|
|
Post by blueshift on Mar 1, 2013 17:53:59 GMT
At first I thought it was going to be a sequel to that Powerglide/Moonracer mosaic! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2013 18:02:11 GMT
I know not of which you speak. Additionally, neither do all your family, friends, and fellow fans. Not since I zapped them with my flashy-thing, anyway.
What I mean to say is... uh... there was no Powerglide / Moonracer Mosaic. It was a weather balloon. A freak display of atmospheric light. Yes. That's it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Mar 1, 2013 22:15:38 GMT
Tell that to Stan Lee, Alan Moore, Simon Furman, Frank Hampson...
-Ralph
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2013 22:59:22 GMT
Fully acknowledging that I have absolutely NO authority on this board, dare I hazard to say that this: I hate narration in comics. They are a visual medium, you don't need pages full of boxes with text explaining what's going on. It's not creative and a it's lousy way to tell a story. is not really the sort of comment I want to see in this thread. I certainly wouldn't want to see it on our DA page. |
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Mar 1, 2013 23:00:06 GMT
Every tool in comics is good, it just depends how capable the creator is, and I'm with Ralph narration/monologues are one of comics finest tools in the right hands.
You also missed out Frank "WHORES WHORES WHORES" Miller from that list, or Chris Claremont - back when he had game, Cosmic Jim...
Andy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2013 23:26:29 GMT
Every tool in comics is good, it just depends how capable the creator is, and I'm with Ralph narration/monologues are one of comics finest tools in the right hands. Exactly right, good sir! This has actually tripped my geek-switch, so I'll share some of my own personal preferences and foibles. There's a certain mode of third-person narration using caption boxes that I REALLY do not like in comics. That's because I feel it makes comic feel dated in its execution. It's VERY rare these days, but I do still occasionally see it - DC's #1 issue of Superman in the New 52 line-up, I think, was the last time I came across it. On the other hand, I also despise thought balloons in comics, and far prefer internalised dialogue in caption boxes. Now, mechanically speaking, you COULD say that these are all the same thing. But they all feel undeniably different. To say using them is 'not creative' is a total fallacy. The artistry comes in knowing HOW to use those devices to service the story. In my own writing, I sometimes feel like I'd be lost without them. The challenge is to make them feel like an elegant method in context. And I'll share a pet peeve of mine: Whenever somebody says 'comics are a visual medium', I get very jittery. I think it's more correct to say 'comics are an art form with a strong visual element.' That's because the former statement could be construed as saying 'it's all about the artwork'. It is not. Comics feature both a visual component and a text component. It's my personal opinion that if either dominates the other, the result is a deficient product. The two have to be in balance and support each other. There's a very fine art to knowing when it's appropriate to let one element communicate something that the other does not. I think the best way to sum up my feelings on this is to look at certain comics that have appeared here and there featuring page upon page of textless imagery. I fnd those very, very light reading, no matter how weighty or profound the intent of their creator might be. Unless, of course, it's a weighty epic like Akira, where the book is FILLED with page upon page of impactful imagery during those textless sequences. That's because it takes literally 2 seconds to look at a picture and move on, sometimes missing subtle elements in it. For me, it's all about the reading experience - that feeling of putting down a comic and feeling like you've just digested a full meal. |
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Mar 2, 2013 0:04:33 GMT
No feel free to state your opinion.
You won't get banned for that.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Mar 2, 2013 0:05:54 GMT
What I will say, however, is if you skip those boxes you are missing a lot of content.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Mar 2, 2013 0:08:37 GMT
Fully acknowledging that I have absolutely NO authority on this board, dare I hazard to say that this: I hate narration in comics. They are a visual medium, you don't need pages full of boxes with text explaining what's going on. It's not creative and a it's lousy way to tell a story. is not really the sort of comment I want to see in this thread. I certainly wouldn't want to see it on our DA page. And what I will say to Hde is whether you want to see it or not, you will get it. It's an opinion you don't have to like it, and to be honest if you only want people giving positive feedback well then don't bother putting anything online. Once it's out there, someone will criticise it, and you may disagree with their opinion, but they can state it. |
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Mar 2, 2013 2:05:32 GMT
2000ad is a leaner beast being an anthology, but the reason caption boxes exist is because thought bubbles are so out of fashion.
A criminal neglect, I loved the thought balloon, some of Prime's finest angstiest bollocks was contained in them!
