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.

Originally Posted by misteraxis

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]

Originally Posted by misteraxis

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by MartinBrandt

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. LOL

I just wanted to stay true to the character.