hey scott, I don't know if you check comments on old videos, but I've been a fan of yours for a long time and this video was just assigned to me as part of a college undergrad class I'm taking on comic books! I just think you're the type of creator who would find it interesting that their stuff is being used in schools like that!
Of course, I'm happy to help! 🤗 Here's my definition of comics: - Comics are a visual storytelling medium that consists of a sequence of still images that represent changes in magnitude and direction over time. - These changes can take the form of a character's movement or change in appearance, the passage of time, or a shift in the story's setting or plot. - By depicting changes in magnitude and direction, comics create a sense of motion, progression, and progression, even though the images themselves are still. - In this way, comics are able to tell a story in an artistic way.
I would define comics as a series of still, drawn images within a panel structure which tell a story. the panel bit is important to me. it can be a loose panel structure, allowing splash pages, or an unorthodox one allowing for unusual shapes, but do away with it completely and you just have illustration.
Stan Lee came to Salt Lake comic con and made an interesting statement, that is he would like to introduce to our lexicon the word comicbook. not to be confused with comic book which has more to do with comics that are funny or satirical and not usually episodic. comicbooks are episodic and are usually fantasy type tales most commonly featuring superheros.
Ok, sweet. A thoughtful, open ended take on the topic, and one I have an opinion on, but not angry or particularly invested in. It is an interesting topic, glad you guys covered it. I do think a descriptive model is best here, i.e. what do I think of when I hear the word "comic" and usually its always just along the edge where things get tricky, but I'd opt for 1. sequence of panels 2. that tell a story or narrative that 3. Are artificially rendered. By the third point I mean, drawn from the linework up, computer, pen, pencil, paint, the precise instrument is irrelevent but (and here's where I'd draw my personal line) it does have be drawn, photorealism ala Alex Ross is fine but (here's where I'm maybe being finicky) a series of actual captured photos with dialogue bubbles (interesting and artistic though that would be) wouldnt count as a comic so much as being in a comic style. The movie Scott Pilgrim vs. The World takes from comics a lot and the Graphic series that inspired it is definitely a comic series, but if I pieced together every screen shot of the movie I would not call the result a comic book, even I attached appropriate word bubbles to it. You need panels, telling a story, rendered artificially by an artist, not photographer in my opinion. That was a bit long, but there you go.
Ian Laue I really like that third point. I was looking for a way to describe that and you did it in two words! I completely agree that it does need to be artificially rendered in some fashion. It's a good description, however it does leave animated movies to fit inside of that as well. Some people in the comments have expressed that they do indeed believe that cartoons are comics. If that's your belief as well, then I'd say it's a wonderful description!
I think the Japanese has it better, to define a manga (which is basically also a comic) is to define it by the number of panels("koma", typical comedies are in "yonkoma" or 4 panels, while serious ones are shaped differently and the number of panels are different) Therefore if Comics is to be defined by the panels which is more correct, then it would go something like "Comics are strips of panels that may or may not connected through a theme/story/plot within a page and these panels must convey a meaning or information that is understood in each individual panel." In other words, the connection you make to each panel is just up to the reader. (prescriptive)
This video should have more likes. Being a member of the Nordic Network for Comic Reseach (NNCORE), I frequently struggle with incorporating comic studies into my own field - germanistics and philosophy. Not because there isn't enough to dis- or uncover, but without a proper definition we are limited to looking at it in a somewhat limited way. The field itself, i.e. comic studies, of course, has the same problem. That is one of the reasons that comic studies as a field is as of yet a very very small group of people. Most of the academics that want to work in the field or try to incorporate it into other studies, like me, are often seen as making the mistake of seeing academics, where there is only fandom. A definition of what comics actually are would in of itself give the field and any academic comic book enthusiast a push into being a respectable study. What ***** are giving here is a really well-founded, accessible and understandable overview of how comics could be defined, so let's give these guys a like! The contribution to comic studies is appreciated!
Thank you very much for the kind words! I'm glad others find it interesting and I just hope that it will spark and encourage more discussions and thoughts towards comics studies.
I gotta say your argumentative skills, critical thinking and non bias stance on these topics(which I love) are amazing and for someone like myself who is studying things such as critical thinking find it quite helpful and Impressive
***** I never thought of it until watching this video. I was not aware that there was this much debate on the word "comic" itself. Just like you, when I saw a comic, I think of "Comics", even if they have no identifiable characters or speech bubbles. Instructions with drawings are, well, I have always thought of them as "instructions with visualization" to which aims to better understand the usage of something (I do these "instructions with visualization" posters and what not because I work as a Graphic Artist). I'm new to your channel (sub'ed about a week ago) and have watched all your misconception vids from old to new. This by far is the most informative I've watch. Great work good sir!
My family have a pretty strong arts/philosophy/cultural studies background, so I'm a big fan of embracing the inherently blurry borders of definitions -- particularly in regards to where one art form ends and another begins. Really, really cool topic for a video, nice one.
MonarchsFactory I wish I had some sort of arts/philosophy/cultural studies background, but I just like to say big words and quote knowledgeable people and pretend I'm smart, haha.
My brother has a poster which says "Art is whatever you can get away with", and I feel that's not a bad definition for comics. Sure, they involve pictures, usually more than 1, but aside from that, it's really just a form for the artists to play around with. As for questions for Episode 50, I firstly want to say congratulations on getting there, this show is awesome! But my question (I'm sure you'll have had it before - sorry!) is do you remember your first ever comic? And if not, what really got you interested in them, to the kind of level that you're at today?
