How To Write Comic Books

At least once a week, I get an e-mail asking me, "How do you write comic books?" About half want to know how you do it — format, craft, approach, etc. — and the other half want to know how you get a job or sell your work. To the latter, there isn't a lot I can say. I do have a stock line which I think is very good advice. It's to not try to become a Comic Book Writer. It's to become a Writer who writes many things, one of which is comic books. That's a distinction that I think is as important to one's creative mental health as it is to one's marketability.

Beyond that, there's not a lot I can tell the job seekers. The business is what the business is and I'm not in touch with large chunks of it these days. It seems to have bifurcated into two categories: The one where people hire you to work on their properties and projects and the one where you invent a new book and new characters and find a publisher. Some publishing houses embrace both and some creators do both but the rules of play and entry are very different and it's important to be aware of that. The kind of gigs where you get hired to write Spider-Man or Green Lantern or Star Wars are very hard to come by and if you aspire to that, be aware that you'll be battling many, many others for the opportunity. Concocting your own gig may actually be easier but it will require more investment of time and spec work…and if you aren't an artist, it'll probably mean finding an artist and forging a partnership. And right now, that's about all I have the energy to write about that kind of endeavor.

How to actually write a comic book is a simpler chore if you'll accept this answer: However it works best for you and your collaborators. Since I got into the biz, I have railed against the notion that there is one correct way to write a comic book. There isn't. I've seen dozens of different script formats in terms of margins, spacing, columns, tabs, etc. Last year, I was talking with the folks who make Movie Magic Screenwriter, which is the software I use for writing TV and movie scripts, about them doing a template for the way I most often format a comic book script. If and when we do that, I will somehow manage to append a note that says even I only use it for about half my projects. That's because how you work needs to be dictated by (a) the needs of a given piece of material and (b) the particular skills of the parties involved. If I'm supposed to do a funny comic with Sergio Aragonés, it's a very different challenge from when I'm supposed to do a grim 'n' gritty project with someone else.

At one point in the eighties, I was simultaneously writing three comic books a month for three different publishers, working with three different artists on three different kinds of material. For DC Comics, I was writing (and eventually editing) Blackhawk, a war comic. For Eclipse, I was writing (and I think editing, though we never made it clear) DNAgents, a super-hero comic. And for whatever publisher hadn't gone out of business publishing it so far, I was doing whatever I do on Groo the Wanderer, a silly comic. The comics all looked entirely different from one another and so did their scripts. My collaborators all had different skill sets and in some cases, a lot of input into the stories. In some cases, not. When they did, I adjusted what I did to be able to best embrace what they did.

On two of those, the dialogue and copy were usually written after the artist drew the book. On the other, the words came before but might be revised later. On one, I was more likely to sketch out suggested layouts. On another, the artist sketched out suggested layouts and then I sometimes erased his and placed balloons where I wanted them, then he would redesign his panel compositions to put the characters under the balloons I had placed. On one, there were times when I had an editor. Then, I not only had to do my end of things in a way that would convey what I wanted to the artist but to the editor, as well.

If it sounds like I'm trying to be confusing…in a way, I am. I'm trying to disabuse anyone of the notion that there's one right way to do this. I not only want beginners to know this but I think some longtime professionals could stand to be more open to different breakdowns of collaboration. Too often, I think, they have a great working relationship with Artist A and that becomes the way they want to work with everyone. Artist B comes along and they force him to work like Artist A even though B may, for example, be better at breaking down an action into a panel-to-panel flow and worse at interpreting the emotional content of a scene. I would especially like longtime pros to stop telling beginners that their way is the way.

This is all I have time to write about this today but I intend to return to this topic over the next few weeks. This is an exciting time in comics in that creators are bringing forth a wider range of styles and genres and viewpoints than I have ever seen. When I broke in, you kind of had to do Marvel Comics to work for Marvel, DC Comics to work for DC, etc. The publishers had much narrower vistas as to what readers would buy from them and there weren't that many publishers. Now, there are more publishers and they're all open to a wider range of looks and feels. Some of them don't even want a book that looks like anything they've published before. Since we have more places to go, I think we need to look at a wider range of routes you can take to get to them.

