Film is superior to comic books as art form.
Steppenpup
such logic, tapping two spoons on your lap makes beautiful music as a
violin or a saxophone.
These peasants claim that all artforms are limited. Yes, but some are
more limited than others. I'm sure you can do wonders with crayons but
it simply can't compare with oil painting. This isn't about snobbery,
it's a simple fact.
Comic books are highly limited. They can be expressive and engaging,
and as a kid I was fond of several, but any adult who finds comic
books as satisfying as film or a genuine novel is a klutzhead.
The charming thing about comic books is the best of them invite the
reader to participate, fill in the details. Its very limitations
require some work on the part of reader, to imagine the sound of
characters' voice, movement of objects and people, etc. But, more
often than not, comic books are meant to be easily digested and
forgotten, a narrative reserved mostly for kids, idiots, and Japanese
who are awash in minimalist artifice with plastic toys up their anal
orifice.
In fact, you can easily reduce a movie down to comic book format.
There are movie books with stills taken from movies. I used to own
such of Rocky and Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. Few other titles as
well. The entire book consisted of images from the movie, with
dialogue in bubbles, just like in comic books.
Now, only an idiot would say this is as good as the film, just as
satisfying, just as rich and fulfilling. Sorry to say, but narratives
unfold thru time, and when the passage of time is so fragmented as in
comic books it aint much fun, nor all that interesting.
I dare anyone mention a comic book that deserves the attention of 2001
the space odyssey. Or even that of Chris Marker's still image sci-fi
La Jette. Maybe an imaginitive comic book reader's intepretation of
the comic book inside his head is as good but that depends on the
individual reader, can't be shared. Besides what unfolds inside
anyone's head is akin to a movie, not a comic book.
Movies are organic, comic books are fake.
So, let's appreciate comic books for what they are and let's not
equate their artistic worth with higher artforms. Unless, you wanna
tell me building a doll house is the same thing as architecture.
James Allen
>
>A few peasants here seem to think all artforms are equal. According to
>such logic, tapping two spoons on your lap makes beautiful music as a
>violin or a saxophone.
No, just different music.
>
>These peasants claim that all artforms are limited. Yes, but some are
>more limited than others. I'm sure you can do wonders with crayons but
>it simply can't compare with oil painting. This isn't about snobbery,
>it's a simple fact.
Why do they have to be directly compared? And it does depend on who's using the
crayons and oil paint.
>
>Comic books are highly limited. They can be expressive and engaging,
>and as a kid I was fond of several, but any adult who finds comic
>books as satisfying as film or a genuine novel is a klutzhead.
Ah. And I thought you were a troll.
>The charming thing about comic books is the best of them invite the
>reader to participate, fill in the details. Its very limitations
>require some work on the part of reader, to imagine the sound of
>characters' voice, movement of objects and people, etc. But, more
>often than not, comic books are meant to be easily digested and
>forgotten, a narrative reserved mostly for kids, idiots, and Japanese
>who are awash in minimalist artifice with plastic toys up their anal
>orifice.
>
>In fact, you can easily reduce a movie down to comic book format.
>There are movie books with stills taken from movies. I used to own
>such of Rocky and Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. Few other titles as
>well. The entire book consisted of images from the movie, with
>dialogue in bubbles, just like in comic books.
>Now, only an idiot would say this is as good as the film, just as
>satisfying, just as rich and fulfilling. Sorry to say, but narratives
>unfold thru time, and when the passage of time is so fragmented as in
>comic books it aint much fun, nor all that interesting.
>
>I dare anyone mention a comic book that deserves the attention of 2001
>the space odyssey. Or even that of Chris Marker's still image sci-fi
>La Jette.
The Sandman, Watchmen, Love and Rockets, a lot of R Crumb's work, etc.
>Maybe an imaginitive comic book reader's intepretation of
>the comic book inside his head is as good but that depends on the
>individual reader, can't be shared. Besides what unfolds inside
>anyone's head is akin to a movie, not a comic book.
>Movies are organic, comic books are fake.
Geeze, you are a Philistine.
>
>So, let's appreciate comic books for what they are and let's not
>equate their artistic worth with higher artforms.
The worth is not so much in the artform, but in the artist. Film is a more
technically advanced medium, and directly engages more of the senses, yes, but
that doesn't render other form of expression meaningless. I don't need to be
bowled over all the time by fast moving visual images to be entertained.
>Unless, you wanna
>tell me building a doll house is the same thing as architecture.
>
Well, they are, it's all just a matter of scale. Sort of like comparing the
building of a log cabin and the Empire State Building. The utility is
different, but the talent involved in both activities can be admired. These
little subtleties seem to be lost on someone like you who feels the need to use
film as a stick to beat all other "lower" art forms.
Grand Inquisitor
superhero comics and the other kinds. Superhero comics are beyond
stupid, and they're only made stupider by trying to update them for
adults. It's like trying to make coloring books more mature. Then
there are other comic books, like Bone, and *some* of the Japanese
manga. And don't forget the serialized strips like Calvin and Hobbes.
Maybe Bill Watterson is the exception to the rule, but Calvin and Hobbes
is as "high" an art work as most movies you'll see. But I see what
you're getting at. I don't see how ideas like Andrei Rublev and 8 1/2
can come across in comic book form.
--
"It is dark, you are likely to be eaten by a grue."
--Zork
Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost
Tony Spadaro
the talentless dorks who torture saxaphones, and don't clear rooms the way
bad violinists do.
Your basic premise happens to be rather flawed. Art is art, crap is crap.
The actual medium is simply that - a medium.
Goya could do more with a chunk of charcoal on a board than your whole
family could with a full set of oils top grade stretched canvas and fifty
years of lessons.
When you have figured out the difference between subject and medium try
again. There might be something to what you say, but right now you are
floundering in mis-perceptions and ignorance.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
"Steppenpup" <prisc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b8f70c1.03071...@posting.google.com...
Tom Sutpen
expression, but you've sailed straight overboard by beating up on comic books
in order to do it. Were you traumatized by them during some unfortunate episode
of your youth or something?
Well, be that as it may. First off, comic books are, yes, just as valid an
art form as film. They may not have reached the heights that cinema has . . .
we can argue that one . . . but that's more a reflection of the individual
artists, not the potentialities of the medium itself. Personally, I have a very
narrow, Classicist view of comic book art. In other words, like with animation,
I prefer to kick it Old School. Gimme the bright, primary colors and direct
imagery of an old EC or DC or even Archie comic over the huff and puff visual
labors of the so-called 'Graphic Novel'. Gimme an Ub Iwerks or Fleischer Bros.
cartoon over "South Park" anyday. But that's just me, innit.
The biggest problem I have with your argument is that it's an exceedingly
old one. Older, I suspect, than you or I or Calvin Coolidge put tuhgither. All
you have to do is put Film in the place of the comic book, and Painting in the
place of film in your rhetorical schemata and you've got the Modernist debate
of 1914 going. It was a debased view of art then and it's no less debased now,
even with antiquity.
Besides, Robert Crumb, Bill Elder and Wallace Wood beat out Dali, Duchamp
and Man Ray any day a the week.
So there . . .
Tom Sutpen
"Cinema is Truth, 24 times a second" -- Jean-Luc Godard
"Movies lie 24 times a second" -- Brian DePalma
"Kill Ugly Cinema!" -- Tom Sutpen
madkevin
> These peasants claim that all artforms are limited. Yes, but some are
> more limited than others. I'm sure you can do wonders with crayons but
> it simply can't compare with oil painting. This isn't about snobbery,
> it's a simple fact.
The medium is not the art. Neither, essentially, is technique.
> Comic books are highly limited. They can be expressive and engaging,
> and as a kid I was fond of several, but any adult who finds comic
> books as satisfying as film or a genuine novel is a klutzhead.
Every artform has it's limitations, so to say that comics have limitations is
meaningless. The interest, as with any art, comes from how a writer or artists
plays with, or against, those limitations.
> The charming thing about comic books is the best of them invite the
> reader to participate, fill in the details. Its very limitations
> require some work on the part of reader, to imagine the sound of
> characters' voice, movement of objects and people, etc. But, more
> often than not, comic books are meant to be easily digested and
> forgotten... <snip>
That's true that North American comics are intended as basically disposable. But
this very disposability makes it easier for iconoclastic artists to work
entirely under critical radar in (almost) absolute freedom. What you said above
could easily been applied to, say, science-fiction pulps in the forties, fifties
and sixties, and yet great writers emerged from that as well.
