Writing Action

[Jasen Smith]

Once I was told that you cannot write things into motion when writing comics.
I agree and don't agree with this.

EX: Professor Xavier (rolls) up in his wheelchair behind Cyclops.

I have a scene much like this one in my book and was told couldn't be used because it would confuse the artist. Now, I cannot draw comics but I do draw and color and if I had read this, I would not be confused. I would assume that he is rolling the wheels on his wheelchair towards Cyclops.

I had another scene where things were spinning on a device, and was told that it couldn't be used because things in motion don't work in comics. I beg to differ.
If Apocalypse change his hand into a drill and it starts spinning it would be easy for the artist to make this look like a spinning object.

With this said, there seems to be a way to write it so you can have action happening, motion, as long as you make it clear as to what is happening.

Here is another example.
EX: Wolverine is opening the door. << Indicates he is in the process of opening the door which is wrong in comics. He can't very well be opening the door in a single snap shot of a panel.

or

EX: Wolverine opens the door. <<Indicates he has already opened the door. The action has already been completed in this one.

BUT! What if I want Wolverine in the process of opening the door? Meaning his hand is still on the edge of the door, opening it.
I could go into a sentence or two explaining the setup but that same indication could be said in Wolverine is opening the door. Right?

[Crestmere]

If you have the space in your story, I'd do a sequence.

You could always put the Professor's hand on the wheel of his wheelchair to show he is moving it.

[Jasen Smith]

But what if I want his hands out like he has just rolled the wheels on his wheel chair?

By describing the action would still have the same effect as saying the action.

Pro. X is rolling up in his wheel chair behind Cyclops.

can also look like.

Make Pro. X's hands out like he has just rolled the wheels on his wheel chair as he is coming up behind Cyclops.

[Crestmere]

I'd ask for a little panel with the hands rolling the wheels and then cut out to the larger scene.

[Barri "Clubber" La]

If you want to describe something that is happening then you have to be VERY specific at which point the action has been "frozen".

"Prof X wheels up to Cyclops" gives no indication of the distance and or speed the prof it travelling at so you would need to add more detail or the artist would make the call on those details.

So

Prof X wheels up to Cyclops - His hands placed at the tops of the wheels as he prepares for another push, the spokes should be blurred to create a feeling of motion... and so on.

Moving panels don't work because you're describing the action and not the "moment". A moment can suggest motion but never show it.

It's ok to describe the action but then your forcing the artist to make the decision on there in the sequence the "snap shot" is taken. If you trust your artist that's fine but if you know what you want and you have to be specific vision then you need to be specific.


But what if I want his hands out like he has just rolled the wheels on his wheel chair?

By describing the action would still have the same effect as saying the action.

Pro. X is rolling up in his wheel chair behind Cyclops.

can also look like.

Make Pro. X's hands out like he has just rolled the wheels on his wheel chair as he is coming up behind Cyclops.


Those aren't the same.

Your 1st example is vague and describes something that is in motion.

Your 2nd has frozen the motion and is describing the scene.

Get some Photos of runners and long jumper, climbers.... describe them as accurately as possible.

"Guy climbs the cliff face" doesn't cut it.

Guy is climbing the cliff face. He's pressed into the rock, legs compact ready to spring, left arm gripping a jutting outcropping of rock, right arm stretching for a high hold, fingers splayed as he reaches with everything he's got.

At least that's how I've been taught to do it.

[BobRivard]

Doesn't Professor X use an electric wheelchair? This whole idea is completely moot. ;)

I do agree with Crestmere. If the actual act of him rolling his wheelchair is important to the scene it warrants a panel, sequence or some other technique to show the act. If it's not at all important to the scene, why make a point of it. This is basic visual storytelling.

I also share the same thought that motion can and SHOULD be shown in comics, although I've never read anywhere or have been told by anyone that you should refrain from doing so. In fact, it sounds like ridiculously bad advice and I wonder if the person that gave it has actually ever seen a comic book. What I have heard is that you shouldn't have a character or object perform two actions in one panel, and obviously that makes total sense in a static medium.

Showing the illusion of motion in a comic is something that's been done forever, and is something every comic book artist should be capable of.

[Barri "Clubber" La]

I totally agree with Bob that Motion can be suggested but can see why some would say it can't be shown.

