Are webcomics going to kill traditional print comics?

[webcomicdude]

It's a serious question. I'm not saying this might happen over-night or even this year. But you should consider these neat advantages of webcomics over print:

1) they are free (most of them are)
2) the creators don't starve because they can sell tshirts and ads
3) RSS feeds deliver new episodes the minute they get released
4) websites are not subject to physical degradation like paper

Sure, some comics will still get printed and sold, but kinda in the same quantities as badges and t-shirts.

Cheers
Eugen
of Fredo & Pid'Jin (http://www.eugen.ro/pidjin)

[Charles RB]

Are webcomics going to kill traditional print comics?

No.

-----

[Kid Omega]

It's a serious question. I'm not saying this might happen over-night or even this year. But you should consider these neat advantages of webcomics over print:

1) they are free (most of them are)
2) the creators don't starve because they can sell tshirts and ads
3) RSS feeds deliver new episodes the minute they get released
4) websites are not subject to physical degradation like paper

Sure, some comics will still get printed and sold, but kinda in the same quantities as badges and t-shirts.

Cheers
Eugen
of Fredo & Pid'Jin (http://www.eugen.ro/pidjin)

To seriously consider the counter-argument to your thesis, one must recognize the following widely accepted dictum...

Most web-comics suck ass.

[Voncaster]

Not to mention most people prefer reading a printed page to a screen.

[StoneGold]

To seriously consider the counter-argument to your thesis, one must recognize the following widely accepted dictum...

Most web-comics suck ass.
The question is when will the major companies figure out an economic model that makes web comics a viable medium for them.


Should that have ended with a question mark? Probably, since that was supposed to be a question. Hmm.

[StoneGold]

Not to mention most people prefer reading a printed page to a screen.
Here's the thing about that: you're wrong. Or at least you're wrong when talking about the targeted audience. I wish I could find the study, but apparently more and more kids prefer reading off a screen than paper. To the point of reading books online rather than in book form.

And I'll admit, my case for that would probably be stronger if I could find the study, but the only key words I can remember from it are so common, I'm coming up with everything and anything. But I'm guessing you can't actually come up with any hard proof of your statement, either.

[StoneGold]

Found it: http://pdfdl.oceighty.net/pdf2html.php?url=http://www.scholastic.com/aboutscholastic/news/reading_survey_press_call_2.pdf


Specifically:

Role of Technology in Youth Reading
· Four in ten kids now use a technology device to read * most often
a computer.
· Contrary to what might be expected, kids who use technology
devices to read or listen to books are more frequent and more
engaged readers.
Four In 10 Kids Today Report Using A
Technology Device For Reading
· A computer is the most often used technology platform for reading.
Types Of Technology Devices Kids Have Used To Read
41
% Who Read Using A Technology Device
Technology Platforms Used To Read
17
Other
2
Other type of MP3 player
1
PDA/Blackberry/Palm Pilot
5
23
500
Total
iPod
Computer
© Yankelovich 2006
38
Kids Who Use Technology Platforms To Read
Are More Apt To Be High Frequency Readers
26
22
25
Low
45
31
500
All Kids
49
25
185
Do Not Use
Tech Platforms
44
Medium
34
High
263
% Answering...
Use Tech
Platforms*
Reading Frequency Groups Among Kids Who Use Tech Platforms Versus
Those Who Do Not Use Tech Platforms To Read
Children ages 5-8 selected their response from the following options: "Every day," "Once a week," "Once a month" or "Never." All other kids
selected from the following: "4-6 times a week," "2-3 times a week," "2-3 times a month," "Less than once a month, but at least once a year" and
"Less than once a year." Reading groups are defined as: High = Reads every day; Medium = Reads 4-6 times a week to once a week; Low = Reads 2-3
times a month or less.
Reading Frequency Groups
Pressure from parents may be a factor here. Kids who use technology platforms
to read are almost twice as likely as those who do not use them to report
parents put "a lot" of pressure on them to read for fun (31% vs. 16%).



So basically, your old fogey ass might not like reading off a computer, but the kids dig it.

[1WEBHEAD]

This may be off topic a bit but I didnt want to start a thread on just a small question. Exactly how much dough does the writer get from his or her book?

[howyadoin]

If they were, wouldn't it have happened already?

