Bprd: 1948

[Middenway]

I think that after Russia which if it's five issues should end in January with #5 then we may get a BPRD: 1948 although we don't know how fast Tyler Crook is so it may just continue with the next Hell on Earth miniseries.
Another possibility is that the Lobster Johnson series is used to bridge any gaps as that is said to be released around the same time, early 2012.

If there is any gap at all, I'm pretty sure it'll be filled by 1948, but Scott Allie's already we can expect multiple BPRD titles in a single month. I suspect next year is going to be utterly packed to bursting with BPRD stories, so I doubt Lobster Johnson (starts in January, woo!) will be filling any gaps.

[Middenway]

We haven't heard anything about this project for a while, but according to this article it's still happening.

[brentmcd]

...it's still happening.

That is great news! I loved 1946 and 1947 and look forward to reading more about the continued adventures of Simon, Prof. Broom and, of course, baby Hellboy.

Has there been any more talk about who would draw 1948? It would be great to see a return of Ba/Moon.

[Middenway]

Has there been any more talk about who would draw 1948? It would be great to see a return of Ba/Moon.

Indeed, but sadly there's been no mention at all about the creative team other than that John Arcudi would be writing it. But there's a lot of artists working on the Mignolaverse lately that I'd love to see tackle it. Ba and Moon are at the top of that list.

[Middenway]

With everything going on with BPRD Hell on Earth this year, I wouldn't be surprised to see this story get bumped back to 2013. I hope not though.

[Skinkie]

It depends, I think one of the reasons they said they have Arcudi writing it so he can put his stamp on that era of the BPRD, and that may be because they want it to somehow tie up with the Hell on Earth stuff. Just set some seeds for the current era into the past. If that's the case they may still get it out this year, if it becomes essential background material.

[Kelly Tindall]

I'd be thrilled if they knit 1948 into the current BPRD book, the way that the excellent double-page spread of Johann's in The Dead was so influential to the batch of mini-series that followed it. That'd be marvelous.

I want to see that vampire-haunted agent again (Simon?), I rather liked him.

[Kees_L]

It depends, I think one of the reasons they said they have Arcudi writing it so he can put his stamp on that era of the BPRD, and that may be because they want it to somehow tie up with the Hell on Earth stuff. Just set some seeds for the current era into the past. If that's the case they may still get it out this year, if it becomes essential background material.

Good point, Skink.

I'd welcome it. I've always liked the realistically 'unchronologicalness' of either Hellboy or the BPRD - with all the nifty cross-referencing, variating dates or timelines and asterisk captions which actually appear as having a function. How in reality any past or bits contemporary or not might turn to prove cross-referencible sooner or later, to any possible capacity. Because fun and inspired writing just reads better than any suffocatingly strict or chronologicalized writing. Being playful and fun beats mere chronology or fittingness I'd think.

And to be honest I've always considered the format of one year fitted into its own mini as potentially posing a downside. Because it seems rather confining* contextually, plus it might invoke any new reader/buyer into preferring regular ongoing titles over the 194.. ones, as if they would be to suit them better at least at first because of their being new readers - which isn't necessarily gonna be the case at all, since every mini or book within the 'Mignolaverse' will be reading fine on its own, even in any possible order.
Because the enjoyment of reading will stem from making the connections as a reader yourself, as how you would, so content chronology (or reading order) isn't necessarily very vital for having reading be proving fun, I'd think.

* Confining in the sense that for a title "BPRD 1946", it's almost illogical to not be following with "1947", "1948", "1949" andsoforth - when its completely likely that sooner or later the format will need to get abandoned open-endedly, or uncomfortable overlapping into all-too-immediate contemporarity would become an issue.
It's completely understandable how these books got started, but my guess is that sooner or later they would need to stop. Which is basically why I would much like to see the past getting mixed if not muddled into ongoing continuity - just better that way it seems to me, way better.

[Middenway]

It depends, I think one of the reasons they said they have Arcudi writing it so he can put his stamp on that era of the BPRD, and that may be because they want it to somehow tie up with the Hell on Earth stuff. Just set some seeds for the current era into the past. If that's the case they may still get it out this year, if it becomes essential background material.