If anyone said you can't suggest motion in a single panel, they're wrong.

If they said you can't show motion in a single panel, they're be right. (by definition of the word motion)

So of course you can suggest that someone is rolling, flying, running or whatever, and your artist can use all kinds of tricks (blur, effects on hair and clothing, motion lines and posture being the extent of my knowledge :)) to show this

So saying "Prof X wheels up to Cyclops" could be cosidered wrong by a purist as it contains none of the suggestions of movement (lazy writing you could say).

At the end of the day, as a writer, we have to provide info for the artist. If we don't provide the info they either ask questions or make their own decisions. Both can slow down the process (especially if their decision differs from your vision). So if you want to show motion you need to
describe the scene and how the illusion of motion is to be shown.

[Newt]

I always thought the prohibition was against something like "PANEL 1: Jeff hits the elevator button, waits for the elevator to open, gets in, hits the button for the 8th floor, and avoids eye contact with the other users of the elevator until it reaches his floor. PANEL 2..." rather than simply indicating that a character is in motion.

Even sequences of actions can in some cases be shown in a single panel. Some artists use "ghosted" images of a character showing several stages in the action, sort of a cross between animated key frames and Eadweard Muybridge photos.

I remember one such panel in Captain America (it was during Mark Gruenwald's run, can't recall the artist) where Cap is performing a complicated acrobatic stunt; the artist indicated Cap's position at each place where he contacted the ground or other object, and at the apogee of each leap. The last of these was fully rendered and colored, the rest were shown as translucent, flat pink contour drawings.

[Barri "Clubber" La]

I think issue 1 of Ultimates has a similar effect with Cap taking down a room full of brotherhood of Mutants

[madelf]

Whether it should or shouldn't, actual motion CAN'T be shown in a static image. The illusion of motion can be captured in a static image, but that's far more than just a semantic difference.

Comics are all about action. People are always running and jumping and punching and moving around. Except they really aren't. They aren't moving at all, in any given panel. The movement is between panels, assumed by the reader based on the suggestion of motion depicted by the artist. So it's important to think about what can and can't be suggested without actual movement, and how you choose to go about it.

The artist may be able to suggest that "Prof X is wheeling up to Cyclops" (by facing him in that direction, his attention on Cyclops, his hands near the wheels [or controls], showing him closer to Cylops than he was last panel, etc), but he can't show actual movement in progress in that one panel. He can't show him "wheeling around from behind his desk and up to Cyclops" for instance. Even wheeling around the desk alone would be tricky - all you can do is show him near the side of the desk, looking toward where he plans to go. Now, if he was behind his desk last panel, he's beside it in this panel, and is near Cyclops in the next, then you've carried the whole motion, but it took three panels to do it.

And some motion simply doesn't translate well at all. Drawing two characters with their hands clasped may give the impression that they're shaking hands, but try drawing someone shaking their head. Without adding motion lines, which will likely seem to take the headshaking to a cartoonish excess ( because motion lines only really work for showing fast movement), it won't work. That's one you can't even show in multiple panels, because it'll just seem like he's looking around.

Think about it this way. If you can take a photograph of someone performing the action, and have the action be clearly understood by someone looking at the photo, then you're okay (even multiple actions can be okay, if they can be done at the same time, and can translate visually in that frozen moment). If you can't, then you can't show it in a drawing either. And if you're not sure whether you can do it, then you're better off rethinking the panel.

Of course, even multiple actions that can't be frozen can still be shown using the ghosted images method (which, like motion lines, suggests speed, so it won't work for everything). There are always exceptions to any rule. But it doesn't make the rule that "still pictures can't move and your panel descriptions should take that into account" any less valid in the general sense.

[madelf]

Here is another example.
EX: Wolverine is opening the door. << Indicates he is in the process of opening the door which is wrong in comics. He can't very well be opening the door in a single snap shot of a panel.

or

EX: Wolverine opens the door. <<Indicates he has already opened the door. The action has already been completed in this one.

BUT! What if I want Wolverine in the process of opening the door? Meaning his hand is still on the edge of the door, opening it.
I could go into a sentence or two explaining the setup but that same indication could be said in Wolverine is opening the door. Right?


I wanted to address this comment specifically, because it makes me suspect you're overthinking things.

