/co/ - Comics / Animation

Roger that.

But everyone here is a child and an idiot, you see.

>>377
You one of them Homestuck kids?

>>378
I am one of the homestuck-twoguysandguy-romanticlyapocalyptic-hyperboleandahalf-xkcd-mymilktoof-brawlinthefamily-thepocalypse-potluckcomic-niels-subnormality-and-then-some kids.

How the fuck does one comic define an entire person. I'll read whatever the fuck I want.

wow what a bunch of cry babies
go on with your elitist "actually good" comic book club
i find it funny you start your thread with a marvel comic.

>>379
>>377
Jesus christ, no wonder you're so fucking stupid. You act like an angry 13 year old. "NUH UH NUH UH I'LL DO WHAT I WANT ALL OF YOU ARE STUPID."

In other news both comics posted by OP are boring as fuck and generic.

>>379
Naahh, it just defines your shitty taste in comics.

>>382
That's what I want to hear. Why do you feel they are boring and generic, though?

I'm just asking, why the fuck does it matter what we read? Oh no! Some shit like something you don't like! Time to scream like a fucking pussy and insult then via age! THIS FIXES EVERYTHING.
Can someone please lock the fucktard thread, now?

this is just really stupid.
you do realize taste, for the most part, is subjective? example 1 right there, you think those are "actually good" comics, someone else thinks they are boring and awful.
I adore Craig Thompson's comics, I adore the comics in Deathrattle and Snarf. I think they're great, a lot of people think they are great, but there's probably just as many, if not more people, who take one look at snarf and think of it as a shit fest. They may think Blankets is a boring, whiney, sappy story. Its okay for people to not like what you like, its okay for you to not like what I like..
I think a better way to go about this would be to start a Print comic thread, or something..

>>388
Hey. Don't get all butthurt. I'm only offering some variety here.

>>389
They're better than any webcomic. Finer art, dialogue, characters, plot, scenes, writing. But then, comparing them to webcomics is like putting an adult beside a toddler. They're two totally different categories - like the difference between novels and "light" novels.

This thread:

>I don't like what you like
versus
>I like what you don't like

>>391
>Finer art, dialogue, characters, plot, scenes, writing.

http://romanticallyapocalyptic.com/
Ha.

>>396
Ok, now Witchblade is awesome. So awesome nobody gets to pull it into this argument. Same thing with Daredevil.

>>394
The artist of this is an obvious amateur, though he does show a strong process of development in perspective, coloring and anatomy. As >>396 stated, however, the writing is terrible. I couldn't stand to read it, so I ended up just going through it backwards.

>>391
This is even more stupid. Better art and writing? Web comics aren't a genre, its just a comic that has been published via the web. there's a large variety of comics out there on the internet, the ones that are most popular are the comedic ones
thats another thing, you are comparing works with super serious tones(as far as i can see) to work that is usually made for comedic purposes. I'm not going to compare The Lost Girls to The Lockhorns.

I do salute you for trying to add some variety but you dont need to be a condescending asshole about it, you can get by with making a thread that's based on printed comics.

>>406

Thing is, published comics are generally much better quality than webcomics. This is because they have some editorial standards to meet.

The lack of this is the reason you get so many sprite comics. You could list bad comics for days, but you can list bad webcomics for your entire life.

There are good ones, though. Penny arcade, XKCD (if it's a bit pretentious), Girls With Slingshots isn't bad. But the bulk of them are irredeemable pieces of shit.

>>407
>Thing is, published comics are generally much better quality than webcomics. This is because they have some editorial standards to meet.
I would agree with you, but… there's two flaws in your argument that stick out to me. Those flaws are DC and Marvel. Have you read that shit? Their editorial standards are atrociously low. Sure, you can find some really good published comics, but there's a great many really bad ones. The only reason there are more bad webcomics out there than bad published comics is because it's quicker and easier to create and distribute webcomics. If you had to go through the same hoopla to publish a legitimate webcomic that you did to publish an actual comic the statistics would be about the same.

>>414
>DC and Marvel are shite
Agreed. However, you're forgetting a lot of other big publishers and even a few independent ones. Do you have any idea how many shitty sprite comics are floating around on the web? The sheer number of shit webcomics is what's keeping the actual good ones from seeing as much recognition.

>>421
Well yeah, I can agree that SOME places have higher editorial standards but it's still pretty hit and miss.

There really isn't anything to be done about shitty webcomics. For every single REALLY good one with a niche, there's 15,000 shitty ones that have a large and vocal fanbase. It's only because of the garbage that we can see the gems.

>>422

To be fair, I just like comics. A good comic is a good comic, but I digress…

Personally, I think webcomics is a great way to deliver on entertainment. A lot of people probably wouldn't walk into a comics store and the big dogs don't do digital distribution too well (or with a unified standard, even).

So we generally have two camps of comics fans in the U.S., one of which are the true comics fans, and the rest are the adherents (whether they adhere to Marvel, DC, or VGcats or whatever.)

I don't understand how fans can simply take the same shit being churned out over and over again with a different veneer. Batman, Superman, Spiderman—pretty much the bulk of the big companies' casts. The original reason the market slumped in the late nineties was thanks to all of these really old series that were hard to get into without reading a shit load of backstory. I know DC recently rebooted their whole universe, but there's so much shit that it's still not that easy to get into.

With a webcomic, you can basically look at any page you want from the archives. They're easy to get into, and less of your time and money is wasted trying to figure out what the fuck is going on.

Like you said, the really bad webcomics tend to have gargantuan, vocal fanbases… Homestuck, for example… this is something of a problem, since the comics with actual thought put into them aren't making any money or fame for the creator and so there's less incentive for them to continue.

I think it would be nice if we made this thread a place to post comics we enjoy, whether print or web based, that we think dont get enough exposure, instead of bitching endlessly about whats better, who is better, etc.
what do you guys think??

>>424
/co/ needs something like that, so I second this.

ITT: Post your favourite comics/webcomics (unless there's already a thread for them, then just link the thread), no bitching for once.

>>424
Sure. By the way, I like the art for that one. What comic is it?

Sinfest. Yes.

>>426
Pug Davis by Rebecca Sugar(she storyboards for adventure time now, and wrote most of the songs, examples being: Fire Inside My Body, Im Just Your Problem, Oh Fionna, etc)
Pug Davis was a webcomic/webhosted but the website it was hosted on has recently been taken down, and the comics are being sold print form instead, but I'm not quite sure where you can find them now…

Another comic of interest is Hemlock. it's a webcomic but also available in print form. I love the art so much.

behave you guys

>>454
M-Mobling…?
Is it really you…?
Oh, mein fuhrer!