Yeah, that's part of the reason I was expecting it to pop up sooner rather than later. After the events of The Abyssal Plain and then the BPRD going to Russia, it seemed everything was falling into place.

I'd be thrilled if they knit 1948 into the current BPRD book, the way that the excellent double-page spread of Johann's in The Dead was so influential to the batch of mini-series that followed it. That'd be marvelous.

I want to see that vampire-haunted agent again (Simon?), I rather liked him.

I'm certain they'll knit everything together. These older stories always have links to the contemporary counterparts.

I'm actually really interested in 1948 just for the characters. I love Simon and I want to see how he's handling his condition. I liked Margaret, although I 'd love to see her in an expanded role, transitioning from secretary to agent. But it's Jacob, the sceptic, that I'm really interested in. How has a year of personally witnessing the weird affected him? And after working with Simon for a year, does he now believe what has happened to him?

Not to mention, I just want to see a story with Bruttenholm out in the field again, not stuck behind a desk.

And to be honest I've always considered the format of one year fitted into its own mini as potentially posing a downside. Because it seems rather confining* contextually, plus it might invoke any new reader/buyer into preferring regular ongoing titles over the 194.. ones, as if they would be to suit them better at least at first because of their being new readers - which isn't necessarily gonna be the case at all, since every mini or book within the 'Mignolaverse' will be reading fine on its own, even in any possible order.
Because the enjoyment of reading will stem from making the connections as a reader yourself, as how you would, so content chronology (or reading order) isn't necessarily very vital for having reading be proving fun, I'd think.

* Confining in the sense that for a title "BPRD 1946", it's almost illogical to not be following with "1947", "1948", "1949" andsoforth - when its completely likely that sooner or later the format will need to get abandoned open-endedly, or uncomfortable overlapping into all-too-immediate contemporarity would become an issue.
It's completely understandable how these books got started, but my guess is that sooner or later they would need to stop. Which is basically why I would much like to see the past getting mixed if not muddled into ongoing continuity - just better that way it seems to me, way better.

Yes, I agree. It locks this era into a certain format, a full trade for each year. The titles were a good way to set these stories apart from the regular BPRD series, but I think it would've been nice to have some elbow room to slow things down or speed them up as needed, to do short stories, one-shots and short minis or multiple long minis set in a single year.

I'd really like to see a shorter story about Jacob with some new recruits to show how much he's changed. Or a story that shows Bruttenholm thinking about how to deal with Simon's condition, preparing for the worst. Can you imagine Bruttenholm having to give Jacob a gun and basically tell him it's his job to shoot Simon if things start to go wrong? It'd almost echo the BPRD putting the bomb in Roger, although in this case, shooting Simon would also be saving him.

OK, I've thought about this waaaaay too much. 1947 really clicked for me, and I'm sad to see this series sink into the background.

[Artie Ness]

From an "Interview: Paul Azaceta on Daredevil, Monkey Art and ‘B.P.R.D: 1946′ by Van Jensen on April 30th, 2008" I read (Paul Azaceta): "I keep reminding Scott Allie and Mignola that I want to do more, so hopefully they’ll bring me back. The professor Bruttenholm story doesn’t end with 1946, and if all goes well, Josh and I will have plenty of more stories to work on in the Hellboy universe. Getting to work in the B.P.R.D. world is amazing and it’s at the top of my list to get back there."

I wonder what happened, his art was really dark and gritty... I just re-read both 1946 and -47, they are indeed both great. 1946 is a fantastic starting point for an awesome Hellboy prequel movie. And Varvara is such a fascinating character. I love the dialogue "Varvara? You're here, aren't you?" "Da, I am here." "Always, I suppose." at the professor's office. It's a great plot line to see this little girl who is in fact a demon that can be summoned at any time by the same man that raises a demon boy as his own son. What a twist on a guardian angel. I wonder what happened to "her". Who knows, maybe she'll be in Hell to welcome Hellboy.

