Why do you think about comic writing?
sho...@hotmail.com
I think it's weird that certain writers' talents are measured in comics.
I guess I buy comics for the art, since I can see the tiniest mistakes
any of the superhero comic artists make on the form of realistic
rendering, looseness of the action, pacing, clarity, exaggeration of
sizing, etc and I don't pay much attention to continuity. I don't really
buy a lot of comics because I'm basically a cheapo, in which I get real
picky about my comics, staying at the stores for a long time just to look
for quality. Most of the time I buy graphic novels or books that I hear
of as hot, and that make me think that I should keep it. I don't want
anything second best, even though I have made mistakes in the past...
ordering comics by subscription is what I really regret, because every
single issue that I got would all of a sudden become cheap and unexciting
because I got them easily. (Such as Iron Man continuity after Armor wars
1, which became a bore!!!!The new red and gold?! C'mon! I liked the
red+silver, & the BLue-black stealth that turned white{not War
Machine!!!!}. Tony shot through the heart and lives in wheelchair?!! Now
a 1/2 dead guy!? c'mon!!!) Now most of those are thrown away, even the
giant size. I guess I don't care much about writers and such because I am
not(and never will be) a "pull lister" that spends $100 bucks on comics
that are put away in a plastic bag to keep for investment purposes nor am
I the kind of person that likes to have piles and piles of comics that I
don't read anymore. If you want to save money, follow my advice: Just go
to the comic store that lets you read before buying and read and read.
Then think: Is this worth keeping? Most GN ,reprints, or TPB are printed
because they are one of the best comics collected, period. Think about
it. If you hark over continuity of your comics forever, YOU will spend so
much money with this pile of comics sitting there, wasting space, as you
ignore it If you want to buy comics with continuity just buy one arc.
Most of the time I don't even buy an arc. IF YOU WANT TO CHECK UP ON
CONTUINITY SO BADLY LIKE MY SISTERS KEEPING TABS ON THEIR SOAPS, JUST GO
OVER TO A TRY BEFORE YOU BUY STORE TO LOOK AT COMICS FOR FREE, OR BUY A
FANZINE.
Sure, I think I know why some of you hark over the writing of the
comics{in no particular order}: 1)Checking the continuity of the stories
2)The mood/style of the dialogue 3)The reasons of why a certain
action/event happened; motivation 4)characterization; what kind of
characteristics this person has 5)theme,setting 6)timing, pacing 7)The
actions themselves Why do I know this stuff? Well, this is stuff that I
think about when I watch a movie and I want to congragulate or critique
the hell out of the writer(s) that wrote the screenplays, scripts, etc. I
don't necessarily do this to comics. I guess I think differntly about
comics than movies. (snip above for reply) HERE ARE MY QUESTIONS FOR YOU
GUYS
**** What else do you, the comic fan look for in the writing of a book?
****What other comic writers have done outside{as in out of the comic
world itself} writing projects, such as tv, movies, books [other than
Peter David, Jeph Loeb, John Byrne] and other media?
By the way, you would not have believed my shock when I found out that
Frank Miller wrote the screenplay to ROBOCOP 2!! No wonder why it was so
cool and funny!!!
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Francis A Uy
<sho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's weird that certain writers' talents are measured in comics.
>I guess I buy comics for the art,
I like some artists, but without good writing I won't buy it.
>Sure, I think I know why some of you hark over the writing of the comics
[abbreviated list: continuity, dialogue style, motivation,
characterization, setting, pacing, plot]
> Why do I know this stuff? Well, this is stuff that I
>think about when I watch a movie and I want to congragulate or critique
>the hell out of the writer(s) that wrote the screenplays, scripts, etc. I
>don't necessarily do this to comics.
That's really interesting. Why do you hold a lower standard
for comics this way? I'm curious.
>**** What else do you, the comic fan look for in the writing of a book?
In comics, text, or even film/video, I look for good writing,
which to me means an interesting world view that makes me think
about things differently, told in a coherent and stylish manner
that keeps me entertained. Writers like Neil Gaiman, Osamu Tezuka
(comics), Bruce Sterling, Douglas Hofstadter (text).
>Frank Miller wrote the screenplay to ROBOCOP 2!! No wonder why it was so
>cool and funny!!!
Um... I think I'll follow the standard mother's advice about
situations like this.
-F
.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
sho...@hotmail.com wrote:
: I guess I don't care much about writers and such because I am
: not(and never will be) a "pull lister" that spends $100 bucks on comics
: that are put away in a plastic bag to keep for investment purposes nor am
: I the kind of person that likes to have piles and piles of comics that I
: don't read anymore.
This makes no sense. The type of people who do this are the ones who are
*least* likely to buy for writers.
: IF YOU WANT TO CHECK UP ON
: CONTUINITY SO BADLY LIKE MY SISTERS KEEPING TABS ON THEIR SOAPS...
Heh. This is why I didn't get into reading comics in the '70s. Too much
like soap operas. :)
: JUST GO OVER TO A TRY BEFORE YOU BUY STORE TO LOOK AT COMICS FOR FREE
Believe it or not, many stores do *not* encourage reading within the
store.
: OR BUY A FANZINE.
Fanzines aren't comics.
: Sure, I think I know why some of you hark over the writing of the
: comics{in no particular order}: 1)Checking the continuity of the stories
: 2)The mood/style of the dialogue 3)The reasons of why a certain
: action/event happened; motivation 4)characterization; what kind of
: characteristics this person has 5)theme,setting 6)timing, pacing 7)The
: actions themselves
I "hark over" (I guess that means "like") good writing because, um, well,
I like good writing. :)
: Why do I know this stuff?
With all due respect, I don't think you do. You seem to have completely
misconstrued why readers are attracted to good writing.
- Elayne
--
"Very few people possess true artistic ability. It is therefore both
unseemly and unproductive to irritate the situation by making an effort.
If you have a burning, restless urge to write or paint, simply eat
something sweet and the feeling will pass." - Fran Lebowitz
Peter Taylor
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote in article
<6604c7$s...@panix.com>...
> sho...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> : JUST GO OVER TO A TRY BEFORE YOU BUY STORE TO LOOK AT COMICS FOR FREE
>
> Believe it or not, many stores do *not* encourage reading within the
> store.
"Hey kid, this ain't no library."
Peter Taylor.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Peter Taylor (pta...@bc1.com) wrote:
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote in article
A shop I used to patronize (and thank GOD I don't live near there any
more) had an extremely ornery owner who wouldn't let us peruse a THING
before buying. I still carry that to such an extent that I felt twinges
of guilt over reading the entire BIRDS OF PREY: BATGIRL (which I knew I
wasn't going to waste my money buying, but it still pays to keep up with
how Dixon's massacring female characters in case I want to write them into
proposals) in my present shop, even though I give Grace about $60-80 worth
of business every week and she sure doesn't mind.
Jim McGinnis
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote in message <66igdn$4...@panix.com>...
>Peter Taylor (pta...@bc1.com) wrote:
>: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote in article
>: <6604c7$s...@panix.com>...
>: > sho...@hotmail.com wrote:
>: >
>: > : JUST GO OVER TO A TRY BEFORE YOU BUY STORE TO LOOK AT COMICS FOR FREE
>: >
>: > Believe it or not, many stores do *not* encourage reading within the
>: > store.
>
>: "Hey kid, this ain't no library."
>
Snip
sorry Elayne
snip
I do not understand the mentality of a store that does not allow you to
peruse the comics.
I have never had a problem allowing people to read through a prospective
book (although I do get a litle antsy concerning high priced back issues). I
think the only time I have denied anyone was when a young (age about 14)
boy, who frequents my shop and has NEVER PURCHASED anything, pulled out a
$50.00 dollar Spider-Man back issue, removed it from the bag and board,
folded the cover back, and said "I've been wanting to read this one. Here is
what transpired:
Boy:: " I been wanting to read this one."
ME:: " Can you pay for it if you damage it."
BOY;; "Jeeze It's only a comic."
ME:: " A fifty dollar comic."
BOY:: "Who cares."
ME: (removing the comic from the boy) "I think it's time you left."
BOY: " MAN, I'M NEVER GOING TO SPEND MONEY HERE AGAIN!"
ME:: " Excuse me, but you never have spent any money here, you come in read
my comics, and even damaged a few, and I have never said anything. This
Comic is worth $50.00 dollars on the collectors market(as an aside the comic
actually listed for $70.00 at the time). I really don't need you coming in
and damaging comics by by folding the covers back, or marking them with your
sweaty sticky hands.
BOY:: "F*** Y** MAN!!"
ME:: "Get out, Get out right NOW.
perhaps I over reacted. I know that he has never returned. I did not enjoy
what transpired, but I neither could I afford to have him damage any more of
my inventory. By the way my shrinkage problem seemed to resolve itself,
right after that (shrinkage by the way is an unexplained decrease in
inventory, usually caused by theft).
Normal customers are welcome to peruse my selection, and I am more than
happy to let them closely examine back issues. I do prefer to remove the
comics from the bags myself however.
Jim McGinnis
Helen & James Comics
San Jose, CA
Mark S. Ogilvie
I'm in Boston and New England comics has the same policy with reguard
to the bagged issues. I've never minded. Nor has anyone bothered me
about scimming the ones on the shelf, especially if it's a new book.
Mark
Henry Vogel
On 1 Dec 1997 23:55:35 -0500, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>sho...@hotmail.com wrote:
>: I guess I don't care much about writers and such because I am
>: not(and never will be) a "pull lister" that spends $100 bucks on comics
>: that are put away in a plastic bag to keep for investment purposes nor am
>: I the kind of person that likes to have piles and piles of comics that I
>: don't read anymore.
Take a look through, oh, ANY comic book price guide. Every book you
find with a high price will have said price attributed to the artist.
You will never, ever find a writer credited for the success of any
comic book in any price guide.
But think about your statement above ("I don't care much about
writers") for a moment. If the writing isn't any good, if the story
doesn't hold your interest then all you've got is a bunch of pages
filled with pretty pictures. And how many times do you really need to
buy copies of artist X's drawings of character Y?
I'm really not trying to jump on you in particular but you've touched
a pet peeve of mine. Said pet peeve being that writers are just
riding the coat tails of the artist. This attitude, in my opinion,
has done considerable harm to the comic book industry.
To finish, I'd be curious to know why you stop reading certain comics
(and note that even you talk about "reading" comics -- if the writer
isn't important than shouldn't we all just "look" at comics?). Do you
stop because you no longer care for the artwork? The stories? The
writing? A combination of all of the above? I'd lay odds that your
decisions have more to do with the writing than you may even realize.
Henry Vogel
W. Allen Montgomery
gol...@ibm.net (Henry Vogel) wrote:
>Take a look through, oh, ANY comic book price guide. Every book you
>find with a high price will have said price attributed to the artist.
>You will never, ever find a writer credited for the success of any
>comic book in any price guide.
Alan Moore's run on Swamp Thing. The early issues of the Eclipse
Miracle Man. Howard the Duck.
Are these things expensive anymore? What with reprints and all, I
don't know. When I was collector, these items were desirable and out of my
wallet's reach because of the *writers* on the books.
>I'm really not trying to jump on you in particular but you've touched
>a pet peeve of mine. Said pet peeve being that writers are just
>riding the coat tails of the artist. This attitude, in my opinion,
>has done considerable harm to the comic book industry.
But as far as the mainstream is concerned, it's true. That's how you
get a "hot" artist (you fill in the name) thinking he can also write, and the
publishers, retailers and fans all then seem to agree with the artist. It's
not necessarily because the artist is quantitatively a "good" writer, it's
because the artist (usually) knows what makes good comics art, and doesn't let
his writing get in the way.
Without looking at the credits, can you recognize a comics writer from
the work? With only very rare exception, I sure can't. See, this is just my
opinion mind you, but I believe a writer's work should be recognizable through
any artist. But that's not going to happen with the assembly line method of
creating comics. The artist just has too large a presence and too great a
burden of the responsibility, so therefore *should* get most of the credit.
Erik Larsen's little "Name Withheld" rant in the CBG a few years back
was slightly off-target, but only slightly. He had the feelings right, but
not the words. Nine times out of ten, the artist puts more hours into a
project than the writer. This is primarily due to the "Marvel Method" of
comics creation, wherein the artist works from a mere plot synopsis or a very
bare-bones script. In Fantagraphics' X-Men Companion, I seem to recall John
Byrne saying something about starting to draw after having only had a brief
phone conversation with Chris Claremont. Is this still the popular method of
writing in the mainstream?
It's sad when the Watchmen is praised for being an exceptional example
of writing in a comic book series, when its script density should indeed be
the hard and fast rule.
I'm really not trying to jump on you in particular but you've touched
a pet peeve of mine. Said pet peeve being that comics even needs separate
writers. This attitude, in my opinion, has done considerable harm to the
comic book industry and begs the question:
IF YOU CAN'T DRAW, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN **WANT** TO DO COMICS?
I've asked this question time and time again, and the typical
responses I get (if any) are "I've always liked comics," or "I think in visual
terms." Discounting one's likes/dislikes (I've always liked the White House,
maybe I should run for President), are we to assume writers in other fields
*DON'T* think in visual terms? Isn't that what words are for? To invoke
mental pictures?
Comics writers make themselves second-class citizens. When I go to
the comic shop once every two months, spend about six hours perusing the
shelves and don't find a single damn thing worth reading (but lots of pretty
pictures), there is something severely wrong. If these writers can't come up
with something more interesting than a new outfit for Superman, then they all
need to go visualize a Big Mac at an ad agency somewhere.
--
Later,
W. Allen Montgomery
Jim McGinnis
snip, snip snip
>Take a look through, oh, ANY comic book price guide. Every book you
>find with a high price will have said price attributed to the artist.
>You will never, ever find a writer credited for the success of any
>comic book in any price guide.
>
AHEM: GARTH ENNIS, JAME ROBINSON, GRANT MORRISON, NEIL GAIMAN, need I go on!
Bradly E. Peterson
"Jim McGinnis" <hnjc...@rocketmail.com> done said this here
deal:
(Jim's tale of a slack disrespectful little shit snipped)
>perhaps I over reacted. I know that he has never returned. I did not enjoy
>what transpired, but I neither could I afford to have him damage any more of
>my inventory. By the way my shrinkage problem seemed to resolve itself,
>right after that (shrinkage by the way is an unexplained decrease in
>inventory, usually caused by theft).
You did the right thing. Props to you, brudda man.
>Normal customers are welcome to peruse my selection, and I am more than
>happy to let them closely examine back issues. I do prefer to remove the
>comics from the bags myself however.
>Jim McGinnis
>Helen & James Comics
>San Jose, CA
Yep. Most of us realize it's not a library but it's usually ok
to check out a new book (or old book) and treat it with care
whilst in our hands. For more on this type of thing, check out
the artwork on the cover, inside front cover and inside back
cover of "Cerebus Guide To Self-Publishing". It's a hoot. But
yah'll buy it after checking out the artwork, ok? It's got good
stuff in there.
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
(Remove SPAMBLOCK from address to reply)
<http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama>
"They're Cool... They're Hip...
They've seen each others dicks."
(Christopher Priest on "new Q&W ad campaign")
Lemming
zheeb zheeb zhug...@ibm.net (Henry Vogel)---gwup?
>And how many times do you really need to
>buy copies of artist X's drawings of character Y?
I spend an awful lot of money on Rembrandt books. I don't think he
would have been greatly improved by Garth Ennis scripts.
I agree with most everything else you said, though.
Hep to your jive,
Lemming
writing portfolio and odd opinions at:
http://www2.cybernex.net/~lemming7/
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
W. Allen Montgomery (w.a.mon...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: gol...@ibm.net (Henry Vogel) wrote:
: >I'm really not trying to jump on you in particular but you've touched
: >a pet peeve of mine. Said pet peeve being that writers are just
: >riding the coat tails of the artist. This attitude, in my opinion,
: >has done considerable harm to the comic book industry.
: But as far as the mainstream is concerned, it's true.
That writers "ride the coattails" of artists, or that writers don't draw
(pardon the pun) a fan base like artists do? I'd fight you on that first
one, but probably concede the second. By and large, I think the majority
of comics readers (NOT us, we're text-based to begin with being online and
all, we are NOT representative!) buy for the artist rather than the
writer, one of the reasons Image was so hot so fast.
: That's how you
: get a "hot" artist (you fill in the name) thinking he can also write, and the
: publishers, retailers and fans all then seem to agree with the artist.
I think it was Mark Bright who said that an artist can sit at a keyboard
and type the letter "L" and it'll be the same letter "L" that a writer
types, but a writer can't necessarily sit down and draw a circle and-- if
he or she doesn't have artistic ability-- have that circle be the same
circle an artist would draw. This perpetuates the perception that it's
easier for an artist to write than for a writer to draw. To an extent,
seeing how many artists out there are also good writers (and again I'm
thinking of Mark Bright here <g>), I can see a lot of truth in that.
: It's
: not necessarily because the artist is quantitatively a "good" writer, it's
: because the artist (usually) knows what makes good comics art, and doesn't let
: his writing get in the way.
If you're claiming that, in general, comic book artists have a better
visual sense than comic book writers, I'm not sure I agree. It's
mandatory to work on honing a keen visual if you're going to make comic
books, but you can possess that ability without necessarily being able to
translate it into drawing ability.
: Without looking at the credits, can you recognize a comics writer from
: the work? With only very rare exception, I sure can't.
Oh, I can. I have less trouble differentiating writing styles than I do
differentiating art styles.
: Erik Larsen's little "Name Withheld" rant in the CBG a few years back
: was slightly off-target, but only slightly. He had the feelings right, but
: not the words.
