| Author |
|
John Peter Britton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 May 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 9129
|
| Posted: 19 August 2009 at 5:24am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I agree Jim it's not a font but hand lettering!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Andy Mokler
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 January 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2799
|
| Posted: 19 August 2009 at 11:15am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
As a storyboard artist, I learned about using 'negative space'
effectively, and when to best use down shots or worms-eye view
perspective. Choosing effective ''camera angles' helps tell the story
in an interesting manner, and also contributes to the mood or drama of
a given scene. Doing comic books is similar, but treating a comic book
page as a series of storyboard panels (which is becoming a disturbing
trend) is a mistake. Comic pages require an intelligent use of
panels to effectively tell the story and move the reader's eye thru a
given page (or book).
I have a friend who's a storyboard artist and he loves comics. He often tells me of his preference for the 6 panel grid in comics. I'm not as much of a fan of this but looking back at some examples of this style there is a certain appeal to making the pages uniform like that.
I don't know if I can describe it clearly but there's just something about how the artwork has to fit but still varying from panel to panel to tell a story that was a real accomplishment. It wasn't all talking heads.
I guess this style would seem extremely restrictive and contrary to what many are used to at this point but it's pretty interesting to see just how good the artwork was in those standardized panels. As much as Neal Adams is a god and associated with designing comic pages so the panel size and shape was a part of the art and storytelling, I have to admit that some of the Continuity stuff that I've seen got to the point where it was a mess. More of a collage than a comic page and not very easy to read in either case.
Edited by Andy Mokler on 19 August 2009 at 11:15am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132401
|
| Posted: 19 August 2009 at 11:24am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Storyboard artists have one great advantage that is often forgotten when
their particular approach is transferred to comics: their work is only an
intermediate step, not a finished product. And the finished
product has real movement, something which comics can only
suggest.
It is in order to make that suggestion, to create the illusion of movement
where none exists, that many -- tho by no means all -- comicbook artists
use the size and shapes of the panels, and the "camera angles" as such an
important tool.
When a storyboard artist draws a figure walking, with a big arrow
preceding that figure into the next frame, s/he is right away taking
advantage of a tool most comicbook artists can never use, and so we must
use other tricks -- tricks which, it should be noted, are largely forbidden to
storyboard artists!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stephen Bergstrom
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 December 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 522
|
| Posted: 19 August 2009 at 11:25am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
JB, I wonder if those people who get upset that characters don't age, or that you refer to yourself as a "cartoonist," do so because they identify perhaps a little too much with the characters you draw. As they get older, but their favorite characters don't, it highlights the fact that they're no longer children, and should perhaps re-assess their enjoyment of those characters.
In your case, what you do being referred to as "cartooning" also points up the fact that those characters are non-realistic, fictional depictions of humanity. Since these people don't want the absurdity of their attachment to have that harsh a light shone on it, they therefore insist you refer to yourself as an "illustrator."
I think that unhealthy attachment may be why characters' "changes," such as marriage, de-aging, et al, upset so many, as do the stories that reverse said changes. When I was in my late teens, I became quite upset when Tom DeFalco came along and reversed all the wonderful changes that Walt Simonson had done within the Thor comic. That should have been my first clue that a) I was no longer Marvel's target demographic, and b) I was being a little too offended at what was really a minimal change within the framework of my own life.
I'm probably overthinking it, but the coffee is humming through my veins right now, and I felt like typing.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132401
|
| Posted: 19 August 2009 at 11:34am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Oh, sure! As the age of the audience has shifted upward, largely due to
insane marketing moves by the Companies ("I know! Let's only sell comics
in out of the way shops that are hard to get to and usually closed on
holidays!")
It's very sad. Roger Stern used to say that a lot of comicbook fans
eventually reached a place where they either needed to turn Pro, or find
another hobby. Unfortunately, the way the market has reshaped itself, many
in that group do neither, and instead simply become the "fans" who whine
and moan about the product no longer meeting their particular
needs.
Doubly sad, some of those people did turn pro -- but brought
along with them the need to make the characters and stories fit their own
particular -- and I would say selfish -- needs.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132401
|
| Posted: 19 August 2009 at 11:41am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
When I was in my late teens, I became quite upset when Tom DeFalco came
along and reversed all the wonderful changes that Walt Simonson had done
within the Thor comic.
••
Walt has expressed to me on more than one occasion a philosophy that can
be distilled down to this: It doesn't really matter what we do, they can
always change it.
Nowadays, this might be more accurately expressed as "they will
always change it.
Walt's attitude is by and large a healthy one. I have long since given up on
hoping any story of mine will ever be "bulletproof". For stories and events to
be undone, today, requires nothing more than an editor or a writer or a
combination thereof with the desire to do so. (Sometimes, alas, a malicious
desire.)