You most certainly can show Wolverine in the process of opening the door. The artist will just depict the door as partly open, with Wolverine's hand on it.

"Wolverine is opening the door" is actually much better than "Wolverine opens the door". The first is describing a moment in the process, suggesting that (at this frozen moment) he has already started the action, but hasn't completed it. The second is describing the entire process (not that the door is already open - that would be something like "Wolverine stands by the open door"). What you can't show is that entire process of "Wolverine opens the door".

You can't show the latch turning and the door actually swinging open. But you could do a series of panels where Wolvie is outside the door in one, the door is partly open in the next, and Wolvie inside the room after... and you're fine. The reader will know he opened the door and went though it. All you have to do is make sure you choose the frozen moments, and don't expect the artist to show the whole process in one panel.

[MartinBrandt]

Think the topic has been nailed, but I wanted to add something. A few have suggested breaking moments of the action into separate panels. I would not suggest doing that unless it helps to move the story forward. Generally speaking it comes across more as filler than essential.

[madelf]

Think the topic has been nailed, but I wanted to add something. A few have suggested breaking moments of the action into separate panels. I would not suggest doing that unless it helps to move the story forward. Generally speaking it comes across more as filler than essential.Agreed. Unless the action has some importance, or it serves as something to bring some visual interest to a scene (like Prof X and Cyclops having a chat), then there's not much sense in prolonging it. Just pick something that can stand on its own in the panel and go on to the next thing.

But a lot of times it may not really be breaking up the action, so much as it's building the action in as part of a flow. The panel you're trying to show the action in will not usually be all on it's own. It'll be one of a number of panels in an ongoing narrative. So let's say Prof X and Cyclops are going somewhere. Cyclops comes in to say, "The Blackbird's ready," and we see Prof X behind the desk. Next panel the Prof is saying something about the importance of the mission and we see him beside the desk, partway around it. Next panel they're heading out the door together as Cyclops whines that Wolverine still won't listen to him. That scene was more likely done in three panels to get across a piece of story than it was to get Prof X out from behind the desk, but it can still be used to get him out from behind the desk - if that makes any sense.

[MartinBrandt]

Hence "moving the story forward" Calvin. :)

Though you explained it with more detail. I love how you added Cyke whining. LOL

[madelf]

Hence "moving the story forward" Calvin. :)

Though you explained it with more detail.Yeah. I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't advising someone to "just throw in some extra panels to make the action work".

I love how you added Cyke whining. LOLI just wanted to stay true to the character. :har:

[Jasen Smith]

Good advice and clarification. Thanks fellas, that opens my head up a bit.
I don't think my story is bad, I feel the weakest part of it is the detail or description of a person, place, or action.

If I had a page of action, which I think this may be discussed already in another thread, say something like this.

Panel 1. Wolverine gives Cyclops a right hook.

Panel 2. Wolverine proceeds to jump on Cyclops, punches him in the facebefore either hit the floor.

Panel 3. Cyclops is firing his beam, knocking Wolvie off of him.

Panel 4. Cyclops is now on both feet and his beam is really turned up, blasting Wolvie hard against the wall.

Panel 5. Extreme closeup of Cyclops turning up the power.

Panel 6. Wolverine is on the ground beaten and near death.

[Barri "Clubber" La]

As a sequence it would be cool... but you need more description.

1 line doesn't show off your skill as a writer. It'll give the artist lots of work :D

[Jasen Smith]

I think since I draw I don't add as much description.
I'm not the best artist, but when someone asks me for a drawing, if they have specifics I can't do it, I can do it the way I want to, but can't follow a guideline.
That could be from inexperience though, not enough skill.

My writing has further proceeded my drawing skill and now my coloring, seeing how I feel I have hit my peek in coloring.

Most of the things I learned was from this site, learned I suck at drawing, I could get better but feel I'd rather write than draw comics.
My coloring has improved a lot and I learned more from this site than any book has taught me.
Writing has greatly improved on here, and thanks to people like you guys I will be doing pretty well in comics. I'm pretty confident.

[Lee Nordling]

I've written extensively here in the past about writing "frozen" images, and have gotten nitpickingly precise about use of language.

Nitpickingly precise because there are always exceptions to use of an action verb that do JUST as good a job of capturing the precise moment in time that needs to be drawn...

