Bprd: 1948

[Middenway]

Sure, or maybe also by people trying a new approach... and by "outsiders" coming from other "neighbour disciplines" and just doing what feels right to them in oblivion of the right and wrongs of an existing language, genre or style. Many who just followed their guts and ignored convention were later seen as genius just out of doing that: follow their guts. And sometimes, or often, failing too in the process!

Very true. That's often the crucible where genius is born.

I was rather intrigued about your statement and thought your point of view quite interesting... I had been also fearful that my earlier zapping or Harry Potter analogy could also offend somebody and was relieved to see your answer was frank and unaffected. But we all attach esteem to art and artists we love and it can be difficult not to emotionally identify a criticism to an artist with your own sense of taste, therefore, identity, therefore yourself, and hence, to feel offended (I hope my English still makes sense here).

It's nice to see how everybody tries to be considerate to everyone's feelings while exchanging frank and thought-provoking observations and evaluations on these works we all love so dearly. And it's nice to see when someone feels offended he will say it too with equal amount of frankness and consideration.

Thanks for that. It's appreciated. A big problem with the net is that comments without a face can come off harsher than intended. And it's good that Kelly called me on that too. I really wasn't seeing how what I had written could come off. Glad you could give me the benefit of doubt.

[Kees_L]

Great responses all around, guys.

Any of the personally flavored opinions (kept civil or either just personal) on reading experiences good or bad, seems way good to read to me.

What I'm personally feeling really glad about for the BPRD, is that artists or teams can take on and be making use of their own styles profoundly.

I'm guessing a side-effect of having varying people will be that differences in pacing or tone might need some adapting at first, but I feel such not a problem, such weighs up, especially if overall the creative talents will have had a blast making it all.
Diversity grants just a wealth of goodness and a higher number of books obviously - which makes it all the more wonderful if generally the quality is as blisteringly high as the BPRD / Mignolaverse.

And because of the inspiredness and immense strikingness and wealth of cool I had no problem with adapting to either Azaceta or the Bah/Moon fellers or JS Alexander, or any of the fortunate talents of the BPRD.

What I loved seeing from Azaceta would be the intricate cinematographicalness and chairoscuros and for me BPRD: 1946 succeeded tremendously, as did BPRD: 1947 - for the beautiful playful weirdness of almost fairy-tale settings to the much gruesome and gravely dark happenings near a picturesque French lake.
I guess I can say BPRD stuff just keeps on enticing me over and over again .

[Scott Allie]

The 180 degree rule doesn't apply to comics, and Dave Stewart didn't color 1946. The 180 degree rule is a film thing, and comics work really different from film. Nick Filardi was Paul Azaceta's choice to color him on 1946, and while we love Dave, we sometimes defer to a preexisting relationship between a colorist and an artist. Paul Azaceta is a great cartoonist, I don't know anything about him being an outsider to comics, since he works in it full time and seems totally devoted to it as an artform. We didn't bring him back for 1947 because we had a very specific idea about one artist working in two distinct styles, or, as it turned out, two artists working in two complementary styles, that Paul wasn't quite right for.

[Middenway]

Nick Filardi was Paul Azaceta's choice to color him on 1946, and while we love Dave, we sometimes defer to a preexisting relationship between a colorist and an artist.

I gotta say, I'm impressed by Nick Filardi then. His colours feel like the Hellboy universe. He did a great job.

[Artie Ness]

Paul Azaceta is a great cartoonist, I don't know anything about him being an outsider to comics, since he works in it full time and seems totally devoted to it as an artform.

I stand corrected and edited back my previous post! I attributed the presentation from the journalist "Though still a relative newcomer to the comics scene..." to Azaceta himself. That was three years ago anyway and the journalist finished the sentence with "...Azaceta has churned out an impressive amount of books in the past few years." but somehow since a large part of the interview dealt on how did he get involved into drawing this or that series I ended up with a wrong idea of the artist. Whose work I love anyway, I think that much was clear

The axis rule is taught in Universities with courses in comic books as part of the language of comics. Rather as a resource than a rule though. Meaning I totally agree with saying the rule doesn't "apply" to comics... as a "rule". It doesn't really have to apply to cinema anyway in my humble opinion. But anyway, teachers did lecture me about it in two different universities from two different European countries (as teachers in film school would, years later). They used to make also a big deal about Winsor McCay and how he would have created much of the audiovisual language and perspectives that would later be adopted as shot angles in film... and viceversa.