[Ryan Day]

Bear in mind that as many webcomics become successful, they frequently put out print collections of their strips. As much as web comics are a way to raise your profile and provide a quick and cheap startup, I suspect it's very hard to make a living off it.

[Dan Apodaca]

The trick is not in people wanting to read off the page, or even that most webcomics are crap, but in the simple fact that people, on the whole, like to be able to hold and own an actual object.

It's the same reason that some people don't do direct deposit. They want that item. They want to be able to feel what they bought, and know that it can only get lost if they lose the actual item.

It's the idea of ownership, which is most easily communicated when you have the product in your hands.

[Kid Omega]

The trick is not in people wanting to read off the page, or even that most webcomics are crap, but in the simple fact that people, on the whole, like to be able to hold and own an actual object.

It's the same reason that some people don't do direct deposit. They want that item. They want to be able to feel what they bought, and know that it can only get lost if they lose the actual item.

It's the idea of ownership, which is most easily communicated when you have the product in your hands.

It's also the reason that comics are an easily handled size and shape, and novels are never much longer than 500 pages.

The physicality of the thing resonates... the way your body interacts with the object informs the experience of reading it, or interacting with it.

Web-comics have the physiological resonance of playing OREGON TRAIL.

[howyadoin]

It's also the reason that comics are an easily handled size and shape, and novels are never much longer than 500 pages.

The physicality of the thing resonates... the way your body interacts with the object informs the experience of reading it, or interacting with it.True. Rubbing your crotch against a web-comic isn't very satisfying.

[K'Nort]

Aren't most web comics electronic comic strips rather than comic books? And we hear less about the death of the daily paper now than we did ten years ago, so that doesn't seem like much of an issue.

And in terms of the study, one further thing that's being noticed is that although the under-25 crowd prefers to find everything up on a computer screen rather than pulling it off a shelf, once they find something specific, they print it off to read it. It's driving libraries crazy.

[webcomicdude]

@ Kid Omega: i'm sorry but i disagree, I have seen several excellent webcomics. Several. I have one, and I don't think it "sucks ass" - or, if it does, that's not because it's a webcomic.

Similarly, if I were to mimic your style, I would sincerely find many printed comics to "suck ass". Obviously in a smaller percentage, because it's more expensive to print than to upload jpg files.

However, at least, if a webcomic sucks, the author doesn't have innocent trees on his conscience :)

Will return with more answers to the other questions.

Cheers
Eugen
of Fredo & Pid'Jin (http://www.eugen.ro/pidjin/)

[Patient Boy]

This smacks of shameless self-promotion.

[Donald M.]

To seriously consider the counter-argument to your thesis, one must recognize the following widely accepted dictum...

Most web-comics suck ass.

So do most of the comics in your local newspaper, but at least you can pick and choose amongst the many webcomics out there whereas you're stuck with whatever safe pablum the editors choose to populate their paper's comics page with.

*edit*

Oh jeez, are we talking about actual comic book type webcomics here?

Never mind. They all suck. If any don't, I've yet to see the evidence.

[Michael P]

@ Kid Omega: i'm sorry but i disagree, I have seen several excellent webcomics. Several.
As have I. However, as the recent Keenspot and Comicgenesis FCBD books demonstrated to me, the shit-to-gold ratio is still holding at the proverbial 90%.

[howyadoin]

However, at least, if a webcomic sucks, the author doesn't have innocent trees on his conscienceBut how many poor pixels were sacrificed on your altar?

[Mark Wallace]

Here's the thing about that: you're wrong. Or at least you're wrong when talking about the targeted audience. I wish I could find the study, but apparently more and more kids prefer reading off a screen than paper. To the point of reading books online rather than in book form.

And I'll admit, my case for that would probably be stronger if I could find the study, but the only key words I can remember from it are so common, I'm coming up with everything and anything. But I'm guessing you can't actually come up with any hard proof of your statement, either.
I'd be interested in seeing that study, if you find it. I see the number of people who read my web material as ridiculously high (i.e. far higher than I'd ever expected, because I myself much prefer reading from the printed page), and outstrips the numbers who my printed work by a substantial amount (granted, the bulk of my work in print is non-fiction), so I'd like to know a few details of the demographic.