Comics are some of the most diverse works of art. That is what makes Comics art. When most people think comics they view it as superheroes. But to be perfectly honest in the last around 20 years you have comics like Y: The last man which is a more of an emotional journey. Comics are something that can only be defined by the viewer, and honestly I think that is what ultimately makes them art. They are the pictures that convey meaning to you in a narrative form as opposed to a singular image. In this day and age with more refined vocabulary we are not forced to rely on pictograms as much, however our desires to still recreate the images in our minds still drive us forward.trying to perfect our recreations of mental beauty.... I can't speak for all, but those are my general thoughts on art...
darkashtar This plays into what I believe to be my own personal stance on defining comics. I think we should have a definition that is loose enough to allow experimentation of the art form, but also somewhat specific to have a basic understanding that at least separates it a little from other art forms. Mainly, I side with keeping it more loosey-goosey than choosey. It is a work of art, so we should allow room for artist to play with the form without restricting it to ultra-specific rules and guidelines. But yeah, great comment!
A comic is sequential art with an understandable story, not always with text. I am a student graphic designer and illustrator and find a multitude of illustrators who don't always use text to tell the story, such as Lizzie Stewart. I believe to be a comic art must be sequential and have at least some paneling within. It's difficult to create a criteria but I believe it's subjective to the artist and the audience and it really should have that comic feeling to be one!
having strict rules, I think, isn't necessarily restrictive. In terms of art and story telling, rules are important as they provide a place to start from, and give a level of normalcy that makes the extreme that much for meaningful. In a cliché, rules are meant to be broken, so by providing definitions for art forms we invite innovation.
Harry Wompa I think you're right, which is why I found it so interesting that both sides of the argument agree that the starting place for comics is that they are a sequence of images. That is our starting point and then we build off of it from there to further understand comics. Even getting more specific is fine, but I think there's danger in being ultra-specific like some of the definitions I talked about. There's a neat ebb and flow between experimenting with comics in a new way and then pulling it back in to fit some sort of structure or rules. I think you need both sides, as you were saying, to invite innovation.
A comic is visual storytelling in a static, publishable media. Visuals may be augmented with text to communicate non-visual story elements, such as thoughts, sound, and dialog. ( If, however, it reaches a point where the story can be read from text alone, then that story has crossed over from comic into illustrated prose. )
I like the bit about art taking priority over words. it hits the line between a picture book and comics. I think the qualifier is that the words can't be descriptive of the environment unless it is directly linked to the narrator's/main character's destinct opinion or reaction to that environment in an expressive way.
I had to come back one more time, this time about the blurring of comics and animation. A simple example would be Pete Abrams' occasional use of animate gifs in his online comic Sluggy Freelance. However, as far as I know, he's only used them in his "anniversary" comics, and not as part of a major storyline. I'm not sure if he just felt that they were inappropriate, or maybe, since he publishes and sells collections of his comics, he just realized the difficulty of representing an animated gif on the printed page, in spite of how easy it is to do on the computer screen. Another example would be the CD-ROM comics done by a company called Inverse Ink. I've got a Batman one that they did (Batman: Partners In Peril), plus two "issues" of an original title called Reflux. They look like ordinary comic pages on your computer screen, but you can click on hot spots in the panels to activate short animated sequences, or uncover additional information. The Reflux discs even let you see the same story from three different characters' perspectives. These aren't games, because you're a passive viewer to the events, but you still have to activate the options to see everything. It's more like "interactive story-telling". These aren't animated cartoons, because they're only partially animated. Still, the more animation there is, the less comic-like it is. With animation, like any movie or TV show, the people who make it control the pacing, while the viewer is passively watching it. With a comic, the reader controls how fast the pacing is, how long to linger on each panel or page before going on. I used to have a comic book adaptation of Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (yeah, I lost it at some point), and I really think it works better as a comic than it did as a movie because of the pacing. The movie just drags along at various points, spending too much time in various scenes, and that's really what makes it a bad movie. But the reader of the comic can slow down or speed up as he sees fit, so there's less drag, even if a particular scene isn't all that interesting.
A sequence of pictures that tell a story, that might contain text, of a narrator or the character's dialogue, but the main focus is the picture. So manga, comic strips, graphic novels and cape comics fit in that cathegory.
PACR66 I think movies also fit that category, haha. But I really enjoy the idea of the main focus being on the picture. That was one of the criteria I really liked from Kunzle's definition.
I've always described modern comics as a visual/written media typically focused on telling a story or morality trait through characters or settings in a more concise way than oft thought of nursery rhymes. I do have a couple other things on the list but I'm not sure that they belong on the list anymore and that is paneling and a focus on illustration over words. Oh and for fun, as a friend put it one day and got me thinking more on it, They're modern fairy tails told through excitement and entertainment methods that humankind more commonly understands and relates with today.
I don't really care about subjecting things. English is a controversial language with how words mean this or that. Like Graphic Novels, Manga, Webcomics. Well they're comics all in different form. Can a webcomic still be a comic book despite not having a physical form yet? Meh. Opinions, we have them, to each our own, respect each other's. Speaking of which has anyone have any interest in reading manga? I myself have read a ton and I'm starting to notice more "SuperHero" manga starting to become more popular these days. I can recommend some if interested. Also here's a question (Trivia challenge), for Nerdsync, which Lanturn Oath did Scott get wrong in a comment misconception and what the hell was he wearing on his head that episode (Like Scott said leave your comments down below)
***** Well of coarse Scott gets this right I wanted to see if the rest had a clue and actually watched ur vids. But yeah u win. Have a virtual cookie. Also interested in Reading Manga?
A) I mean stuff like Penny Arcade and Megatokyo, and more notably Dr. McNinja have been put from web to page. McNinja is more notable because certain pieces had to be reworked to fit the page. So ya I think web comics roll in. I read some manga, they are just comics, but I fend less to my taste, but some great stuff to be had. I'd recommend Peepochu (i probably misspelled that) if you're up for something more racy, got any recommendations for me?