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Mar 2, 2013 6:05:15 GMT
I hate narration in comics. They are a visual medium, you don't need pages full of boxes with text explaining what's going on. It's not creative and a it's lousy way to tell a story. It really depends how they are used. When used well, they can really elevate an issue of a comic (I am thinking of that Transformers/Action Force crossover issue that is told nearly all in captions, each page being presented as a different character's flashback as they react to the events of the story.). Other times, they are used as a crutch by a writer who can't tell a story concisely, ending up in a page full of WORDWORDWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDS with little characters poking round the side of the boxes/balloons I miss thought bubbles, but captions seems to have replaced them, to be honest. |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Mar 2, 2013 7:58:36 GMT
I love thought balloons. They always strike me as more genuine - what a person is actually thinking to themselves in the moment as opposed to a description addressed in an artificial manner to some audience/reader.
I'm not much of a comics reader. All the best books I've consumed in my life either have no pictures, or no need of them. A great writer can do everything with words. Artwork can substitute for some of those words, in describing what you would see if you were present, and it can give visuals to a reader that they would otherwise have to visualise themselves in their minds, but it can't tell you how things sound*, smell or feel, convey complex abstract ideas, theories, reasons, motivations, backstories, etc.
*"Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom!" - Marvin the Martian
What Blueshift describes as "a page full of WORDWORDWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDS with little characters poking round the side of the boxes/balloons," I wouldn't call bad writing, but probably writing that should be delivered as text prose rather than in comic strip form.
Maybe we'd benefit from more freeform story delivery, going back and forth between comic strip for action, splash pages for stage setting and text prose for lengthy dialogue, introspection and background information dumps.
Martin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2013 16:03:16 GMT
And what I will say to Hde is whether you want to see it or not, you will get it. It's an opinion you don't have to like it, and to be honest if you only want people giving positive feedback well then don't bother putting anything online. Once it's out there, someone will criticise it, and you may disagree with their opinion, but they can state it. We don't expect pieces on our page to only receive positive feedback - so let's kill that straw man dead RIGHT NOW, please. Criticism is good. It helps creatives to zone in on areas of their work to evaluate the need for development. And statement of opinions is also fine and dandy. But the way that criticism is couched is vitally important. What I'd say to Lima is: Sure you can have an opinion, and you can state it how you like, but how you say it will affect how people respond to it. Your comments didn't sit right with me for reasons that I hope have become clear in my last post. But, whatever - let's move on from there. Speaking more generally now, It's worth stating that our 'official line' over at Multiverse is that any commentary we feel is excessively negative will be deleted. We've allowed a few things to be said recently that we feel are right on the line, but that's somthing we're already taking steps to discourage. I know that sort of thing has discouraged a number of people from contributing to Transformers Mosaic, in the past, which is partly why it's an issue of concern. People will play nice in our corner of the internet, or they won't play at all. We want to foster an atmosphere of encouragement and collaboration as much as possible. So I feel I'd be something of a hypocrite if I allowed things to be said and go unanswered here that would be a problem over on the group page. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2013 16:14:47 GMT
What Blueshift describes as "a page full of WORDWORDWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDS with little characters poking round the side of the boxes/balloons," I wouldn't call bad writing, but probably writing that should be delivered as text prose rather than in comic strip form. Maybe we'd benefit from more freeform story delivery, going back and forth between comic strip for action, splash pages for stage setting and text prose for lengthy dialogue, introspection and background information dumps. Martin Apologies in advance for what looks like it's about to become a triple post! This post reminds me: Something I'd REALLY urge anybody with even a passing interest in comics to do, is to read up on the craft of creating comics. There are some really, really wonderful books available that go into great detail about the mechanics of what makes a comic book. That may not sound like a thrilling prospect, but it's quite something to learn just how much of a craft it actually is. I remember being blown away by modern comics and thinking how amazing it was that so many artists seemed to be arbitrarily choosing cool 'camera angles' for ther panels. Then, when I started studying up on comics craft, I learned that there were actual, valid and quite sensible (sometimes dramatic) reasons behind those choices. That was a revelation. And there are similar rules and disciplines behind each aspect of comics - writing, colouring, lettering... there's a real learning curve. It's fascinating. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2013 16:15:34 GMT
And I suppose I'd better post another piece!  |
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Mar 2, 2013 16:20:49 GMT
And I suppose I'd better post another piece! I think there's a good story in here somewhere, but not like this. I'm not sure if the problem is the sheer amount of dialogue balloons that make it hard to read (and confusing to work out which ones to read first) or the really dark colouring which make all the panels smear into one. It's nice to see Full-Tilt and Brunt though! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2013 17:10:30 GMT
And another...  |
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Mar 3, 2013 17:30:39 GMT
I'm a bit leery to point this out given the reactions to me pointing out spelling errors on another piece, but I need to point out that this piece as currently presented is plagiarism. Honestly, if the idea is that it is a tribute to the Marvel comic, that's all fine. Laudable, in fact. But it doesn't say that anywhere. It's presented as an original piece, when it is directly copying US issue 27. Most people won't realise that if they look at it, especially as some of the credits are there; it's not like all the credits are missed off, which creates a misleading impression especially in a series that is 99.% percent totally original fan works. It should be taken down until the proper credits to Bob Budiansky and Don Perlin are added to the page. The original, for context:  |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Mar 3, 2013 18:19:38 GMT
I agree.
