PDA

View Full Version : TPG: Week 10- Matthew Watkins



StevenForbes
Friday, March 27, 2009, 06:33 PM
Hello, everyone! Welcome back to The Proving Grounds.

This week brings us Matthew Watkins. I'm going to tell everyone now, it's not pretty. Let's see what was done.


Department 5-19-16 (This should be in a header, or a cover sheet and header. As for the name, it needs a LOT of work.)
By
Matthew Watkins
(I stripped your e-mail addy from here.)



Page 1

Panel 1
Baghdad 2008 - An army hummer hauls ass down a dirt road between two buildings. (Wow. Okay, let’s see what we have here. Rather, let’s see what we don’t have here. We don’t have anything resembling a coherent establishing shot. Is it day or night? What’s the camera angle? Are we on the ground, or up above? Are there people about?)

CAPTION:
Baghdad, 2008 (Comma.)

Panel 2
Interior of the army hummer - Four soldiers ride in the hummer, two up front two in the back. Private Jimmy Veeks sits in the front passenger seat; he is looking over his shoulder at the two men in the back seat. Private Frank Steals and Private Bill Smith smile back at him. (Where is the camera? We can’t be in the jeep and see them all. Even if we were catty-cornered behind the driver, we may be able to see Veeks looking over his shoulder, we may be able to see them looking back at him, but we won’t be able to see the driver. There’s no way to see all four of them at the same time. You’ll already hard pressed to get three in the frame. It’s generally not going to happen. That’s first. Second, what are they wearing? You don’t say, and the artist is going to ask.)

PRIVATE JIMMY VEEKS:
This is our last day! Can’t wait to get the hell out of here.

Panel 3
The Hummer still hauling ass takes a right turn into a narrow alley. (How is this a good place to turn the page? It’s only three panels long, and only one person speaks. What is there of any interest to make someone want to turn the page? The only page-turning I’m foreseeing is the return of the front cover before it goes back on the shelf. Now, how effective are you going to be hauling ass while trying to make a turn? You’ve already said that they’re going between two houses. I’m imagining it’s going to be tight. Then you’re going to whip around a corner? The vehicle is going to slew, and they’re going to hit the building, hard. If they’re lucky, they’re going to hit the side of the hummer. More probable, they’re going to try to make the turn, and crash head first into the building on the left side. (Ever watched the show Automan? A computer generated character in the real world, and his car only made right angle turns. That’s the only car I know of that can make this turn at speed—and even then, it needs space to make the turn that I don’t think you have. Long story short: this cannot be done.)



Page 2 (page break)

Panel 1
A small boy runs in front of the Hummer, Sergeant Mike Jones who is driving slams on the brakes. (Sergeants don’t drive when there are privates around. Privates drive. That’s their job. Sergeants have other things to do, like look pretty and keep an eye out for danger. That’s first, and unimportant. This is almost a moving panel. I can see it happening in my head, but its not described well. Where is the camera? Is it inside the hummer? Is it outside of the hummer? Is it to the side? Is it on the opposite side of the boy, and we’re looking at the hummer past the kid? Is it a top-down view? Throw the artist a bone.)

Panel 2
The front of the Hummer is about a foot away from the boy. (Period. Again, where’s the camera? Inside? Outside? Worm’s eye view?

Panel 3
The four men in the Hummer look out the dirty front window of the Hummer; they can just see the top of the boys head.

SERGEANT JONES
Damn that was close!

PRIVATE STEALS:
Too close! (Spelling/grammar.)

Panel 4
The small boy runs across the alley and into an open door, the four men in the Hummer watch him go. (This is a moving panel. You cannot show both actions.)

PRIVATE SMITH
Let’s get out of here. (Since when do privates give orders to sgts?)

SERGEANT JONES
That sounds like a good idea.



Page 3 (page break)


Panel 1
A large bomb goes off directly under the Hummer. (That’s nice. Now, where are we when we see this?)

Panel 2
The force of the explosion blows Private Veeks out the passenger door of the Hummer. (Nope. This is forced, and I don’t believe it. If it blows him out of the vehicle, it kills him. That’s how explosions work. How its going to blow him out of the side instead of up and into pieces is beyond me.)

