Okay, firstly sorry I'm late! Thanks for the feedback on the script, now I'll try and justify it all...
This is the main problem, I gather. Well there is a reason: the most important and relevant parts of this are mostly in the details, the small stuff like the dagger in the table appearing like a cross in silhouette in page 3, panel 2, and like a sundial on the dartboard in page 2, panel 3, and the 'SKAI' press cutting from the same panel. With that in mind, I was pretty conscious to give the artist some freedom, simply as to be so specific over every aspect of the art would've been a drag! TOO conscious, tho, right..? I had it clearly in my mind, although I didn't make thumbnails, but the artist is still the artist, so I was just careful to give 'em some leeway, as long as the other crucial bits are in there. But yeah, I see how this comes off as indecisive, so I'll work on that.(You’re related to Calvin Camp, aren’t you? First, you need to make up your mind as to what you want. You gave the artist four different things they could show on the screen, with variations[!], and then you got technical with a can of beer—a can of beer that’s not even the focus of the panel. That, Luke, is a terrible, terrible, terrible thing to do. I hear a lot of people complain about Stephen King, how he can go on and on describing a leaf, a leaf that’s neither important to the story nor to the scene its in. Sure, the can of beer may be important, which is why its in the panel, but if you’re going to go through the trouble of such a thorough description, at least let it be a focal point. That one panel description almost took up a full page, simply because you couldn’t make up your mind. If you don’t know what you see, how is the artist supposed to tell?)
The second big thing:
I didn't do the thumbnails, but did have it in my head - I think a big part of this problem was I used continuity in the panel descriptions, if you see what I mean: I didn't state specifically for each one how the figures and so on would appear, but described it with stuff like 'walking away slowly' as how it would look compared with the previous panel. I think i just wasn't specific enough there. For example this bit:The second biggest fault with this script is that you do not know what can and cannot be drawn. You routinely ask for things that either aren’t going to fit, or don’t make sense. Routinely. Part of it seems like you’re writing for film. I can see some of the things you ask for working in film, but comics aren’t film. When you get something in shadow, that shadow is black, especially for your setting, which is badly lit to begin with. Know the limits of a still image.Cause he's still got the shotgun in his other hand - the panels before and after that one have him holding it, so he'd have to be typing one-handed. I just should've been clearer then, so I'll work on the panel descriptions.if we’re now even closer to the text, how are we going to know anything about your unnamed figure typing single-handedly?
On the dialogue, yeah I see what you mean there. It's been a while since I really worked on this, which was probably a good thing as I can look at in a new light, and the dialogue is a little plain... One thing tho is that I was trying not to include too many clear Americanisms or British phrasing in Cihanovs' speech, since he is Russian, while Tarasov has a couple English ones cause he's more widely read, hence the 'misnomer' line, so the language they both use shows a distinction between them. But Cihanovs' was probably too flat, so I try and sort that. Plus on the cryptic stuff, well it was to be made clearer further on in the script - not a cop-out there, it really was - but four pages isn't much. I did send another copy of this after the email with more pages of work done on it since the first one I sent ages ago, didn't I?
But anyway, I will iron out the other dialogue, and hopefully it will work when there's more of the script fleshed out. The hints are leading somewhere, which leads to the next bit:
Well there's something, anyway! Glad tho, cause that's it, I was leading it somewhere eventually.Now, for all of your decision-less storytelling, I was able to cull something of interest out of these four pages, which is also a great thing. Once I determined to pay little to no attention to your panel descriptions and just have a generic setting of a dark, decrepit warehouse with lots of shadows and a guy tied to a chair, I was able to start seeing something interesting in the story you were trying to tell.
Thanks to everyone for reading, and for the feedback, I will definitely take it on board.
Are there any other thoughts?
Part of the problem is that you're asking for so many little details in the first panel, that it will have to dominate the page. Which means that the following panels will be fairly small. That's going to make it difficult to keep the type on the screen visible and show anything else. I'll allow that you might be able to get a hint of Tarasov visible in the panel before this one (maybe enough to get the edge of his face and a hand), and still keep the type on the screen legible. Maybe. But if you zoom in at all from that, you're going to loose him.
That's why Steven is giving you crap on these panels. And, much as I'm willing to call bullshit when I think he's out in left field (which really isn't very often, comparatively speaking)... when the man's right, he's right. And this time he's right.
Last edited by CalvinCamp; Monday, July 20, 2009 at 02:46 AM.
Sure, point taken, I'm not arguing I'm just being precise on what I meant.
But where's my post gone, it's just disappeared from this thread..?
"Living Robert Venditti's Plan B!"
There are times when I think reading is pretty hard for people. Are my forum rules that difficult to understand? Are my hints when I delete a post that cryptic?
Thanks for lending a hand, Seb. Now, let's see if he listens.
But I should've read them again before posting, you're right - I haven't been on here in a long time, so sorry, my honest mistake. I can read, though, very well.
I won't go over it all again, so nothing else really to say but thanks a lot for the critique, I will take it on board, and cheers to everyone for their time.
Luke, in here, I'm trying to give an approximation of how you're going to be treated "out there," but in a safe environment. "Out there," you don't get many breaks. Here, my rules are simple. You're not the only one who's had posts deleted.
I have to go get my geek on, and get fitted for my Scarlet Spider costume. I'll respond to your initial post when I get back.
I think this needs to be rewritten from the ground up. Made into an actual script, instead of what Were-Lock correctly called it, a bunch of suggestions. Most of the scripts on this very site are adequate to use as reference for that, or you can search on the web for professional scripts to pore over. If you do that, stay away from Bendis, Moore, Gaiman, Morrison, and Ellis. That's muy advanced scripting that you're nowhere near ready for yet. You have to learn some rules before you can try to break them.