I'm Sorry....But Motion Comics Suck.... [Archive]

Bullets& Bracelets

11-02-2009, 05:52 PM

The Beast Of Yucca Flats

11-02-2009, 05:56 PM

You need never have to apologize for this.

Michael P

11-02-2009, 05:56 PM

Never apologize for speaking the truth.

If this is the future of the medium, somebody hand me a time machine.

SUPERECWFAN1

11-02-2009, 06:09 PM

Never apologize for speaking the truth.

If this is the future of the medium, somebody hand me a time machine.

Well someone must have used the time machine , went back to 2004-2005 because Marvel already done this. Remember those DVD's of Ultimate X-Men 1-6 ? Those had sound and brief moments of action/dialogue by people voicing the characters.

Its wild this would be considered "new" now...since they did this years ago. :tongue:

Spackling Compound

11-02-2009, 06:10 PM

I thought this was pretty cool when it was incorporated as a cut scene in The Ravages of Apocalypse Quake add-on back in '97.

Back when I was a kid..like..34. I'm wayyyyy over it now.

Charles RB

11-02-2009, 06:11 PM

They suck and blow.

And I swear to God that half the people going "they're the HIP! NEW! YOUNG! thing!" are older than me. You bunch of poseurs.

Michael P

11-02-2009, 06:11 PM

Well someone must have used the time machine , went back to 2004-2005 because Marvel already done this. Remember those DVD's of Ultimate X-Men 1-6 ? Those had sound and brief moments of action/dialogue by people voicing the characters.

Its wild this would be considered "new" now...since they did this years ago. :tongue:

Hell, they did it back in the '60s. There's not very much room at all between these and those old "Marvel Super Heroes" cartoons.

NickThompson

11-02-2009, 06:26 PM

I don't think it really matters what any of us think, we're not the big potential audience it can bring in. We already buy comics, lots of people don't, it's them who they're aiming at. Could work, in a way I see this as the equivelent of an audio book (Which some book readers look down at too).

I saw the first episode, thought it was alright but I'm happy enough reading the story in the comic form. I disagree on the poor voice acting point though, everyone I heard sounded good to me.

CassandraL

11-02-2009, 06:29 PM

My favourites are the scenes using as much blur tool as they can to try and give the effect of motion.

Free-Man

11-02-2009, 06:34 PM

My favourites are the scenes using as much blur tool as they can to try and give the effect of motion.

I just love how AWFUL most of the voiceovers are.

That JonoGuy

11-02-2009, 06:36 PM

I haven't been impressed with any of the motion comics either. Most of the voice-acting is pretty terrible.

Charles RB

11-02-2009, 06:38 PM

lexid523

11-02-2009, 06:38 PM

Teen Girl Squad did it better 7 years ago.

I agree with Nick that they could have the same kind of place as audio books (which I do listen to, though I don't feel they "count" :P)

Spackling Compound

11-02-2009, 06:41 PM

Hell, they did it back in the '60s. There's not very much room at all between these and those old "Marvel Super Heroes" cartoons.

It wasn't much better in the late 70's with...GASP! SPIDER-WOMAN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xao_sF3aAo0)!

NickThompson

11-02-2009, 07:08 PM

If they're not buying comics, why would they suddenly rush to buy an extremely cheap cartoon that calls itself a comic?
Because it's not reading. Some people don't read books, but listen to audio books.

Having said I'd rather buy the paper comic (And I am buying it, and it's good stuff), I could imagine buying all the episodes and putting them on my MP3 player in the future.

thwhtGuardian

11-02-2009, 08:26 PM

yeah, I'm not to impressed I bought the watchmen motion comic...and it's all one guy's voice...even the women... it was laughably bad.

CassandraL

11-02-2009, 08:30 PM

Teen Girl Squad did it better 7 years ago.

You are hereby awarded 1000 Internet points for your Strongbad reference.

scout1279

11-02-2009, 08:36 PM

I kind of dig them, but mostly because they remind me of the Marvel cartoons from the '60s, except without the really cool theme songs.

CYOTI

11-02-2009, 09:18 PM

Motion comics, all the proof that you need that crack cocaine is still hot in the marvel offices...

spidervenom

11-02-2009, 09:31 PM

I blame that 60's marvel cartoon where they did the same thing. Why on earth would you want to watch something that sucked 40 years and bring that to a modern generation?

