Talk:American comic book tropes

German Interwiki

I disagree that the German Interwiki is incorrect. The articles do largely contain the same topic. The titles are different but this srticle isn't a description of glosses. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

History

I would think that a "vocabulary"/glossary of comics should at least mention terms and concepts like "Silver Age", "Golden Age" and some of the genres (not least to note that "Superheroes" isn't it), but would someone like to suggest whether it would be appropriate to include a (very) brief "History of (Modern) Comics" (i.e. 1933, 1938-Superman; 1947-Romance; EC; 1954-Wertham&Code; 1961-Marvel; 1960s-Underground; 1970s-Direct market&Shops; 1980s-Maus/Watchmen/DKR; 1988&1992-Dark Horse&Image; 1990s-Bust) which could then interlink ages, genres and key people without detailing them in an encyclopedic fashion...? ntnon (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree Golden Age and Silver Age should be included (with the main entries lined in) but I suspect a history is best done at Comics and American comic books. (Emperor (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

Examples added

I added some example illustration, one of which includes sound effects. There is no section for this. Perhaps an expert could add some information on this topic (BAM! BAM! SPANG! SPLAT! WANG! KAWUNNGG!) - Leonard G. (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Motion comic

Motion comics should have a separate article. It is a new growing medium that is not properly covered in the two sentences included in this article.--Marcus Brute (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be some kind of fumetti to me? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And, by the way, it's not really a new medium, I know similar "fumetti"/"photonovels" have been made since at least the 50's throughout the world. I don't think it warrants its own article, although possibly a sub-section under fumetti (which already is quite exhaustive). 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Or is it rather a form of limited animation? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not fumetti as I understand it (or as the article explains it) and limited animation is closer. It basically separates out the elements of the panel and moves them to give the feeling of parallax and depth - like parallax scrolling).

Also I as I said on the Comics Project talk page when I started this, there is potential for a full article [1]. I'd recommend expanding the section here and adding sources. We can then look it over and see what the potential is for a split. (Emperor (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Okay, now I begin to understand it, I think. I'd consider it limited animation, or something similar. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

With an eye to collecting sources so we can see if a split is in order, here is a useful overview (the author is at MIT).

Also on how to define these someone pointed out that Assy McGee and Minoriteam have very similar animation styles (especially to the X-Men one I saw recently which uses some limited digital manipulation of the oriignal art to make mouths and arms move), which would tend to put it somewhere between comics and (very) limited animation. (Emperor (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

A big long list from Mike Rhodes on the Comics Scholar mailing list - just a text dump:

- Courtesy of the once and future Comics Research Bibliography - http://www.rpi.edu/~bulloj/comxbib.html The special 3rd issue of IJOCA this year will be a bibliography - now perhaps including this selection.

• Giving Spider-Woman the Motion.

Phegley, Kiel. 2009. Comic Book Resources (August 28): http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=22724

• Bendis Talks Spider-Woman

by Dave Richards, Staff Writer Wed, August 19th, 2009 at 8:58AM (PDT) http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=22595

• Marvel Hotline: Brevoort on Spider-Woman

Executive Editor Tom Brevoort gets us inside the next great phase in Marvel storytelling! Posted: 2009-08-19 Updated: 2009-08-19 17:38:24 http://marvel.com/news/comicstories.9234.Marvel_Hotline~colon~_Brevoort_on_Spider-Woman

• Comix that Zzizzl: Dennis Morrison

By Wolfen Moondaughter August 10, 2009 http://www.sequentialtart.com/article.php?id=1466

• Comic book icon signs with ICM

Neal Adams, Continuity Studios eye feature films By Borys Kit Aug 3, 2009, 11:00 PM ET http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3icaec2feffc977edc6bc9fc961255105d

• SDCC 09: The Future In Motion: Katt, Pare talk SPARKS

By Vaneta Rogers posted: 23 July 2009 http://www.newsarama.com/comics/070923-MotionComics.html

• Watchmen, animated? It works

A new adaptation of a classic comic book sets a high standard for a relatively low-tech art form Kate Taylor Toronto Globe and Mail Monday, Jun. 08, 2009 04:17PM EDT http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/watchmen-animated-it-works/article1173722/

