>>95042728>Take Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds...So you have the characters sitting at a table. Quick back and forth shots of close ups of the characters as each one talks. Easy to film. Easy to watch.I really should just stop you there. Tarantino's strength is his strong sense for composition, his writing style, and his ability to bring out the best in his actors. His films are not "easy to shoot," and you're disrespecting him by implying his job is somehow easier than being an artist.
>The viewer doesn't mind because the conversation is fascinating and it's driving the story.No, that would be a combination of acting, composition, writing, production values, etc. If it was just the dialogue you'd have just as good of a time reading the lines on a white sheet of paper.
>That doesn't work in comics because it's just the same faces over and over and over and over, page after page.You realize that's the exact same thing as shot-reverse shot in cinema, which is a widely loathed practice that makes a film annoying to watch, right? And that comics DON'T have to keep cutting back and forth to faces, right?
>the story in this situation IS the dialogue itself, which could have just been typed out and the drawings ignoredIt must be a fucking shitty story if the way the characters emote (or don't), the lighting, the mood of their surroundings, etc have no impact at all.
>visual filler shitPeople do that in movies and animation as well. That's a writing problem, not a medium problem.
>Your examples aren't even dialogue.All four of them are. The first simply has two implicit ellipses on that particular spread. All four are part of pages-long conversations, and the other three all have back-and-forth spoken word on the pages presented.
>And worse, from manga.Only two of them.
Also
>IT DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE A CHINAMAN DREW IT.Please fuck off. It's the same medium, and Morbi draws heavily from Tezuka.
Stop talking about things you don't understand.