The Devil in the Details

pierrecardincadillac

One day in the early eighties, I took my 1957 Thunderbird (the one I no longer own) in for detailing at a place in Beverly Hills. When I went to pick it up, there was a short delay in bringing it out so I got to chatting with the manager there. He asked me if I'd ever seen a Pierre Cardin Cadillac. I said no. He said, "Come on in here," and he took me into one of his garages. There, I saw the most beautiful new (i.e., non-classic) car I'd ever seen in my life. It was not the one in the photo below, which is a picture of another model of Pierre Cardin Cadillac. It was even better looking than that, painted with pinstripes in colors one does not ordinarily see on an automobile. I asked him to explain just what it was I was looking at. Car buffs, please forgive me if I get a few of the numbers wrong.

He explained, "Every year, the Pierre Cardin company buys 100 new Cadillacs right off the assembly line. They get them unpainted and without upholstery or other decorations. The Pierre Cardin people supply all that. They design a special paint job, a special interior, special carpeting…everything. Then they install it all. It's a designer Cadillac."

He then went on to explain about the one glistening there before me: "Customers have to order them and put down a 25% down payment. Then they're shipped out from the Pierre Cardin factory but before they go to the buyer, they're sent to a detailer like me to give them a final cleaning before delivery. But this car is homeless. The guy who was going to take delivery of it defaulted on his last payment or something so he's not going to get it."

I asked what was going to become of it. He said, "It's been sitting here for two weeks. I'm charging them storage while I wait for them to tell me what to do with it. Hey, you interested in buying it?"

I wasn't interested in buying any new car at any price but I had to ask, "How much is it?"

He said, "Seventy-five thousand dollars." That's a lot of money for a car now and you can imagine how much it was at the time, which I think was around 1983. A brand-new non-designer Cadillac Eldorado that year was around $20,000. I paid a lot less than that for the T-Bird.

I told the gentleman I wasn't interested in buying a new car. Especially a $75,000 car.

He said, "I could probably arrange for you to get a thousand off." He said that as if he expected me to say, "Whoa! I don't want a $75,000 car but of course I want a $74,000 car! Write it up!" Instead, I said no thanks. He asked why not. I said, "Well, the price is reason enough. But even if I had that kind of money to spend, I wouldn't drive a car that fancy and expensive. It practically screams, 'Steal me! Steal me!'"

"Oh, no," he said. "People never steal these."

"Are you serious? A beautiful car like this, people don't steal?"

"It's too dangerous," he explained. "There are only, like, three of them in the entire state. If someone's driving one around, it gets noticed instantly. If you're going to steal an expensive car, you want to steal a grey Mercedes. They all look alike."

I didn't completely buy that but I asked him, "Okay, so people don't steal Pierre Cardin Cadillacs. Do they ever strip them for parts?"

He said, "That, they do. And it's beastly expensive to replace parts or to get certain things fixed on them."

"So why would anyone possibly want one?"

The man thought for a second, shrugged and replied, "To tell the whole world you can afford one."

Today's Video Link

Ah, this'll be fun to share with you. It's the opening titles (or in one case, I think the closing titles) to ten TV shows from the sixties of an adventure/crime nature. I don't remember any of these theme songs and only a few of the shows themselves. But I sure recognize a lot of names…like in the series written and directed by Garson Kanin with music by Dave Brubeck. Take a gander…

More Spider-Man News

David S. Cohen has written a piece on the technical challenges of the Spider-Man musical on Broadway. These pieces worry a lot of folks on theater-related websites. It's kind of like, "What will become of the industry if audiences come to expect this kind of thing every time they go to the theater?" That strikes me as a needless worry. We've had spectacle on the stage before…granted, not on this scale but still mightily impressive. None of that ever diminished the audience for a good one-person show or two-person play.

And I should mention this: I've read a number of reports from folks who've seen Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark. Many of them, whether they like the show or not, say something like "Every nickel of that $65 million is on the stage." Well no, it isn't. A large chunk of that (reported) $65 million did not go for sets or costumes or special effects. It went for delays and postponements and legal wrangling. I'm sure what is on that stage did not come cheap though and it would be interesting to know what the production would have cost if all the elements had been pulled together to open according to the original schedule.

Unnoticed Anniversary

It has just been called to my attention that I put my first blog post up on the Internet on December 18, 2000. So yesterday marked ten years of blogging.

Oceans Three

Last Tuesday morning at 3:50 AM, a man in a motorcyclist outfit — complete with a helmet that covered his face — walked into the Bellagio Hotel-Casino in Las Vegas, grabbed up $1.5 million dollars in chips and fled on his 'cycle. He is still at large and police are attempting to identify and arrest the guy while everyone else in Nevada has a laugh at his expense. Those chips, you see, are nearly worthless. While he (or more likely, accomplices) might be able to convert some of the $100 and lower denomination chips to cash, he can't possibly redeem the chips for big amounts.