The overall health of the books and the industry would be better served,
tho, I think, if more people would adopt the approach of the illusion of
change, rather than real change. It's like the challenge Shooter used
to give to people who wanted to submit sample scripts. He'd tell them to
come up with a story that told of the most important day in the heroes lives
-- that left everything basically unchanged at the end.
I like to think of it as being somewhat like the old saw about how we do not
inherit the world from our parents, we borrow it from our children.
Whenever I work on a series, somewhere in the front of my brain I keep a
little Post-It note reminding me that someone else is going to have to write
the series after I leave.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark McKay
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2241
|
| Posted: 19 August 2009 at 11:56am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
JB wrote:
| Unfortunately, the term that seems to have captured the lead lately is "graphic novel", which is no less accurate, and actually pushed deep into pretentiousness. So, my position has turned 180°. I want ALL the formats called "comic books", or, to go back to Stan again, "comicbooks". If they contain that distinctive combination of words and pictures, they are COMIC BOOKS! |
|
|
I tend to agree with you. It feels like some way of hiding behind a term so that your not really doing what you are actually doing - reading or producing comic books!
Having said that, I recently purchased David Mazzucchelli's recent work (Asterios Polyp), and in the notes it said, "this is his first graphic novel." And reading it, it's one of the closest things I've found to a "graphic novel." It's like it's a novel, with the trappings of a novel, depicted graphically.
It's pretentious, yes, and winks at the audience. But then somehow it lives up to that wink.
In the notes, he also refers to himself as a cartoonist.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Stephen Bergstrom
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 December 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 522
|
| Posted: 19 August 2009 at 12:16pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I can certainly see that point.
Part of me wants vehemently to disagree, due to my enjoyment of Geoff Johns' run on Green Lantern, but I do recognize that Geoff is more or less catering to my desire as an adult reader by making his content seem more "mature" than Broome's Hal Jordan, while simultaneously using concepts that wouldn't be terribly out of place in the Silver Age, such as the "emotional spectrum" lantern corps.
Of course, it's also why I don't look forward to his eventual departure from the title, since whoever takes over will want to put his/her own particular "spin" on the character.
Hmmmm. That's a pretty compelling argument for the "on-model" approach in terms of the writing as well as the artwork. Yes, it might limit some writers, but then perhaps those writers shouldn't be touching those characters if they can't write them within the established parameters of such.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've seen those sentiments mirrored elsewhere in this forum, but I'm just now coming to the same realization. Mea culpa.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132401
|
| Posted: 19 August 2009 at 12:55pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
That's a pretty compelling argument for the "on-model" approach in terms
of the writing as well as the artwork. Yes, it might limit some writers, but
then perhaps those writers shouldn't be touching those characters if they
can't write them within the established parameters of such.
••
A few years back I was asked to write a series based on a character with
which I'd had some previous association. (Vague enough, d'you think?) As
things shook out, I ended up passing on the assignment, and another writer
was called in. This writer said he could write the character only if he made
certain changes --- basically, he wanted to jack up the title and slip and
entirely different character underneath. Which he did.
Now, call me old fashioned . . . . pause . . . . but it seems to me that saying
"I can't write this character as is" should be the same as saying "I decline
this assignment."
But, it's been a long time since it was about the song and not the singer,
hasn't it?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stephen Bergstrom
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 December 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 522
|
| Posted: 19 August 2009 at 12:58pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Yep. 'Fraid so.
Some of the singers know it's not about them, but they're getting fewer and farther between.
Edited by Stephen Bergstrom on 19 August 2009 at 12:58pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132401
|
| Posted: 19 August 2009 at 1:03pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Back in Art College we were all sitting 'round the coffee table one day when
Carly Simon's You're So Vain started playing on the muzak. One of the
gals at the table opined that it must be really embarrassing to be the person
that song was about. I pointed out that the song doesn't really
work if it's really about somebody! It kind of folds in on itself
and defeats its own purpose.
Nowadays, a large number of people working in the American comicbook
industry are so vain they have absolutely no doubt that the song is about
them!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stephen Churay
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 March 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 8369
|
| Posted: 19 August 2009 at 3:17pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
About a year ago I was given some great comic illustration advice by a pupil of Dick Giordano and Wally Wood's. ( I've posted this once before but for the sake of this thread and the artists who read it, I thought it might help someone) It's called the 3x3 rule.
The 3x3 rule states that as a penciler, you only have three colors or values to play with; black, white and gray. You also have three different planes within a panel; foreground, midground, and background. If you assign a color or value to each, you can create a better sense of depth to a panel.
Now I'm sure some of you know this or just do it instinctively, but for someone like me, who has to be told or just never thought about it, I hope this helps. Sure has helped my work.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