*What IS Comics?* There isn't really a universally accepted definition for what comics is. When trying to define comics, people tend to make the definitions either so specific with a long list of criteria that ends up excluding what some people might consider to actually be comics, or they create a definition that's too broad and makes it so anything could be comics. Will we ever arrive at a definition that isn't so strict that it limits experimentation in the field, yet isn't so general that it tells us nothing about what comics is? Or is comics is a subjective term that is different for each person? How do you define "comics"? Let's talk about it in the comments! *WATCH:* nerdsyn.cc/CM_DefiningComics _Every Wednesday, Comic Misconceptions explores fascinating trivia, crazy stories, and mind-blowing theories about the comic book universe from Marvel, DC, and beyond!_ Hosted by ***** *SUBSCRIBE now!* nerdsyn.cc/subNS *Become a NerdSync Patron!* www.patreon.com/NerdSync *LIKE NerdSync on Facebook:* nerdsyn.cc/likeNS *FOLLOW NerdSync on Twitter:* nerdsyn.cc/followNS *JOIN NerdSync on Google+:* nerdsyn.cc/circleNS #comics #comicbooks #graphicnovel #educational #definition #nerdy #geeky #comicart #comicstrip #nerdsync #comicmisconceptions #scottniswander
Roger Odin (who I mention in the video) talks about this in terms of cinema. If the artist says their work is a movie, then who are we to tell them they're wrong? However, he goes on to point out that there needs to be a line somewhere or else we'll end up with a definition that tells us nothing about the subject. There needs to be at least some sort of base understanding of what it is or else the term loses value. Molding clay pots could be comics or choreographed dance could be comics or replying to RU-vid comments could be comics if whoever is doing those things declares them to be comics. And if everything is comics, then really nothing is.
***** Very true, but therein lies your answer. A general, slightly vague description of the genre allows for new and creative ideas and mediums to be implemented and utilized, keeping comics fresh and giving the form room to grow. I guess that would be comics defined by me. Keep up the great work man. I cant get this kind of insight anywhere else.
The vague pattern I see with your vid describes comic as entertainment in a recognizable paper art medium or format. Cat in the Hat does not have the full form of comics (although half way there), whereas an emergency safety instruction is booooring. Turn that person in the instruction strip green with muscles, give the lady a superhero crest, and BANG! instant comics (err..with instructions...)
An image or images in pictoral form that may or may not convey a story in several genres, mostly as part of a series of different stories, or a singular story, or may at least convey a message. They have narration but also direct speech, without quotations, and not in paragraph form. They are usually written in order to entertain, not inform.
I believe that it's not possible to define "Comics" in a literal sense, as there are so many exceptions to airtight rules that still count as comics that falling outside that norm becomes the majority of them, making that the norm. It's baffling to me how the rules keep changing to include outliers that are still believed to be comics, yet that opens up opportunities for more outliers. P.S. HUGE fan and newbie Comic Book Nerd, just subbed!
This is a very hard question and im glad you picked it. 1.there must be pictures 2.there must be at least two pictures 3.the picture must be in some order 4.each picture should be separated 5.it must be deamed a comic by the writer 6.if there is dialogue or words the picture must be more important Plz add any you think I missed below
Nimic Andrews I'm going to repeat myself from what I said in the video and also another comment, but I think that last part is really fascinating. Roger Odin says about cinema (as I mentioned in the video) that the strict definition may exclude works from certain filmmakers, but they claim their works to be movies, so that's enough justification to change the definition. To put that into comics, if the creator calls it a comic, then it's a comic because who are we to tell them they are wrong? Though he does go on to say that there needs to be a line somewhere or else we'll end up with a definition that tells us nothing about the subject. So yeah, just a lot to think about I guess.
I would say that comics are a sequence of drawn pictures with the intend of telling a story. Furthermore they usually have the emphasis "art over words", which can of course also include no words at all. The part of "drawn" takes out (a big part of) films and foto collages and "intend of telling a story" takes out stuff like safety instructions. Phew, that actually wasn't too hard. Of course I'm aware that there are holes in this definition, but I think this is as far as you can go without limiting it too much.
In 1955-56, EC comics published four short-lived magazines that they described as "picto-fiction": Confessions Illustrated, Crime Illustrated, Shock Illustrated, and Terror Illustrated. I've read the Crime Illustrated issues. As Wikipedia puts it, "The format alternated panels of typography with panels of illustrations. Thus, it was arranged in tiers like a comic book but eliminated hand-lettering, balloons and panel borders." In other words, more illustrated fiction, not "comics". Still good stuff, though!
Well when we think of comics, we usually imagine comic books or comic strips, however comics are much more broad. We have films, then we have feature films, or short films, or documentaries, the list goes on. A film can be 4 minutes long, or 120 minutes. There are comic books, comic strips, or simply comedians, aka stand up "comics", and again, the list goes on. In my eyes a comic is simply a form of entertainment based in fiction or a stretched truth to portray entertainment, whether showing a funny joke, or a beyond imaginable reality with superheros. It simply shows a viewer something that they would need to envision themselves in order for the entertainment to kick in. In summary, a comic is a medium for exposing entertainment in a way that a viewer would need to imagine what is happening in a sequential manner.
9 лет назад
Someone probably came up with this already, but I'd define comics as a medium through which an artist or a group of artist can tell a story by the means of drawn or painted pieces of art arranged in a given sequence, often enriched with written dialoque. Of course, one could go into more details and talk about inkers and letterers and genres and narrative strategies, but I think the definition above does not exclude any of this, and those details require their own entries. And if "story" does not cover comic strips, the definition needs but a small change to "a story or a joke", and I think it'll be fine. And again, I know it's quite an old vid, but still it's fun to contribute from time to time. I really like your channel and it's one of my favourites when it comes to comics :] Keep up the good work!