I cut out the part that had nothing to do with your argument.
>
> In fact, you can easily reduce a movie down to comic book format.
> There are movie books with stills taken from movies. I used to own
> such of Rocky and Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. Few other titles as
> well. The entire book consisted of images from the movie, with
> dialogue in bubbles, just like in comic books.
> Now, only an idiot would say this is as good as the film, just as
> satisfying, just as rich and fulfilling.
Only a fool would consider what you describe a comic. That's like saying
Beethoven is meaningless because you can reduce the Ninth Symphony to a
cellphone ringtone.
> Sorry to say, but narratives
> unfold thru time, and when the passage of time is so fragmented as in
> comic books it aint much fun, nor all that interesting.
Comics unfold through time as well - you're supposed to read the panels in
sequential order. Cf. Scott Adams "Understanding Comics" for an excellent text
on how time is treated within the comics medium. Assuming you're not simply a
troll, of course.
>
> I dare anyone mention a comic book that deserves the attention of 2001
> the space odyssey.
Matching genre to genre: Alan Moore's "Watchmen", easily the most formally
playful of any mainstream comic ever made. Outside of genre, there are too many
to mention - try www.fantagraphics.com as a decent starting point.
> Or even that of Chris Marker's still image sci-fi
> La Jette.
Chris Ware's novel "Jimmy Corrigan: World's Smartest Kid". Really.
> Maybe an imaginitive comic book reader's intepretation of
> the comic book inside his head is as good but that depends on the
> individual reader, can't be shared. Besides what unfolds inside
> anyone's head is akin to a movie, not a comic book.
> Movies are organic, comic books are fake.
Meaningless statements, hence ignorable.
>
> So, let's appreciate comic books for what they are and let's not
> equate their artistic worth with higher artforms. Unless, you wanna
> tell me building a doll house is the same thing as architecture.
You're smelling a little like Gaza, you know.
=============
"Swamp Cogliano"
James Neibaur
akir...@aol.complacency wrote on 7/15/03 5:47 PM:
> Well, be that as it may. First off, comic books are, yes, just as valid an
> art form as film.
They sure are. There is a classic status to comics of the past as well,
just like film. The only sad thing is the rarity of some of the books from
the thirties and forties.
JN
Dawn Taylor
announced in front of God and everybody:
>These peasants claim that all artforms are limited. Yes, but some are
>more limited than others. I'm sure you can do wonders with crayons but
>it simply can't compare with oil painting.
I've seen some incredible crayon art. And I've seen some truly
excreble oil paintings. You can't just make the blanket statement that
one artisistic medium is innately superior to another.
>This isn't about snobbery,
>it's a simple fact.
Nah. It's about snobbery.
Dawn
(tole painting trumps apple dolls, which is better than pop-top
placemats ...)
Stephen Cooke
I'll see you Crumb, Elder and Wood and raise you a Will Eisner and a Jack
Cole.
swac
Praying someone doesn't have a Winsor McCay stashed away somewhere.
madkevin
"Stephen Cooke" <am...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.103...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca...
> I'll see you Crumb, Elder and Wood and raise you a Will Eisner and a Jack
> Cole.
>
> swac
> Praying someone doesn't have a Winsor McCay stashed away somewhere.
>
How about my Steve Bissette in the hole with a Basil Wolverton showing?
===============
"Powerhouse Cogliano"
Stephen Cooke
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, madkevin wrote:
> "Stephen Cooke" <am...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>
> > I'll see you Crumb, Elder and Wood and raise you a Will Eisner and a Jack
> > Cole.
> >
> > swac
> > Praying someone doesn't have a Winsor McCay stashed away somewhere.
>
> How about my Steve Bissette in the hole with a Basil Wolverton showing?
Only if someone deals you a Harvey Kurtzman.
> ===============
> "Powerhouse Cogliano"
swac
a.k.a. Beaver Goodman
PAVELB1
That's like saying mythology is beyond stupid. Superheros ARE modern
mythology. We may not worhsip them (well some of us) but they are
modern Icons....even heroes for some....
There's a place for everything in the world.
Peter Morris
>
> I dare anyone mention a comic book that deserves the attention of 2001
> the space odyssey.
And I dare anyone to name a film that deserves the attention of
the Mona Lisa or a Beethoven Symphony.
PAVELB1
<no...@m.please> wrote:
>
>"Steppenpup" <prisc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8b8f70c1.03071...@posting.google.com...
>
>>
>> I dare anyone mention a comic book that deserves the attention of 2001
>> the space odyssey.
>
Maus...perhaps more so than 2001. And anyone who doesn't know what
Sandman is has no business even commenting on comics. Ignorance may be
bliss, but you don't have to wear it for everyone to see.
Steppenpup
> >From: prisc...@hotmail.com (Steppenpup)
> >
> >A few peasants here seem to think all artforms are equal. According to
> >such logic, tapping two spoons on your lap makes beautiful music as a
> >violin or a saxophone.
>
> No, just different music.
How about blowing a folded paper over a comb? Somehow, I doubt
Coltrane would have gone far with such contraption.
>
> >
> >These peasants claim that all artforms are limited. Yes, but some are
> >more limited than others. I'm sure you can do wonders with crayons but
> >it simply can't compare with oil painting. This isn't about snobbery,
> >it's a simple fact.
>
> Why do they have to be directly compared? And it does depend on who's using the
> crayons and oil paint.
Crayons can be fun but my point is the best one can every do with
crayon cannot compare with what can be done with oil.
>
> >
> >Comic books are highly limited. They can be expressive and engaging,
> >and as a kid I was fond of several, but any adult who finds comic
> >books as satisfying as film or a genuine novel is a klutzhead.
> >The charming thing about comic books is the best of them invite the
> >reader to participate, fill in the details. Its very limitations
> >require some work on the part of reader, to imagine the sound of
> >characters' voice, movement of objects and people, etc. But, more
> >often than not, comic books are meant to be easily digested and
> >forgotten, a narrative reserved mostly for kids, idiots, and Japanese
> >who are awash in minimalist artifice with plastic toys up their anal
> >orifice.
> >
> >In fact, you can easily reduce a movie down to comic book format.
> >There are movie books with stills taken from movies. I used to own
> >such of Rocky and Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. Few other titles as
> >well. The entire book consisted of images from the movie, with
> >dialogue in bubbles, just like in comic books.
> >Now, only an idiot would say this is as good as the film, just as
> >satisfying, just as rich and fulfilling. Sorry to say, but narratives
> >unfold thru time, and when the passage of time is so fragmented as in
> >comic books it aint much fun, nor all that interesting.
> >
> >I dare anyone mention a comic book that deserves the attention of 2001
> >the space odyssey. Or even that of Chris Marker's still image sci-fi
> >La Jette.
>
> The Sandman, Watchmen, Love and Rockets, a lot of R Crumb's work, etc.
Maybe these are decent graphic novels, I know nothing about them
except the works of Robert Crumb like 'When the Niggers and Jews Take
Over America' which was pretty funny. But, please, don't tell me this
is great art. At best they are imaginative, witty, but comic books
just don't dig very deep. It's just the nature of the medium. What
they convey tend to be superficial and shallow, largely due to its
limitations.
>
> >Maybe an imaginitive comic book reader's intepretation of
> >the comic book inside his head is as good but that depends on the
> >individual reader, can't be shared. Besides what unfolds inside
> >anyone's head is akin to a movie, not a comic book.
> >Movies are organic, comic books are fake.
>
> Geeze, you are a Philistine.
My name aint Geeze.
>
> >
> >So, let's appreciate comic books for what they are and let's not
> >equate their artistic worth with higher artforms.
>
> The worth is not so much in the artform, but in the artist. Film is a more
> technically advanced medium, and directly engages more of the senses, yes, but
> that doesn't render other form of expression meaningless. I don't need to be
> bowled over all the time by fast moving visual images to be entertained.
>
> >Unless, you wanna
> >tell me building a doll house is the same thing as architecture.
