|
Post by Jasoomian on Jul 18, 2014 19:18:25 GMT -5
I had a chance to leaf through a little bit of the Steranko Artist's Edition of Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D., and was struck by how much of the plot points and dialogue Steranko spelled out in the margins for those issues where Roy Thomas was credited as writer. More evidence Marvel "writers " in those days really were just writing dialogue, while the artists seemed to come up with all the plots and chatacters and story beats etc etc etc.
Just an opening thought. But I think there's a lot more to be said about the Marvel Method, so here's a thread about it. Say something.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jul 18, 2014 19:32:40 GMT -5
It would vary quite a bit between who were the writers or artists and the circumstances.When Lee was writing 6 or 7 books a month and Kirby was the artist,I'd think Stan only provided one or 2 sentences of plot.Same with Ditko.Sometimes those 2 did the plotting themselves.But with Colan,Romita and Heck more initial plotting was done upfront. In the case you saw,its hard to judge since you didn't see what Roy originally provided,how much was Steranko repeating back or fine-tuning. But I do think Steranko fell into the Kirby/Ditko class as well as Neal Adams
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 18, 2014 20:25:26 GMT -5
I think it also depended whether the creative team was working in the bullpen or remotely. Doug Moench, for example, who was always working in the bullpen, seemingly talked to his artists a lot before work began on an issue. He indicated on at least one occasion that, when writing for Planet of the Apes, he would ask the artist whatunique visual they wanted to draw, build an entire plot around that (whether it be a cathedral built on a ship or a hide-out built into George Washington's nose), and then turn it over to the artist for layout work.
|
|
|
Post by benday-dot on Jul 18, 2014 20:31:58 GMT -5
Wasn't Steranko one of the few artists to whom Marvel actually gave a writing credit to?
Kirby admired Steranko, but I think, given all that the King gave to Marvel, it miffed him a bit that he wasn't granted the same.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Jul 18, 2014 20:32:59 GMT -5
Just an opening thought. But I think there's a lot more to be said about the Marvel Method, so here's a thread about it. Say something. Obviously, you can criticize the Marvel Method because it seems to favor the artist OR you can appreciate the Marvel Method because it seems to favor the artist.
|
|
|
Post by Jasoomian on Aug 3, 2014 11:25:36 GMT -5
I think when it was just Lee and/or Thomas "writing" everything, the artists were the real creative control on the books, developing the concepts, characters, and plots. As marvel moved in to the 70s, writers such as Moench and Claremont were much moe active in developing the plots and concepts and artists took more and more the back seat on those matters.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 3, 2014 20:12:59 GMT -5
I think they relied on the artists more at the dawn of the Marvel age. As I understand it, they don't use the Marvel method anymore.
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Aug 3, 2014 23:52:40 GMT -5
There are creators who still use the Marvel method or at least a somewhat modified version these days. Matt Wagner, for example, likes to give a fairly detailed plot, waits to recieve the art, then does the dialogue as he often finds that his artist finds some element in the plot that he hadn't concieved of when they visualized the story. Walt Simonson also likes to work Marvel style when he's writing a story for an artist. Both of those gentlemen are legendary artists in their own right, and they know what an artist can bring to a story with guidance that permits some interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Aug 4, 2014 19:15:01 GMT -5
I think when it was just Lee and/or Thomas "writing" everything, the artists were the real creative control on the books, developing the concepts, characters, and plots. As marvel moved in to the 70s, writers such as Moench and Claremont were much moe active in developing the plots and concepts and artists took more and more the back seat on those matters. Roy was more '70s style - I've been reading the Avengers and X-men Masterworks and it's pretty clear that he was the major "idea" guy on both those series, barring the issues drawn by Neal Adams. And Stan was a vital contibutor to the concepts and plotting, although his degree of involvement varied from artist to artist and even from issue to issue - And, as editor, he made a lot of changes to the finished product as well. He definitely had a vision for his line, although he'd give more leeway to guys he trusted. And there were major, major artists - Buscema and Colan, feristance - who didn't seem to have much interest in creating characters and situations.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Aug 6, 2014 10:21:17 GMT -5
One thing I'm learning as I read more articles, books, listen to podcasts, etc., in regards to classic creators, is that many older artists who started in the Golden Age didn't necessarily care about the characters or stories all that much; they were mainly passionate about the artwork and the storytelling as it related to the artwork.(Sort of a method over concept kind of thing.) I think this is still hard for some fans to wrap their heads around. It was for me when I was younger.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Aug 6, 2014 15:26:48 GMT -5
I certainly think a lot of 'em didn't give a crap about superheroes. There's a note in Amazing Fantasy # 15 about how they're dismissively referred to as "long underwear types" among comic creators.
|
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on Aug 6, 2014 17:05:38 GMT -5
when did the marvel method end and why?
i always think that alan moore's very very detailed scripts and maybe just him as a person and how he worked with artists, often got those artists to produce some of their finest art which seems counter intuitive - being so prescriptive should stifle the artist. (he said vaguely)
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Aug 6, 2014 19:51:37 GMT -5
I get the feeling that Moore puts so much effort into his scripts, and is such a great writer, that the artists are inspired to give it their best. Of course he gives the artist the freedom to ignore what he needs to, which I've noticed from what I've seen of his scripts on YouTube.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 0:06:01 GMT -5
when did the marvel method end and why? i always think that alan moore's very very detailed scripts and maybe just him as a person and how he worked with artists, often got those artists to produce some of their finest art which seems counter intuitive - being so prescriptive should stifle the artist. (he said vaguely) If I had to guess I would say it ended at Marvel when the Quesada era started (mid-to-late 90's-early 2000s) and writers like Bendis came to the fore who were writing for the six issue arc and controlling the pacing to do so. Writers who approached the story telling from a visual point of view and wanted to have more say in the visuals as well as the text of the story. It was an influx of writers almost a new generation who were influenced by things like Robert McKee's screenwriting book/seminar story, and the David Mamet book on directing (both of which Bendis brought up every time he talked about his influences). It was the post-image era, when the flash of the Image art first approach had fizzled and the idea of super-star writers was emerging. Writers were being recruited from other mediums and people were looking at the possibilities of the medium of comics, but the focus shifted to the writers and so more control of the project was ceded to them. Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis, Garth Ennis, Kurt Busiek, Mark Waid, etc. etc. became he creative superstars and the full script re-asserted itself as the norm. Those writers form other mediums (Kevin Smith, Brad Meltzer, etc.) were used to the full script and even screenplay/teleplay formats and used them as well. What was different though, was that almost to a person, those writers talked about tailoring the scripts to the strengths of the artists, of knowing who they were working with and of having a lot of back and forths with the artists throughout the creative process. In the old days it required being in the bullpen to be able to do this, or working on site, but with advances in communication tech in the 90's, especially the growth of the net and the ability to share files and instantly communicate no matter what the distance, allowed for a more collaborative approach but still having the full script be the framework, allowing the artists to have input without necessarily going full on Marvel method. Again this is only a guess on my part based on interviews and back page matter I have read and such. -M
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Aug 7, 2014 2:19:18 GMT -5
I think everything mrp says is spot on, but I also think you have a generation of artists who's hyper-detailed styles probably leaves them little time to generate plot points. Maybe most of them simply can't write or plot on their own?
Not that it was ever the norm, but it is interesting how you rarely, if ever, see creators like John Byrne, Frank Miller and Walt Simonson at Marvel or DC with the capacity to write and draw a 40+ issue run anymore.
|
|