[Noah Johnson]

As have I. However, as the recent Keenspot and Comicgenesis FCBD books demonstrated to me, the shit-to-gold ratio is still holding at the proverbial 90%.
Oh, it's not that good. 90% of professional work with some kind of barrier to entry is crap. When anyone can just do it and go nuts, you get wonderful creative freedom, intense experimentation, and startling breakthroughs, but the crap percentage climbs to 99%.

[Citizen V]

I can imagine that someday,comics on the web will replace comics on paper.It might happen...

[beyond]

i dont think it will ever fully replace it because this a collector driven medium. i believe that marvels browser based attempt at this is the wrong way to approach it, and a standalone software package(think iTunes) would be more viable. I will say that reading some comics on a 19 inch monitor in the dark is much easier on my horrible eyes, but its also great to have the original printed version archived in my collection incase i want to take it to a con to get signed, or pull out a really cool issue to show a friend or family member.

If it were a subscription based service in the spirit of napster (9.95-14.95 monthly) I feel that books that may not get much attention could see increased sales in a more tangible medium based on digital exposure. I would surely support and pay for such a service, especially if i couldnt afford to pick up my ever increasing pull box on a certain week.

[Melchior]

So do most of the comics in your local newspaper, but at least you can pick and choose amongst the many webcomics out there whereas you're stuck with whatever safe pablum the editors choose to populate their paper's comics page with.

*edit*

Oh jeez, are we talking about actual comic book type webcomics here?

Never mind. They all suck. If any don't, I've yet to see the evidence.

Well, try this:

http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

On the other hand, its cheating, since it was originally a physical comic at first. At least, if I remember everything correctly.

[Josh S]

I'd be interested in seeing that study, if you find it. I see the number of people who read my web material as ridiculously high (i.e. far higher than I'd ever expected, because I myself much prefer reading from the printed page), and outstrips the numbers who my printed work by a substantial amount (granted, the bulk of my work in print is non-fiction), so I'd like to know a few details of the demographic.

It's the post right below the one you quoted.

[Mark Wallace]

It's the post right below the one you quoted.
Oops.

Hey, aren't you supposed to say "DUH!!!"

[Mark Wallace]

It's the post right below the one you quoted.
Ick.
It reads like a sales pitch.

I'd like to see a list of the questions asked. The few that are in there are heavily loaded, so the responses can't be trusted.

[StoneGold]

Oops.

Hey, aren't you supposed to say "DUH!!!"
And depending on your actual demographic, it might not mean anything. All it says is that kids are open to emerging technologies as a forum for reading. And given that it is still an emerging technology, 40% of kids reading regularly from an electronic device is still a pretty good number. But skip a couple years down the line, I'm willing to bet that number will be significantly higher.

But the main point is, while you personally (you being a loose term) may need the physical connection of paper, to say that all people for all time will have that connection is hubris.

[Josh S]

Oops.

Hey, aren't you supposed to say "DUH!!!"


My sincerest apologies.

DUH!!!

[Brian Cronin]

Yeah, I think the biggest barrier to web comics becoming successful is what Alex mentioned earlier. While there certainly are good webcomics out there, the vast, vast, vast majority of them are just amateurish trash.

And when the vast majority of a product is trash, it is not going to go all that far as an industry.

-Brian

[Hiromi]

2) the creators don't starve because they can sell tshirts and ads


And of the proceeds most simply go to paying for the bandwith. How many comics outside of the huge ones like Penny Arcade are actually self sufficient?

[Pól Rua]

@ Kid Omega: i'm sorry but i disagree, I have seen several excellent webcomics. Several. I have one, and I don't think it "sucks ass" - or, if it does, that's not because it's a webcomic.

Which is why he used the qualifier 'most'.
So you DON'T disagree.
Because while you have seen several good webcomics, the vast majority still suck arse.
For every 'Red Meat', 'Penny Arcade' or 'Raymondo Person'*, there are thousands, if not millions of hacked-out, self-indulgent livejournal dialogue + stickfigure 'artwork' rubbish.

Seriously, the good AND bad thing about webcomics is that anyone can make one.
It's good in that it means that extremely talented people who can't afford printing and distribution costs can still get their work seen.
Bad, in that anyone with an opposable thumb can now fill screen after screen with poorly-conceived, ill-crafted rubbish.

