People give old comics a lot of shit for explaining what just happened on the page, but how the fuck do you even convey this on a comic book page without an explanation of what just happened? It doesn't seem to convey that well.>inb4 hurr durr you're just retarded
You're exactly right. There wasn't a lot of sequential art to reference back then.
>>144322763An action like that would either have to be broken up into more panels or have a thought bubble from either of the characters explaining what's going on like>"That damn woman is spoiling my aim"or>"I'll spoil his aim with water!"
>>144322763Well, you'd draw it better and add panels to show action, including at least one that sets up they guy starting to aim the dagger. Comics are a visual medium. That said, I like older comics, verbosity and all.
>>144322763IIRC they used less pages to tell a story, and they had to cram a lot in single panels.But anons have explained it already, draw it better, pace it better, and all that text becomes unnecessary
>>144322763If the next panel is the dagger missing its target the text is already unnecessary. In case you want to convey all of the information in a single panel simply have the target in frame and have the dagger miss it.
>>144322763Draw better.
>>144322763How many pages was this comic? Because if it was less than 8 pages I could see why they'd have to mesh two things happening there and explain itOn top of that their only frame of reference was comic strips which themselves had a limited number of panels each day
