no new ground than the one before it. They are more than a "little" similar.
One of my favorite examples of great comics writing is Thanos: Samaritan. Going through on a second reading, now know what happens, makes it easy to appreciate just how meticulous Giffen was with his writing. Every single panel has something new that the audience is learning, be it for the plot, Thanos' motivation, She-Beyonder's characterization, etc. He even throws in humor, but never at the expense of actual storytelling.
>>79076693 There is at least one Anon who just unloads all his saved pasta whenever someone mentions Bendis. Doesn't really change what the thread is about someone unless someone were dumb enough to actually reply to it.
>>79074923 >Most can tell a decent arc in 4-6 issues. Most stories were done-in-one or Part 1 (of 2). Six issue stories tended to be minis or otherwise were intended to be a big deal since they were so long.
6 issue arcs are the easiest example fo decompression since stories now took three times as long to tell and were clearly written for the trade.
>>79077395 Those comics were meant for children. If you want to tell a story that has some kind of impact you're going to need more than a couple of issues (not that one shots can't be great stories as well).
>>79077538 Comics were targeted towards children as late as 1985. Secret Wars was literally made to sell toys. Adult consumers weren't even considered a valuable part of the audience until the 90's, with the rise of the collectors.
>>79077575 >Adult consumers weren't even considered a valuable part of the audience until the 90's, with the rise of the collectors. Again: false. Marvel was marketing their comics to the flourishing interest shown by college students as early as the 60s.
Your claim is particularly stupid considering the existence of independent imprints like First and Eclipse as early as the 80s.
And honestly, I'd go as far to say the works of creators like Jack Kirby, Steve Gerber, and the rest of Marvel's 70s bullpen showed a greater regard for didactic and visionary storytelling than anyone on their roster today.
>>79077746 I even forgot stuff like witzend and the other underground stuff.
But it's just the same tired, uninformed opinions as leddi...elsewhere: "these comics have exposition and nobody talks like 'real people,' so they're obviously meant for less intelligent people than myself."
They don't realize comics were written that way because they prioritized story structure over flowery prose (that, and making sure we were getting something worth paying for).
>>79078310 You mean those six one shot issues he did? I wouldn't call it either. There wasn't much information that needed to be conveyed in those issues. Nothing need to be withheld but not much needed to be said.
>>79078310 >>79078373 This is a great example because the Huston run before it is traditional six issue arcs, yet is equally compressed. It's a lot more thematically rich, and focuses on characterization and introspection, as such needing more room to develop/discuss the ideas and raise moral questions.
>>79074936 In a perfect world it would be using comics as a visual medium to express what characters are feeling through subtle actions and facial expressions, instead of just having a little thought bubble telling you that they're sad/angry/upset.
In the Bendis world, this means recycling a shit load of panels to convey "something".
...why would you start a discussion on modern decompression with an example from 10+ years ago?
It's not even a terrible misuse of the tool; it sets up the comedic beat and I don't believe Whedon resorted to it any other time. There were much worse abuses. Decompression is only bad when the story drags, not when a single page doesn't deliver enough information to your liking.
I can't think of many bad uses of decompression lately; last night I read Yost's Wendigo arc for Amazing X-men and that was an abomination stretched way too thin, but other than that, eh. Even Bendis has gotten better at it, replacing decompressed storylines with boring storylines.
>>79078310 It harkened back to Fell - there was nothing in the stories dragged out over issues, but it always left you wanting more. Ellis really let the art do most of the talking this time though.
A little of both. They're short, self-contained single-issue stories, which are usually compressed comics. But the actual style that he uses to tell them uses things that you typically find in decompressed comics (long background shots, multiple angles and views of a single event or point in time, etc).
I think it's a consequence of the stories themselves being very simple and minimalist.
>>79078947 Did you not read Astonishing X-Men? It was written by Whedon, of course it was comedic. It was also dramatic, action-oriented and etc etc. It wasn't Not Brand Ecch but that wasn't the point either. You're being a little dense over a page that only reused one or two panels for the sake of comedic timing.
No one would force Cassady to draw tiny, cartoonish panels either. It plays against his style. You can't even compare it to the crap Bendis pulled with Glaydos, who I don't believe would ever be in anyone's top 10 or 20 favorite artists list.
>>79079047 >It was written by Whedon, of course it was comedic It had a good deal of humor, but it wasn't a comedy comic. The point is the "comedic timing" shouldn't take priority over the story otherwise.
I have read AXM, for what it's worth, and it honestly isn't a horrible example on the whole. This instance is just exactly the type of non-writing that plagues the industry today.
And Cassaday is a good example of an artist that is better suited for widescreen panels (something he previously made famous with Planetary). But if you're going to make an art-focused book, the narrative should bend to fit that accordingly.