Panel 3
Private Veeks sails through the air his left arm is on fire. (This is a run-on sentence. How high does he go, and how far is he eventually going to fly? I can already tell you’re not going to give that info in the next panel. Not only are you not going to give anything concerning distance, this is still highly improbable. This is one of those bad 80s movies where things happen and are barely explained. And even then, the explanations are extremely weak.)



Page 4 (page break)

Panel 1
Private Veeks hits hard against the alley wall.

Panel 2
Black smoke bellows out of the wreckage of the Hummer. (Where is it in relation to the implausibly alive Veeks?)

Panel 3
With the help of the alley wall Private Veeks stands up. He has a very badly burned left arm and a one inch wound just above his right eyebrow.

Panel 4
Like a zombie, Private Veeks stumbles towards the wreckage. (This is a moving panel.)

Panel 5
Private Veeks stands a few feet away from the burning wreckage, black smoke wraps around him like a sinister snake. (The only good thing about this page is that it’s silent. That lends it some power.)



Page 5 (page break)

Panel 1
Private Veeks Still stands looking at the wreckage two Army Hummers have pulled up next to him. (Run on sentence. And how did they get there so fast?)

Panel 2
Army soldiers have taken up defensive positions around the scene. Sergeant Miles is standing next to Private Veeks. (Defensive positions for what? He should be dead at least twice. Once because of the bomb that the kid might have planted, and second from the gunfire that should have been there to finish the job.)

SERGEANT MILES
Come on let’s go.

PRIVATE JIMMY VEEKS
I can’t leave my friends behind.

SERGEANT MILES
Your friends are gone, there’s nothing more to do here. (Run on.)

Panel 3
Private Veeks follows Sergeant Miles down the alley towards a Hummer.

Panel 4
Close up of Private Veeks face - He has grabbed both sides of his head with his hands he cries out. His face is twisted and distorted from pain. Remember that Private Veeks left arm from his wrist to the top of his shoulder is very badly burned and that he has a one inch wound above his right eyebrow.

PRIVATE JIMMY VEEKS
AAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! (This is exactly how I feel.)

Panel 5
Private Veeks lies unconscious in the alley.

SERGEANT MILES
(Off Panel)
Help Him! Get him out of here!

Panel 6
Two Army soldiers drag Private Veeks down the alley towards a Hummer. (How is this a good place for a page turn? What makes it so interesting that you're going to get someone to turn the page?)


Really, that’s where I’m going to stop.

I want you to believe that I’m not being mean. I’ve always been honest, even if people don’t appreciate it. This, Matthew, is craptacular.

Let’s take it from the top.

Your panel descriptions are horrendous. If you’re not leaving out crucial details, you’re writing moving panels. If they’re not moving, they’re practically impossible to draw. Did you see any of this in your head? Have you tried to draw any of this yourself?

I’ve said it before, and I guess I have to say it again: you should start with an establishing shot whenever necessary, and that establishing shot should tell Who, When, and What at the very least. You’ve left out When totally, and from a reader’s pov, you’ve left out Who, as well. But we’ll get to that.

The moving panels are something that isn’t hard to learn. Just stop the action, and write what you see. Still images. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you’ll have to stop answering questions of your artist, or correcting the thumbnails they’re hopefully sending you.

The things that are impossible to draw…basically, you’re not seeing this in your head. You’re just writing, and not paying attention to simple things like physics. Picture every panel in your head as you write it. If you can’t picture it, then don’t write it. That is a very simple, very effective rule that everyone would do well to remember and live by. Picture it first, and if you can’t, don’t write it.

Okay, let’s talk about physics and plausibility.

Right off the bat, your hummer going down alleys at a high rate of speed and making 90 degree turns just isn’t going to fly. The things you were describing can only be found in horrible action movies. From the 80s. Not even Steven Segal would try to have some of this in his movies. Stated simply, it’s impossible.

Next comes the explosion. The one you don’t describe well at all. There’s no source for it. Does the boy plant a charge? Dunno. You don’t say he has anything in his hands when he runs out. Is there a land mine there? Dunno. And it’s doubtful, because then the people living in the area have the possibility of setting it off themselves. Is it a grenade or an rpg? Dunno. You don’t say. The vehicle just explodes, with no reason given. And it gets a LOT worse.