I liked the story from March 1st. Nice 'robot in disguise' story which fits a page just fine.
-Ralph
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2013 22:06:12 GMT
I'm a bit leery to point this out given the reactions to me pointing out spelling errors on another piece, but I need to point out that this piece as currently presented is plagiarism. Honestly, if the idea is that it is a tribute to the Marvel comic, that's all fine. Laudable, in fact. But it doesn't say that anywhere. You got a wrist-slapping on the group page because I received complaints about your comments. Like I said, I HATED having to address them, coz I know you're one of the good 'uns. BUT! All that notwithstanding - you make a very good point here. These are the sorts of concerns I'm more than happy for people to speak up with. Coincidentally, somebody else has just brought this to my attention, and I've amended the credits info under it on the main page. That's my bad for not properly checking the credits info on the piece itself when it first went up. D'oh! As far as I'm aware, the intent here was to homage the original work. We're happy to run stuff like this, as there's been something of a precedent set for it under the Mosaics (and we are trying to keep things in the same spirit as that project). But we'll be watching for this sort of thing like hawks now, rest assured! HOWEVER: Because I've noted this sort of thing can polarize opinions, I'd be interested to hear everybody's thoughts on homage pages / reinterpretations. For that matter, what about photo-comics and comics utilising screen-grabs and whatnot? I've been picking over this stuff for a little while trying to work out iof they could cause serious issues - and to my way of thinking, if everything's in order, they shouldn't. I sort of feel that if people want to create comics, any method they use to do so is fine. But what do YOU guys think? |
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Mar 3, 2013 22:45:20 GMT
I'm a bit leery to point this out given the reactions to me pointing out spelling errors on another piece, but I need to point out that this piece as currently presented is plagiarism. Honestly, if the idea is that it is a tribute to the Marvel comic, that's all fine. Laudable, in fact. But it doesn't say that anywhere. It's presented as an original piece, when it is directly copying US issue 27. Most people won't realise that if they look at it, especially as some of the credits are there; it's not like all the credits are missed off, which creates a misleading impression especially in a series that is 99.% percent totally original fan works. It should be taken down until the proper credits to Bob Budiansky and Don Perlin are added to the page. The original, for context: Matt, this isn't the Multiverse group. This is our forum. Our house rules, not anyone else's. Andy |
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Mar 3, 2013 23:18:47 GMT
HOWEVER: Because I've noted this sort of thing can polarize opinions, I'd be interested to hear everybody's thoughts on homage pages / reinterpretations. For that matter, what about photo-comics and comics utilising screen-grabs and whatnot? I like the idea of homages/reinterpretations as long as there's a point to them. It can be really interesting if done well. If someone wants to redraw an original page, then that's their prerogative, as long as it is properly credited that this is what they are doing. Sometimes I think there can be some hubris in 'redoing' an old comic page, thinking that the fan art will be better than the original art done by professionals. In this case, while yes, the new art is on-model and nicer in that respect, it lacks a lot of the storytelling clarity that Don Perlin brought to it. He made it look effortless though, that's the thing, so people don't really notice. In all honesty, looking at this made me appreciate the original all the more, so there is that. Photocomics - Maybe, perhaps. There's a world of difference between a carefully composed, lit and shot photocomic, and one someone just snaps from a few toys laying about their desk. Screen-Grabs - Pretty much the laziest and most creatively bankrupt way of making a comic. I have never seen it done well, and that includes official product. Unless there's an amazing reason for doing it that way, it just screams "I couldn't find an artist willing to draw my story". |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Mar 4, 2013 6:57:54 GMT
The funny thing is, when I read that Dinobots/Trypticon page it never occurred to me that it might need credits for Budiansky, etc., because I'm so immersed in the Marvel TF saga and used to being surrounded by fans who would recognise it instantly, that I'd never think of there being TF fans who thought it was new work - just as if we had a page of dialogue taken from the 1986 TF movie. Obviously, a moment's reflection on the broader TF fandom and I realise I'm wrong, and there may be people out there who haven't read those issues. Which makes me sad. Some of my favourite work by Nick Roche are re-drawn pages from the Marvel US and UK comics. dcjosh.deviantart.com/art/Target-2006-pg1-8518396Martin |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Mar 4, 2013 8:10:32 GMT
