When will decompressed writing fuck off and die?
>>79074689
>people shit on Bendis but praise Whedon for doing the Exact. Same. Shit. With Kitty.
>I'm angry about thing
>I'll just grab the picture of thing off wikipedia
>>79074689
Hope you have a time machine, because you're going to have to go back to at least the early 90s.
Shit's just too lucrative.
>>79074796
Actually, all you'd have to do is go back and kill Bendis.
>>79074783
Why would I go throught the effort of looking for another image, pray tell?
>>79074837
It was around a bit earlier than that.
>>79074689
Not every writer does it. Most can tell a decent arc in 4-6 issues.
Bendis isn't even the worst it can get. Following any Jump series is an endless hell.
What's 'decompressed writing?' In plain language, please.
>>79074689
I can understand having beat panels for the sake of comedic timing, but it's really lazy when most of the page is made up of literally copy-and-pasted panels. There's other ways to lay out a page that can have that pause beat AND then go on to add more information and detail to the scene that adds to the storytelling.
>>79074923
>Most can tell a decent arc in 4-6 issues.
That's still decompressed.
>>79074936
When one writes a story with as little information relevant to the narrative being communicated as possible.
>>79074936
"decompressed" means stretching out how much is going on within each page. In its best sense, it allows more space for background detail, and is usually used to show off art or spectacle in larger spreads. In its worse sense, it just adds fluff that takes up space but does nothing to add to characterization, story development, or other aspects of the narrative.
>>79074689
When writers stop thinking its clever.
>>79074936
The use of fewer words in writing while letting actions tell the story. This means the use of more panels and pages than usual and therefore longer arcs.
>>79074843
Because this clearly shows you just felt like whining about something, and you're too lazy to come up with your own example. Your OP didn't offer anything to say about the topic. There is nothing inherently wrong with the page in question without any sort of context.
>>79074960
>That's still decompressed.
Nigga you can't say that based soley on the number of issues. You have to consider the pacing and what information is covered in that time. And you can only judge that on a story by story basis.
>>79075014
Well that sounds pretty good to be honest.
how come no one ever talks about how manga is decompressed as hell
>>79075015
I just hate decompressed writing in general. Fuck off, dude.
>>79075042
>You have to consider the pacing and what information is covered in that time. And you can only judge that on a story by story basis.
Correct.
Which is why saying "4-6 is a decent arc" is myopic.
>>79074689
The second and third panel could've been one panel with Wolverine doing a double take or the horizontal panel split in two down the middle with Wolverine in each.
But whatever makes getting that page rate easier I suppose.
>>79074689
>When will decompressed writing fuck off and die?
Once when Bendis gets banned from doing comic books.
>>79075054
A lot of the times this means reused panels as well, while stories are artificially stretched out so they can fit into the 6-issue arc mold and be sold as TPBs more easier.
>>79075054
Except that isn't what decompressed writing means. That anon is referring to cinematic paneling.
>>79075071
>Which is why saying "4-6 is a decent arc" is myopic.
Point taken.
>>79074923
>Following any Jump series is an endless hell.
If you follow one series, then yes. Jump and other manga publications have the benefit of being anthologies. The tankobon and kanzenban formats also mitigate decompression as well.
>>79075062
Because parts of Manga stories come out at a faster pace, and Manga volumes collect more pages. It compensates for that style.
>>79074689
I actually enjoy it sometimes, but understand how it's hated (kinda like torture porn in the horror community).
Would you consider yourself a DC or Marvel fan? I think it's harder for DC fans to enjoy decompressed writing.
I'm a Marvel guy btw, and think Bendis has his place.
>>79075062
Because they have to hate Bendis everyday. It's the only thing they know how to do.
>>79075174
>>79075174
Not really. At least if I get Batman Hush or w/e I get a full story. If I want a full One Piece story I have to buy a couple of trades
>>79075062
This is /co/
>>79075196
But I like Bendis...
>>79075174
>Jump and other manga publications have the benefit of being anthologies
That's no fucking excuse. At any given time I'm following multiple series at once. They don't affect each other just because I might read them one after the other.
>>79075217
>Batman Hush
>full story
You only think that because you bought the trade. That story did not need to be 12 issues long, and it certainly showed its poor craft as it was released.
>>79075217
What about one of these three-in-one's they make?
>>79074863
>using Authority as an example
Ellis Authority is like the opposite of decompressed, you nincompoop.
"Decompression" is not a bad thing anymore than "compression" is a good thing. They are both tools that can be used in various ways to tell a story.
Since everyone loves equating Bendis with decompression, let's take a look at some of his work:
>Ultimate Spider-man #1-7
It's roughly a retelling of the single issue story from Amazing Fantasy #15, done in seven parts (with the double-sized first issue, it's more like eight of today's issues). By adding extra pages, we get to know more about May and Ben, we see Peter's interactions with various classmates, and we're introduced to characters like Octavius and Osborn.
Decompression was a good thing there.
>Miles Morales: Ultimate Spider-man #1-12
In twelve issues, almost nothing happens. Two issues are spent telling Miles's father's backstory for no reason, Miles's girlfriend's family is involved with Hydra and Dr Doom shows up for the most uninspiring climax to a comic I've ever read. Things stretch on and on with no plot OR character development.
Decompression is a bad thing here.
--
When things are stretched out to tell you more about the characters or the backstory or whatever else, it can be a great thing. "Show, don't tell" as they say ... it's a lot more interesting than text-dump exposition.
However, when it's used just to pad pages or show off big splash panels without actually adding to the story, it's a bad thing as far as month-to-month storytelling is concerned.