...and that's the point: clarity.

If a George walks up behind Gertrude, and the writer imagines George close, and the artist imagines George not that close (yet) to Gertrude, that's bad comic writing.

If the writer doesn't care or think of it until he/she sees the sketch, then asks for a revision, that's bad comics writing with a lack of accountability.

Clarity should be the goal. The writer needs to KNOW what he/she cares about and make sure that's in the script. No, this doesn't necessarily mean writing every Alan Moore-ish detail; it means KNOWING what's important to advancing the story or creating the right mood and making sure that anybody reading it will be able to imagine it in their heads.

No two artists will draw it the same, but if five artists have five legitimate interpretations, then the script has done its job.

So, in writing action...

With a malevolent grin on his face, George has tiptoed up behind Gertrude, close enough with his spoon poised so that he can successfully sneak a scoop from the bowl of ice cream she holds.

We're writing pictures.

Keep your eye on that ball and write them in such a way that your vision of that picture will be clear to any artist or editor.

--Lee

[Jasen Smith]

Nicely said, you are right, it is clarity.

I have wrote things in the past, knew the image in my head that I was wanting, then set it aside for a few months. When I came back to it, I had no idea what I was trying to say.

Sometimes, my artistic side will take more credit in my writing. Meaning, I am more focused on how it looks rather telling you how it looks.

[Lee Nordling]

Nicely said, you are right, it is clarity.

I have wrote things in the past, knew the image in my head that I was wanting, then set it aside for a few months. When I came back to it, I had no idea what I was trying to say.

Sometimes, my artistic side will take more credit in my writing. Meaning, I am more focused on how it looks rather telling you how it looks.
As much as I'm a fan of a dramatically written script, I also am tending to write a "explaining why I'm doing stuff" scripts.

It's a different style, but simply WRITING what your challenge is, and then writing what your solution is to it, gets the editor and/or artist into what you're doing and why. It becomes more like describing how a car engine works, and can't be used so much that the script is leaden, but, for instance, the other day I was having trouble with a series of scenes that get my character from point A to C...and B was going to take a while. So I described my problem and the need to have it take less space, then proposed a collage of images that will capture the high points of the B scenes, without having to include the interconnecting tissue that would cause it to take up more than the two pages that it does.

I'm not saying it "works"; I'm saying that I caught my partner up in my problem and solution so that when he draws it, he'll know our goal for the scene.

In short, sometimes it's as much about sharing the REASON for the vision as the vision itself. That way, if there's a constructive thought from the artist, he/she'll know the goals.

There's no "right" to this, just a bunch of different "rights."

--Lee

[Jasen Smith]

I am fairly new to writing, and writing comics. I have learned a lot and keep learning more. It's fun.
I have found though that writing fight scenes can be a little difficult.
Describing the angles, position of the people, the punches or kicks is what I'd say I have trouble with.
I feel that it doesn't look like enough description for the artist to convey what I see in the fight.

EXAMPLE
http://sloblogs.thetribunenews.com/shelikestowatch/files/2008/07/batman-panel.JPG
Panel #. Batman slaps Robin across the face with his left hand. Robin's back is to us and Batman is facing us.

I described exactly what's in the panel but it seems so bare.

[Lee Nordling]

If you can't EXACTLY imagine how a scene will choreograph, then (for God's sake) don't try.

There's no rule that writers HAVE to call out angles; if you look at numerous discussions on this site, you'll see the range that's possible for a writer's contribution.

If (IF IF IF) you can figure out the important images of juxtaposed, uninflected action for a fight scene, then just focus on that.

And, at all costs (since you're new to this), don't try to have more than ONE action and/or reaction in an action scene. Too many people think that because they can write something an artist should be able to draw it.

--Lee

[Jasen Smith]

Since I started writing in a comic book format I have learned a lot of good tips and tricks. Now I feel I need the experience and practice to get better.

Also, seeing others work helps as well.

I am very confident in the current story that I am working on and working with my artist on it and he understand it so I seem to be doing OK.
I have looked through my work over and over and have nearly redone the first script 4 times now.
Each time getting better at the craft...I have caught myself describing more than one action in a scene but NO MORE!!