That said, webcomics are probably better-placed to do away with newspaper comic strips than comic books, and even then, their are financial barriers to that.

________________________________________
* - pimping my friend Patrick's webcomic... www.chickennation.com (warning: contains cussin')

[Brian Cronin]

In addition, webcomicdude, when you say "this is a serious question," I'm willing to take you at your word, but this best not turn into some circuitous way of plugging your own webcomic.

-Brian

[webcomicdude]

Brian, that's not my intention. And if more people tried to answer to my list of arguments, from the first post, then this discussion would be more to the point.

This is not about whether Questionable Content is better than Pearls Before Swine (just to name a random example, ok?). This is about whether the main publishing medium for comics of *any* kind is going to become the digital, non-paper one. Consider my previous arguments.

This does not mean complete "death" for print, but still - there's a difference in buying a comic book to see new episodes... and buying it just to collect your already favorite episodes, along with other collectibles - caps, badges, t-shirts.

[Brian Cronin]

My responses in bold.

It's a serious question. I'm not saying this might happen over-night or even this year. But you should consider these neat advantages of webcomics over print:

1) they are free (most of them are) - True. But this goes back to the question of quality. If someone is offering free trash and good work for $3, who is going to pick the free trash?

2) the creators don't starve because they can sell tshirts and ads - I'd like to see how many online creators turn a livable profit on their online comic. I'd wager that the percentage is quite miniscule.

3) RSS feeds deliver new episodes the minute they get released - Sure. But, again, quick delivery is not an incentive if the quick delivery is of something of poor quality.

4) websites are not subject to physical degradation like paper - True.

All in all, none of your arguments seem to lead to support the conclusion of....Sure, some comics will still get printed and sold, but kinda in the same quantities as badges and t-shirts.

-Brian

[zedONE]

the case against the rise of the web comic is ill formed.

it's true that the vast majority of web comics "suck ass" but that proves nothing.
it doesn't prove that there can't be a few good ones to challenge the traditional medium.

so we can hope the the net will sift trough and filter out the good ones, and then those wont be comics that were chosen by newspaper executives.
not that that's bad. but if u get a new way of doing the selection, interesting new things can come out. and i agree that this could make for a new wave. could even be a little revolutionary. [again the guy earlier was right this might need a strong backbone - like a viable business model - and that too might be invented some day by some smart people]

[webcomicdude]

mine in regular type:

1) they are free (most of them are) - True. But this goes back to the question of quality. If someone is offering free trash and good work for $3, who is going to pick the free trash?

I believe that the free market will regulate this, and the better comics will rise to the top, so basically when one will have to make the choice you're talking about, he will have easy access to quality stuff from both sides. Even now there are portals, top100's, etc. where you can easily find very cool things.

Also, again I must stress this: It's not "QC vs PBS". It's digital VS paper. Forget the particular examples, because many traditional comics are establishing web bases every day, so soon most comics will have a webcomic alternative. All I'm saying is that this alternative may outgrow the original medium one day.

2) the creators don't starve because they can sell tshirts and ads - I'd like to see how many online creators turn a livable profit on their online comic. I'd wager that the percentage is quite miniscule.

That's probably true, but still it's an industry in its infancy. How many comic books were sold in the early 1900s?

3) RSS feeds deliver new episodes the minute they get released - Sure. But, again, quick delivery is not an incentive if the quick delivery is of something of poor quality.

Of course not, but pls review my previous answer to #1.

4) websites are not subject to physical degradation like paper - True.

Also, did i mention cutting trees? :)

All in all, none of your arguments seem to lead to support the conclusion of....Sure, some comics will still get printed and sold, but kinda in the same quantities as badges and t-shirts.

-Brian

Well, only time can tell, anyway. (Actually, I'm kinda hoping you are right)

[Kid Omega]

We're also ignoring a pretty large issue.... most webcomics are set up as daily strips, or are RSS fed a few pages at a time.

I am not aware of being able to sit down at a computer and read an original work straight through, and one with a complete story and constructed three-act plot.

Is there an OGN masterpiece for webcomics?

Also, maybe we could agree on a list of GREAT (or even GOOD) webcomics...

Strips that are almost exclusively or primarily web-based (so no syndication), and stips that are roundly developed, character-wise and structurally. The art should be a meaningful reflection of the story content.