I mention month-to-month because that's the only reason decompression matters. If a graphic novel has unnecessary padding, it's not really a bad thing, because it's not like you're waiting four weeks for the next part, it's just a slightly thicker book (if the decompression is adding the the price, then maybe it's a bad thing).
TLDR: It's not always a bad thing, just like every other story telling tool.
>>79074689
I don't even like Whedon and I think this run is grossly overrated, but there's nothing wrong with this page.
>>79075241
Shh, don't tell anyone.
>>79075275
It was one of the earliest examples of minimizing the information being conveyed in each issue.
>>79075066
Wow, someone's salty. How about you actually add to the conversation instead of shouting your baseless opinions at your computer?
>>79075299
This. OP is a fag repeating buzzwords.
>>79075290
For a really good example of how compressed storytelling can work, check out All-Star Superman.
>ITT: People think only Bendis uses decompression
That's /co/ for you.
>>79075270
you're right but that's not really the point. Especially because I just used Hush because it came to mind first
>>79075272
Not a bad point.
>people think anything that's not Stan Lee style dialogue and narration boxes is decompressed
>>79075341
I totally agree, and maybe I didn't make that clear in my post. Compression can be a great thing, too.
Treating any tool as "always bad" or "always good" is retarded. It's like saying black and white art is always bad.
>>79074689
Reading Claremont X-Men right now it never fails to amuse me how just a few issues could be a year's worth of comics stories these days.
>>79075299
They could've isolated Logan's reaction without making three static panels that take up 2/3rds of the page.
It's not the WORST example of this, but it's still pretty egregrious.
>>79075383
>>79075383
Oh yeah I'm not disagreeing, I'm just pointing out some further resources if anyone was interested to compare.
>>79075290
>Decompression was a good thing there.
No. What we learned about those characters from the decompression did not warrant the length that storyline had.
This page tells us just as much about the main character in one page than Bendis did for almost anybody that wasn't Peter. All he added was "natural" dialogue, which is all modern fans care about.
>>79075375
Case in point.
>>79075241
Nobody likes a liar, Anon. You hate Bendis. Everyone hates Bendis, except Bendis himself.>>79075241
>>79075392
or any old comics really
>>79075440
We learned through character interactions and dialogue rather than exposition. I prefer the latter personally.
Secretly everyone is a Bendis fan. Sure people here like to feel they have superior taste by calling him shit, hack or whatever they want. They feel better knowing their current indy darling is way better than the top dog at Marvel because it somehow validates the comics they are reading and that's fine.
And yeah the things people complain about Bendis are true as well. He likes to write for trades with slow pacing arcs and his characteristic dialogue. Not to mention putting the stories over any kind of continuity fans want to be acknowledged.
But it's also true that what he does is exactly what Marvel needs. He actually puts some effort in trying to change and advance these characters. You people always criticize his changes because you don't want your characters to advance that fast. Maybe if a change is teased and slowly build then in ten years you will accept it but Bendis doesn't have ten years. He wants to move forward himself not wait until his grandsons do the job for him. You hate him for that but it's what Marvel need. His stories also appeal to the readers. He writes what they want to read. Compare Guardians of the Galaxy against Inhumans. Both had the same number of variants but Bendis still won because he writes the team of Guardians people are interested in reading, accuse him of waifuing or whatever but people accpeted Kitty as Star-Lord because Bendis sold her to them in the first issue. He also put the Avengers on the map and some might say he did it by using gimmicks and events but he was the one who dared to pull these gimmicks and events, and they worked. People liked it. Bendis does know what people want. /co/ of course has other ideas, and most likely those ideas would send Marvel into bankruptcy again.
Bendis works, and /co/ loves him. All the hate messages are just the way they have to show their love.
>>79075062
Please don't rile up the weebos, they get vicious.
>>79075533
Oh fuck off.
>>79075533
A Bendis fan?
>>79075515
Except that was one page; DeMatteis now had 22 other pages to develop his themes and characterization.
Bendis doing the equivalent of a single page worth of substantial writing in that amount of time is downright extortion.
>>79075440
All Stan Lee added was quick plot progression, which is all classic fans care about.
See how you can make something sound bad by being condescending?
>>79075515
>>79075582
And that anon should not pretend that what it was we "learned" in the Bendis story was anything close to as multi-faceted as the DeMatteis example.
>>79075582
>extortion
Anon, I don't think you know what that word means.
Can you really not accept that some people like a different kind of storytelling than you do?
>>79075533
Brian Michael Bendis is a gateway writer of the worst kind. He's a bad storyteller, with a clusterfuck of story and characterization that isn't very well done by any aspect, but which attempts to compensate for its weaknesses by adding in excessive double pages and WORDS. The normal anon can see this as the shit it is, and may enjoy it, hate it or be indifferent to it, but all the while recognizing that the writer himself, regardless of their opinion, is plain bad.
However, these very aspects that try to smear over the shit of his core make him a breeding ground for aspie, unsociable tumblr faggots who engage in every kind of faggotry both online and in the real world. The superpowered characters all trying their hardest to look smart, the unending Bendisspeak, boring personalities, the whole quipping faggotry and everything about his stories fuels their escapist fantasies, while the retconned character backgrounds, emphasis on his waifus, and overall preachiness of the writer make it fit just right with the mary-sueish drives of your average redditor and his sense of unwarranted self-importance towards the world. Exactly the kind of shit that makes redditors and tumblr retards eat this shit right the fuck up.