>>79079079 You being ordinate does not invalidate the numerous great posts (from both sides of the argument) in this thread.
These threads always bring out the "Comics should always be like X" crowd. There are different ways to tell stories, there are different tastes, etc.
I agree that dragging everything out into a 6 issue arc when it isn't necessary sucks. But saying there's something inherently wrong with something like OP's image misses the point too. It's like you're trying to apply RPG Minmaxing to storytelling. Minimising wasted space and maximising character/plot information doesn't automatically make for a better comic.
>>79079204 >The point is the "comedic timing" shouldn't take priority over the story otherwise. But it didn't take priority? It was a one page gag in a 24 page comic? That's like, what, 6% of the entire package?
And widescreen panels were famous well before Cassaday.
>>79079204 There were no posts with any new insight, just retread arguments and misunderstandings that could just have well been gleamed from a wikipedia page or CBR article. Haughty vocabulary doesn't actually make anything sound smarter, it just makes you sound like a dunce.
>>79079699 >But it didn't take priority? >I have read AXM, for what it's worth, and it honestly isn't a horrible example on the whole.
I've been saying that whether or not a particular example is bad is contextual, but it is also indicative of the problem.
And the extent of discussion most certainly went beyond that which could be gleamed from an article. You not liking the other posters' wording and vocabulary does not mean that strides weren't made in reinterpreting definitions for people whose knowledge was taken...from wikipedia or a CBR article. Not to mention the many examples that were dissected and discussed.
Honestly don't know why I'm defending the validity of an entire thread, but you being dismissive of it is way more of a thick-headed point of view than anyone else here. You probably can't see that through the clouds, being so far up on your high horse.
>>79075677 >It's a visual medium after all no you retard. comics are a combination of words and images, and different combinations of the 2 can achieve different results. don't mistake your inability to focus on things that aren't in bright colors for how the medium should be.
>>79079959 >don't know why I'm defending the validity of an entire thread Because you defended it as one of the best to another? I've seen no evidence other than 'it just is'. Nearly every mention of examples, "dissected and discussed" are ~10 year old books.
Decompression in good comics can be good, decompression in bad comics can be bad. I don't believe for a second that over half the people arguing against decompression would enjoy a classic Claremont story without either having grown up with it, or learned to tolerate before learning to love the style; I'd also venture a guess that many would rather read a modern Justice League comic (barring Hitch) than picking up some early Fox-penned JLA. And while I would enjoy Claremont, I wouldn't wish to suffer through the latter's ultra-compressed storytelling for a minute.
Each decade has its own unique quirks in comics; camp of the 60s, house style of the 70s, the awkward trudge into digital of the 80s, the excess of the 90s and the minimalist efforts of the 00s can all be criticized, but there's no one "pure" era without its faults. Arguing over decompression as if it's the 'plague' on the industry it once was is an argument that's about 7 years too late.
>>79080486 >Nearly every mention of examples, "dissected and discussed" are ~10 year old books. Which apparently makes them invalid. And again, that's wrong; I've mentioned for the umpteenth time that there was a deal of effortposting and intelligence not seen on this board in a while. I'm not picking out individual posts for you. It should be obvious.
>I don't believe for a second that over half the people arguing against decompression would enjoy a classic Claremont story without either having grown up with it, or learned to tolerate before learning to love the style; I'm not a big Claremont fan, but that's mostly because of my disdain for X-characters.
But to imply that older, wordier comics such as his are inherently inferior, since we wouldn't like them without nostalgia, is easily more dismissive than pointing out the tendency for modern comic writers to decompress and draw out storylines. I (and others) pointing out that this is exacerbated by the modern audience's preference for these stories is not a condemnation, it is more or less fact.
>>79080486 >Each decade has its own unique quirks in comics Not to the point where you can generalize them the way you did. 60s was the dawn of Kirby, arguably the sole reason Marvel/DC evolved past those simplistic Fox comics. To say that it is all camp (and that those who like them do so because of said camp) shows a complete disregard for the history of the medium.
>>79080823 I'm sorry but you seem to think Kirby wasn't also consciously contributing to the camp of the 60s. Also, Fox was a writer; I don't see how you can compare writers and artists in the same way when it comes to the evolution of storytelling. Especially in an era where the interaction between illustrator and writer was at its largest gulf.
Not to mention that you're definitely reaching to say I said anything of fans only enjoying the 60s because of camp. I hate camp but I've still read every Marvel book of the 60s, including fucking Millie the Model just to satiate my autism.