> >
>
> Well, they are, it's all just a matter of scale. Sort of like comparing the
> building of a log cabin and the Empire State Building. The utility is
> different, but the talent involved in both activities can be admired. These
> little subtleties seem to be lost on someone like you who feels the need to use
> film as a stick to beat all other "lower" art forms.
No, working with models in architecture is unavoidable but building
dollhouses is a pretty silly business. And, even in architectural
procedures, the use of models is merely a step in the building of
something truly magnificent.
A graphic novel is merely a model for a movie, live action or
animated. To say a limited artform like the graphic novel is merely
different and not also inferior to film is egalitarian tomfoolery in
our grungy age.
Steppenpup
> I've met a few spoons players who were much more enjoyabel than most of
> the talentless dorks who torture saxaphones, and don't clear rooms the way
> bad violinists do.
Of course, you're right. A healthy turtle will outrace a dead rabbit.
But, compare the best saxophonist with the best jew harp player or
armpit fart player, and clearly the saxophonist wins in terms of
range, depth, beauty and complexity of the music.
> Your basic premise happens to be rather flawed. Art is art, crap is crap.
> The actual medium is simply that - a medium.
You're only half right. It's true that a moron couldn't creat art with
the best oil painting kit. And, it's true that a truly imaginative
person could create something interesting with ketchup. And, in cinema
directors with primitive tools made far greater films than morons with
the most expensive equipment in hollywood. But, a great artist working
in a great medium will create better and more memorable art than a
great artist working in a weenie medium(or limited budget:when Welles
had all the resources of Hollywood he gave us Citizen Kane. When he
had to work piecemeal by piecemeal, he still made memorable movies
like Othello, Trial, and Mr Arkadin but they are wanting).
> Goya could do more with a chunk of charcoal on a board than your whole
> family could with a full set of oils top grade stretched canvas and fifty
> years of lessons.
No doubt. But, a Goya with a full set of oils could do more than a
Goya with only a chunk of charcoal.
> When you have figured out the difference between subject and medium try
> again. There might be something to what you say, but right now you are
> floundering in mis-perceptions and ignorance.
My point is certain mediums can better tackle and explore deeper and
more important subjects and themes than others. This isn't to belittle
the humbler medium but egalitarianism such as yours serves no good
purpose.
Steppenpup
> I understand your need to defend the honor of film as a form of artistic
> expression, but you've sailed straight overboard by beating up on comic books
> in order to do it. Were you traumatized by them during some unfortunate episode
> of your youth or something?
I wasn't beating up on comic books, only those who said it was as
important, as versatile, as great an artform as cinema.
> Well, be that as it may. First off, comic books are, yes, just as valid an
> art form as film.
No, they are not.
> They may not have reached the heights that cinema has . . .
And, why not? They've been around for over a century, there have been
comic books aimed at adults, especially in Japan and Europe yet where
is the comic book equivalent of Citizen Kane, Jules and Jim,
Godfather?
> we can argue that one . . . but that's more a reflection of the individual
> artists, not the potentialities of the medium itself. Personally, I have a very
> narrow, Classicist view of comic book art. In other words, like with animation,
> I prefer to kick it Old School. Gimme the bright, primary colors and direct
> imagery of an old EC or DC or even Archie comic over the huff and puff visual
> labors of the so-called 'Graphic Novel'. Gimme an Ub Iwerks or Fleischer Bros.
> cartoon over "South Park" anyday. But that's just me, innit.
Superhero comic books are dumb. I can admire the graphic novel or the
more ambitious Japanese manga if only because they are attempts to use
the form to tell more complex stories, indeed to rival film or aspire
to be a pictorial novel. But, I've skimmed thru graphic novels at
Tower Records, those of my friends... I've even ordered some and while
some are good and exceptional, none of them would qualify as high or
important art.
> The biggest problem I have with your argument is that it's an exceedingly
> old one. Older, I suspect, than you or I or Calvin Coolidge put tuhgither. All
> you have to do is put Film in the place of the comic book, and Painting in the
> place of film in your rhetorical schemata and you've got the Modernist debate
> of 1914 going. It was a debased view of art then and it's no less debased now,
> even with antiquity.
No, comic books have been around as long as film. Film have proven
itself as a great art form, comic books have not, even those created
by best in the field.
>
> Besides, Robert Crumb, Bill Elder and Wallace Wood beat out Dali, Duchamp
> and Man Ray any day a the week.
Robert Crumb is a sick pervert and his ugly comics are fit for sexual
misfits, retards, pedophiles and booger eaters. Actually, Crumb is
actually more interesting as a psychological case study than as an
artist as Zwigoff's documentary well demonstrates. Crumb gives the
notion of degenerate art a bad name. Degenerate art should be bold and
daring, not pathetic and infantile.
As for Elder and Wood, I've no idea.
Rick Blaine
">
> No, comic books have been around as long as film. Film have proven
> itself as a great art form, comic books have not, even those created
> by best in the field.
>
certainly can't think of any modern films I've seen in the last few years
that would qualify. I think film has proven itself to be a great revenue
generator, but I think the jury is still out regarding whether or not it is
indeed art.
Oh, and I think Crumb is an excellent artist. Just because you are
offended by his subjects doesn't mean he isn't talented.
Tony Spadaro
I'll drop it. No use wasting perfectly good time on a dead loss.
Steppenpup
Mythology is not beyond stupid because the best of them represent
human imagination at its height, at its furthest reaches. Also, the
great myths arose from a sense of wonder, mystery, magic, over
generations, shaped by shared memory, molded by creativity and spirit.
But, superhero comic books were consciously created by dorks to please
juveniles. They are repetitious and silly, childish. There are
exceptions like Bubblegum Crisis and I dare say Priss is a great
modern mythic creation but just about all superhero comics are dumb
dumb dumb.
>
> There's a place for everything in the world.
Sadly, that's why we have Britney Spears and Eminem.
Steppenpup
This is all just juvenilia, Americana, trivia, cultural buff-oonery.
You gonna tell me Little Orphan Annie has artistic value? Sure, it
has monetary value if such may be assessed at traveling antique show
but it aint much as art.
Steppenpup
> "Steppenpup" <prisc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8b8f70c1.03071...@posting.google.com...
>
> > These peasants claim that all artforms are limited. Yes, but some are
> > more limited than others. I'm sure you can do wonders with crayons but
> > it simply can't compare with oil painting. This isn't about snobbery,
> > it's a simple fact.
>
> The medium is not the art. Neither, essentially, is technique.
What is this Zen schitck? The truth is medium certainly limits the
nature and the character of the art.
And "neither is technique"? ... whatever that means but it probably
explains why Madkevin easily falls for crappy, badly performed music.
>
> > Comic books are highly limited. They can be expressive and engaging,
> > and as a kid I was fond of several, but any adult who finds comic
> > books as satisfying as film or a genuine novel is a klutzhead.
>
> Every artform has it's limitations, so to say that comics have limitations is
> meaningless. The interest, as with any art, comes from how a writer or artists
> plays with, or against, those limitations.
Ah, so say zen Yoda. But, I say some artforms far more limited than
others. I say, sure, it very silly to say sitar better or worse than
violin. Sitar good for raga and violine good for sonata. Long live
difference. It apples and oranges. But comparing film with comic book
not a case of apples and oranges but case of apples and crabapples.
Movie big shiny apple, red and juicy and yummy. Comic book a
crabapple. Crabapple dinky and wimpy. It good for a crunchy bite, good
for throwing at Madkevin's head when he not watching but it not great
fruit but for elfin kind. Movie for giants, comic book for elfinkind
and mental dwarves.
Like let's say we imagine healthy man and crippled man. Healthy man
run and jump and dance and sing. Crippled man no can walk. But, if
crippled man still uses whatever he can do get around, I respect
crippled man. He know how to 'play with, or against, his limitations'.
But, all said and done, healthy man's dance and motion more beautiful
than that of crippled man. Movie as medium almost limitless and still
we find more possibilities, it still being explored and expanded. But,
comic book potential exhausted already and tiresome and only for
retards who want Superman comic or underground crap like that of
Crumb and Gayman, thinking this stuff is so subversive, avantgarde,
cutting edge, and deep when they just horse manure.
