| Author |
|
Robert Walsh
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 July 2008
Posts: 456
|
| Posted: 25 June 2009 at 7:49am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Digitization doesn't defacto mean that special effects would be thrown in.
* * * * * *
I remember when there were people who believed that music videos were going to be the norm and Mike Nesmitt (of Monkees fame) even recorded an entire video album.
Turns out it was a needless expense and music videos continued being what they had always been: promotional tools.
Adding animation, sound effects, and voice acting is expensive and time consuming. There's lots of on-line comics which are nothing but lines and many are popular enough to be collected in book form. No doubt the on-line experience has changed every medium its absorbed (be it music, movies, TV, cartoons, or comic strips), but all are still recognizably the same medium they were before they went on-line.
I'm aware of a few experiments to add a touch of animation to static comic strips, but more than a decade after going on-line, the great bulk of on-line comic strips are virtually identical to their newspaper counterparts. I honestly don't see how comic books will receive a different treatment. Yes, I can see the page format being adapted (particularly the elimination of the double-page spread), but if someone creates a good portable player, I can see comics making the jump to digital with minimal alterations.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert Walsh
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 July 2008
Posts: 456
|
| Posted: 25 June 2009 at 8:03am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Oh, wow.
I was looking about for webcomics just now and stumbled across FreakAngels, an action/adventure comic that releases six pages installments every week. I wonder if there are any more like this out there.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert Walsh
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 July 2008
Posts: 456
|
| Posted: 25 June 2009 at 8:09am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Garfield Minus Garfield is a hoot.
http://garfieldminusgarfield.net/
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Arc Carlton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 13 April 2009
Location: Peru
Posts: 3493
|
| Posted: 25 June 2009 at 11:19am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I don't have a problems with online previews. But in my opinion nothing can be better than hold the actual comic in your hands and read it. So I'm against digital comics.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Chad Carter
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 June 2005
Posts: 9584
|
| Posted: 25 June 2009 at 12:07pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Wow Chad, I have to admit that I liked to think that since Colan and Gerber
were so important to marvel, that there were living comfortably somwhere.
Perhaps getting a nice royalty check each month and sipping martini's. I
wasn't aware of Colan in particular being in poor health.
Colan's kidneys, I think. It wasn't that long ago. There was some kind of fund-raising going on among the professionals. Then Colan seemed to be doing better and I haven't heard much else about him since.
I don't put Steve Gerber in the same category as Sal Buscema and Gene Colan, not that it matters since Gerber is deceased. It's just Buscema and Colan and all those other guys who slaved for those companies and did everything asked of them hardly seem "secure" as they get older, as I understand it.
Royalties? Do free-lancers get royalties?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 134952
|
| Posted: 25 June 2009 at 12:09pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Royalties? Do free-lancers get royalties?
••
Of course, if the work they do generates sufficient revenue to pay them.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Arc Carlton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 13 April 2009
Location: Peru
Posts: 3493
|
| Posted: 25 June 2009 at 4:02pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Robert: FreakAngels? I've heard about it before. What do you think of it?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Robert Walsh
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 July 2008
Posts: 456
|
| Posted: 25 June 2009 at 4:07pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I only gave it a glance; I'll give it a proper read later. Looked professionally drawn which is a step up from some of the other webcomics I looked at. Not great art, but not amateur hour either.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Arc Carlton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 13 April 2009
Location: Peru
Posts: 3493
|
| Posted: 25 June 2009 at 4:11pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Glad to hear that about the art, I know sometimes it can be disappointing...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Martin Redmond
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 June 2006
Posts: 3882
|
| Posted: 25 June 2009 at 4:24pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Freak Angels is very poorly drawn.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert Walsh
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 July 2008
Posts: 456
|
| Posted: 25 June 2009 at 5:00pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Freak Angels is very poorly drawn.
* * * * *
So are a lot of professional books. But I don't think it looks amateurish. It's got the beginnings of a distinctive style and a fair number of his pictures look quite good, but a good number of panels are clunkers.