<snide> Well, that's 'cause he's not a WRITER. </snide>
Larsen's basic claim was that artists don't need writers. I disagree.
: Nine times out of ten, the artist puts more hours into a
: project than the writer. This is primarily due to the "Marvel Method" of
: comics creation...
No it isn't. It's due to the fact that drawing is more labor-intensive
than typing. It can be argued, in fact, that writers actually do double
duty if they work "Marvel style," because they're writing the plot first,
then after they see the art they're writing the dialogue. But even so,
it's still going to take longer for artists than for writers.
: It's sad when the Watchmen is praised for being an exceptional example
: of writing in a comic book series, when its script density should indeed
: be the hard and fast rule.
I disagree. I don't think dense scripts do artists any favors. I don't
care for Alan Moore's scripts. They're written with an audience in mind,
with the knowledge that people will be reading them as works of art in and
of themselves. The primary purpose of a comic book script should be as an
instruction manual (or "suggestion manual," as my partner calls it) to the
artist; anything else is superfluous.
: I'm really not trying to jump on you in particular but you've touched
: a pet peeve of mine. Said pet peeve being that comics even needs separate
: writers. This attitude, in my opinion, has done considerable harm to the
: comic book industry and begs the question:
: IF YOU CAN'T DRAW, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN **WANT** TO DO COMICS?
If you can't write comics, why would you want to read them? :)
: I've asked this question time and time again, and the typical
: responses I get (if any) are "I've always liked comics," or "I think in visual
: terms."
Just because you may not like these answers doesn't mean they're not
valid. I want to write comic books because I think they're a wonderful
way of telling a story.
You've touched, in fact, a particular pet peeve of MINE-- the idea that a
writer of comics must have artistic ability. I've always considered this
nonsense.
: Discounting one's likes/dislikes (I've always liked the White House,
: maybe I should run for President)...
Not a valid analogy.
: are we to assume writers in other fields
: *DON'T* think in visual terms? Isn't that what words are for? To invoke
: mental pictures?
Sometimes, but I don't think writers in other fields need to think in the
same ways. If you're a screenwriter, your words will be interpreted by
actors, not two-dimensional drawings. If you write prose short stories, I
suppose visual thinking doesn't hurt but it's conveyed in a different
manner entirely. However, if you think all writing is pretty much the
same, whether it's for the movies or for comics or for books, I think it
would be rather pointless to try to explain the differences to you.
: Comics writers make themselves second-class citizens.
No, comics readers who think artists are the only important aspect of
books make comics writers into second-class citizens. :)
: When I go to
: the comic shop once every two months, spend about six hours perusing the
: shelves and don't find a single damn thing worth reading (but lots of pretty
: pictures), there is something severely wrong.
Look again, Allen. Not even the pictures are pretty oftimes. And yes,
there is something seriously wrong when the stories aren't worth reading.
But that's the fault of everyone from the editors on down.
Henry Vogel
>snip, snip snip
>>Take a look through, oh, ANY comic book price guide. Every book you
>>find with a high price will have said price attributed to the artist.
>>You will never, ever find a writer credited for the success of any
>>comic book in any price guide.
>>
>
>AHEM: GARTH ENNIS, JAME ROBINSON, GRANT MORRISON, NEIL GAIMAN, need I go on!
>
>Jim McGinnis
>Helen & James Comics
>San Jose, CA
Man, drop out of the comics scene for a few years and they go and
change everything on you! Ah, well, it USED to be the way I indicated
above... And I'm glad it's not!
Henry Vogel
Mark Bernstein
On 12 Dec 1997 09:48:40 -0500, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
>I disagree. I don't think dense scripts do artists any favors. I don't
>care for Alan Moore's scripts. They're written with an audience in mind,
>with the knowledge that people will be reading them as works of art in and
>of themselves.
Where do you get this? Has Moore ever said that he regards his
scripts as separate works of art? It seems entirely possible to me
that Moore's style is simply that, his preferred writing style.
Mark Bernstein
m...@arbortext.com
Henry Vogel
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:33:52 GMT,
w.a.mon...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net (W. Allen Montgomery)
wrote:
>gol...@ibm.net (Henry Vogel) wrote:
>>Take a look through, oh, ANY comic book price guide. Every book you
>>find with a high price will have said price attributed to the artist.
>>You will never, ever find a writer credited for the success of any
>>comic book in any price guide.
>
> Alan Moore's run on Swamp Thing. The early issues of the Eclipse
>Miracle Man. Howard the Duck.
> Are these things expensive anymore? What with reprints and all, I
>don't know. When I was collector, these items were desirable and out of my
>wallet's reach because of the *writers* on the books.
I can even quote the long running success of Chris Claremont's X-Men
as an example of a book which was successful more due to the writer
than anything else. I've also been informed that things have changed
in price guides over the last few years (I'm returning to the field as
a reader after several years away from it). However, if you had
checked late '80s or early '90s price guide for any of the books
listed above you would have found credits for the artists but none for
the writers.
<snip>
> I'm really not trying to jump on you in particular but you've touched
>a pet peeve of mine. Said pet peeve being that comics even needs separate
>writers. This attitude, in my opinion, has done considerable harm to the
>comic book industry and begs the question:
>
>
> IF YOU CAN'T DRAW, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN **WANT** TO DO COMICS?
>
Yes, and if you can't act or direct or why would you want to write
plays or screenplays? Or, for the artists who CAN'T write, if you
can't write as well as draw, why would you want to do comics? If you
can't PLAY football, why would you want to write about it? If you
can't BE president, why would you want to write about politics? If
you can't travel through space why would you want to write about it?
I wrote comic books because I love the medium. No, I can't draw. So
what? It took a collaboration between the artist and me to produce a
comic book. What could be wrong with that? Going back to the three
books you mentioned at the beginning of your post (Miracle Man, Swamp
Thing and Howard the Duck), note that those books had a writer and an
artist. Were the books worse than normal because of that? Of course
not.
<snip>
> Comics writers make themselves second-class citizens. When I go to
>the comic shop once every two months, spend about six hours perusing the
>shelves and don't find a single damn thing worth reading (but lots of pretty
>pictures), there is something severely wrong. If these writers can't come up
>with something more interesting than a new outfit for Superman, then they all
>need to go visualize a Big Mac at an ad agency somewhere.
>
>--
>Later,
>W. Allen Montgomery
Did comic writers make themselves second-class citizens or did the
industry just file them away under that label? When everyone from the
comic publishers to the comic reading public backed the notion that
artists were important and writers were something which could be
plugged in and out of titles as needed then it's silly to blame
writers for their plight. And it is that same position as "second
class citizen" which, in my opinion, ran many of the good writers out
of the business. If you can't find anything worth reading on the
comic book shelves is it because writers aren't important to comic
books or because writers got tired of being the second class citizen
and left the field?
Henry Vogel
lordj...@geocities.com
Henry Vogel wrote:
> On 1 Dec 1997 23:55:35 -0500, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
> Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
> >sho...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >: I guess I don't care much about writers and such because I am
> >: not(and never will be) a "pull lister" that spends $100 bucks on comics
> >: that are put away in a plastic bag to keep for investment purposes nor am
> >: I the kind of person that likes to have piles and piles of comics that I
> >: don't read anymore.
>
> Take a look through, oh, ANY comic book price guide. Every book you
> find with a high price will have said price attributed to the artist.
> You will never, ever find a writer credited for the success of any
> comic book in any price guide.
A nit: in the mid-80s Alan Moore became the first writer ever to have his name
listed in the Overstreet price guide. My guess is that Neil Gaiman is the main
reason for the inflated prices for early issues of Sandman. Other than these few
extreme examples, you're absolutely right.
--
J. Stephen Bolhafner (Steve)
lordj...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/9923/comics.html
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."
- John Stuart Mill
damontegration
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
> : Erik Larsen's little "Name Withheld" rant in the CBG a few years back
> : was slightly off-target, but only slightly. He had the feelings right, but
> : not the words.
>
> <snide> Well, that's 'cause he's not a WRITER. </snide>
>
> Larsen's basic claim was that artists don't need writers. I disagree.
from what i remember of the letter, you
are 100% dead wrong.
> : It's sad when the Watchmen is praised for being an exceptional example
> : of writing in a comic book series, when its script density should indeed
> : be the hard and fast rule.
>
> I disagree. I don't think dense scripts do artists any favors. I don't
> care for Alan Moore's scripts. They're written with an audience in mind,
> with the knowledge that people will be reading them as works of art in and
> of themselves. The primary purpose of a comic book script should be as an
> instruction manual (or "suggestion manual," as my partner calls it) to the
> artist; anything else is superfluous.
so writers writing for an artist is superfluous.
> You've touched, in fact, a particular pet peeve of MINE-- the idea that a
> writer of comics must have artistic ability. I've always considered this
> nonsense.
well, it certainly helps.
--
"A lot of people misunderstand talk radio, especially me."
-Rush Limbaugh
IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S
DONE! IT'S DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brandon Blatcher
In article <66ris8$j...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>W. Allen Montgomery (w.a.mon...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>: gol...@ibm.net (Henry Vogel) wrote:
>: Nine times out of ten, the artist puts more hours into a
>: project than the writer. This is primarily due to the "Marvel Method" of
>: comics creation...
>
>No it isn't. It's due to the fact that drawing is more labor-intensive
>than typing. It can be argued, in fact, that writers actually do double
>duty if they work "Marvel style," because they're writing the plot first,
>then after they see the art they're writing the dialogue. But even so,
>it's still going to take longer for artists than for writers.
I can spend a rather lenghty amount of time doing a picture perfect drawing
of a pile of feces. However when I'm finished it's still a pile of shit.
(insert bad artist here) might have spent much longer drawing a story than
(insert a good writer) spent writing a story, but that length of time
doesn't mean squat, not does the amount of effort applied, if the final
product is terrible.
You can give me a page to color and can give Tom Vincent and/or Robin
Riggs(just to borrow racm regulars who works reguarly in the field) the
exact same page to color, and it'll proably take me longer to do and Tom
and Robin will proably do the a better job 'cause they have way more
pratice/experience. However, all three finished pages would be better than
the a finished story by certain writers.
Brandon
IT'S PRINTED, ITS PRINTED, ITS' PRINTED, IT'S PRINTED, IT'S PRINTED, IT'S
PRINTED!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------
delete the spamblock to send email
musta blown a fuse or something, it was so dark in my mind
she came up to me with the sweetest face and she was holding a light of
some kind
and I still think of you as my boyfriend, I don't think this is the end of
the world
maybe you should follow my example and go meet yourself a really nice girl
-Ani DiFranco "Light of Some Kind"
Crisper Than Thou
W. Allen Montgomery <w.a.mon...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Without looking at the credits, can you recognize a comics writer from
>the work?
Yeah, I bet I could in a few cases, unless said writer was deliberately
munging their style to obscure it. I think Gaiman has a pretty consistent
feel. Given time, I think I could pick out Joe Kelly dialogue regularly.
Frank Miller stands out like a sore thumb anymore. Actually, a lot of
the "great writers" that most people agree on are considered greats
because their writing is as distinctive as Clapton or Gilmour on a
guitar, I think.
>Nine times out of ten, the artist puts more hours into a
>project than the writer. This is primarily due to the "Marvel Method" of
>comics creation, wherein the artist works from a mere plot synopsis or a very
>bare-bones script.
I can bang out even a very fleshed-out script of 22 pages much faster than
Jimbo can draw those 22 pages. I just put down words faster than Jimbo
fills up his drawing board. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but
I can throw out a thousand bang-on words in short order but when Jimbo
goes to draw that picture/page, the simple phrase "dozens of people
running about in terror" (which I just wrote in two seconds) takes him
hours to render. I think writing is just, generally, faster than art.
You see lots of writers doing two, four, eight projects at a time; how
many artists out there are doing three monthly projects? Or even two?
Definitely, the artist puts in more hours than the writer. The artist
generally makes a lot more than the writer, too, which is as it should be.
> It's sad when the Watchmen is praised for being an exceptional example
>of writing in a comic book series, when its script density should indeed be
>the hard and fast rule.
Hard and fast rule? Watchmen? Oh my God, no. A script that dense should only
be needed for a story that dense. For most stories, it would be grotesque
overkill. (Hell, in places it was overkill for WATCHMEN!) If I went into that
sort of detail-- "For example, there's young Irene Erickson, age 23. She's a
single mother; the father is in jail on drug possession charges. She's just
starting to get her life back on track, with a new job at the neighborhood
grocery chain store. One of the bricks flying away from the explosion is
about to strike her full-force in the head, however, killing her instantly,
and her face bears the infinite sadness of one who is suddenly aware that
all her dreams are about to end in a messy pile of gore on the sidewalk."--
Jimbo would look it over and go, uhhh, what's important here? Let's see. Ah!
"Dozens of people running about in terror." Got it. Wish Dan hadn't spewed
all this irrelevant crap about some grocery store chick.
> IF YOU CAN'T DRAW, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN **WANT** TO DO COMICS?
Because I want my stories to have a visual aspect to them, I love the comics
medium, and that's the route through which I'd like to deliver them.
To make this implication is to potentially imply that people who can't
act shouldn't want to work in film, you know. In a medium where it takes
lots of different talents to produce the final result, you're going to
have a dearth of results if you limit the medium only to people who can
carry all those talents themselves.
>Discounting one's likes/dislikes (I've always liked the White House,
>maybe I should run for President), are we to assume writers in other fields
>*DON'T* think in visual terms? Isn't that what words are for? To invoke
>mental pictures?
Hm. Yeah. So why have comic books at all, when mere prose clearly suffices?
>If these writers can't come up
>with something more interesting than a new outfit for Superman, then they all
>need to go visualize a Big Mac at an ad agency somewhere.
Definitely! The same is true of film writers who can't come up with anything
more innovative for their franchise than "the new series characters meet
up with the old series characters". I just don't see what would be gained
by insisting (as it seems you are) that all writers be able to draw as well.
That does nothing at all to innately guarantee any sort of quality. It just
means that everyone would be drawing their own complete shit instead of
someone else's complete shit.
--The Elder Dan
--
In dreams, logic grows on trees.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Mark Bernstein (m...@arbortext.com) wrote:
: On 12 Dec 1997 09:48:40 -0500, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
: Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: >
: >I disagree. I don't think dense scripts do artists any favors. I don't
: >care for Alan Moore's scripts. They're written with an audience in mind,
: >with the knowledge that people will be reading them as works of art in and
: >of themselves.
: Where do you get this? Has Moore ever said that he regards his
: scripts as separate works of art?
Alan Davis has said that Moore writes with the idea that his scripts are
"for posterity" rather than simply aimed at the artist. I should think,
if you read one of his scripts, which are lyrical and evocative rather
than instructional to the artist, it would be obvious that he believes
he's writing them to be read, down the line, by the masses.
W. Allen Montgomery
cri...@shell15.ba.best.com (Crisper Than Thou) wrote:
> Hard and fast rule? Watchmen? Oh my God, no. A script that dense should only
> be needed for a story that dense. For most stories, it would be grotesque
> overkill.
Which is a tangential point. Why is that particular story, from over
ten years ago, still such an exceptional example of comics writing? Why are
there so few involved reads in the comics (beyond trying to keep up with the
current roster of X-Factor, I mean)?
> If I went into that sort of detail -- "For example, there's young Irene
> Erickson, age 23. She's a single mother; the father is in jail on drug
> possession charges. She's just starting to get her life back on track, with
> a new job at the neighborhood grocery chain store. One of the bricks flying
> away from the explosion is about to strike her full-force in the head,
> however, killing her instantly, and her face bears the infinite sadness of
> one who is suddenly aware that all her dreams are about to end in a messy
> pile of gore on the sidewalk." -- Jimbo would look it over and go, uhhh,
> what's important here? Let's see. Ah! "Dozens of people running about in
> terror." Got it. Wish Dan hadn't spewed all this irrelevant crap about some
> grocery store chick.
Another point. Artists have come *expect* this sort of laziness from
their writers, thus perpetuating the assembly line standard. If the writer
could draw it, breaking it down on the page for another artist to finish, a
written-out script wouldn't be necessary, would it? If it is the artist who
lays out the panels, establishes the pacing, decides what all the characters
and settings look like, picks all the camera angles and just fills in random
details here and there — whose story is it, anyway? Who indeed is the writer
in said situation?
>> IF YOU CAN'T DRAW, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN **WANT** TO DO COMICS?
>
> Because I want my stories to have a visual aspect to them, I love the comics
> medium, and that's the route through which I'd like to deliver them.
"I like comics, and I write in visual terms." Does no one have a
different answer for this question?
> To make this implication is to potentially imply that people who can't
> act shouldn't want to work in film, you know.
Hardly. One person could create, publish, print and distribute a
comic all by his lonesome, should he desire strongly enough to do so. Even
the lowest budget films can't be produced that efficiently.
>>are we to assume writers in other fields *DON'T* think in visual terms?
>>Isn't that what words are for? To invoke mental pictures?
>
>Hm. Yeah. So why have comic books at all, when mere prose clearly suffices?
No, I'm saying that comics doesn't have the monopoly on writing
visually. Most all writers in all fields convey their craft in visual terms.
So if that's what gets your rocks off, why choose the limited comics market?
I suspect it's because the comics writer's job is so easy. In-depth writing
(like Watchmen) is viewed as an anomoly, so expectations of the comics writer
are relatively low. In the actual production process, the artist is the beast
of burden. The artist accepts this burden because he has been conditioned to
think of additional instruction as a form of reining, and the burden as a form
of creative freedom. Then his name is listed second in the credits.