Bendis is basically THE writer to attract the most hated comicbook fanbase known to /co/, which is why, regardless of individual opinions, it is the responsibility of every anon to shitpost the fuck out of this writer and everyone who likes it, and ensure that no Bendis thread (excpet for story times so we can see the trash for what it is) ever encourage /co/mblr to show their faces here.
>>79075597
>All Stan Lee added was quick plot progression, which is all classic fans care about.
But that is demonstrably false. If there's any one thing that Lee did bring to the table, it was giving characters unique and relatively interesting identities within the confines of the story.
And he's not even one of the better examples.
So hold on, compression is adding a shitton of dialogue bubbles and exposition? Cause that's what I get from this thread.
Honestly, I fucking hate that shit. I prefer the art to tell the story sometimes and minimal dialogue can be good. It's a visual medium after all, you don't have to cram a ton of dialogue in every page.
This is why Warren Ellis is my favorite writer.
>>79075635
Bendis' decompression, like many other modern comic creators, is absolutely done to maximize the amount of issues he gets published. These are extreme examples, admittedly, but it's really hard to argue that's not the case.
>Can you really not accept that some people like a different kind of storytelling than you do?
That's not what this is. Please don't turn this discussion into some passive-aggressive dismissal of others' analyses, either.
>>79075677
>So hold on, compression is adding a shitton of dialogue bubbles and exposition? Cause that's what I get from this thread.
No. It's about communication.
You can communicate without exposition, but the problem is most creators use decompression to merely delay the revealing of relevant info. It's being abused as a tool to make sure more issues are made (and therefore bought).
>>79075769
You called it extortion, you're the one who went there first.
>>79075662
>/co/ is so full of newfags that people will fall for this
>>79075582
>>79075606
I haven't actually read Ult. Spider-man in a while. I'm just saying learning more faster isn't necessarily better.
>>79075713
Because he writes the same superficial, edgy character in every story so you don't need to worry too much about what is actually being said?
>>79075677
See >>79075582
Because we got a single page telling all of this info, the writer now has all those other pages (even issues sometimes) to use more effectively/substantially. This is not the only way to do this, but it's the easiest to show.
>>79074943
Snjebjerg, in the second half of Starman, is great at doing beat panels where the redraw expresses a lot of emotional reaction, and never just copies.
>>79075839
Monetary extortion. I'm using it literally.
>>79075858
This anon (>>79075867) gets it.
>>79075896
>literally
>the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats
No one is making you buy it. No one is making you read it.
At least, I assume no one is. If someone is, you should contact the authorities about your situation.
>>79075867
>>79075896
Like I said faster isn't always better. Compression and decompression are tools and both can be used well when its called for. You can never say for sure what information should always be presented faster. It worked in this story but it might not be the best way to present information in other stories. Its a case by case thing.
>>79074756
Fuck Whedon and Bendis both
>>79075934
Fair enough; I'll specify.
The kind of decompression creators like Bendis utilize in done so in order to increase the number of issues being purchased. He regularly writes stories that do not need to be as long as they do, and this is the reason why.
>>79075858
>I'm just saying learning more faster isn't necessarily better.
Same is true for the opposite.
If you go overboard with either, you end up shooting yourself in the foot. You either violate show don't tell so hard that you have become a glossary entry with pictures or the opposite where you have dozens of pages of the art very skillfully communicating nothing in particular.
>>79076024
Yea. So let's agree to agree then.
>>79075976
>faster
This is not a question of time, it is a question of quantity. It is the amount of information being witheld/ignored, not the speed at which it is or is not presented.
>>79076008
At times, you might be right. But some writers (including Bendis when he was actually a decent writer) just prefer that style. Assuming it's inherently malicious is unnecessarily cynical.
>>79076008
Not extortion.
>>79076054
Are we gonna argue semantics now?
>>79076084
>Bendis when he was actually a decent writer
So never?
>>79076085
Hence me specifying. He is making a product of poor because it ironically makes the most money.
>>79074689
It has a time and place.
>>79076133
>not liking Bendis Daredevil
Fuck off fagit
>>79076133
Bendis' Daredevil is one of my favorites fucker.
>>79076089
That is not semantics. Thrillers and mysteries, for example, need information withheld from the beginning to build suspense; it needs to be implemented slowly.
They still need equivalent information at the end, though.
>>79076154
>>79076166
Most likely because you haven't read Miller's because it's "too old," and therefore do not see how Bendis adds next to nothing to the mythos while even ripping off specific plot points and themes.
To be fair, he mostly ignores the latter, so I suppose it isn't all unoriginal.
>>79074689
It'll die off if you can convince the average reader that it's a cheap tactic to sell more books for less stories.
>>79075403
decompression is not a single fucking page
>>79076166
>slowly
Ah ha! I said fast and you said slow. Gotcha motherfucker.
Any way you're whole post is exactly what I meant.
X amount of info in 1 page= fast
same X amount of info in 20 pages= slow
I wish I didn't even have to type that out.
>>79075769
The problem with Bendis is less that he uses decompression. It's more of a symptom really.
The problem is what he focusses that decompression on. Because really, the guy has no interest in actually telling his knock-off bronze age stories about some generic villain doing some generic villain thing so the heroes can still be called heroes.
He really just wants to write flawed characters throwing snappy dialogue at each other. Given those priorities, of course it takes him a fucking year to get one plot line out of the way Claremont would've knocked out in an issue.
Because the actual plot doesn't matter. It's only about endless character interaction.
>>79076207
Nigga I own all of Miller's Daredevil. I can like more than one thing, shithead.
>>79076238
It's a symptom. Decompression on a smaller scale.
>>79076263
No, I just misunderstood. When you originally said faster, it sounded like you meant in regards to how quickly it was presented after starting the story, not how quickly it was presented in the story.
