Art vs Writing

File: 1442872848360.jpg (1MB, 800x2003px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x2003px

The only times when I read terrible writing with good art is when I can fap to it.

The operative word here is "read." You read comics. I can look at pretty pictures anywhere. I would rather read a great story than do that, though.

>>77514976
Yes to both ways.
But it has to be exceptional writing (or at least touching on topics I don't see much) and the art has to at least be followable. The art has to be pretty breathtaking for me to get past bad writing and sometimes not even the best art can keep me tied to a story if I actively hate the writing.

>>77514976
>bad writing good art
Maybe
If it's still entertaining I'll give it a go
>bad art good writing
Probably not
If I can't enjoy looking at it then I'm likely not gonna sit through all of it

>>77514976
> Do you feel one can save the other?
No

>>77515011
But comics are a visual medium. I feel that, to be considered a great comic, it must use the visuals to effectively tell a story.

As you say, you can look at pretty pictures anywhere. Well, you can read good stories in books without pictures.

It's the visual storytelling of the pictures that make comics what they are, to my mind.

If it has bad writing then it's fucking useless as a comic to me.

Pair Jason Fabok with Scott Lobdell on a book and it will be fucking garbage. No amount of beautiful artwork is gonna polish that turd.

>>77514976
Comics don't have good writing. Do you think soap operas have good writing? Because that's what we read, but everyone is in spandex.

>>77515060
As much of a cop-out answer as this is, I agree: one can't save the other. If either side fails the comic is no good.

Art 100%

DIY (Artist/Writer/Letters) > DIY - Letters > Artist/Writer > Penciler > Colorist > Inker > Writer

>>77515093
it's not all superheroes, friend

>>77515093
>comics don't have good writing

You're joking right? Yes, this applies to a lot of comics but not every comic.

>>77515115
I'd say an inker is more important than a colorist. Plenty of great looking black and white stuff, or comics printed in color that have sharper visuals without them

I'm reading through the Marvel Essentials for X-Men and John Byrne looks even better without color

It's visual storytelling for a reason.

>>77515077
>Jason Fabok
I don't think someone's taste in art could get more boring than that.

Does anyone have an example of a comic with great writing/bad art, or the opposite?

Something you wish you could get through but can't?

>>77514976
How is bad art excusable in comics?
Is there a horrible shortage of people who like to draw?

>bad writing but great art
Unless it's porn, absolutely not.

>great writing but bad art?
Maybe. Depends on how bad the art is and if it still manages to be charming despite being bad art.

>>77515170
Some people on here are really into house style artists, at least one guy is constantly fellating Ivan Reis

>>77515176
>great writing/bad art

all star superman? although i think it's just the shitty colorist with his bright ms paint airbrushing... the lineart itself is good

>>77515169
Well for modern books a lot of pencilers do their own inks. There are more colorists I'm excited for than inkers.

If you think the writing is more important than the art in a comic you shouldn't be reading comics. Stick to novels.

File: gayner.jpg (265KB, 800x1247px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 800x1247px

Writing > art everytime

More people value writing over art than I expected.

I thought I remembered /co/ being more artist-centric.

>>77515184
I'm with this anon.

I see this thread periodically but hardly see such notable examples, be they from the big two, second party, or webcomic.

>>77515214
That's fair only inker I know by name currently doing high profile stuff is Danny Miki who is Greg Capullo's long time inker both on Spawn and Batman

>>77515235
If you think the art is more important than the writing in a comic you shouldn't be reading comics. Stick to paintings.

>>77515064
>But comics are a visual medium

I don't know why anyone says this.

It's just as easy to tell a comic book story without words as it is to just arrange text free-form on a page (ala House of Leaves, except free-form for the whole book).

Yeah comics are more visual than books. Doesn't mean they are JUST visual, they have text for a reason, they're a literary medium, too. Not to the extreme books are. It's a combination of the two.

>>77515093

This is only true in comics that have enormous, overbearing status quo, because soap operas also have the same problem.

>>77515256
You don't understand comics.

I will read good writing with bad art

I will not read bad writing with good art

You can have a story that's good being told poorly with bad art but it still is competent enough to get the story across, if you have good art being used to convey bad writing then it's just a waste of the art

>>77515170
I just went for a artists people on here cum over themselves over. I know awhile back someone was arguing over how he was so much better than the Marvel artists.

You can replace Jason Fabok with any quality artist of your choosing, my point still stands however.

>>77515270
Comics are a storytelling medium. The story should always come before the visual presentation.