(And speaking about parenthood, somebody I had not considered Hellboy to meet would be certain demon who was Lord over the witches of Lancashire, Abbotsbury, East Bromwhich, Faversham and Berkswell. And I wonder why the witches in the Sabbath speak of him as if he wasn't around anymore for the task. Pointless to do guess work about Hellboy in Hell anyway.)

There's so much great stuff happening now that I wouldn't dare complaining but I really do hope they do at least 1948. And I'd love to see Azaceta back too. Art from Bá and Moon is way beyond decent but reading 1946 and 1947 in the same evening feels like zapping from The Horror Channel to The Cartoon Network. Hm. Ok maybe I exaggerate. It's more like watching the first Harry Potter movie right after the last one.

[Middenway]

Paul Azaceta's artwork was an interesting fit for 1946, but I'm not enthusiastic to bring him back. I thought his page composition was weak. If I look at a scene where three or more characters are talking, then remove the dialogue, I find it difficult to tell with whom each character is talking.

Often his establishing shots set up a character on the left and another on the right, but then crosses the 180 degree line after that so that the eyelines are all muddled. This is even worse in action scenes. Individual panels are fine, but his page layouts are very hit and miss.

Comics are as much about what happens in between panels as what happens in them, and it is these in between moments that I find very lacking in Paul Azaceta's work. Constrast his page layouts to Guy Davis and you'll see what I mean. (Guy Davis, by the way, is one of the few artists I know that can seamlessly cross the 180 degree line without the reader even noticing. A true magician at work)

So, I'm not eager to see Azaceta's work again, not until he steps up his game in this regard. It's not his style that I mind, it's his storytelling. When I read 1946, I can see how hard Dave Stewart* had to work to maintain the clarity of the story, but his colours can only do so much.

I understand people responding to the realism and grit Azaceta brought to the story though. I just need more than that. Sorry to be so downbeat. I don't mean to be so harsh on the guy, but I think the Mignolaverse has so many artists I'd rather see on 1948. I want to see the series bow out on a high note.

*Turns out Paul Azaceta's regular colourist Nick Filardi coloured 1946, not Dave Stewart.

[Artie Ness]

(...) but then crosses the 180 degree line after that so that the eyelines are all muddled.

If you'd know how bored I am of having to discuss the axis rule with my DOP's... sigh. It's so tiresome to confront the American audiovisual mainstream orthodoxy all over Europe... rules are made to be broken!

Not to say you don't have a point about the composition, he does not seems to adhere to Will Eisner's "super panel as a page". But for me the way his art worked with the color of D. S. and matched the story totally compensated the otherwise somewhat sloppy framing... too many close-ups of talking heads and mostly frontal, but after a while you adapt the same way you adapt to the different language of a Svankmajer film.

By comparison I had the opposite effect in 1947... the story-telling of the "Wonder twins" is superbly clear, even a child could follow indeed... but I was constantly disturbed about their cartoony graphical style, especially in the parts inked by pen and not pencil. I was even disturbed by the color at times and I always love Stewart's work.

I don't mean to be so harsh on the guy, but I think the Mignolaverse has so many artists I'd rather see on 1948. I want to see the series bow out on a high note.

Oh well, there's that indeed. In the Mignolaverse and beyond. Why not having Tiziano Sclavi (Dylan Dog)? Mignola did the covers for the Dark Horse American edition so we can assume he's more than familiar with his story-telling... Or, well, since we were comparing him to Guy Davis why not Duncan Fegredo? That really would be awesome (and this is not sarcasm!).

We can always hope for the highest of notes for 1948 indeed but if it does get drawn at last I still would be more than happy to settle for Azaceta. Or read it inversely, I much rather have a 1948 by Azaceta than none. Or at least, let him do the inking job, please.

[Kelly Tindall]

Paul Azaceta's artwork was an interesting fit for 1946, but I can see why he hasn't been brought back. His page composition was weak.

I find the tone of your message to be condescending nearly to the point of rudeness.