Nowt wrong with homage art so long as it is clearly indicated as such, though it strikes me more as something to stick up on Deviant Art or whatever as an artcase. This Multiverse thing seems more for folk doing their own new story, whether it's a continuity implant or something entirely new. If it's going to have homage art like the above though then it would seem to be a showcase for anything fan drawn and would thus lose any sense of its own identity.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Mar 4, 2013 16:24:16 GMT
And what I will say to Hde is whether you want to see it or not, you will get it. It's an opinion you don't have to like it, and to be honest if you only want people giving positive feedback well then don't bother putting anything online. Once it's out there, someone will criticise it, and you may disagree with their opinion, but they can state it. We don't expect pieces on our page to only receive positive feedback - so let's kill that straw man dead RIGHT NOW, please. Criticism is good. It helps creatives to zone in on areas of their work to evaluate the need for development. And statement of opinions is also fine and dandy. But the way that criticism is couched is vitally important. What I'd say to Lima is: Sure you can have an opinion, and you can state it how you like, but how you say it will affect how people respond to it. Your comments didn't sit right with me for reasons that I hope have become clear in my last post. But, whatever - let's move on from there. Speaking more generally now, It's worth stating that our 'official line' over at Multiverse is that any commentary we feel is excessively negative will be deleted. We've allowed a few things to be said recently that we feel are right on the line, but that's somthing we're already taking steps to discourage. I know that sort of thing has discouraged a number of people from contributing to Transformers Mosaic, in the past, which is partly why it's an issue of concern. People will play nice in our corner of the internet, or they won't play at all. We want to foster an atmosphere of encouragement and collaboration as much as possible. So I feel I'd be something of a hypocrite if I allowed things to be said and go unanswered here that would be a problem over on the group page. Here's the thing. I read Matt's comments that he was rebuked on. Were they rude? No. Were they blunt? Absolutely. Here's the thing, if someone had a problem, a polite response from the person offended would have done the trick. Running to complain behind someone's back is hardly the way to resolve things. An encouraging atmosphere is one thing, but to be honest. Sometimes criticism has to be harsh and blunt to sink in. I've had to do it myself, and while not pleasant and not something I take any satisfaction from, tip-toeing round hadn't been getting results. Abuse is certainly not called for, but there was nothing in Matt's comments that was rude, and to be honest the same with Lima's, again blunt but not rude.Andy |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2013 18:46:54 GMT
Excellent posts guys! Apologies for being late to respond - it's been 'one of them' today.
On the subject of homage pages / photo-comics / screen-grabs:
We'll pretty much run anything that's sent to us, provided it doesn't fall afoul of our submission requirements (that is to say, it can't have the Mosaic logo on it, no swearing, no nudity, no excessively violent imagery). I personally lean in favour of allowing folks to do exactly what they want. Will everyone like it? Extremely doubtful. Will it give us a diversity of stuff on our page? I hope so.
The Doctor's post is really thought provoking. Ultimately, I can't see us disallowing pages that are re-drawn from older comics... but I also doubt we'll get a lot of content like that. So we'll tackle that if it becomes an issue.
On the subject of Matt getting his wrist slapped... really not a pont of discussion. But so that we're clear:
Andy: I appreciate your viewpoint, and I also appreciate that I'm on YOUR forum here, and not on my group page. So I'll try to word this as neutrally but accurately as possible:
I equate blunt with rude, I'm afraid. And that informs our moderation policy. It's something the group's co-ordinators have discussed, and we feel that kind of input is something that spoiled things for a lot of folks with the Mosaics.
Again: constructive, helpful criticism is fine. But a comment that can be misconstrued as belittling somebody's efforts is not. It was felt that Matt's comments crossed that line. I didn't enjoy calling him on it, and we've removed the posts to spare embarrassment.
But there's been no 'running behind someone's back' and I resent that comment. Once the concern was brought to my attention, I addressed Matt directly and made follow up comments.
