Ok. So your problem is using the same angle for 2 panels in a row, which means these kinds of sequence shots will never work for you unless there is no background at all or some action in the background that distracts from the foreground. Those 4 panels of her teleporting the civilians out of harm's way and then saving the blue man from the demon would not make any sense or work if the backgrounds were to just change for no reason, and the split-second timing they try to convey would be lost, changing the flow of the entire scene, if they were presented differently. This sort of thing isn't new. For the Man Who Has Everything has a page with 4 near identical panels where the only changes are the direction Superman is flying in.

If I had to nitpick, I'd say the 4 background characters in the first 2 panels should move a little between panels. Maybe 1 could try to open a door or a window to change something about the building. But outside of that 1 tiny thing, I don't see any problems with those 4 panels as presented, and even moving as much as trying to open a window would likely be too much for the split-second nature of the motion.

I agree with rich, the changing camera angles from panel to panel back the page flow much better. The same background and characters in the same place make it static.

Writers and artists like to blame editors when the straight fact is that the audience rejected their work. If a comic doesn't sell well, it's because it didn't connect with the intended audience. The rest are excuses. That said, there are things that can affect how and if the audience connect. There are books that were hobbled by distribution problems, such as Simon & Kirby's Mainline, where the distributors were getting spooked by crusading groups, in the 50s and they were sending back bundles, unopened, of titles from smaller and unproven companies, like theirs (but not the popular companies). There were legit paper shortages at times, which affected how many copies were printed and distributed. There were companies with distribution problems, in some regions, like Atlas/Seaboard and Charlton (though they self-distributed and have themselves to blame). There were editors who treated talent like slaves and messed with them to exert power (Mort Weisinger, most famously). There were writers and artists who butted heads, like Claremont and Byrne and who got their way more depended on the editor.

Then there are editors like Archie Goodwin, about whom no one had a bad word to say. He brought the best out of his people, took chances, kept a high level of quality in his titles, gave constructive feedback and could flat out out-write 99% of the talent he edited, and they were the first to admit it. However, he encouraged them to write like themselves, not like Archie, except to make the story the best it could possibly be, within the limitations of the industry.

In any collaborative field, you will find people who will blame others for failure; and, sometimes they are telling the truth and others they are just making excuses, instead of accepting responsibility. It's usually easy to tell; if they are always running into bad editors or publishers, then the common factor is them. If it seems to be an aberration, then maybe it was the editor or collaborator or publisher, or some phenomena out of their control.

The chances of me actually paying attention to the background of the average super-hero funnybook is somewhere between zero and none.  

There.  I said it.  

It's not a conscious decision on my part- I've got an eye for detail and duplication jumps out at me. I also notice what everyone walking past me looks like and is wearing, and can visualise scenes/people/places/remarks that stood out to me from decades ago. 🤷🏼‍♂️

It's just a personal preference of mine. Clearly it's well enough tolerated or publishers would have forbidden it.

I think it was Mr. Miracle where two panels were duplicated 3 or 4 times each on a single page, where it really annoyed me, and now I can't not see it when it happens even once. A great book, otherwise really well drawn, just with a "quirk" that bugs me. It's now unusual to see a modern comic that doesn't use that crutch- unless I'm just unlucky with the books I've read! (Like I said, I've also not read a great deal published in the past 20 years, and certainly not much digital art.)

All good, we like what we like. I've definitely felt annoyed seeing full pages of small squares filled with talking heads going back and forth with single-word answers. Been there.


The example that immediately comes to my mind for badly-drawn rushed art goes back a few pages to our pal Morrison and his New X-MEN run. The art was wildly inconsistent both in style and quality. Quitely couldn't handle the schedule, and neither could EVS who was filling in, so they had a handful of others. One of them was Igor Kordey, and man, it was dreadful to the point I can't believe they published it. He tried to be the company man and team player who saved the day, and he RUSHED those books to get them done. Unfortunately, it was painfully obvious. I like some of his other work. His Black Widow and Cable work were quite good in their own gritty style. It was already a stylistic mismatch from the other artist, and compounded by the extreme rush.

The guy was completely screwed over for it, too, quite unfairly. He was put in a no-win situation and removed from some other books. I feel bad for him for sure. That said, the art remains atrocious and costs the run some points.


The entire run should have been Morrison and Quitely as intended, no matter how late it was. There, I said it.