>>77515264
> they have text for a reason
You can have textless comics. Frank by Jim Woodring is an entirely textless comic that tells it's story on nothing, but the visuals

>>77514976
>great writing but bad art
>comic book writing
>great

might as well read books if you don't care about art, you get infinitely better writing while not having to look at ugly shit

>>77515256

Or not even that. Just, like, Deviantart or something.

>>77515301
You REALLLY don't understand comics. Holy shit.

>>77515064
>>77515115
i agree with these dudes. i'm more blown away by innovative visual storytelling than i am writing, generally. you can't get that in any other medium. people saying "just look at pictures" are missing the point. single pictures don't tell a full story. a series of pictures can, but that is essentially a comic.

>>77515308

Read the rest of my post.

Comic book "writers" are useless hacks.

File: Screen Shot 2015-11-16 at 11.15.35 PM.png (2MB, 1568x790px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1568x790px

Grant Morrison comics are a solid metric:
The best stuff he does is always with a very talented artist.

One need only compare B+R 1-3 to B+R 4-6:
Morrison and Quitely is an unparalleled comic team, whilst Morrison and Tan fall flat.

>>77515301
our point is that the visuals contribute to the story

or at least they should, in a good comic

Hey guys.

TV has shit writing compared to movies. It doesn't mean you don't watch TV for what people wrote.

Writing is important, but visual storytelling should come first. If an art can't figure out how to tell a narrative through art then they're just making you a picture book with pretty drawing to go with the words

I'm an art guy through and through.

I think people overrate writing very much because they act like "story" only comes from writing. The artist is not just drawing the script, they are visually "story"telling with their art also.

Let's say you have that same amazing writing, but the artist doesn't portray the emotions, drama, action well through their drawings, then the way you feel towards it would not be the same.

>>77515363
>TV has shit writing compared to movies
but that is not true at all, especially in this day and age with all the prestige dramas on television

in fact television is considered a writers' medium while film is a directors' medium

File: HABIBI.jpg (335KB, 912x1200px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 912x1200px

>>77515115
Shit, I find Craig Thompson to be a bit a self-indulgent, but his storytelling, illustration, and lettering are all so entirely A-1, that it doesn't even matter.

Guys, comics are a visual medium. It is sequential art. Neither is more important than the other. Both are important if it's a comic you're talking about.

With that said, a lot of comics have shitty art huh? Because it has become an industry and good art doesn't sell a lot.

Also, I find it impossible to read a bad story nowadays. The art has to be absolutely amazing to compensate or justify the reading.

Are you an aspiring writer?

You can't paint a picture with your words alone? You don't have the vocabulary or skill to describe a scene?

Just can't break into screenwriting for film and tv?

Congrats! You can become a comic book "writer"! Just slap some dialogue on a page, give a brief shitty description of the story and leave it up to the people with actual talent to make a visual story!

>writing is more important than art in comics
Fuck off. 10/10 I am trolled.

Both are central to the comics experience, to be quite honest. Writing gives birth to art and art gives birth to writing. One necessarily affects the experience of the other.

"Great" and "bad" in this context are extremely subjective, too -- as are the definitions of "writing" and "art". Plotting, for instance, is technically a writer's job, but it's very frequently done by both writers and artists. Pacing is something entirely up in the air, too.

Is "good" art just "art that you like"? Or should it be good/interesting/provocative in the way that hung-in-a-gallery art is good? What about writing? Is it just words? How about speech bubbles? Lettering in general?

Personally, I think one should remember sequential art's history. As a medium, it was designed to tell stories -- particularly, the stories that were too visual/visceral to accurately tell with just words.

To this, one might say, "Aha! So, art is more important!" But no. Comics were meant to tell stories. If the stories you tell are garbage, no amount of art can save it.

Also, in this sense, I think modern comics fail at understanding why their writing NEEDS art to accompany and enhance their stories. Too many comics -- of all sorts, to be fair -- have "great" art that is used to do nothing exceptional. At a certain point, you'd probably say, "I'd prefer a text-only version of this, so that I could imagine my own scenario."

>>77515340
I like solid examples. Does anyone else have any to make their points?

What's something you've read, or tried to read, that's fallen flat because of either the art or the writing? Does one happen more commonly than the other?

>>77515338
Keep tellin' yourself that.

>>77515363
people watch tv because they're tasteless plebs that want to be entertained, nothing wrong with that, but saying tv writing is good on a general level is just wrong

>>77515384

True, but hey, he would be right if he said that 10 to 20 years ago. TV writing used to be fucking terrible anon, besides some rare exceptions.

>>77515363
I doubt it was the opposite these days, actually.

>>77515115
Well that would explain why so many comics have trash stories.