If comics were primarily produced by auteurs (for lack of a more
comics-appropriate term), I believe the medium would get a lot more respect
and the market would be in much better shape.
[But as an aside to your mention of prose: we have numerous examples
of comics artists proving they don't need writers, effectively producing
comics on their own. How many examples are there of comics writers abandoning
the artists and turning to prose? Only Steve Englehart and Chris Claremont
initially come to mind.
And John Byrne, an artist, even wrote a prose novel! (but I'm not
saying it was that great, people...)]
> I just don't see what would be gained by insisting
> (as it seems you are) that all writers be able to draw as well.
> That does nothing at all to innately guarantee any sort of quality.
No, but it lessens the probability of a writer riding an artist's
coattails, which was the original concern.
--
Later,
W. Allen Montgomery (who is only being an ass because
somebody just stole his last beer)
Henry Vogel
>I think it was Mark Bright who said that an artist can sit at a keyboard
>and type the letter "L" and it'll be the same letter "L" that a writer
>types, but a writer can't necessarily sit down and draw a circle and-- if
>he or she doesn't have artistic ability-- have that circle be the same
>circle an artist would draw. This perpetuates the perception that it's
>easier for an artist to write than for a writer to draw. To an extent,
>seeing how many artists out there are also good writers (and again I'm
>thinking of Mark Bright here <g>), I can see a lot of truth in that.
A very telling quote, regardless of who said it. It pretty much sums
up the opinion that most of the comic book industry seems to have in
regard to writers...
So, let's take a little closer look at what the artist (since you're
not sure it's Mark Bright, I won't attribute the quote to him
specifically) has actually said. He's said that he can type. That
makes him a typist, NOT a writer. Typing, as I'm sure pretty much
everyone posting messages to this newsgroup knows, is not a
particularly difficult skill to learn. That's why typists don't
exactly make the big bucks. Virtually anyone willing to take the time
can learn to type. The same is not true about writing or drawing.
The ACT of drawing is to take a pencil and make shapes on paper. I
can do that. But the ART of drawing is to make those shapes convey
something, in comic books that something being a sequential story. I
can not do that.
The ACT of writing is to type on a keyboard. Again, anyone can do
that. Further, the ACT of writing a story involves the use of words
to convey scenes, actions, etc. That, too, can be done by virtually
anyone since we get lots of practice using words in normal, everyday
life. The ART of writing, however, involves using words in such a way
that the actions, scenes, characters and emotions spring to life in
the reader's mind.
So any artist can type up a story of some kind while very few writers
can draw a comic book of any kind (unless you use stick figures).
That doesn't mean that the artist has created a better story than the
writer, it simply means the artist has created a story. Sometimes
writer/artists produce extraordinary books. Sometimes writer/artists
have art which shines but stories which suck. The former have no need
for a separate writer. The latter just think they don't need them.
Henry Vogel
damontegration
Brandon Blatcher wrote:
>
> In article <66ris8$j...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
> Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
> >: gol...@ibm.net (Henry Vogel) wrote:
>
> >: Nine times out of ten, the artist puts more hours into a
> >: project than the writer. This is primarily due to the "Marvel Method" of
> >: comics creation...
> >
> >No it isn't. It's due to the fact that drawing is more labor-intensive
> >than typing. It can be argued, in fact, that writers actually do double
> >duty if they work "Marvel style," because they're writing the plot first,
> >then after they see the art they're writing the dialogue. But even so,
> >it's still going to take longer for artists than for writers.
>
> of a pile of feces. However when I'm finished it's still a pile of shit.
no, it's not.. haven't you read understanding comics?
> You can give me a page to color and can give Tom Vincent and/or Robin
> Riggs(just to borrow racm regulars who works reguarly in the field) the
> exact same page to color, and it'll proably take me longer to do and Tom
> and Robin will proably do the a better job 'cause they have way more
> pratice/experience.
i htinkthat you could give me a photograph and a
set of paints, and eventually i could repreodcue an alex ross
painting which he did from the phototgraph.
However, all three finished pages would be better than
> the a finished story by certain writers.
if i were paranoid, i'd think you were talking about me.
wait, i am paranoid.
> Brandon
> IT'S PRINTED, ITS PRINTED, ITS' PRINTED, IT'S PRINTED, IT'S PRINTED, IT'S
> PRINTED!!!!!
this is really bugging you, isn't it?
well, i'm drawing it now, and it looks great.
only about 30 more images to draw.
[yes, i scanned about 30 images-- i told you, this will be insane,
and probably won't work].
--
"A lot of people misunderstand talk radio, especially me."
-Rush Limbaugh
IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!
in defernce to brandon: okay, i'ts not done yet.
damontegration
> > If I went into that sort of detail -- "For example, there's young Irene
> > Erickson, age 23. She's a single mother; the father is in jail on drug
> > possession charges. She's just starting to get her life back on track, with
> > a new job at the neighborhood grocery chain store. One of the bricks flying
> > away from the explosion is about to strike her full-force in the head,
> > however, killing her instantly, and her face bears the infinite sadness of
> > one who is suddenly aware that all her dreams are about to end in a messy
> > pile of gore on the sidewalk." -- Jimbo would look it over and go, uhhh,
> > what's important here? Let's see. Ah! "Dozens of people running about in
> > terror." Got it. Wish Dan hadn't spewed all this irrelevant crap about some
> > grocery store chick.
i think dan would be so in love with what he's written that he'd put it
over the pretty
pictures jimbo draws.
>
> >> IF YOU CAN'T DRAW, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN **WANT** TO DO COMICS?
> >
> > Because I want my stories to have a visual aspect to them, I love the comics
> > medium, and that's the route through which I'd like to deliver them.
>
> "I like comics, and I write in visual terms." Does no one have a
> different answer for this question?
because you asked:
each medium has a different strength:
i have ideas for comics, novels, movies, poems.
the idea i have for a comic is specifically FOR that medium,
it's intrinsic to the idea:
three examples:
[1] the short story i've done: it's multimedia to a certain extent,
and the only ways to represent that are computer and comic.
[2] the comic in my head- a long, cerebus style soap opera about
a certain class/type of individuals during their college years-
novelization would lose the subtlety, and length of story,
film ould sacrifice the length, tv would be
too dependent on ratings, so comics are the road.
[3] my horror movie... it would be a combination of
scream and halloween- a deconstruction of the genre,
but a serious one, instead of a comedy.
i think to accurately do it, i'd have to use movie images.
hence, film.
>
> --
> Later,
> W. Allen Montgomery (who is only being an ass because
> somebody just stole his last beer)
gotcha.
--
"A lot of people misunderstand talk radio, especially me."
-Rush Limbaugh
IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S
DONE! IT'S DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!
David Roel
We simply must disagree, then. It's evident that the scripts are
instructional: they do, in fact, get drawn and published. If they were
non-instructional and non-utilitarian, they would not be able to be
used. Since they are used, they are, by definition, instructional and
utilitarian.
Is that Alan Davis's opinion (a conclusion he drew by himself), or is
it something he has heard from Alan Moore's lips? Every comment I have
ever heard (read) from Alan Moore regarding his scripts is just the
opposite of what you are stating, and I believe the man's own comments
ought to be the decisive ones.
JohannaLD
From: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput)
>Mark Bernstein (m...@arbortext.com) wrote:
>: Where do you get this? Has Moore ever said that he regards his
>: scripts as separate works of art?
>
>Alan Davis has said that Moore writes with the idea that his scripts are
>"for posterity" rather than simply aimed at the artist.
So you heard someone else say that they think Moore writes a
certain way. That doesn't answer Mark's question.
>I should think, if you read one of his scripts, which are lyrical and
>evocative rather than instructional to the artist, it would be obvious
>that he believes he's writing them to be read, down the line, by the
>masses.
"I should think, if you read one of those superhero comics, which are
full of violence and fighting, it would be obvious that they're very
poor things to allow children to have." Analysis by someone who's
already reached a conclusion is usually biased. Especially when there
are many better possibilities (Perhaps Moore writes in great detail to
better convey his thoughts to his artist and achieve a better product.)
Johanna
Brandon Blatcher
>Brandon Blatcher wrote:
>>
>> In article <66ris8$j...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
>> Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>>
>> >W. Allen Montgomery (w.a.mon...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>> >: gol...@ibm.net (Henry Vogel) wrote:
>>
>> >: Nine times out of ten, the artist puts more hours into a
>> >: project than the writer. This is primarily due to the "Marvel Method" of
>> >: comics creation...
>> >
>> >No it isn't. It's due to the fact that drawing is more labor-intensive
>> >than typing. It can be argued, in fact, that writers actually do double
>> >duty if they work "Marvel style," because they're writing the plot first,
>> >then after they see the art they're writing the dialogue. But even so,
>> >it's still going to take longer for artists than for writers.
>>
>> I can spend a rather lenghty amount of time doing a picture perfect drawing
>> of a pile of feces. However when I'm finished it's still a pile of shit.
>
>no, it's not.. haven't you read understanding comics?
cut it out. you know the point I was trying to make.
Of course I've read undetstanding comics. Getting ready to read it again.
Happy now?
Have you read the Photoshop manual yet?
>> You can give me a page to color and can give Tom Vincent and/or Robin
>> Riggs(just to borrow racm regulars who works reguarly in the field) the
>> exact same page to color, and it'll proably take me longer to do and Tom
>> and Robin will proably do the a better job 'cause they have way more
>> pratice/experience.
>
>i htinkthat you could give me a photograph and a
>set of paints, and eventually i could repreodcue an alex ross
>painting which he did from the phototgraph.
You're so talented.
>However, all three finished pages would be better than
>> the a finished story by certain writers.
>
>if i were paranoid, i'd think you were talking about me.
>
>
>
>wait, i am paranoid.
Nope, I haven't seen anything you writtten. I'd like to.
>> Brandon
>> IT'S PRINTED, ITS PRINTED, ITS' PRINTED, IT'S PRINTED, IT'S PRINTED, IT'S
>> PRINTED!!!!!
>
>this is really bugging you, isn't it?
Not toooo selfcentered are you? This had nothing to do with you. I was
working on a comic with others, doing grey washes, and I've got printed
samples in hand which means it's being distributed around the country as we
speak. Guess what you're getting for christmas
>well, i'm drawing it now, and it looks great.
>only about 30 more images to draw.
>[yes, i scanned about 30 images-- i told you, this will be insane,
>and probably won't work].
Well, it wouldn't be you if it was sane, now would it?
>--
>"A lot of people misunderstand talk radio, especially me."
>-Rush Limbaugh
>
>IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!
>in defernce to brandon: okay, i'ts not done yet.
I win, i win.
Brandon
protector of truth and justice.
Brandon Blatcher
>W. Allen Montgomery wrote:
>>
>> cri...@shell15.ba.best.com (Crisper Than Thou) wrote:
>
>>
>> >> IF YOU CAN'T DRAW, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN **WANT** TO DO COMICS?
>> >
>> > Because I want my stories to have a visual aspect to them, I love the
comics
>> > medium, and that's the route through which I'd like to deliver them.
>>
>> "I like comics, and I write in visual terms." Does no one have a
>> different answer for this question?
>
I like comics because they're a combination of design, drawing and writing,
talking all the best qualities of the three and being more than the sum of
the parts.
Big deal, so does film, you say. It's takes even more different kinds of
information (motion, sound, photograpy, music, lighting) and puts them all
together for an even greater sum. Well, comics also seem to have that
theater of the mind quality that I like. Film usually lays things out in a
very concrete manner, i.e. this is so and so's voice, this is exactly what
they look like etc. Comics can play with that bit.
Also it's possible to produce a comic book completely by yourself. There is
no way in hell you can do that with film. Producing a comic book is
considerably cheaper than a movie. Plus you "you get your hands dirty" with
comics. Every mark on the page was produced by a particular person for a
particular reason usually with unique artistic vision. Look at George
Herriman's "Krazy Kat" He did the lettering and drawing and it's all
uniquely his look or style.
Note: this is not a comics are better than movies type deal. I think the
two are diferrent ways of telling stories, with neither instrinically
better than the other.
This is merely my thoughts on why I would create comics in a answer the
original question "why would someone who can't draw want to work in
comics". But I can draw, soooo anyway.....
Brandon
well, it sounded good at the time
-----------------------------------------------------
delete the spamblock to send email
I read this article recently. It said the typical symptoms of stress are
eating too much, smoking too much, impulse buying and driving too fast.
Shoot, that's my idea of a perfect day.
damontegration
Brandon Blatcher wrote:
>
> In article <34925F...@po.cwru.edu>, db...@po.cwru.edu wrote:
>
> >Brandon Blatcher wrote:
> >> I can spend a rather lenghty amount of time doing a picture perfect drawing
> >> of a pile of feces. However when I'm finished it's still a pile of shit.
> >
> >no, it's not.. haven't you read understanding comics?
>
> cut it out. you know the point I was trying to make.
> Of course I've read undetstanding comics. Getting ready to read it again.
> Happy now?
cut it out?
CUT IT OUT????
really.
> Have you read the Photoshop manual yet?
it's on my list.
as soon as i get done reading the 15 or so books i own
i haven't read yet, the back stock of magazines,
the 300 or so research papers i should be keeping up on, i'll
get right to it.
besides, i'd rather just pump you. for infomration.
> >> You can give me a page to color and can give Tom Vincent and/or Robin
> >> Riggs(just to borrow racm regulars who works reguarly in the field) the
> >> exact same page to color, and it'll proably take me longer to do and Tom
> >> and Robin will proably do the a better job 'cause they have way more
> >> pratice/experience.
> >
> >i think that you could give me a photograph and a
> >set of paints, and eventually i could repreodcue an alex ross
> >painting which he did from the phototgraph.
>
> You're so talented.
no, i'm not.
i am saying that alex ross's art work reminds me of
someone who uses those tracings devices to copy a picture,
but that instead it seems like alx meticulously paints over
existing photgraphs. i say htis because he is technically great, but
i don't see any life' in his work.
> Nope, I haven't seen anything you writtten. I'd like to.
well, the, start reading my posts, for god's sake!!!
> >> Brandon
> >> IT'S PRINTED, ITS PRINTED, ITS' PRINTED, IT'S PRINTED, IT'S PRINTED, IT'S
> >> PRINTED!!!!!
> >
> >this is really bugging you, isn't it?
>
> Not toooo selfcentered are you? This had nothing to do with you. I was
> working on a comic with others, doing grey washes, and I've got printed
> samples in hand which means it's being distributed around the country as we
> speak. Guess what you're getting for christmas
posh. if it weren't bugging you, you wouldn't have parodied me.
i *figured* it was about something you did.
> >well, i'm drawing it now, and it looks great.
> >only about 30 more images to draw.
> >[yes, i scanned about 30 images-- i told you, this will be insane,
> >and probably won't work].
>
> Well, it wouldn't be you if it was sane, now would it?
i lied- it's only about 20-25 scans into 18 images,
and about 18 drawn images.
i did more last night, i think now it will look
great.
which i thought was about 50% probable.
but i won't know until i see the whole thing together.
> >--
> >"A lot of people misunderstand talk radio, especially me."
> >-Rush Limbaugh
> >
> >IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!
> >in defernce to brandon: okay, i'ts not done yet.
>
> I win, i win.
that's my xmas gift to you.
> Brandon
> protector of truth and justice.
i'll send you some spandex too.
--
"A lot of people misunderstand talk radio, especially me."
-Rush Limbaugh
IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S
DONE! IT'S DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!
in deference to brandon, it's not done.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
W. Allen Montgomery (w.a.mon...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: cri...@shell15.ba.best.com (Crisper Than Thou) wrote:
: > be needed for a story that dense. For most stories, it would be grotesque
: > overkill.
: Which is a tangential point. Why is that particular story, from over
: ten years ago, still such an exceptional example of comics writing?
It's not. It's an exceptional COMIC, but, as my partner says, "It isn't
about the STORY at all. It's an exercise in storyTELLING technique."
Also, it's important to remember that WATCHMEN was a collaboration, from
start to finish, between Moore and Gibbons.
: Another point. Artists have come *expect* this sort of laziness from
: their writers, thus perpetuating the assembly line standard.
What sort of laziness? Giving a one-line panel instruction isn't lazier
than writing five paragraphs of superfluous deathless prose. It's, in
fact, usually BETTER. A scripter isn't SUPPOSED to be writing deathless
prose in the instructional part of the script.
: If the writer
: could draw it, breaking it down on the page for another artist to finish, a
: written-out script wouldn't be necessary, would it?
Of course it would. You seem to be laboring under some misapprehensions
about how comic books are made. Have you ever seen a comic book script?
I collect them. I have full scripts, plot treatments, amalgams of Marvel-
style plots and bits of dialogue, etc. Breakdowns are an intermediate
process; you still need to add captions and dialogue after the artist does
his/her bit, and that's where the written-out script comes in.
: If it is the artist who
: lays out the panels, establishes the pacing, decides what all the characters
: and settings look like, picks all the camera angles and just fills in random
: details here and there - whose story is it, anyway?
Let alone the fact that you're confusing "story" and "storytelling," in
many cases the artist *doesn't* do things like establishing the pacing and
picking the look of the characters. The writer does. And very often
that's a collaboration too. (You seem to have a problem with the concept
of collaboration, by the way, but maybe this is just my perception.)
: >> IF YOU CAN'T DRAW, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN **WANT** TO DO COMICS?
: >
: > Because I want my stories to have a visual aspect to them, I love the comics
: > medium, and that's the route through which I'd like to deliver them.
: "I like comics, and I write in visual terms." Does no one have a
: different answer for this question?