>
> > The charming thing about comic books is the best of them invite the
> > reader to participate, fill in the details. Its very limitations
> > require some work on the part of reader, to imagine the sound of
> > characters' voice, movement of objects and people, etc. But, more
> > often than not, comic books are meant to be easily digested and
> > forgotten... <snip>
>
> That's true that North American comics are intended as basically disposable. But
> this very disposability makes it easier for iconoclastic artists to work
> entirely under critical radar in (almost) absolute freedom. What you said above
> could easily been applied to, say, science-fiction pulps in the forties, fifties
> and sixties, and yet great writers emerged from that as well.
>
> I cut out the part that had nothing to do with your argument.
Ha, now we have romance of 'iconoclastic' artist working 'under
critical radar'. Must say this is kind of hipsterish, badass, cool
notion. But, let's get real. Most of these guys just losers, failed
writers, wanna be filmmakers, college dropouts.. who have maybe read
some decent books but knowing they can't write any such they turn to
comic books where they might easily fool some unsuspecting idiot into
thinking they are creating daring art. Ha, I say to you, Yoda zen
master. Romantic notion but reality is just alot of clerks working at
Tower Records with tattoos and pierced eyebrows thinking they are some
cool, creative shit when they are just a bunch of sissyboys still
living at home and blowing their minimum wage on some bud which they
smoke and make them feel like they are william burroughs.
And, what more pitiful literary genre than sci-fi, past or present?
Only stanislaw lem a true scifi writer of worth. Lots of good ideas in
sci-fi but sci-fi writers not writers. Just hacks. I try read Clarke,
Asimov, Heinlein but what pisspoor waste of time. For geeks only.
>
> >
> > In fact, you can easily reduce a movie down to comic book format.
> > There are movie books with stills taken from movies. I used to own
> > such of Rocky and Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. Few other titles as
> > well. The entire book consisted of images from the movie, with
> > dialogue in bubbles, just like in comic books.
> > Now, only an idiot would say this is as good as the film, just as
> > satisfying, just as rich and fulfilling.
>
> Only a fool would consider what you describe a comic. That's like saying
> Beethoven is meaningless because you can reduce the Ninth Symphony to a
> cellphone ringtone.
No, I'm saying it would be diminished if turned into a cellphone
ringtone,not because it can be. I'm saying comic book format is
basically a cellphone ringtone when compared to cinema. What cinema
can achieve, comic book can only achieve a cellphone ringtone
imitation of the same material. What Kurosawa had done in Ran, if done
in comic book format would only be a pale cellphone ringtone
imitation.
>
> > Sorry to say, but narratives
> > unfold thru time, and when the passage of time is so fragmented as in
> > comic books it aint much fun, nor all that interesting.
>
> Comics unfold through time as well - you're supposed to read the panels in
> sequential order. Cf. Scott Adams "Understanding Comics" for an excellent text
> on how time is treated within the comics medium. Assuming you're not simply a
> troll, of course.
Yes, comics unfold thru time. But, there are such huge gaps in the
narrative. Films flow, novels flow, comic books sputters about in
disjointed images. Again, nothing wrong with that if we accept that
comic book is highly limited and unworthy of comparison with cinema as
an artform of equal value.
>
> >
> > I dare anyone mention a comic book that deserves the attention of 2001
> > the space odyssey.
>
> Matching genre to genre: Alan Moore's "Watchmen", easily the most formally
> playful of any mainstream comic ever made. Outside of genre, there are too many
> to mention - try www.fantagraphics.com as a decent starting point.
I looked thru a fantagraphics catalogue. Just alot of grubby comics
created by misfits and crabasses who need to shave and take a shower
and stop chainsmoking and should get some exercise.
>
> > Or even that of Chris Marker's still image sci-fi
> > La Jette.
>
> Chris Ware's novel "Jimmy Corrigan: World's Smartest Kid". Really.
>
>
> > Maybe an imaginitive comic book reader's intepretation of
> > the comic book inside his head is as good but that depends on the
> > individual reader, can't be shared. Besides what unfolds inside
> > anyone's head is akin to a movie, not a comic book.
> > Movies are organic, comic books are fake.
>
> Meaningless statements, hence ignorable.
No, very meaningful. Indeed, I was paying compliment to the comic book
format. I was saying comic books can stimulate imagination because of
its incompleteness. Like listening to radio shows before tv challenged
the listener to create images inside his own head. Comic books can
invite the reader to fill in the gaps, imagine the voices of the
character, mold the starkly illustrated pictures to attain a fullness
within the reader's imagination. But, this is so private, unique to
every reader, and therefore if we are to judge the value of
comicbooks, we must stick with the comic book itself which is a pretty
spare artform.
>
> > So, let's appreciate comic books for what they are and let's not
> > equate their artistic worth with higher artforms. Unless, you wanna
> > tell me building a doll house is the same thing as architecture.
>
> You're smelling a little like Gaza, you know.
>
Gaza or waza, who the hell cares. Let's discuss comics and not get
personal and hell with your witchhunts. Call me gaza, call me a
commie, call me whatever. But, your idea about comics are wrong and
just plain wrong.
Grand Inquisitor
> That's like saying mythology is beyond stupid. Superheros ARE modern
> mythology. We may not worhsip them (well some of us) but they are
> modern Icons....even heroes for some....
>
> There's a place for everything in the world.
Sorry, the secret lairs, the costumes, the ridiculous ways they gain
their powers, it's too silly. It was invented for kids, so it didn't
have to make sense then.
Steppenpup
> On 15 Jul 2003 13:58:05 -0700, prisc...@hotmail.com (Steppenpup)
> announced in front of God and everybody:
>
> >These peasants claim that all artforms are limited. Yes, but some are
> >more limited than others. I'm sure you can do wonders with crayons but
> >it simply can't compare with oil painting.
>
> I've seen some incredible crayon art. And I've seen some truly
> excreble oil paintings. You can't just make the blanket statement that
> one artisistic medium is innately superior to another.
Yes, I can. It's like saying Italian cuisine is by and large superior
to Polish cuisine. It's true.
>
> >This isn't about snobbery,
> >it's a simple fact.
>
> Nah. It's about snobbery.
>
No, it's about your slobbery. Crayon on the same level as oil
painting? Yeah, sure, and margarine is as good as butter. Gimme a
break.
PAVELB1
GI...I like you....Steppenpup is a pretentious troll and i'm not going
to waste another byte arguing with someone who hasn't even read what
he's ridiculing. but you i like....
So back to you GI, when you break down the mythological stories, they
are just as silly. Zeus turned into a bull? How? Why doesn't Odin just
kill Loki? etc....etc...Superman, Captain America....they are
Icons...their trappings are unimportant...it's what they represent
that is....what they, as silly as they may seem, aspire too.
I try and look at the big picture, I mean c'mon, arn't we all kids?
We're talking about Goddamn superheroes on a Goddamn computer.
I'm not saying if i pull a random issue of Superman off the stands,
it's going to be Siddartha, but i can appreciate its history.
James Neibaur
>> Sorry, the secret lairs, the costumes, the ridiculous ways they gain
>> their powers, it's too silly. It was invented for kids, so it didn't
>> have to make sense then.
Sorry, the healing powers, the rising from the dead, the making of the
universe in six days, the gathering of all animal species on an ark, it's
too silly. It was invented for the foolish and superstitious and didn't
have to make sense then.
JN
Stephen Cooke
The General
swac
Well, it's a close third anyway.
Stephen Cooke
On 15 Jul 2003, Steppenpup wrote:
> How about blowing a folded paper over a comb? Somehow, I doubt
> Coltrane would have gone far with such contraption.
Coltrane, perhaps not. But Roland Kirk would wail like a muthaf@#$a.
swac
Stephen Cooke
On 15 Jul 2003, Steppenpup wrote:
> PAV...@EARTHLINK.NET (PAVELB1) wrote in message news:<3f14bc67....@news.central.cox.net>...
> > There's a place for everything in the world.
>
> Sadly, that's why we have Britney Spears and Eminem.
Screw them, it's Diane Warren I'm gunning for.
swac
Dreading whatever "love" song she's penned for the latest Bay/Bruckheimer
monstrosity.