The Bellagio won't say if the chips contain sensors that make them trackable and identifiable…but even if they don't, what's he going to do with the $25,000 ones? The casinos know their high-rollers — the kind of people who would have such chips — and he probably isn't one of them. If an unknown guy walks in to cash any significant number of chips, he's going to be detained and questioned. So the thief was pretty stupid, right?

Well, maybe. I got to thinking: What if this was the opening of an episode of Banacek or one of those shows? Could there be a more devious plan at work here? Here's what I came up with…

3detectives

It wouldn't be a Banacek because he only got involved when something of great value was stolen and when it was insured for great value…but let's say it's that kind of detective. Maybe Ellery Queen or Columbo. Someone's eager to catch the guy (he did apparently pull off some real robberies elsewhere recently) so they call in the great investigator. He goes around and questions various hotel officials and employees, including a beautiful woman named Heather who's in charge of the distribution and counting of the chips. Then he calls them all together and says, "I think I've solved the robbery of $1.5 million in chips here."

The owner of the hotel says, "Well, just to be correct, those chips cost us about 70 cents each. There's no way the thief can cash them in."

The detective smiles and says, "He doesn't have to. The $1.5 million is already gone." As the hotel owner reacts, the detective adds, "You've been robbed, sir."

And he goes on to explain that the stolen chips were counterfeit…an inside job. Heather stole $1.5 million worth of them and substituted the phonies. "No one noticed," the detective explains. "She's had her boy friend cashing the real chips in for weeks now…one of your high-rollers. You didn't know they were involved but they are…and there's a third member of their team. He's one of your Casino Hosts and he's been vouching for the boy friend being a big winner. Since at any given time, this casino has millions of dollars in chips outstanding that haven't been redeemed yet, no one noticed. Heather's boy friend has been coming in and cashing in $100,000 or more worth of real chips at a time."

The head of security for the casino butts in and says, "Okay, but they couldn't have gotten away with it for long. Eventually, we would have realized we had $1.5 million more in chips than we were supposed to have…"

The detective interrupts. "Correct. Once the overage was discovered, someone would have realized counterfeiting was going on. The trail would have led to Heather's department…which is why they had to get rid of the counterfeit chips. They hired the guy on the motorcycle to come in and do it. It was a simple matter for Heather to arrange for all the counterfeit chips to be assigned to that particular table that night so they could all be stolen at once. It wasn't a robbery. The robbery had already taken place. This was them disposing of the evidence."

The security head steps forward. "But that wouldn't have eliminated all the counterfeit chips. Some players would have won some of them…"

The detective explains, "Not many. I checked. New racks of chips were delivered to the table at 3:35 AM. Those were the counterfeits. Play resumed at 3:40 so the counterfeits were only in the game for about ten minutes. Yes, a few players had won them but Heather and her crew weren't worried about a few counterfeit chips being in circulation. Since they would eventually come through her department, she could easily switch those back for real chips. What they were afraid of was the realization that $1.5 million in fake chips were around. That would have led you to Heather's division. And if that didn't put the finger of suspicion on her, the jig would have been up in two weeks when that new Counterfeit Chip Detector device you ordered arrives. The first thing they planned to do was to check every chip in the place."

At this point, the detective reveals the clues that tipped him off and I haven't figured those out yet. But they're firm enough that Heather says to him, angrily: "And we would have gotten away with it if not for you" and proceeds to confess. The head of security takes her away and on the way out says, "I'll notify the police to pick up the boy friend and the Casino Host. One of them will tell us where we can find the motorcyclist." Case closed.

Yeah, there are a few plot holes in it…but all those whodunnit shows they did out at Universal in the sixties and seventies had a few plot holes in their stories. Anyone out there got a better scenario? I'm not asking you to solve the real crime…just the way it would have played out on a detective show of the seventies.

Today's Video Link

I've cut my late show TiVoing and viewing back to 2.5 shows: Conan, Craig Ferguson and the first half of Jay. I realized that I'd stopped watching The Tonight Show past the mid-break and since there was something else I wanted to record on another channel, I'm set to just get the first half of Leno each night. Unless there's a very special guest booked, I don't watch Dave, George, Carson or either Jimmy.

