What about the Strict Shooter Page layouts for new launch?

[sanman]

I'm not seeing what's so revolutionary about the Van Sciver page . . . is it just a double page spread slightly turned? It still is a left to right, top down piece.

That’s actually my point. He took the panel layout and pushed it to the next level—making the reveal of the colored lanterns that much more dynamic.

Note, I’m using the term dynamic as it pertains to fine art. It’s the layout’s ability to convey movement, mood and action beyond what is actually drawn in the individual panels (of which should be dynamic as well). Hence, the dynamics of a page layout can help set the mood for the narrative like a music score in a film.

My point is that having a very horizontal page layout with fairly uniform squares is a short sighted and dated approach to page composition. Some times this still works as the horizontal grid makes the reader focus just on the individual panels—Watchmen is a great example—but page composition should be considered when trying to tell the most compelling narrative.

Hence, someone using the horizontal grids should have a better reason for doing so rather than because it’s his only way to draw comics. In contrast, I think too often the illustrator fails to recognize that less is sometimes more which creates noisy compositions.

Van Sciver’s page is a great example of an illustrator restraining the composition in such a way that you can feel the heaviness of the moment. Still, the angled arrangement does far more to set the mood than if the panels were arranged horizontally.

[Ryan]

That would be terrific if VALIANT was an indie house crime comic (maybe it is, I don't know). Stray Bullets was also black and white. Maybe we should do that too.

They'd be among the numerous well executed comics that don't or barely sell well enough issues to sustain most individuals, much less entire companies. Criminal at least has the advantage of being in MARVEL's section of previews and being written by someone whose easily regarded as a top 10 writer in the market.

Watchmen? Sure, let's get Alan Moore on the phone. Watchmen sold and was effective because it was genius, it sold again because of a movie and stayed in print in-between to be bought so DC could keeps its rights from Moore. Moore is probably the greatest writer in the medium's history tapping into and subversing the most popular concept going - that's why it sold. While I think Gibbons is often undermentioned when considering Watchmen, nobody is beating down his door for work.

I'm not saying that Valiant should use strict grids. I'm just pointing out that the grid by itself doesn't necessarily make a work look dated.

Why is art that "looks nice", take away from a story? That would lead me to believe the story isn't compelling enough. great art doesn't mean that the story has to be weak. Art shouldn't have to get out of the way of writing. They should both be equally up to the task. if you have JH Williams as your artist , bring your A game, and yes that book above is a great read because it has a really solid writer on it.

There are tons of European comics with extremely beautiful art that use variations of the grid. They do a lot less with dynamic layouts and characters popping out of panels. Which looks nicer? That's up to taste. But I would argue that more standard panel layouts are more accessible to a common person just picking up a comic book.

I'm definitely not against creative page layouts. I'm all for it actually. If it's done intelligently and in service of the story.

[sanman]

That would be terrific if VALIANT was an indie house crime comic (maybe it is, I don't know). Stray Bullets was also black and white. Maybe we should do that too.

They'd be among the numerous well executed comics that don't or barely sell well enough issues to sustain most individuals, much less entire companies. Criminal at least has the advantage of being in MARVEL's section of previews and being written by someone whose easily regarded as a top 10 writer in the market.

Watchmen? Sure, let's get Alan Moore on the phone. Watchmen sold and was effective because it was genius, it sold again because of a movie and stayed in print in-between to be bought so DC could keeps its rights from Moore. Moore is probably the greatest writer in the medium's history tapping into and subversing the most popular concept going - that's why it sold. While I think Gibbons is often undermentioned when considering Watchmen, nobody is beating down his door for work.

I'm not saying that Valiant should use strict grids. I'm just pointing out that the grid by itself doesn't necessarily make a work look dated.

That’s a fair argument as long as it’s intentional, IMHO.

Why is art that "looks nice", take away from a story? That would lead me to believe the story isn't compelling enough. great art doesn't mean that the story has to be weak. Art shouldn't have to get out of the way of writing. They should both be equally up to the task. if you have JH Williams as your artist , bring your A game, and yes that book above is a great read because it has a really solid writer on it.

There are tons of European comics with extremely beautiful art that use variations of the grid. They do a lot less with dynamic layouts and characters popping out of panels. Which looks nicer? That's up to taste. But I would argue that more standard panel layouts are more accessible to a common person just picking up a comic book.