Because you don’t do a good job of explaining the explosion, I’m going to do a worst case scenario. The car explodes, but it doesn’t do a movie-type explosion where it gets shot up into the air. It just explodes there on the ground. (See what I did right there? I just described an explosion, which is something you failed to do.) Now, the force of this explosion blows your hero right out of the vehicle.

Right then and there, your hero is dead. If the force of the explosion is enough to blow him out of the vehicle, blowing him out of a friggin door, a door that’s more than likely armored, if it’s enough to kill the rest of the people in the vehicle, then he’s dead. There’s no way to survive the explosion. There’s no way to plausibly get him out of the vehicle through that explosion.

Next, we have him sailing through the air. You’re describing a parabolic arc, which is impossible if he’s being shot out of the side door like a rifle. There’s no arc, it’s just straight. Remember, I said the vehicle doesn’t fly up in the air when it explodes. So the two images don’t resolve, do they? (No, don’t talk to me about doing that on purpose. I’m doing it to make a point. If you had done your job and actually wrote a panel description, you wouldn’t be whining about it now.)

Nothing after that explosion really matters. You already killed your hero, but let’s finish this.

Where did the other hummer come from? It just appears out of nowhere. Is it magic? You didn’t set up anything like another patrol with them, so asking if it was magic is a viable question. And then they set up a defensive perimeter. I understand the protocol, but really, it’s too late by then. If there was going to be a firefight between any survivors, then that would have happened already, and soldier-boy would be dead all over again.

Let’s talk about protocol and characters for a bit, while I’m here. You don’t describe anything. What are they wearing? I’m only surmising they’re in hostile territory—the explosion, you know.—but you don’t describe anything besides the fact they’re in a hummer. So what are they wearing? Your artist is going to want to know. What branch of military are they in? Are they wearing any type of body armor? Where are their weapons? They’re just in clothes, going for a joyride. Got it.

And in these five pages, how are we to tell who’s who? How is the reader going to know the names of the people speaking? You don’t give a name where anyone can read it until page 7 or 8. Wait. P8. I just checked. And then, it’s only a first name, which is good enough. It’s not plausible, from where he’s at (a VA hospital), but it’s enough. However, by P8, it’s too late in the extreme.

Have you ever been in the military? Watched any movies that has some military culture in it? I don’t care if it’s Starship Troopers. Have you done anything resembling research on this project? And that’s just for things of a factual nature. Have you done anything besides research format? Because format is the easiest thing to get down. I don’t have any problems at all with the format. I’m having extreme problems with the content.

Have you read any of the articles in Bolts & Nuts? Have you read any professional scripts? Have you read any books on the subject? If you have, then you haven’t done anything to apply what you’ve learned to your writing. That’s evident in every word written here.

I’m not going to bag you on the dialogue, but that’s only because it wouldn’t be fair to you. It’s not really in evidence in what I’m putting up, so I won’t say much about it except that it also needs a lot of work. I know its vague and not helpful, but you have bigger problems here than worrying about dialogue. (Oh, and how he ends up in a coma ward is beyond me. How does he slip into a coma? Catatonia, sure, but I’m not seeing a coma.)

Read more scripts by anyone that is not Warren Ellis, Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, and Brian Bendis. Anyone outside of those four writers is fair game. Wait. Make it five. Neil Gaiman. I want you to learn how to tell a story in the medium first, and those writers are so advanced as to be almost useless to you.

Work on your panel descriptions, work on your storytelling, work on what can and cannot be drawn, think about what can and cannot be done in the physical universe.

Now, a little discussion for everyone else, because I know you’re probably up in arms. You’re used to me being honest, but not almost attacking someone’s writing. I don’t want anyone to think I’ve attacked Matthew. Attacking him is not helpful. Telling him where he went wrong is. Like I said before, I’m not going to mollycoddle anyone. I’m not going to pull punches, I’m not going to hold hands, I’m not going to tell you it’s going to be okay. That does a disservice to the writer, and I have more respect for you than that.

If anyone has a problem with what went on here, feel free to post it up, contact me through pm, or send me an e-mail.

That’s it for this week. Next week brings us Barri Lang again, and then Gary Edwards.