>>79076207
I HAVE read Miller's Daredevil, and I can still appreciate Bendis's run.
>>79076207
Fuck you, I love Miller's run. Man Without Fear and Reborn are some of my favourite comics of all time. I have an original copy of Daredevil 181 displayed on my wall.
I guess it must make things really easy for you to assume that the people who disagree with you are just your intellectual inferiors. Or at the least, misguided.
>>79076270
>He really just wants to write flawed characters throwing snappy dialogue at each other. Given those priorities, of course it takes him a fucking year to get one plot line out of the way
Exactly.
That IS decompression, though; he's withholding information for the sake of cracking jokes and whatnot.
The people in this thread think that anything that isn't episodic is decompressed, which isn't true. It just means that the writer knows how to write and actually told a proper X-issue long story.
>decompression is shit
Only when used by shit writers. The "ultraviolence" issue of Global Frequency was basically just one fight between two guys. And yet, it was so fucking great.
>>79075662
>I was only nine years old
>I loved Bendis so much, I owned all his comics and merchandise
>I pray to Bendis every night, thanking him for the dialogue I have been given
>"Bendis is love", I say, "Bendis is life"
>My dad hears me and calls me a faggot
>He is obviously jealous of my devotion to Bendis
>I respond "I'm a faggot?"
>He says "Yes, you're a faggot"
>I say "But I'm not gay"
>He says "I meant faggot as a generic insult, not to call you gay"
>I repond "It's still pretty homophobic"
>He punches me and sends me to my room
>I am crying now, because I wasn't finished talking
>I go into my bed and it is very cold
>I feel a warmth moving towards me
>I keep feeling a warmth moving towards me for 5 panels
>I feel something touch me
>2 page spread
>It's Bendis
>I am so happy
>He whispers into my ear, "Wanna read my latest comic?"
>"Your latest comic?"
>"Yes"
>"You came to my room to show me your latest comic?"
>"Why else would I come?"
>"I thought you were gonna have your way with me"
>"You're 9 years old, anyone who could possibly think that would be twisted freak"
>"A twisted freak?"
>"Yes"
>"Can I just read the comic?"
>"Go ahead"
>He grabs me with his chubby nerd hands and puts me on my hands and knees
>I'm ready
>I open the comic for Bendis
>He wasted several pages on characters eating and doing nothing
>It hurts so much, but I do it for Bendis
>I can feel my brain tearing as my eyes start to water
>I push against his force
>I want to please Bendis
>He laughs a mighty laugh as he ignores established continuity
>My dad walks in
>Bendis looks him deep in the eyes and says, "It's all over now"
>"Who the fuck are you? I'm calling the cops!"
>"You were suposed to say "It's over now?""
>"Fuck you, what are you doing with my son?"
>"You're no fun"
>Bendis punches the wall and leaves to write about his waifu some more
>>79076294
>>79076344
>>79076361
I just find it really hard to believe that people who enjoy Daredevil for anything more than "Matt Murdock suffers" could enjoy a run that treads almost no new ground than the one before it. They are more than a "little" similar.
I'm actually rather doubtful.
>>79074689
Decompression is fine. It's when it's done poorly that it's a problem. And anything done poorly is going to be, by definition, bad.
>>79076456
Well if you find them so similar shouldn't it make MORE sense that people who liked Miller DD also like Bendis DD
>>79076456
>Why do people have a different opinion to me?
>They must just not know any better.
>Poor ignorant fools
>If only they were as smart as me
>That's it
>That's the only reason they disagree
>>79076499
It doesn't make sense why people would want to read the same shit all over again. I mean, I know this is superhero comics, but still...
>>79075482
>Links me twice
Am-am I really Bendis on the inside?
>>79076329
>No, I just misunderstood.
Sucks that It took several posts of pseudo-arguing to find out we're in total agreement. This website man...
>>79076238
This is one thing that leads to decompressed comics though.
>>79075440
>>79074936
One of my favorite examples of great comics writing is Thanos: Samaritan. Going through on a second reading, now know what happens, makes it easy to appreciate just how meticulous Giffen was with his writing. Every single panel has something new that the audience is learning, be it for the plot, Thanos' motivation, She-Beyonder's characterization, etc. He even throws in humor, but never at the expense of actual storytelling.
>>79075662
>>79075533
>>79076408
Oh, now it's THIS thread.
>>79076693
There is at least one Anon who just unloads all his saved pasta whenever someone mentions Bendis. Doesn't really change what the thread is about someone unless someone were dumb enough to actually reply to it.
This thread makes me want to re-read Bendis Daredevil again.
It's a shame he peaked so early. Ultimate Spider-man was also good for a while, but ever since he started writing New Avengers, he's been on a downward slide.
>>79074923
>Most can tell a decent arc in 4-6 issues.
Most stories were done-in-one or Part 1 (of 2). Six issue stories tended to be minis or otherwise were intended to be a big deal since they were so long.
6 issue arcs are the easiest example fo decompression since stories now took three times as long to tell and were clearly written for the trade.
>>79074689
Manga comes out weekly and is drawn by one person but they don't do this shit.
>>79074986
Lets call it what it is: filler.
>>79077395
Those comics were meant for children. If you want to tell a story that has some kind of impact you're going to need more than a couple of issues (not that one shots can't be great stories as well).
>>79077411
> they don't do this shit.
Are you fucking high?
>>79077441
>Those comics were meant for children.
No they weren't.
>>79077482
Yes they were.
>>79077456
The anime does, but the comics sure fucking don't
>>79077411
Weekly manga are literally the worst offender of abusive decompression in all of comics.