I can think of:

Cat and Girl
PVP

and that's about it.

[Ed Cunard]

Is there an OGN masterpiece for webcomics?

Derek Kirk Kim's SAME DIFFERENCE is the only one I can think of (although "masterpiece" may be stretching it, no matter how much I love that book). That book, of course, is now a graphic novel published by Top Shelf, so.

Also, MOM'S CANCER, which won the Eisner last year for webcomics, is in GN form and no longer available on-line.

[Kid Omega]

Derek Kirk Kim's SAME DIFFERENCE is the only one I can think of (although "masterpiece" may be stretching it, no matter how much I love that book). That book, of course, is now a graphic novel published by Top Shelf, so.

Also, MOM'S CANCER, which won the Eisner last year for webcomics, is in GN form and no longer available on-line.

Yeah... both of those have garnered most of their readers/press attention as printed books.

If they were web-comics first, it's only because the artists were waiting to be published....

I'm talking works that are basically an on-line phenomenon.

[Ryan Day]

There is a gradual shift in webcomics from being exclusively "daily funnies" to something bigger and more complex. Mom's Cancer, obviously - it was told in installments, but it still works as one story. Athena Voltaire does a more serious story, though it also has its origins as a Flash Gordon-esque strip. And of course there's Finder, which moved from print to the web (at least as far as the monthly is concerned).

But there are still drawbacks. Even Penny Arcade, probably the most successful webcomic, only has a new strip three times a week. By comparison, you get a new Doonesbury every day. And the hallmark of success does seem to be the ability to put out a print collection.

That said, most webcomics have also been started by nobodies, who then rise to some level of fame. I'd be interested to see what a big-name creator or company could do with the format. For some reason, I could see Bill Watterson doing something like that - doing an exclusive webcomic that cuts out most of the corporate interference.

[Ed Cunard]

Yeah... both of those have garnered most of their readers/press attention as printed books.


My point exactly.

[cable guy]

So basically, your old fogey ass might not like reading off a computer, but the kids dig it.

You can put me in the old fogey category.

[webcomicdude]

actually LCD's are playing a role here... they cause less eye fatigue so people end up spending more time reading stuff onscreen.

[Mark Wallace]

And depending on your actual demographic, it might not mean anything. All it says is that kids are open to emerging technologies as a forum for reading. And given that it is still an emerging technology, 40% of kids reading regularly from an electronic device is still a pretty good number. But skip a couple years down the line, I'm willing to bet that number will be significantly higher.

But the main point is, while you personally (you being a loose term) may need the physical connection of paper, to say that all people for all time will have that connection is hubris.
... And we all know what hubris comes before.
"Huckaback" -- look it up.

It's horses for courses. I prefer the feel of printed matter because it has memories for me -- but, at the same time, you could hardly call me a technophobe (I spend up to 20 hours a day on the computer, performing a pretty wide variety of tasks).

It's just that I was surprised at the number of people who read stuff on my site (you can assume whether or not a page has actually been read from the amount of time the visitor spends on it). If it now turns out that a large proportion of those readers are young children, it presents me with a problem, because I don't write for children, and I don't want to have to change that.

Before we get a bollocking for going off topic, though:

I see no harm in web comics. It should be a pretty good way of learning and practising the skills that are necessary to get a job in the real world -- so, for me, it doesn't really matter if most web comics are crap, because they're just part of the apprenticeship process.

[Brian Cronin]

Yeah, Derek Kirk Kim and Brian Fies are beautiful examples (thank you, Ed) of artists expertly using the web to promote their work (I'd add the great Roger Langridge to the list, as well).

But, at the end of the day, they don't WANT to be "just" webcomic creators.

Look at even PVP, the prototypical web comic and Kurtz has the strips collected into print by Image.

So is the web a great promotional resource for comics?

Of course.

Is it going to replace print as the dominant medium?

I do not believe so.

-Brian

[StoneGold]

Yeah, Derek Kirk Kim and Brian Fies are beautiful examples (thank you, Ed) of artists expertly using the web to promote their work (I'd add the great Roger Langridge to the list, as well).

But, at the end of the day, they don't WANT to be "just" webcomic creators.

Look at even PVP, the prototypical web comic and Kurtz has the strips collected into print by Image.

