Got these bound copies of The Happy Samurais #1 dummy comic last week. It’s the full 80+ page comic with rough lettering—some pages just layouts, some penciled—but the whole thing as a readable comic.

A number of months ago, I wrote about my new layout theory—“Make it a comic as fast as you can”, which helps you follow up on Andrew Stanton’s advice to “Be wrong as fast as you can.” That dummy is the result of trying to apply those principles.

Make it a comic.

Then read it and see if it’s any good.

If you’re going to “make it a comic”, then you need to recreate the experience someone will have reading the comic. And that means a couple things:

One, you’ve got to be able to actually READ it. You need to letter your pages—even if it’s just rough lettering to get the basic dialogue across. Dialogue changes the pacing, rhythm and beats of a scene. There’s no way to know if your story “works” without it in there. Don’t just give them pantomime pages and figure that’s “close enough” to how someone will read/experience it. Your story is words and pictures TOGETHER. Stop thinking like a writer or an artist and start thinking like a storyteller.

Two, you’ve got to setup your dummy comic as spreads (two facing pages) to simulate the reading experience. When someone reads a comic, they’re not seeing one page at a time (well, unless it’s digital, and that’s another topic…). Readers see both facing pages of a spread at the same time. And sometimes they can’t help but kinda skim ahead to what’s on a right-hand page a bit before they start reading the left-hand page. For good or ill, that’s part of the printed comic book experience and you need to consider. Whether something is a left or right hand page is something I take into account at every stage—from script, to layouts, to finished page. When and how you setup and reveal information on pages and page turns is absolutely crucial to telling a compelling, page-turner of a story. Plus, seeing your comic in spreads can also help you avoid any awkward tangents that make you read two separate pages as one continuous spread, or vice versa, a page that is supposed to be a spread with panels, but reads as separate pages, both leading to a confused reader.

This process couldn’t have worked any better for me. I sent my dummy off to my inner circle of creative confidants. They read it and told me what they liked and what could use some work. That feedback helped me shore up the story and figure out why the ending didn’t have the emotional impact I was trying to convey. I made a second dummy book with a reworked ending that is easily five times better than the original version.

No matter how smart you think you are, or how well you think you know your story, you’re ALWAYS going to be too close to see it objectively and that’s why getting objective, honest feedback is so crucial. When do you want to find out your comic doesn’t work? When you did 80 pages of layouts, or 80 pages of pencils and inks?

Now, truth be told, I didn’t EXACTLY follow this process. I didn’t layout the entire comic before I started drawing pages. As I mentioned in that previous post, I didn’t think I needed to. I actually penciled the first 20+ pages of the story based on my script (which I had worked to death), doing layouts scene by scene. Those first 20 pages were all setup, hooks and teases and I just knew how they should be laid out. As I worked on the second act of the comic, I found myself asking questions like: Should this be a splash, a double-page spread or a paneled page? Can you really do this scene in two pages, or should it expand to four? If the establishing shot is done this way will it slow the pacing down too much at the wrong moment?

That’s when I realized I needed to layout the rest of the comic. That there’s no way to know the answer to those questions except by reading it in comic form. To quote Andrew Stanton again (yes, I’m trying to set a record doing that), “I don’t believe in a scene until I see it on the reels.” Not “in my head”, or “in the script”, or “on the set.” But when the scene is in the form it’s gong to be consumed by the audience in.

So, who knows? I’m still making this shit up as I go along. Maybe you don’t need to layout the entire comic from the beginning. But I think at a certain point it’s necessary to help you bring your story home in a more satisfying and complete way. I know my comic benefitted from it.

Oh, and since a few of you have asked, the cover is just something I mocked up for the dummy book, not necessarily the actual cover for the first volume.


Fast Company 100 Most Creative People in Business

Fast Company 100 Most Creative People in Business

Recently colored this Shane Davis piece for the June 2012 issue of Fast Company magazine that’s out on stands now. The illustration is for a feature on Thomas Tull of Legendary Entertainment and where he stands among the 100 Most Creative People in Business. First published work I ever did was color a piece of Shane’s work right after we graduated from the Kubert School. Exactly ten years later and it’s still a blast when we team up to do cool shit together.


