Pat Mills

[Magnetica]

Something caught my eye in TPO last night. Apparently Pat Mills said (back in 2004) that he thought only the original writers and artists should work on a character / series. Now as I wrote earlier I agree wrt to the writer but I don't quite understand the logic on the artist. It is not practical for the same artist to draw every episode and indeed different artists can breath new life into strips.

Indeed we have seen many different artists over the years on Mills' own strips giving them a fresh take:

Talbot, Hickleton and others on Nemesis
Fabry, McMahon, Bisley, Langley, Davis on Slaine
MacNeil on Defoe

And loads of other examples on Savage, Flesh etc

And yes I know Pat is on record as saying the multiple different artists on ABC Warriors first series is what prompted him to not carry on with it for years. But after that there have been fresh takes by Bisley, Flint, Langley etc.

[Jim_Campbell]

Now as I wrote earlier I agree wrt to the writer but I don't quite understand the logic on the artist. It is not practical for the same artist to draw every episode and indeed different artists can breath new life into strips.

Why is the artist regarded as of lesser importance than the writer? Why is a new artist's interpretation of a series 'breath[ing] new life' but a new writer's is somehow a betrayal of the series' creative vision?

[Magnetica]

The writer is the one* who comes up with the story (and yes I know there are loads of examples where the artists make massive contributions to the direction of a strip) but in a lot of cases it is the writer who comes up with the plot and where the strip will go.

The artist then visualises it.

Anyway the point was there are loads of examples where artist other than the original has drawn Mills' strip, which seems to be at odds with what TPO is quoting him to have said.

* usually I mean. I know Henry Flint came up with Shakara and Zombo (IIRC).

[Steven Denton]

Now as I wrote earlier I agree wrt to the writer but I don't quite understand the logic on the artist. It is not practical for the same artist to draw every episode and indeed different artists can breath new life into strips.

Why is the artist regarded as of lesser importance than the writer? Why is a new artist's interpretation of a series 'breath[ing] new life' but a new writer's is somehow a betrayal of the series' creative vision?

I agree with Jim. If you take a purist approach or a creator owned approach you can't place one original creator above the other.

If Nemesis had been entirely drawn by Kevin O'Neill I don't think I would have liked it any less.

[Steven Denton]

The writer is the one* who comes up with the story (and yes I know there are loads of examples where the artists make massive contributions to the direction of a strip) but in a lot of cases it is the writer who comes up with the plot and where the strip will go.

or Editors, or publishers, or IP holders...

[Magnetica]

Now as I wrote earlier I agree wrt to the writer but I don't quite understand the logic on the artist. It is not practical for the same artist to draw every episode and indeed different artists can breath new life into strips.

Why is the artist regarded as of lesser importance than the writer? Why is a new artist's interpretation of a series 'breath[ing] new life' but a new writer's is somehow a betrayal of the series' creative vision?

I agree with Jim. If you take a purist approach or a creator owned approach you can't place one original creator above the other.

If Nemesis had been entirely drawn by Kevin O'Neill I don't think I would have liked it any less.

Ok...so how long would you be prepared to wait for each series?

The fact is it takes a lot longer for artists to produce a page than it does for a writer.

It took Angie Mills something like 18 months to draw the first episode of Slaine. At that rate if she had drawn every episode we would be up to about Dragon Heist by now 

IMO a series hangs together as a complete thing based on the overall direction set by the writer (and ok yes the editor makes a contribution as well),

Take Nikolai Dante as an example. I view it as a complete story. It would not be if someone other than Robbie Morrison had written it and taken it in a different direction. Having had multiple artists doesn't change that.

And BTW I never said the artist wasn't important. Indeed the phrase "breathing new life into a strip" shows I value the artist.

[Jim_Campbell]

And BTW I never said the artist wasn't important. Indeed the phrase "breathing new life into a strip" shows I value the artist.