DeadXMan

11-02-2009, 09:38 PM

then you haven't watched this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qip5IonHML0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7cxI2YXUEw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs36dJydWLo

Duy

11-02-2009, 09:40 PM

I blame that 60's marvel cartoon where they did the same thing. Why on earth would you want to watch something that sucked 40 years and bring that to a modern generation?
Those Marvel cartoons are awesome.

Granted, they're awesome in that horribly bad, can't take your eyes off of it way. But they're still awesome.

spidervenom

11-02-2009, 09:43 PM

Those Marvel cartoons are awesome.

Granted, they're awesome in that horribly bad, can't take your eyes off of it way. But they're still awesome.

Yes, I know that, and it still brings up the question on why they want to mimic that on a serious level.

gryhpon

11-02-2009, 10:57 PM

yeah, I'm not to impressed I bought the watchmen motion comic...and it's all one guy's voice...even the women... it was laughably bad.

when i first saw that, i became confused and still am as to why people think its a good concept

Charles RB

11-03-2009, 03:58 AM

Some people don't read books, but listen to audio books.

What have audio books got to do with "motion comics"? For a start, it's a completely different medium - one's audio only, one's visual; you're not going to get the same market.

Secondly, there's a tradition of stories being told verbally; audio books aren't anything new. There's not this sort of tradition for miminal animation, since animators have generally tried to get away from that.

And if people want moving, talking images of superheroes, why'd they go for motion comics and not cartoons?

DoctorDoom

11-03-2009, 09:14 AM

Hell, they did it back in the '60s. There's not very much room at all between these and those old "Marvel Super Heroes" cartoons.
That's what these reminded of!

(I saw an old VHS of the 60's Iron Man...)

DoctorDoom

11-03-2009, 09:16 AM

What have audio books got to do with "motion comics"? For a start, it's a completely different medium - one's audio only, one's visual; you're not going to get the same market.

Secondly, there's a tradition of stories being told verbally; audio books aren't anything new. There's not this sort of tradition for miminal animation, since animators have generally tried to get away from that.

And if people want moving, talking images of superheroes, why'd they go for motion comics and not cartoons?
If I had to choose, I'd probably listen to an audiobook version of Spider-Woman#1 than watch the motion comic.

I'm a huge fan of what's been done by Graphic Audio, but that's not here or there.

Duxdoom

11-03-2009, 12:21 PM

I watched the Spider-Woman #1 when they did the free run on Youtube and it was crap. The only motion was in the backgrounds. They were hyping the crap out of it and they failed to deliver. At least with the Astonishing motion, they have the characters bodies and mouths moving.

MartinRedmond

11-03-2009, 12:24 PM

I thought the voice acting for Spider Woman was very good. The story was pretty boring. :/

AndrewCrossett

11-03-2009, 12:50 PM

When I was a kid they used to show those 1960's Marvel cartoons with the goofy-ass theme songs ("When Captain America throws his mighty shiiiiield...." "Doc Bruce Banner, belted by gamma rays...")

They were the same as motion comics. And my uncritical 8-year-old self, back in those days long before CGI, when Hanna-Barbera and Filmation were the standards of TV animation... thought those cartoons were lame.

They haven't gotten any less lame since.

kid_mash

11-03-2009, 01:06 PM

I like 'um. Not quite comics, not quite animation, not quite audio books. It's something new and exciting.

Ian Boothby

11-03-2009, 03:27 PM

So I was on Hulu. And I see an advertisement to see Marvel's motion comic entitled Spider-Woman: Agent of S.W.O.R.D.

I thought to myself "Wowzers! Comics are really becoming technologically advanced! This must be the next generation in comic book reading!"

Poor naive past self....

I watched it. Seriously? 'Animated' comic book stills with moving backgrounds and sound?

That shit has been around since the late 80s.

And it's so very cheaply done too. Poor voice-acting. Poor production values.

And here I thought DC was being left behind with the motion comic venue of Marvel.

Totally not....

It's one step beyond someone holding a comic book up to a camera and shaking it.