>>77515340

A good comparison would be Seven Soldiers of Victory, that had a lot of rotating artists that work with Morrison.

>>77515418
can't argue there

it's easy to take for granted how good television is these days, then when i think back to shows of previous decades it's terrible

>>77515446
So we have a stable, "good" writer.

Did any of the stories fail due to an artist that sucked, or were they all okay?

>>77515396
Good art isn't as important as being on the shelves every month for a lot of people. I don't mind waiting for a quality comic, hell I lost track of how long I've been waiting on Earth War, but I know I won't get Simon Roy and the others shitting out a rushed project

>>77515446
Yeah, but:
>JHW3
>Simone Bianchi
>Cameron Stewart
>Ryan Sook
>Frazer Irving
>Pascal Ferry
>Yanick Paquette
>Doug Mahnke

Ferry might be the weakest artist amongst the group but he's still a solid B-Level.

That team is stacked.

>>77515384

Yeah, it's pretty much true. TV has to jump through more hoops from executives (by virtue of the fact that said executives have more time to meddle in a six year TV show than a two year movie production), the writers often rotate out or just quit a project halfway through, and then there's the burdens of status quo to maintain which either sideline lots of ideas or disrupt casual viewers' enjoyment of the show if messed with (eg Bart being retconned into a 90s kid in the Simpsons).

These are, coincidentally, all of the same reasons comics have poor writing in most cases.

Sure, a TV show can have the odd episode that sticks out to people. Sci fi shows like Star Trek tend to do that. Doesn't mean the overall product, meaning the entire show, has good writing on the whole. Singular products made in one go tend to have better writing because their main obstacle is simply being greenlit and funded in the first place.

>>77515418
Comics used to be fucking terrible, too. Remember in the 90s when superstar artists were getting creative control?

Bloodstrike. Blood Pool. Youngblood. Bloodshot... those are just the "blood" titles.

>>77515483
>for a lot of people
Those people are known as editors and businessmen.

>>77515410

Bad art kills a comic more for me than writing. This might be an expectations thing.

I'm glad this thread is mostly people that don't pick one side universally.

>>77515518
you are describing the situation, as another poster said, 10-20 years ago.

or lowest-common-denominator network stuff.

good tv is generally writer-led these days.

>>77515557
>I'm glad this thread is mostly people that don't pick one side universally.
Agreed. I'm pleased with how the thread's going.

>>77515523
Also the readers, I mean people will buy a comic with art by Greg Land

>>77515064
it's still a book first though that needs to tell a story and writing is more important to that than art is

has anyone read scott mccloud's understanding comics?
does he say anything about this?

File: Pax Americana Murder in Time.jpg (2MB, 3974x3056px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3974x3056px

>>77515446
>>77515482
>>77515517
I'd argue Multiversity is a better example:
>#1: Reis and Prado are damn fine illustrators, but their aesthetic is pretty run-of-the-mill
>#2: Chris Sprouse has a minimal, cartoonish style that is dam strong. It serves the story quite well.
>#3 Ben Oliver's well-rendered look works for the tone. His characters are expressive and his designs are solid. I would never call him untalented, but...
>#4 is Morrison and Quitely and everything else feels small and stupid by comparison.
>#5 Did I say "everything else feels small and stupid?" Because Cameron Stewart almost manages to validate himself in the shade of the shadow of the Quitely.
>#6 is the guidebook with the main story illustrated by To and Sequirea. Well done, (almost Ryan Sook-esque), but not mind-blowing.
>#7 it's dang Jim Lee. It's well-illustrated, even if the aesthetic is pretty stupid.
>#8 is Doug Mahnke working from a far-out-there script and managing to make it sing, much like he did with Superman Beyond 3-D.
>#9 is back to Reis and Prado, back again with some commendable but by-no-means-incredible work.

A series like that neatly exhibits the strengths of a great artist VS the weaknesses of a simply good one.

Issues 2, 3, 5, and 8 shine. Issues 1, 6, 7, and 8 are fine, but are by no means exemplary. Issue 4 is probably one of the best single issues ever.

>>77515815
I'm trying to think of something that goes from good to BAD artists while keeping the same writer. Nothing is coming to mind right away.

File: ditko_32pg_package_v5_1999.gif (27KB, 495x448px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 495x448px

My friend that was in it mostly for the writing came to an epiphany one day and quit comics because he realized he could've just been reading even more awesome writing in books.

Comics is visual storytelling folks. The art is how you experience the story. Think about your favorite writer, now think about the same story but told with just stick figures. It's 1000 times less cool no matter how amazing that writing was.

