Shoegaze is exactly right. There's an inherent contradiction in Dumas' approach: superheroes, even though based on action, are better in comics, but martial arts aren't, because they involve action. He's not making any sense here. Really, his view should be consistently applied to all movement, in which case the comics medium would lose everytime, from people walking to fighting off an alien invasion. Hell, it applies to all art that doesn't involve actual movement perception. His is an illthought out defense of why he mainly cares for superhero and fantasy comics at the expense of everything else. Why not say theater is inherently better than a novel because people are really talking in the former? Some people, as Shoegaze points out, love the form of representation in which the narrative is taking place, just like Dumas does when liking superheroic action. Something "real" is lost in action which is drawn, but something else is gained when you look at, say, a Kirby representation. That something else would be the artistic expression of a particular artist.

If Dumas is in contradiction then Shoegaze abandons logic altoghter by setting medium above all. Of course we are not really talking about contradiction here but about scaled values. Dumas isn't anymore wrong than Aristotle is in talking about mimesis; not can't but best at.

Huh?

Superheroes are better in comics partly because there are things you can do with them in the art that would either look really cheesy in live action (i.e., the "fastball special") or not look very good because the special effects aren't quite there yet (the obvious CGI in Spider-Man).

An X-Men comic will always have cooler uses of the characters' incredible powers.

This doesn't mean that you can't make an X-Men movie that would satisfy a lot of people. However, by its very nature (no thought captions, less backstory to draw from, time constraints, etc.) an X-Men movie is going to be an inferior product.

What is your aesthetics here S99 but everything and anything a medium wants to try is dandy. Shall we consider modern psychology in Dance perhaps or the fleeting nature of time in stone sculpture. why not?

Dumas is not saying there should be a rule against such a thing just more than why the hell not.

I apologize if English is your second language, so don’t think I’m taking a potshot at your ability to communicate if it is, but it’s damn near impossible to parse what you’re trying to say. You're damn near incoherent.

edit above-

As a mode of inquiry "why the hell not" may be just fine and even an admirable thing for an artist but as receivers of art does that mean we should internalize that to the exclusion of all others like imitation of action.

On a personal note I disagree with Dumas on film being a better imitator of action in the martial arts for it would have to all be in slow-mo ,which its not, where more often you see nothing of the detail only the dynamic of the punch, kick and effect.

All well and good, Shoe. But you utterly fail to respond to his previous query from above, namely: "Dumas isn't anymore wrong about than Aristotle is in talking about mimesis; not can't but best at."

No, his supposed values aren't being applied in a coherent manner. That's what we're talking about. To wit, Would also apply to what would make a martial arts film inferior to a comic. Lawson, I'd be surprised if anyone understands what that says. "not can't but best at"!?!

Yeah, I was going for a small joke there (and missed, apparently).