• Talking with IDW's New ePublishing Director

by Caleb Goellner, Guest Contributor Tue, May 26th, 2009 at 3:58PM PST http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21347

• The Q: Changing Technology, Changing Comics

By Vaneta Rogers posted: 26 May 2009 http://www.newsarama.com/comics/050926-TheQ-Tech.html

• 'Motion Comics' vs 'Illustrated Films' - Analysis of Watchmen & Godkiller

PRWeb Thu May 7, 3:01 am ET Award-winning filmmaker Matt Pizzolo compares and contrasts the newest animation formats based on an analysis of Warner Premiere's Watchmen motion comics and Halo-8's Godkiller illustrated film. Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) May 7, 2009 -- Award-winning filmmaker Matt Pizzolo ("THREAT") has outlined the distinctions between two emerging animation formats, 'motion comics' and 'illustrated films,' in his Hollywood-2.0 blog (http://www.hollywood-2point0.com).

• The Future of e-Comic Books - Some Questions & Answers

By Vaneta Rogers posted: 09 April 2009 http://www.newsarama.com/comics/090409-e-reader-comics.html

• Animated Shorts: Watchmen Motion Comic, Black Freighter

By Steve Fritz posted: 17 March 2009 http://www.newsarama.com/tv/090317-animated-shorts.html

• Brian Michael Bendis: Spider Woman Motion Comic

http://www.newsarama.com/common/media/video/player.php?aid=26244 Brian Michael Bendis talks Spider Woman motion comic and Dark Reign at NY Comic Con 2009.

• Marvel Makes Motion Comics, DC Teases New Format

By Laura Hudson -- Publishers Weekly, 2/9/2009 8:54:00 PM http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6636198.html?nid=2789

• NYCC '09 - Brian Bendis on Spider-Woman Motion Comics

By Vaneta Rogers posted: 08 February 2009 http://www.newsarama.com/comics/020908-Spider-Woman-Bendis.html

• William Katt Presents - Sparks on iTunes

http://www.newsarama.com/common/media/video/player.php?aid=25556 A behind the scenes documentary of Sparks, the first motion comic book for the iPhone and iPod Touch.

• Word Balloon: Watchmen Motion Comics' Jake Hughes

By John Siuntres posted: 28 January 2009 http://www.newsarama.com/comics/010928-WB-Watchmen-Motion.html

• Katt, Folino & Pare Talk "Sparks" Motion Comic

by Emmett Furey, Staff Writer Fri, January 23rd, 2009 at 1:53PM PST http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=19675

• New York Times December 28, 2008

Prototype The Comics Are Feeling the Pain of Print By LESLIE BERLIN http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/media/28proto.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

• New life for old Batman comic

Posted by Eric Franklin CNET's Crave December 9 2008 http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10119457-1.html

• Word Balloon: Alex Ross - Batman, JSA and More

By John Siuntres posted: 04 December 2008 http://www.newsarama.com/comics/120804-Word-Balloon-Ross.html The acclaimed graphic album Batman: Black & White debuts Tuesday, December 8th as a Warner Premiere Motion Comics series.

• Warner home video arm sets live-action Web series

By Andrew Wallenstein – Mon Nov 24, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081124/media_nm/us_media_premiere_2

• 'Peanuts' Goes Hi-tech With Animated Webisodes.

Associated Press. 2008. Editor and Publisher Online (November 3): http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/departments/syndicates/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003886371

• Batman, Superman get animated

Set for digital-motion treatment from Warners, DC By Borys Kit Hollywood Reporter Oct 8, 2008 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i7e19cce243eb21aa51690a063cbe5edf

• Michael Jantze on Creating YouTube's "How To" The Birds & The Biz

Jennifer M. Contino Comicon's The Pulse 09-10-2008 http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=007463

• Paul Levitz Talks Digital Comics

PW Comics Week August 26, 2008 By Laura Hudson -- Publishers Weekly, 8/25/2008 http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6590126.html?nid=2789

• Comic Books Evolve, from Ink to Internet

Although print comics are still thriving, Marvel and DC Comics are getting a head start on finding digital outlets for their properties by Chris Albrecht Business Week August 22 2008 http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2008/tc20080821_870628.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_technology

