Posted by Devin Parker on August 31, 2007 at 12:56pm
Full-style, Marvel/Plot-style, screenplay style... What form of script do you prefer to work in? Did you get your favored style from someone else's scripts? I've been told repeatedly that there's no single insisted-upon script format in comics, and so I've seen script formats that I liked and some I disliked.For example, being a penciler and writer, I feel more comfortable writing a full-script style. I prefer to plan out, at least roughly, what the reader's going to see in each panel, so that the pacing works and the penciler has something solid to work from. At the same time, I've seen how a writer's vision can fall a bit flat or not translate well visually. I don't want to "crowd" the penciler, and I don't think I could ever go into as much detail in a script as, say, Alan Moore...
You need to be a member of CCAS - Christian Comic Arts Society to add comments!
I'm with you on this one, Devin. I'm a penciler/writer, too, so I mostly use full script. But I have heard there are a lot of benefits to Marvel-style if both writer and artist are on the same wavelength.
As a writer/artist too, I just write the dialog, and pretty much never describe the environment. However, after the fact--that is, after it's drawn--I do write a description of the environment. But that's so people with visual impairments can follow along if they want.
I just discovered this and thought I'd throw in my own two bits worth...
I prefer a full script format for two reasons:
1) It forces me to think visually, and
2) It forces me to pay attention to my pacing.
I like to think the writer is responsible for more than the plot and dialog. I also think the writer should have a say in the panel content. I'm not saying the writer rules, I'm saying artists and writers have a different understanding of storytelling. To me, the artist and writer should enter into a cooperative collaboration and work together to best present the writer's story.
In the few scripts I've written for publication, I try to include in my panel description what I feel is essential for that panel. I'll let the artist add "extras" like backgrounds, etc. However, I don't want the artist to add anything that might distract or detract from my story. It's not about control; it's about getting the best possible finished product. Someone has to monitor the storytelling - in the absence of an editor, I feel that role should fall to the writer, not the artist. After all, it is the writer's story.
I must add this - If an artist wants to work with me, I expect him or her to follow my script. Twice I've seen artists change my script at their own whim. That bugged me something fierce! I'm not saying artists can't have a good idea, I'm asking them to talk it over with the writer and make sure it's a better idea before they go ahead and commit that idea to paper.
I guess for me it depends on who I am writing for and what their needs are. I gave up long ago on the idea that I had some "artistic vision" that couldn't be "compromised" in some way by an artist who didn't do things my way. Maybe it's the people I have worked with, but I have found that someone who is good at what they do brings alot to the process and that should be encouraged... Most of the work I've done in the past few years has been with artists who like what I guess would be best termed an actors improvisation type of script; All the locations and characters are spelled out- who's in a scene, where they are, what time of day it is, ect.- and all the critical dialogue is there along with comments on how lines need to be delivered (are they upset, sarcastic, bored). Within that framework, they are free to lay things out however they want, and bring any ideas into the scene as well. Once the pages are done, we go back over and see how the original dialogue needs to be tweaked or added to... with the right artist, it works well. This was the type of script I did for KING! and Enlightenment, although I also provided a ton of outside material for Enlightenment to get the look and feel of all the crazy stuff in that book over to Daniel as clearly as I could...
When there is an outside editor involved on the script level, however, I do more of a full script/ screenplay type because it's easier to examine and see what is going on. After all- it's all well and good for the artist and I to know what is going on, but if someone is signing a check they deserve to have a good understanding of what is going on before the book is just about done.
Personally? I prefer a script similar to a screenplay, but that's because that's what I got used to in college.
However, depending on the artist, my scripts typically depend on how much they want me to give them, and how much they want to make up as they go along.
I like working it out with the artist, so more of a Marvel style. I always feel like I'm limiting the artist when I create a full script with detailed panels. I think I need to find a median style, though, as most artists seem to want more detail, but maybe not as much as a full script. For my own purposes (pacing and plotting) I like to make thumbnail sketches, and if they end up helping the artist, more power to him.
