The next wave of Motion Comics...

**hamgravy** · 10-25-2010, 12:10 PM

I know the argument has been done to death but it seemed like it was worth checking in given these recent additions to the form...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j81g3...ature=youtu.be
http://www.predatorsmotioncomics.com/

Sienkiewicz, Mack, Guy Davis, and Dave Stewart. These are the guys that either opened my eyes to the art of comics or continue to push and practice the art form at its finest.

But, I remain unconvinced about motion comics as a medium unto itself.

So far, Spider-Woman stands as the best of the bunch because it was executed with style and taste. Unlike this new crop, all of the parts looked like they belonged in the same world. But, even there, the animation was a liability.

Motion Comics will never work until directors start treating them like the motion graphics you see in commercials or credits - achieving movement through clever edits and bold designs and abandoning any attempt at figure animation or natural space. They need rhythm and a reason to exist and arbitrary pan and scan is not gonna cut it.

Own it, mean it, dammit.

**hamgravy** · 10-25-2010, 12:15 PM

The Opening Credits to "Catch Me if You Can"

Not a "Motion Comic" but I can't think of a better recent example where subject matter was so married to the style, music, and limited animation that delivered it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaLDyrun_Cc

The next person that makes a motion comic, please work backwards from this.

**hamgravy** · 10-25-2010, 12:17 PM

Hell, or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEx9r5enZsk

Great storyboarding and limited (but expert) animation go a long way.

I'd watch this all day.

**SteveFlack** · 10-25-2010, 12:21 PM

I don't see what inherently makes them a "comic". Is it animation? Limited, but yes. It is. And that's not a bad thing. Is it using art by people know predominantly for comics? Yes, but it appears that all of this art is created for this animation, not repurposed comic book art.

My problem with "motion comics" is that they aren't limited animation, it's that they are proposed as a bastard child of comics and cartoons. It's just lazy.

I have the same problem with the opposite of "motion comics": Cine-Manga, the bastard artform where frames from cartoons are turned into 9 panel grid comics.

**natesutton** · 10-25-2010, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by SteveFlack

I don't see what inherently makes them a "comic". Is it animation? Limited, but yes. It is. And that's not a bad thing. Is it using art by people know predominantly for comics? Yes, but it appears that all of this art is created for this animation, not repurposed comic book art.

My problem with "motion comics" is that they aren't limited animation, it's that they are proposed as a bastard child of comics and cartoons. It's just lazy.

I have the same problem with the opposite of "motion comics": Cine-Manga, the bastard artform where frames from cartoons are turned into 9 panel grid comics.

The appeal of motion comics, at least for me, is that you get to have the strengths of the voice of a comic book. You get a singular writers vision, and a singular artists vision, and it gets married into something that's not quite a TV show but as close as you can get with a singular voice. Theres no budget or time for a full on Daredevil animated series written by Brian Bendis and completely animated by Alex Maleev, but you can get a motion comic from them. If it were to be a full on animated series it would be designed by maleev and drawn and animated by a team of people on computers and it would probably be outlined by Bendis but he wouldn't be able to write all the episodes. Motion comics gives you a cool hybrid that allows for a singular voice and feel that just lacks full on animation. One writers voice and one artists style.
The good ones should feel just like a comic book from the creative team would feel, only your experiencing it rather than reading it. I don't think there has been a really great one yet, the medium is still figuring itself out.

For example I really liked the spider-woman one because it felt really cinematic and the art was clearly designed to be moving, but I didn't like that they didn't animate the mouths because it sort of takes you out of the story and makes you realize your just listening to a picture. It also makes discerning voice-over or dialogue a little more tedious.

Where as the astonishing x-men one, that was the comic books re-purposed into a motion comic had the moving mouths, which made dialogue and voice over and character interaction a little better, but the art was more stiff and wonky as it had been clearly repurposed.

I think one day were gonna get some really cool motion comics, but I think even the good ones like spider-woman, and astonishing x-men still have aspects which are clunky.

**Ashwin Pande** · 10-25-2010, 01:36 PM

American - The Bill Hicks Story pulls off the motion comics thing really well.

**SteveFlack** · 10-25-2010, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by natesutton

The appeal of motion comics, at least for me, is that you get to have the strengths of the voice of a comic book. You get a singular writers vision, and a singular artists vision, and it gets married into something that's not quite a TV show but as close as you can get with a singular voice. Theres no budget or time for a full on Daredevil animated series written by Brian Bendis and completely animated by Alex Maleev, but you can get a motion comic from them. If it were to be a full on animated series it would be designed by maleev and drawn and animated by a team of people on computers and it would probably be outlined by Bendis but he wouldn't be able to write all the episodes. Motion comics gives you a cool hybrid that allows for a singular voice and feel that just lacks full on animation. One writers voice and one artists style.
The good ones should feel just like a comic book from the creative team would feel, only your experiencing it rather than reading it. I don't think there has been a really great one yet, the medium is still figuring itself out.