Until then, let’s discuss this.

CalvinCamp
Friday, March 27, 2009, 07:34 PM
Panel 4
Like a zombie, Private Veeks stumbles towards the wreckage. (This is a moving panel.)
I'm confused again, I'm afraid.
How is that a moving panel? There's only one action taking place.

StevenForbes
Friday, March 27, 2009, 07:42 PM
Read it again, Calvin. How can one move like a zombie and stumble toward something? That's two actions, not one.

CalvinCamp
Friday, March 27, 2009, 08:07 PM
Read it again, Calvin. How can one move like a zombie and stumble toward something? That's two actions, not one.
Huh? No it's not. In that sentence, "Like a zombie" is describing the way he's stumbling. I won't pretend to know exactly what Matthew meant by stumbling like a zombie (though I could take a guess), but the stumbling is the only action being called for.

That's why I asked. If saying that a character stumbles (like a zombie or otherwise) is a moving panel, then how can I describe them doing anything? I was trying to figure out if it was the way it was worded or something.

StevenForbes
Friday, March 27, 2009, 08:41 PM
I took it to mean he was moving like a zombie and stumbling.

Although, how one can stumble like a zombie is a totally different discussion. :)

CalvinCamp
Friday, March 27, 2009, 09:14 PM
Yeah. I figure it would at least have to be one of those slow, shambling, 80s-era zombies. Definitely not the killer corpses on crack they've had in some of the recent movies - I can't see them stumbling much. ;)

SebastianPiccione
Friday, March 27, 2009, 09:55 PM
PRIVATE JIMMY VEEKS
AAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! (This is exactly how I feel.)

God, I love you, Forby!

Hey, Forby...question?
Once you've covered a script in your Red Font of Judgement, can they resubmit it to you? You know, after they've taken your advice, made the changes, and want to see how far they've improved and how far they've left to go?

ArchonComics
Friday, March 27, 2009, 10:19 PM
Hey Steven,

In your column above, you've misused it's/its again. As an editor, you need to make sure you've got a handle on basic stuff like this (especially in such a public forum). I'm not looking for grammatical errors, but this one just keeps cropping up.

StevenForbes
Friday, March 27, 2009, 10:31 PM
God, I love you, Forby!

Hey, Forby...question?
Once you've covered a script in your Red Font of Judgement, can they resubmit it to you? You know, after they've taken your advice, made the changes, and want to see how far they've improved and how far they've left to go?

Heh. Thanks, Seb.

The short answer is 'yes.' Just like everything else, it'll go in the que. Just let me know it's a resubmit.

AC: I'm working on it. Thought I got them all.

ArchonComics
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 12:57 AM
There's at least 3 of those suckers. :)

Cary
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 01:25 AM
Ok I’ll bite.

First off lets do a little run through.


Page 2
Panel 4
The small boy runs across the alley and into an open door, the four men in the Hummer watch him go. (This is a moving panel. You cannot show both actions.)

How is this a moving panel? I’ve seen many panels where people move while others watch them move and they work just fine. The panel might not be the most interesting panel on its own, but that doesn’t mean it’s inherently wrong. Unless there’s something here I’m not seeing, it’s not a moving panel.

Page 3

You seem to have a serious issue with the explosion and the private getting blown from the jeep. I’d refer you to about…350 odd Hollywood movies right off the top of my head with similar if not identical occurrences. Yes, improbably in reality, but not at all out of round in entertainment war scenarios. Plus, 5 millions rounds fired in the A-team and not one bullet wound. Relax a little bit there leather neck.


Page 4
Panel 4
Like a zombie, Private Veeks stumbles towards the wreckage. (This is a moving panel.)

Come on. I fully agree with the other comments already mentioned. In no way is this a moving panel. Maybe you were just reading it too fast.

This, Matthew, is craptacular, et al.

Alright now see, while you profess honesty, your words scream rude. You can easily be just as honest without the harshness you’re conveying here. It’s not necessary and if you want honesty, you’re better than that. If people were looking for jackass 101 we’d read Lying in the Gutters.

eureka
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 06:06 PM
Steven

Thank you for the critique this will help me out tremendously when I do the rewrite.