>>79077495
>all of that proof
You sure convinced me.
>>79077538
Comics were targeted towards children as late as 1985. Secret Wars was literally made to sell toys. Adult consumers weren't even considered a valuable part of the audience until the 90's, with the rise of the collectors.
>>79077517
I think you think decompression=filler.
>>79077575
>Adult consumers weren't even considered a valuable part of the audience until the 90's, with the rise of the collectors.
Again: false. Marvel was marketing their comics to the flourishing interest shown by college students as early as the 60s.
Your claim is particularly stupid considering the existence of independent imprints like First and Eclipse as early as the 80s.
And honestly, I'd go as far to say the works of creators like Jack Kirby, Steve Gerber, and the rest of Marvel's 70s bullpen showed a greater regard for didactic and visionary storytelling than anyone on their roster today.
>>79077650
> First and Eclipse as early as the 80s.
pretty sure it was even earlier but yea that anon was pretty dumb
>>79075662
I'm wondering more when this lazy copy paste art from Marvel is going to stop. 3/4 panels in each column are exactly the same. How fucking lazy can you be?
>>79077746
I even forgot stuff like witzend and the other underground stuff.
But it's just the same tired, uninformed opinions as leddi...elsewhere: "these comics have exposition and nobody talks like 'real people,' so they're obviously meant for less intelligent people than myself."
They don't realize comics were written that way because they prioritized story structure over flowery prose (that, and making sure we were getting something worth paying for).
>>79074689
I hate this fucking shit so much.
Used to think it was kinda cool but it's so overused and even worse, it's a complete waste of page space. You can convey that same sort of shit without wastefully using up 50% or more of a page.
>>79076878
I think it's because he rested on his laurels. He came up through the world with those two titles and coasted ever since. Sometimes, you see the old Bendis in his indie work.
What would you guys consider Ellis's Moon Knight? Compressed or decompressed?
>>79078310
Exactly the length it needed to be.
Simplistic story of "superhero beats up bad guy" that only lasted one issue. He didn't do anything complex with it, and therefore did not waste any more time/space than needed.
>>79078310
You mean those six one shot issues he did? I wouldn't call it either. There wasn't much information that needed to be conveyed in those issues. Nothing need to be withheld but not much needed to be said.
>>79078310
>>79078373
This is a great example because the Huston run before it is traditional six issue arcs, yet is equally compressed. It's a lot more thematically rich, and focuses on characterization and introspection, as such needing more room to develop/discuss the ideas and raise moral questions.
>>79074936
In a perfect world it would be using comics as a visual medium to express what characters are feeling through subtle actions and facial expressions, instead of just having a little thought bubble telling you that they're sad/angry/upset.
In the Bendis world, this means recycling a shit load of panels to convey "something".
Pic related.
...why would you start a discussion on modern decompression with an example from 10+ years ago?
It's not even a terrible misuse of the tool; it sets up the comedic beat and I don't believe Whedon resorted to it any other time. There were much worse abuses. Decompression is only bad when the story drags, not when a single page doesn't deliver enough information to your liking.
I can't think of many bad uses of decompression lately; last night I read Yost's Wendigo arc for Amazing X-men and that was an abomination stretched way too thin, but other than that, eh. Even Bendis has gotten better at it, replacing decompressed storylines with boring storylines.
>>79078310
It harkened back to Fell - there was nothing in the stories dragged out over issues, but it always left you wanting more. Ellis really let the art do most of the talking this time though.
>>79078594
>replacing decompressed storylines with boring storylines.
That last arc of Uncanny X-Men was a pretty good helping of both.
>>79078594
If you want a more current example of bad decompression, read Hitch's JLA
>>79078310
A little of both. They're short, self-contained single-issue stories, which are usually compressed comics. But the actual style that he uses to tell them uses things that you typically find in decompressed comics (long background shots, multiple angles and views of a single event or point in time, etc).
I think it's a consequence of the stories themselves being very simple and minimalist.
>>79078723
Oh my god I read two issues of that comic and felt like nothing fucking happened. I hated it. It wasn't even BAD, it was just one of the single most boring experiences I've ever had reading a comic.
>>79078723
We're still not past the Superman story, are we.
>>79078446
God, Gaydos is so fucking bad.
>>79078723
Or Hickman's bloated Avengers run. Or any Bendis comic from the last 10 years.
It really isn't hard to find modern examples. They're everywhere.
this is a really bad example of decompression
>>79078821
>wastes an entire page on a joke.
There are worse, but this isn't winning any prizes.
>>79078843
>>wastes an entire page on a joke
Well, that depends now, doesn't it. If you're writing a comedic comic, then I doubt any writer would consider it a waste to use one page to tell a joke.
>>79078903
Astonishing X-Men is a comedic comic?
It also depends if said comedic comic was still narrative-driven, in which case it would still be a waste.
>>79078779
Worst part is the first JLA issue was twice the size of a normal issue.
There was basically 60+ pages of barely anything. That's half the usual trade.
Decompression can be a legit problem but this thread feels mostly like nitpicking because people can't articulate the actual reason they dislike stuff
>>79078999
You must have the wrong thread. This has been one of the best ones on /co/ in days. It's full of analyses, discourse, and general effortposting.
>>79078947
Did you not read Astonishing X-Men? It was written by Whedon, of course it was comedic. It was also dramatic, action-oriented and etc etc. It wasn't Not Brand Ecch but that wasn't the point either. You're being a little dense over a page that only reused one or two panels for the sake of comedic timing.