• The Future Is Almost Now

Publishers are taking a close look at a variety of models—from the Web and mobile phones to iTunes and the Sony Reader—for the digital delivery of comics. by Laura Hudson -- Publishers Weekly, 8/18/2008 http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6587963.html?nid=2789

• SDCC 08: From Paul Levitz's Point of View

By Matt Brady Newsarama 2008-08-11 http://www.newsarama.com/comics/080811-SDCC08-Levitz.html

note this bit apropos of this week's news - " Well, it's a Warner Premiere business venture. When they wanted to do it, part of my role was traveling with Diane Nelson, who ruins that division to England and sit down with Dave Gibbons and show him the stuff and see if he was okay with it, and get his input on how we could make it better. Dave got very involved and took an active role in how we were developing the Watchmen Motion Comic."

• Stephen King, Ready for Download

Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2008 By GILBERT CRUZ http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1832062,00.html

• Warner Premiere's Motion Comics Launches with Highly Anticipated Debut

Episodes of "Watchmen" and "Batman: Mad Love" Last update: 1:00 a.m. EDT July 18, 2008 http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/warner-premieres-motion-comics-launches/story.aspx?guid=%7BEAB68E13-FD5E-47E3-A816-CF56AAC2E700%7D&dist=hppr

• Web Draws on Comics

Online Shorts Boost Batman By SARAH MCBRIDE Wall Street Journal July 18, 2008; Page B10 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121634908179464605.html?mod=googlenews_wsj }}

--

There should be plenty of useful material there, if you do use them then try and format them using {{cite web}}. (Emperor (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Split

I see a split has been suggested. As I said above and on the Comics Project talk page, I'd suggest assembling sources and expanding the section and then we can look at splitting it. As it stands, the section doesn't demonstrate enough content or sources to support an article. What I want to avoid is this just coming back to us as a merge. (Emperor (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

I agree. I also have my doubt "motion comics" are even comics, they just appear as the kind of limited animation common on american TV in the 60's. (Captain America etc., not really Hanna-Barbera and the stuff people remember.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bleed

It may not be notable, but the Bleed from the DC/Wildstorm comics is named after the structural element; in the comics, it is the space between universes, literally what's off the page. I saw this confirmed by Warren Ellis somewhere; if it's considered notable, I'll try to track down the quote. Kelvingreen (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"Cartoonist" in quotes

Why is "Cartoonist" in quotes? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 05:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Restricted to comic books?

Why is this article restricted to comic books? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 05:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Article needs to be reworked

This article has a lot of serious issues. It's definitely written almost entirely from an American perspective, and not only that, but from an American comic book perspective. Just look at how many times the word mainstream is used as a synonym for Marvel/DC comics, as if Marvel/DC were somehow more "mainstream" than Peanuts or Calvin and Hobbes, and as if superheroes mattered in the least in the international market (they don't---they're strictly fringe in European and Japanese comics). Its usage is an insulated recentism, and should be barred entirely from being used on the page.

I've gone and started a Glossary of comics terminology as an article to contain comics terms that aren't restricted to one culture, form or genre. I suggest this article be renamed to something like Glossary of American comic book terminology, and stripped down to focus on that. The page is so long and unfocused, not to mention severely lacking in references. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 08:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Thus, Watchmen is not a graphic novel"