Any comic you probably thought was amazing was enhanced by the awesome art, unless you are some weirdo that just ignores all the pictures and stares at word balloons.

ART is the VISUAL STORYTELLING aspect of comics. It is not just pictures obeying the writer you are worshipping. Have you ever watched interviews with comic writers? A lot of times they become extremely surprised by what the story ends up as based on what the artist hands back in return.

>>77515845
howard chaykin did the art for one initial issue of a certain arc of ennis' punisher run and i almost dropped it. i'm sure i wasn't the only one

File: punisher5j.jpg (151KB, 400x371px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 400x371px

>>77515912
pic related

writing is more important than art but the art has to be at least good enough to convey what's happening

They're equally important, there are too many comics that have both good writing and art to waste my time and money on ones that are half shit

I'm not going to settle

>>77515701
No, it's not. You are so very wrong. I don't know why you are on a comics board when you don't understand visual storytelling.

>>77516025

Greg Land is good enough to convey what's happening and I throw all his shit in the trash bro.

>>77515845
Again, Batman and Robin.

You've got:
>FRANK QUITELY, HOLY SHIT
>um...Phillip Tan.
>CAMERON STEWART KILLIN' IT
>ANDY CLARKE DOIN REAL GOOD
>DUSTIN NGUYEN BACKIN' CLARKE UP
>GOSH DANG FRAZER IRVING
>Climax issue by ultimate team-up of STEWART, IRVING and NEWCOMER CHRIS BURNHAM

Amongst that strong of a team, Phillip Tan really ruins things a bit.

Like, his work is the reason why buying the omnibus feels foolish.

His work literally makes the entire "Return of Jason" arc feel dumb, as a better artist could have likely done a solid job with it.

>>77515701
>it's still a book
No it's a comic an entire different medium of art and storytelling.

>>77514976
>great writing but bad art
Read a novel then

>>77515176
Soule's Red Lanterns: Horrible art, but the writing is enjoyable enough to make it worth it.

The people who somehow think writing is more important than the art in a visual storytelling medium are wannabe writers, the kind who think of themselves as "idea guys," aren't they?

>>77516106
on that note what's /co/'s opinion of soule in general? i've read a little bit of his stuff and enjoyed it well enough but it seems he's everywhere these days. also i met him at fanexpo in toronto.

File: 1256109270906.png (9KB, 271x288px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 271x288px

>>77515875
>CO-creation
>not CO-reation
You had one job
just ONE JOB

>>77515875
Both enhance and work with each other.

Your thought experiment of
>Think about your favorite writer, now think about the same story but told with just stick figures.
isn't really fair because anyone's "favorite writer" would find a way to make stick figures a necessary, inherent, and wonderful part of their story.

Art, sure, is visual storytelling, but a lot of what an artist draws is written in the script. The writer's surprise comes from the artist going above and beyond that script: additions and sometimes changes to the panels that I had already described.

I think, again, the question of "what's the line between art and writing?" has to be asked.

Take >>77515815's picture. Is it great art? Great writing? It's inarguably a great comics experience, but it's not so obvious who deserves credit. IMO, it's obviously Morrison: he, more likely than not, told Quitely that this would be a double 4x4 spread, wrote the dialogue of each panel.

Could that page have existed without Morrison's guide?

Have you guys heard of the Marvel method?

The writer writes a paragraph summary, then they sit there for a month waiting for the artist to turn in some awesome art, and the writer fills in the bubbles and takes all the credit.

I can't believe there are so many of you disregarding the importance of art when you are basically staring at them the whole damn comic experience.

Please just move on the normal novels and books already. You are wasting your time with comics.

>>77516153
Above average. Red Lanterns, Swamp Thing, and She-Hulk were all enjoyable, but aren't things I would pay to own

Question: does Morrison do full script or Marvel style?

>>77516264
Full script. IIRC, almost all British Invasion writers are full script guys.

File: Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 12.09.33 AM.png (3MB, 1528x882px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1528x882px

>>77516097
>>77515845
Or, hell, Quitely's New X-Men vs Igor Kordey's New X-Men.

Here are two scenes, written by the same guy, of a psychic mutant destroying someone mentally:
Quitely does some insane, 4-dimensional nonsense; Kordey's work is boring, ugly, and literal.

It's really hard to say, because it comes down to how much each person is in control. Some writers shit out dialogue and a basic plotline and let artists carry the brunt of the load, others detail exactly what should be shown how in each panel, leaving artists only to actually illustrate. Thus, imo it's important that whoever has the most control over the product is good. That said, I tend to have favorite writers more than favorite artists.