No one would force Cassady to draw tiny, cartoonish panels either. It plays against his style. You can't even compare it to the crap Bendis pulled with Glaydos, who I don't believe would ever be in anyone's top 10 or 20 favorite artists list.
>>79079044
You're either shit-tier trolling, or OP and desperate to feel self-important and you can't convince anyone otherwise.
>>79078903
That's what Bendis says to justify his invincible Iron Man jokes.
>>79079047
>It was written by Whedon, of course it was comedic
It had a good deal of humor, but it wasn't a comedy comic. The point is the "comedic timing" shouldn't take priority over the story otherwise.
I have read AXM, for what it's worth, and it honestly isn't a horrible example on the whole. This instance is just exactly the type of non-writing that plagues the industry today.
And Cassaday is a good example of an artist that is better suited for widescreen panels (something he previously made famous with Planetary). But if you're going to make an art-focused book, the narrative should bend to fit that accordingly.
>>79079079
You being ordinate does not invalidate the numerous great posts (from both sides of the argument) in this thread.
>>79079204
The Aragones special was better
These threads always bring out the "Comics should always be like X" crowd. There are different ways to tell stories, there are different tastes, etc.
I agree that dragging everything out into a 6 issue arc when it isn't necessary sucks. But saying there's something inherently wrong with something like OP's image misses the point too. It's like you're trying to apply RPG Minmaxing to storytelling. Minimising wasted space and maximising character/plot information doesn't automatically make for a better comic.
>>79079204
>The point is the "comedic timing" shouldn't take priority over the story otherwise.
But it didn't take priority? It was a one page gag in a 24 page comic? That's like, what, 6% of the entire package?
And widescreen panels were famous well before Cassaday.
>>79079204
There were no posts with any new insight, just retread arguments and misunderstandings that could just have well been gleamed from a wikipedia page or CBR article. Haughty vocabulary doesn't actually make anything sound smarter, it just makes you sound like a dunce.
>>79079699
>But it didn't take priority?
>I have read AXM, for what it's worth, and it honestly isn't a horrible example on the whole.
I've been saying that whether or not a particular example is bad is contextual, but it is also indicative of the problem.
And the extent of discussion most certainly went beyond that which could be gleamed from an article. You not liking the other posters' wording and vocabulary does not mean that strides weren't made in reinterpreting definitions for people whose knowledge was taken...from wikipedia or a CBR article. Not to mention the many examples that were dissected and discussed.
Honestly don't know why I'm defending the validity of an entire thread, but you being dismissive of it is way more of a thick-headed point of view than anyone else here. You probably can't see that through the clouds, being so far up on your high horse.
>>79075677
>It's a visual medium after all
no you retard. comics are a combination of words and images, and different combinations of the 2 can achieve different results.
don't mistake your inability to focus on things that aren't in bright colors for how the medium should be.
>>79078446
in a perfect world idiots like you who harp on about "muh visual medium" as if they're saying someting intelligent wouln't exist.
>>79079959
>don't know why I'm defending the validity of an entire thread
Because you defended it as one of the best to another? I've seen no evidence other than 'it just is'. Nearly every mention of examples, "dissected and discussed" are ~10 year old books.
Decompression in good comics can be good, decompression in bad comics can be bad. I don't believe for a second that over half the people arguing against decompression would enjoy a classic Claremont story without either having grown up with it, or learned to tolerate before learning to love the style; I'd also venture a guess that many would rather read a modern Justice League comic (barring Hitch) than picking up some early Fox-penned JLA. And while I would enjoy Claremont, I wouldn't wish to suffer through the latter's ultra-compressed storytelling for a minute.
Each decade has its own unique quirks in comics; camp of the 60s, house style of the 70s, the awkward trudge into digital of the 80s, the excess of the 90s and the minimalist efforts of the 00s can all be criticized, but there's no one "pure" era without its faults. Arguing over decompression as if it's the 'plague' on the industry it once was is an argument that's about 7 years too late.
>>79080486
>Nearly every mention of examples, "dissected and discussed" are ~10 year old books.
Which apparently makes them invalid.
And again, that's wrong; I've mentioned for the umpteenth time that there was a deal of effortposting and intelligence not seen on this board in a while. I'm not picking out individual posts for you. It should be obvious.
>I don't believe for a second that over half the people arguing against decompression would enjoy a classic Claremont story without either having grown up with it, or learned to tolerate before learning to love the style;
I'm not a big Claremont fan, but that's mostly because of my disdain for X-characters.
But to imply that older, wordier comics such as his are inherently inferior, since we wouldn't like them without nostalgia, is easily more dismissive than pointing out the tendency for modern comic writers to decompress and draw out storylines. I (and others) pointing out that this is exacerbated by the modern audience's preference for these stories is not a condemnation, it is more or less fact.
>>79080486
>Each decade has its own unique quirks in comics
Not to the point where you can generalize them the way you did. 60s was the dawn of Kirby, arguably the sole reason Marvel/DC evolved past those simplistic Fox comics. To say that it is all camp (and that those who like them do so because of said camp) shows a complete disregard for the history of the medium.
>>79080028
Chill your autism, homie.
>>79080823
I'm sorry but you seem to think Kirby wasn't also consciously contributing to the camp of the 60s. Also, Fox was a writer; I don't see how you can compare writers and artists in the same way when it comes to the evolution of storytelling. Especially in an era where the interaction between illustrator and writer was at its largest gulf.
Not to mention that you're definitely reaching to say I said anything of fans only enjoying the 60s because of camp. I hate camp but I've still read every Marvel book of the 60s, including fucking Millie the Model just to satiate my autism.