The amateur hour stuff just looks uniformly bad.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Erik Larsen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 344
|
| Posted: 25 June 2009 at 6:59pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
John Byrne wrote:
Clearly the implication of the words you typed was that you were
accusing me of having ripped off the Abomination.
••
AND you need to learn the difference between that which is implied, and
that which is inferred. |
|
|
You can do better than THAT, John.
You said, "a more accurate picture might be gotten if at some point, lo
these many years ago, someone asked himself "What if the Abomination
was a goodguy (sic)?"
What did you mean by that? What other possible interpretation is there
other than you thinking that Savage Dragon was an Abomination rip off?
Again, why pose the hypothetical question if you felt it had no validity or
merit?
And none of that "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is" nonsense.
You made a statement. I took it as an accusation, as did several other
people in this forum, and rather than clarify it you're dodging the issue
and pretending that nobody but you understands the English language.
I mean, gosh--what if the Abomination was a goodguy (or even a good
guy)?" What MIGHT that be like? Makes a guy wonder.
John Byrne wrote:
Rob Liefeld got a lot of people to buy comics.
++
Well, you did declare him the heir to Kirby, after all!
==
No I didn't.
Can't you get anything right?
Read the entirety of what I said in its context and you will find that you
are, in fact, dead wrong.
**
Perhaps you'd care to quote it for us? |
|
|
I would like to--but I can't. I don't know where it was said and I'm having
trouble looking it up. That was written a couple computers ago and I
don't have it on hand.
I do know roughly what the context was but I can't quote it verbatim--
but then neither can you and you're the guy who keeps dredging it up
despite your ignorance.
The comment was made in response to one of your columns in John
Byrne's Next Men. Jack Kirby had just died. In your column you brought
up that your art dealer had said to you that since Kirby was dead that you
were the "new king of comics." You went on to say that, while you'd done
as many pages as Kirby had at your age, you didn't feel there should be
any more kings of comics. It was not a mantle to be passed down. Jack
was the one and only king (or words to that effect).
Now, personally, I found this whole column to be extremely distasteful
and, frankly, tacky. If your art dealer said that to you, fine, tell him your
reasons that you're not a candidate and move on but why share that
anecdote? Why go public and enumerate your qualifications and then
denounce a title not being suggested that you assume by anybody other
than your art dealer? I don't recall a ground swelling of fans suggesting
you should ascend to the throne. It seemed to me (and I fully admit to
reading between the lines here) that you wanted to put forth the idea that
you were a worthy successor and that you declined.
I said much of that and followed it up by agreeing that no other
cartoonist deserved to be called the "king of comics." I further went
on to question the qualifications you had enumerated, saying that, for
example, surely Sal Buscema had done as many pages. I went further by
saying that, not only was Kirby known for drawing a huge amount of
pages but that he was also responsible for creating a large number of
characters. And then I said that if character creation was the criteria
than Rob Liefeld was more qualified than John Byrne to assume the
title since, at that time, there were more books out featuring his
characters than any other living creator (at the time there was Deadpool,
Cable, X-Force, Youngblood, Brigade, Supreme, Bloodpool, New Men,
Team Youngblood, Badrock and a couple more that I'm forgetting).
The point was that IF character creation was the criteria than Rob Liefeld
was MORE qualified than you were to be the next king of comics--which
is NOT TO SAY that I felt either of you are remotely qualified (and I
said as much)!
My point was that Jack Kirby was one of a kind. That Jack was not only a
decent human being and a friend to many who knew him but that he was
an amazing storyteller who revolutionized comics AND wrote and drew an
incredible number of pages AND created more characters and (more
importantly) more iconic characters than any cartoonist living or dead
AND that it is almost inconceivable that we will ever have a cartoonist
worthy of wearing his crown.
I absolutely did NOT declare Rob Liefeld the "heir to Kirby."
--And if anybody knows when and where I said something like what I
said above--please share! I thought it was in a Savage Dragon letters
column but I haven't been able to find it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Topic Closed)