>>77516258
Marvel method has been defunct for years. I think the last major comic to use it was Busiek's Avengers in the 90's.

>>77516258
>The writer writes a paragraph summary, then they sit there for a month waiting for the artist to turn in some awesome art, and the writer fills in the bubbles and takes all the credit.
1. That is simplifying it. Some Marvel method scripts are still quite intricate and detail some dialogue. They just don't give all the specifics of the panel breakdowns and stuff.

2. To my knowledge most creative teams who do the Marvel method these days are the ones who really play up the collaborative nature of their partnership.

>>77516258
If you knew the first goddamn thing about comics you'd know that method's been virtually defunct for about twenty years.

>>77516294
It's somewhat fallen out of favour but is by no means defunct

>>77516241
But, that's a bad example.

See:
>>77515340
and
>>77516278

Perhaps Morrison doesn't jive as well with people like Tan and Kordey, but their adaptations of his instructions are pretty poor comics.

Morrison could have gave some incredible instruction for illustration, but if said illustrator has as a sub-par conception of what storytelling means, they might do a disservice to the narrative concept.

>>77516305
>the collaborative nature of their partnership.
And then you have writers who just use artist to bring their scripts to life with no interest in input

Bryan Hitch talks about how great working with Millar was on Ultimates and how terrible Age of Ultron was with Bendis

>>77516338
In all fairness to Kordey he was brought in as a fill in because Quietly fell behind so he was rushing to make sure that have something to print. He's openly disappoined with those issues

>>77516319

Dude, Dan Slott has been using Marvel Method with artists Humberto Ramos, and Giuseppe Camuncoli this entire time he's been on Amazing Spidey.

>>77514976
I would never read a comic unless the art was personally appealing the me, so art is more important.

>>77516361
>rushing to make sure that have something to print
Corporate comics, everyone. Disgusting.

>>77516363
No way... is he THAT much of a hack? Seriously?

the reality is HYPE far exceeds either writing or art duties. if this was not true, then no one would wank over carey's lucifer, or gaimans sandman. which at times, like alot of the good vertigo books, fell into blehhh territory. like it took me almost a decade to think Phil Jemenez from Invisibles is brilliant, but then you look at those Brian Bolland covers and its not hard to compare.

back to topic:

Batman's Hush by Loeb was a sick run thanks to Jim Lee, as was Superman/Batman's first 2 arcs thanks to McGuiness/Turner.
Superman's return to Kandor arc was sick thanks to Turner/Caldwell.

and there are many more examples of great art making books enjoyable. but good writing can only be appreciated by FANS, not CONSUMERS.

as a CONSUMER i would of told you "Public Enemies" from Loeb was a top tier arc.

as a FAN i can tell you "Agent Orange" and "Revenge of the Red Hood" were awesome even though phillip tan was arse.

likewise with Red Robin vol 1 pre new52.

anyways the real niggas on /co know whats good.

ps- i love that new artist on constantine. if only him and morrison hooked up...ugh. or if he had drawn "Lucifer" UGH

>>77516393
It's not a hacky thing to do if done right

>>77514976
Great writing with bad art unless the art is just that pretty.

Moebius was bad at writing as well as he drew.

>>77516411
Well he sure isn't doing that.

Is the art stylishly bad, or just bad? I can handle stick figures/sprites/simple drawings, but some people are simply poor artists, and honestly shouldn't be in a position where their work is being sold for money. If the art's that bad, it starts to detract from the work, no matter how good the writing is.

On the other hand, no matter how bad the writing is, if the art is phenomenal, it can be enjoyed for that alone.

>>77516393

It's in an interview done on the official Marvel youtube channel. They interviewed both Ramos and Camuncoli about working with Dan Slott using Marvel Method. Humberto Ramos even said he would prefer working full script so he doesn't have to think so much while doing his art.

>>77516420
the consistent decent critical reviews and sales beg to differ

File: kordey_tarrasboulba2008.jpg (143KB, 686x619px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 686x619px

>>77516383
Yeah, I mean look at his Euro work

>>77515237
too bad snk sucks at both of those things

>>77516445
I think it was Mark Waid who said once that Ramos just draws a script from beginning to end, doesn't read it through first.

He gave an example where if you have him draw a figure whose face is obscured in shadows early on, only to be revealed as X at the end of the issue, the figure might not match up because Ramos didn't know who he was drawing at the start.

I like Ramos' art well enough but he doesn't sound super... professional?

Clarification: Waid wasn't saying it as an insult, just as a funny thing.