But someone's going to get it right soon and then everyone'll copy that.
If the Apple Tablet ends up coming out (and how can it not) comics might just become popular again.

Infra-Man

11-03-2009, 03:30 PM

I'd rather watch Clutch Cargo

Charles RB

11-03-2009, 04:19 PM

It's something new

But it isn't. It was done in the 60s and it was considered cheap then.

CJ Lentze

11-03-2009, 04:29 PM

You know, I saw a preview of an Astonishing X-Men motion comic a few weeks ago, and personally thought that the original comic itself was drawn dynamically and even had a very cinematic (if that's the right word) flavour to begin with. The movement taking place on panels and 'between the panels' in the reader's mind, at least for Astonishing X-Men 'Gifted', was something which the motion comic didn't capture.

Duy

11-03-2009, 04:47 PM

That's what these reminded of!

(I saw an old VHS of the 60's Iron Man...)
TONY STARK!
Makes you feel
He's a cool exec
With a heart of steel

Now Iron Man, he hits the fray
He fights and fights with repulsor rays!

Amazing armor!
That's Iron Man!
Amazing armor!
He's Iron Man!!

LewMoxinsghost

11-03-2009, 05:57 PM

Ah, they are their own medium... I've seen some pretty sweet motion comics, but then I've seen more bad ones than good ones. Part of it is that you just have to be in the mood for it. I think they work well as teasers or short clips, but they are not for carrying longer stories.

CYOTI

11-03-2009, 06:29 PM

I thought the voice acting for Spider Woman was very good. The story was pretty boring. :/
It's Bendis. If you remember his Spider-Man "cartoon" awhile back, you'd know his writing style can't make the transition to animation, which is why his adaptation of Spider-Man failed and why the Spider-Woman motion comic will too.

NickThompson

11-03-2009, 06:46 PM

It's Bendis. If you remember his Spider-Man "cartoon" awhile back, you'd know his writing style can't make the transition to animation, which is why his adaptation of Spider-Man failed and why the Spider-Woman motion comic will too.
Saying "his" for the Spider-Man cartoon is a bit unfair. He was one of many people who worked on it on many levels, including (IIRC), one person who asked if it had to be a Spider.

OzBat!

11-03-2009, 06:47 PM

I remember about 10 years ago there was a Blue Falcon and Dynomutt! motion comic. That was great!

Nevets F

11-03-2009, 07:18 PM

So I was on Hulu. And I see an advertisement to see Marvel's motion comic entitled Spider-Woman: Agent of S.W.O.R.D.

I thought to myself "Wowzers! Comics are really becoming technologically advanced! This must be the next generation in comic book reading!"

Poor naive past self....

I watched it. Seriously? 'Animated' comic book stills with moving backgrounds and sound?

That shit has been around since the late 80s.

And it's so very cheaply done too. Poor voice-acting. Poor production values.

And here I thought DC was being left behind with the motion comic venue of Marvel.

Totally not....

The Spider-Woman comics wasn't very good ultimately. However, the Astonishing X-Men comic is ACTUALLY a motion comic. The characters move, the mouths move, etc. It's WAY more animated than the Spider-Woman comic was. I suggest giving the X-Men motion a shot if nothing else. Totally different quality (in a good way).

I also think the voice acting is better.

JTPencils

11-03-2009, 07:22 PM

From all the negative chatter here, I was surprised that it didn't totally suck. I'm not saying it's new (heck, Marvel was doing this kinda "cheap" animation when I was a young'n) but I thought the art itself was very good, and that with a bit more tweaking, it could have been a good motion comic. It's hard to try to compete with video games etc as far as what would make comics look better "in motion"... I can't think of another way they could try it and still keep the flavor of a panel to panel storytelling process.

I will agree though that the voice talent needs to be dipped into a little more seriously. Having the same actress try to be two or three different female characters in the same episode (sometimes in the same exact scene with each other), it's got difficult to seperate the voices with the characters. It became more like a bad impressionist trying to fool you with his "Jack Nicholson" and his "Mike Tyson" and they sound the exact damn same. Poor.

If the voice direction had been a little better... I would have enjoyed this even more, and as I said... I liked it.