Why does it need a different answer? I'm sorry if you have a problem
accepting this one, but that's your problem, not the writers'. My
partner, a professional comic book artist for 6+ years, says, "That's a
question so dumb it doesn't need an answer. People should be able to tell
whatever stories they wish to tell in whatever way they like. The mere
fact that people have been writing comics without drawing them for 50+
years should be a pointer that it's a valid choice for some people. Would
the comics world have been better without Stan Lee?..."
(Sorry to be quoting Robin so much, but he's been offline while he's been
visiting me, and this is the best way he can kibbitz at present. <g>)
: I'm saying that comics doesn't have the monopoly on writing
: visually. Most all writers in all fields convey their craft in visual terms.
: So if that's what gets your rocks off, why choose the limited comics market?
: I suspect it's because the comics writer's job is so easy.
"Generally," says Robin, "the answer is that you have more control over
your vision in comics than in most other collaborative fields. What you
write is more likely to appear in the manner you intended than it is, for
example, with screenwriting."
: [But as an aside to your mention of prose: we have numerous examples
: of comics artists proving they don't need writers, effectively producing
: comics on their own. How many examples are there of comics writers abandoning
: the artists and turning to prose? Only Steve Englehart and Chris Claremont
: initially come to mind.]
I'm sorry if you can't think of them (given your apparent disdain for
comic book writers I'm not surprised), but dozens of comic book writers
have also written novels, and most also write in other fields *as well*,
not instead.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
David Roel (davi...@webworldinc.com) wrote:
: We simply must disagree, then. It's evident that the scripts are
: instructional: they do, in fact, get drawn and published. If they were
: non-instructional and non-utilitarian, they would not be able to be
: used. Since they are used, they are, by definition, instructional and
: utilitarian.
You're playing semantics, and I choose to ignore this.
: Is that Alan Davis's opinion (a conclusion he drew by himself), or is
: it something he has heard from Alan Moore's lips?
Davis' opinion, which I share.
W. Allen Montgomery
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>[Watchmen] is an exceptional COMIC, but, as my partner says, "It isn't
>about the STORY at all. It's an exercise in storyTELLING technique."
>Also, it's important to remember that WATCHMEN was a collaboration, from
>start to finish, between Moore and Gibbons.
Be sure and thank your partner for telling us what Watchmen is
about (even though it came out before he was ever in the comics field), and
what should be important to us, won't you?
>Giving a one-line panel instruction isn't lazier
>than writing five paragraphs of superfluous deathless prose. It's, in
>fact, usually BETTER. A scripter isn't SUPPOSED to be writing deathless
>prose in the instructional part of the script.
If it decides who the peripheral characters are, what they are doing
and why, and what they look like, it isn't superfluous.
>: If the writer
>: could draw it, breaking it down on the page for another artist to finish, a
>: written-out script wouldn't be necessary, would it?
>
>Of course it would. You seem to be laboring under some misapprehensions
>about how comic books are made. Have you ever seen a comic book script?
>I collect them. I have full scripts, plot treatments, amalgams of Marvel-
>style plots and bits of dialogue, etc. Breakdowns are an intermediate
>process; you still need to add captions and dialogue after the artist does
>his/her bit, and that's where the written-out script comes in.
Misapprehensions? <<snicker>> Yes, I've seen a few comic book
scripts, and I'm aware how comic books are most commonly made. That's why I
believe it's a stupid method. If the writer was an an artist also, but still
a separate person from the illustrator, the "script" would consist merely of
the broken down final pages with some blue pencil notes.
>: >> IF YOU CAN'T DRAW, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN **WANT** TO DO COMICS?
>
>My partner, a professional comic book artist for 6+ years, says, "That's a
>question so dumb it doesn't need an answer. People should be able to tell
>whatever stories they wish to tell in whatever way they like. The mere
>fact that people have been writing comics without drawing them for 50+
>years should be a pointer that it's a valid choice for some people. Would
>the comics world have been better without Stan Lee?..."
Your partner sure runs his mouth a lot. Seeing as how he *CAN*
draw, and I'm guessing is not a writer anyway, he lacks the qualification
to answer the question in the first place.
But to address his ramblings: The mere fact that the comics market is
further down the toilet than its been in 50+ years should be a pointer that
there's something severely wrong. Comics writers churning out 25-page scripts
in four days are left with too much free time while they wait for the artists
to draw the pages. They then go out and write more pap. Their "valid
choices" are choking the comics market. My original assessment stands.
People who can't draw want to write comics because it's such an easy job.
And yes, that huckster Stan Lee can kiss my ass.
>"Generally," says Robin, "the answer is that you have more control over
>your vision in comics than in most other collaborative fields. What you
>write is more likely to appear in the manner you intended than it is, for
>example, with screenwriting."
So much control to put Superman in a blue lightning outfit. Yay.
If the majority of what I see on the racks is any indicator of what comics
writers' "visions" are, then they should all be lined up and shot.
>I'm sorry if you can't think of them (given your apparent disdain for
>comic book writers I'm not surprised), but dozens of comic book writers
>have also written novels, and most also write in other fields *as well*,
>not instead.
Okay, that was the question. I am only aware of Englehart and
Claremont (and Byrne) writing novels. Care to name some names, or do you just
want to keep generalizing? And seeing as how at least one of my examples
(Claremont; two if you count Byrne) is still working in comics, I think I
realize it's possible to work in two fields at once, thank you.
--
Later,
W. Allen Montgomery (who has no excuse for being a dick tonight —
he's sitting on an unopened case of Lowenbräu)
Robin Riggs
: >[Watchmen] is an exceptional COMIC, but, as my partner says, "It isn't
: >about the STORY at all. It's an exercise in storyTELLING technique."
: >Also, it's important to remember that WATCHMEN was a collaboration, from
: >start to finish, between Moore and Gibbons.
: Be sure and thank your partner for telling us what Watchmen is
: about (even though it came out before he was ever in the comics field), and
: what should be important to us, won't you?
Glad to be of such service to you, but I honestly don't give a damn WHAT'S
important to you. If you think my assessment of Watchmen is any less valid
than yours so be it. I really don't see what difference it makes whether I
was in the comics field when the book was published, I was still there to
hear what Alan and Dave were saying about the book WHILE they were working
on it.
: >Giving a one-line panel instruction isn't lazier
: >than writing five paragraphs of superfluous deathless prose. It's, in
: >fact, usually BETTER. A scripter isn't SUPPOSED to be writing deathless
: >prose in the instructional part of the script.
: If it decides who the peripheral characters are, what they are doing
: and why, and what they look like, it isn't superfluous.
Elayne responds (and I concur), "That's not what Moore's scripts do.
Well, okay, they do that to an extent, but they do lots of other things
that are totally unnecessary to some artists."
: >: If the writer
: >: could draw it, breaking it down on the page for another artist to finish, a
: >: written-out script wouldn't be necessary, would it?
: >
: >Of course it would. You seem to be laboring under some misapprehensions
: >about how comic books are made. Have you ever seen a comic book script?
: >I collect them. I have full scripts, plot treatments, amalgams of Marvel-
: >style plots and bits of dialogue, etc. Breakdowns are an intermediate
: >process; you still need to add captions and dialogue after the artist does
: >his/her bit, and that's where the written-out script comes in.
: Misapprehensions? <<snicker>> Yes, I've seen a few comic book
: scripts, and I'm aware how comic books are most commonly made. That's why I
: believe it's a stupid method. If the writer was an an artist also, but still
: a separate person from the illustrator, the "script" would consist merely of
: the broken down final pages with some blue pencil notes.
WOW! What a blinding revelation! Some writers have been working that way
for years. Can you tell which ones by looking at the work? Some artists
who receive these breakdowns redraw them in their own way and others
ignore them completely. Most writer/artists wouldn't want to restrict
another artist by giving them breakdowns to work from. As an example, do
you think John Byrne or Walt Simonson would give Sal Buscema breakdowns to
work from? I kind of doubt it when they would get back pages that gave
them everything they wanted and more if they just gave him a plot.
The writer and artist combination is something that works well and has
done so for decades. Why would you want to change something that works
well for most people? Just because you think it's not the way things ought
to be done? Grow up!
: >: >> IF YOU CAN'T DRAW, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN **WANT** TO DO COMICS?
: >
: >My partner, a professional comic book artist for 6+ years, says, "That's a
: >question so dumb it doesn't need an answer. People should be able to tell
: >whatever stories they wish to tell in whatever way they like. The mere
: >fact that people have been writing comics without drawing them for 50+
: >years should be a pointer that it's a valid choice for some people. Would
: >the comics world have been better without Stan Lee?..."
: Your partner sure runs his mouth a lot. Seeing as how he *CAN*
: draw, and I'm guessing is not a writer anyway, he lacks the qualification
: to answer the question in the first place.
And your writing credentials are ...? Feel free to disregard anything I
say, just as I do with such grossly unimformed opinion as yours. Why is it
that you think everyone should sit and listen to your opinions (whoever
the hell you are) but shouldn't be able to respond with their own?
: But to address his ramblings: The mere fact that the comics market is
: further down the toilet than its been in 50+ years should be a pointer that
: there's something severely wrong. Comics writers churning out 25-page scripts
: in four days are left with too much free time while they wait for the artists
: to draw the pages. They then go out and write more pap. Their "valid
: choices" are choking the comics market. My original assessment stands.
: People who can't draw want to write comics because it's such an easy job.
If you've really got the answer to writing such wonderful comicbook
stories that they're going to save the industry, by all means go ahead and
do it. If not then just keep posting here about how everyone else is doing
it the wrong way and only you have true secret of how it ought to be done.
I await perusal of your magnum opus with bated breath.
: >I'm sorry if you can't think of them (given your apparent disdain for
: >comic book writers I'm not surprised), but dozens of comic book writers
: >have also written novels, and most also write in other fields *as well*,
: >not instead.
: Okay, that was the question. I am only aware of Englehart and
: Claremont (and Byrne) writing novels. Care to name some names...
Peter David. Elliot S. Maggin. Dennis O'Neil (I know he's done screen
work). Don McGregor. Len Wein. Marv Wolfman. Among many, many others.
Robin.
Steve Lieber
In article <66s9bo$8...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> Mark Bernstein (m...@arbortext.com) wrote:
> : On 12 Dec 1997 09:48:40 -0500, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
> : Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> : >
> : >I disagree. I don't think dense scripts do artists any favors. I don't
> : >care for Alan Moore's scripts. They're written with an audience in mind,
> : >with the knowledge that people will be reading them as works of art in and
> : >of themselves.
>
> : Where do you get this? Has Moore ever said that he regards his
> : scripts as separate works of art?
>
> Alan Davis has said that Moore writes with the idea that his scripts are
> "for posterity" rather than simply aimed at the artist. I should think,
> if you read one of his scripts, which are lyrical and evocative rather
> than instructional to the artist, it would be obvious that he believes
> he's writing them to be read, down the line, by the masses.
Personally, I'll take a densely written, well thought out script over a
bare bones framework any day of the week, and if the writer cares to use
"lyrical, evocative" language in there, I'll read and appreciate it, just
as I would a well written letter. If the author has the ability to write
visually, then my pictures are going to tell a richer story because of it.
It's a rare comic that makes even rudimentary conscious use of the most
basic tools of narrative, like "theme," or "metaphor." And even when they
do, it's likely to be hamfisted and embarrassing to anyone with a
vocabulary larger than Koko the signing gorilla. Good work doesn't happen
by accident, and if a writer wants to evoke a reaction beyond "Well they
done blowed that up purty good," he's going to have to make explicit to the
artist exactly what the story requires.
I don't see how lyrical or evocative exclude instructional, either. The
only Moore script I've ever illustrated was as an assignment back in art
school. We had the first eight pages from an early Swamp Thing to work
from, and geez was it a pleasure. I had no question about what the story
called for and the pictures it put in my head were just begging to be put
on paper.
This doesn't mean that a script needs to be choked with purple prose, just
that it needs to be explicit if it's aiming for anything higher than the
usual entertainment.
Lieber
--
Dilute! Dilute! Ok?
gron...@metronet.com
In article <66vq88$c...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
w.a.mon...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net (W. Allen Montgomery) wrote:
> My original assessment stands.
> People who can't draw want to write comics because it's such an easy job.
While I agree that many comicbooks writers out there have, probably are
(dunno, I really haven't bought many comics since last spring), and
probably will continue to churn out scripts that can be produced in a
couple hours, I don't agree with the statement that because one can't
draw, they end up writing because it's such an easy job. Do people write
screenplays because they can't direct? I'm sure many people do, and many
people writing screenplays would love to direct--just as many comicbook
writers would love to draw. I've read and seen a lot of things where the
story is what I remember over all the visuals. There are also many people
out there who don't really have the desire to want to draw--some people
just enjoy collaborating on things and making a neat story.
I do think there are many comics out there with little thought put into
the writing, and I think a monkey with half a brain stem and a pen can
probably write some of the stuff out there. And I agree, a lot of the
people writing those kinds of stories seem to like hanging out in the
studio with their friends and goofing off. Still, I'm not gonna knock
them--I'm gonna seek out the kinds of stories I like, written by people
who seem to care about what they are writing.
I've never written comics because I thought it was easy and because I
can't draw. I was introduced to the medium by some friends and I liked
the collaboration and differences one finds in writing a comicbook
script. Writing comics is not the only thing I want to do, however, and
I think I'd rather go back to menial labor than write 3-4 monthly books I
didn't care about. Writing comics is a totally different gig with its
own pleasures and letdowns.
Certain aspects of comicbooks writing may be easier than other forms of
writing, and certain things may be harder. It's a different thing than
writing fiction or non-fiction books. It's a different thing than
writing a screenplay. It's a different medium entirely! And like any
medium, there are those who do it because it's a job and they crank
things out simply to make money and strive, perhaps, for compiling
credits (and for those churning out scripts--they often churn out the
scripts because it's the only way they can make enough money to
survive...it's not a very forgiving industry that allows people to rest
on a few past credits.). There are those who take their time because the
story is more important to them than a long list of credits that can lead
to more work. And there are many scenarios in between.
Comic fans are very demanding--many fans expect something *every* month
like clockwork, even when a book is announced as having a different
schedule. Many fans feel they should be able to write in and have their
suggestions made into stories and become angered when the creators don't
do what the fans want. I know not all comic fans are like this, but
having seen many fans like this I can see why so many books are churned
out as quickly as possible to meet the demand. And for the fans and
creators involved in that little group, I'm sure it's satisfying and what
they are wanting out of the medium; if it isn't, instead of complaining,
go find something else. If someone wants to write 5 stories a month I
think are crap for thousands of fans who are going to buy it and think
it's great, more power to all those involved.
As a comicbook writer, there are times I look around a shop and feel
that's how all comics are judged by everyone on the outside looking in,
but who am I to say, "We must all pay more attention to craft and telling
better stories that millions of people may like?" I strive for something
different in the few comics I read and write, but I'm not going to say
the people creating mass-produced books do it because it's easy.
*Aspects* may be easy, but the demand from fans can balance things out.
Some studios have editors who essentially write the books. While I think
the act of writing those books may not be as hard as writing some other
comics, I'm not going to say they do it because it's easy--they are
swamped with letters and many other things that make their job tough
(perhaps even more hectic than the schedule of many artists out there).
And if you are talking about the few comicbook writers who are lucky
enough to write from their homes and send in their scripts--while it may
take less time to write a script than it may for others, their speed
often comes from experience and from time spent in the trenches when they
may not have had the luxury of writing from home and chatting with
editors on the phone. Ultimately, I think we all strive for a job that
offers comfort and a bit more time to step back and relax. Some writers
have paid their dues, some have been lucky, but I wouldn't say it's
necessarily easy.
Drawing comes easy to some people--for others it doesn't. Some artists
doing *all* the art on a book may look at comics produced in studios with
pencilers, letterers, inkers, etc. as easy; to those artists doing it
all, the other artists are getting a break. But unless that artist is
creating a book totally on their own each month, they don't have room to
really speak up. And the other side of this would be an artist on a
monthly book complaining someone like Jeff Smith has it easier, since he
doesn't have to produce BONE on a monthly basis. And all the artists may
look at a writer and think they have it easiest. 9 times out of 10,
however, you'll find *everyone* involved gving each other credit because
they know how much work goes into writing, drawing, and producing a
comic, and they know each step is vital to an overall good book. I've
known artists who wish they could write, and yeah--I've known writers who
wish they could draw. I've read comics where the art stunned me, and
I've read comics where the writing stunned me. And sometimes I find
those comics where *everything* stunned me. If you are thinking some
people have it easier than others, maybe you're not reading the right
kinds of books.
Take care,
Christopher Gronlund
---------------------------------------------------
Foundation Comics: Second Rate Heroes Comic Book
(LAST UPDATE: 12/4/97)
http://www.metronet.com/~gronlund/foundation.html
Foundation Strips: Online Comic Strips
(LAST UPDATE: 12/13/97)
http://www.metronet.com/~gronlund/strips/strips.html
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Lemming
zheeb zheeb zhufi...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput)---gwup?
>: It's
>: not necessarily because the artist is quantitatively a "good" writer, it's
>: because the artist (usually) knows what makes good comics art, and doesn't let
>: his writing get in the way.
>If you're claiming that, in general, comic book artists have a better
>visual sense than comic book writers, I'm not sure I agree. It's
>mandatory to work on honing a keen visual if you're going to make comic
>books, but you can possess that ability without necessarily being able to
>translate it into drawing ability.
No, I agree absolutely and completely. The visual sense of the
average writer is nothing to that of the artist. Could you write
"Guernica"?
>: Without looking at the credits, can you recognize a comics writer from
>: the work? With only very rare exception, I sure can't.