>>77516471
>>>/a/

>>77516497
>posts pics of a manga
>tells other people to go to /a/
brought it on yourself, anon

http://gillen.cream.org/wordpress_html/4419/decompressed-006-mark-waid-and-matt-fraction-on-the-marvel-method/

If you want to listen to Fraction, Waid, and Gillen discuss the Marvel method. It's from a few years ago, mind.

Wolverine - Snikt by Neihei. Almost no writing. Still intensely awesome.

>>77516452
It's Amazing Spider-Man, it'll sell well if a retarded child writes it. And comics critics love shit.

File: 1447117794877.jpg (14KB, 272x285px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 272x285px

>>77516497
>I limit myself only to comics made in the West

Kill you are self

>>77515240
You know, when it makes sense that we bitch the most about Bendis or another author, or shitpost about Morrison vs. Moore. That's a strong indication that /co/ cares more about the writer than artist, probably because DC and Marvel (among others) have a sort of uniform look to them now.

>>77516550
I personally don't like the 'new' looks that have been coming out that everyone farts themselves over like hawkeye and dr fate.

So we've had people say concrete examples in favour of art: comics with no writing that they liked, and comics with poor art that ruined otherwise good series.

Anyone have concrete examples of comics they still enjoyed despite poor art?

This thread is a perfect example of why the majority of comics made by more than one person should be abhorred and ignored. Fuck off capefags.

>>77516569
>they still enjoyed despite poor art?
No because I never gave them a chance when I saw the art

>>77516576
There's plenty of creator owned, non-cape stuff made by a team of people that is fantastic. Stop over-generalizing, child.

>writing is more important that art
>house "style" is good

It's nice to have threads like these. It lets me remember why this board is so awful.

>>77516569
The Howard Chaykin issue of Punisher Max

File: Toth:Kurtzman 2.jpg (426KB, 947x1254px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 947x1254px

>>77516576
That's hugely reductive.

What about something like Kurtzman and Toth?

>>77516588
Are they about vampires, zombies or talking animals?

>>77516614
You mustn't be the same guy as before; they said it almost made them drop the series.

File: Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 12.35.08 AM.png (2MB, 1358x626px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1358x626px

>>77516621
Or Kurtzman and Wood.

>>77516633
I mean

Some, probably? By no means all. Look at some classic Vertigo, for starters: Sandman, Lucifer, 100 Bullets. Look at Warren Ellis' works. Morrison and Moore certainly don't draw their own stuff.

>>77516637
Nope, I really enjoyed the issue despite his seriously horrendous art.
Jesus Chaykin.
I've read American Flagg, he used to be pretty fucking great, I dunno what happened/

>>77516145
I actually find THIS mindset to be the weirdest.

Writing drives good, diverse (in genre and style) storytelling. Period.

The problem, of course, is that writers are basically told not to do their jobs nowadays -- in part because they're so undervalued.

Comics are essentially just words and pictures used to tell stories. At one point, there was a much bigger drive to experiment with ways to combine those words and pictures. Words could be big and take up most of the page; pictures could exist without words and tell the story. A Contract with God is an example of the former; there are countless examples of the latter.

In any case, when writing was actually considered to be important, there was a lot more diversity and experimentation amongst all genres and all styles.

Now, the basic assumption is: well, decompression is a thing. So, it's just going to be 4-6 issue storylines until the end of time, so that we ("we" being the publishers) can stick the creators' names on the trade and call it a day. Since everything is so decompressed, writers can (and apparently do) care less per issue, so we might as well dock their pay and give some of it to the artists instead. And, heck, it'll work in our favor, too, since we can hire those writers to write more series and not have to waste time/money on new writing talent.

>>77516569
The Dick Grayson Future's end issue

File: WE3.jpg (177KB, 991x751px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 991x751px

>>77516621
>>77516650
Or something like WE3, which Morrison and Quitely both consider to be a pretty direct collaboration.

>>77516576
Dude it works often. Adaptations wouldn't work otherwise

>>77516681
And yet writers tend to be the part of the team that's more highly valued/promoted; when the big two announce a new series they put much more attention on the writer than the artist, and even in the public eye you can see it with people considering the writer as the more important one.

Interesting, in light of what you said.

>idiots who think writing trumps art are almost all exclusively capeshitters and/or people ride the cocks of hyped up writers

lol

>>77516650
All those guys were cartoonists individually on their own. They were not manchildren sitting around every day thinking up homoerotic soap operas to steal money from other manchildren.

>>77516764
There's a logic to that, though. In a shared universe that goes on for decades, it's the writers whose decisions have a greater lasting effect. And we all know how comic fans obsess over continuity.

