Got an interesting Question about something that's disappeared in comics

[Illiterati-migration]

And Pov, are you familiar with the Major Khaos All-Orange Diet? You only eat foods that are one or all of the following:

 

I can conceive of absolutely nothing as a rejoinder. I confess you have bested me!

 

I was being serious.

[DiceX]

Ah, wine served in a styrofoam cup... there is nothing finer.

 

Or IS there?

 

I prefer wine that comes in a box over a bottle.

The only date that appears on it is the expiration date.

 

Boone's Farm. They make a vintage 2003 that tastes much better in a brown paper bag.

[WEBHEAD]

I've been HIJACKED. .. well thanks to everyone for their feedback on this interesting issue.... keep tuned

 

 

WEBHEAD

 

 

[Illiterati-migration]

I've been HIJACKED. .. well thanks to everyone for their feedback on this interesting issue.... keep tuned

 

 

WEBHEAD

 

 

That was an artful hijack, you must admit.

[WEBHEAD]

 

 

That was an artful hijack, you must admit.

 

 

 

there is no question about that... very interesting Hijacking

 

 

WEBHEAD

[joe_collector]

[Actually, in film, the same effect is used in a voiceover, where the character speaks what is on his mind.

 

Not really. a VO is used (the majority of times) to present information or exposition, not thoughts. It's a big difference. VO is also used sparingly and unless the work of a hack, is featured in very few current movies.

[Illiterati-migration]

[Actually, in film, the same effect is used in a voiceover, where the character speaks what is on his mind.

 

Not really. a VO is used (the majority of times) to present information or exposition, not thoughts. It's a big difference. VO is also used sparingly and unless the work of a hack, is featured in very few current movies.

 

 

Thought balloons are used to present information and exposition.

 

Thought balloons are used sparingly unless it's the hackiest of hack work.

 

Thought balloons are rarely used in current comic books (the point of this thread.)

 

Tell me again how they differ from VOs? Information and exposition, in terms of storytelling, can be offered in a wiiiide variety of ways. Thought balloons, voice overs, anything internalized within the character is bad, bad, bad hack writing. It's just a way for a weak writer who can't express what's happening in his/her story properly to provide the reader the necessary details to put everything together.

[joe_collector]

Tell me again how they differ from VOs?

 

VO's are not thoughts taken from present conversation, at least as the accepted definiton goes. Some hack may have used such a technique in Scary Movie 3 or Look Who's Talking 12, or some other piece of drek, but I'm referring to real movies.

 

Thought balloons, voice overs, anything internalized within the character is bad, bad, bad hack writing.

 

 

Sure, in a purely visual, moviing picture sense, but you seem to have confused comics with movies. Comics are a COMBINATION of images and text, movies and novels, and the hallmark of novel writing is presenting the "inside mind" of the characters. A graphic novel is the best of all possible world's and writers like Moore and Gaiman may not use thought balloons, but they're talented enough to present character thoughts in different ways, but still through the written word.

 

Check out some of their work and tell me if you can see where the technique is being used.

 

You view something "bad, bad, bad" about "internal thoughts" because you've probably know the deal on the movie side, but it's exactly the opposite with novels or written text stories. Giving the added dimension of a characters thoughts is far, far, far removed from hackwork in novels, and is praised instead of reviled.

 

You are making the huge mistake of painting all forms of writing with the same brush, as if the Rules of Screenwriting are valid in other fields like graphic novels, novels, poetry, etc. .

 

We're also losing an interesting element and tool if comic book writers mistakenly think they're writing movies instead of comics, and spend 10 pages explaining a motivation that could be expressed in 1 panel as a thought. It's not hard to see that these "writers" probably wanted to be screenwriters and then took a comic's job as a last resort.

 

That's why I prefer Moore and Gaiman over hacks like Rucka and Bendis.

[Illiterati-migration]

Tell me again how they differ from VOs?

 

VO's are not thoughts taken from present conversation, at least as the accepted definiton goes. Some hack may have used such a technique in Scary Movie 3 or Look Who's Talking 12, or some other piece of drek, but I'm referring to real movies.

 

Thought balloons, voice overs, anything internalized within the character is bad, bad, bad hack writing.

 

 

Sure, in a purely visual, moviing picture sense, but you seem to have confused comics with movies. Comics are a COMBINATION of images and text, movies and novels, and the hallmark of novel writing is presenting the "inside mind" of the characters. A graphic novel is the best of all possible world's and writers like Moore and Gaiman may not use thought balloons, but they're talented enough to present character thoughts in different ways, but still through the written word.

 

Check out some of their work and tell me if you can see where the technique is being used.