Krab Mrówkowy So by the way I interpret your definition, does that mean that animated cartoons (mostly old ones that were hand painted) and kids books like something from Dr. Seuss could be considered comics? It's totally fine if you do consider those comics as I tend to believe that art is mostly subjective, I just want to see where you stand.
9 лет назад
***** I don't think animated cartoons would apply to this definition. Even in the old days (funny as it sounds :D) animated films were pictures quickly displayed one after another. What I meant were pictures arranged in a sequence like on a strip or on a page (paper or digital). Kids books, though, well... that's a different story. I'm not firm for excluding them from the definition, and if someone wants to count them in, that's cool with me. In the end, If you take golden age comics, for example, and make each panel take one whole page, the story will still work. But I think the key here is not how much space on the page the art is taking, but how much can one read from the illustrations whithout the text. That's why I said written dialoque is optional. What I remember about books for children is that apart from the dialoque they would also have 3rd person omicient narrator who would speak for or quote the characters. Coming back to animated cartoons, I am aware that motion comics may possibly stand out of the definition, yet I see them more like a simulation of the comicbook reading process. Dark Horse's "Queen of the Black Coast" works great this way. If you haven't seen it, it should be on RU-vid.
So I think it's beneficial to make a distinction that the pictures have to be, as McCloud said, juxtaposed in different physical space rather than a cartoon that displays all the frames one after the other in the same space. The problem there is digital comics, especially the ones with guided reading where it displays one panel after another in technically the same physical space of your computer or tablet or whatever device you are using. As for the kids books, this is where one of my favorite qualifications comes into play from someone I mentioned in the video whose name escapes me. The idea is that the images need to take precedence over the words and/or dialogue. I think for a children's book, the words and pictures are pretty evenly important for the story with maybe a little extra emphasis on the words, but probably not much depending on the author. But a comic should (at least in my opinion and the opinion of the guy who I'm referencing) make the artwork the most important part of the piece with words and dialogue enhancing the comic, but not being the main focus. I've seen the Watchmen motion comic and I honestly just feel like it's a cartoon. That particular one doesn't simulate the comic reading experience for me because it would always use a canvas the size and shape of the tv screen. Comics have a great ability to create panels of different sizes, shapes, and aspect ratios to help visually tell the story. This particular motion comic (which to be fair is one of two I've ever seen, the other one also having this pitfall) always tried to make sure that the entire 16:9 screen was filled with the image, and failed to take advantage of the idea of panel layouts. But again, I've only ever seen two motion comics, so maybe the medium has gotten better about that since.
9 лет назад
I'm not sure if same place display would really be a problem. Like you said with the digital comics, you still have panel displayed separately in the same space, while the size or importance of a panel is indicated by the app zooming in/out. I've read the whole Avengers vs X-Men on my android and the way the panels would slide on the screen was pretty much like my eyes would follow them on the page. The difference between cartoons and comics, as I see it, is that the first one shows the story, frame by frame, exactly like film, creating impression of real motion, while the other one kinda "tells" it. The reader see the art but has to imagine movement himself. (I know I'm stating the obvious here, but just want to clarify :)) It's more similar to literature, when you have to imagine voices, places, smells and stuff from the descriptions that the author wrote. Here you must do the same but basing on pictures. So yes, I totally agree that art is more important in the comics than the written word, because one can narrate the whole story thanks to it (think of Marvel's 'Nuff Said), and it goes well with what I said in the begining. But in order for my definition to apply also to cartoons, or rather only to them, I believe it would require to add something to it about similar frames quickly displayed one after another, creating impression of movement.
I think the definition still applies to animation as well as comics, so if we want to try and get a definition of specifically "comics" then there needs to be a bit more info thrown in. When it comes down to it, cartoons can still "tell a story by the means of drawn or painted pieces of art arranged in a given sequence," as your definition states. McCloud talks about how the difference between animation and comics is that animation is sequential in time, but not spatially juxtaposed like comic panels. We rely on the time between the frames to tell a story with animation. In comics, each "frame" can use any amount of time it needs or is perceived by us readers. You and I could watch the same animated movie and finish it at the same time, but there could be a big difference in the time it takes for me to read a comic vs how long it takes you to read that same comic. You can look at a panel for as long as you need to to appreciate its place and importance in the story, but we don't get that choice in animation unless we disrupt the flow of the story and pause it. Plus each comic panel occupies a varying amount of time. Some are quick action shots, others are long speeches. Each one panel, but require different amounts of time to process. The point I'm trying to make is that I do feel like there is a need to still add something to your definition that separates it from animation, and I think the inclusion of how time affects the story might be the key. McCloud's criteria of spatially juxtaposed images doesn't work in a time when digital comics can display all the images on the same physical space, so maybe talking about how time influences animation and comics differently in the description might be the ticket.
I have been thinking about it for over an hour now. :| My answer is: Sequential Images with a certain narrative, without depending on actual sounds or motion. All the motion and and sounds are imaginary.
I would add the phrase "that is intended to be read" to the end of my previous definition to make the distinction you suggest, because I don't think animation is identical to a comic though they are darn close. I'd say, you read comics, you watch animation and that's the distinction.
***** I'm glad we've developed a good rapport and that you appreciate the definition. I like to think definitions aren't about confining or limiting, but clarifying. To say something isn't a comic isn't to denigrate it, just to recognize it fits into a different equally respectable alternative category.
I tend to agree. I think there needs to be some base level of universal understanding to what a comic is in the first place before we can really start to explore the art form and see how much it has to offer.
thanks another great vid I think I have told you before I watch these with my 9yr old son and you are great the way you explain comics much better than me lol so again keep up the great work and thanks for keeping it family friendly i think you will go far
My definition for comics- A book or strip of drawn images in panels and/or full/double page spreads that can but do not always include character's words and thoughts.