PAVELB1
There's a definite place for Eminem, and as for
Britney....well.....she makes little girls (and boys in men's bodies)
happy.
Doug
> sji...@aol.com (James Allen) wrote in message news:<20030715172542...@mb-m25.aol.com>...
> > >From: prisc...@hotmail.com (Steppenpup)
>
> >
> > >
> > >some are more limited than others. I'm sure you can do wonders
> > >with crayons but it simply can't compare with oil painting.
> > >This isn't about snobbery, it's a simple fact.
It's not snobbery, it's simple ignorance. See below.
> > Why do they have to be directly compared? And it does depend
> > on who's using the crayons and oil paint.
>
> Crayons can be fun but my point is the best one can every do with
> crayon cannot compare with what can be done with oil.
I think what you mean to say is that YOU cannot accomplish with
crayons what a talented artist can achieve with oils.
Take a look at these pictures, created with Crayola crayons:
Browse through the examples in the gallery. You're going to have
alter your analogy. And hopefully your wordlview.
Doug
Doug
> akir...@aol.complacency (Tom Sutpen) wrote in message news:<20030715184751...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
>
>
> > just as valid an art form as film.
>
> No, they are not.
>
> > They may not have reached the heights that cinema has . . .
>
> And, why not? They've been around for over a century, there have been
> comic books aimed at adults, especially in Japan and Europe yet where
> is the comic book equivalent of Citizen Kane,
Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons
>Jules and Jim,
Ghost World by Daniel Clowes
> Godfather?
100 Bullets by Brian Azzarello and Eduardo Risso
See also "From Hell," "Road to Perdition," "Powers," "Heavy Liquid,"
"Rising Stars," "Cerberus," "Whiteout," "Channel Zero," "Orbiter" and
"Sin City" for comparisons to other classic films in various genres.
Doug
Your Pal Brian
> Only stanislaw lem a true scifi writer of worth.
Heh. Now if that ain't plonkable, I don't know what is.
Brian
Baelzar
> such logic, tapping two spoons on your lap makes beautiful music as a
> violin or a saxophone.
(snip)
Well then. Will you also agree that books are superior to movies as an art
form?
Steppenpup
> ">
> > No, comic books have been around as long as film. Film have proven
> > itself as a great art form, comic books have not, even those created
> > by best in the field.
> >
> I know I shouldn't ask this but, what film(s) do you consider to be art? I
> certainly can't think of any modern films I've seen in the last few years
> that would qualify. I think film has proven itself to be a great revenue
> generator, but I think the jury is still out regarding whether or not it is
> indeed art.
Sunshine, Mulholland Drive, Time Regained, AI, Chalk, Fall of Otrar,
Werkmeister Harmonies, Simon the Magician, Yellow Asphalt, Kwik Stop,
Blame it on Voltaire, Attack of the Clones.
>
> Oh, and I think Crumb is an excellent artist. Just because you are
> offended by his subjects doesn't mean he isn't talented.
The man is sick, his taste is retarded, his sensibility beneath
contempt. I only like his early Fritz the Cat cartoons, done when he
was a kid.
Grand Inquisitor
> GI...I like you....Steppenpup is a pretentious troll and i'm not going
> to waste another byte arguing with someone who hasn't even read what
> he's ridiculing. but you i like....
>
> So back to you GI, when you break down the mythological stories, they
> are just as silly. Zeus turned into a bull? How? Why doesn't Odin just
> kill Loki? etc....etc...Superman, Captain America....they are
> Icons...their trappings are unimportant...it's what they represent
> that is....what they, as silly as they may seem, aspire too.
>
I don't remember saying anything about Greek and Roman mythology, which
is really just an ancient religion. In any case, calling it folklore
doesn't legitimize it. Otherwise you could legitimize Bazooka Joe by
calling it "modern day folklore."
Besidees, Zeus turning into a bull is nothing compared to an adult with
superpowers he gained from a chemical spill wearing a clown suit and
fighting criminals.
Grand Inquisitor
> Sorry, the healing powers, the rising from the dead, the making of the
> universe in six days, the gathering of all animal species on an ark, it's
> too silly. It was invented for the foolish and superstitious and didn't
> have to make sense then.
>
> JN
Trying to make me the loser in this debate by ridiculing my beliefs? I
could easily take this farther and go on about a fragmentary fossil
record, the unbelievable mathematical odds againts evolution, the
elegance and design in nature indicating a creator, but I don't want to
get into that back and forth.
James Neibaur
zo...@columbus.rr.com wrote on 7/16/03 2:53 PM:
> Trying to make me the loser in this debate by ridiculing my beliefs?
Nope, just trying to show you that the unbelievability of comics, which are
meant to be merely fantasy and fiction pales in comparison to the
unbelievabilty of things that some people actually think happened.
> I
> could easily take this farther and go on about a fragmentary fossil
> record, the unbelievable mathematical odds againts evolution
(snip)
I agree. I also see the odds against that which is presented in scripture.
Or in Superman. But only one of these is supposed to be make believe.
JN
PAVELB1
Obviously 'some' creator is required...if at least of the natural laws
that lead to the elegance of life...but i would like to hear about the
mathmatical odds against evolution...the way i see it it should be the
other way around.
PAVELB1
Bazooka Joe is legitimized, but not because it's folklore.....it is
however an interesting bit of history. Besides...comparing Bazooka Joe
to Superman? c'mon dude you're smarter than that. Anyhoo.
Rick Blaine
>
> Sunshine, Mulholland Drive, Time Regained, AI, Chalk, Fall of Otrar,
> Werkmeister Harmonies, Simon the Magician, Yellow Asphalt, Kwik Stop,
> Blame it on Voltaire, Attack of the Clones.
I haven't seen all the films you list but, if Attack of the Clones is art
then it is very bad art. Not even equal to a crappy comic book.
madkevin
> They are repetitious and silly, childish. There are
> exceptions like Bubblegum Crisis and I dare say Priss is a great
> modern mythic creation but just about all superhero comics are dumb
> dumb dumb.
There's the slip-up. It's Gaza.
===============
"Cogliano Crisis"
madkevin
> >
>
> Gaza or waza, who the hell cares.
Bye-bye, little Gaza. Wake me up when you've changed your name again so I can
plonk you, m'kay?
=============
"200 Coglianos"
Steppenpup
No, books and movies are different like apples and oranges. It's hard
to translate a great novel into film, at least what's great about the
book. But, equally, 2001 is all cinema. In book version it is pitiful.
The best films derive their strengths not slavishly from drama or
literature; they create their own rules, find their own
possibilities... Tarkovsky and Kubrick probably went further than
most, while I think Bergman's reputation has suffered because critics
think his films are far too owing to painting and drama, though in my
view this is an unfair assessment.
The point is novel and the film both have great unique advantages. I
just don't see the comic book having a great advantage over the novel
or film. It lacks the depth of the literary form, nor the
expansiveness of cinema. It's good for what it is, but let's not call
it a great artform. It just isn't.
I think you can make a decent comic book out of Moby Dick or
Magnificent Ambersons but how it could compare with the original book
or movie orignal in terms of artistic depth or breadth is beyond me.
Steppenpup
Okay, so who are some great sci-fi writers? Greg Bear? William
Shatner? Ray Bradbury? Actually, I love Bradbury's ideas but he aint
no writer.
Steppenpup
Look, the crayola illustrations are impressive, all the more so since
they were done with crayons. But, one cannot judge such things by
looking at images off the computer screen. The wonderful thing about
oil painting is the texture and even the most expensive artbooks fail
to translate this quality onto the pages.
The crayola paintings on the website are impressive but they strike me
more as gimmicks than as true art. Do we need another image of Elvis?
Also, some of those pictures are painstaking imitations of water color
and oil paintings. It reminds me a Japanese artist who created a
facsimile of the Mona Lisa on toasted bread in a microwave. Impressive
but more gimmick than art. And, recently a British couple reproduced a
painting on a canvas of living grass. A hoot to be sure, but
superficial.
While I tip my head to the crayola dude, I suspect that upon examining
his works up close, the texture of crayola wax will nowhere equal the
richness of oil. Or, do you know nothing of such things? Do you really
think a painting is just the picture and not texture? That a
reproduction of a painting into poster form is just as good as the
original? As far as I know you could probably make a pretty accurate
model of great sculpture with butter or caca. But neither has the same
dimensions, same quality as marble.