SebastianPiccione
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 06:22 PM
Matt, if you want to rename one of the soliers "Private Forbes," and then, when the truck explodes, you can have him get struck in the head by a a flying piece of debris from the truck's side paneling.

Now hear me out, this where the important part...

The surviving officer shouts out:

"My God! Forbes lost his head to a moving panel!"

Bud-ump-bump----ching!

:D:D:D

Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all week!

eureka
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 06:36 PM
Steven

(No, don’t talk to me about doing that on purpose. I’m doing it to make a point. If you had done your job and actually wrote a panel description, you wouldn’t be whining about it now.)

Just wanted to know when I was whining?

eureka
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 06:45 PM
I guess I need to take the Z word out and just say Private Veeks stumbles towards the wreckage, that way there won’t be any confusion.

SebastianPiccione
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 06:50 PM
Steven

(No, don’t talk to me about doing that on purpose. I’m doing it to make a point. If you had done your job and actually wrote a panel description, you wouldn’t be whining about it now.)

Just wanted to know when I was whining?

Forby didn't mean you were actually whining about it. Forby has these little hypothetical arguments with himself when he writes, It's a part of his style.

It's not as harsh as it sounds, it's just one of those things that loses it's intended effect in the cold, unfeeling, medium that is an internet post.

Dingo
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 06:54 PM
I guess I need to take the Z word out and just say Private Veeks stumbles towards the wreckage, that way there won’t be any confusion.

I think that Steven Forbes may have mis-read that.

I read the word 'zombie' as being descriptive of the type of stumble.
You could stumble and be composed about it, or you could stumble in a stupor.

Your description was evocative of the second type of stumble and by no means should you remove it. More information for the artist does seem to have been something Steven has advocated generally, so I don't see it should be an issue.

Dingo
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 06:57 PM
Forby didn't mean you were actually whining about it. Forby has these little hypothetical arguments with himself when he writes, It's a part of his style.

It's not as harsh as it sounds, it's just one of those things that loses it's intended effect in the cold, unfeeling, medium that is an internet post.

This is a very different beast to Bolts and Nuts though, because he is putting words in the mouth of an actual person rather than a theoretical general audience member. Anyone who has read Bolts and Nuts would see this as just his style of writing, but on it's own without context it's not cool. I'd be a bit upset if it were my mouth he were putting words into.

SebastianPiccione
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 07:10 PM
This is a very different beast to Bolts and Nuts though, because he is putting words in the mouth of an actual person rather than a theoretical general audience member. Anyone who has read Bolts and Nuts would see this as just his style of writing, but on it's own without context it's not cool. I'd be a bit upset if it were my mouth he were putting words into.

Oh, I understand, I'm just explainin' is all.

PBrusnahan
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 07:11 PM
Ah, I think my script will be coming in about a month!
Suspense is killing me...:D

Patrick Brusnahan

StevenForbes
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 08:42 PM
Ok I’ll bite.

First off lets do a little run through.


Page 2
Panel 4
The small boy runs across the alley and into an open door, the four men in the Hummer watch him go. (This is a moving panel. You cannot show both actions.)

How is this a moving panel? I’ve seen many panels where people move while others watch them move and they work just fine. The panel might not be the most interesting panel on its own, but that doesn’t mean it’s inherently wrong. Unless there’s something here I’m not seeing, it’s not a moving panel.

Page 3

You seem to have a serious issue with the explosion and the private getting blown from the jeep. I’d refer you to about…350 odd Hollywood movies right off the top of my head with similar if not identical occurrences. Yes, improbably in reality, but not at all out of round in entertainment war scenarios. Plus, 5 millions rounds fired in the A-team and not one bullet wound. Relax a little bit there leather neck.


Page 4
Panel 4
Like a zombie, Private Veeks stumbles towards the wreckage. (This is a moving panel.)

Come on. I fully agree with the other comments already mentioned. In no way is this a moving panel. Maybe you were just reading it too fast.

This, Matthew, is craptacular, et al.

Alright now see, while you profess honesty, your words scream rude. You can easily be just as honest without the harshness you’re conveying here. It’s not necessary and if you want honesty, you’re better than that. If people were looking for jackass 101 we’d read Lying in the Gutters.

Thanks for sharing, Cary.