>>79081136 >I'm sorry but you seem to think Kirby wasn't also consciously contributing to the camp of the 60s. Why? Because his comics didn't bother making sure their audience wasn't too insecure to let people know they read them? How are comics about "men in long underwear punching each other" any less campier today than 50 years ago?
And it's pretty well known that Kirby had a lot more input on the writing of his Marvel work than people with superficial knowledge think. His comparison to Fox lies in how his comics were visionary and personal. He did not make facile kids books like Fox; thematic and didactic depth--true artistry--are what his stories are so important for. Yet another issue with these decompressed Bendis and co. comics.
>Not to mention that you're definitely reaching to say I said anything of fans only enjoying the 60s because of camp. You said that was the--singular--unique quirk of the 60s, along with the "house style" of the 70s. (What the fuck is that, by the way? The 70s were easily Marvel's most creatively fertile and experimental period.)
>>79081461 How do you not know what house style is? You sing the praises of Kirby but aren't even aware of the style lifted by Buscema? It's the style that everyone imitated and was considered the "style" of the company to aim for; alongside Cockrum, Byrne and Perez, this style was effective but hardly unique once all the imitators came forth.
70s Marvel was great for the unique few; storytellers were the ones pushing the boundaries, but few illustrators at the Big 2 could have the same said of them - mostly Adams, Starlin (if we don't consider him a storyteller also), Gulacy.
>Kirby had a lot more input on the writing of his Marvel work than people with superficial knowledge think Plot-wise, yes. Dialogue and captions? He often laid the groundwork, but it lacked nuance and subtlety. It had a very Hemingway-ish quality to it in tone.
Kirby came into it as an artist in the 40s, and could never let go of letting young sidekicks be the mouthpiece that readers could relate to, while the heroes were those he wanted us to aspire to. This trend went well into his work at DC. By the late 60s, it was already becoming a bit tired (and replaced by the trend of reluctant beatniks such as Rick Jones, rather than the quirky Newsboy Legion members he always wanted to take off), with many writers abandoning it altogether. Kirby's works have always been steeped in nostalgia, even at their time, and that naturally comes with a bit of self-aware camp. I would even argue it's the meta-whatever self-awareness of it all that sets it apart from others at his time.
But even then, the fact that I listed one major quality of the decade doesn't mean every work of the decade was held to that standard. That's such a pedantic reach to make.
>>79082341 >How do you not know what house style is? I know what it is, it's the fact that this was probably the least "house style" decade Marvel had before the turn of the century.
>but few illustrators at the Big 2 could have the same said of them - mostly Adams, Starlin (if we don't consider him a storyteller also), Gulacy. >Val Mayerik >Mike Ploog >Frank Brunner >BWS >Genial Gene Colan >Gray Morrow >adhering to Buscema's style I'm not sure what Marvel's house style of the 70s (let alone how it would ever be more emblematic than the creativity of Gerber/Starlin/Englehart/etc) has to do with decompression, though. I was just pointing out that this was not a major quirk of the time.
You are right that, even with his advances, Kirby still had a very formulaic story structure. But you seem to be missing that a story is not just plot and dialogue, but message, as well. Kirby was writing comics that weren't just disposable entertainment; he laid the groundwork for how to write thematically deep and visionary comics (the true aspect that Marvel's 70s period excelled at). My point in bringing it up was to show why the decompression of modern mainstream comics is such a problem: they rarely do this. And the Hemingway-ish dialogue of these creators is not so major a problem to want the kind of dialogue we have today.
>>79082810 BWS himself admits to being a Kirby clone, an influence he wasn't able to escape until he left Conan.
Colan also freely admitted his Kirby influence, but he didn't come into his style post-Kirby. Morrow's was an illustrator first, Brunner hardly did anything. I'd argue that Mayerik is an extension of BWS in half his work, and I'll cede Ploog - in all the years of reading him, I've never understood the appeal. He always felt like a Vampirella artist that had to be let go to me.
House style is only about the art, and it's a phrase used by Marvel themselves in the old lettercols; Marvel Method is the writing, which you seemed to be confused about. It definitely was a major quirk of the time, and relates to decompression because they were/are both the notable storytelling/illustrating methods of their times, if we're focusing solely on art as the argument demands.
From your condemnation of "disposable entertainment" and "facile kids books", I'm assuming you find those comics inferior. I would say my tastes align the same way, but I can also appreciate them for what they are, as a product of their time (and as such, find wholesale condemnation of the style silly). The decompression of the 00s can be looked back on in the same way. I really would argue that visual storytelling has moved on to a new era, noted by more artistic (JHWIII-inspired) double page spreads and creative use of panels/layouts as artists finally are given the freedom from editorial that artists of the 70s freely, though conservatively used, pre-Shooter era before falling back into the predominate house style previously mentioned.
