Robot 6

Scott McCloud defends (some) motion comics

It's a comic about drinking, OK?

Scott McCloud has posted an example of an animated comic, Vincent Giard’s bol, that works pretty well, along with a brief explanation of how motion comics can work:

The best way I’ve come up with to explain it is that looping animation (and sound, for that matter) still communicate a static span of time. If panel 2 clearly comes after panel 1 and before panel 3, it still feels like comics, even if panel 2 is a short loop of some sort.

It’s a good point, and in this case, the motion gets more and then less pronounced as the comic goes along, so there is a progression to it. Scott says,

The point isn’t whether or not we want to give it a particular label or not, but whether a given comic works as storytelling. Does it feel whole? Can we lose ourselves in the reality of the strip? And in this case, I’d say yes.

I agree that the animation fits the story, but looking a the comic as a whole is a bit like trying to read a comic printed on a bowl of Jell-O.



But there’s always room for Jell-O!

I´d love to hear McCloud thoughts about animation

In other words, if it works, then it works.

My rephrasing, aspects of a media presentation are either compelling or distracting. If they are compelling, then they work. If they are distracting then they fail.

Kleefeld talked about this, two weeks before McCloud did.

Another reason that this works particularly well is that, each panel gives a general feeling of disorentation, and can be looked at for a indeterminate amount of time, depending on the reader. Rather than have their reading time dictated by the animator, they can afford to linger on the moving panels instead. It’s the readers who’re in charge here, not the Motion comics.

Leave a Comment


Browse the Robot 6 Archives