Here in Sweden we call comics "Serie tidningar", a "Serie" means sequence and "Tidning" means paper. Sohere in Sweden is it a paper with images folowing each other.
I usually go with sequential art but that might be because I'm Finnish and Finnish for comics is "sarjakuva" literal tranlation of that is "series of pictures".
***** Definitely a good question. That goes back to the one definition of "comics" that says the emphasis has to be on the art over the words. So in that case, I don't know if it would be. I think in #663, the words are what's important and the art just kind of adds to it. But if we go with the idea that there can't really be a standard definition and "comics" is just a subjective feeling you have about a piece of work, then I think we could easily say it's comics. However, for me personally, I don't think it's comics. But this is really interesting. Thank you for bringing it up! I wish I would have included this in the video.
I would consider "The Clown at Midnight" as an illustrated story, not comics. Thanks for bringing it up, as I had not seen it before. The art accompanies the story, but if you took away the art, you'd still have a readable story. This is also why most children's books, like The Cat in the Hat, are not comics. But Batman #663 was not the first time DC has done something like this. In the Batman Spectacular published in the summer of 1978 (DC Special Series #15), there were three great (imho) Batman stories, the third being another illustrated story written by Denny O'Neil with art by Marshal Rogers: "Death Strikes at Midnight and Three". Here again, the art accompanied the story, but was not essential for telling the story. There was also a Firestorm illustrated story in the 80s, one of the annuals, I think, but I'd have to look it up for the details.
Great Video man... I make my own Crappy little webcomic and you just proved I don't know what I'm doing... I suppose the definition of comics must have a recognisable or identifiable character although that does still mean safety Diagrams are a comic... perhaps we will never know what a comic is and just continue to not understand what we're drawing... also as for a Question which Superhero do you think has the best Rogues Gallery and why?
I agree--these "Going Deeper" videos have been fascinating, and give one something really interesting to think about, or think about again, as the case may be.
I think what separates comic from picture book is the comic panels. Sure, you'll have whole-page illustrations in comics, but the story, yes, is sequential, and the whole-page illustrations are dominated by the sequential story translated into panels-per-page. Also,... the speech and thought bubbles. What other printed format uses them other than political cartoons and comics?
All webcomics are comics, but not all comics are webcomics. Does that make sense? I just typed it and I'm looking at it and I'm not sure. When you got to photo albums and the idea of photographs telling a sequential story, I had hoped you'd mention the Marvel Fumetti comic book which came out i think in the late 80s. It was a one-time thing where people around the Marvel Bullpen were shown in black white images in a comedic fashion as if like a comic. I think Stan Lee himself was on the cover. Saying Family Circus, Dennis The Menace, Marmaduke or Far Side aren't comics cuz they're single panel is sillier than saying Pluto is not a planet after almost a century of people calling it one. They are on the comics page, and if a word's definition is determined by how it's used (dictionaries being descriptive not prescriptive) then single panel comics are in fact comics. However, I agree that collages and safety directions don't look or feel like comics, so ultimately it's a subjective determinant for each and every one of us, and accumatively our usage of the word will continue to help define it, as it has since before World War Two.
I love this show and i really love your silky smooth buttery voice. I have dos questions to ask 1) what is your point of view on Japanese manga and the way they do things over there and 2) Do you think that we may be living in a new golden age of comic book heroes based on the fact that we are now getting 4 comic book movies every year as well as the TV shows based around these heroes
Marlon S.G. Haha, no one has ever called my voice "buttery smooth" before. Haha. Also, great questions. I will see if I can think of some good answers and include them in the video next week!
NerdSync Podcast With all the comics book movies and shows going on, what new comic movie or show would you like to see,excluding the ones already going on? I would like a new Ghost Rider reboot movie and for DC a Green Lantern show with Kyle Rayner as the lead. What about you guys?
Hado Takeki That last point is interesting. Roger Odin says about cinema that the strict definition may exclude works from certain filmmakers, but they claim their works to be movies, so that's enough justification to change the definition. To put that into comics, if an artist says their work is comics, then we must respect them and change our perceptions of what comics should be. Though he does go on to say that there needs to be a line somewhere or else we'll end up with a definition that tells us nothing about the subject. I mentioned this in the video, so sorry for repeating it, I just really like that point a lot. If the creator calls it a comic, then it's a comic because who are we to tell them it isn't? Yeah, that's definitely something to think about. Good comment!
My dad remembers that he reads a comic book about how a yeti-like creature that had been dreaming up the whole universe was going to wake up, and the comic book characters had to stop him.
One of the most interesting video's you've made. I feel like with any definition of an artform you have to go the loosey goosey route. I don't feel like we're making communication easier or more clear by using a definition of comics that includes multiple-panel comic strips but excludes single-panel comics that are being published in the exact same places. It's more practical to say, "Yes, Marmaduke is a comic, it's just a single-panel comic," than it is to say, "Marmaduke doesn't fit the definition of a comic so now we need to create a new term to classify it under." However, a helpful definition shouldn't include everything, and the things it excludes should be based on more than just a feeling. I would say that hieroglyphics and instructional drawings aren't comics because they were created largely removed from the comics culture and industry. With Dr. Seuss, he did have a history as a newspaper cartoonist, but children's books have their own set of cultural expectations and commonly used tropes separate from comics, so I don't think it's handy to include Cat In The Hat in the definition of comics.
Ben Holladay I think you have a good point there with the "single-panel comic" instead of a new term. Like we have films and short films or novels and short stories. Just adding the qualifier that it is indeed a part of the medium, just a shorter version makes more sense than coming up with a new name. Great comment!