>Oh, I can. I have less trouble differentiating writing styles than I do
>differentiating art styles.
Absolutely. Even without the structure, the dialogue style of any
good writer is incredibly distinctive. Think about the differences
between Mamet and Hemingway, or Giffen and Ennis. For a good primer,
compare JLA and JLE, DeMatteis vs. Jones.
>Larsen's basic claim was that artists don't need writers. I disagree.
If the artist is capable of writing, of course they don't. Larsen is
completely incapable of writing.
>: Nine times out of ten, the artist puts more hours into a
>: project than the writer. This is primarily due to the "Marvel Method" of
>: comics creation...
>No it isn't. It's due to the fact that drawing is more labor-intensive
>than typing. It can be argued, in fact, that writers actually do double
>duty if they work "Marvel style," because they're writing the plot first,
>then after they see the art they're writing the dialogue. But even so,
>it's still going to take longer for artists than for writers.
A hack writer takes no more than a day per comic book. Bad writing
takes almost as long to write as it does to read. A good writer, or
artist...there's a cliche that applies here. Remember the one about
the painter and the rich woman? The rich woman offered him a thousand
dollars for a painting of him, and he dashes it off in five minutes.
And she sez, "A thousand dollars for five minutes?" And he sez, "No,
all my life plus five minutes."
Art and time have an uneasy relationship at best. Stairway to Heaven
is ten minutes long, and Unsquare Dance less than two. Yet there is
no doubt which one is better.
>: It's sad when the Watchmen is praised for being an exceptional example
>: of writing in a comic book series, when its script density should indeed
>: be the hard and fast rule.
>I disagree. I don't think dense scripts do artists any favors.
The artists I know disagree wholeheartedly. Which just goes to show,
you should stick with your artists, and I'll stick with mine.
>I don't
>care for Alan Moore's scripts. They're written with an audience in mind,
>with the knowledge that people will be reading them as works of art in and
>of themselves.
Is there a problem with that? Because people -are- going to be
reading them, and it's silly to pretend they won't. If your script
can stand alone, by all means do it.
>The primary purpose of a comic book script should be as an
>instruction manual (or "suggestion manual," as my partner calls it) to the
>artist; anything else is superfluous.
If you can do both, go for it. The artists I know prefer to have
something interesting to read and take ideas from, not a skeleton.
And if the writer isn't going to write, what are they there for?
>: IF YOU CAN'T DRAW, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN **WANT** TO DO COMICS?
>If you can't write comics, why would you want to read them? :)
You're both right. Erik Larsen and Peter David -both- have to go.
>You've touched, in fact, a particular pet peeve of MINE-- the idea that a
>writer of comics must have artistic ability. I've always considered this
>nonsense.
>: are we to assume writers in other fields
>: *DON'T* think in visual terms? Isn't that what words are for? To invoke
>: mental pictures?
>Sometimes, but I don't think writers in other fields need to think in the
>same ways. If you're a screenwriter, your words will be interpreted by
>actors, not two-dimensional drawings. If you write prose short stories, I
>suppose visual thinking doesn't hurt but it's conveyed in a different
>manner entirely.
"I suppose visual thinking doesn't hurt..."
Er...
What the hell? Are you suggesting short story writers don't need a
visual sense if they don't want it? Please tell me you don't believe
that.
>However, if you think all writing is pretty much the
>same, whether it's for the movies or for comics or for books, I think it
>would be rather pointless to try to explain the differences to you.
If you think it isn't, what can I say to you? writing is a way to
tell a story. You can adapt that story to different mediums, but
don't think a different expository style affects the core of your work
>Look again, Allen. Not even the pictures are pretty oftimes. And yes,
>there is something seriously wrong when the stories aren't worth reading.
>But that's the fault of everyone from the editors on down.
It's not the fault of those who try to do better.
Lemming
zheeb zheeb zhudamontegration <db...@po.cwru.edu>---gwup?
>> You're so talented.
>no, i'm not.
>i am saying that alex ross's art work reminds me of
>someone who uses those tracings devices to copy a picture,
>but that instead it seems like alx meticulously paints over
>existing photgraphs. i say htis because he is technically great, but
>i don't see any life' in his work.
Ah. I retract my earlier comment, then. I thought you were one of
those, "It's just a brush and paint, how hard could it be?" types.
Lemming
zheeb zheeb zhudamontegration <db...@po.cwru.edu>---gwup?
>i htinkthat you could give me a photograph and a
>set of paints, and eventually i could repreodcue an alex ross
>painting which he did from the phototgraph.
You always think that until you try it.
Lemming
zheeb zheeb zhug...@ibm.net (Henry Vogel)---gwup?
>If you
>can't PLAY football, why would you want to write about it? If you
>can't BE president, why would you want to write about politics? If
>you can't travel through space why would you want to write about it?
Now you jumped the rails. If we follow the analogy through, I revise
your words to;
If you can't PLAY football, why would you want to play football?
Comics are iconic and visual together. You can have strengths and
weaknesses, go for it. But here's the thing that puzzles me. If you
write but have no interest in art, zip nada zilch is a Picasso a kind
of ethnic food?, why would you want to do comics? Answer; you don't.
People like that write novels or brochures or something. But if you
can write and have a strong interest in art, yes, comics are for you.
But if you have a strong interest in art, why don't you learn how to
do it yourself?
When I pose this question I get a million people saying, "But I
caaaaan't. It's too hard. I'm not artistically talented. I can't
even draw a circle. I have a -wonderful- visual sense, but I can't
draw."
Bullshit.
If anyone can prove to me there is some good and logical reason the
wonderful visual sense short-circuits on the way down the arm and
causes the pencil to fall from nerveless fingers, I'll see your point.
But everything else sounds like whining. "I have a fantastic visual
sense, which can only be described in words. And I don't have to
prove my fantastic visual sense, because I'll never have to draw
anything. Just take my word for it."
Peter David's the avatar here. He tells everyone that he has a
fantastic visual sense. I'm looking at Hulk #439; his fantastic
visual sense brings us berserk imagery like men with glowing hands
running at each other, girls hiding under desks (such a fantastic
visual image that we repeated it four times), women carrying boxes.
A lot of explosions. Nothing much happens in the explosions, it's
just a building falling down. Then look at Scud #14. In the first
panel a giant walking Ziploc bag named Drywall points a
pirhana-shooting cannon at Ben Franklin (who happens to be dressed in
a grass skirt). Curiously enough, Rob Schrab has never bragged about
his 'fantastic visual sense.' Peter David makes good comics, sure,
but I'd call his imagery a little less than wondeful.
>I wrote comic books because I love the medium. No, I can't draw. So
>what?
Can't draw well? Or can't draw? Can't draw, or have no interest in
trying? Can't draw or won't?
I, for example, do not draw well. Thus I find artists interested in
collaboration, and when my mini comes it'll be Wayne's art you see,
not mine. But that doesn't mean I don't draw, or enjoy drawing.
>It took a collaboration between the artist and me to produce a
>comic book. What could be wrong with that?
Nothing at all. Any team should utilitze the strengths of the team.
>Did comic writers make themselves second-class citizens or did the
>industry just file them away under that label? When everyone from the
>comic publishers to the comic reading public backed the notion that
>artists were important and writers were something which could be
>plugged in and out of titles as needed then it's silly to blame
>writers for their plight.
I would say the writers of the time deserved it. Jack did just fine
without Stan. Stan thought that meant -all- writers were superfluous,
not just him.
Lemming
zheeb zheeb zhunomadi...@mindspring.com (Brandon
Blatcher)---gwup?
>Also it's possible to produce a comic book completely by yourself. There is
>no way in hell you can do that with film.
Pet peeve, but no. If you're willing to shoot on video and you know
how you can put a movie together for less than $20. Movies are
grossly inflated, all out of proportion. No, no man can make a
Hollywood blockbuster solo. But those crazy kids on public access
make movies, all alone, all for free.
>Plus you "you get your hands dirty" with
>comics. Every mark on the page was produced by a particular person for a
>particular reason usually with unique artistic vision.
No. Everything in a movie is there for a reason. Every object was
speciifically chosen and placed for effect. Each line was considered,
measured, and fit. The editor selects the best take from the hundreds
available and puts it where they think best. There are no accidents
in cinema, only mistakes.
W. Allen Montgomery
damontegration wrote:
> Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
> > I don't think dense scripts do artists any favors. I don't
> > care for Alan Moore's scripts. They're written with an audience in mind,
> > with the knowledge that people will be reading them as works of art in and
> > instruction manual (or "suggestion manual," as my partner calls it) to the
> > artist; anything else is superfluous.
>
That seems to be the concensus from the "pros," huh?
> > You've touched, in fact, a particular pet peeve of MINE-- the idea that a
> > writer of comics must have artistic ability. I've always considered this
> > nonsense.
>
> well, it certainly helps.
>
>
>> --
>> Later,
>> W. Allen Montgomery (who is only being an ass because
>> somebody just stole his last beer)
>
>gotcha.
You speak the truth *and* pay attention to the end? No wonder
nobody likes you.
--
Later,
W. Allen Montgomery (it's Sunday, but he stocked up yesterday)
W. Allen Montgomery
gron...@metronet.com wrote:
> As a comicbook writer, there are times I look around a shop and feel
> that's how all comics are judged by everyone on the outside looking in,
> but who am I to say, "We must all pay more attention to craft and telling
> better stories that millions of people may like?"
In over a hundred lines, you came just *that* close to hitting the
nail squarely on the head, then floundered. Walk away from comics for a
few years, as I did, and come back. It's a real eye opener.
Lemming
zheeb zheeb zhugr...@metronet.com---gwup?
>> My original assessment stands.
>> People who can't draw want to write comics because it's such an easy job.
I'd have to say comic book writers write comics because they love
comics (and, kids, it isn't an easy job). They don't draw because
they:
a) honestly don't believe that they can. This is, of course,
ludicrously wrong.
b) they don't have to, and they don't care enough to want to
c) it would require them to admit that their "fantastic visual sense"
is a little less than that.
Now, writers who don't draw still make good comics. Well, they help
make good comics. But I believe they're missing the point of the
medium, and it's their own fault. Creation is about creation. It's
about making something of your own. These folk, they're just happy to
be on the committee.
They usually end up editors. I see justice in that.
(Your attribution was lost in an industrial mishap. Sorry.)
>I've never written comics because I thought it was easy and because I
>can't draw. I was introduced to the medium by some friends and I liked
>the collaboration and differences one finds in writing a comicbook
>script. Writing comics is not the only thing I want to do, however, and
>I think I'd rather go back to menial labor than write 3-4 monthly books I
>didn't care about. Writing comics is a totally different gig with its
>own pleasures and letdowns.
Exactly. I write comics because I love comics, and I see so much
potential for the field. I really, honestly, believe comics could be
great, and I want to help make it happen. If writing comics became a
job, I think I'd go get a different job that would take the same
apathy for more money. The hacks don't get rich.
W. Allen Montgomery
Henry Vogel wrote:
> Did comic writers make themselves second-class citizens or did the
> industry just file them away under that label? When everyone from the
> comic publishers to the comic reading public backed the notion that
> artists were important and writers were something which could be
> plugged in and out of titles as needed then it's silly to blame
> writers for their plight.
It's a notion so rampant that it has even spread to cover
artists now. Sal Buscema drawing Superman and Batman? What in the hell
is going on here?
> And it is that same position as "second
> class citizen" which, in my opinion, ran many of the good writers out
> of the business. If you can't find anything worth reading on the
> comic book shelves is it because writers aren't important to comic
> books or because writers got tired of being the second class citizen
> and left the field?
No, it's because the market has disintegrated into a bunch of
drivel, spewed forth by a bunch of writers who *are* perceived as being
important to comic books, but are really just a bunch of hangers-on who
don't want to get real jobs.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
W. Allen Montgomery (W.A.MON...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Robin Riggs (not Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) actually wrote for himself:
: (I'm having an argument about comics with... an old woman and
: a colorist. How surreal.)
Ah, 40 is old now, and you're completely ignorant of Robin's many years of
INKING books such as the Hulk, X-Men, etc. etc. (yes, he is a penciller
and a colorist as well). I think no more need be said here.
- Elayne
--
"No. That's not what I'm saying. As a matter of fact, I'm saying that
that's not what I'm saying, and I've been saying it, and I will continue
to KEEP saying it until people stop telling me that I'm saying something
else." - Lemming <lemm...@cybernex.net>, making a point on rac*
Brandon Blatcher
>zheeb zheeb zhunomadi...@mindspring.com (Brandon
>Blatcher)---gwup?
>
>>Also it's possible to produce a comic book completely by yourself. There is
>>no way in hell you can do that with film.
>
>Pet peeve, but no. If you're willing to shoot on video and you know
>how you can put a movie together for less than $20. Movies are
>grossly inflated, all out of proportion. No, no man can make a
>Hollywood blockbuster solo. But those crazy kids on public access
>make movies, all alone, all for free.
Why for free? Because nobody will pay for them?
Yes, I can whip out my video camera and make a "movie" but how good will it
be? What kind of audience will it get? Probably a drunk one
>
>>Plus you "you get your hands dirty" with
>>comics. Every mark on the page was produced by a particular person for a
>>particular reason usually with unique artistic vision.
>
>No. Everything in a movie is there for a reason. Every object was
>speciifically chosen and placed for effect. Each line was considered,
>measured, and fit. The editor selects the best take from the hundreds
>available and puts it where they think best. There are no accidents
>in cinema, only mistakes.
Yes, but comics are better at creating a expressive vision through drawing.
Brandon Blatcher
In article <349353...@po.cwru.edu>, db...@po.cwru.edu started mouthing again:
>Brandon Blatcher wrote:
>>
>> In article <34925F...@po.cwru.edu>, db...@po.cwru.edu wrote:
>>
>> >Brandon Blatcher wrote:
>
>> >> I can spend a rather lenghty amount of time doing a picture perfect
drawing
>> >> of a pile of feces. However when I'm finished it's still a pile of shit.
>> >
>> >no, it's not.. haven't you read understanding comics?
>>
>> cut it out. you know the point I was trying to make.
>> Of course I've read undetstanding comics. Getting ready to read it again.
>> Happy now?
>
>cut it out?
>
>CUT IT OUT????
>really.
Sorry. sometimes I forgot what I"m talking too.
>
>> Have you read the Photoshop manual yet?
>
>it's on my list.
>as soon as i get done reading the 15 or so books i own
>i haven't read yet, the back stock of magazines,
>the 300 or so research papers i should be keeping up on, i'll
>get right to it.
It's always some excuse with you, isn't it?
>besides, i'd rather just pump you. for infomration.
Sorry, I've got from full serve to self serve.
>> >> You can give me a page to color and can give Tom Vincent and/or Robin
>> >> Riggs(just to borrow racm regulars who works reguarly in the field) the
>> >> exact same page to color, and it'll proably take me longer to do and Tom
>> >> and Robin will proably do the a better job 'cause they have way more
>> >> pratice/experience.
>> >
>> >i think that you could give me a photograph and a
>> >set of paints, and eventually i could repreodcue an alex ross
>> >painting which he did from the phototgraph.
>>
>> You're so talented.
>
>no, i'm not.
I was being sarcastic.
>i am saying that alex ross's art work reminds me of
>someone who uses those tracings devices to copy a picture,
>but that instead it seems like alx meticulously paints over
>existing photgraphs. i say htis because he is technically great, but
>i don't see any life' in his work.
I agree. Duplication does not an artist make
>> Nope, I haven't seen anything you writtten. I'd like to.
>
>well, the, start reading my posts, for god's sake!!!
Sadly, enough, you are of the "usually interesting" orange filter. and I
have to say lately, you haven't lived up to it. You'll probably get
the"worth a look" blue filter soon.
>> >> Brandon
>> >> IT'S PRINTED, ITS PRINTED, ITS' PRINTED, IT'S PRINTED, IT'S PRINTED, IT'S
>> >> PRINTED!!!!!
>> >
>> >this is really bugging you, isn't it?
>>
>> Not toooo selfcentered are you? This had nothing to do with you. I was
>> working on a comic with others, doing grey washes, and I've got printed
>> samples in hand which means it's being distributed around the country as we
>> speak. Guess what you're getting for christmas
>
>posh. if it weren't bugging you, you wouldn't have parodied me.
>i *figured* it was about something you did.
Suuuuurrrre ya did. Nice save.
>> >well, i'm drawing it now, and it looks great.
>> >only about 30 more images to draw.
>> >[yes, i scanned about 30 images-- i told you, this will be insane,
>> >and probably won't work].
>>
>> Well, it wouldn't be you if it was sane, now would it?
>
>i lied-
At this point, I'm convinced you've never done the story and you've been
pulling everyone's chain.
W. Allen Montgomery
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
> W. Allen Montgomery (W.A.MON...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : (I'm having an argument about comics with... an old woman and
> : a colorist. How surreal.)
>
> Ah, 40 is old now, and you're completely ignorant of Robin's many years of
> INKING books such as the Hulk, X-Men, etc. etc. (yes, he is a penciller
> and a colorist as well). I think no more need be said here.
Yeah, I figured a direct insult and showing off my "ignorance" of
the Hulk and X-Men would end it.
--
G'night all,
W. Allen Montgomery
Lemming
zheeb zheeb zhufi...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput)---gwup?
>David Roel (davi...@webworldinc.com) wrote:
>: We simply must disagree, then. It's evident that the scripts are
>: instructional: they do, in fact, get drawn and published. If they were
>: non-instructional and non-utilitarian, they would not be able to be
>: used. Since they are used, they are, by definition, instructional and
>: utilitarian.
>You're playing semantics, and I choose to ignore this.