[jaratr]

The discussion about movement in a panel is a touchy one. Though action is often better implied than shown in one panel. How much you detail to the artis depends on the artist's perceptive skills, your familiarity with one another and the amount of control you want over a panel.

If you and the artist are new, then I would definitely detail how you might 'show' motion. Same goes if the artist isn't great at embellishing on what's provided. However, if you and the artist have good rapport you can let them go at the scene with simple explanation on simple things.

The 'motion' of opening the door can simply be implied by the knob in Wolverine's hand and partially, very slightly open, maybe some motion lines. If the door opening is about suspense, then one could show a close up of Woverine's hand on the knob. If Wolvie's in costume, then it's a no-brainer who it is.

My thoughts are, it's better to be over-descriptive till you develop rapport with an artist. Then you can lessen detail as neccesary. Take a look at an Alan Moore script. Zonkers!

[C_Lawson]

I think the key to great action is a rapport between writer and artist. You need to know as a writer when to trust in your artist's sense of dramatic visual storytelling and when to point out something that is important for plot reasons.
With many of the artists I've been working with I'll be pretty vague in fight scenes, unless the particular panel has implications later on.
For instance if it's just punch to the face over a girl I'd do something like...

Panel 1. Joey, his face a mask of anger, throws a vicious punch toward Fred.

Panel 2. Fred dodges and Joey's hand hits the wall behind him.

Now if I needed it to play into the story later on I might do something like...

Panel 1. Joey, his face a mask of anger, throws a vicious punch toward Fred.

Panel 2. Fred manages to dodge, causing Joey to overshoot his attack.

Panel 3. This is a close up of joey's fist slamming into the wall behind Fred. Joey's magic ring shatters upon impact.

Anyway, just thought I'd add my thoughts.

[Jasen Smith]

All very good points, something I think is overlooked in writing for comics yet should always be in the back of your mind.

I'm liking this thread more and more and not because I posted it :p

[Mort_Cinder]

I see the illusion of movement all the time in comics, although mostly in old comics, through the use of that great, simple tool known as motion lines.

But has anyone else noticed a decrease in the use of motion lines these days, at least in DC/Marvel comics? I look for them all the time and have trouble finding them. I've noticed that people now use blurring instead (which is annoying because it distorts the image) or don't use anything at all and just paint static images, which is quite hilarious in fights. When someone is jumping in the air, it looks like that person is just standing frozen in time, like a statue.

[RonaldMontgomery]

I see the illusion of movement all the time in comics, although mostly in old comics, through the use of that great, simple tool known as motion lines.

But has anyone else noticed a decrease in the use of motion lines these days, at least in DC/Marvel comics? I look for them all the time and have trouble finding them. I've noticed that people now use blurring instead (which is annoying because it distorts the image) or don't use anything at all and just paint static images, which is quite hilarious in fights. When someone is jumping in the air, it looks like that person is just standing frozen in time, like a statue.

Ooh, motion lines are interesting. They convey the illusion of movement through space and time in a static image. They're an intuitive shorthand for the eye.
I think blurring is interesting because there can be a striking illusion of movement in depth.

[BClayMoore]

Poking around these forums, I saw this thread and thought I'd jump in:


* Write the action and trust the artist to make it work.

* Don't write multiple actions from the same character into one panel.

* Make sure action in one panel logically follows the action in the previous panel.


Pretty simple, really.

-BCM

[BClayMoore]

I don't agree with that. Multiple actions can be fun -- like when Superman zips around Imperiex Probes, hitting them with multiple hits and blasts of heat vision in a single panel. It's a neat trick. Like all tricks, in my opinion, it shouldn't be overused, but used judiciously, it can be very, very cool.

_Richard


Perhaps I should be more specific.

Don't ask an artist to illustrate two separate actions in one panel.

I can't tell you how many times I've had friends who are artists complain about writers (often very popular writers) asking them to do this.


-BCM

[madelf]

An image of Superman socking an Imperiex Probe in the face, another image of him heat visioning Doomsday from behind, and another of him blowing freeze breath attacking him from the side in a single panel would be three separate actions. It's also a panel from Superman's first fight against a Probe, and it worked great, so, I have to disagree with you again.

_RichardThere are always exceptions to every rule. Doesn't mean it isn't a good rule.