>>79081136
>I'm sorry but you seem to think Kirby wasn't also consciously contributing to the camp of the 60s.
Why? Because his comics didn't bother making sure their audience wasn't too insecure to let people know they read them? How are comics about "men in long underwear punching each other" any less campier today than 50 years ago?
And it's pretty well known that Kirby had a lot more input on the writing of his Marvel work than people with superficial knowledge think. His comparison to Fox lies in how his comics were visionary and personal. He did not make facile kids books like Fox; thematic and didactic depth--true artistry--are what his stories are so important for.Yet another issue with these decompressed Bendis and co. comics.
>Not to mention that you're definitely reaching to say I said anything of fans only enjoying the 60s because of camp.
You said that was the--singular--unique quirk of the 60s, along with the "house style" of the 70s. (What the fuck is that, by the way? The 70s were easily Marvel's most creatively fertile and experimental period.)
>>79081461
How do you not know what house style is? You sing the praises of Kirby but aren't even aware of the style lifted by Buscema? It's the style that everyone imitated and was considered the "style" of the company to aim for; alongside Cockrum, Byrne and Perez, this style was effective but hardly unique once all the imitators came forth.
70s Marvel was great for the unique few; storytellers were the ones pushing the boundaries, but few illustrators at the Big 2 could have the same said of them - mostly Adams, Starlin (if we don't consider him a storyteller also), Gulacy.
>Kirby had a lot more input on the writing of his Marvel work than people with superficial knowledge think
Plot-wise, yes. Dialogue and captions? He often laid the groundwork, but it lacked nuance and subtlety. It had a very Hemingway-ish quality to it in tone.
Kirby came into it as an artist in the 40s, and could never let go of letting young sidekicks be the mouthpiece that readers could relate to, while the heroes were those he wanted us to aspire to. This trend went well into his work at DC. By the late 60s, it was already becoming a bit tired (and replaced by the trend of reluctant beatniks such as Rick Jones, rather than the quirky Newsboy Legion members he always wanted to take off), with many writers abandoning it altogether. Kirby's works have always been steeped in nostalgia, even at their time, and that naturally comes with a bit of self-aware camp. I would even argue it's the meta-whatever self-awareness of it all that sets it apart from others at his time.
But even then, the fact that I listed one major quality of the decade doesn't mean every work of the decade was held to that standard. That's such a pedantic reach to make.
>>79082341
>How do you not know what house style is?
I know what it is, it's the fact that this was probably the least "house style" decade Marvel had before the turn of the century.
>but few illustrators at the Big 2 could have the same said of them - mostly Adams, Starlin (if we don't consider him a storyteller also), Gulacy.
>Val Mayerik
>Mike Ploog
>Frank Brunner
>BWS
>Genial Gene Colan
>Gray Morrow
>adhering to Buscema's style
I'm not sure what Marvel's house style of the 70s (let alone how it would ever be more emblematic than the creativity of Gerber/Starlin/Englehart/etc) has to do with decompression, though. I was just pointing out that this was not a major quirk of the time.
You are right that, even with his advances, Kirby still had a very formulaic story structure. But you seem to be missing that a story is not just plot and dialogue, but message, as well. Kirby was writing comics that weren't just disposable entertainment; he laid the groundwork for how to write thematically deep and visionary comics (the true aspect that Marvel's 70s period excelled at). My point in bringing it up was to show why the decompression of modern mainstream comics is such a problem: they rarely do this. And the Hemingway-ish dialogue of these creators is not so major a problem to want the kind of dialogue we have today.
>>79074756
>people shit on Whedon but praise Bendis for doing the Exact. Same. Shit. With Kitty.
What's funny about calling the 60s the rise of Kirby is that the dude had been in comics for 20+ years
>>79082922
Except that was when he started doing his most personal and influential works.
Also no one talking about Stan Lee bringing in the personal issues and giving characters personalities in the Marvel boom.
kirby's too bombastic
>>79083006
>>79075665
Couple posts too late.
>>79082810
BWS himself admits to being a Kirby clone, an influence he wasn't able to escape until he left Conan.
Colan also freely admitted his Kirby influence, but he didn't come into his style post-Kirby. Morrow's was an illustrator first, Brunner hardly did anything. I'd argue that Mayerik is an extension of BWS in half his work, and I'll cede Ploog - in all the years of reading him, I've never understood the appeal. He always felt like a Vampirella artist that had to be let go to me.
House style is only about the art, and it's a phrase used by Marvel themselves in the old lettercols; Marvel Method is the writing, which you seemed to be confused about. It definitely was a major quirk of the time, and relates to decompression because they were/are both the notable storytelling/illustrating methods of their times, if we're focusing solely on art as the argument demands.
From your condemnation of "disposable entertainment" and "facile kids books", I'm assuming you find those comics inferior. I would say my tastes align the same way, but I can also appreciate them for what they are, as a product of their time (and as such, find wholesale condemnation of the style silly).
The decompression of the 00s can be looked back on in the same way. I really would argue that visual storytelling has moved on to a new era, noted by more artistic (JHWIII-inspired) double page spreads and creative use of panels/layouts as artists finally are given the freedom from editorial that artists of the 70s freely, though conservatively used, pre-Shooter era before falling back into the predominate house style previously mentioned.
>>79083381
Again, I'm aware of what house style is. I only brought it up because you mentioned it as the primary "quirk" of the 70s a few posts back (or at least the quirk more deserving of being mentioned than the fact that the stories took a natural progression from Kirby's thematic depth and began playing with formula).