But the other night, Jimmy Fallon had on something that's worth watching. As you may know, composers often write "dummy lyrics" to a song just so they can remember or refine the melody, then they go back later and write (or have a lyricist write) the real lyrics. Fallon had Paul McCartney on and in what was of course a planned, agreed-upon moment, asked him to sing the dummy lyrics to "Yesterday." I believe the lyrics to "Scrambled Eggs" only ran a few lines so someone — probably not Sir Paul — extended them into an entire song. Funny moment…

VIDEO MISSING

Remembering Blake Edwards

Earlier today, we embedded the Turner Classic Movies memorial montage for 2010 and noted that it was assembled too early to include anyone who dies the last few weeks of this year. John I. Carney informs me (thank you, John) that TCM updates this montage as necessary. Apparently, the version now running occasionally between films on that channel includes Blake Edwards. TCM has always been a class act.

They're going to run a Blake Edwards fest on December 27 consisting of Breakfast at Tiffany's, Days of Wine and Roses, The Pink Panther, Victor/Victoria and Operation Petticoat. If you don't want to wait that long, they're airing, as already scheduled, A Shot in the Dark on Monday morning. That's a very funny film, probably better than any of the five they're running on 12/27. Not that they aren't all pretty good.

This Just In…

And now we're hearing that the bill to provide health services to 9/11 Responders has enough votes to overcome a filibuster and that an attempt will be made to get it passed before this Congress adjourns. That would be a good thing if it happens. Makes you wonder how much Jon Stewart had to do with it.

Bear Bares All

yogibook

One nice by-product of the Yogi Bear movie may be that the cartoon superstar has written a book about his life, times and crimes. It's an "as told to" that was told to my friend Earl Kress and it's a fun little book that nicely captures the spirit and spunk of its furry author. It's called Life is a Pic-a-Nic: Tips and Tricks for the Smarter Than the Av-er-age Bear and you can order a copy right about here.

Saturday Afternoon

Looks like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is about to go away. It's looked like that for a few days now but we've all learned never to underestimate the ability of Democrats to fumble on the one-yard line. A fast scan of right-wing websites shows a lot of anger — some outright homophobia and some genuine worry (unjustified, I'm sure) about the continued strength of our military. A lot of it just looks like fury at having lost one, regardless of the issue. They've triumphed in enough battles lately you'd think they'd shrug and say, "You can't win 'em all." But I don't see that attitude often in the world these days. Everyone in every walk of life seems so committed to the notion that you can and should win 'em all.

Many incensed folks posting messages this morning seem to think it's a vote on whether to allow gays to serve at all. Apparently, if they don't tell, they aren't there. One aspect of this I don't get is how many people who have, shall we say, "personal issues" with homosexuality think the best way to deal with it is to pretend it doesn't exist. The folks I've encountered who have a problem with Gay Rights seem to accept the notion that, you know, they're here and they're queer and they're not going away. The affront to them is that gays want to be open about it instead of pretending to be straight and hiding their relationships and true identities. I don't see why lying is ever the answer to anything. The idea that it's a solution seems to come from the same head-in-the-ground worldview of those who insist that Abstinence Education works. I don't see that it accomplishes anything other than to allow some parents to pretend their teenage kids aren't having sex. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" let them pretend we didn't have many (or maybe any) gays in our armed forces.

I know there are some readers of this site who think allowing gays to serve openly is tantamount to going to Expedia and booking all eternity in Sodom and Gomorrah. You can view it like that if you want. I think it's better to treat it not as a loss for any side but as a victory for just being honest about what already is.

No Response to Responders

worstresponders

Anyone here see Jon Stewart Thursday night? An amazing half-hour. Stewart is angry about the G.O.P. filibustering the Senate end of the bill to provide medical relief for 9/11 Responders who took ill on the job. He devoted most of the show to the topic, including in-studio interviews with some 9/11 Responders.

This is an amazing issue. Despite what some of my correspondents insist, I do not believe "Republicans bad, Democrats good." I kinda believe "Republicans good for the wealthy, Democrats reasonably good for the wealthy but occasionally okay for others (though they're usually pretty lame)." Once in a while, either party can be shameless and Republicans have absolutely no defense for their actions here. None. Not even the slimiest Republican in the Senate (not to be confused with the slimiest Democrat) would appear on camera for the vote or to speak against the bill they were all going to oppose. They won't rise to explain it now; won't even make up some feeble rationale like, "Well, though we love and respect the 9/11 Responders, we felt this particular bill didn't serve their needs well." A few like John Ensign said they were for the bill but trapped by their pledge not to pass anything else until the tax bill was passed. Orrin Hatch actually told reporters he couldn't remember how he'd voted.