I'm definitely not against creative page layouts. I'm all for it actually. If it's done intelligently and in service of the story.

Indeed…

This whole layout discussion reminds me of when color television was introduced in the ‘60s. Then, programs took color to the extreme such as Batman and Star Trek (two of my favorite shows by the way) because it was the modern look used attract viewers.

Now that color is the norm, creative people have learned to use color to set the tone of a program, particular scene or character. (Imagine Walking Dead with ‘60s hues. )

It's really the same concerning creative page layouts. Certainly in the ‘90’s through even now illustrators have gone away from the standard panel layout just to be cool and/or sell more books. However the true draftsman will know how to use the layout to enhance the reading experience which could mean creating a more classic layout that's actualy less dynamic.

Returning to the original topic, I think these issues and more clearly demonstrate why a mandated house style not only hampers the creative process, but potentially diminishes the interaction between the reader and the narrative.

[Triumphant Serial Number]

I'm not seeing what's so revolutionary about the Van Sciver page . . . is it just a double page spread slightly turned? It still is a left to right, top down piece.

That’s actually my point. He took the panel layout and pushed it to the next level—making the reveal of the colored lanterns that much more dynamic.

Actually, my point would be that the VS example is something Shooter wouldn't have a problem with. It's fairly conventional, just a dutch-angled comic spread. That's not Shooter's beef from my understanding.

An example I think would get Shooter's goat would be the recent Silver Surfer #1. I only know it from the free Marvel Sneak Peeks from February, but what's shown is quite confusing considering what simple things it has to convey. Bizarre angles, strangely shaped panels that lead the eye everywhere and nowhere, panel breaking for no purpose . . . if that's what the new Valiant would look like, count me out. And that's not even considering the actual illustrations and things like body language and setting. None it's stylings help it at all, or make it any better than an old-style artist would do in half the page count.

Or from 10 years ago, the double page spread from the VHX Dr. Mirage unpublished pages. That spread doesn't work for me at all, and looks like what I imagine the kind of piece Shooter would make an artist draw again.

[sanman]

I'm not seeing what's so revolutionary about the Van Sciver page . . . is it just a double page spread slightly turned? It still is a left to right, top down piece.

That’s actually my point. He took the panel layout and pushed it to the next level—making the reveal of the colored lanterns that much more dynamic.

Actually, my point would be that the VS example is something Shooter wouldn't have a problem with. It's fairly conventional, just a dutch-angled comic spread. That's not Shooter's beef from my understanding.

An example I think would get Shooter's goat would be the recent Silver Surfer #1. I only know it from the free Marvel Sneak Peeks from February, but what's shown is quite confusing considering what simple things it has to convey. Bizarre angles, strangely shaped panels that lead the eye everywhere and nowhere, panel breaking for no purpose . . . if that's what the new Valiant would look like, count me out. And that's not even considering the actual illustrations and things like body language and setting. None it's stylings help it at all, or make it any better than an old-style artist would do in half the page count.

Or from 10 years ago, the double page spread from the VHX Dr. Mirage unpublished pages. That spread doesn't work for me at all, and looks like what I imagine the kind of piece Shooter would make an artist draw again.

I can’t argue against that—all excellent points.

[dave]

I also think comic storytelling has lost it's way of late in mainstream comics. The uber-details are unimportant. Just tell the story. I am a student of the Jim Shooter school of thought.

I also hope each issue of the new VEI doesn't take me only 5 minutes to read. I also hope they stay away from double-page spreads with a single caption on it somewhere in the top left corner.

I agree. Put it on the bottom right...

[ian_house]

Its strange but these kind of discussions show exactly why fans should have nothing to do with the creation of the comics they love. Not saying that as a snipe at anyones opinions. Its just that every kind of storytelling, method, page layout etc. is being bandied around here and it'd be impossible to please all of us.

[xodacia81]

Its strange but these kind of discussions show exactly why fans should have nothing to do with the creation of the comics they love. Not saying that as a snipe at anyones opinions. Its just that every kind of storytelling, method, page layout etc. is being bandied around here and it'd be impossible to please all of us.

Yep. I love the fact that there are so many different tastes. I like different sorts of layouts. I'm not one for having half a book be splash pages-Brightest Day # 24, I'm looking at you!-but I don't think everything should be 3x3, either. As for panel breaks? Those work under certain circumstances. I don't mind "odd angles" or "strange shaped/small" panels.