I don't believe comics need to have text to be considered a comic. A series of juxtaposed Images conveying story In any means can be comics. The limitations of this stretch to film and animation, where those are a series of images to create a motion picture, comics are shown panel-by-panel to convey a story. "Comic" as a word, finds It's origin In the Ancient Greek word kômos (revel), now referred to as "comedy." Put simply, to revel, in Ancient Greece was a ritualistic drunken procession by revelers. The word became associated with celebrations, then enjoyment, which the Greeks and Romans confined the use of the word "comedy" to describe stage-plays with happy endings. Then, during the Middle Ages, the term "comedy" became synonymous with satire, and later with humor in general. One of the earliest "comic strips" dates back to the nineteenth-century satirical work of author cartoonist, Rodolphe Töpffer. Töpffer's 1837 "Histoire de M. Vieux Bois" (The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck) possess one-six captioned cartoon panels on each page, much like modern comics today. The French language, at the time, had no permanent word for these. It wasn't until over a hundred years later Töpffer's term histories en estampes (stories told in prints) became Its proper name. The short illustrated stories printed In the backs of magazines and newspapers In the 1920s were called comic strips for their satirical or humorous nature. Where the word "comedy" has changed, so too has the meaning of "comic" and what It entails. Not all modern comics today are humorous, but sort of juxtaposed Images In a strategical order creating a sense of story, with or without the aid of text to further It, in the same way, a silent film Is still a film.
I am a student studying animation and 3D arts, and I would define it as a series of visual images on a page/screen that tells a story/information and has an intended reader.
Question for 50th episode Aside frim smallie stine becoming superman,are there any other superheroes that were tottaky different befor they were published?
My question is: What is your favorite comic series ongoing or completed. My favorite series to read "Fables" by Bill Willingham is coming to an end. Also if you haven't read it you definitely should :)
Agree about vision boards. Cat in the Hat, I'd say would be comics. Safety instructions could be. Some Japanese manga, which are comics, are instructional.
Good morning Scott...great show you got there guys, im a huge fan...following the crossover episodes of Arrow and The Flash i want to ask for your thoughts about a major crossover in the wider dcu both tv and cinematic. I know you have visited the issue in the past mentioning all the problems that keeps something like that from happening. But after thinking about the "Central City Citizen" cover in the flash s01e01 dated 2024 could their be a Crisis on Infinite Earths scenario linking dc tv shows and movies. Thanks in advance greetings from Greece!
kostas chionos I would say if it were to happen, I wouldn't expect characters from the DCTVU and the DCCU to meet each other or team up. I think the most that would happen is that there'd be a common thread of something happening in both universes, but I don't think they'd crossover characters. I hope that makes sense.
***** Surely it would be way easier for the tv characters to make even a guest appereance on any of the upcoming movies. Another thing I would like to hear your opinion about is the announcement of Will Smith as Deadshot for the Suicide Squad film. It is a bit confusing to say the least.
kostas chionos Smith has always been one of my favorite actors, so I'm glad to see him in the movie. But you're right, it is a bit confusing. To me, it just feels a bit weird having a big actor like Smith be Deadshot and also have a relatively small actor like Henry Cavill be Superman. I don't know, it's just a bit odd for me. But I'm sure he'll do great with the character.
A little off topic but how about an episode on what separates manga and western comics? We all know that the old black and white editions of Spiderman aren't manga but are manga comic books?
What is your setup? (Mic, Software for rendering etc) and what inspires you to do what you do? you've got to research; reply to comments; record, render then upload; and still make enough money; and have a normal life. How?
I got really excited when I say the weekly trivia challenge thing by the way my score for the podcast was 11 not counting the sit com questions because I suck at sit com stuff
WOW, . . . I like a lot of your videos but the last couple have been more like a.college presentation. I cant speak for everyone but I dont want history lessons on what a comic is, I want to know bout older, lesser known story arcs and characters like your older vids. I see alot of sociology in your last couple vids which. Is .alright but lets get back to the basics
Zach B This is the stuff I find interesting and it's the way I see the channel heading. I'm planning out videos for next year and just about 100% of them so far are this sort of thing. There are plenty of other comic channels that talk about funny story arcs or origins of characters or top 5 lists, but I like exploring comics on levels that aren't typically explored. That's what excites me and fuels my love of comics. You talk about going back to basics, but I honestly hate those old videos. I was only doing what I thought I _had_ to do for a comic book channel. I'm finally starting to make the videos I want to make instead of just videos that people expect me to make. I'm actually really flattered by you saying the videos are like a college presentation. My hope is to get people to start thinking about comics on a deeper level than just what's on the surface of capes and tights. I love studying comics as a medium as opposed to learning about the characters and stories. Either way, I appreciate the support of you watching the videos. Just don't expect me to do top 5 lists or histories of characters for the foreseeable future.
Sequential images, that may include captive text, that conveys a story of entertainment, of any fashion (love, action, comedy etc.) in an artistic fashion.
QUESTION:- what are your thoughts about changing the already established characters in comics to match their TV or MOVIE counterparts Eg the new green arrow series in which jeff lemire had a great supporting characters and back stories but the new team writing the book are ignoring the already established characters and bring characters from the ARROW TV Show to the comics I personally hate the thing i want to know Your Opinion on it.
Harsh Bawaskar I think it's a case-by-case thing. Sometimes it can be good, like how much of Superman and Batman we know of today that didn't originate in the comics, but was brought from other movies, radio programs, cartoons, etc. The Batcave, Kryptonite, Superman being able to fly, and more are examples of things about the characters and universe that we accept to be true, but didn't come from the comics originally. Heck, even characters Harley Quinn, X-23, Jimmy Olsen and much more did not start out in comics, but in cartoons and radio shows. So I don't have a problem with the comics bringing in characters or elements from the shows. It's just about how you write them in.