I'd like to source some of the original research here, but it's difficult to find reliable sources that really care about splitting hairs over whether Watchmen was a comic book collected into a trade paperback or a graphic novel. I did find a few newsblogs that discussed the issue, but they looked very much to be written by irritable fanboys. I guess I can dig up those articles again if someone wants to see them, but it was mostly just a matter of trying different variations of Google searches like "watchmen" "trade paperback" "not a graphic novel" and "alan moore" "graphic novel". As such, I'm really not sure that we should spend spend such time splitting hairs over definitions, either. If I remember, I might come back and clean up a bit of the fanpov and original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• The term "graphic novel" has always been a moving target, but the dispute you refer to belongs to the world of 20th-century fanboys—since 2001. At the turn of the century, Art Spiegelman and Chris Oliveros successfully lobbied the Book Industry Study Group to include a "graphic novel" category, which has since been used by bookstores and libraries to categorize comics. Since then, many booksellers and libraries have been using the term "graphic novel" to refer to comics in general, and this usage has gradually spread with the public as well. Whether Watchmen was a graphic novel by one of the many definitions of the term circulating in 1987 is irrelevant; by 2014 definitions it inidisputably is a graphic novel. Remember, back in 1987, many comics fanboys distinguished between graphic novels and trade paperbacks based on whether they were original content or not—a manner of thinking that it is surprising to discover still lingers in some mothers' basements. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that it needs to go. I figured I'd take care of the most uncontroversial edits first, as I didn't want someone to revert me on the basis that "everyone knows it's not a true graphic novel". There's more original research around the crossover and one-shot sections, too. The continuity section should actually be fairly easily to cite. Crisis was a pretty major event, and it's still discussed today. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I might have gone a bit overboard, but I got rid of most of the stuff that was bothering me since I already pointed it out. There's still a huge emphasis on Marvel and DC superheroes, but it's not as insanely blatant any more. The article completely ignores the entirety of European comics, Disney comics, romance comics, horror comics, etc. I kind of expect Wikipedia to pretend that romance comics never existed, but the others are a bit perplexing. The superhero-only tropes needs to be pruned down so that they don't dominate the article, and non-superhero tropes should be discussed somewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Scroll up a notch and you'll see I already started Glossary of comics terminology that has a broader focus (international, genre-independent) that is properly sourced; this page, as I suggested above, should be moved to a title that reflects the narrow focus of its content. Even then, this page is chock full of OR and insular fanboy cruft, as you've noted. The whole WikiProject suffers from this, and there's a lot of resistance to trying to balance and fix things. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Hmmm. Is there anything that needs to be salvaged from this article? The illustrative panels here might be useful, but that one already has a few. It probably wouldn't be difficult to transpose some of the major concepts (retcon, crossover, shared universe, secret identity, superhero, etc). In that case, we could just redirect this article to that one. Unless we rename this one to "Superhero comic book concepts", which is what it actually is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
          • No, I think that article should stick strictly to general comics vocabulary. There's nothing about a "retcon" or a "crossover" that's either generally a comics thing: they have nothing to do with most non-superhero comics, and retcons and crossovers happen outside of comics. There's a big difference between that kind of thing and comics-specific terms such as "panel", "word balloon", "gutter", etc, which are the building blocks of comics. This article needs to be renamed and refocused. I'm not sure what would be best—"superheroes" is a little too limited, perhaps, as it would apply to many Marvel and DC comics that don't necessarly star superheroes (think Conan and Red Sonja crossovers, etc). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
            • Yeah, that sounds good. If we reserve the technical concepts for that article, we could discuss tropes in this article. With that in mind, how about "Comic book tropes" or "Tropes in comic books"? Could also use "elements", "concepts", or other near-synonyms. If we did that, then we'd get rid of all the "writer", "artist", "panel", "gutter", etc. stuff. That would differentiate the two articles sufficiently that they didn't massively overlap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
              • Yeah, something like Glossary of American comic book tropes might work. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
                • I'm certainly not opposed to retitling it to represent what the article is actually about, but it seems a bit pessimistic to think that the article could never be improved to be more broad in scope. We could add a bit about Métal Hurlant, Jeremiah, and The Adventures of Tintin, for example. Also, it's not difficult to find sources on British comics, such as 2000 AD and Marvelman. Not that I'm volunteering to rewrite the article, but... I think it could be done. Not sure if manga would fit in here, as there's probably a dozen articles about that already, knowing Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
                  • I don't think it's a matter of breadth, I think it's a matter of mixing scopes. "Supervillain" is a basic trope in American comic books. It's not in European magazines and albums (which are not even "comic books"). This just opens up new issues—do we include every trope that has ever occurred in any comic anywhere on earth in any age? If not, then where does the line get drawn, and how does that line get enforced on The Encyclopaedia Anyone Can Edit? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
                    • Any disagreement that I might have would not worth arguing over. If you prefer an American scope, that's good enough for me. If you want to move it to Glossary of American comic book tropes, I'd support that. Or I guess we could seek more input, but I'm not sure it's necessary. Given that the article has languished for quite a while with the merge tag, it doesn't look like this would be a particularly controversial move. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
                      • I wouldn't get my hopes up for a higher quality article, or productive discussion—there are more than enough Project members who beleive, for example, that neither comic strips nor manga are "comics". Most of my edits are comics-related, but it pains me nearly every time I have a "discussion" with the narrow-minded basement dwellers who populate the Project. Do what you dare with the article, and pray it isn't reverted by some valiant editwarrior protecting their personal definition of the distinction between "trade paperback" and "graphic novel". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