[Middenway]

The axis rule is taught in Universities with courses in comic books as part of the language of comics. Rather as a resource than a rule though. Meaning I totally agree with saying the rule doesn't "apply" to comics... as a "rule". It doesn't really have to apply to cinema anyway in my humble opinion. But anyway, teachers did lecture me about it in two different universities from two different European countries (as teachers in film school would, years later). They used to make also a big deal about Winsor McCay and how he would have created much of the audiovisual language and perspectives that would later be adopted as shot angles in film... and viceversa.

"Rule" is a funny term for it. It's a guide at best. It's like training wheels, helpful to know while you're learning, but eventually you'll outgrow it. I think in conversation sequences with more than two people it's helpful to be mindful of it (even if you don't necessarily stick to it) just to maintain the clarity of eyelines. Some people have really good instincts for this stuff and don't need to consciously think about it though.

But if you're relying only on the dialogue to tell who each character is talking to, I see that as a weakness. I like it to be able to read it in just the pictures. (I'm speaking very generally here. Already I can think of strong sequences where this isn't true, though these were pushing a particular mood motivated by the story.)

I remember reading a comic which had an action scene, and in it the 180 degree rule was frequently broken, but it was broken because it worked better to ignore it. It meant the action was always relentlessly moving from left to right, giving the whole sequence this sense of inevitabilitiy. I later found out the artist had originally drawn it sticking strictly to the 180 degree rule and changed it afterwards when he realised it wasn't working.

So yeah, it's definitely just a guide in my opinion.

[Kees_L]

The 180 degree rule doesn't apply to comics,

The axis rule is taught in Universities with courses in comic books as part of the language of comics. Rather as a resource than a rule though.

I remember reading a comic which had an action scene, and in it the 180 degree rule was frequently broken, but it was broken because it worked better to ignore it. It meant the action was always relentlessly moving from left to right, giving the whole sequence this sense of inevitabilitiy. I later found out the artist had originally drawn it sticking strictly to the 180 degree rule and changed it afterwards when he realised it wasn't working.

So yeah, it's definitely just a guide in my opinion.

Yeah, I think if "the axis rule thing" basically means accurate camera-shooting continuity (like people sitting at a rectangular set dinner table should never switch seats seemingly for any separate takes when the idea would have to be that they wouldn't) then it would be strictly a film thing, because obviously comics or bandes dessinees don't need to be sticking to camera shots accurately - but more rather they need to outdo mere compositional accuracy where the pages or panels would be demanding it.

That's where comic panels may come to work differently than film or storyboards and I would think that often enough they do. Accuracy or realisticalness will be fine basically, but it needn't be the only thing that comic art would need, as any art could be excelling even beyond such.

So for film breaking any axis or setting rules might be sloppy, but for comics not so much, or even far from it.
Since comic art can bend most any rules for even more or more intricate effect, as to be servicing the storytelling, pacing, or panelling.

From memory I'd say Azaceta's BPRD: 1946 looked very broad or sort of horizontally panelled - where pacing could pick up or slow down but I'd be following it all sort of arched from being on the edge of my seat, enthralled and enticed as the cinematographical horrory astuteness would be put right in front of me, in harsh lighting and in all its heavy mood.

To me it seems Azaceta will have been very aware of any of his panels and any of his pacing, with getting it just right - as that would be what he'd do, being a comic artist and all. I really doubt he would ever have thought "oh, whatever" since well, mr Dave - no mr Nick in this case! - or mr Mike would eventually get to be looking at the stuff, as would mr Scott most likely in any event.

And I think that would be thé point here: artists might be seeming to be doing some things differently than how the reader might be dreaming stuff - but any such sentiments will most likely never mean that the artist would have been sloppy or unconcentrated or unaware of the story - as that would be pretty impossible for a title being to put care in such stuff as how the BPRD would: they'd simply redo any parts turning out less than great.
And simply also because it will be far more likely any particular storymaker would be making choices in a way any reader might yet be to become conscious of.

[Middenway]

You guys bring up some interesting points, so I went back to the scenes that bothered me. I found that I still think the directions characters are looking and travelling is unclear without dialogue. The spatial relationships have been sacrificed in favour of tone. Perhaps this is the same reason I prefer a Steven Spielberg* action sequence over a Micahel Bay sequence (An extreme example. Azaceta's work is far clearer than Bay's).

