Comic Book Writing Mechanics

Personally, I prefer the thumbnail/breakdown method. The writer lays out the page, indicating panel, character, dialogue balloon and caption placement, as well as suggesting perspective.

It's a little more work for the writer than the so-called Marvel Method (where the artist works from a rather loose plot) and even full script, but the advantages are:

(a)It cuts down on the labor and therefore the time for the artist
and
(b) That method permits the writer a greater degree of input and even control on the look of the completed page.

I've worked all three ways and I much prefer the thumbnail/breakdown method. All the artists I've worked with have, too.

(There are examples and exemplars in The Everything Guide to Writing Graphic Novels)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1598694510/?tag=absolutewritedm-20

It's worth noting that the "Marvel Method" has gone out of vogue; Marvel found that by allowing the actual writer to do his thing you could have deeper stories...

That said, I usually default to a six panel grid and just mention which panels I'm combining for which panels I'm writing for, with a breakdown of what's happening in each panel. I also allow for multiple balloons from characters in the same panel, but that's me...

FR

I'm not a big fan of the grid, except when it's a dialogue heavy exposition page...and even then, I try to figure out ways to avoid the talking head box setup.

Too often, if the artist is working from a full script, he doesn't leave sufficient negative space for captions and the balloons. He can only guesstimate what is necessary.

I laid out the page below with thumbnail breakdowns, drawing the position of the characters relative to the dialogue balloons. I and the artist, Jim Mooney, were pleased with the final result.

I think Sim lettered his own stuff, too...I remember an ancedote that no Marvel letterer liked to work on Don MaGregor's scripts because they were so dialogue heavy.

Figuring out how to get the maximum amount of meaning through the minimum amount of verbiage is one of the hardest things to learn about scripting comics--or the "graphic narrative" as it's known now.

Axler said:

I'm not a big fan of the grid, except when it's a dialogue heavy exposition page...and even then, I try to figure out ways to avoid the talking head box setup.

Click to expand...

Not trying to be a jerk; just looking for better explication....

If you're writing for someone you don't know, who do you describe the paneling, or do you just hope that the artist will work it out?


FR

FinbarReilly said:

If you're writing for someone you don't know, who do you describe the paneling, or do you just hope that the artist will work it out?

Click to expand...

All the more reason to opt for the thumbnail/breakdown method if you're working with an artist you don't know.

Interpreting a full script can be daunting even for a seasoned comics artist. With the panel breakdown method, you give them a better visual with which to work and you minimize the chances of them drawing something you're not crazy about.

For example...when I worked with Adam Hughes on Death Hawk, he preferred the more imaginative, cinematic type of page layouts. He got jiggy with them panels.

Rik Levins, who replaced him, preferred the straight six-panel grid, but I wanted him to emulate Adam's layouts, so I did the breakdowns. I got the look that I wanted and Rik's labor was lessened.

Examples: Death Hawk: scripted by me, laid out and penciled by Adam Hughes:


Death Hawk: penciled by Rik Levins, laid out with the thumbnail breakdown method by me.


I tried to emulate Adam's layout style in the breakdowns I provided to Rik.

For me...Keep in mind that I use the six grid, but I mutate it as needed..That, and I'm seriously simplifying things...

First Page:

Panel 1 (combines 1+2): Action
Caption: Blahblah
Person: Blahblah

Panel 2 (combines 3+4): Action
Alien (telebubble): Blahblah (beat) blahblah
Person: Blahblah


Panel 3 (combines 5+6): Action
Alien (telebubble): Blahblah (beat) blahblah
Person: Blahblah
Alien (telebubble): Blahblah

Second Page:

Panel 1: Action
Caption
Caption
Caption
Alien (telebubble): blahblah
Person: Blahblad

Panel 2 (combines 2+3+4+5): Action
Caption
Caption
Caption
Caption
Caption
Caption

Panel 6: Action
Alien (telebubble): blahblah


FR

Here's what I do.

Assuming there's 22 pages for a book.

Take a piece of paper (I occasionally do this on a WP or Organiser software - but usually I do this while I'm riding in the car, or watching the kids swimming lessons so it's easy and efficient and give me a bit of extra time, PLUS because it's "bitty" I don't need a swathe of time to concentrate) and I list the page numbers down the page. I then link with a line, to the left, each spread (2-3, 4-5, 6-7, etc).

I then write a sentence for what happens on each page. That allows me to think about the book as a whole and get the last page to be the end that I want (be that a cliffhanger or a final conclusion).

I then take another piece of paper that I have created a template on, and thumbnail the entire book. Very loose, small (22 pages on one sheet of 8.5" x 11") and break down the panel layout. In addition to helping me work out the flow and dynamic of the pages, it allows me to dupe pages I want to or make sure that page layout isn't too repetative.

Next I write the script. I do this in MovieMagic which has a template/macro thing set up for the format.

First thing I write at the start of a new (comic) page, is a description of the page payout. What size panels are, where they are on the page, what is inset where.

Then I do the panel descriptions and dialog.