How is the first panel a moving panel? Let me answer it with this: where are you placing the camera to show the kid running across the street and into a doorway, with the soldiers tracking his actions? You can't do it from inside the jeep, because you can't see the the guys tracking the kid. You can't show it from the doorway, because you can't show the kid running across the street and into the door. He's either already going to be there, or he's going to be on his way. There isn't a way to show both of these actions: the boy running across the street into a doorway, and the soldiers watching him. That is what makes it a moving panel.

Explosion: If it kills three, it kills four. Unless the hero has some powers that keeps him alive, there's no way for him to survive the explosion, 80s movies be damned.

Me being a jackass: I've never said I wasn't. One of the problems with American society is that everyone is afraid of hurting everyone else's feelings. You want to get points for just showing up. Honesty can be "rude." If I said "Matthew, this is really bad," would it have the same meaning as "Matthew, this is spectacular crap"? Would it get the same point across?

Like I've said in my columns and I've said here: I'm not going to tell you everything's going to be alright when it isn't. It says "tough love" right on the door. If they're not ready for it, they're not ready to be published. No one wants the form rejection letter. If you're going to get rejected, at least say why. What's wrong with it? How can I do better? Don't say sorry and tell me to keep at it, True Believer, and send a letter that may or may not have been signed directly by Joey Da Q.

If you took it as rude, I can't help that. That's your perspective, and while I can understand it and accept it, I can't help you with it. It's just going to be one of those things.

This isn't about me being a jackass. This is about me helping you to tell a better story. If that help isn't wanted from me, that's fine. I can accept that. I'm not here to make enemies or to piss people off. I'm here to help. If honesty isn't wanted, then I urge you not to submit scripts to me. However, if you don't like the methods but can see the results, then think of me as a somewhat bitter pill. It's only uncomfortable for a little while.

Dingo
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 09:01 PM
There isn't a way to show both of these actions: the boy running across the street into a doorway, and the soldiers watching him. That is what makes it a moving panel.




If "the boy running across the street into a doorway" is one action, then why can't you have someone watching him do it in the same panel?

JohnLees
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 09:11 PM
If "the boy running across the street into a doorway" is one action, then why can't you have someone watching him do it in the same panel?

While I thought Steven was wrong with the "stumble like a zombie" complaint, I have to agree with him that this one is indeed a moving panel. It's a bit difficult to explain, I probably won't be able to do it as well as he can, but I'll try.

Three things are happening in this panel:

1. The boy is running across the street
2. He is entering a doorway
3. The soldiers are watching him as he runs across the street

Only two of these, however, can go into one panel. You can have the boy run into the doorway from the street. You can have the soldiers watch him as he runs across the street. You can have the soldiers watch him go through the door. But you can't have the soldiers watching the boy as he runs across the street - making that the immediate action of the panel - AND also show the boy reaching his destination.

At least, that's how I determined it. I could be wrong.

StevenForbes
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 09:12 PM
Again, where are you going to place the camera? Please, let me know.

Before you answer, try thumbnailing it out and see what you get.

JohnLees
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 09:15 PM
The "camera angle" for the panel I would interpret from the description is a shot coming FROM the hummer, with the four men in the Hummer in the foreground, watching the boy going into the door, almost POV style.

But even at that, you still need to cut out "runs across the alley".

Dingo
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 09:20 PM
While I thought Steven was wrong with the "stumble like a zombie" complaint, I have to agree with him that this one is indeed a moving panel. It's a bit difficult to explain, I probably won't be able to do it as well as he can, but I'll try.

Three things are happening in this panel:

1. The boy is running across the street
2. He is entering a doorway
3. The soldiers are watching him as he runs across the street

Only two of these, however, can go into one panel. You can have the boy run into the doorway from the street. You can have the soldiers watch him as he runs across the street. You can have the soldiers watch him go through the door. But you can't have the soldiers watching the boy as he runs across the street - making that the immediate action of the panel - AND also show the boy reaching his destination.

At least, that's how I determined it. I could be wrong.

I don't see how a panel can have someone doing something but can't have someone else watching.

I'd say the closest you could come to a problem with this panel is that you can't have someone crossing an alley and entering a doorway, but I think even that is possible to imply.



Edit: they're not in a car, but you get the idea.