[dhudson1]

]

I also think comic storytelling has lost it's way of late in mainstream comics. The uber-details are unimportant. Just tell the story. I am a student of the Jim Shooter school of thought.

I also hope each issue of the new VEI doesn't take me only 5 minutes to read. I also hope they stay away from double-page spreads with a single caption on it somewhere in the top left corner.

One problem with several post Shooter books was the lack of enough story, art that was too big, making for a short read. I don't like paying a high price for a comic that only takes 5 minutes to read either.

[yardstick]

If they want this line to have a shot at succeeding, the books need to have a modern look to them. Sticking to the Jim Shooter method of 5-6 panels per page with all the action in the panel is a recipe for disaster. If you need an example, look at the DK line. It ain't the 60s no more. It's not even the 90s.

Except that the majority of the opinions I have been reading regarding the DK line all seem to agree that the largest problem was the shipping schedule, then the art quality, not the storytelling panel pacing style.

If they want this line to have a shot at succeeding, the books need to have a modern look to them. ticking to the Jim Shooter method of 5-6 panels per page with all the action in the panel is a recipe for disaster. If you need an example, look at the DK line. It ain't the 60s no more. It's not even the 90s.

I agree with this statement, but, maybe some of the modern art concepts could be used only for certain occasions or under strict guidelines so the art doesn't get totally out of control. I think VALIANT was about reading stories first and the pictures were a guide. I'm all for making the pictures more entertaining, let's just make sure the stories are exemplary.

This is why I like that they went with Warren Simons and someone with a strong writing/editing background.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. How many times have we heard horror stories about primadonna artists who do what they want, regardless of how the story is written/plotted/scripted? 22 splash pages with little in the way of text to explain what was happening?

I just looked over those Doctor Mirage pages which were posted years ago here, and recently exhumed. You know something? Even after reading the plot, I didn't like that story all that much; and then it occurred to me why: lack of page-to-page panel structure we here might call "the VALIANT house style". Consistent [ read: Uniform] panel layout methodologies from page to page. Good solid story telling, backed by decent art. Not the other way around.

[yardstick]

good storytelling is good storytelling. If old-fashioned traditional panels are what it takes to tell the story, then that's what it takes.

As an example, I believe I've seen on here accusations that Shooter railroaded BWS into stifling grids and hamstrung a master storyteller like BWS.

But I just looked through issue #1 of BWS Storyteller. It might be from 15 years ago but it's all BWS written and illustrated under his full ownership and control. No Shooter around with his shackles and straitjacket.

And it's full of grids! And panels! And I only found one instance of panel breaking, a small bit of a hand popping through. Other than that, it was a Shooter dream come true: 6 panel grids, 4 panel grids, 9 panel grids . . . grids grids everywhere!

But storytelling like that probably doesn't have a place anymore. Traditional style like Shooter likes are best for the old belief that "every comic is somebody's first comic", which is good for all newcomers but especially children to be able to understand the story fully and get them coming back for more.

But let's not kid ourselves. Nobody is having their first comic anymore. There are no new readers, the industry is already dead and just peeling off the remaining buyers as they die or leave comics behind. Children don't read comics, never even come across comics. And even if they did, Valiant would be too mature for them, just as the new DH GK books were certainly too adult for children.

So bring on the decompressed exploded nonsense. Comics don't matter anymore, they're just vehicles for film-tv-games if they're lucky.

Did anyone happen to read any of the online comics that were produced for "The Cape" and "Heroes" tv shows? How were those comics laid out?

How about this for a style:
"You can only have up to 9 panels on a page, but you can lay them out any way that tells the story successfully"?

[yardstick]

]

I also think comic storytelling has lost it's way of late in mainstream comics. The uber-details are unimportant. Just tell the story. I am a student of the Jim Shooter school of thought.

I also hope each issue of the new VEI doesn't take me only 5 minutes to read. I also hope they stay away from double-page spreads with a single caption on it somewhere in the top left corner.

One problem with several post Shooter books was the lack of enough story, art that was too big, making for a short read. I don't like paying a high price for a comic that only takes 5 minutes to read either.

When artsy panels replace script, that's what you get. If VEI wants artsy panels- as long as there is script telling the story in nearly all of them (as in a 15-20 minute read), I'll probably be content.