Nobody said you did. I said you were (and clearly are) asserting that the artist is less important than the writer.

I have no issue with artists being replaced on strips. By the same token, I have no issue with writers being replaced on strips. Generally speaking, I think that should be by mutual agreement in both cases. If the artist needs deadline assistance, or doesn't want to do it any more, fair enough. By the same token, if a writer doesn't want to do more work on a company-owned character, it's entirely appropriate to assign a new writer.

[Steven Denton]

Now as I wrote earlier I agree wrt to the writer but I don't quite understand the logic on the artist. It is not practical for the same artist to draw every episode and indeed different artists can breath new life into strips.

Why is the artist regarded as of lesser importance than the writer? Why is a new artist's interpretation of a series 'breath[ing] new life' but a new writer's is somehow a betrayal of the series' creative vision?

I agree with Jim. If you take a purist approach or a creator owned approach you can't place one original creator above the other.

If Nemesis had been entirely drawn by Kevin O'Neill I don't think I would have liked it any less.

Ok...so how long would you be prepared to wait for each series?

The fact is it takes a lot longer for artists to produce a page than it does for a writer.

It took Angie Mills something like 18 months to draw the first episode of Slaine. At that rate if she had drawn every episode we would be up to about Dragon Heist by now 

IMO a series hangs together as a complete thing based on the overall direction set by the writer (and ok yes the editor makes a contribution as well),

Take Nikolai Dante as an example. I view it as a complete story. It would not be if someone other than Robbie Morrison had written it and taken it in a different direction. Having had multiple artists doesn't change that.

And BTW I never said the artist wasn't important. Indeed the phrase "breathing new life into a strip" shows I value the artist.

I don't have a problem with the artist or the writer being changed on IP that's corporate owned. I do have a problem with the idea that changing the artist is OK but changing the writer isn't because some how the writer is more creatively important to a strip then the artist. Stan Lee claimed to be sole creator of his characters on the grounds that he came up with them and if the artist that did hadn't drawn them another one would have. I don't agree with Stan Lee.

as for how long I would wait, I would wait as long as it took if that's the creative model being used.

[TordelBack]

Writers and artists are equally important in making comics - it's only letterers that are disposable!  However, IMO a good writer brings plotting, characterisation and direction, which may be more important to the consistency of an ongoing strip than the visualisation, storytelling and atmosphere that an artist generally brings: although the ere are plenty of exceptions.  And writers can outpace artists by ten pages to one, the pressure to use multiple artists is always there.

Variety in visuals is easier to adapt to a to that variability in writing: I'd cite Power's beautifully on-model Dredd on Book of the Dead versus the gibberish of Millar's script, or the shocking waste of Ron Smith on Fleischer's Rogue Trooper: either of those strips can survive and thrive with multiple art styles, but those writers killed them stone dead.  Skizz II is another interesting one.

[sheridan]

Now as I wrote earlier I agree wrt to the writer but I don't quite understand the logic on the artist. It is not practical for the same artist to draw every episode and indeed different artists can breath new life into strips.

Why is the artist regarded as of lesser importance than the writer? Why is a new artist's interpretation of a series 'breath[ing] new life' but a new writer's is somehow a betrayal of the series' creative vision?

I agree with Jim. If you take a purist approach or a creator owned approach you can't place one original creator above the other.

If Nemesis had been entirely drawn by Kevin O'Neill I don't think I would have liked it any less.

Ok...so how long would you be prepared to wait for each series?

The fact is it takes a lot longer for artists to produce a page than it does for a writer.

It took Angie Mills something like 18 months to draw the first episode of Slaine. At that rate if she had drawn every episode we would be up to about Dragon Heist by now 

Quick calculation - at that rate we'd be around the end of The Shoggey Beast!

Oh, and I don't know the exact details, but I suspect it's unlikely that Pat Mills and Angela Kincaid would be working on anything any more (other than being parents).