Steppenpup
Truth in myths are metaphorical. The ark story teaches us to value
what is most fundamental and true. If earth were to go blam and you
had to pick only 10 movies for future generations they wouldn't be
Weekend at Bernies. Never forget the basics, the core values, the core
truths saith the Lord.
But, I still don't know why Noah had to take a pair of cockroaches.
Grand Inquisitor
> Obviously 'some' creator is required...if at least of the natural laws
> that lead to the elegance of life...but i would like to hear about the
> mathmatical odds against evolution...the way i see it it should be the
> other way around.
Rats, where were you when I was posting about this? Now I gotta post
all over?! Dwaaaaaagh! Tell you what, I might post about this later,
if you want. Or you could email me, I might be able to dig up some web
links rather than recommend certain books or papers.
Doug
> tr...@cinci.rr.com (Doug) wrote ...
> > prisc...@hotmail.com (Steppenpup) wrote ...
> >
> > > > Why do they have to be directly compared? And it does depend
> > > > on who's using the crayons and oil paint.
> > >
> > > Crayons can be fun but my point is the best one can every do with
> > > crayon cannot compare with what can be done with oil.
> >
> >
> > http://www.jeffreyrobert.com/
> >
> > Browse through the examples in the gallery. You're going to have
> > alter your analogy. And hopefully your wordlview.
> >
> > Doug
>
>
> his works up close, the texture of crayola wax will nowhere equal the
> richness of oil. Or, do you know nothing of such things?
I'm an artist myself.
> Do you really
> think a painting is just the picture and not texture?
I do find texture irrelevent in most cases (although in Peterborough,
NH, I saw a landscape created with melted-wax that was astounding).
I've seen equivalent crayon pictures in real life, and they are truly
amazing. The scent that lingers on them is infinitely preferable to
that of the poisonous chemical smell of oil paints.
Also, a point that I can't emphasize enough, the degree of difficulty
of using crayons over oils is an order of magnitude, making the crayon
paintings all the more impressive. Oils are forgiving and almost
insipidly easy to work with, one of the reasons why I like Chinese
brush painting using ink or watercolor. The degree of difficulty is
daunting, where a single mistroke can destroy a painting in progress.
Oils can be endless reworked, even years after they are "completed."
Doug
James Allen
>
>I think that a super-important distinction has to be made between
>superhero comics and the other kinds. Superhero comics are beyond
>stupid, and they're only made stupider by trying to update them for
>adults. It's like trying to make coloring books more mature.
I disagree with that premise. Most superhero comics (and films, for that
matter) are junk, but the idea of the superhero can be utilized effectively.
>Then
>there are other comic books, like Bone, and *some* of the Japanese
>manga.
>And don't forget the serialized strips like Calvin and Hobbes.
>Maybe Bill Watterson is the exception to the rule, but Calvin and Hobbes
>is as "high" an art work as most movies you'll see.
And Watterson was admittedly influenced by the great Walt Kelly ("Pogo,"
another great strip.)
>But I see what
>you're getting at. I don't see how ideas like Andrei Rublev and 8 1/2
>can come across in comic book form.
>
And? I don't see how The Beatles' Abbey Road can come across in comic book form
either. Why is it considered a negative that other forms can't be shoehorned
into a comic book? I don't _want_ to see 8˝ done as a comic anyway.
Stephen Cooke
On 17 Jul 2003, James Allen wrote:
> And? I don't see how The Beatles' Abbey Road can come across in comic book form
> either. Why is it considered a negative that other forms can't be shoehorned
> into a comic book? I don't _want_ to see 8½ done as a comic anyway.
Didn't Fellini collaborate with Italian comic artist Milo Manera for a
series of risque comic book fantasies? I don't know if Manera ever adapted
any of Fellini's film works for the page though.
swac
James Allen
>series of risque comic book fantasies? I don't know if Manera ever adapted
>any of Fellini's film works for the page though.
>
>swac
I don't know if Fellini ever collaborated with Manera, but it wouldn't shock
me. Manera has done some provacative work, to put it mildly.
W. Lydecker
PAVELB1
Lydecker) wrote:
> You weren't Big time 'til you made MAD magazine.
>
"What kind of Mickey Mouse piloting is this??"
Steppenpup
> prisc...@hotmail.com (Steppenpup) wrote ...
> > tr...@cinci.rr.com (Doug) wrote ...
> > > prisc...@hotmail.com (Steppenpup) wrote ...
> > >
> > > > > Why do they have to be directly compared? And it does depend
> > > > > on who's using the crayons and oil paint.
> > > >
> > > > Crayons can be fun but my point is the best one can every do with
> > > > crayon cannot compare with what can be done with oil.
> > >
> > > Take a look at these pictures, created with Crayola crayons:
> > >
> > > http://www.jeffreyrobert.com/
> > >
> > > Browse through the examples in the gallery. You're going to have
> > > alter your analogy. And hopefully your wordlview.
> > >
> > > Doug
> >
> >
> > While I tip my head to the crayola dude, I suspect that upon examining
> > his works up close, the texture of crayola wax will nowhere equal the
> > richness of oil. Or, do you know nothing of such things?
>
> I'm an artist myself.
>
> > Do you really
> > think a painting is just the picture and not texture?
>
> I do find texture irrelevent in most cases (although in Peterborough,
> NH, I saw a landscape created with melted-wax that was astounding).
Texture irrelevant in most cases? What? And, you call yourself an
artist? If oil paintings were steamrolled into perfect 2 dimensional
formats they'd lose something essential.
> I've seen equivalent crayon pictures in real life, and they are truly
> amazing. The scent that lingers on them is infinitely preferable to
> that of the poisonous chemical smell of oil paints.
Yeah, and I'm sure it brings back memories of kindergarten classes
with milk and cookies. Nostalgia aside, no serious artist would
consider crayola a comparable tool with oil. It's the gimmicky tool of
popular artists like Jeffrey Robert.
>
> Also, a point that I can't emphasize enough, the degree of difficulty
> of using crayons over oils is an order of magnitude, making the crayon
> paintings all the more impressive.
Average person would have easier time handling crayons than oils.
There's a reason why kids start out with crayons. If you're point is
it's harder to do something worthwhile with crayons, then why not use
something easier and richer? It's more difficult to wipe your ass
well with a twig than with toilet paper but that doesn't a twig a
better pooperwiper.
> Oils are forgiving and almost
> insipidly easy to work with, one of the reasons why I like Chinese
> brush painting using ink or watercolor.
Whatever. I never cared much for ch-ink paintings.
> The degree of difficulty is
> daunting, where a single mistroke can destroy a painting in progress.
> Oils can be endless reworked, even years after they are "completed."
Yeah, all those 2 dimensional landscapes, lifeless colors arising from
anemic sensibilities...
look, there's a place for that stuff too but Western art kicks Chinese
ass.
Dean Eaton
But the current runs of Daredevil (Bendis/Maleev), Amazing Spider-Man
(Straczynski/Romita Jr), Ultimate Spider-Man (Bendis/Bagley) and the
Loeb/Sale Batman are better than any current fantasy or crime films in
release.
And if they'd stuck to there guns and made Alan Moore's "League of
Extraordinary Gentlemen" - which would have been R-rated, for sure - that
would have been more entertaining than the mess that's out there now.
When it comes to visual popular art, give me comics any day.
Dean
"PAVELB1" <PAV...@EARTHLINK.NET> wrote in message
news:3f16eef3...@news.central.cox.net...
Grand Inquisitor
> And Watterson was admittedly influenced by the great Walt Kelly ("Pogo,"
> another great strip.)
>
A strip I'd love to read if my local library carried some of it. I
think Watterson's Tenth Anniversary Book is required reading for anybody
interested in any kind of art form. It focuses on comics but what you
learn from it is universal.
>
>>But I see what
>>you're getting at. I don't see how ideas like Andrei Rublev and 8 1/2
>>can come across in comic book form.
>>
>
>
> And? I don't see how The Beatles' Abbey Road can come across in comic book form
> either. Why is it considered a negative that other forms can't be shoehorned
> into a comic book? I don't _want_ to see 8˝ done as a comic anyway.