New scope

As discussed, changed the scope of the article. I know that the lead is too short, but I'll work on expanding it later. I dislike writing leads, and most of the articles upon which I work labor under a frankly inadequate one until I'm done messing with the actual content. Or someone else can write a better lead. Here's a summary of the major changes I made:

• I removed a lot of content from the article. The technical details are better handled in glossary of comics terminology (GoCT). This article is now focused on plot elements, such as retcons and crossovers. I did summarize some of the elements under a new heading, but this could (and maybe should) be moved to American comic book.
• Better layout and structure. In my opinion, the original structure was haphazard, and it seemed to be written in as a stream-of-consciousness essay. I logically connected the major concepts under proper subheadings. Some of them got moved around as a result. The "storylines" section seems a bit arbitrary to me, and I think it could probably be moved into "continuity" without much trouble. However, the original structure seemed to indicate that it was separate from continuity, and I maintained this division.
• I added extremely brief sections on superheroes and the Duck universe. They can be expanded, but I'm not sure that I'm going to do it. I don't know much about Disney, and I'm not terribly interested in the topic. However, I wanted to include at least some mention of a major publisher besides Marvel and DC. There are many other publishers, franchises, and genres that could be discussed. Some major publishers include Dark Horse Comics, Malibu Comics, EC Comics, Archie Comics, Charlton Comics, IDW Publishing, Fawcett Comics, etc.
• I streamlined a few sections. In particular, the Earth 616 section was a bit sketchy. I found better sources for that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • For "universes" I get the feeling it might be better to discuss the general concept of a comics "universe", and then give some examples, rather than have subsections for a bunch of universes. After all, there are in-depth articles on Marvel Universe, DC Universe, and Duck universe that handle the details. I don't know what to do about sources, though—are tehre sources that talk about shared universes in general?
  • I hope we'll get something better than "According to documentarian Michael Kantor, superheroes are a "uniquely American" phenomenon." for the Suprheroes subsection. These things should be descriptive, and here we have no description of what a superhero is—just bluster and flag-waving! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It was the first thing that I found about superheroes, comic books, and America. Expert opinion is perfectly legitimate to quote, but I'm not interested in edit warring over placeholder text. I don't much care whether the individual universes stay or go, but it would be better to describe the concept than to list them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Links and redirects

Would someone have the time and energy to go through the links and redirects linking to this article. I believe a lot of them would be better linked to Glossary of comics terminology. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Splash panel now redirects to the proper article. Prestige format does not have a section in Glossary of comics terminology, and I don't think Curly wants it there. It may need to stay redirected here or become redirected to a better destination. Since so many articles link to it, maybe it's notable enough for its own article. I will look for sources. Comics vocabulary, Comic vocabulary, Comics terminology, and Comic book vocabulary now redirect to the proper page. The individual pages were linking to those redirects. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Alright. Thanks. I think the change of scope, and the moves and new article names caused some confusion. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• I can't really find enough sources to create more than a micro-stub; it would almost certainly be deleted as a dictionary definition. I added back a description of the term and pointed the redirect to the appropriate section. One option is to create the page as a soft redirect to Wiktionary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If the article is now being refocused on "tropes", one could argue that formats aren't tropes. How about starting a List of comics formats? Having said that, is "prestige format" really a term that's set in stone, or can it refer to anything published in a format that has the air of "prestige"? Is "prestige format" even comics vocabulary? Googling around, I see "prestige format" DVDs, resin statues, paper... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, scope is a definite problem here. I think your idea is probably the best solution. Maybe the removed sections from this article could be restored to that new article, but it seems like maybe it'd be better to just start off from scratch without the original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)