Story and Cover Layout Sketches

[Rob Klein]

Regarding Simo Malinen's comment from List Nr. 497 over writers' and cover
idea persons' layout sketches:

Simo is correct.  There is a wide range in how much effort and change is
required for the "finishing artist" or "final penciler" and inker to bring
the layout sketch to a "printing ready" state.  The condition of the story
or cover idea submitted depends mainly upon the ability of the writer/idea
person's drawing ability and the particular rules of the Disney Comics
franchisee.

For example:  Egmont receives MOST of its story scripts as typed text only
pages (no drawings).  However, they also receive a substantial number of
scripts drawn into layout sketches, based on their judgement as to the
acceptability of the drawings of a "writer" who wishes to submit sketched
layouts.  (at least this was the case up to 1995 when I stopped working for
Egmont).  Perhaps David G. can fill us in on their "official" policy.  I am
sure that over and above the writer/artists such as Van Horn, Rosa, Rota
and others, there are a substantial number of credited "writers" at Egmont
that submit layout drawings.  I know that Frank Jonker, a regular writer
for VNU (Dutch Disney), sold (so far) 3 Pocket book stories to Egmont,
which were submitted as sketches.  I suspect he had to send a 2-3 page
text-only summary of the stories, which is generally required first.  I
never did that - submitting only drawings (to the ire of my editor).  
Perhaps that is why they fired me!   8- 

VNU (Dutch Disney) has a different policy.  They encourage all REGULAR
script writers to draw layout sketches so the finishing artists will have
the best chance to correctly interpret what the "author" had in mind, and
maintain the creative spirit that originally inspired the idea for the
story.  I do not believe that Frans Haaselaar would REJECT an excellent
story that was submitted in text only.  Both he and Thom Roep told me many
times that unusually good work would NEVER be turned away - even if they
had a large backlog of stories and covers scheduled to cover a long period
into the future.  They have most of their production requirements covered
by their "regular" "writers", and it would be difficult to become a regular
"writer" if you submitted text-only scripts or your drawings were of such
poor quality as to not be able to convey what you had in mind to the final
penciler.  From what I have seen, Jan Kruse, Evard Geradts and Frank Jonker
draw layouts with good placement, staging, interesting and proper
perspectives and adequate portrayal of action.  I will only comment on my
own, saying that they all have been accepted.  

An indication of the quality of the layout sketches of "writers" and cover
idea/layout persons is generally how much changing the finishing artist has
to make to the sketch.  If the inking has been done virtually over your
sketch lines, you know you've done a good job.  The work of the finishing
artist can vary anywhere from directly inking over the same lines on a
cover sketch, to restaging EVERY panel of a story.  However, if they have
to continuously restage every panel of your stories for more than a few
times, I am sure they would ask you to stop submitting stories as sketches,
or stop submitting altogether (some firms).

There are certain finishing artists who want to put their own identity very
much into stories they work on.  They may change a writer's staging even
though the original sketch was very proper for the situation.  I much
admire Daniel Branca's work.  I would trust him to make ANY amount of
changes to improve my panel staging.  I also feel that Vicar's staging is
adequate.  I think Santanach's staging and overall drawing is of much
poorer quality.  Yet, Santanach changed the staging in many more panels of
my stories than did either Branca or Vicar.  So, the individual story
vision of the finishing artist comes into play.  However, for the most
part, it is generally true that if the final penciler can change the pose
or staging, he(or she) will do so.  It is true that sometimes, when a
studio is behind schedule, the quality of changes made to the sketches will
be degraded.  In such a situation, the penciler may use the staging of the
writer's original layout when it would be better to change it.  But this is
probably not the norm.  The studios have a standard to maintain. 
They must keep a minimum level of quality high enough to satisfy their
clients, and yet, maintain profitability.  In general, if the layout
sketches that arrive to the final penciler are adequate, the penciler will
stick as close to those lines as his conscience will let him.  No one wants
to be known for poor quality work.  The field is much too competitive now.

Some interesting insight into this situation is provided by the case of
Carl Barks' Junior Woodchucks and Donald Duck scripts which he drew in
light blue pencil sketches, but never inked.  Tony Strobl drew pencils
"over them" between 1969 and 1973.  He commented that this was the easist
work he ever got, (my paraphrasing as I can't remember the actual quote): 
"The lines were already there!  All I had to do was go over them!"  That is
very ironic, for Tony simplified very much the staging, and tightened up
Barks' nice fluid, action lines into extreme stiffness.  Daan Jippes, on
the other hand, in his 1990s to current re-drawing of these stories, has
stuck almost perfectly to Barks' intended lines.

As I am not familiar with Italian, French, Brasilian, or any of the other
Disney Office or Franchises in other countries, I look forward to comments
from other list members with information on them.  - Rob Klein