What debate? Manga are simply Japanese comics. Just like Strips are the European denomination for comics. It's simply different names for the same medium. There may be stylistic differences or differences in story structure, but in the end it's the exact same thing. It's like that pointless discussion about anime and cartoons being something different. They're not. They have the same differences I described above between them but at the core are the exact same thing with the same production processes involved. However I agree that this is where the video is lacking since Scott is pretty much stuck in the idea of American comics without taking the other versions into consideration.
love'n these scott!! i'm more from the loosey goosey side. i love love love silent comics. i love single page comics. i love animated comics. i love storys told by a sequence of pictures. and i will alllways believe that the 1st comics were drawn on cave walls thousands of years ago. great subject. i'm gonna think on this more and probably comment again later. gj scott!
Yohseph Cassidy Y'know, I originally thought I was on the Choosey side, but they are way too strict over there. Haha. Silent comics are seriously some of the best comics I've ever read. I think so much can be told through the artwork if done well.
+NerdSync Productions My definition of what "comics" are is the following: ----------*"A comic is a series of panels or a single photo displaying images to tell a story or give instructions optionally within panel boards and separated by lines that exist as each panel and optionally comics have text directed from one or more characters or as a narration with no one direct character depicted as talking unless the narration is a continuation of a earlier text from an earlier panel or optionally same panel with an earlier character or same character in the panel depicted as making the text or a text can be a sound effect depicting a sound from the comic to help depict the situation that is currently going on"*----------, It was very hard to pin down this with all your info you gave Scott but i feel like what comics are vastly limited to the readers opinion on what defines a comic. You don't believe "The Cat In The Hat" is a comic like me but others may believe it is a comic, which is why i tried making my definition as flexible as possible to have all possible opinions. If anyone has anything i can add to this please share it with me because this topic has become very interesting to me. PS yes I'm a 12 year old kid who may or may not know what he is talking about okay.
A sequence of at least two drawn pictures that have something behind them e.g a joke or a story. The comic doesn't need text or anything else apart from a sequence of drawn pictures that have something behind them, but SHOULD not have to be readable or understandable for the viewer. The pictures do not have to be drawn by hand just as long as they have been drawn by something either a machine or hand.
What about comics as a visual/auditory* story* (containing feelings, emotions, and/or morals) that are not hindered by time or length with the exception of a single picture being invalid and many pictures put in succession to create a "moving picture" being invalid as well; its purpose is to invoke an emotion or reaction* from the reader through either words and/or the picture itself meaning that it's not conveying only information such as instructional guides limited only to facts not meant to invoke said feelings and thought processes. *Auditory meaning a read comic for blind people *A story is not limited to words, but is limited in this case to at least pictures. *A reaction being to think about what the words/pictures could mean and contemplating how it could affect you or the world/society. It's a bit lengthy, but I tried to put as much stuff that counts and doesn't into a single definition.
The therm you're looking for is audio-books back when audio-books were truly a physical object. Back when I was a kid I remember I used to have an audio-book about the Lion King, There was the book with written words and images from the movie and a cassette tape. The voice in the cassette tape would read out loud the words of written in the book. however the cassette tape had ambient sounds in the background which gave the listener the overall idea of what it was like to be there. Right now, everything is digital, but it's the same principle. However the limitations are obvious, blind people can't and will never perceive the world as us viewers do simply because they are restricted to what they can touch, smell or taste and more importantly have not incorporated the natural perception of colors. In other words ''you cannot ''paint a picture'' on a blind man's head''. Here's a very interesting video of ONE OF THE MOST AMAZING PERSONS in RU-vid, a guy by the name of Tommy Edison, who has been blind since birth: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-59YN8_lg6-U.html
I like that you point to some stuff that aren't comics but could fit the definition like the saftey cards. But I feel what keeps saftey cards from being comics is context. They are not art, they are info so like a pamphlet vs. a poem printed as pamphlet or something. Sorry not the best example but I'm not sure there's a ton that's akin to this. So should part of the comics definition be that it's for art/telling a story? Should we limit the medium to only be entertainment? I'd think it would work, Novels function this away apart from text books and the like. But I do think saying the Far Side is not comics does not work for me either. I came to something like the juxtaposition of static images with text or narrative are comics. Not perfect but better than some I hope?
Wednesday's Serial Now we get into this dangerous category of "what is art?" Haha. I could go on and on about what I believe is and isn't art, but the gist of it is that I believe art is subjective. What I consider art vs what you consider art could be completely different things. So the guy who drew those safety manuals may in fact consider them to be art.
***** So I started writing a responce about how I thought we had a lose definition of art that worked (the one stated in Understanding Comics) then I thought about it and found a bunch of holes. But I feel there's a line between Read this to understand how to use an air bag and NOT DIE vs. a painting. It's frustrating because I think we could both agree on and idea and a set of sample material that fits 'comics' but putting it to words might be a failing of language. In no short part due to the fact that 'comics' comes from 'funnies' which were because these things were supposed to be funny at one point, but they expanded past that definition. I submit we need a new word first, and Graphic Novels will not do!
Wednesday's Serial I think it might be shortcoming of the language. But again, dictionaries are descriptive and not prescriptive, so I don't feel like we need a change in terminology from "comics" to a more appropriate word. "Comics" is fine for me since we're not actually using it to solely refer to the funny pages. But yeah, I hear ya. It'll be hard to write out a definition that we can all agree on, but I feel like we all have a general concept that we would agree on.
(agreed) sequential art: it must be hand drawn (can,t be photos/music/ recording) and its purpose must be to tell a story; which must include speech bubbles. it cant just be a sequence of pictures that discloses information or instructions. = my definition of comics :)
***** Hi ^_^, oh since comic books where originally jokes, if a non speech bubble one was still funny only then i'd count it as a comic. i think non speech is sequential art but it does not amount to a true comic.. however my opinion is based on the fact that iv never really liked non speech comics because i prefer to know whats being said rather than having to interpret it. so a bit of bias there..
givmespace I'm a bit of the opposite. I love silent comics. The more an artist can tell the story through visual, non-verbal communication, the more I admire it as a piece of art.