He also makes an excellent point. If you can draw a comic from it,
it's a comic script. How you reach that point is up to each and every
artist.
There are books that can be transcribed, action for action. The Age
of Reason, by Sartre, is such a clear and understandable novel that
you can translate the words into pictures like bread and peanut butter
into sandwiches. You decide the page divisions and go. A comic
script is anything you make a comic from, and how you make that script
is up to each and every artist.
Lemming
zheeb zheeb zhufi...@panix.com (Robin Riggs)---gwup?
>The writer and artist combination is something that works well and has
>done so for decades. Why would you want to change something that works
>well for most people? Just because you think it's not the way things ought
>to be done? Grow up!
It...works...well....
The system that brought us the X-Marketplace. The Summer of Blood.
The new uniforms on Superman. The Spiderman who's been a teenager for
thirty years. The writer-artist-editor combination that makes a fight
to the death necessary to create anything of substance. Where
Watchmen is the literery peak, Liefeld is famous and rich, and Maus
isn't considered a comic because it's actually -good.- Works well.
I think it's obvious why I want to change it, Robin. I want to know
why you -don't.-
>WOW! What a blinding revelation! Some writers have been working that way
>for years. Can you tell which ones by looking at the work?
Yeah. Can't you? Oh, it's not foolproof, but I can usually guess
whether the writer drew the book, whether the artist works from
breakdowns or a script, and sometimes even if the artist redrew the
breakdowns (it's VERY obvious when Victor Bridges redraws Keith
Giffen, for example).
W. Allen Montgomery
Robin Riggs (not Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) actually wrote for himself:
>done so for decades. Why would you want to change something that works
>well for most people? Just because you think it's not the way things ought
>to be done? Grow up!
>
>stories that they're going to save the industry, by all means go ahead and
>do it. If not then just keep posting here about how everyone else is doing
>it the wrong way and only you have true secret of how it ought to be done.
>I await perusal of your magnum opus with bated breath.
(I'm having an argument about comics with... an old woman and
a colorist. How surreal.)
>: I am only aware of Englehart and
>: Claremont (and Byrne) writing novels. Care to name some names...
>
>Peter David. Elliot S. Maggin. Dennis O'Neil (I know he's done screen
>work). Don McGregor. Len Wein. Marv Wolfman. Among many, many others.
Oh, yeah. I forgot about Peter David and his Star Trek fan
novels. The others, I didn't know had written novels. Thanks.
--
Later,
W. Allen Montgomery
--
"The world don't wanna be saved, Only left alone."
-- Dave Mustaine, "Elysian Fields"
W. Allen Montgomery
lemm...@cybernex.net (Lemming) wrote:
>>Not even the pictures are pretty oftimes. And yes,
>>there is something seriously wrong when the stories aren't worth reading.
>>But that's the fault of everyone from the editors on down.
>
>It's not the fault of those who try to do better.
A _writer_ that seems to understand? Hey, maybe I was wrong.
W. Allen Montgomery
lemm...@cybernex.net wrote:
>fire...@panix.com (Robin Riggs) wrote:
>>The writer and artist combination is something that works well and has
>>done so for decades. Why would you want to change something that works
>>well for most people? Just because you think it's not the way things ought
>>to be done? Grow up!
>
>
>The system that brought us the X-Marketplace. The Summer of Blood.
>The new uniforms on Superman. The Spiderman who's been a teenager for
>thirty years. The writer-artist-editor combination that makes a fight
>to the death necessary to create anything of substance. Where
>isn't considered a comic because it's actually -good.- Works well.
There you have it. What sane, mature people think when they walk into
a comic shop or flip through an issue of Wizard.
Yeah, works real well, Robin.
>I think it's obvious why I want to change it, Robin. I want to know
>why you -don't.-
--
Later,
W. Allen Montgomery
Lemming
zheeb zheeb zhuW.A.M...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net (W. Allen
Montgomery)---gwup?
>lemm...@cybernex.net (Lemming) wrote:
>>>Not even the pictures are pretty oftimes. And yes,
>>>there is something seriously wrong when the stories aren't worth reading.
>>>But that's the fault of everyone from the editors on down.
>>
>>It's not the fault of those who try to do better.
> A _writer_ that seems to understand? Hey, maybe I was wrong.
You do realise that you're agreeing with the unpopular kids, don't
you? Now you're -never- gonna get on the volleyball team...
Lemming
>In article <EL7DG...@news2.new-york.net>, lemm...@cybernex.net wrote:
>>zheeb zheeb zhunomadi...@mindspring.com (Brandon
>>Blatcher)---gwup?
>>
>>>Also it's possible to produce a comic book completely by yourself. There is
>>>no way in hell you can do that with film.
>>
>>Pet peeve, but no. If you're willing to shoot on video and you know
>>how you can put a movie together for less than $20. Movies are
>>grossly inflated, all out of proportion. No, no man can make a
>>Hollywood blockbuster solo. But those crazy kids on public access
>>make movies, all alone, all for free.
>Why for free? Because nobody will pay for them?
>Yes, I can whip out my video camera and make a "movie" but how good will it
>be?
Again, bullshit. The quality of art is not determined by the amount
of money pumped into it. And because you and people like you believe
that, cinema will remain in the hands the priviledged few. You know,
the ones who think 'Waterworld' was a good buy.
>>No. Everything in a movie is there for a reason. Every object was
>>speciifically chosen and placed for effect. Each line was considered,
>>measured, and fit. The editor selects the best take from the hundreds
>>available and puts it where they think best. There are no accidents
>>in cinema, only mistakes.
>Yes, but comics are better at creating a expressive vision through drawing.
Yeah, well, movies have a better soundtrack. I fail to see your
point.
Lemming
zheeb zheeb zhufi...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput)---gwup?
>W. Allen Montgomery (W.A.MON...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>: Robin Riggs (not Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) actually wrote for himself:
>: (I'm having an argument about comics with... an old woman and
>: a colorist. How surreal.)
>Ah, 40 is old now, and you're completely ignorant of Robin's many years of
>INKING books such as the Hulk, X-Men, etc. etc. (yes, he is a penciller
>and a colorist as well). I think no more need be said here.
Speaking as a whippersnapper, yeah, forty is old. Sorry. =)
>"No. That's not what I'm saying. As a matter of fact, I'm saying that
>that's not what I'm saying, and I've been saying it, and I will continue
>to KEEP saying it until people stop telling me that I'm saying something
>else." - Lemming <lemm...@cybernex.net>, making a point on rac*
That really is appropriate for these kind of discussions, isn't it? I
should really say some more cool things some day.
Brandon Blatcher
>zheeb zheeb zhunomadi...@mindspring.com (Brandon
>Blatcher)---gwup?
>
>>In article <EL7DG...@news2.new-york.net>, lemm...@cybernex.net wrote:
>
>>>zheeb zheeb zhunomadi...@mindspring.com (Brandon
>>>Blatcher)---gwup?
>>>
>>>>Also it's possible to produce a comic book completely by yourself. There is
>>>>no way in hell you can do that with film.
>>>
>>>Pet peeve, but no. If you're willing to shoot on video and you know
>>>how you can put a movie together for less than $20. Movies are
>>>grossly inflated, all out of proportion. No, no man can make a
>>>Hollywood blockbuster solo. But those crazy kids on public access
>>>make movies, all alone, all for free.
>
>>Why for free? Because nobody will pay for them?
>
>>Yes, I can whip out my video camera and make a "movie" but how good will it
>>be?
>
>Again, bullshit. The quality of art is not determined by the amount
>of money pumped into it. And because you and people like you believe
>that, cinema will remain in the hands the priviledged few. You know,
>the ones who think 'Waterworld' was a good buy.
No I don't know, oh presumptious one. Seriously, point me in the direction
of a film made by a one person and I'll hunt it down and watch. Do I think
film needs multiple people and a bit of cash ( not a wad per se) to happen?
Yes. If you know of a better way, cheaper way, please, please, *please*
enlighten me. I'd love to know a cheaper way that can still emulate the
feel of big screen movies.
>>>No. Everything in a movie is there for a reason. Every object was
>>>speciifically chosen and placed for effect. Each line was considered,
>>>measured, and fit. The editor selects the best take from the hundreds
>>>available and puts it where they think best. There are no accidents
>>>in cinema, only mistakes.
>
>>Yes, but comics are better at creating a expressive vision through drawing.
>
>Yeah, well, movies have a better soundtrack. I fail to see your
>point.
Comics can be expressive in non reality way. I'm not exactly sure how to
put it, but it's like saying comics can better adapt to non-realistic
styles like Impressionism, Fauvism, etc. and are better at being iconic in
nature.
Brandon
drinker of port, thanks to Tammy
Tom Vincent
In article
<nomadicSPAMBLOCK-ya024...@news.mindspring.com>,
nomadicS...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>You can give me a page to color and can give Tom Vincent and/or Robin
>Riggs(just to borrow racm regulars who works reguarly in the field) the
>exact same page to color,
I'd actually like to try this. I think it'd be really interesting to see
how three different artists approach the same exact thing. (of course, it
would also help bolster the argument against work for hire...)
---Tom Vincent
Her eyes brimmed with tears. "The Princess is dead, and now the Mother is
gone too. Who will care for all those people? Who will care for the infirm
and the unwanted? Who will do the good works now?" The simplicity of the
answer startled her. "Us", came the reply, "all of us."
Tom Vincent
>
>i htinkthat you could give me a photograph and a
>set of paints, and eventually i could repreodcue an alex ross
>painting which he did from the phototgraph.
>
Damon, you keep slamming Ross for his use of photo refrence, yet you are
doing essentially the same thing with your filter usage.
I submit that what makes Ross's painting so damn good is NOT the drawing
under them, but rather the control of the paint itself. Watercolor is a
very difficult medium to master- probably the most difficult. I say this
having worked in oils (which I love and miss), arcylic (which I hate),
watercolor (ehich I love and still struggle with, despite having done it
for over twenty years) and airbrush (through which I've shot a variety of
medium).
Lea Hernandez
Tom Vincent wrote:
>
> In article <34925F...@po.cwru.edu>, db...@po.cwru.edu wrote:
>
> >
> >i htinkthat you could give me a photograph and a
> >set of paints, and eventually i could repreodcue an alex ross
> >painting which he did from the phototgraph.
> >
>
> Damon, you keep slamming Ross for his use of photo refrence, yet you are
> doing essentially the same thing with your filter usage.
>
> I submit that what makes Ross's painting so damn good is NOT the drawing
> under them, but rather the control of the paint itself. Watercolor is a
> very difficult medium to master- probably the most difficult.
I'll agree with this. I started working with watercolors when I was 11
years old, and it wasn't until college that I even came close to getting
them to do what I wanted, and many years after that before I thought I
was to a point where I could make those suckers sit up and BEG.
I say this
> having worked in oils (which I love and miss),
<siiigh> oils. Good, smelly, clothes-wrecking, slow-drying sonofabitch
fun.
arcylic (which I hate),
haven't had the right teacher. I used arcylics for one thing: white for
hightlihts in paintings and correcting stats in manga touch-up until I
had a teacher at the Academy of Art College San Francisco who showed
what acrylics could do. Woo-Hoo! Mighty Brush!
> watercolor (ehich I love and still struggle with, despite having done it
> for over twenty years) and airbrush (through which I've shot a variety of
> medium).
<sigh> airbrush. I got pretty good with using airbrush to paint figures,
but the particulate it kicked up was a misery.
Damon makes a common claim: "I can do that given enough time". Probably.
I'd like to point out that the two comic artists who use digital media
to paint (not color) that have the best command of it are Mark Badger
and myself, even though I'm hardly in his league. The thing we -do- have
in common is a rock-solid background in the traditional application of
the media we're duplicating with the computer.
Here's two good examples:
and
http://www.cris.com/~akiyama/cath.html
The first is a scan colored in Painter, the second a painting in
traditional media: ink, watercolor, colored pencil and acrylic.
Without the knowledge of how to push the paint around I display in the
second, I surely could not have done as well in the first. And it wasn't
a matter of beating the program's learning curve--I had to know how
watercolor behaves to get those results from a program that emulates
watercolor.
Lea
CATHEDRAL CHILD--Image Comics
Preview, Prologue, Image Files, Cover Art
http://www.cris.com/~akiyama
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: > W. Allen Montgomery (W.A.MON...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: > : (I'm having an argument about comics with... an old woman and
: > : a colorist. How surreal.)
: >
: > Ah, 40 is old now, and you're completely ignorant of Robin's many years of
: > INKING books such as the Hulk, X-Men, etc. etc. (yes, he is a penciller
: > and a colorist as well). I think no more need be said here.
: Yeah, I figured a direct insult and showing off my "ignorance" of
: the Hulk and X-Men would end it.
Ignorance usually does end discussion (well, not always on rac* <g>), but
I should think that wouldn't be a positive thing for you. Ah well, if you
want to go out looking like an insulting idiot, that's up to you.
- Elayne
--
Tom Vincent
In article <66vq88$c...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
w.a.mon...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net (W. Allen Montgomery) wrote:
> Okay, that was the question. I am only aware of Englehart and
>Claremont (and Byrne) writing novels. Care to name some names, or do you just
>want to keep generalizing? And seeing as how at least one of my examples
>(Claremont; two if you count Byrne) is still working in comics, I think I
>realize it's possible to work in two fields at once, thank you.
Jim Starlin has written at least one novel, as has Alan Moore. Nancy
Collins was a novelist before writing comics, and is currently writing a
screenplay. Peter David has written several novels, as well as screenplays
and teleplays. Steve Bissette, who has been doing more writing than
drawing, has written several of the best essays on the horror genre that
I've ever read.
>Later,
>W. Allen Montgomery (who has no excuse for being a dick tonight —
> he's sitting on an unopened case of Lowenbräu)
Then open it up and drink some and stop being a dick! :-) (although the
quality of Lowenbrau has decidedly slipped since the brewing changed hands
lo those many years ago.)
---Tom Vincent (artist, trying to learn to write)
Tom Vincent
In article <671t1s$s...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
W.A.MON...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net (W. Allen Montgomery) wrote:
> (I'm having an argument about comics with... an old woman and
>a colorist. How surreal.)
And they're having an argument with an asshole. Even more surreal.
---Tom Vincent (a colorist longer than Robin, and older than both. And bet
I could still kick yer ass. :-) )
Tom Vincent
In article
<nomadicSPAMBLOCK-ya024...@news.mindspring.com>,
nomadicS...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>In article <EL7DG...@news2.new-york.net>, lemm...@cybernex.net wrote:
>
> But those crazy kids on public access
>>make movies, all alone, all for free.
>
>Why for free? Because nobody will pay for them?
>
>Yes, I can whip out my video camera and make a "movie" but how good will it
>be? What kind of audience will it get? Probably a drunk one
Hey, I'm game. I'll watch it Brandon. Hell, I'll even get drunk (and I'll
do it on better beer than Lowenbrau)
---Tom Vincent
Lemming
>In article <EL7on...@news2.new-york.net>, lemm...@cybernex.net wrote:
>>zheeb zheeb zhunomadi...@mindspring.com (Brandon
>>Blatcher)---gwup?
>>
>>>In article <EL7DG...@news2.new-york.net>, lemm...@cybernex.net wrote:
>>
>>>>zheeb zheeb zhunomadi...@mindspring.com (Brandon
>>>>Blatcher)---gwup?
>>>>
>>>>>Also it's possible to produce a comic book completely by yourself. There is
>>>>>no way in hell you can do that with film.
>>>>
>>>>Pet peeve, but no. If you're willing to shoot on video and you know
>>>>how you can put a movie together for less than $20. Movies are
>>>>grossly inflated, all out of proportion. No, no man can make a
>>>>Hollywood blockbuster solo. But those crazy kids on public access
>>>>make movies, all alone, all for free.
>>
>>>Why for free? Because nobody will pay for them?
>>
>>>Yes, I can whip out my video camera and make a "movie" but how good will it
>>>be?
>>
>>Again, bullshit. The quality of art is not determined by the amount
>>of money pumped into it. And because you and people like you believe
>>that, cinema will remain in the hands the priviledged few. You know,
>>the ones who think 'Waterworld' was a good buy.
>No I don't know, oh presumptious one. Seriously, point me in the direction
>of a film made by a one person and I'll hunt it down and watch. Do I think
>film needs multiple people and a bit of cash ( not a wad per se) to happen?
>Yes. If you know of a better way, cheaper way, please, please, *please*
>enlighten me. I'd love to know a cheaper way that can still emulate the
>feel of big screen movies.
>>>>No. Everything in a movie is there for a reason. Every object was
>>>>speciifically chosen and placed for effect. Each line was considered,
>>>>measured, and fit. The editor selects the best take from the hundreds
>>>>available and puts it where they think best. There are no accidents
>>>>in cinema, only mistakes.
>>
>>>Yes, but comics are better at creating a expressive vision through drawing.
>>
>>Yeah, well, movies have a better soundtrack. I fail to see your
>>point.
>Comics can be expressive in non reality way. I'm not exactly sure how to
>put it, but it's like saying comics can better adapt to non-realistic
>styles like Impressionism, Fauvism, etc. and are better at being iconic in
>nature.
Ever seen an animated movie?
Mark Bernstein
On 12 Dec 1997 16:12:24 -0500, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>Mark Bernstein (m...@arbortext.com) wrote:
>: >
>: Has Moore ever said that he regards his
>: scripts as separate works of art?
>
>Alan Davis has said that Moore writes with the idea that his scripts are
>"for posterity" rather than simply aimed at the artist.
And is Davis quoting Moore when he says this, or is he speculating?