I don't state where dialog/blurb bubble should be on the page, I leave that for the artist and letterer to work out - a competent artist knows to leave room for lettering and if they follow the script, they know how much to leave.

I have no default layout for a page. Each page is dictated by the contents.

And even allowing for me planning the pages very precisely, I always tell the artist to feel free to change things around if they want when they start to draw, since I know that the thing can evolve as the visual takes a hold.

Never done the "Marvel style." And in truth, the one time I tried it, the artist came back to me and asked me to script it fully again. And she is a very good penciler.

For me, I think it boils down to this. Be as detailed and precise and exact as possible, then when you let it go to the art team, be ready and willing to let it all hang out and roll with what they do. It is a collaborative process, after all.

I write and draw a little vanity press web comic.

I write the script and then use a variation on the grid method. I limit myself to a grid on purpose having always been impressed with Jaime Hernandez's work telling the story within the box rather than with the box. Anyway, thumbnails or storyboards and then to paper. As I'm drawing I'll think of alterations and variation to the dialogue and will note those in the margins. Final work is in PhotoShop and even there I may make final changes in text and positioning.

I'm a hobbyist though as I produce far too slowly to even consider going pro but I love doing it and enjoy the entire process from script to web.

Cheers,

FinbarReilly said:

It's worth noting that the "Marvel Method" has gone out of vogue; Marvel found that by allowing the actual writer to do his thing you could have deeper stories...

Click to expand...

Could someone explain this to me? It seems to me that growing up in the Silver Age the Marvel Method was producing deeper, more interesting, and character-driven stories than DC ever was. DC in comparison was producing one-dimensional uninteresting stories. If you picked up a Superman,for example, you knew exactly what to expect. There wasn't much variation. Spiderman, however, was full of teen angst, worry about his aunt, pimples, girl trouble, job trouble, and so on.

Shadow_Ferret said:

Could someone explain this to me? It seems to me that growing up in the Silver Age the Marvel Method was producing deeper, more interesting, and character-driven stories than DC ever was. DC in comparison was producing one-dimensional uninteresting stories.

Click to expand...

That had less to do with the Marvel Method than following the dictum of Chairman Stan. The soap-opera type format he developed was applied to all of their books, from Two-Gun Kid to Sgt. Fury and His Howling Commandos.

Also, Stan worked with some brilliant collaborators, like Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko who didn't need a blueprint to tell fantastic stories.
After Ditko quit, Stan focused most of his writing energies on Spider-Man and you can see a distinct difference in the type of stories that were told in the Romita period.

Stan more or less let Jack run with the FF in any direction he wanted. He functioned mainly as a dialoguist on that book...until Jack quit. And as when Ditko left Spider-Man, there's a distinct difference in the post-Kirby style of FF stories.

Besides, once Marvel was in the position to hire other writers in the late 60s, more and more of their titles were produced through providing the artists with full scripts.

As for DC of the same period...for the most part, the old farts who ran it refused to acknowledge that Marvel was gaining on them...even though some of the writers of the second tier titles, like Doom Patrol and Teen Titans were sneaking in Marvel-style sensibilities when Mort Weisinger wasn't looking...or when Alex Toth wasn't threatening to throw him out of a window.

I think the history of comics is *almost* as exciting as comics themselves!

Shadow Ferret: Yeah, it's okay to call me Finbar.

The "Marvel Style" was that the writer would write a script without dialogue, and then send it to the artist, who would draw out the stories, who would then send it back to the writer, who would then add dialogue and captions.
It was great for speed, but sucked for composition...

FR

The success of the Marvel Method really depended on Stan's artist collaborator.

At the same time the Kirby-Lee Fantastic Four and Thor blasted such new ground that the superlatives to describe it hadn't been invented yet, the Lee-Colan Daredevil was silly.

Entertaining, beautifully rendered, but silly, with all that nonsense about Matt pretending to be his "swingin' brother" Mike, going up against punk-ass villains like the Leap-Frog, The Masked Marauder and reptilian aliens who skulked around a college campus using a freeze ray..

Of course the classic story from that time was when some thugs trapped Daredevil and triumphantly ripped off his mask--to reveal the face of Matt Murdock beneath, conveniently wearing sunglasses.

Exclaims one thug: "Hey!!! What is this? It's Matt Murdock, the blind lawyer!!" (emphasis the thug's)

Maybe if Matt hadn't jammed his mask over his glasses, the identification wouldn't have been so easy.

That singularly silly scene was thought worthy of showcasing on the cover.



Iron Man wasn't much lower on the silly-scale, but Captain America (again, with Kirby as the artist) was always compelling.

So, you know...the success of the Marvel Method on any given title depended a great deal on the artist.

Kirby described his process once (probably many times) but the one I remember was, he would lay out the page in panels, put in the dialogue and draw the comic over that. He says that's the way he learned it working for Wil Eisner and he used it to the last. Even when he collaborated with Lee, he left space specifically for the dialogue first and designed the page around it. Truth to tell, most Kirby/Lee collaborations were about 90% Kirby and 10% Lee.