They aren't out explaining their position because there is no acceptable explanation. They just hope no one will notice and the Democrats won't start firing up outrage, asking "Why do Republicans in the Senate hate 9/11 Responders?" As it's turning out, Democrats aren't making an issue of it and neither is the supposedly Liberal Media. MSNBC has covered it. Shepard Smith did a segment with Chris Wallace on Fox and they both expressed some shock at the vote, though they pretty much made it sound like it was both Democrats and Republicans that had voted for the filibuster. There has been very little about it anywhere else except on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Do we think that if Democrats had done anything that could possibly be interpreted as disrespectful to heroes of 9/11 that Republicans would shrug and not exploit it? Not long ago, someone wanted to build a multi-cultural center a few blocks from Ground Zero and darn near every Republican (and many a weasely Dem) was out wailing that a Muslim Mosque was being built right where the World Trade Center fell and that it was all some kind of Al Qaeda Victory Dance. Fox News practically went 24/7 on the subject, crying about the victims of that day being given the finger. And now, this.

I am not letting Democrats off the hook on this. They're either spectacularly inept or they too think there are more important matters than passing this bill. Or I suppose there's one other possibility, though it seems like a longshot to me. Maybe Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell made a deal: In exchange for something else — what, I can't imagine — Reid agreed to stop Democrats from screaming about the issue and pledged there'll be another vote on the bill before adjournment so Republicans can do the right thing and not have this used against them in the future. Something like that. That would make it righter but it wouldn't make it right. Some things should just be above partisan gamesmanship.

Jon Stewart was furious on his show and it carried over to his guest segment, which was with Mike Huckabee. Despite what had preceded him, Huckabee seemed ill-prepped to make any kind of defense of Senate Republicans. He started to say that the problem with this bill is that it hadn't been "separated out" (i.e., had other, disqualifying provisions attached) but Stewart corrected him and pointed out that was not true. I'm not one for mind-reading but it looked to me like Huckabee then realized there was no explanation anyone would buy…and that he wasn't getting out of that studio with a shred of dignity if he didn't immediately agree with Jon Stewart. So he did, fervently…and good for him.

I decided not to embed the whole show here because I just linked to a couple of Comedy Central videos and they seem to slow up the site a little. But as I'm writing this, I'm getting as angry as Mr. Stewart and I really want everyone to see this so here's a link to watch the entire show online. Just in case you didn't see it or didn't TiVo.

One sees a lot of anger on TV and hears it on talk radio but very little of it is genuine, especially when it comes from hosts, correspondents and other folks who have a day-to-day or week-to-week presence. Seems to me that when most of them get riled, it's all for show and they're more concerned about Good Television than Good Causes. But Jon Stewart is really mad about this. I don't think he's just interested in making Good Television…though he did.

Today's Video Link

Operating I guess on the assumption that no one in the movie business will die in the last three weeks of this year, Turner Classic Movies put together a tribute to those who died in the first 49. Despite its prematurity, it's quite a lovely bit of film assembly. The one they air on the Academy Awards will probably not be this classy nor will it include as many of the non-biggies…

VIDEO MISSING

News From New Yawk

The Spider-Man musical on Broadway has postponed its official opening from January 11 to February 7. Some of you are probably wondering what difference that makes, given that the show will continue to play to audiences every night as planned.

What it means is that they're declaring, "We're still changing major stuff. Don't review us yet!" They can do this because they're selling well in previews. Last week, for instance, they were at 99.4% capacity. Can't do much better than that. Ordinarily, a show that went through extended previews in New York would be suspect. Theatergoers would say, "They're postponing the reviews because they know they're gonna get murdered and they're trying to sell tickets before that happens." Or maybe some of them would say, "They're delaying because they're still trying desperately to fix the thing."

In the case of Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark, they apparently are planning to make some significant changes to the show — new dialogue, at least one new song, a new ending, etc. If this was a "regular" Broadway show without the hype about the budget and publicity about tech problems, this new delay might be fatal. It would trigger the above quotes and more. As it is, I don't think it'll matter. People have heard so much about this show, they want to see it. I don't think it'll matter a lot what the critics say about it, either. (The Addams Family, which did not get good reviews, is still running at 70-80% capacity, which ain't bad after ten months. Its producers are apparently so confident about it that they're not expecting to close when Nathan Lane leaves in a few months. They've already announced his replacement.)

Articles speculate that Spider-Man is going to have to take in a million bucks a week in order to run. The change of opening date might make some think they're worried they're not going to be able to achieve that with what they currently have. Maybe. But maybe they just figure that with audiences flocking to previews, they have the luxury of enough time to make things better.