From what I know, Azaceta wasn't brought back because he was unavailable; at the time he was working at Marvel on the 'resurrection of Kraven the Hunter' storyline in Amazing Spider-Man.

So, somebody out there must think he's good at what he does.

[Middenway]

If you'd know how bored I am of having to discuss the axis rule with my DOP's... sigh. It's so tiresome to confront the American audiovisual mainstream orthodoxy all over Europe... rules are made to be broken!

Agreed! But the rules exist for a reason too. Basically the 180 degree is broken by those that struggle with composition, or those that are its utter master (like Guy Davis). Rules are made to be broken by genius.

Too many close-ups of talking heads and mostly frontal, but after a while you adapt the same way you adapt to the different language of a Svankmajer film.

Yeah, that's very much a personal taste thing. I know why he did it (especially going into the asylum); it generatres an atmosphere of claustrophobia, but it did confuse the eyelines for me.

By comparison I had the opposite effect in 1947... the story-telling of the "Wonder twins" is superbly clear, even a child could follow indeed... but I was constantly disturbed about their cartoony graphical style, especially in the parts inked by pen and not pencil. I was even disturbed by the color at times and I always love Stewart's work.

I didn't find the cartoony style too jarring (though it was a little), but I definitely prefered Fábio Moon's work over Gabriel Bá's. But that's just a style thing, I can't fault the artist at all.

We can always hope for the highest of notes for 1948 indeed but if it does get drawn at last I still would be more than happy to settle for Azaceta. Or read it inversely, I much rather have a 1948 by Azaceta than none. Or at least, let him do the inking job, please.

I'd still be happy to have him back. It's been several years and I haven't seen any of his work since. He could blow me out of the water.

I find the tone of your message to be condescending nearly to the point of rudeness.

Sorry about that. It wasn't meant to be rude. I was just trying to explain why I was less than enthusiastic about an artist without simply saying, "Well, I don't like that guy." I myself suck at composition. I can't string two panels together and storyboarding is an utter chore, but I am in awe of the people that are its master. It's one of the key things I look for in an artist. It's the element that won me over when Guy Davis came on board BPRD. I used to think he was so wrong for it, and then somewhere in the middle of Plague of Frogs my jaw hit the floor. Now he's my favourite living artist.

From what I know, Azaceta wasn't brought back because he was unavailable; at the time he was working at Marvel on the 'resurrection of Kraven the Hunter' storyline in Amazing Spider-Man.

So, somebody out there must think he's good at what he does.

That was poor form on my part. "Paul Azaceta's artwork was an interesting fit for 1946, but I can see why he hasn't been brought back" I should not have worded it like that. It comes off rather presumptuous. I am sorry about that. Though if you hadn't told me that information, I would still suspect that was why he wasn't hired again; I was really uncomfortable with his page composition to the point that I was having trouble engaging with his work. If it worked for someone else, that's fine. I could just be that guy that doesn't get it. It happens sometimes.

So, sorry for the rudeness. It was mainly due to thoughtlessness.

However, I don't believe there's anything condescending about a frank and reasoned conversation about an artist's strengths and weaknesses. I personally find it very interesting to have these more detailed discussions rather than simply saying "I like her" or "I don't like him". What would be condescending is if I had said what I said above and then added, "So obviously, for all the reasons I stated above, if you like Paul Azaceta you are wrong". No, it's only my opinion and nothing more. I may not like his composition, but he is clearly a talented artist. What I perceive as a weakness just got in the way of my enjoyment of his work, that's all.

My opening sentence was very poorly chosen. Again, sorry.

I've edited the first paragraph of that post so hopefully it's no longer as tactless as it was.

[Artie Ness]

Rules are made to be broken by genius.

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!

I don't believe there's anything condescending about a frank and reasoned conversation about an artist's strengths and weaknesses. I personally find it very interesting to have these more detailed discussions rather than simply saying "I like her" or "I don't like him".

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.

I love reading these posts, although I don't post much (and I do hope I'm not going to stir polemic out of every thread reply!), and I love to feel part of this community.

Cheers