For example I really liked the spider-woman one because it felt really cinematic and the art was clearly designed to be moving, but I didn't like that they didn't animate the mouths because it sort of takes you out of the story and makes you realize your just listening to a picture. It also makes discerning voice-over or dialogue a little more tedious.

Where as the astonishing x-men one, that was the comic books re-purposed into a motion comic had the moving mouths, which made dialogue and voice over and character interaction a little better, but the art was more stiff and wonky as it had been clearly repurposed.

I think one day were gonna get some really cool motion comics, but I think even the good ones like spider-woman, and astonishing x-men still have aspects which are clunky.

But what are you getting out of them from animation that you wouldn't get from a comic? Cheesy music, bad voice acting, and jittery animation?

**CARSON** · 10-25-2010, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by natesutton

The appeal of motion comics, at least for me, is that you get to have the strengths of the voice of a comic book. You get a singular writers vision, and a singular artists vision, and it gets married into something that's not quite a TV show but as close as you can get with a singular voice. Theres no budget or time for a full on Daredevil animated series written by Brian Bendis and completely animated by Alex Maleev, but you can get a motion comic from them. If it were to be a full on animated series it would be designed by maleev and drawn and animated by a team of people on computers and it would probably be outlined by Bendis but he wouldn't be able to write all the episodes. Motion comics gives you a cool hybrid that allows for a singular voice and feel that just lacks full on animation. One writers voice and one artists style.
The good ones should feel just like a comic book from the creative team would feel, only your experiencing it rather than reading it. I don't think there has been a really great one yet, the medium is still figuring itself out.

For example I really liked the spider-woman one because it felt really cinematic and the art was clearly designed to be moving, but I didn't like that they didn't animate the mouths because it sort of takes you out of the story and makes you realize your just listening to a picture. It also makes discerning voice-over or dialogue a little more tedious.

Where as the astonishing x-men one, that was the comic books re-purposed into a motion comic had the moving mouths, which made dialogue and voice over and character interaction a little better, but the art was more stiff and wonky as it had been clearly repurposed.

I think one day were gonna get some really cool motion comics, but I think even the good ones like spider-woman, and astonishing x-men still have aspects which are clunky.

I have no problem with a proposed animated series with limited animation done from still images by Alex Maleev from a script by Bendis. But that isn't a "motion comic". That's just a small scale animated series made by comic creators. And that would be awesome. There isn't a single thing about what you described that makes it a comic in any way. It's just animation. It's a TV show, a web series, whatever you want to call it.

The problem with "motion comics" is that they are trying to take material created for one medium and throw it into another one entirely.

Yes, Spider-Woman had a lot of work done specially for the motion version, but the fact that it had to exist as both did it a great diservice. Jessica's narration, which worked great in the print version, felt excessive in the motion version.

If marvel wanted to take a couple of their creators and make a cheaply animated series with a solid artist and writer combo and release it, without the handicap of a print version as well, that would be a whole other story. It also wouldn't be a comic in any way.

**The Dean** · 10-25-2010, 02:00 PM

I don't care for them myself.

I think great artists and cartoonists can create a sense of kinetic motion through their drawings and don't need the crutch of animation to create that same sense of dynamic action.

In the same vein, I think artists are also loosing the ability to create flow on a page from panel to panel.

**natesutton** · 10-25-2010, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by SteveFlack

But what are you getting out of them from animation that you wouldn't get from a comic? Cheesy music, bad voice acting, and jittery animation?

I don't think the cheesy and bad aspects will last forever. Ill admit the first round here has been clunky, but its still being figured out how you make one and how do you make it well. The fact of the matter is that print won't be dead anytime soon, but it will be dead within 200 years. People will still collect print and companies will still put out print, but the vast majority of those will be for collecting purposes. In 50 years well probably have the first generation of kids who read or see everything on a singular device of some sort.

The question is what form will comics take at that point? Will it be the scroll along with your fingers word balloon ipad type or will it be something more engaging than that. 50-100 years from now kids will be interacting with everything they read, magazines will move on there screens text books will create images of what there explaining as a kid reads it. Comics will have to be more engaging but there will never be the type of budget to create a full fledged animation of every comic.

Motion comics are probably the future form of comics. Its the only way to keep the cost down and keep them at a place where they can be heavily serial. The motion comic represents the digital version of the one writer one artist vision that a print comic has and a motion comic is the least costly quickest way to make that.

Will they move but have bubbles instead of voice actors? Will they move on there own or be singular panels that you scroll across? These are all things that are being worked out with every motion comic that comes out. They are all vastly different at this stage.

But as to what I get out of them... I get a singular writers voice and a singular artists style in the same way that i get from a print comic, but I get it in a way that's more engaging. Not completely immersive yet...not without its clunkiness...or cheeseballness...but eventually they will start getting better and better because they have to be, because reading just isn't going to be enough for the kids of the future.