>>79083381 Again, I'm aware of what house style is. I only brought it up because you mentioned it as the primary "quirk" of the 70s a few posts back (or at least the quirk more deserving of being mentioned than the fact that the stories took a natural progression from Kirby's thematic depth and began playing with formula).
And the Marvel Method, while still not truly giving a writer the full control of a script, still allowed for one to take control of the factors that are most relevant to this issue. When Gerber writes a satire of Kung Fu movies in Howard, he's explicitly deciding that it will only be one issue. When Englehart does a story about Mantis and the tree people, he explicitly decides to discuss epistemology and racism.
>but I can also appreciate them for what they are >I really would argue that visual storytelling has moved on to a new era, noted by more artistic (JHWIII-inspired) double page spreads and creative use of panels/layouts as artists finally are given the freedom from editorial that artists of the 70s freely, though conservatively used, pre-Shooter These are both statements I would agree with, too. You recognize the trailblazing these Bronze Age creators managed, and that the best artists of today built off of them.
But I've mostly been talking about decompressed writing. There's keeping the style of the artist in mind, but it's mostly the scripting/plotting I take issue with.
>>79083679 >more deserving of being mentioned than the fact that the stories took a natural progression from Kirby's thematic depth because we're talking about visual storytelling, not written. That's the crux of the argument; otherwise I would have mentioned the often heavy-handed social activism of the seventies.
I think our misunderstanding is that you lay the fault of decompression on the writers, as opposed to the laziness of the illustrators. While I'm sure writers (notably Bendis) call for those television script-inspired storytelling "beats", I place more decision-making on illustrators, having read many of Bendis' scripts and finding them lacking in any inspirational qualities worth emulating - though they do leave a lot of freedom up to the illustrator, it's the illustrators who wouldn't take advantage of this freedom.
Ultimately we're arguing different things and we can leave it at that. I'm at least a bit more satisfied with the thread than before.
>>79083826 >because we're talking about visual storytelling, not written This I think is a point of contention. If you want to talk about different types of storytelling being valid, how is the more static paneling + exposition style of the old stuff less of a visual storytelling style than cinematic panels?
>lay the fault of decompression on the writers, >it's the illustrators who wouldn't take advantage of this freedom. Still think that this is how these best comics are made. Howard Chaykin was an especially vocal detractor of the laissez-faire script writing of modern comics. He, an illustrator, feels the best comics are made with the writer strictly guiding the artist.
Heavy-handed...again, I find it better that commentary and message are being made than just the kinds of distractions we get today.
But if want to "leave it at that," sure. I thought this was a fine debate once we got off each other's backs, just like the last time we did this.
>>79075440 This is more an illustrated novel than a comics. The worst I've seen is the euro comics Black and Mortimer which can honestly be more akin to an illustrated theater play than a comics in some pages.
It's probably because I read a lot of manga but I tend to like when in a conversation between 2 characters, instead of having one panel with 2 big dialogue bubbles, it take a whole page with wide shot and close-up of, I don't know, people's hand, face, part of the room... It builds an atmosphere for the scene, shows how they react to what the other says. I think it's more natural than when a dialogue is a monologues exchange.
>>79090419 I'm not him but drawing in comics are supposed to convey something. In the central panel, you have a whole dialogue but the only thing the drawing convey is "Magneto is an imposing character". It only suits the first two dialogue bubbles of this panel : "Cyclops!" answered with "Magneto!"
It's clear they lacked pages to tell everything they wanted to set up the next issue, so they cram all those informations in 1 big panel.
>>79090613 It's not that it doesn't have words it's that it takes up way too much space for what it's doing. At least on OP's page, honestly you could crop out Kitty and Colossus and put the three wolverine reactions side by side and it'd work better.
>>79080028 Comics are not a combination of images and words, they're a combination of images and stories. Words can be included in said images and stories but they aren't necessary for something to be a comic like the other two are.
>>79093516 Man if you're okay with someone cutting corners like this that's cool, but it is unnecessary and it's certainly not good. It's the comics equivalent of anime using background pans during long conversations to avoid actually animating.
>>79080823 >60s was the dawn of Kirby What? Kirby had been involved in comics since the Golden Age and even though he obviously peaked in the 60s most of his thematic qualities had been nourish and developed well before then.
Do you complain about scenes like the opening of Inglorious Basterds? That first scene was like 15 minutes of just slow conversation. Nothing "happened" in it other than character interaction. We could've learned the same about the characters in less time.
Now, I understand that one of the complaints is page use in a monthly setting. Comics are often 20 pages per month, while this is just a few minutes of a 2+ hour movie. But once the trade is released, they're in the same position.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.