I was reading an old Adam Kubert interview where he justifies fill-in issues because modern printing is so good that he feels obliged to put as much into his pages as possible, regardless of how long that may take (paraphrasing, on my part). 

A couple of questions: have you ever altered your approach to a panel or page in consideration of printing? Does today's more advanced printing require artists to put 'more' into a page, since details reproduce clearer?

Thanks in advance!

2) If more detail is "needed" how come we see more and more the rise of "open" style artists (Kollins, Quitely, Cooke, Cassaday) and more prominence to the role of the colorist?

3) As if George Pιrez, to name but one artist whose extremely detailed style adorned monthly books in the past, hadn΄t been drawing for 40 years...

Edited by Flavio Sapha on 25 May 2011 at 8:42am

••

Let's tweak that a bit.

In the early days, there was no need for "fill-in" issues, because most books were basically anthologies, with multiple stories by multiple artists and writers. SUPERMAN and BATMAN typically had three or four stories per issue, with "Book Length Novels" being the exception (and usually trumpeted on the cover!). When an editor needed to put together the newest issue, he merely went to his flat files and pulled out three or four stories, all of which were completed months earlier.

It was mostly Marvel that changed this. Jack Kirby, being a Force of Nature, was actually able to produce several books a month (tho he was doing what today would be called breakdowns), and this created a kind of illusion that book length stories were supposed to come out every month, not as the rare exception. Trouble was, most artists couldn't draw a book a month -- not full pencils anyway.

Then another "illusion" came along -- artists who could produce detailed full pencils AND put them out on a monthly basis (George Perez for one. Me. Frank Miller.) But these guys were not everybody, and, for most of them, it wasn't REALLY a monthly schedule. Every once in a while, a fill-in would be needed.*

But it was all about the demands of the audience having changed from the early days, so the readers now insisted on the same artist doing the whole book. Or books. And then the industry started redefining itself, so that producing books on a timely schedule became a BAD thing. "Growinr roses" became the norm, and fans and readers were suckered into believing that if a book was late, it was because the artist had put MORE WORK into it, not because he was spending his days playing video games or trying to make deals in Hollywood.

For SOME artists, it was true that they were putting in more work, and that was delaying the process -- but you know what the professional term for that is? DUMB.

It's fine to fill up the pages with fine lines and lots of detail, IF YOU CAN PRODUCE THE BOOK ON SCHEDULE WHILE DOING SO. But if you can't, this is not a cue for fill-ins. This is a cue for the artist to realize he cannot handle a monthly book.

I was reading an old Adam Kubert interview where he justifies fill-in issues because modern printing is so good that he feels obliged to put as much into his pages as possible, regardless of how long that may take

*************

This makes no sense because no one uses fill-ins anymore. If the book is going to be late, they just allow the book to be late.

Generally speaking, I prefer an issue that looks like it was done fast than no issue at all. Sometimes I like it even better than a polished issue.

how come we see more and more the rise of "open" style artists

Ironically, Cassaday and Quitley seem to be pretty slow, despite the fact that their work is shot from pencils (from what I can guess), which one would assume would speed up the process!

he merely went to his flat files and pulled out three or four stories, all of which were completed months earlier

Do comic companies today still sollicit inventory material? It seems that it'd be wise for an editor to stockpile finished stories from a variety of artists to help maintain a monthly schedule.

but you know what the professional term for that is? DUMB.

Well said <g>. I think it's a case of denial, refusing to accept that a monthly comic book artist should be able to produce a certain number of pages per day to meet a deadline.

This makes no sense because no one uses fill-ins anymore.

The interview was in the mid 90s, during his run on Hulk (which I've never read). I'm guessing fill-ins aren't popular to today's 'sophisticated' readers...

"Yes, yes, we know it's late, and mostly traced from photographs, and not even a complete story -- but look how expensive it is!"

• A writer and artist assigned as "showrunners" for a year. They create,
essentially, a year-long "bible" for the title — this is the main story we're
telling in the next 12 issues. The year-long arc will have a distinct
beginning, middle and end.

• The showrunner team will be responsible for producing at least 6 (and
more likely 8) issues during that year, start to finish. These issues are the
big ones — the arc issues, the ones that deal with the overriding story.

• The remaining 4-6 issues will be fill-ins, scripted and drawn by others
working within the parameters set by that 12 issue bible. The showrunner
team — and this is known to all upfront — will review, polish, even re-
write these fill in issues as befits the overall arc.

• The editor acts, essentially, as the voice of the network. He/she
approves the original arc, helps in assigning the fill in teams, makes sure
the characters stay on-model, ensures that readers hopping in in the
middle of an arc understand what's going on.

It seems to me that genre TV — a real business that ALWAYS ships on
time — provides an almost perfect model for modern comics. You get
continuity, you get reliable ship dates, you provide room for one-and-
done issues, you give up and coming artists and writers a chance to work,
and you allow big name creators to have both control and time.

Guys like JB, who can do it all and do it fast, get to do it all and do it fast.
There's no penalty for being Aaron Sorkin on West Wing or Steven Moffat
on Coupling — in fact, if that workload becomes a sort of badge of honor
for some, all the better.

It's easy to say "Just hammer everyone to stay on deadline, and if you can't
produce a comic in a month, you shouldn't be doing comics" — but that
hasn't really worked out for the last decade or two.

Edited by Sean Blythe on 25 May 2011 at 10:48am