-Brian
Even moreso, when he was offering the strip free to newspapers.

[Brian Cronin]

Yeah, I was gonna mention that...but then I thought, "That seemed more like a protest against the way newspapers screw over new cartoonists than a 'I desperately want to be in print.'"

But it's certainly interesting.

-Brian

[Brandon Hanvey]

I don't think webcomics will ever "kill" print comics. They are both viable mediums of expression.

The real problem with webcomics is making a profit. Making money off webcomics is the hard part since you do not have a physical product for people to buy.

The three main methods of making money are subscription, merch, and ad-based. None has really shown are tried an true way to make a profit. Most sites use one or two to try to make a profit. So far, only a handful of webcomics are actually making "real" money for their creators. Whether this is because of quality or clever marketing is not really my call.

[StoneGold]

I just realized, the question is not quite right. It's not so much a question about web comics, as it is about e-comics. And I think we may all be short-sighted about the distribution methods. Which is cool, unless we're a Warren Ellis-written Tony Stark. But it's not about web comics. It's going to be about whatever kind of portable media device that will best allow some kind of on the go reading from a handy, one-size-fits-all source. And it doesn't quite exist yet, but it probably will. And once it does, it will probably revolutionize everything.


But as it isn't here yet, it's anyone's guess.

[Brandon Hanvey]

Sony is sort of on the right track with their e-reader. But it is a long way from a "digital" book.

[noh-varr]

To seriously consider the counter-argument to your thesis, one must recognize the following widely accepted dictum...

Most web-comics suck ass.

I don't think webcomics will ever destroy real comics. BUt to just plainly claim that most of them suck ass is being too broad stroking in judgement.
There are many great webcomics out there. Some are gag comics like the newspaper strips (Diesel Sweeties goes this route and is damn funny) and others tell full stories (my current favorite Stuff Sucks tells a very good story, if you want more violence and fantasy try out Goblins ).

I was for a long time a dismisser of webcomics mostly cuz I had never seen a good webcomic just a few random ones and never giving them a chance at all. Now? Now I love me webcomics! I still make the trek every week to my comic book store but in addition I get new comics every day! What's not to love?

[Dan Apodaca]

I don't think webcomics will ever destroy real comics. BUt to just plainly claim that most of them suck ass is being too broad stroking in judgement.
There are many great webcomics out there. Some are gag comics like the newspaper strips (Diesel Sweeties goes this route and is damn funny) and others tell full stories (my current favorite Stuff Sucks tells a very good story, if you want more violence and fantasy try out Goblins ).

I was for a long time a dismisser of webcomics mostly cuz I had never seen a good webcomic just a few random ones and never giving them a chance at all. Now? Now I love me webcomics! I still make the trek every week to my comic book store but in addition I get new comics every day! What's not to love?

But do you think that the majority of webcomics are good?

If not, then you don't disagree with what Alex said.

[StoneGold]

Sony is sort of on the right track with their e-reader. But it is a long way from a "digital" book.
True. But the Ipod was a pretty huge leap in technology. Who is to say that a year or two from now at CES, the Next Big Thing will pop over the horizon?

[noh-varr]

But do you think that the majority of webcomics are good?

If not, then you don't disagree with what Alex said.

I haven't read the majoriy of webcomics so I can't say quite honestly. I can say I have found more webcomics I like then I have though were rubbish though.

I do wonder what the instant dismissal is of all things webcomics by most comic fans though.

[StoneGold]

I do wonder what the instant dismissal is of all things webcomics by most comic fans though.
I think it's at least in part of the way the question is phrased. Is some dude's online equivalent of an ashcan you would throw away after perusing it briefly at a con going to replace, oh, let's just say Civil War for the hell of it. No. Of course not. But it's the wrong question to ask. But it's close to the right one.

[noh-varr]

I think it's at least in part of the way the question is phrased. Is some dude's online equivalent of an ashcan you would throw away after perusing it briefly at a con going to replace, oh, let's just say Civil War for the hell of it. No. Of course not. But it's the wrong question to ask. But it's close to the right one.

Then what do you think is the correct question then?