 

You view something "bad, bad, bad" about "internal thoughts" because you've probably know the deal on the movie side, but it's exactly the opposite with novels or written text stories. Giving the added dimension of a characters thoughts is far, far, far removed from hackwork in novels, and is praised instead of reviled.

 

You are making the huge mistake of painting all forms of writing with the same brush, as if the Rules of Screenwriting are valid in other fields like graphic novels, novels, poetry, etc. .

 

We're also losing an interesting element and tool if comic book writers mistakenly think they're writing movies instead of comics, and spend 10 pages explaining a motivation that could be expressed in 1 panel as a thought. It's not hard to see that these "writers" probably wanted to be screenwriters and then took a comic's job as a last resort.

 

That's why I prefer Moore and Gaiman over hacks like Rucka and Bendis.

 

Your words intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter...

 

But for now I must work. For now, though, I will say that I agree with what you're saying and maybe I like a different "style" of comic writing than others? . Very interesting indeed. I think a case could be made for greater levels of distinction between even current books beyond the typical "genre" delineation. Gotta roll!

 

 

[Lantern]

Your words intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter...

 

[Zonker]

This is kind of amusing.

 

In lots of work by Moore and Miller, you have extensive interior monologues, in many cases entire first-person narrations, but simply delivered through captions instead of traditional thought balloons! It's amusing to either denounce the absence of interior monologues in modern comics (they're still there) or denounce the presence of interior monologues as hackwork (again, they're still there in many cases).

 

The big difference I can see is presenting interior thoughts as captions in rectangular boxes (sometimes with different lettering or in different colored boxes to denote the identity of the "speaker") as opposed to puffy-cloud style thought balloons.

 

Why? Gotta be a self-conscious attempt to distance modern comics from stereotypical conventions of the past, i.e. a fear that traditional thought balloons remind the reader too much of Snoopy, and perpetuate the idea of comics as a children's medium.

 

Or something like that...

[joe_collector]

In lots of work by Moore and Miller, you have extensive interior monologues, in many cases entire first-person narrations, but simply delivered through captions instead of traditional thought balloons! It's amusing to either denounce the absence of interior monologues in modern comics (they're still there) or denounce the presence of interior monologues as hackwork (again, they're still there in many cases).

 

 

Give that man a round of applause. The talented writers like Moore and Gaiman have moved to a new FORMAT to express internal thoughts, but the TECHNIQUE and USAGE remain virtually unchanged. These guys do it all, internal thoughts, monologues, flashbacks, split scenes, etc. and use the comic's medium to its fullest.

 

Hacks like Rucka and Bendis consult their NYU Film School texts and see that "internal thoughts are bad" so proceed to take an entire issue (see USM 1-5) to present what Moore could probably do in a page. Instead of using the various advantages of the medium, they try and transpose a movie onto the pages and it doesn't quite work.

[Illiterati-migration]

In lots of work by Moore and Miller, you have extensive interior monologues, in many cases entire first-person narrations, but simply delivered through captions instead of traditional thought balloons! It's amusing to either denounce the absence of interior monologues in modern comics (they're still there) or denounce the presence of interior monologues as hackwork (again, they're still there in many cases).

 

 

Give that man a round of applause. The talented writers like Moore and Gaiman have moved to a new FORMAT to express internal thoughts, but the TECHNIQUE and USAGE remain virtually unchanged. These guys do it all, internal thoughts, monologues, flashbacks, split scenes, etc. and use the comic's medium to its fullest.

 

Hacks like Rucka and Bendis consult their NYU Film School texts and see that "internal thoughts are bad" so proceed to take an entire issue (see USM 1-5) to present what Moore could probably do in a page. Instead of using the various advantages of the medium, they try and transpose a movie onto the pages and it doesn't quite work.

 

Okay, both of you sit down it's time for class.

 

Just kidding, everyone knows I've got no class.

Aaaaaanyway, I'm sorry, but I pretty much lump Gaiman in with the rest of the pack in terms of writing ability... He's got a good thing going with "Sandman"... but everything else? Blah.

 

That being said, I love Moore's stuff and I can see where you're coming from with that, and there definitely has been an evolution of sorts in the "thought balloon" style. I'm going to have to re-read Saga of the Swamp Thing tonight.

 

And are we confusing TRUE "thought balloons" with the newer "thought boxes" which are typically used to provide narration for more solitary characters so they don't have to walk around talking to themselves?

 

And again, don't trash Bendis because of his weakest work. Bendis is at his best when he's able to work "outside the boxes" as it were. He's got a terrific sense of visual storytelling... read Torso. Have I said that enough today?

[PovertyRow]

[Actually, in film, the same effect is used in a voiceover, where the character speaks what is on his mind.

 

Not really. a VO is used (the majority of times) to present information or exposition, not thoughts. It's a big difference. VO is also used sparingly and unless the work of a hack, is featured in very few current movies.