> I should think,
>if you read one of his scripts, which are lyrical and evocative rather
>than instructional to the artist, it would be obvious that he believes
>he's writing them to be read, down the line, by the masses.
>
<elayne>Do you have a summer home in Alan Moore's head?
</elayne>
If you don't like Moore's scripting style, fine, that's your opinion.
But to speculate on his motives, and then act like those speculations
are facts ("obvious," indeed) is arrogant, condescending, and very
likely to be inaccurate.
<elayne>I'm surprised I have to explain this to you.
</elayne>
Mark Bernstein
m...@arbortext.com
Lea Hernandez
Tom Vincent wrote:
>
> In article <66vq88$c...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> w.a.mon...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net (W. Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>
> > Okay, that was the question. I am only aware of Englehart and
> >Claremont (and Byrne) writing novels. Care to name some names, or do you just
> Jim Starlin has written at least one novel, as has Alan Moore. Nancy
> Collins was a novelist before writing comics, and is currently writing a
> screenplay. Peter David has written several novels, as well as screenplays
> and teleplays. Steve Bissette, who has been doing more writing than
> drawing, has written several of the best essays on the horror genre that
> I've ever read.
I wrote and sold five short stories while holding down various comics
jobs. I have been writing and drawing CATHEDRAL CHILD while doing 60
pages+ a month of comics production work.
Not novels, no, but certainly "other".
I might add, on the subject of pay, that it takes a lot less work to
earn a living wage doing comics (for a middlin' to larger company) that
it does to earn a living wage as a writer.
Lea
CATHEDRAL CHILD-Image Comics
Virtual Ashcan online at
http://www.cris.com/~akiyama
Matthew F Johnson
W. Allen Montgomery (w.a.mon...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net) writes:
>
>>"Generally," says Robin, "the answer is that you have more control over
>>your vision in comics than in most other collaborative fields. What you
>>write is more likely to appear in the manner you intended than it is, for
>>example, with screenwriting."
>
> So much control to put Superman in a blue lightning outfit. Yay.
Which was the idea of that wonderful writer/artist Dan Jurgens.
Boy, comics are much better when the artist does the writing.
Tell me, are you also one of those morons who think that only
actors should write plays and that only directors should write movies? I
mean, if you're that down on collaboration, I shudder to imagine what your
sex life must be like...
--
Matthew F. Johnson
'It was full of beans. And I like beans.'
J. Carl Henderson
In article <671rrv$h...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
"W. Allen Montgomery" <W.A.MON...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>gron...@metronet.com wrote:
>> As a comicbook writer, there are times I look around a shop and feel
>> that's how all comics are judged by everyone on the outside looking in,
>> but who am I to say, "We must all pay more attention to craft and telling
>> better stories that millions of people may like?"
> In over a hundred lines, you came just *that* close to hitting the
>nail squarely on the head, then floundered. Walk away from comics for a
>few years, as I did, and come back. It's a real eye opener.
I'm enjoying SECOND-RATE HEROES a hell of a lot more than any of your posts,
so I sure hope Chris doesn't take your advice...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Henderson If we needed the 18th amendment to give
carl.he...@airmail.net the government the power to ban alcohol,
then where did the government get the
power to ban all the _other_ drugs?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Carl Henderson
In article <671sfk$h...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,>Henry Vogel wrote:
>> Did comic writers make themselves second-class citizens or did the
>> industry just file them away under that label? When everyone from the
>> comic publishers to the comic reading public backed the notion that
>> artists were important and writers were something which could be
>> plugged in and out of titles as needed then it's silly to blame
>> writers for their plight.
>
> It's a notion so rampant that it has even spread to cover
>artists now. Sal Buscema drawing Superman and Batman? What in the hell
>is going on here?
Perhaps editors of those comics recognize that Sal Buscema is, one of the best
and, most experienced artists in the business?
Brandon Blatcher
Ever seen an animated movie made completely by one person and one person ONLY?
damontegration
Steve Lieber wrote:
>
> Personally, I'll take a densely written, well thought out script over a
> bare bones framework any day of the week, and if the writer cares to use
> "lyrical, evocative" language in there, I'll read and appreciate it, just
> as I would a well written letter. If the author has the ability to write
> visually, then my pictures are going to tell a richer story because of it.
there you go.
> It's a rare comic that makes even rudimentary conscious use of the most
> basic tools of narrative, like "theme," or "metaphor." And even when they
> do, it's likely to be hamfisted and embarrassing to anyone with a
> vocabulary larger than Koko the signing gorilla.
don't insult koko.
--
"A lot of people misunderstand talk radio, especially me."
-Rush Limbaugh
IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S
DONE! IT'S DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!
damontegration
Tom Vincent wrote:
>
> In article <34925F...@po.cwru.edu>, db...@po.cwru.edu wrote:
>
> >
> >i htinkthat you could give me a photograph and a
> >set of paints, and eventually i could repreodcue an alex ross
> >painting which he did from the phototgraph.
> >
>
> Damon, you keep slamming Ross for his use of photo refrence, yet you are
> doing essentially the same thing with your filter usage.
no, you're mistaken..
i am slamminghim for his overelyiance on
references, his seeming inability to depart from
the, and his static images and layouts.
i WISH i could be as technically great as he is.
> I submit that what makes Ross's painting so damn good is NOT the drawing
> under them, but rather the control of the paint itself. Watercolor is a
> very difficult medium to master- probably the most difficult.
i'm sure he's good at that..
again, i think he's very good technically.
I say this
> having worked in oils (which I love and miss), arcylic (which I hate),
> watercolor (ehich I love and still struggle with, despite having done it
> for over twenty years) and airbrush (through which I've shot a variety of
> medium).
> ---Tom Vincent
i like airbrush the best.
i wish i could do aribrush.
hell, i wish i could paint.
i wish i could play the drums.
"i wish that i had three eyes, and...[i forget the rest,
but it's a great song]"
for the record, i think muth is better at watercolors than ross.
damontegration
Lea Hernandez wrote:
> Damon makes a common claim: "I can do that given enough time". Probably.
>
> I'd like to point out that the two comic artists who use digital media
> to paint (not color) that have the best command of it are Mark Badger
> and myself, even though I'm hardly in his league. The thing we -do- have
> in common is a rock-solid background in the traditional application of
> the media we're duplicating with the computer.
my point with that is that i could not imitate
dave mckean's styles given enough time.
damontegration
Lemming wrote:
>
> zheeb zheeb zhunomadi...@mindspring.com (Brandon
> Blatcher)---gwup?
>
> >In article <EL7on...@news2.new-york.net>, lemm...@cybernex.net wrote:
> >>
> >>>Yes, I can whip out my video camera and make a "movie" but how good will it
> >>>be?
> >>
> >>Again, bullshit. The quality of art is not determined by the amount
> >>of money pumped into it. And because you and people like you believe
> >>that, cinema will remain in the hands the priviledged few. You know,
> >>the ones who think 'Waterworld' was a good buy.
>
> >No I don't know, oh presumptious one. Seriously, point me in the direction
> >of a film made by a one person and I'll hunt it down and watch. Do I think
> >film needs multiple people and a bit of cash ( not a wad per se) to happen?
rodriguez came closest with el mariachi.
great movie.
> >>>>No. Everything in a movie is there for a reason. Every object was
> >>>>speciifically chosen and placed for effect. Each line was considered,
> >>>>measured, and fit. The editor selects the best take from the hundreds
> >>>>available and puts it where they think best. There are no accidents
> >>>>in cinema, only mistakes.
> >>
> >>>Yes, but comics are better at creating a expressive vision through drawing.
no, they' aren't... coen bros, jeunot, kubric, etc...
these guys rock with artistic vision.
> >>Yeah, well, movies have a better soundtrack. I fail to see your
> >>point.
>
> >Comics can be expressive in non reality way. I'm not exactly sure how to
> >put it, but it's like saying comics can better adapt to non-realistic
> >styles like Impressionism, Fauvism, etc. and are better at being iconic in
> >nature.
to some extent, sure. computer animation attenuates this.
> Ever seen an animated movie?
yeah!!!
damontegration
Robin Riggs wrote:
>
> W. Allen Montgomery (w.a.mon...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : If it decides who the peripheral characters are, what they are doing
> : and why, and what they look like, it isn't superfluous.
>
> Elayne responds (and I concur), "That's not what Moore's scripts do.
> Well, okay, they do that to an extent, but they do lots of other things
> that are totally unnecessary to some artists."
artists are audiences.
> If you've really got the answer to writing such wonderful comicbook
> stories that they're going to save the industry, by all means go ahead and
> do it. If not then just keep posting here about how everyone else is doing
> it the wrong way and only you have true secret of how it ought to be done.
> I await perusal of your magnum opus with bated breath.
you shouldn't eat bats.
they can have rabies.
damontegration
Tom Vincent wrote:
>
> In article <671t1s$s...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> W.A.MON...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net (W. Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>
> > (I'm having an argument about comics with... an old woman and
> >a colorist. How surreal.)
>
> And they're having an argument with an asshole. Even more surreal.
> I could still kick yer ass. :-) )
does everything have to be a pissing contest with you?
Brandon Blatcher
>Lemming wrote:
>>
>> zheeb zheeb zhunomadi...@mindspring.com (Brandon
>> Blatcher)---gwup?
>>
>> >In article <EL7on...@news2.new-york.net>, lemm...@cybernex.net wrote:
>[?]
>> >>
>> >>>Yes, I can whip out my video camera and make a "movie" but how good
will it
>> >>>be?
>> >>
>> >>Again, bullshit. The quality of art is not determined by the amount
>> >>of money pumped into it. And because you and people like you believe
>> >>that, cinema will remain in the hands the priviledged few. You know,
>> >>the ones who think 'Waterworld' was a good buy.
>>
>> >No I don't know, oh presumptious one. Seriously, point me in the direction
>> >of a film made by a one person and I'll hunt it down and watch. Do I think
>> >film needs multiple people and a bit of cash ( not a wad per se) to happen?
>
>rodriguez came closest with el mariachi.
>great movie.
I liked El Mariachi. Very good. But it still suffered from not having a
better amount of money to spend on it. Still enjoyable though.
>> >>>>No. Everything in a movie is there for a reason. Every object was
>> >>>>speciifically chosen and placed for effect. Each line was considered,
>> >>>>measured, and fit. The editor selects the best take from the hundreds
>> >>>>available and puts it where they think best. There are no accidents
>> >>>>in cinema, only mistakes.
>> >>
>> >>>Yes, but comics are better at creating a expressive vision through
drawing.
>
>no, they' aren't... coen bros, jeunot, kubric, etc...
>these guys rock with artistic vision.
They sure do. However the medium of film and drawing are different. Drawing
(and comics) are better at distoring reality, while still being "real".
Example:Bill Sienkiewicz
>> >>Yeah, well, movies have a better soundtrack. I fail to see your
>> >>point.
>>
>> >Comics can be expressive in non reality way. I'm not exactly sure how to
>> >put it, but it's like saying comics can better adapt to non-realistic
>> >styles like Impressionism, Fauvism, etc. and are better at being iconic in
>> >nature.
>
>to some extent, sure. computer animation attenuates this.
From what I've seen (and I don't claim to be an expert) computer animation
still looks like computer animation. If you know of some that don't, please
share the info
>> Ever seen an animated movie?
>
>yeah!!!
Awwwww, little damon likes his cartoons doesn't he?
Brandon
babysitter
Crisper Than Thou
Henry Vogel <gol...@ibm.net> wrote:
>The ACT of drawing is to take a pencil and make shapes on paper. I
>can do that. But the ART of drawing is to make those shapes convey
>something, in comic books that something being a sequential story. I
>can not do that.
And, long before I decided I wanted to work in computers, or do music,
or write comic books, I decided I wanted to be an architect, and I
learned to draft. I am, I think, fairly well-trained as a drafter--
I've laid out home floorplans, designed machine parts, and done
exploded drawings of simple tools. My handwriting, for a guy, is
crystalline.
However, I will not even pretend for a moment that I have either the
talent or skill to do the sort of visual art needed for a comic book.
I trained myself to be decent at drafting; it does not translate
into any sort of ability to deal with the human form, or to sketch
a Camaro on the spur of the moment, or paint even a very rough and
simple color smear that vaguely resembles a generic landscape.
There are certain skills a writer or artist uses which can be learned by
anyone, but there is something in both that goes beyond training.
When Jimbo and I work on plotting CHASE, he inevitably approaches it from
the visual angle and I approach it from the character personality angle.
I get real caught up in why our characters do stuff and sometimes forget
that these things need to be externally visible; Jimbo gets real caught
up in the physical behavior of our characters and sometimes forgets there
needs to be reason for it. When storytelling is approached from both sides
at the same time, it works very well. Some writer/artists can do this
very well on their own. I envy them. So should you. But then, there are
some writers and some artists who cannot do either one well at all.
--The Elder Dan
--
In dreams, logic grows on trees.
Crisper Than Thou
W. Allen Montgomery <w.a.mon...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>If the writer
>could draw it, breaking it down on the page for another artist to finish, a
>written-out script wouldn't be necessary, would it? If it is the artist who
>lays out the panels, establishes the pacing, decides what all the characters
>and settings look like, picks all the camera angles and just fills in random
>details here and there whose story is it, anyway? Who indeed is the writer
>in said situation?
Well, if the writer puts down every angle, every individual, every color,
every rock and tree and explosion, then why pay artists and colorists to
think? Why not give 'em $6 an hour, like good little wageslave drones?
They're just executing to a routine.
You're trying to force an either/or dilemna onto a situation which doesn't
need to make the choice. Who is the writer? The person who puts the words
on the page that say, "Then he puts face down in his hands and waits for
the poison to finish him." What is the artist's role? To find the look
that *maximizes* the impact of those words. There is a lot of good writing
which stands on its own, as prose, just fine-- but a lot of that prose
can be tied to the right set of images, with greater results.
>>> IF YOU CAN'T DRAW, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN **WANT** TO DO COMICS?
>>
>> Because I want my stories to have a visual aspect to them, I love the comics
>> medium, and that's the route through which I'd like to deliver them.
>
> "I like comics, and I write in visual terms." Does no one have a
>different answer for this question?
Uh. Well. That seemed like the intuitive answer. I don't know what exactly
you're looking for. Maybe a two-page geometric proof or something? Hm.
How about, "Because I was able to get into comics without having to hustle
blowjobs for fat, coke-snorting Hollywood producers, so I decided not to
pursue screenwriting"...? I mean, seriously, what better reason is there
to WANT to do ANYTHING, besides "Because it's what I like and enjoy, and
I think I fit the medium?"
>> To make this implication is to potentially imply that people who can't
>> act shouldn't want to work in film, you know.
>
> Hardly. One person could create, publish, print and distribute a
>comic all by his lonesome, should he desire strongly enough to do so. Even
>the lowest budget films can't be produced that efficiently.
So you're saying that people shouldn't get into comics unless they can do
*every* job in comics, but only because it is humanly possible to perhaps
do so-- and that film is not similarly restricted because it's not humanly
possible to do *every* job in film?
>Most all writers in all fields convey their craft in visual terms.
>So if that's what gets your rocks off, why choose the limited comics market?
>I suspect it's because the comics writer's job is so easy.
i.e. "If you could get into screenwriting, or the mainstream prose novel
market, or could get a weekly newspaper column with hundreds of thousands
of readers, I bet you'd just stick with comic books because it's slacker
work, not like REAL writing at all."
Crisper Than Thou
>a separate person from the illustrator, the "script" would consist merely of
>the broken down final pages with some blue pencil notes.
Not true. Like Elayne, I have a good-sized pile of real-life comic book
scripts, by a wide range of people, and this is frequently untrue-- in
fact, the scripts written by artists tend, from what I can see, to
generally be much, much worse than those written by "pure" writers.
They do not draw little pictures and sketches, they sum up an entire
page in about three sentences of completely generic prose. Even when
they tackle direct descriptions of things, they gloss over any sort
of detail and go for a few broad strokes of explanation. You would
think that, being artists, they would understand the importance of
being clear about the desired imagery-- but lo! What do you find? That
much of the time, being artists, they can't describe even *basic* images
using words. What do I find when I compare the original script material
to the final released issue? Usually, a lot of dissimilarity, or a
very flat and bland-looking book, or (sometimes) a whole world of detail
that the writer (with all his artistic talent) probably never imagined.
> But to address his ramblings: The mere fact that the comics market is
>further down the toilet than its been in 50+ years should be a pointer that
>there's something severely wrong.
I would argue that there are *several* somethings wrong. <Points at all
the threads in this group with titles like "What's Wrong With Comics!">
However:
>Comics writers churning out 25-page scripts
>in four days are left with too much free time while they wait for the artists
>to draw the pages. They then go out and write more pap. Their "valid
>choices" are choking the comics market.
You sound like you really think this is it, this is where the blame lies.
Do you think there are no other reasons for the current state of the
industry?
How do you feel about the original Image lineup of books-- every one of
which, if I'm not mistaken, was "written" by someone who had previously
been known pretty much exclusively as an artist. Mmmmmmm. Yummy, huh?
How could the industry have taken a dive after such a fine precedent was
established? Must have been those damn writers who WEREN'T artists, at
those other companies, diluting the water with their idiocy.
>My original assessment stands.
>People who can't draw want to write comics because it's such an easy job.
>And yes, that huckster Stan Lee can kiss my ass.
I was going to apologize for the confrontational tone of my above comments,
and for some of the gross overgeneralizations I made, but on second thought,
fuck it.
Crisper Than Thou
damontegration <db...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>Robin Riggs wrote:
>> Elayne responds (and I concur), "That's not what Moore's scripts do.