It's more about what a movie like Andrei Rublev can express, and how it
can feel. Can a comic match that? No. Does that make comics
inherently inferior? I doubt it. But there are some people who want to
claim that comic books are basically movies in static form, really no
different from their cinematic counterparts. They'd argue that you
could take every shot from Sunset Boulevard and use those as comic
panels, and get the same effect. They're wrong, they're two different
art forms and comics shouldn't be imitating movies, like movies tried to
imitate stage plays in the old days, or how videogames tried to be like
movies in the early 90s. Every art form should emphasize its own
strengths, not copy others.
Steppenpup
> It's more about what a movie like Andrei Rublev can express, and how it
> can feel. Can a comic match that? No. Does that make comics
> inherently inferior? I doubt it. But there are some people who want to
> claim that comic books are basically movies in static form, really no
> different from their cinematic counterparts. They'd argue that you
> could take every shot from Sunset Boulevard and use those as comic
> panels, and get the same effect. They're wrong, they're two different
> art forms and comics shouldn't be imitating movies, like movies tried to
> imitate stage plays in the old days, or how videogames tried to be like
> movies in the early 90s. Every art form should emphasize its own
> strengths, not copy others.
Comic book can be compared to film because both use the same tools.
Mainly framed images and editing. Comic books can only depend on still
images edited page by page. Movies have that plus the possibility of
flowing images, sound, performances, animation, etc.
Heck, if you take a comic book and shoot with a movie camera and edit
it really well and add some music to it, it'd kick comic book in book
format.
MadiHolmes
>claim that comic books are basically movies in static form, really no
>different from their cinematic counterparts.
Okay, that's bare bones-ing it, but they are close cousins. Of course, this
whole antipicture snobbery didn't come about until the late Victorian-Early
Edwardian era, where tastes changed, and pictures and illustrations were
considered "childish," and were used less and less in adult fair. Before that,
books and magazine stories were just filled with illustrations.
>They'd argue that you
>could take every shot from Sunset Boulevard and use those as comic
>panels, and get the same effect.
You could, but why would you want to? Heck, that would be an easier film than
most- the everpresent narrator swirling around pictures...
But conversely, could you see Watchmen as a movie? Which one could argue is
comparable to Dr. Strangelove, except that it's a disservice to both.
>They're wrong, they're two different
>art forms
Which is what we've been saying all along...
>like movies tried to
>imitate stage plays in the old days,
Well, there goes Philadelphia Story... Pygmalion... the whole bulk of
Shakespeare...
>how videogames tried to be like
>movies in the early 90s.
Still do, although I haven't played any. but even they need a story arc.
>Every art form should emphasize its own
>strengths, not copy others.
Every art form is developed and/or borrows from prior forms. Do you think that
film making just magically appeared as if like some virginal Aphrodite rising
whole from a misty lagoon?
It stands on its own, but a self insulated form? Hardly...
MadiHolmes
Grand Inquisitor
>>But there are some people who want to
>>claim that comic books are basically movies in static form, really no
>>different from their cinematic counterparts.
>
> They're close- the only thing you lose is sound and the illusion of movement.
> Okay, that's bare bones-ing it, but they are close cousins.
Distant cousins. It's like saying novels are like movies except you
read everything instead of watching and listening to it. Time (i.e.
movement, pacing, etc.) is one of the most important things about
movies. Just look at the title of the Best Book Ever Written on Film,
Sculpting in Time. I also thing there's a humongous difference between
a drawing and an actual picture. The brain reacts to, and digests the
two things differently. This is why animated movies and tv shows are
almost a different medium than their live action counterparts. You
could take any live-action movie and render it faithfully in cartoon (or
vice versa), but it wouldn't be the same.
> You could, but why would you want to?
You're kidding. You think Sunset Boulevard in comic form would be even
remotely the same experience as the movie?
>>like movies tried to
>>imitate stage plays in the old days,
>
>
> Well, there goes Philadelphia Story... Pygmalion... the whole bulk of
> Shakespeare...
>
What do you mean? I have no problem with plays adapted for the screen,
some of Billy Wilder's best movies were plays. Seventh Seal was a play.
But the important key-word is "adapted." Early, early on they simply
played out the action in front of a motionless camera, place as though
it were in the audience.
> Still do, although I haven't played any. but even they need a story arc.
>
They don't really need a story arc. Does Super Mario Kart need a story
arc? It has no story at all and still it may be the funnest game ever
written. I suppose you're speaking more of the action/adventure/rpg
sorts of games, like Deus Ex and Grim Fandango. Yes, they do have
stories, and in some ways they resemble movies, but they differ from
earlier efforts like 7th Guest and Sewer Shark in that they are not
trying to be movies, they are trying to be games with an involving and
immersive story. As Fellini said, there is natural interdependency
among the arts, and each new art will have to tear itself away from some
other art. In the case of videogames they had to overcome being simple
electronic versions of boardgames and sports, and turn into something
themselves. Then in the late 80s some developers tried to make games
that were like movies, they even had movie footage in them. And
conversely, movie producers are trying to make movies like videogames
(do I really need to name examples?).
>
>>Every art form should emphasize its own
>>strengths, not copy others.
>
>
> Every art form is developed and/or borrows from prior forms. Do you think that
> film making just magically appeared as if like some virginal Aphrodite rising
> whole from a misty lagoon?
>
> It stands on its own, but a self insulated form? Hardly...
>
> MadiHolmes
See earlier Fellini reference. You should read Fellini on Fellini, and
Sculpting in Time, by Tarkovsky. In fact, everybody on these groups
should. Sculpting in Time is like the Mathematica Principia of film.
PAVELB1
>>
>
>They don't really need a story arc. Does Super Mario Kart need a story
>arc? It has no story at all and still it may be the funnest game ever
>written. I suppose you're speaking more of the action/adventure/rpg
>sorts of games, like Deus Ex and Grim Fandango. Yes, they do have
>stories, and in some ways they resemble movies, but they differ from
>earlier efforts like 7th Guest and Sewer Shark in that they are not
>trying to be movies, they are trying to be games with an involving and
>immersive story. As Fellini said, there is natural interdependency
>among the arts, and each new art will have to tear itself away from some
>other art. In the case of videogames they had to overcome being simple
>electronic versions of boardgames and sports, and turn into something
>themselves. Then in the late 80s some developers tried to make games
>that were like movies, they even had movie footage in them. And
>conversely, movie producers are trying to make movies like videogames
>(do I really need to name examples?).
>
I just want to interject real quick that the greatest moment in the
entire history of videogames was in Wing Commander 3 when I, as Mark
Hamill's character, was betrayed by the that big orange cat I had been
defending the entire game. and had to choose between "Revenge!" and
"Let cooler heads prevail".......it really wasn't much of a chioce.
Grand Inquisitor
> I just want to interject real quick that the greatest moment in the
> entire history of videogames was in Wing Commander 3 when I, as Mark
> Hamill's character, was betrayed by the that big orange cat I had been
> defending the entire game. and had to choose between "Revenge!" and
> "Let cooler heads prevail".......it really wasn't much of a chioce.
Tried Wing Commander, didn't like it.
Great moments in gaming (spoilers!):
.
.
.
.
.
V
Deus Ex: Being placed in a mysterious underground prison by
Majestic-12, a secret group that controls most of the world's
governments, escaping with the help of an even more mysterious AI that
contacts you and turns off power for a few moments, finally making it to
the exit of the prison to discover it's built into UNATCO headquarters,
the anti-terrorist agency you work for.
Grim Fandango: Putting balloons filled with solid foam-producing
chemicals down your message tube, to screw up the tube sorting machine
so you can steal your co-worker's clients. Breaking into your boss's
office, fiddling with his automated reply system so it instructs the
secretary to sign a document you need signed. And of course the whole
ending. I could go on forever here.
Super Mario Kart: Unleashing a lightning bolt, shrinking and slowing
down all the other racers, then squashing everybody in your path,
including the person sitting next to you. And all the trash-talking
that goes along with the game.
Legend of Zelda: OoT: Waking up in the future and seeing how the
world's changed to a ghostly nightmare.
Super Mario Bros. 3: Flying. Man did that rock.
