Animorphs and their book covers with multiple TF stages all in one image came out in the 90s.

Before then, 1980s Tf fans like myself would mostly see TF in animation where the image stays in one place but transforms over time frustratingly quick. I wanted to see it stage by stage, at my pace.

So I drew it myself. And put it on the computer so I can frame-by-frame advance the transformation like it was on TV, but at MY pace.

I was against animorphs book covers. They looked like photo manipulation done by a professional artist who was not into transformation. Like it was a job he had to begrudgingly slog through for a check.

Animorphs book covers never seemed to depict anxiety or anticipation or fear. They weren't experiencing the transformation. It was just happening to them like they were walking down a flight of stairs.

Safe. Casual.

Which is good, for them. That's how they tackle a transformation anxiety or fear. I tackle it by being able to go through it frame by frame at my own pace.

So now there's an entire culture of TF fans who grew up on animorphs, and one of their leaders Bash Choco seemed surprised to learn about my preferred method of experiencing transformation art at Shiftercon last weekend. He didn't seem to have a word for it.

I call it a transformation "sequence" instead of a transformation "comic" or transformation "animation". Photoshop exports multiple frames of an animation in what it calls an "image sequence."

I (and Scott McCloud in his seminal work "understanding comics" (1993)) would call an animorphs book cover art a transformation "comic."

But Bash, who grew up on animorphs (1996), calls the anamorphs book cover art a "sequence."

In his educational panels about the history of TF.

So the next generation is going to be calling a transformation "sequence" something I don't agree is a "sequence." They don't even seem to have a word for my method of TF appreciation.

I know now that when I discuss transformation with young TF fans they're not going to understand me. There is a schism between the generations. And I'm going to have to patiently explain what I'm into rather than just use a single word I know they'd understand.

I'll let you all know when bash replies to my questions and tells me what he's going to be teaching the young kids about my kind of tf.

They sanitize TF by taking the anxiety out of the faces in the images and putting the whole sequence on display so nothing surprises you.

I sanitize TF by being in complete control of how far I go into the (otherwise frightening and startling) transformation sequence frame by frame.

To them, TF is a story element or plot point. To me it's an experience.

And now that I worked that out, I'm not anxious about it like I was at 5:00 a.m. first hearing about it at shiftercon.

Man, that's tough. Personally, I think I'd call Animorphs cover art a sequence rather than a comic. Going and looking up a definition, one dictionary refers to a comic as "a magazine that contains a set of stories told in pictures with a small amount of writing." I'm inclined to agree. Looking at an Animorphs cover, it's just a progressive series of images that convey, yes, that a character may be experiencing a transformation, but that's about it it. I agree, though. To me, those cover characters always looked kind of bored. Sort of "Welp, I guess it's chinchilla time or whatnot."

For a very old example of a transformation sequence, consider
https://www.gmorris.co.uk/post/the-.....lf-man-in-film
Compare the 1941 "sequence" to subsequent transformation scenes.
Arguably, the first transformation scene, as opposed to a mere "sequence," occurred in "Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man" (1943).

I tend to think of a "sequence" in terms of focusing on one person or subject for the duration of the shift. Quite often that's the animorph-style "in-place" effect, but I think sequences that show dynamic movement or character emotion are still valid.

I feel as though "comic" is more appropriate when a story is being told. When there's a *plot*, where actions are taken, and motivations are shown. As you might say -- when it's an 'experience'. A sequence is often too hyper-focused to meet this criteria -- but good ones can blur that distinction. :)

Sequence

i think they're sequences, but very boring morph filter sequences, at least the classic ones

I would call it a sequence as well

I always thought the Animorphs book cover sequences were kinda cute and they probably helped spur me on to enjoying TF art. Obviously I went in a different direction with the clothes rippage, I recall that only happening once with Rachel and her elephant feet in the book series lol

I would also consider it a sequence as a comic tends to be multiple panels. Its lazy and doesn't get a good feel of what the person is going through and is just basically a photo manipulation using old software for apple computers. It worked for what they wanted for their book cover, but it isn't good TF.

Sequence. Comic would imply multiple panels or even pages, I think.

"Comic" implies "story", and there's none to be had on an Animorphs cover, so it's definitely not a comic. It's a sequence. It's boring and done completely to show the visual effect rather than to set a scene, but it's a series of images that depict some sort of action or process over time, and that's all that's required to be a sequence.

We don't use different base words for "movies that are boring" versus "movies that are interesting"; there's just "movies", and we sort the wheat from the chaff using other descriptors. Same deal here.

In my thoughts: It's sequence, a sequence you can put In a single panel In a comic.