 

I agree with you in that the VO is used for other things as well such as narration etc. I was simply saying that vioceovers can also be used as a cinematic "thought balloon". In fact, I was wathcing a tape of some episodes of the amzingly cultural for-its-day I LEF THREE LIVES. Man, the dialoguen is about 50% voicover as thought balloon. Actually, it was quite effective in conveying Herb Philbrick's paranoia at being a communist counter-spy for the FBI. Andother (television show) that used voiceover as thought balloon quite a bit was Spenser For hire, based on the series of Boston Detective novels by Robert Parker.

[Illiterati-migration]

[Actually, in film, the same effect is used in a voiceover, where the character speaks what is on his mind.

 

Not really. a VO is used (the majority of times) to present information or exposition, not thoughts. It's a big difference. VO is also used sparingly and unless the work of a hack, is featured in very few current movies.

 

I agree with you in that the VO is used for other things as well such as narration etc. I was simply saying that vioceovers can also be used as a cinematic "thought balloon". In fact, I was wathcing a tape of some episodes of the amzingly cultural for-its-day I LEF THREE LIVES. Man, the dialoguen is about 50% voicover as thought balloon. Actually, it was quite effective in conveying Herb Philbrick's paranoia at being a communist counter-spy for the FBI. Andother (television show) that used voiceover as thought balloon quite a bit was Spenser For hire, based on the series of Boston Detective novels by Robert Parker.

 

And Moonlighting!

[joe_collector]

Let's not even get into TV. A large percentage use "thought bubbles" as do 100% of soaps.

 

Peak: You look well.

 

Vandermire: (VO): "She looks pretty concerned for someone who poisoned me, pushed off the mountain, and then started an avalanche that nearly killed me"

 

Vandermire: Thanks, and you look lovely, as usual.

[Illiterati-migration]

Let's not even get into TV. A large percentage use "thought bubbles" as do 100% of soaps.

 

Peak: You look well.

 

Vandermire: (VO): "She looks pretty concerned for someone who poisoned me, pushed off the mountain, and then started an avalanche that nearly killed me"

 

Vandermire: Thanks, and you look lovely, as usual.

 

Moonlighting, like Bendis' pre-USM work, is in a league of its own.

[garthgantu]

Well, it doesn't take as long to read moderns as it did Silver Age. Reading a run of Tales of Suspense, Caps and Iron Man I could only manage 4 comics an hour when I read Tales of Suspense. Moderns, I can read 6 or 7 of them. Big difference, and the thought balloons have got to be a big reason for it.

 

So in other words, the "MTV editing" effect has caught up with comic books... this is not good. "Hey, let's do whatever we can to accelerate the consumption of this medium! Remove ALL the words and just pack the whole book with action - that's what people wanna see anyway..."

[BronzeBruce13]

..like a permanent "nuff said" line... like Marvel tried for one month. That would get old.

 

It's funny I stepped up my modern reading but didn't consciously identify that the "thought balloons" were missing until I saw this post. I would prefer to see them used as well. Even if the were used less, they could be very effective sparingly in the right situations. They did add a dimension to the story telling. Now a comic reader is more of a "watcher"... going back 20+ years I felt more involved/drawn in since we had insight that the other characters in the story did not hear/know. Only the reader knew the whole deal. I would point out though that I do like many newer books too.. just as they are. It may be that the change itself just makes me feel a bit sad that the medium has moved so far away from how I remember enjoying it the most.

 

I wish I had a few million... I'd buy in and start a "Throwback" line... like Max or Marvel Knights and the theme would be creating new stories with a closer "look and feel" of the SA and BA styles. I'd put together classic creative talent and get them moving again. OK.. I'll wake up.

[harveyfan323]

I haven't noticed this phenomenon either, but I will be more aware of it after reading this thread. I always found thought balloons to be a bit cheesy, but if they are used well, then I see nothing wrong with them. You really can't compare comics to movies too rigidly as others have said.

 

Regarding Alan Moore, I just read "The Story of the Year" Supreme TPB, and thought it was loads of fun. Alan Moore really is a God among ants compared to the other comic book writers. Not that there aren't some other very good ones, but Moore is in another league entirely. Watchmen and Miracleman alone would be enough to make him a legend, but he's produced so much other great work as well. Too bad he is going to retire soon, but I guess he's "tapped out" at this point and wants to move on.

 

I agree that Bendis is way overrated....he seems to have more skill than raw talent. But a lot of people seem to like his stuff, so more power to them, I suppose. I''ve never understood why Gaiman is so highly praised. I enjoyed his two "Death" miniseries, but his work on Sandman never did it for me at all. I think his stature is more hype than anything else. Azarello is my current new fave and I'm looking forward to his Superman run with Jim Lee.