Weekly Buzz Magazine

Final assignment for the typography class I took this semester. We had to do a typographic cover for a “Special Issue” (Spring Dining Guide, Summer Fun Guide, etc.) of a local weekly tabloid called Buzz Weekly. I had specifically avoided using my illustration background as a crutch in prior pieces, but for this last assignment, I thought I’d see what I could do with merging illustration and typography together, but in a way where the illustration was part of the type. Thought it’d be cool to do something with 3D letters, but I wanted to avoid the clean, perfect, plastic look that usually accompanies them. Pulled off the analog 3D look I was going for pretty successfully. All the bands listed on the cover are actually from my comic, The Happy Samurais. I’m sure this will end up in the comic somewhere (background poster or something one of the characters is reading).

Really happy I took this typography class. I learned a lot and really upped my game. Hoping to take Typography II (book/publication design) if it’s offered in the fall.


Eyeshield 21

Eyeshield 21 Manga

And with volume 37, one of my favorite manga series of all time, Eyeshield 21, comes to an end.


One of the first projects we are doing in my typography class is a type specimen poster based on an assigned typeface. We had to research the history of the typeface and designer and incorporate that information in the upcoming poster. Part of the assignment involves posting our finding to our blogs for critique.Very educational researching this and I honestly wish I had the time (or more assignments like it) to research all the “classic” typefaces. Here’s the copy for my poster and a sample of the typeface for reference:

Franklin Gothic is an extra bold sans serif typeface that is built upon traditional roman letter features. Classified as a “Grotesque” (or “Grotesk”) typeface, a category of early sans serif designs that originated in the nineteenth century. At one point, “Gothic” was defined as “non classical”–meaning not greek or roman. Early American type designers adapted this term to refer to sans serif (non classical) typefaces as “Gothic”. Nowadays, gothic, grotesque and sans serif are frequently used synonymously.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Franklin Gothic is the thinning of the stroke where the bold stems join the rounds (see the shoulder stroke of the “n”). Like most grotesque typefaces, it features a slight degree of contrast between thick and thin strokes in the letterforms, and the lowercase utilizes the double-story roman “g” and “a”.

Franklin Gothic was designed by American typeface designer, Morris Fuller Benton in 1902. During Benton’s thirty plus years as head of the design department for American Type Founders (ATF), he designed in excess of 200 typefaces, including Broadway, Bank Gothic and ATF Bodoni (the first American revival of the typeface in 1909).

The typeface was named in honor of Benjamin Franklin, who was a typesetter and printer by trade before he became a noted author, scientist, inventor and statesman. Though named in his honor, the Franklin Gothic has no relationship to his handwriting or any typefaces he may have used during his thirty year printing career.

Originally cut in a single-weight, extra bold, International Typeface Corporation (ITC) currently offers 20 different typestyles of Franklin Gothic.


More layout work for The Happy Samurais. Needed to rework a couple scenes to make sure they had the emotional resonance needed for that part of the story. Basically had to re-beat the scene–beats are the moments we choose to show in the panels: actions, reactions, dialogue, exposition, gag etc. There are a million things you COULD show in this scene but what are the KEY elements/moments?

I was having a hard time re-beating this in script form, so I drew out each possible beat in photoshop. Didn’t worry about picking the best angle or anything at this point. Just drew a simple sketch that got across idea of beat, printed them out and cut them up. Now I could rearrange each beat, add or delete new ones etc. Really felt like a film editor picking the different shots and making a sequence out of them. Won’t need to use this technique too often as I usually have the beats nailed down when I start the layouts, but will definitely employ it again if I’m having trouble working something out.

Comic Layout Process

One of my former Kubert School students, Angie Fernot, asked a question in the comments of a previous post and I thought others might be interested in the answer.

Angie asked, “Are all those sketches on your drawing table different possible layouts for panels?”

Yep. That’s exactly what they are. Usually my process for laying out a page goes something like:

– what moment that panel in the story functions as (action/reaction/dialogue/exposition etc.)
– when I’m writing, really I’m primarily nailing down what beats the story needs, so this is figured out in the script.

– how the characters will act out the scene
– what their body language and expression is
– what the staging is (where characters are in relation to each other — are they facing each other, standing shoulder to shoulder etc.)

– once I know the beat, and acting, I’ll start moving the camera around to see what shot shows that beat as A) clearly as possible and B) as dramatically as possible.

– this is just fine tuning the shot. Making things bigger/smaller, scooting over etc. Half of this is done in the layout stage, the other in Photoshop during the penciling stage when I adjust the size/position/scale again.
– also leaving enough room for word balloons and sound effects in composition stage.


The image in this post shows me trying to work out the acting/staging of the characters as they celebrate good news. The list of numbers in the top right is the six panels on the page and what the beats for each panel are.


The chaos that is my drawing table when I lay out a scene.

Layout work for a scene in The Happy Samurais #1.