[sheridan]

Variety in visuals is easier to adapt to a to that variability in writing: I'd cite Power's beautifully on-model Dredd on Book of the Dead versus the gibberish of Millar's script, or the shocking waste of Ron Smith on Fleischer's Rogue Trooper: either of those strips can survive and thrive with multiple art styles, but those writers killed them stone dead.  Skizz II is another interesting one.

For me the prime example are 1990s Dredd stories which were not written by Wagner/Grant but were drawn by King Carlos.  Thankfully Rebellion have managed to find non-Wagner writers who get Dredd in ways that Morrison/Millar/Ennis never did.

[Steven Denton]

It's easier to replace an artist, temporarily or permanently. Sometimes it's practical to replace an artist on an on-going story in a way it may not be as practical to replace a writer. arguably at the moment it even makes good business sense an writers have become the draw. What it isn't is any more creatively valid than replacing a writer. 

[AlexF]

Back in the 70s, when Pat Mills essentially created Battle, Action, 2000AD, Misty and maybe some other new comics, the model was for him, the originator/editor to develop ideas for characters and stories that could, potentially, run for episode after episode for years. And it was always the intention for more than one writer + artist to tackle those jobs, wasn't it?

I understand that this model isn't at all fashionable any more, but I do miss the idea of comics including characters where there can simply be a story of the week/month, one that can be attempted by different creative teams. The Prog has Judge Dredd and Sinister Dexter for that currently, and maybe the occasional Rogue Trooper outing. But everything else is all high-concept, big ongoing serial type adventure (and in fact SinDex has sort of been that for the last few years., perhaps because Abnett would/did get bored of writing one-off comedy stories?)

Of course this does result in the massively mixed-quality of the very early 2000AD progs, that alternated between really good MACH One stroies, and really bad ones, but it's a fun experiment I think.

I'm not sure if 2000AD is actively looking for 'the next Judge Dredd', but if it is, it surely has to be a story/character that can cope with being wirtten and drawn by more than one team of people?

I apoligise in advance if I've completely misread the old-style of British comics making!

[Magnetica]

It's easier to replace an artist, temporarily or permanently. Sometimes it's practical to replace an artist on an on-going story in a way it may not be as practical to replace a writer. arguably at the moment it even makes good business sense an writers have become the draw. What it isn't is any more creatively valid than replacing a writer.

For me it's about having a consistent vision of what the strip is and where it is going long term. That's what I want anyway, rather than either just making it up as you go along or just being a sandbox to play in, allowing different tales to be told but which don't lead to any character development or ongoing plot points.

Surely the long term vision of where the plot and character development comes from is the writer (or the writer in conjunction with a partner or editor).

The artist can change with out that long term vision changing. Yes the artist may influence it ( e.g. some artist are good at drawing certain things or make suggestions - that's why we got dragons in Kingmaker for instance), but surely, in the majority of cases it is the writer who is the main driver of the overall direction.
If you change the writer you will end up somewhere different.

To use an example from another medium, there were a range of different directors for the Harry Potter films, but it was JK Rowling's books they were filming.

You have said you don't mind writers or artists changing on properties the publisher owns, just that changing the writer or artist is equally valid  ( or no more valid depending on the way round). That's your opinion, I just don't agree. If you continually changed both there would be no overall vision ( other than that set by the editor - but in that case I would argue the editor is doing more than editing it; he has become the "show runner" to borrow a TV term.)

But there is also the exception - I can't stand Strontium Dog by any one other than Carlos, Robo Hunter by anyone but Gibson, Ace Trucking by any one but Massimo. But having said that all of those have to be by Wagner and /or Grant for me. ( And Wagner, Grant or Wagner and Grant count as the same author for the point of my argument  )


@ Alex - I might be wrong, but isn't Sinister Dexter always written by Dan Abnett?

[Steven Denton]

I disagree, but I buy 80% of my comics for the art.