Once upon a time, I preferred the Marvel Plot-first style. To this day, I still say it may be the strongest form for comic book storytelling. However, it tends to work best when the writer and artist are in tune with each other.
When I write today, it's more of a mix between the two (plot-first/full script), probably closer to a screenplay script than not.
As an editor, there are pros and cons for each:
full-script--when I get it from the writer, he's done (barring rewrites). Period. He can be taken out of the production chain. It has a tendancy to be a little constricting for some artists, especially in the day and age of the image/splash page story-telling styles. Many writers have a difficult time visualizing what is actually ON the page and therefore their scripts are either too word heavy or too empty of words. I don't mean on the script, I mean on the printed page.
plot-first--must make 2 passes by the writer. This can be a pain when trying to get writers to meet deadlines. It's difficult to shuffle around. It does allow for the most room for growth for the story so that improvements can generally be made throughout the process. Some writers don't like this idea, however, and like the idea that "once I writ it, it's gold!" :)
Also, plot-first must have a penciller with a great camera eye. Pencillers can take a plot first story and turn it into a visual masterpiece...or they can make it look incredibly boring.
As a writer, I've always tried to work with the artist to find out what format they like and feel most comfortable with. During my career, I was surprised to learn that many artists actually like full-scripts because there's no "surprises," those "well, you should have KNOWN that's what I wanted," from the writer.
my 2 cents!
Replies
I prefer a full script format for two reasons:
1) It forces me to think visually, and
2) It forces me to pay attention to my pacing.
I like to think the writer is responsible for more than the plot and dialog. I also think the writer should have a say in the panel content. I'm not saying the writer rules, I'm saying artists and writers have a different understanding of storytelling. To me, the artist and writer should enter into a cooperative collaboration and work together to best present the writer's story.
In the few scripts I've written for publication, I try to include in my panel description what I feel is essential for that panel. I'll let the artist add "extras" like backgrounds, etc. However, I don't want the artist to add anything that might distract or detract from my story. It's not about control; it's about getting the best possible finished product. Someone has to monitor the storytelling - in the absence of an editor, I feel that role should fall to the writer, not the artist. After all, it is the writer's story.
I must add this - If an artist wants to work with me, I expect him or her to follow my script. Twice I've seen artists change my script at their own whim. That bugged me something fierce! I'm not saying artists can't have a good idea, I'm asking them to talk it over with the writer and make sure it's a better idea before they go ahead and commit that idea to paper.
When there is an outside editor involved on the script level, however, I do more of a full script/ screenplay type because it's easier to examine and see what is going on. After all- it's all well and good for the artist and I to know what is going on, but if someone is signing a check they deserve to have a good understanding of what is going on before the book is just about done.
However, depending on the artist, my scripts typically depend on how much they want me to give them, and how much they want to make up as they go along.
When I write today, it's more of a mix between the two (plot-first/full script), probably closer to a screenplay script than not.
As an editor, there are pros and cons for each:
full-script--when I get it from the writer, he's done (barring rewrites). Period. He can be taken out of the production chain. It has a tendancy to be a little constricting for some artists, especially in the day and age of the image/splash page story-telling styles. Many writers have a difficult time visualizing what is actually ON the page and therefore their scripts are either too word heavy or too empty of words. I don't mean on the script, I mean on the printed page.
plot-first--must make 2 passes by the writer. This can be a pain when trying to get writers to meet deadlines. It's difficult to shuffle around. It does allow for the most room for growth for the story so that improvements can generally be made throughout the process. Some writers don't like this idea, however, and like the idea that "once I writ it, it's gold!" :)
Also, plot-first must have a penciller with a great camera eye. Pencillers can take a plot first story and turn it into a visual masterpiece...or they can make it look incredibly boring.
As a writer, I've always tried to work with the artist to find out what format they like and feel most comfortable with. During my career, I was surprised to learn that many artists actually like full-scripts because there's no "surprises," those "well, you should have KNOWN that's what I wanted," from the writer.
my 2 cents!