So, this new Infinite Comics thing

[superboyprime]

When Marvel announced Infinite Comics, their new experiment with original digital comics, they made a big deal about how, even though they planned to take advantage of the storytelling techniques the different medium allowed, they were still firmly going to be comics. There wasn't going to be any of that "motion comics" stuff that just comes off as the poor man's animation it is.

Now the first Infinite Comic, an Avengers vs X-Men tie-in/prologue, has come out, and while Marvel's technically right that it's not animation, I don't know, it comes too close for my tastes. What does everyone else think? Is this just poor man's animation?

For example, here's one "page" in the comic followed by the next.





A clever trick, and yeah, it's all static images, but a bit too close to animation, no?

Then there's this three "page" sequence:







Again, clever, and a nice example of something you couldn't do in a print comic, but is it really still sequential art?

In the next three panel sequence, Nova's heading closer and closer towards a collision with a helicopter before managing to use his powers to speed up his mind at the last moment, giving him the reflexes to evade the vehicle.

With each click of the mouse, the story progresses by one panel.







It's all static images, and yet...

And two more examples: These are two separate two-"page" sequences.









I get Marvel's point that the reader's still in complete control of the pacing, but can't I control the speed of a movie too by constantly pressing the pause/play buttons? So how is it really that different?

So what do the rest of you think? Genuine comics, or poor man's animation?

Comments

[nezchan]

I dunno if it's "animotion" the way motion comics are so much as an outgrowth of the way comics are handled on mobile devices and sites like Comixology, going from panel to panel, or in the case of splash pages to important parts then zooming out for the full effect.

So while it's skirting the line of (very) limited animation, I don't think it's done with that in mind so much as trying to go from the other direction and add their own stamp to what's becoming a more common way to read comic pages. Although I, for one, still prefer full pages to the whole panel-by-panel thing.

[darkknightjrk]

I can kinda see how it can vaguely work as animation, but I don't get how it couldn't be sequential art, since sequential art is sort-of key to animation.

[bewareofgeek]

I've been calling them "PowerPoint comics"...

[coldfiredragon]

This was the impression I got too!

[whitecometrx7]

Does anyone know if this is the same nova that got stuck with Thanos in the cancerverse? If its not, have they mentioned how the nova force got out?

[drmcninja]

Not sure, but I don't think so. I hope not, if only because I can't believe they would get rid of his amazing uniform, as much as I really do miss them.

[e_307]

I think this is the new Nova from the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon.

[filthysize]

"I get Marvel's point that the reader's still in complete control of the pacing, but can't I control the speed of a movie too by constantly pressing the pause/play buttons? So how is it really that different?"

...No, you can't. For one thing, you won't be able to understand the dialogue that way, and pausing between scenes don't change the pace of a movie, just the amount of time it takes you to watch it.

This actually does change the pace. The explosion three-page sequence, for instance, you can click fast and have those three pages appear in rapid succession to give the impression of a quick shot of an explosion, or you can savor each progression to give the impression of a slow-motion explosion. That's entirely, totally different from the way we process movies and television, and is a lot closer to the way we perceive comics. You can actually achieve the same affect with print comics--it's just going to be incredibly wasteful to print pages of pages of repeating images.

You know what this format would be good for? Bendis.

[his_spiffynesss]

One clever example of someone utilizing the infinite canvas of webcomics is this installment of Busty Solar (NSFW).

[turtlefu]

Of course it's still sequential art. That's the whole point? And the idea is that with digital you can do something different with comics.

The whole trick is that the digital medium is forcing the comic to have a specific pacing. So it can control the surprises and the emotions. I actually think the PHOENIX page is really cool. I like this trick a lot.

I think it's a very creative way to use the medium. I mean, what else could you do with digital? The whole idea with digital is that you aren't constrained with printed paper. Why not do this?

Your complaint seems less to do with how it actually reads on page and more to do with how (to you) it is too similar to animation.

I think you need to look at it with its own merits instead of comparing it to animation. Comics gets compared to different mediums enough without needing to do it on our own.

Also, this is very different from using the play/pause on movies for several reasons, one of which is that a movie is supposed to be watched all the way through. Furthermore, you can't actually adjust the pacing of the plot just by hitting play/pause. Digital changes the way that pacing is done in comics, by continuing dialog or forcing perspective change or withholding panels. The pacing of the plot is designed with all this in mind.

[leoboiko]

It’s certainly sequential art; just not sequential art that I like very much.

Animations and comics fade into each other with timing control and speed. It’s not a bad thing. I just don’t care much for the execution in this particular case.

[wyze2099]

It's sequential art down to its toes. In fact, the way the story is being told depends on there being a sequence of some kind. Yeah, there's a bit more real-time approach that makes it feel more cinematic, but it looks to me like it's taking advantage of a digital medium and combining the strengths of comics storytelling with the strengths of a motion medium. There's even some backtracking of panels, which a reader's eye can do on a comic page, but a motion medium can't do until it specifically cuts back to a prior shot. I like the use of rack-focusing, especially with the Phoenix effect.

I'm not seeing a problem with experimenting with this approach. Hell, if nobody experimented with that could be done in new media, TV shows would still be approached the same way as radio plays.

[nomadicwriter]

There was a good example of this kind of comic on DeviantArt that was linked when Quesada was first explaining the infinite comics idea on CBR. It's here if you want to check out how this kind of thing works in practise. (Stick with it past the rather over-long intro sequence, it gets better.)

Personally, I like it, and I think it's a lot different from animation, which flows at its own speed and doesn't give you the option to linger or speed up to suit your own pace. It's a neat way to allow the reader more control over the flow of individual panels as they read instead of being constrained to serving them up in fixed size portions.

[crabby_lioness]

It's unquestionably sequential art. It's not nearly as good as the Zot digital comic even though the latter is almost a decade old, but few cartoonists can compare with Scott McCloud.

http://scottmccloud.com/1-webcomics/zot/index.html

[kenn_el]

When I read it, it reminded me of flip books.

[demonprawn]

So this is a new Nova? I do like his costume but I miss ol' Richie.