AndrewCrossett

11-03-2009, 07:45 PM

Motion comics would be one thing if they were done by fans (as most of them could be... and probably better) or by small indie companies. But a big company like Marvel putting out something like this just screams "we couldn't be bothered to put forth the effort or money to do a proper animation job."

A motion comic is just a half-assed cartoon. Frankly, I much prefer to look at a good old-fashioned motionless comic and imagine, as our forefathers did, that the characters are actually moving and talking.

Nothing ruins good art like bad animation.

Free-Man

11-03-2009, 07:52 PM

It's Bendis. If you remember his Spider-Man "cartoon" awhile back, you'd know his writing style can't make the transition to animation, which is why his adaptation of Spider-Man failed and why the Spider-Woman motion comic will too.

Uhmmm.....he only wrote the pilot for that series, and it was heavily altered before it was completed.

His style had nothing to do with the show's cancellation. High costs and a crappy time-slot (on a Friday night when much of MTV's target audience is out) killed the show, not Bendis.

DoctorDoom

11-03-2009, 10:43 PM

Uhmmm.....he only wrote the pilot for that series, and it was heavily altered before it was completed.

His style had nothing to do with the show's cancellation. High costs and a crappy time-slot (on a Friday night when much of MTV's target audience is out) killed the show, not Bendis.
Wow, I remember that show! With Neil Patrick Harris as Parker, right?

DeadXMan

11-03-2009, 11:18 PM

Wow, I remember that show! With Neil Patrick Harris as Parker, right?

and Rob zombie as the lizard:biggrin:

Free-Man

11-04-2009, 06:13 AM

Wow, I remember that show! With Neil Patrick Harris as Parker, right?

Yup. And I believe Jeremy Piven also voiced one of the villains, and Eve played the show's Black Cat-pastiche. Casting like that is likely one of the factors that killled the show.

Charles RB

11-04-2009, 06:33 AM

Saying "his" for the Spider-Man cartoon is a bit unfair. He was one of many people who worked on it on many levels, including (IIRC), one person who asked if it had to be a Spider.

And people who wouldn't let Aunt May be in it because the Hip Young Kids don't want to see old people. (Which I guess is why J Jonah Jameson rarely turned up)

Though as James says, the timeslot killed it rather than Bendis. It was actually quite good as a Spider-toon. (Well, not all of it, admittedly - the attempts at "hip young" talk, for example...) The final 2-parter was surprisingly vicious.

Night Swordsman

11-04-2009, 11:20 AM

I liked the One episode i saw of Spider-Woman. But then again, she is my all time favorite, so i was happy either way. So for all the people who hate this, that is fine, but there are some of us who like it too.

Night Swordsman

11-04-2009, 11:23 AM

Yup. And I believe Jeremy Piven also voiced one of the villains, and Eve played the show's Black Cat-pastiche. Casting like that is likely one of the factors that killled the show.

Actually, i have that full season on DVD. I thought the show was brilliant, and not the same ol thing (Not a big fan of new show...). I do believe the fact the show was on MTV at the time, and that network is notoriously fickle with programing, especially a CARTOON. It was not a overnight sensation, and so it was not picked up for a second season.

Charles RB

11-04-2009, 11:30 AM

Annoyingly, the bloody thing ends on a cliffhanger that was clearly meant to be resolved in a second series.

I hate when shows do that without having a confirmed next series!

Night Swordsman

11-04-2009, 11:31 AM

Annoyingly, the bloody thing ends on a cliffhanger that was clearly meant to be resolved in a second series.

I hate when shows do that without having a confirmed next series!

I agree, it was disapointing, but i am not going to hate the show for that. Many shows do that to drum up interests IN a new season, and to convince the network to bring it back.

Free-Man

11-04-2009, 12:23 PM

Actually, i have that full season on DVD. I thought the show was brilliant, and not the same ol thing (Not a big fan of new show...). I do believe the fact the show was on MTV at the time, and that network is notoriously fickle with programing, especially a CARTOON. It was not a overnight sensation, and so it was not picked up for a second season.

I was referring to the fact that they cast relatively big name actors for a lot of roles, something that almost definately ate up a good portion of the budget. Even a C-list TV star is gonna command a higher payrate than most professional voice actors.