I'm more interested in the dismisal comic readers give to webcomics as soon as they hear it's a webcomic (this as always doesn't apply to all). It's pictures and words used in sequence to make a story it's a form we enjoy. Is it just because it is free? Or because anyone can do it? Anyone can make a comic, print off copies, or pay a company to print it and sell it too, it's what the 70s mini comic craze was all about.
Is a full story in a webcomic with good art and depth the equivilant of say an issue of The Incredible Hulk? Is it the attachment to characters that superheros we grew up on that we hold dear and why we dismiss webcomics? I am honestly curious this isn't meant to be a dismissing or attackign question I am quite intrigued. So please do tell :)

[webcomicdude]

hey, i wonder if we can make a separate thread and nominate some webcomics we all agree are cool?

[Mark Wallace]

hey, i wonder if we can make a separate thread and nominate some webcomics we all agree are cool?
Go for it. I haven't seen many, and I think I'd like to be directed to the better ones.

[DWEarhart]

hey, i wonder if we can make a separate thread and nominate some webcomics we all agree are cool?

That would be great.

I feel that webcomics are like independent comics and independent films, once in a while you find something inspiring, unique, and a true gem, the rest is a "nice try, don't call us we'll call you."

Plus, the sheer number of webcomics out right now, it's insane. Unfortunately, you have to know what's bad before you can know what's good.


As for them killing traditional comics, I really don't see that happening. Stan Lee referred to it best when he said nothing can replace the feeling of flipping a page, or closing a book when it's done.

[webcomicdude]

Super, I'll get to it.

@DWEarhart
I know what you mean about the feel of the page, I have that too. But is it enough? And is it shared by the mass of the comic reader market?

Unfortunately, I have some experience working with some marketing companies, and you would not believe how much cheap stuff weighs, when it comes to the dynamics of economy. I don't want to continue this possible argument, because it depresses me to think of it. Seriously.

[Kid Omega]

I haven't read the majoriy of webcomics so I can't say quite honestly. I can say I have found more webcomics I like then I have though were rubbish though.

I do wonder what the instant dismissal is of all things webcomics by most comic fans though.

It wasn't "instant dismissal".

Later in the thread I named a couple of web-comics I like, and invited others to add to the list.

When I said "most web-comics suck ass", I was not saying "ALL web-comics suck ass". Far from it.

But a STAGGERING majority are unreadable. There is no editorial/screening process to filter web-comics.... it's a huge wash of crap, and occassionally (by word of mouth or otherwise) a few good ones rise to the top. But for every CAT AND MOUSE, there are countless terrible strips. Innumerable. And that majority is a huge anchor on the quality ones.

This question is like asking "Will blogs ever replace newspapers?". Of course not. Because most blogs suck. They are not a reputable source of journalism, by their very nature. And by their very nature, web-comics are a place for hordes of amatuers and hobbyists to put of their work beside pros, and have it all seen side by side with only the reader's taste to discern the good from the crap. And while this may seem kick-ass in a theoretical, cream-rises, diplomacy-at-it's-finest kind of way, it doesn't work that way in practice.

What you get is a continuous American Idol try-out, that never gets whittled down to finalists. And let's face it. When American Idol does come up with their finalists, they suck too.

So I have no inherent problem with web-comics, or even with reading comics on a screen. I think that there are some limitations with delivery and physical interaction, and I think nothing will ever beat actually holding a work in your hand, and owning a beautiful object (Castle Waiting hardcover, as a recent example).

The biggest problem is that, as someone pointed out earlier, the "90% of everything is crap" rule gets jacked up to "99.987% of everything is crap", with regards to web-comics.

[Kid Omega]

True. But the Ipod was a pretty huge leap in technology.

Is it really? I mean, I know that as a wee hard-drive it is pretty spectacular, but fundamentally, it's still just a walkman.

And the walkman was only headphones away from a transistor radio next to your ear.

The idea of "portable music" has been around for several decade.

I guess the idea of fully-digital, no-physical-record is pretty new, but music has always been more ethereal in nature than literature.

People pay big dollars to see a concert, which is fleeting.

Music has a different relationship to the listener than literature has with the reader.... so much so that I don't think ipods and portable readers are comparable.

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

webcomics might be a lil bit more convinient for people who don't have near by comic stores.

[Dan Apodaca]

Is it really? I mean, I know that as a wee hard-drive it is pretty spectacular, but fundamentally, it's still just a walkman.