[The Anti-crest]

An image of Superman socking an Imperiex Probe in the face, another image of him heat visioning Doomsday from behind, and another of him blowing freeze breath attacking him from the side in a single panel would be three separate actions. It's also a panel from Superman's first fight against a Probe, and it worked great, so, I have to disagree with you again.

_Richard


Could you scan and post that image? It sounds terrible and I don't read superman so I'm unfamiliar.

[BClayMoore]

An image of Superman socking an Imperiex Probe in the face, another image of him heat visioning Doomsday from behind, and another of him blowing freeze breath attacking him from the side in a single panel would be three separate actions. It's also a panel from Superman's first fight against a Probe, and it worked great, so, I have to disagree with you again.

_Richard

Just in case you're not being willfully obtuse, what you're describing are basically three different panels, even if they don't have borders confining them.

Three separate moments that might be contained in a single box. That's not at all what I'm talking about.

The common complaint I'm talking about comes when a writer tries to get an artist to draw a character doing TWO SEPARATE THINGS AT ONCE.


To make it very simple. Don't do this:

PANEL 1: Jim shuts the door behind him and walks up the path, waving at Molly.


-BCM

[The Anti-crest]

Just in case you're not being willfully obtuse, what you're describing are basically three different panels, even if they don't have borders confining them.

Three separate moments that might be contained in a single box. That's not at all what I'm talking about.

The common complaint I'm talking about comes when a writer tries to get an artist to draw a character doing TWO SEPARATE THINGS AT ONCE.


To make it very simple. Don't do this:

PANEL 1: Jim shuts the door behind him and walks up the path, waving at Molly.


-BCM

Jim fires the gun then places it in his holster.

[BClayMoore]

Jim fires the gun then places it in his holster.

An even better example.

Thank you!

-BCM

[The Anti-crest]

You can do that with after imaging (I believe that is what it is called), blurring, superimposing, and/or speed lines. I've seen Clark Kent speak on the phone with his face to the left side of the panel and look out the window to the right at the same time. Two heads on one body expressed as a single head in movement via speed lines.

It's hard, but it can work.

_Richard
It's ugly!

[BClayMoore]

You can do that with after imaging (I believe that is what it is called), blurring, superimposing, and/or speed lines. I've seen Clark Kent speak on the phone with his face to the left side of the panel and look out the window to the right at the same time. Two heads on one body expressed as a single head in movement via speed lines.

It's hard, but it can work.

_Richard


Or, you know, you can just break it into two panels and not piss an artist off.

-BCM

[The Anti-crest]

Not necessarily. Jim Lee, whose are I don't typically enjoy, did it well during Superman's fight with Equus, for instance. Pascual Ferry was also good at it during his run on the Superman books. It's just another skill to learn and apply gracefully, in my opinion. And it often works well for super-fast characters, I have found.

_Richard

I've never seen an instance where I said,you know, I like that a lot more than I thought I would.

[maverick]

It's one panel, with the Probe standing in the middle in one position, and a bunch of Superman images doing what they're doing around and to him.

Sounds to me like they are trying to show Superman using his superspeed, which is a little different than scripting two or more actions at once for a character.

If the character does indeed have superspeed, then it should be noted as such in the script.

Panel 1: Jim fires the gun then uses his superspeed to immediately place it in his holster.

[Uziel]

rich, steve ditko was the master (maybe even inventor?) of the sort of thing you're talking about. he would draw spiderman jumping all around single panels. never once looked ugly to me.

[maverick]

It doesn't need to be super-speed, in my opinion. I've seen normal-speed character do stuff like that. Moving their heads from side to side while surprised is one example I've seen numerous times.


As a reader, I'm not sure this would make sense to me to see a "normal speed" character doing multiple things in one panel. Multiple actions in one panel would, to me, imply the character is doing something at faster than normal speed.

Moving your head from side to side while surprised is not the same as multiple actions in one panel. Moving your head from side to side while surprised would (again, to me as a reader) simply indicate quick motion.

All this said, I just had a thought. I could see a possibility for a character pulling his gun and shooting all in one panel, if he/she is a very quick gunslinger or soemthing. But this technique would be used to get the point across that the gunslinger is quick, and doing this in one motion, rather than in two separate steps.

[maverick]

haha, as father of a young boy myself I know this is too true.