For creator owned stuff, though, they tend to be closer collaborations and the writer's choices won't echo out years or decades into the future.

>>77516681
It's crazy when Morrison talks about how the standard of writing has never been better in defense of some of Moore's comments, but he's talking about the other people at DC

I prefer Gaiman's assessment that American comic writing is incestuous. People who learned how to write from people who learned how to write from people who learned how to write by reading comics

>>77514976
Good writing is good writing.

But bad writing can make good art mediocre or terrible because it brings down the entire work. Because those visuals have to coincide with that bad writing.

It's how /co/ can love Aaron's Punisher MAX run despite it having Dillon drawing it.

It's also why Aaron's THOR book is so bad.

>>77516813
One, I would really like to read those comments. Two, I think they're absolutely true. I mean I've read comics by guys like Jurgens and Johns and such that I like, but they're such... comic book plots. They seem like maybe they've never read an actual book in their lives.

>>77516871
I found the Gaiman line in The Comic Book History of Comics, can't find the image, but that's the second hand source

>>77516398
Gaiman seems the perfect person where you can compare how his writing works in comic form versus in a book without pictures.
I haven't read American Gods or his books though. anybody have an opinion on if his comic work was better?

I listened to the radioplay for Neverwhere, it was pretty good. The cast was stunning though.

File: 3047846-thorgot2012012_cov.jpg (208KB, 900x1366px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 900x1366px

>>77516850
Er, listen.

Dillion is infamous for his FRANKFACE, but he fully understands storytelling mechanics and proper illustration. Like, Precher isn't a great comic based solely on Ennis' merits- Dillion's timing and staging is a huge part of it.

And- holy shit, are you honestly hating on Esad Ribic? Cause that guy is a damn fine artist.

>>77516937
Does he mean what I mean, though? That it seems like they rehash the same plots over and over? Factional splits in existing organizations, evil versions of the same character, finding out your legacy has a dark side, etc.? They don't seem to try to employ new forms of storytelling, really, just do the same tropes over and over?

>>77516955
>anybody have an opinion on if his comic work was better?
Choosing between his novels (well, particularly American Gods) and his comics is like choosing my favourite child.

>>77516965
I think he's bashing Aaron, not the art side. He said bad writing can make even good art terrible.

>>77516965
No, he's saying the art in Thor is good but the comic sucks because of the writing. You know, because Aaron became a hack.

File: aaronism.jpg (1MB, 1988x3056px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1988x3056px

>>77516965
I said THOR not Thor: God of Thunder.

THOR itself has art that ranges from okay to great, but the writing is pure eugh.

>>77517166
>beating on an opponent who has surrendered
and she's the worthy one?

>>77516813
But learning from the medium itself has literally always been a thing.
It's fanboy writing that's the problem

>good art
>good plot/world building
>good characters

an amazing comic will do all three
a good comic will do two
an awful comic will do one
and a hilariously bad comic will do none.

>>77517259
Does dialogue fall under the characters umbrella?

>>77517283
yes

>>77517178
But anon, she has cannnnnnnnnncer. She's so brave rejecting treatment and carrying the hammer which is speeding up her death!

>>77517259
It's not that simple.

>>77516655
Moore did drew Maxwell the Magic Cat and Morrison drew his really early work.

>>77517446
Fair point. But not their best stuff, and not what they are most known for.

>>77516655
British invasion was a mistake

>>77517224
>It's fanboy writing that's the problem
I believe that's what he's referring too

>>77517567
Shut up Byrne, your main criticism against them was you didn't believe they were really fans of the characters

>>77517620
That's...yeah, basically their whole schtick.

Shit on the characters to craft existentialism

>>77517646
How did Animal Man, Doom Patrol, Swamp Thing, Shade, or JLA shit on the characters?

>>77515176
>great writing/bad art

ONE's One Punch Man

>or the opposite

Murata's One Punch Man

>>77514976
Neither. Both must be at least at acceptable level. I can't read Chechester, I won't accept Greg Land.

>>77516751
>And yet writers tend to be the part of the team that's more highly valued/promoted
At least for me most big 2 artists are pretty interchangeable so unless it's a superstar artist I really don't care.

>>77514976

A death in the family is one of my favorite Osborn/Peter fights, and the art is terrible outside fight scenes.

So yes, sometimes one can save the other. But it has to be damn good to do do.

>>77514976
If the art isn't at least passable, it's better to just read prose. However, if the writing and dialogue are truly awful, you can still enjoy the story as told by the amazing sequential art

>bad writing good art
No, never
>good writing bad art
Yep

>>77515399
Why tell me what something looks like when you can show me?