What I was surprised to discover was that it was less about the 180 rule than I thought (though there are still a handful of frames I'd flip for clarity). Curiously, it's the choice to show things front on when there is movement going on in the frame. For example, you'll have a character running towards the "camera" with what he's running away from in the background behind him. So visually, while the reader knows what the character is running away from, the reader doesn't know if he's running away out of his present location, or deeper into it. You can figure it out with the dialogue, but without it, that information is simply not in the images.

And maybe that was the effect Azaceta was going for. But for me, it was a bit too disorientating. (I should point out, I didn't have the same problem reading Bishop Olek's Devil.)

*Or Brad Bird. I saw Mission: Impossible 4 last night and he has an excellent handle on how to shoot actions scenes for clarity not just wow-factor. But if you're seen The Incredibles you already knew that.

[Kees_L]

Well, maybe the story and themes getting tackled within BPRD: 1946 are not so much centered around a single setting, but more rather lots of different angles and scenery coming together?

I mean the main setting seems to be a small horror tale around a farmyard with a sad apparition shacking up some barn, but then all of the bigger perspective have to get placed among it as well, of 1946 Berlin, with allied troops still residing, leading to one Prof Buttenholm coming over, being to be in the midst of starting up the BPRD, in relation to one secret kid chasing chickens at home, in relation to a sweet little girl reeking of Wodka and dog-drool strangely, etcetera.

If you take into account what the narrative would actually be made of, then all the multiple scenic type of panelling might not appear as weird maybe?
I know I myself had no bother reading the BPRD: 1946 with loving every bit about it, especially the cinematographic layeredness - I thought it very powerful and very astute - among BPRD's finest easily.

Maybe I found it even more easy or more enticing to read than some of the more superhero-team ongoing sort of BPRD-stuff. I like it when things become difficult and brooding, like BPRD:1946 or Abe Sapien: the Drowning, instead of superhero teams working swift and smoothly together.
Like 'no running in the halls' for me, only tip-toe with the heart beating up-throat... Must be I'm getting old I'm afraid.

[Artie Ness]

...reading the BPRD: 1946 with loving every bit about it, especially the cinematographic layeredness - I thought it very powerful and very astute - among BPRD's finest easily.

Indeed, when re-reading it last time I was like, wow, I'd love to direct THIS movie

[Middenway]

That new interview with Scott Allie on Mignolaversity makes it almost certain that Fábio Moon and Gabriel Bá will be back for 1948. (It's not stated directly, but since the only B.P.R.D. story on the schedule set in the past is B.P.R.D.: 1948 and Moon and Bá are currently working on a B.P.R.D. story set in the past, what else could it be? Thanks to Skinkie for pointing this out)

[thwhtGuardian]

That new interview with Scott Allie on Mignolaversity makes it almost certain that Fábio Moon and Gabriel Bá will be back for 1948. (It's not stated directly, but since the only B.P.R.D. story on the schedule set in the past is B.P.R.D.: 1948 and Moon and Bá are currently working on a B.P.R.D. story set in the past, what else could it be? Thanks to Skinkie for pointing this out)

Sweet, I loved their style!

[Thomas Uk]

That new interview with Scott Allie on Mignolaversity makes it almost certain that Fábio Moon and Gabriel Bá will be back for 1948. (It's not stated directly, but since the only B.P.R.D. story on the schedule set in the past is B.P.R.D.: 1948 and Moon and Bá are currently working on a B.P.R.D. story set in the past, what else could it be? Thanks to Skinkie for pointing this out)

Very excited about this! With the vampire threat on a bit of a back-burner after 1947 what do you think we'll be seeing in this series? I'd like to see a continuation of the 'What to do with Hellboy' sub-theme, in 1947 there were some passing references to Malcolm Frost, I'd like to see more of his character and his quest to get Hellboy destroyed. Simon Anders has become the real star of the 40's series for me though, hope he carries on being a central focus!

[Middenway]

Fábio Moon shares a young Hellboy sketch:

[thwhtGuardian]

Ha amazing! Little Hellboy is always fun. Unrelated but I loved the little Hellboy stories in the Hellboy Animated books, those are easily some of my favorite Hellboy stories of all time.