>> Well, okay, they do that to an extent, but they do lots of other things
>> that are totally unnecessary to some artists."
>
>artists are audiences.
Yep. But I believe it was in Dave Sim's talks with Alan Moore, in the back
of CEREBUS a few months ago, where Moore mentioned that Eddie Campbell was
having his wife read through the scripts for FROM HELL, highlighting
*only* the things that Eddie actually *needed to draw*, so that he could
get his job done and not have to wade through long digressions by Moore
on the psychedelic underpinnings of pre-Enlightenment British architecture
or whatever.
So some audiences are captive.
Brandon Blatcher
>zheeb zheeb zhunomadi...@mindspring.com (Brandon
>Blatcher)---gwup?
major snips>
Brandon said:
>>>>Comics can be expressive in non reality way. I'm not exactly sure how to
>>>>put it, but it's like saying comics can better adapt to non-realistic
>>>>styles like Impressionism, Fauvism, etc. and are better at being iconic in
>>>>nature.
Lemming said:
>>>Ever seen an animated movie?
Brandon said:
>>Ever seen an animated movie made completely by one person and one person ONLY?
Lemming said:
>Yeah.
>
>And...?
Details man! What was it?
W. Allen Montgomery
> >W. Allen Montgomery (who has no excuse for being a dick tonight —
> > he's sitting on an unopened case of Lowenbräu)
>
> Then open it up and drink some and stop being a dick! :-) (although the
> quality of Lowenbrau has decidedly slipped since the brewing changed hands
> lo those many years ago.)
Good beer gives me the runs. Enough of any beer gives me a buzz.
--
Later,
W. Allen Montgomery
W. Allen Montgomery
Tom Vincent wrote:
> And they're having an argument with an asshole. Even more surreal.
> I could still kick yer ass. :-) )
Don't try it, Tom. Old people don't heal well.
Lemming
zheeb zheeb zhudamontegration <db...@po.cwru.edu>---gwup?
>i like airbrush the best.
>i wish i could do aribrush.
>hell, i wish i could paint.
>i wish i could play the drums.
I want a pony.
>"i wish that i had three eyes, and...[i forget the rest,
>but it's a great song]"
>for the record, i think muth is better at watercolors than ross.
For the record, you're right.
Muth makes better watercolor comics than Ross, at least, and that's
what I care about.
Lemming
>In article <EL8JL...@news2.new-york.net>, lemm...@cybernex.net wrote:
>>zheeb zheeb zhunomadi...@mindspring.com (Brandon
>>Blatcher)---gwup?
>>
>>>In article <EL7on...@news2.new-york.net>, lemm...@cybernex.net wrote:
>>
>>>>zheeb zheeb zhunomadi...@mindspring.com (Brandon
>>>>Blatcher)---gwup?
>>>>
>>>>>In article <EL7DG...@news2.new-york.net>, lemm...@cybernex.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>zheeb zheeb zhunomadi...@mindspring.com (Brandon
>>>>>>Blatcher)---gwup?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Also it's possible to produce a comic book completely by yourself.
>There is
>>>>>>>no way in hell you can do that with film.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pet peeve, but no. If you're willing to shoot on video and you know
>>>>>>how you can put a movie together for less than $20. Movies are
>>>>>>grossly inflated, all out of proportion. No, no man can make a
>>>>>>Hollywood blockbuster solo. But those crazy kids on public access
>>>>>>make movies, all alone, all for free.
>>>>
>>>>>Why for free? Because nobody will pay for them?
>>>>
>>>>>Yes, I can whip out my video camera and make a "movie" but how good will it
>>>>>be?
>>>>
>>>>Again, bullshit. The quality of art is not determined by the amount
>>>>of money pumped into it. And because you and people like you believe
>>>>that, cinema will remain in the hands the priviledged few. You know,
>>>>the ones who think 'Waterworld' was a good buy.
>>
>>>No I don't know, oh presumptious one. Seriously, point me in the direction
>>>of a film made by a one person and I'll hunt it down and watch. Do I think
>>>film needs multiple people and a bit of cash ( not a wad per se) to happen?
>>>Yes. If you know of a better way, cheaper way, please, please, *please*
>>>enlighten me. I'd love to know a cheaper way that can still emulate the
>>>feel of big screen movies.
>>
>>>>>>No. Everything in a movie is there for a reason. Every object was
>>>>>>speciifically chosen and placed for effect. Each line was considered,
>>>>>>measured, and fit. The editor selects the best take from the hundreds
>>>>>>available and puts it where they think best. There are no accidents
>>>>>>in cinema, only mistakes.
>>>>
>>>>>Yes, but comics are better at creating a expressive vision through drawing.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, well, movies have a better soundtrack. I fail to see your
>>>>point.
>>
>>>Comics can be expressive in non reality way. I'm not exactly sure how to
>>>put it, but it's like saying comics can better adapt to non-realistic
>>>styles like Impressionism, Fauvism, etc. and are better at being iconic in
>>>nature.
>>
>>Ever seen an animated movie?
>Ever seen an animated movie made completely by one person and one person ONLY?
Yeah.
And...?
Andrew Black
>I submit that what makes Ross's painting so damn good is NOT the drawing
>under them, but rather the control of the paint itself. Watercolor is a
>very difficult medium to master- probably the most difficult. I say this
>having worked in oils (which I love and miss), arcylic (which I hate),
>watercolor (ehich I love and still struggle with, despite having done it
>for over twenty years) and airbrush (through which I've shot a variety of
>medium).
Would you know if Alex uses gouache as well as watercolour in his
pages, Tom?
I ask this as he seems extremely adept at contrasting his patches of
transparent colours (for lighting, metallics etc) with darker, opaque
sections. I assume he achieves this through either the use of gouache
or the addition of white and other opaquing mediums.
As for the various mediums, I enjoy oils (but have too little patience
to do larger works), my attempts at watercolour have been disastrous
(thanks to my general clumsiness) and I'm using acrylics at the
moment. (Winsor and Newton Galleria).
I just paint for the sheer pleasure of it, and the versatility and
convenience of the acrylics make it easy to pick up my brushes on a
whim. I would imagine that in order to achieve consistent professional
results you'd have to master the various acyilic mediums (retarder,
flow improver, impasto medium etc).
Acrylic also has the one big advantage that if I so disgust myself
with my artistic ineptitude, I'm able to slap a coat of white over the
canvas board and be painting again in 20 minutes! :)
Cheers,
Andrew Black abl...@melbpc.org.au
--
There was a guy... an underwater guy who controlled the sea.
Got killed by 10,000,000 pounds of sludge from New York to New Jersey.
Monkeys gone to Heaven - The Pixies
Jason Fliegel
In article <SPAMBLOCKtom127-ya023...@news.capital.net>,
Tom Vincent <SPAMBLO...@capital.net> wrote:
>In article
><nomadicSPAMBLOCK-ya024...@news.mindspring.com>,
>nomadicS...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>>Riggs(just to borrow racm regulars who works reguarly in the field) the
>>exact same page to color,
>
>I'd actually like to try this. I think it'd be really interesting to see
>how three different artists approach the same exact thing.
4 or 5 years ago, DC ran an in-house column about what it is an inker does
(it's more than just tracing, by the way). The column showed an uninked
Batman panel, followed by the same panel inked by three different inkers.
It really demonstrated the way an inker can change the look of the art.
> (of course, it
>would also help bolster the argument against work for hire...)
Really? How so? I don't think even the most ardent of work-for-hire
supporters these days alleges that artists are completely fungible.
--
Jason Fliegel
j-fl...@uchicago.edu
2L, University of Chicago Law School
Jamie Coville
On 12 Dec 1997 09:48:40 -0500, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>: Erik Larsen's little "Name Withheld" rant in the CBG a few years back
>: was slightly off-target, but only slightly. He had the feelings right, but
>: not the words.
>
><snide> Well, that's 'cause he's not a WRITER. </snide>
>
>Larsen's basic claim was that artists don't need writers. I disagree.
That wasn't quite it Elayne. Larsen's claim was that there were a lot
of really bad writers in comics. Larsen felt that the industry had
nothing to loose by giving the artist a chance to write. Because worst
case senario it would *still* be a crappy written book, best case
senario, it would be a better written book.
I beleive I have a copy of the Name Witheld letter on my hard drive,
e-mail me if you want a copy of it.
Regards, | The History of Superhero Comic Books:
Jamie Coville | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8580/
W. Allen Montgomery
jcoville@SPAM_FILTER.adan.kingston.net (Jamie Coville) wrote:
>On 12 Dec 1997 09:48:40 -0500, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
>Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>>Larsen's basic claim was that artists don't need writers. I disagree.
>
>That wasn't quite it Elayne. Larsen's claim was that there were a lot
>of really bad writers in comics. Larsen felt that the industry had
>nothing to loose by giving the artist a chance to write. Because worst
>case senario it would *still* be a crappy written book, best case
>senario, it would be a better written book.
Thanks for that. I was just working from memory.
W. Allen Montgomery
aki...@concentric.net(Lea Hernandez) wrote:
>I might add, on the subject of pay, that it takes a lot less work to
>earn a living wage doing comics (for a middlin' to larger company) that
>it does to earn a living wage as a writer.
Thanks, Lea.
W. Allen Montgomery
> generally be much, much worse than those written by "pure" writers.
> They do not draw little pictures and sketches, they sum up an entire
> page in about three sentences of completely generic prose. Even when
> they tackle direct descriptions of things, they gloss over any sort
> of detail and go for a few broad strokes of explanation. You would
> think that, being artists, they would understand the importance of
> being clear about the desired imagery-- but lo! What do you find? That
> much of the time, being artists, they can't describe even *basic* images
> using words.
That's what I said. Artists have come to expect this sort of laziness
from their writers, and when they graduate to becoming writers themselves,
that's the same kind of crap they spew. They've become conditioned to it.
>>Comics writers churning out 25-page scripts
>>in four days are left with too much free time while they wait for the artists
>>to draw the pages. They then go out and write more pap. Their "valid
>>choices" are choking the comics market.
>
>You sound like you really think this is it, this is where the blame lies.
> Do you think there are no other reasons for the current state of the
> industry?
Not the *only* reason, but a lack of interesting story content is
certainly the *greatest* reason.
>>And yes, that huckster Stan Lee can kiss my ass.
>
>I was going to apologize for the confrontational tone of my above comments,
> and for some of the gross overgeneralizations I made, but on second thought,
> fuck it.
Awww... did I insult one of Danny's little heroes?
Lemming
>In article <EL9AG...@news2.new-york.net>, lemm...@cybernex.net wrote:
>>zheeb zheeb zhunomadi...@mindspring.com (Brandon
>>Blatcher)---gwup?
>major snips>
>Brandon said:
>>>>>Comics can be expressive in non reality way. I'm not exactly sure how to
>>>>>put it, but it's like saying comics can better adapt to non-realistic
>>>>>styles like Impressionism, Fauvism, etc. and are better at being iconic in
>>>>>nature.
>Lemming said:
>>>>Ever seen an animated movie?
>Brandon said:
>>>Ever seen an animated movie made completely by one person and one person ONLY?
>Lemming said:
>>Yeah.
>>
>>And...?
>Details man! What was it?
A Grand Day Out comes to mind, though he had some MINOR assistance.
Burton and Lynch did some early stuff that was almost entirely theirs,
and what little someone else did was unpaid and unthanked. Terry
Gilliam did a lot of the Monty Python stuff solo, if memory serves.
Mike Judge did the first B & B alone, and the fellows who bring us
South Park needed no help for the Spirit of Xmas.
That more or less covers the people you've heard of. If you delve
into Spike and Mike territory you find most everybody has one short
piece that's entirely them. A lot of the computer animation fellows.
A lot of the painted-film stuff was done alone. Go to the AMMI in
Queens for great examples. Animation can be much cheaper, all the way
down to free. All you need is a camera and patience. Though none of
the things I mention get famous (and the ones who do usually had
assistants, because let's face it, no one -wants- to do animation
alone), they exist. And their popularity does NOT determine their
quality.
Lemming
zheeb zheeb zhucr...@shell15.ba.best.com (Crisper Than Thou)---gwup?
>W. Allen Montgomery <w.a.mon...@SPAM.SUCKS.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>If the writer
>>could draw it, breaking it down on the page for another artist to finish, a
>>written-out script wouldn't be necessary, would it? If it is the artist who
>>lays out the panels, establishes the pacing, decides what all the characters
>>and settings look like, picks all the camera angles and just fills in random
>>details here and there whose story is it, anyway? Who indeed is the writer
>>in said situation?
>Well, if the writer puts down every angle, every individual, every color,
> every rock and tree and explosion, then why pay artists and colorists to
> think? Why not give 'em $6 an hour, like good little wageslave drones?
> They're just executing to a routine.
Writer's couldn't do that. It simply isn't possible. No matter how
many pages of description I give you, I cannot write an Egon Schiele
drawing. I realise you're being sarcastic, but I think you're aiming
to the left and a bit below the point. Writing is not drawing, and
can never be, regardless of quantity.
>> Hardly. One person could create, publish, print and distribute a
>>comic all by his lonesome, should he desire strongly enough to do so. Even
>>the lowest budget films can't be produced that efficiently.
Was this where I jumped in before? If it is, I'm sorry.
W. Allen, you're wrong. A movie is much easier to make than a comic.
As in, orders of magnitude. Think about it for a second and it's
obvious.
Lemming
zheeb zheeb zhucr...@shell15.ba.best.com (Crisper Than Thou)---gwup?
>damontegration <db...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
So Moore babbles. That still doesn't mean that a script should be:
Page One:
Man
Fight
Spandex
Woman (big thingys!)
Kiss
Fight
Ugh.
damontegration
Jason Fliegel wrote:
>
> In article <SPAMBLOCKtom127-ya023...@news.capital.net>,
> Tom Vincent <SPAMBLO...@capital.net> wrote:
> >In article
> ><nomadicSPAMBLOCK-ya024...@news.mindspring.com>,
> >nomadicS...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
> >>You can give me a page to color and can give Tom Vincent and/or Robin
> >>Riggs(just to borrow racm regulars who works reguarly in the field) the
> >>exact same page to color,
> >
> >I'd actually like to try this. I think it'd be really interesting to see
> >how three different artists approach the same exact thing.
i'd color it in black and white, just
to piss off rick.
> 4 or 5 years ago, DC ran an in-house column about what it is an inker does
> (it's more than just tracing, by the way). The column showed an uninked
> Batman panel, followed by the same panel inked by three different inkers.
> It really demonstrated the way an inker can change the look of the art.
>
> > (of course, it
> >would also help bolster the argument against work for hire...)
>
> Really? How so? I don't think even the most ardent of work-for-hire
> supporters these days alleges that artists are completely fungible.
you know, a good dose of pinesol clears that right up.
damontegration
Lemming wrote:
>
> When I pose this question I get a million people saying, "But I
> caaaaan't. It's too hard. I'm not artistically talented. I can't
> even draw a circle. I have a -wonderful- visual sense, but I can't
> draw."
>
> Bullshit.
>
> If anyone can prove to me there is some good and logical reason the
> wonderful visual sense short-circuits on the way down the arm and
> causes the pencil to fall from nerveless fingers, I'll see your point.
> But everything else sounds like whining. "I have a fantastic visual
> sense, which can only be described in words. And I don't have to
> prove my fantastic visual sense, because I'll never have to draw
> anything. Just take my word for it."
see, i'm that guy you heard about 6 years ago who got both
his arms cut off in that tractor/harvester.
sure, they're reattached nOW, but there's some sort of short circuit...
> Peter David's the avatar here. He tells everyone that he has a
> fantastic visual sense.
how can he?
he wears glasses!
I'm looking at Hulk #439; his fantastic
> visual sense brings us berserk imagery like men with glowing hands
> running at each other, girls hiding under desks (such a fantastic
> visual image that we repeated it four times), women carrying boxes.
> A lot of explosions. Nothing much happens in the explosions, it's
> just a building falling down. Then look at Scud #14. In the first
> panel a giant walking Ziploc bag named Drywall points a
> pirhana-shooting cannon at Ben Franklin (who happens to be dressed in
> a grass skirt). Curiously enough, Rob Schrab has never bragged about
> his 'fantastic visual sense.' Peter David makes good comics, sure,
> but I'd call his imagery a little less than wondeful.
i don't think he makes 'good' comics..
he makes entertaining comics which i would gladly read if they were
free, but i coudln't see spending nay more than 50c to buy them.
> I, for example, do not draw well. Thus I find artists interested in
> collaboration, and when my mini comes it'll be Wayne's art you see,
> not mine. But that doesn't mean I don't draw, or enjoy drawing.
the lemming crisis?
> >It took a collaboration between the artist and me to produce a
> >comic book. What could be wrong with that?
>
> Nothing at all. Any team should utilitze the strengths of the team.
i let bob handle any job that requires superstrength , myself.
Bradly E. Peterson
lemm...@cybernex.net (Lemming) done said this here deal:
>zheeb zheeb zhudamontegration <db...@po.cwru.edu>---gwup?
>>i htinkthat you could give me a photograph and a
>>set of paints, and eventually i could repreodcue an alex ross
>>painting which he did from the phototgraph.
>You always think that until you try it.
Yep. Did this guy think that Alex just had this gigantic model
stepping over buildings and stuff for "Marvels"? heh... But to
be honest, my painting is looking to actually be faster and
better looking than my line art. It's a whole different thing
I've never had a complete handle on anyway. Worked out ok.
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
(Remove SPAMBLOCK from address to reply)
<http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama>
"They're Cool... They're Hip...
They've seen each others dicks."
(Christopher Priest on "new Q&W ad campaign")