>>77516550
Tbh, I find way better art in indies usually. Unless you get a high profile writer that wants to work with a good artist on an event or some shit.

>>77516687
It wasn't bad enough for me to count it here. It had some awkward panels, but it was passable in that it told the story and was uncluttered paneling

>>77515845
That art house issue (issues?) from volume 3 of The Invisibles. I can see what Morrison was trying to do but it was so poorly executed and it makes the story very hard to follow at times.

>>77516871
>actual books

A well written comic is just as, if not more, valuable than an equally well written piece of prose because why the fuck wouldn't it be? Fuck off with the elitism.

>>77514976
Writing above all. No matter how good the art I can't stand it if the story's retarded.

>>77514976


Great art can make a comic enjoyable even if it has bad writing.

Bad art can destroy good writing.

>>77516850

Who the fuck loves Aaron-Dillon Punisher run?

>>77520535
>>77520551

There you go.

>>77520551
>Great art can make a comic enjoyable even if it has bad writing.

But Cucumber Quest isn't enjoyable at all.

File: smuc047.png (1MB, 924x1384px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 924x1384px

>>77515740
I'm reading it now. He appears to say good comics are those that reconcile both art and writing.

>>77520551
Great writing can make a comic enjoyable even if it has bad art.

Bad writing can destroy good art

File: smuc048.png (715KB, 924x1390px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 924x1390px

>>77520665
What happens when they don't work together.

File: smuc049.png (909KB, 921x1390px) Image search: [Google]

909KB, 921x1390px

>>77520694

>>77514976
There are good comics with shitty art.

A comic with bad writing and great art is just awesome art in a shitty comic.

File: 1447623806125.jpg (127KB, 899x1450px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 899x1450px

Writing is ultimately more important than art. Just think of all the comics you've liked because of the story, despite the shitty art. Now think of all the comics you've liked because of the art, despite the shitty story. I'm guessing you're going to be coming up with lots for the former, and zero for the latter.

File: smuc057.png (871KB, 924x1411px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 924x1411px

>>77520724
So far in my reading McCloud only deals with the panel by panel sequential "vocabulary" of comics, not so much on quality of overall story telling.

Give and take. Art needs to be decent enough that its readable. Writing needs to be good enough that the art has a point. That good art isn't as held back by bad writing since you can more quickly assess good art as well as ignore the writing. Good writing forces you to get past shit art which can't be ignored.

>>77514976
I actually prefer good art with bad writing to good writing with bad art. If I wanted to just read, I'd read a book. Mind you, for art alone to salvage a badly written book art needs to be exceptional (e.g. every collaboration between Lobdell and Rocafort) or artist needs to have input on the story (e.g. Marvel method).

>>77514976
Good art with good story or a good shtick is a minimum requirement for me.

>>77514976
bad art good writing
even if the art is bad the story is good
just look at anything by japanese author ONE

>>77514976
writing is a more important element to have to keep readers interested. horrendous writing is much worse for a comic than bad art.

>>77520665
He is saying that you cannot differentiate the "writing" from the "art" only both together make a comic.

Also comics without words do also have writing.

>>77520639
The Bullseye arc was pretty great

File: smuc150.png (1012KB, 921x1392px) Image search: [Google]

1012KB, 921x1392px

>>77520860

Page 150 has McCloud saying it's not enough even if you have both great art and great writing!

>>77514976
>writers and artists childishly shitflinging about who's more important

comics are typically a collaborative endeavor. a comic that has bad writing and good art or vice versa is often due to one part of the equation falling short. this can often be due to an artist or writer trying to do everything themselves or exerting too much control over their collaborator. god rarely deals with both hands anons, put your egos aside and make something actually good.

File: smuc170.png (643KB, 924x1392px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 924x1392px

>>77521106

Agreed. I used to see the writing as including how the creator planned the story composition, pacing and structure. I see McCloud places that in step 4 "Structure, page 170.

File: smuc171.png (868KB, 919x1384px) Image search: [Google]

868KB, 919x1384px

>>77521641

Page 171. Steps 5 "Craft" and 6 "Surface" could involve both art and writing, in my view.

>>77515048
This is actually a pretty good point. Generally unless it's total shit writing, you can't tell right away if it's good or not, you CAN however tell when the art is terrible immediately. You're less likely to read a comic book with terrible art, because it's hard to look at it. You're less likely to stick with it and see if it gets good writing-wise.

>>77516700
This really is some amazing panel work.

File: arturo.jpg (55KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x500px

(Great writing + bad art) is better than (bad writing + great art)

BUT

(Great art + at least mediocre writing) is better than either of the other two