StevenForbes
Sunday, March 29, 2009, 02:21 AM
Nice image, but it's wrong.

Getting the idea isn't the problem. The problem is doing it from the position where it's possible to get everyone doing everything the writer wants.

The previous panel has them in a vehicle, almost running over the kid. Decide on an angle for that first. The next panel has to be related to this one, and show the kid running across the street, into a doorway, with the soldiers watching.

I don't want the idea. I want what the writer said. Show that in a single image, please.

Cary
Sunday, March 29, 2009, 03:19 AM
here's the panel you're asking about. they're in the jeep (or whatever) looking out the window, seeing the kid running through the window. it's NOT a multiple action panel by any stretch of the imagination.



yes my art sucks here, but you should be able to get the idea.

Cary
Sunday, March 29, 2009, 03:29 AM
80s movies be damned.

lol yeah i'll see if hollywood listens. my point was it's entertainment. not everything needs to be strictly glued to absolute reality. they do let Superman fly after all.


One of the problems with American society is that everyone is afraid of hurting everyone else's feelings. You want to get points for just showing up. Honesty can be "rude." If I said "Matthew, this is really bad," would it have the same meaning as "Matthew, this is spectacular crap"? Would it get the same point across?

i'll be the last person to disagree about the nature of hurting people's feelings these days. we're becoming a society of pussies with the PC crap we get fed every day through the media and other sources. but that doesn't account for common human decency. yes, you can get your point across without being a jackass and make the same impact as you do being rude. so what do you gain by being rude?

for my part in the whole thing, i could care less. i live and work in the harshest environment people can imagine so things of this nature are a daily occurrence and generally get ignored for the most part. i just think you might want to think back a little bit to when you were starting out and take it easy with the more personal attacks, that's all. you can easily tell someone they're writing is shit ten ways from sunday, but it's often HOW you say something that helps someone as well as what you say. if you're really meaning to help then perhaps a more encouraging stance might at least sometimes be warranted.

CalvinCamp
Monday, March 30, 2009, 04:03 AM
Again, where are you going to place the camera? Please, let me know.
The problem has nothing to do with camera placement. I can think of at least three viewpoints for the camera.

1) In the backseat of the jeep, looking over the shoulders of the guys in front, with the kid visible through the windows.

2)Beside the jeep, with the soldiers visible through the side windows and the kid running away from us toward the doorway.

3)In front of the jeep, looking back at the kid, with the soldiers visible through the windshield.

And that's just off the top of my head. So the soldiers can be shown watching the kid easily enough. The problem is that the kid himself is doing two things. He's running across the road and he's running through a doorway. That's where the moving panel is.

I'd probably go with running through the doorway, since we already know he was in the street in previous panels (and if we don't show him going through the doorway, the viewer will be left wondering where he disappeared to).

Cary
Monday, March 30, 2009, 02:34 PM
you guys are reading way too much into it. he's running through the doorway but we can obviously see he's run across the road to get there. certainly the writer could have been a bit more clear, but even with what he's got it doesn't make it a moving panel.

CalvinCamp
Monday, March 30, 2009, 08:59 PM
you guys are reading way too much into it. he's running through the doorway but we can obviously see he's run across the road to get there. certainly the writer could have been a bit more clear, but even with what he's got it doesn't make it a moving panel.
It's certainly not a horrifically egregious example, and it's one an artist should be able to decipher well enough to draw properly. But that doesn't mean it isn't technically a moving panel (as it's written), or that it shouldn't be pointed out as one for the purposes of improving the writing (which is what this is supposed to be about, right?).

But my post was prompted more by the fallacy of the camera placement being the cause, anyway. I figure if it's going to get called a moving panel, then it's worth being accurate as to the reason - and we both seem to agree that the camera placement question isn't the reason.

StevenForbes
Monday, March 30, 2009, 10:15 PM
I'm here, folks. Still around. Just gearing things up to carry everything over if this project comes to fruition.

And yes, I'm appreciating the discussion.

Like I said before, this panel description cannot be captured in a single image. When you write, try playing it like a movie in your head, hit the pause button, and describe what you see. It's the rare character that can get away with doing multiple things in a single panel. Superheroes generally come to mind.