And the Marvel Method, while still not truly giving a writer the full control of a script, still allowed for one to take control of the factors that are most relevant to this issue. When Gerber writes a satire of Kung Fu movies in Howard, he's explicitly deciding that it will only be one issue. When Englehart does a story about Mantis and the tree people, he explicitly decides to discuss epistemology and racism.
>but I can also appreciate them for what they are
>I really would argue that visual storytelling has moved on to a new era, noted by more artistic (JHWIII-inspired) double page spreads and creative use of panels/layouts as artists finally are given the freedom from editorial that artists of the 70s freely, though conservatively used, pre-Shooter
These are both statements I would agree with, too. You recognize the trailblazing these Bronze Age creators managed, and that the best artists of today built off of them.
But I've mostly been talking about decompressed writing. There's keeping the style of the artist in mind, but it's mostly the scripting/plotting I take issue with.
>>79083679
>more deserving of being mentioned than the fact that the stories took a natural progression from Kirby's thematic depth
because we're talking about visual storytelling, not written. That's the crux of the argument; otherwise I would have mentioned the often heavy-handed social activism of the seventies.
I think our misunderstanding is that you lay the fault of decompression on the writers, as opposed to the laziness of the illustrators. While I'm sure writers (notably Bendis) call for those television script-inspired storytelling "beats", I place more decision-making on illustrators, having read many of Bendis' scripts and finding them lacking in any inspirational qualities worth emulating - though they do leave a lot of freedom up to the illustrator, it's the illustrators who wouldn't take advantage of this freedom.
Ultimately we're arguing different things and we can leave it at that. I'm at least a bit more satisfied with the thread than before.
>>79083826
>because we're talking about visual storytelling, not written
This I think is a point of contention. If you want to talk about different types of storytelling being valid, how is the more static paneling + exposition style of the old stuff less of a visual storytelling style than cinematic panels?
>lay the fault of decompression on the writers,
>it's the illustrators who wouldn't take advantage of this freedom.
Still think that this is how these best comics are made. Howard Chaykin was an especially vocal detractor of the laissez-faire script writing of modern comics. He, an illustrator, feels the best comics are made with the writer strictly guiding the artist.
Heavy-handed...again, I find it better that commentary and message are being made than just the kinds of distractions we get today.
But if want to "leave it at that," sure. I thought this was a fine debate once we got off each other's backs,just like the last time we did this.
>>79074936
It's comic book writers using the popularity of manga as an excuse to stretch a simple storyline over six issues.
>>79074689
Better than tl;dr.
>>79087585
That art makes me erect though.
>>79087585
wow flashback, that was the first comic book I ever owned.
>>79075440
This is more an illustrated novel than a comics. The worst I've seen is the euro comics Black and Mortimer which can honestly be more akin to an illustrated theater play than a comics in some pages.
It's probably because I read a lot of manga but I tend to like when in a conversation between 2 characters, instead of having one panel with 2 big dialogue bubbles, it take a whole page with wide shot and close-up of, I don't know, people's hand, face, part of the room... It builds an atmosphere for the scene, shows how they react to what the other says. I think it's more natural than when a dialogue is a monologues exchange.
>>79087585
>reading is hard :(
Kill yourself, my man.
>>79090419
I'm not him but drawing in comics are supposed to convey something. In the central panel, you have a whole dialogue but the only thing the drawing convey is "Magneto is an imposing character". It only suits the first two dialogue bubbles of this panel : "Cyclops!" answered with "Magneto!"
It's clear they lacked pages to tell everything they wanted to set up the next issue, so they cram all those informations in 1 big panel.
I think what makes it really bad is repetitive art.
>>79074689
>Make a panel without dialogue
>people can't handle it, they can't understand what's happening unless it's being explained by the characters
>have Asperger's meltdown and piss their pants
>>79076408
>>79090613
The whole point is that nothing is happening in those panels.
A change in facial expression though it can be done well usually isn't worth the space it takes up
>>79075990
No one's expressed those sentiments here before, you're such a rebel.
>>79076024
>Same is true for the opposite.
That was the point of the anon's original post.
>>79090613
It's not that it doesn't have words it's that it takes up way too much space for what it's doing. At least on OP's page, honestly you could crop out Kitty and Colossus and put the three wolverine reactions side by side and it'd work better.
>>79080028
Comics are not a combination of images and words, they're a combination of images and stories. Words can be included in said images and stories but they aren't necessary for something to be a comic like the other two are.
decompression only works in manga because manga is either 40 pages per month or 20 pages per week. comics have 20 pages per month, that shit doesn't fly.
>>79093457
It's fine. You're a fucking moron.
>>79075062
Because manga has more pages to tell their stories than comic books, desu senpai.
>>79093516
Man if you're okay with someone cutting corners like this that's cool, but it is unnecessary and it's certainly not good. It's the comics equivalent of anime using background pans during long conversations to avoid actually animating.
>>79080823
>60s was the dawn of Kirby
What? Kirby had been involved in comics since the Golden Age and even though he obviously peaked in the 60s most of his thematic qualities had been nourish and developed well before then.
>>79093457
Serious question:
Do you complain about scenes like the opening of Inglorious Basterds? That first scene was like 15 minutes of just slow conversation. Nothing "happened" in it other than character interaction. We could've learned the same about the characters in less time.
Now, I understand that one of the complaints is page use in a monthly setting. Comics are often 20 pages per month, while this is just a few minutes of a 2+ hour movie. But once the trade is released, they're in the same position.
So why is it okay in movies but not in comics?
>>79094542
Different media, anon. In a movie you can be slow so as to build an atmosphere, but a comic doesn't usually need such decompression. Just take a look at past masterworks.