Gabe Bridwell's Desk Shot 12.22.11

Happy Samurais issue #1 Layouts

Happy Samurais issue #1 Layouts

When working on a comic, I usually layout and draw one scene at a time. My fear has always been that if I laid out something like sixty pages, that my drawing, storytelling and layout abilities would improve so much during those first twenty or forty pages that I’d have to re-layout a ton of pages to incorporate all that I’d learned. I’m not sure if there’s any truth to that at all, but it made sense to me for a number of years.

Two things have recently helped change my thought process on that. One, during my time at the Atlantic Center for the Arts residency last year, I talked with Craig Thompson about his experiences working on Habibi. (Though Habibi just came out this September, Craig had finished it as of October, 2010, so I’d seen the completed book while I was there). Craig had laid out the entirety of the 600+ page Habibi at least three times (I wanna say it was actually more like five). Each layout wasn’t just a change of camera angle or adding another panel, it was completely changing the way he was telling the story or more often, changing the story itself. He felt laying out the entire book was the only way to really see how the story worked. You sat down and read it from beginning to end.

Craig’s group at the residency was working on longer form comics — stories with page counts at least 100 pages in length. Members of his group each had to have a huge chunk of layouts done for their story, which they’d then share with the rest of Craig’s group in a workshop type of session. Craig said he was more convinced than ever after his experiences workshopping with his ACA students, that laying everything out ahead of time was the way to do it.

The second thing that made me change my thoughts on layout was hearing details of how Pixar develops their movies. Directors at Pixar screen their films internally every 16-20 weeks for their “Brain Trust”. The “Brain Trust” is considered to be John Lasseter (Toy Story, Cars), Andrew Stanton (Wall-E, Finding Nemo), Pete Docter (Up, Monster’s Inc.) and Brad Bird (Incredibles, Ratatouille) — though I believe other key people like Bob Peterson, Ronnie Del Carmen, Michael Arndt etc. are involved in some form as well. They “screen” the film in whatever form it’s currently in to get feedback on how it’s progressing. So during the first screening, the film is probably still an animatic (animated storyboards), the next version is maybe an animatic with temp voices/music, then onto a version with blocked in 3D models etc.

This screening process isn’t necessarily a straight line through to a finished film. Often times they get three or four steps into the process only to decide things aren’t working and go back to square one — both Monster’s Inc. and Up went through multiple false starts. Andrew Stanton has said, “I don’t believe in a scene until I see it on the reels.” As Stanton describes Pixar’s process, it’s essentially making the film three or four times to get it right. (Incidentally, Stanton feels that Pixar isn’t the best at making movies, but that they excel at re-working them). What Pixar doesn’t want to do is waste time making a story that doesn’t work. They want to, as Stanton says, “Be wrong as fast as we can.” So Pixar turns it into a movie (even if it’s animated storyboards) as soon as possible to see how it’s working out. Thus it only makes sense to turn your comic into a comic as soon as possible to see how it reads.

Before I can lay out a scene though, I need to know what the characters and environment for that scene look like. If you design a characters that’s super-wide, or maybe has some ornate costume detail that sticks out three feet off each shoulder, you’re going to compose a shot with that specific costume differently than you would a generic mannequin figure. Same thing with a location. The shape and design of the architecture is going to suggest unique angles, framing, composition and backdrops to set your characters against. The background should never be an afterthought to the characters.

I currently have about half of the triple-sized Happy Samurais #1 penciled (not all consecutive scenes, I jumped around a little). To apply my new strategy of laying out the rest of the issue, I had to finish off all remaining character and location designs. I like to make a reference packet for each character/location (see stack in the photo below). The packet will have printouts of whatever designs I’ve drawn and any other reference I might need. As of yesterday, I FINALLY finished off all the design work for issue #1 and this morning I start laying out the remaining scenes. The design phase always bogs me down (when I think back on many of the projects I worked on that fell apart, the design phase was almost always where it occurred.). It just happens to be the most time-consuming task for me. Super-happy with the designs I came up with, but honestly more psyched to be done with it and back to drawing and telling stories.

If you’re interested, I highly recommend checking out the following links to Pixar related podcasts:

Andrew Stanton – talks about upcoming John Carter movie & Pixar’s film-making process.
Pete Docter & Bob Peterson – talk with Jeff Goldsmith of Creative Screenwriting about Up.
Brad Bird – brilliant interview about Brad’s career and work in animation.

Design Work for The Happy Samurais Issue #1


© Copyright 2002-2016 Gabe Bridwell. All rights reserved.