That can hold 10,000 songs on it at a time, which you can browse through and choose from at your pleasure. For most people, that's more than their entire music collection. That's the big leap.

[Dan Apodaca]

webcomics might be a lil bit more convinient for people who don't have near by comic stores.

Sure, if you you just want to read anything that's in comic form. But if that's the case, then it doesn't really matter what your opinion is, because you'll read anything.

[Michael P]

At this point, print comics are more likely to kill print comics than anything else.

[Mark Wallace]

Sure, if you you just want to read anything that's in comic form. But if that's the case, then it doesn't really matter what your opinion is, because you'll read anything.
Thank you! That gave me my first gut-laugh of the day!

<grump>
... and it's ten past eleven at night.
</grump>

[Shellhead]

I just realized, the question is not quite right. It's not so much a question about web comics, as it is about e-comics. And I think we may all be short-sighted about the distribution methods. Which is cool, unless we're a Warren Ellis-written Tony Stark. But it's not about web comics. It's going to be about whatever kind of portable media device that will best allow some kind of on the go reading from a handy, one-size-fits-all source. And it doesn't quite exist yet, but it probably will. And once it does, it will probably revolutionize everything.


But as it isn't here yet, it's anyone's guess.

I recently bought the Avengers 40-year collection DVD, because I'm very comfortable with technology, and I love the idea of having 500+ issues of comics on one convenient DVD. When I saw that they use Adobe Acrobat, I started thinking about buying a scanner and converting my whole collection to disks.

Then I started actually reading the Avengers issues on that DVD. It was a little tedious. I don't know the exact dimensions of my monitor, but it's slightly smaller than two side-by-side pages of a Silver Age comic. So I could choose between viewing the pages properly except at a slight size reduction, or having to use the mouse to toggle up and down slightly to look at the whole pages. A little too far, and then I'm up on the previous pages or down on the next pages already. And I already use a computer for at least 40 hours of work each week and 10-20 hours of entertainment at home, even more if I have a new PC game. It's not my eyes that bother me, it's the sitting in a chair forever that wears me down.

If had the physical comics at hand, I could lie on the couch or in bed, sit in a bean bag chair, or even go outside and sit in the sun. I could still read the DVD this way if I had a laptop, but then there other issues. Battery usage, heat from the laptop, and screen visibility challenges outdoors. However, if they designed a different kind of handheld device, maybe something as light as a clipboard and twice as wide, with easy controls and a DVD tray, I could see that working well... except for the outside under the sun situation.

[Mark Wallace]

I recently bought the Avengers 40-year collection DVD, because I'm very comfortable with technology, and I love the idea of having 500+ issues of comics on one convenient DVD. When I saw that they use Adobe Acrobat, I started thinking about buying a scanner and converting my whole collection to disks.
Acrobat sucks big-time, but Adobe stuff is a favourite of Microsoft bashers, so it's perfect, despite being a resource-wasting, clanky, incredibly user-unfriendly suite of programs that does things to your computer without asking you first.

Try extracting all the images from the pdf files, dropping them into a zip or rar file, then opening that with CDisplay. Way better.

[howyadoin]

That can hold 10,000 songs on it at a time, which you can browse through and choose from at your pleasure. For most people, that's more than their entire music collection. That's the big leap.Yeah, but it's a leap in degree, not in concept. To strike an analogy, the Model T was a leap in concept; the latest Mustang is just an evolution of that concept.

[Dan Apodaca]

Yeah, but it's a leap in degree, not in concept. To strike an analogy, the Model T was a leap in concept; the latest Mustang is just an evolution of that concept.

Okay.

So?

[howyadoin]

Okay.

So?So an iPod isn't a big leap; it's an evolution of the transistor radio and the Walkman.

[Dan Apodaca]

So an iPod isn't a big leap; it's an evolution of the transistor radio and the Walkman.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Hybrid cars are an evolution of the Model T, but they're also a big leap technologically.

[howyadoin]

they're also a big leap technologically.How so? The technology's been around for years, it just hasn't been applied in the real world till fairly recently.

[Dan Apodaca]

How so? The technology's been around for years, it just hasn't been applied in the real world till fairly recently.

You answered your own question. It doesn't matter how long the tech's been around, as hybrid car is a leap from a Model T. Look at all the space inbetween.