A topic implies a purpose so I even consider single panels comics as Comics in their own right, is just that the sequence isn't explicit like when there is more than one panel. The key to define Comics is that the context is as important as the message itself. In other words neither the message is the context (like in most of other art-forms and some surreal graffiti styles) neither is the message more important than the context (as in printed safety precautions in a bottle or in a Plane sit). Comics, to me, are just the natural progression, or expansion, of newspaper comic strips which appeared as an abstract form of information to allow the reader some distraction from the overall news around the turn of the XIX century. Here's is the Yellow Kid, considered by many the first comic strip, in a picture that shows the transition from an inconvenient way to portray dialog, in this case his cloth, towards the now implicit speech bubble: alankistler.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Yellow-Kid.jpg This idea of creating a succession of drawings to entertain or give some extra appeal to the text comes from the the medieval manuscripts popularized around the 13th century AD by nobility and more than anything religious authorities which included anything from intricately ornamented decorative floral borders to narrative scenes complete with a protagonist an antagonist, supporting characters, different locations, etc. Here is a picture in which the scene is covered in a border which itself contains three different unrelated scenes: www.godecookery.com/clipart/people/peop020.jpg And as shown here in the video we can use the Bayeux Tapestry from 10th century AD as an example of border art. But in reality, It is said that the first drawings of this kind came to be when bored monks decided to include them as a distraction, back in 400-600 AD. Now the idea of representation of imaginary stories through drawings probably comes from the Roman Empire when fans of the Gladiators used to to paint stories or short sequences of their stars of yore in the walls of the Colosseum and around the streets of Rome. Now here's what I consider a Comic (sequential images, complemented by text) from the Ist Century AD: c1.staticflickr.com/1/8/8465497_be23b09210.jpg I assume we can go even further back but I just don't know any factual evidence.
Questions!? Who do you feel are the lamest Marvel and DC chracters? Could you recommend any good non-American comics (and all manga is cheating) Could you recommend any other good comic folk youtubers? I could make up more, but 3 is a lot :)
Wednesday's Serial Excellent questions! I will definitely address those! Maybe not the second one because I honestly don't know of any off the top of my head, but I have answers for the first and third. Haha
***** haha, Then may I submit to you: Okko, crazy cool french comic that's all mystical feudal Japan stuff. Also not so much my taste but Metabarons, from Italy which was an unused script for a Dune movie gone arwy.
Hey Scott great work with these videos One question though In the marvel universe the x-men are classified as mutants and the world fears them and alienates them correct Yet heroes like spiderman,the fantastic four, even the hulk have similar abilities but are considered heroes and are praised for their powers So my question is how do people tell the difference between the mutants and require heroes how come people don't consider spiderman a mutant
Hoe Ter The thing about mutants is that they are presented as the next step of human evolution. So humanity feels threatened by them since mutants are a new species that could eventually take over and make humans extinct. Other heroes and villains that gain powers through other means other than just being born with them are considered mutates and are generally isolated incidents, so there's really no threat of them making humans extinct.
I would argue that you can't define comics because of the broad scope of comics that there are. The very nature of comics is impossible to nail down because of what the art form is. Where we can define other art forms like music and drama, comics are undefinable
Terry Johnson I totally forgot to mention story boards. I personally believe them to be comics. Flip books are tricky. I could see either side of the argument for those.
I would consider a comic as a sometimes paneled image used to convey a story or meaning cause it always bothered me family circus or denis the menis cant be a comic cause its a single image :/ I supposed you could call something like the mona lisa a comic image, but that doesn't bother me cause all art conveys some meaning to someone and not always the same thing and a series of framed images could be put together to display a meaning or story as well as just the mona lisa by itself can do the same, so equating the two doesn't bother me it reminds me of a story where a marvel artist drew spiderman shaking his fist at hippies for being lazy, but the writer took it as support for the hippies so he made it support them XD
QUESTION: (for the Q and A) what is the best way to buy comics? A book store? Online? Comic store? Also, who is your favorite hero of all time? ps- i love Comic Misconceptions, favorite vids on youtube!
For me, I consider a comic to be a bunch of images in a square shaped frame that tells a story through the images like puu.sh/dxG7W/956f53c789.png or puu.sh/dxGsy/4e4e9d6e10.jpg or puu.sh/dxGLx/3cc0ff2ab1.jpg . All of these are comics in their own right but different types. One is a newspaper comic, the other is a comic book and the other is a manga. They follow similar formulas when it comes to conveying the story but all different in tone, style and other things. Internet comics, newspaper comics, comic books and mangas are all comics but different type, unique in their own way but all fall under the same category.
***** Yeah, as I was thinking about it there have been other shapes they have used and sometimes nothing at all so I guess my definition isn't that good.
I don't think theres an actual definition to what comics is as a hole but I think it as: "A story told in one or many pictures, that defines a statement wheather it is general or with a defined purpose (political, ironical, religious, etc), but not as with an informative intention but to entretain".
nelson salinas Okay, so your main purpose of comics is to intentionally be entertaining. What if they were both informative _and_ entertaining? Would the priority have to be on the entertainment value over information, or does it matter at that point as long as it was at least trying to be entertaining in some way while presenting information? In other words, lets say I had something like Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics which is a comic book about comics themselves. The main purpose is to convey information, but there is some entertainment value to it as well with jokes and gags and such. Is that comics in your opinion even though the main intent is informative over entertainment?
***** I would not consider it a comic, but a book to learn about comics presented as a comic, I believe that you can use comic like animations and creative forms without it been a comic, but drawn as a comic, like the case you presented :)