Half-Life: Viewing from a distance a scientist running to a soldier for
help, only to be mowed down by machine gun fire, and then you realize
it's not just the aliens you're fighting. Also, seeing the sea monster
for the first time. Also also, the whole part of being chased by
Gargantuan to that area with the aerial bomber mechanism, and the radio
saying "forget about Freeman, we are pulling out!"
Nick Macpherson
>Great moments in gaming (spoilers!):
You criticized Gaza for posting off-topic about Coldplay but now you're giving
us your list of favorite computer game moments?
PAVELB1
wrote:
well its my fault for dragging him there when we went from movies to
comics to videogames
MadiHolmes
>> You could, but why would you want to?
>
>You're kidding. You think Sunset Boulevard in comic form would be even
>remotely the same experience as the movie?
Like I said, you could <turn it into a comicbook format>, but why would you
want to?
>
>>>like movies tried to
>>>imitate stage plays in the old days,
>>
>>
>> Well, there goes Philadelphia Story... Pygmalion... the whole bulk of
>> Shakespeare...
>>
>
>What do you mean?
You said this:
They're wrong, they're two different
art forms and comics shouldn't be imitating movies, like movies tried to
imitate stage plays in the old days, or how videogames tried to be like
movies in the early 90s. Every art form should emphasize its own
strengths, not copy others.
You analogized that as comics and film are two different mediums they shouldn't
imitate one another, like how stage plays were imitated in the old days, and
that this was somehow bad... <your words, not mine>
>But the important key-word is "adapted." Early, early on they simply
>played out the action in front of a motionless camera, place as though
>it were in the audience.
So you're saying that comics is incapable of adaptation?
>
>> Still do, although I haven't played any. but even they need a story arc.
>>
>
>They don't really need a story arc. Does Super Mario Kart need a story
Don't know. Don't play video games. I did play the original one when I was a
kid, and yes, there was a plot <iirc>
> Yes, they do have
>stories, and in some ways they resemble movies, but they differ from
>earlier efforts like 7th Guest and Sewer Shark in that they are not
>trying to be movies, they are trying to be games with an involving and
>immersive story.
Yes, which is also true for comic books. I don't understand your problem with
the medium. We've given you ample examples of "Good" comics, but you just blow
them off without even giving them a chance.
>. Then in the late 80s some developers tried to make games
>that were like movies, they even had movie footage in them.
My kid brother's DDay game has stock WW2 footage. I actually think some movies
would be good games like The Great Escape.
>And
>conversely, movie producers are trying to make movies like videogames
>(do I really need to name examples?).
Oh, must you?
>
>See earlier Fellini reference. You should read Fellini on Fellini, and
>Sculpting in Time, by Tarkovsky. In fact, everybody on these groups
>should. Sculpting in Time is like the Mathematica Principia of film.
>
And you should read Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics. Even if you're no way
at all into comics, the book covers many aspects like Heros, villians, scenes,
the plotting of a script, etc.
Or maybe you could just go read Watchmen. Or Maus. Or Eisner's Spirit.
As for me, I find that 99% of books about someone's opinion about film is
momumentally boring <unless said author's name is Scorsese>. Why? Because their
opinion is generally no more valid than anyone else's, and the best way to
learn about film is to actually watch it.
I do like this forum because I can read and participate in debates and
conversations about movies and whatever else comes up.
MadiHolmes
Grand Inquisitor
>>Great moments in gaming (spoilers!):
>
>
> You criticized Gaza for posting off-topic about Coldplay but now you're giving
> us your list of favorite computer game moments?
Yes (though I do not believe he is the person called "Gaza" because I
have seen no proof). There is no inconsistency. He *began* a thread
with an off-topic message. I am simply off-topic in a *sub-thread*,
that's the important distinction. If your browser is configured
correctly you won't even see this post unless you're trying to follow
this thread. This is completely acceptable USENET behavior. If I had
started a brand new thread about great moments in gaming, then I'd be
off-topic. Besides, if you'd bothered to read the post before mine,
you'd see I didn't change subjects, somebody else did.
Grand Inquisitor
>>But the important key-word is "adapted." Early, early on they simply
>>played out the action in front of a motionless camera, place as though
>>it were in the audience.
>
>
> So you're saying that comics is incapable of adaptation?
>
No, I just don't think it's a good method. Plays and movies, for all
their differences, have enough similarities that adaptations (not
straight, un-altered performances) can work. Comics lack the time
element, so there would be a lot lost in the transfer. Now, Dilbert
transferred gloriously into a tv show *without losing anything from the
strip*, because it was rather simple and plainly formatted. Calvin and
Hobbes, on the other hand, would not work on the screen, without losing
a lot from the strip. Or Bone could be turned into a movie, but it
would lose a lot about the comic that made it special. Let me quote
Stanley Kubrick, here he talks about novels vs. film but the principle
works for comics too: "It is in the pruning down phase that the undoing
of great novels usually occurs because so much of what is good about
them has to do with the fineness of the writing, the insight of the
author and often the density of the story. The Shining was a different
matter. It's virtues lay almost entirely in the plot, and it didn't
prove to be very much of a problem to adapt it into the screenplay form."
> Yes, which is also true for comic books. I don't understand your problem with
> the medium. We've given you ample examples of "Good" comics, but you just blow
> them off without even giving them a chance.
>
I recall one example. Anyway I've mentioned comics I do like. Bone,
Bloom County, Foxtrot, Dilbert, Outland, Calvin and Hobbes, User
Friendly, The Far Side. And some of my favorite movies are based on
manga (which I have yet to get around to reading), Akira, Ghost in the
Shell, etc.
>
>>. Then in the late 80s some developers tried to make games
>>that were like movies, they even had movie footage in them.
>
>
> My kid brother's DDay game has stock WW2 footage. I actually think some movies
> would be good games like The Great Escape.
>
Absolutely. But good license games are few and far between. There are
myriad Star Wars games but the only ones to really capture the feel of
the original trilogy is the Rogue Squadron series, you don't even have
to like Star Wars to have fun blasing away in your X-Wing, playing
missions from the movies. There's nothing wrong with incorporating
movies into games, it just has to be done correctly to be fun.
>
>>And
>>conversely, movie producers are trying to make movies like videogames
>>(do I really need to name examples?).
>
>
> Oh, must you?
>
Not sure what you mean there. Even assuming it's sarcasm I admit, I
don't get it.
>
>>See earlier Fellini reference. You should read Fellini on Fellini, and
>>Sculpting in Time, by Tarkovsky. In fact, everybody on these groups
>>should. Sculpting in Time is like the Mathematica Principia of film.
>>
>
>
> And you should read Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics. Even if you're no way
> at all into comics, the book covers many aspects like Heros, villians, scenes,
> the plotting of a script, etc.
>
> Or maybe you could just go read Watchmen. Or Maus. Or Eisner's Spirit.
>
> As for me, I find that 99% of books about someone's opinion about film is
> momumentally boring <unless said author's name is Scorsese>. Why? Because their
> opinion is generally no more valid than anyone else's, and the best way to
> learn about film is to actually watch it.
>
Books by directors beat the pants off of books by critics. And I don't
like Scorsese.
Richard Brooks
"Tom Sutpen" <akir...@aol.complacency> wrote in message
news:20030715184751...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> I understand your need to defend the honor of film as a form of
artistic
> expression, but you've sailed straight overboard by beating up on comic
books
> in order to do it. Were you traumatized by them during some unfortunate
episode
> of your youth or something?
What about religious comic book art ?
Richard.
Nick Macpherson
Like those Jack Chick comic book tracts? Those things are great. Better than
Tarkovsky. One of them found its way into my parked car once even though the
windows were shut and the doors were locked. It made a believer out of me.
Grand Inquisitor
> What about religious comic book art ?
>
>
> Richard.
>
>
My brother once loaned me a Marvel rendition of Pilgrim's Progress, it
was very good.
dobe...@deletesocal.rr.com
>Richard Brooks wrote:
>> What about religious comic book art ?
>>
>My brother once loaned me a Marvel rendition of Pilgrim's Progress, it
>was very good.
I sent a co-worker to Comic Con in San Diego this week to find me a
couple of issues of Tomb of Dracula, as well as Werewolf by Night.