/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4480282]

Are these considered /co/ or /lit/?

[Anonymous No.4480295]

/co/, but a lot of /lit/izens would be fine discussing it, just like /tv/ sometimes allows cartoon and anime threads when there's good discussion to be had.

[Anonymous No.4480312]

>>4480295
I've never seen it mentioned on /lit/ before, but maybe all of those threads are just automatically put to /co/

That being said I loved the books, the last page left me in tears on a public bus

[Anonymous No.4480315]

i don't really get comics.
i can't imagine a comic that wouldn't be better as an animation.

animation does everything that comics can do, and more.

[Anonymous No.4480324]

>zionist propaganda

[Anonymous No.4480338]

>>4480315
I've always thought the same; especially so in regards to action comics.

[Anonymous No.4480343]

>>4480315
The artwork in comics is often more elaborate and better drawn with more detail than almost all animation films.

[Anonymous No.4480356]

>>4480315
Not at all. The pacing opportunities are completely different. You can fit more words into a smaller amount of space. You can put emphasis on an image or moment by expanding the frame, or even using a splash page. You can also choose to be more economical with space, as the reader is more inclined to fill in the gaps between frames than a viewer of an animation who will tend to need to be shown more.

They're just different forms with different possibilities.

[Anonymous No.4480369]

>>4480343
If we're comparing mediums, shouldn't we compare the best of what these mediums can offer? It doesn't quite seem fair to do otherwise. You could just as easily compare some random Hannah-Barbara cartoon to whatever you think is the best drawn comic is as compare the best example of animation to the worst drawn comic.

[Anonymous No.4480381]

>>4480356
>You can fit more words into a smaller amount of space
you could, potentially, do this on film as well.
There is a reason it isn't done though, and that's because the human voice is simply more engaging.

>You can put emphasis on an image or moment by expanding the frame, or even using a splash page
film does the same thing through close up/zoom-out. They invoke the same sensation, in my opinion.

You are limited to a rectangle though, but i can't imagine an instance where using any other geometric shape would be anything but tacky.

> the reader is more inclined to fill in the gaps between frames than a viewer of an animation who will tend to need to be shown more.
That's really interesting.
I have never read a comic that makes use of this though. Can you think of one that does?

[Anonymous No.4480392]

>>4480315
Completely wrong, but typical. Comics represent space-time condensed into the necessary atomic moments (panels, and the pages composed of panels) of a story, and they allow the unnatural division between word and picture to dissolve, so that writing becomes drawing and drawing becomes writing. Animation, by contrast, is film and sacrifices writing for audio (at least since the advent of sound in film) and can only represent the story's space-time as a whole. It's true that animation and comics are heavily related (necessarily, since both are sequential arts) but the mediums take difference focuses and provide entirely different experiences. Compare Naoki Urasawa's Monster as a comic and as an animation. Both are excellent, but Urasawa excels in his mastery of the page-flip (where the reader takes part in the story, unfolding the mystery inside it), amongst other techniques. On the other hand, if we compare Yuki Urushibara's Mushishi as a comic and as an animation, the experience of sound (and the non-experience of sound) creates a rich experience that could not quite be conveyed in the comic, at least not to the same degree. It's a shame that people are still making this silly conflations in the age where access to high-quality animation and comics is unrivaled.

[Anonymous No.4480398]

>>4480381
>film does the same thing through close up/zoom-out. They invoke the same sensation, in my opinion.
They don't. Look at something like Watchmen which uses a standard nine rectangle format, but occasionally breaks it, like with a huge two-page layout. It adds gravity to a scene. The only way you could do that in a movie would be to zoom out and show a whole scene, but it's not really the same.

Besides that, comics can have art that an animated movie would never plausibly have, like Kingdom Come or any other Alex Ross comic where each panel is actually painted (pic related; also, look at the top left and right for an example of non-rectangular shapes being used effectively).

[Anonymous No.4480403]

>>4480392
To continue, it probably helps to find examples of works in fields that cannot be duplicated in other media without losing an essential quality of that work. Asterios Polyp is a good example of the uniqueness of comics, as is Chris Ware's corpus; these can not be reformed as animation, or redone as film or written word, without completely sabotaging what the author is doing.

[Anonymous No.4480408]

>>4480392
i only brought up my silly conflation, so i can learn to "get it".

i haven't read/seen either of those comics/films, so i can't really question anything that you're saying. I will check them both out though.

i still don't see how the lack of an ability to represent a story's space-time can be used artfully.
It seems most comics pretend that they can anyway, and are simply a series of key-frames that i imagine would be more engaging on film.

i will check those two out though, and i am ready to be proven wrong.

[Anonymous No.4480409]

>>4480381
>I have never read a comic that makes use of this though. Can you think of one that does?
Literally every single comic does this. You should really read Scott McCloud's Understand Comics if you want to open the door to the potential of what comics are.

[Anonymous No.4480413]

Zoom sacrifices perspective for detail. Enlarged images enhance both. It's an entirely different effect.

>>4480381
>Can you think of one that does?
All of them, really, as that's how the whole thing is edited. Nextwave is the only set of comics I have within reach, and I guess the second last issue (#11) has a good example of it used to an extreme. Six separate over-the-top battles are portrayed through a series of six double-splash pages to indicate the team rampaging through an entire war station. This is for comedic effect, and could be considered wasted space, but it wouldn't have at all the same effect as an animation. A montage would be similar, but not the same.

Really, though, when it comes down to it you might as well be asking why we portray images as paintings when they could be 3D sculptures instead. Why there is cinema when there are television serials. They just present information in different ways.

[Anonymous No.4480415]

>>4480408
I didn't mean to be too hostile, I'm just a big comics and animation fan. We're sensitive types. I also wrote >>4480409
McCloud's probably the very best place to start, but you should definitely read/see Monster and Mushishi.

[Anonymous No.4480422]

>>4480398
Tossing out another example of an art style that wouldn't work in non-static images, adding motion would ruin the unsettling nature of it. Art by Dave McKean, who has made movies with animation in his style; it didn't really work.

I've posted two superhero comic panels, but you see this with a ton of non-superhero comics, too

[Anonymous No.4480451]

>>4480422
That fucking sucks.

[Anonymous No.4480456]

>>4480422
Mirrormask is fucking awesome, so no.

[Anonymous No.4480490]

I'm a big fan of comics and there's a lot of great stuff out there

picture related