We have rules on Multiverse. We're moderating the group. We've announced that, and the expected code of conduct is in our contributors pack. It'll shortly be stated on our page as well. We expect our members to adhere to it.
I could talk all day about why I feel the reasoning behind a remark that 'sometimes blunt and harsh criticism is needed' is faulty, but I'm really not looking for a debate or an argument here. Please, just don't bring that stuff to our page. We've reached the conclusion that it does more harm than good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2013 18:49:24 GMT
![]() And, lest I forget before I zip off to attend to pages I'm getting paid for, here's another piece!  |
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Mar 4, 2013 19:14:22 GMT
Again: constructive, helpful criticism is fine. But a comment that can be misconstrued as belittling somebody's efforts is not. It was felt that Matt's comments crossed that line. I didn't enjoy calling him on it, and we've removed the posts to spare embarrassment. For the record, going on and on about how I needed my 'wrists slapped' for being 'rude' and out of line and then removing all evidence of my comments actually creates embarrassment for me because anyone who didn't read the original statement will then assume I did something that was actually rude. For anyone reading, what created a mountain out of a molehill was not me insulting anyone, calling anyone names or saying someone's art was crap, it was just me trying to be helpful and pointing out some spelling errors. Removing that context makes it sound like I am some asshole. I would count that as 'constructive and helpful' because it was pointing out actual tangible errors, but instead I feel really attacked. I was not really aware of many negative comments on the Mosaic project, but I am sure most would have been of the "this is rubbish", "you suck" variety. Please do not pigeonhole me there. If you treat people being helpful and constructive (ie not uniformly positive in a hug-box sense) in the same way as people who are genuinely rude, then all you do is scare off the people who actually want to help and be constructive, and empower the people who want to be rude. I do a hell of a lot of fan-work in many fandoms. I have never, ever, ever seen anyone seriously suggest that correcting spelling is in some way 'belittling'. This really puts me off making any sort of subjective constructive criticism, given how violently the reaction to me pointing out objective errors has been. I genuinely want to help people improve, but if artists get upset when they are told 'abandonded' is a word that is spelled incorrectly, how are they going to fare when met with larger issues?
TL;DR: for the sake of anyone reading this, I didn't actually belittle or make any nasty statement, I just pointed out some spelling errors. You can't tell that now though because the original posts have been deleted, I thought it was worth mentioning in case anyone saw the above big essays and assumed that because so much had been written it must have been some terrible insult. |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Mar 4, 2013 19:18:19 GMT
If I can just respond to "we'll pretty much run anything that's sent to us", I must admit that confuses me somewhat. If you'll run "anything" then what is the actual point of Multiverse? What is it actually about? What does it stand for? What is the focus? If it is 'just' running any bit of fanfic sent in then I can't see myself continuing to look at your site once you stop posting here. No disrespect is intended, but there's a lot of fanfic floating about and I tend to focus my leisure time on things with a specific point or theme to them to make them stand out.
I mean this as some food for thought rather than a direct criticism. I've done my fair share of fan stuff over the years and am aware of the amount of effort such things involve. I also found it useful to get outside opinions and perspectives (even if I did not always agree!). Cheers.
I quite liked the art and colouring on today's entry.
-Ralph
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2013 23:49:03 GMT
Alright guys,
Blueshift:
Not my intention to make an issue out of what's happened at all - sorry if you feel that way. Like it or not, though, it's opened up discussion of how we're modding the group. I hope you'll view comments made here in that light, as opposed to being a personal slight on yourself. I just wouldn't intentionally do that to you. Can I suggest, though - if you want to discuss this further with me, hit me up over on DA via a note or something.
Bottom line: If people can't comply with our required code of conduct, maybe our project isn't for them. Ultimately, though, that's a decision for the individual.
Final note on this: Matt, I don't want you to think for one second that this incident has altered my view of you. In the grand scheme of things, it's a storm in a tea cup. I still think you're one of the good 'uns, and I'd LOVE to see something of yours on our page.
Now - Ralph:
Great post, man - thanks for that! And it's all totally cool.
The focus of Multiverse is simply to allow an outlet for these comics. Some folks have referred to us a s 'Mosiac in all but name', and that's basically the extent of our aims - pretty much just to be here if people want to submit.
I think there's a lot of juice left in that format, and plenty of people seemed saddened at the closure of Mosaic. If you want some kind of justification (for want of a better term) for the project, it's right there.
Whether you continue looking over our strips or not, the comments are appreciated. ALL of this helps.
|
|
