blackbatpurplecat:

helenawaynehuntress:

blackbatpurplecat:

helenawaynehuntress:

jyger85:

helenawaynehuntress:

blackbatpurplecat:

helenawaynehuntress:

blackbatpurplecat a réagi à votre billet :Do you think a future writer will establish Helena Wayne as gay or bisexual in the New 52? :

Power Girl - Huntress - Catman love triangle!!! Just kidding, I hate love triangles. But you’re right. The world of comics is way too straight.

More like a sexy ménage à trois right there, but yeah…I wouldn’t go the rubbish love triangle route either. Wouldn’t work in this case.

If anything, Power Girl is far more likely to point and laugh at the fact that Helena is living her mum and dad’s romance all over again, and Huntress would just snort at the thought.

a sexy ménage à trois right there

You just made this a helluva lot more interesting!!!

The mom-dad-romance thing would be hilarious though. It could be a reason why she’s desperately trying NOT to fall for the guy.

Ménage à trois are great! I’m all for a woman enjoying her sex life however way she feels comfortable.

Love triangles on the other hand are sexist bullshit 98% of the time. (Admittedly, Catman competing with Power Girl for Huntress’ affections would be pretty hilarious, though. That girl’s got the ‘power’).

That being said, I don’t think Helena Wayne would fall in love with a guy who steals her mum’s modus operandi, unless she meets him out of costume. Preferably in a gay club containing a police box labelled ‘The Snog Box.’

(Bonus points to anyone who gets that last reference).

That’s not all that’s bigger on the inside. Wa, wa, wa! XD

<!— Insert clever joke about Tomcat…err *Catman* wanting to see the Huntress’ Secret Cave —>

Where are the smut fanfic writers when you need them???

Well. You can always take initiative, love. After all…you do run a BatCat love tumblr blog. ;)

(uh oh, how do you get out of this one without them noticing that you’re horrible at writing)

Yes, well… Yeah, you said it, dear! It’s BatCat love, not alternate-earth-possible-bisexual-love-child-boning-both-her-female-team-mate-and-male-adversary love

(nice save there… you idiot)

Well. If you need help with the dialogue, how about this?

Read More

EARTH-2: BATMAN &amp; ROBIN | Earth-2 could've been a far better world.
EARTH-2: BATMAN & ROBIN | Earth-2 could've been a far better world.

jessebellechambers:

Sad thing is, I think I’ve played roles so well… Most of the time even I don’t remember who I really am but that’s how it has to be.

blackbatpurplecat:

Wayne Family Photo by The-Great-Geraldo
Gotta admit - this is freaking cute! LOL

blackbatpurplecat:

Wayne Family Photo by The-Great-Geraldo

Gotta admit - this is freaking cute! LOL

All you need to know for getting ready for Future’s End month and the World’s End weekly series.

EMANUELA LUPACCHINO | Page Layouts for Worlds' Finest #15.
EMANUELA LUPACCHINO | Page Layouts for Worlds' Finest #15.
THE HUNTRESS | Original artwork by Steve Epting circa 2013.  
THE HUNTRESS | Original artwork by Steve Epting circa 2013.  
SAN DIEGO COMIC CON | Discussion on the Earth-2: World's End Weekly.

Heading into the real world&#8217;s future, Bennett and Wilson discussed &#8220;Earth 2: World&#8217;s End,&#8221; and the challenge of doing a high-profile weekly series.
"This is my first panel at Comic-Con with comic book people," said Wilson. "It&#8217;s great to be a part of that, now! … For me, this was like getting thrown into the deep end of the pool. We&#8217;re in a situation where we&#8217;re continuing what&#8217;s going on in &#8216;Earth 2&#8217; and there are some catastrophic events on the way and we&#8217;re bridging into the future. On the ground level, we have characters like Dick Grayson who are surviving on the ground, then you bump up a bit and you have the World Army &#8212; then, to the top level. Having all of this play out at the same time is really interesting; figuring out who deals with what and what&#8217;s happening to the world.&#8221;
Bennett said the series is the story about a world getting destroyed, and she was inspired by the work the &#8220;Eternal&#8221; team was doing. &#8220;It&#8217;s not just a story of attrition or the death of the world, it&#8217;s a story about the people in that world,&#8221; she said. &#8220;It&#8217;s a story of triumph, of love and hope that&#8217;s coming out of the ruins.&#8221;
Wilson has destroyed worlds before in novels, and he said what emerges out of it are the relationships between the people. &#8220;They&#8217;re not fighting to preserve even their cities or the planet itself. It all boils down to these relationships,&#8221; he said. &#8220;It has to ultimately be about the emotions or you don&#8217;t have anything to move the characters across the board and get good stories out of.&#8221;
The first issue of &#8220;World&#8217;s End&#8221; will have an intro to what&#8217;s been going on in &#8220;Earth 2,&#8221; and Wilson said it was challenging to try and explain it all. &#8220;It involved going in clinically &#8212; because we&#8217;re doing world-building here &#8212; and required a lot of research to get it all out there on the page,&#8221; he said.
"It was important to us to make it immediate and accessible as possible," said Bennett. "Tom Taylor laid such a great groundwork with the &#8216;Earth 2&#8217; monthly, and we wanted moments of levity and moments of joy to be very present."
Wilson said one of the things he always wanted to know from &#8220;Earth 2&#8221; was &#8220;What happened to Sam?&#8221; and noted that readers might get a chance to get a little bit of closure in that area.

So Earth-2 Dick does exist after all?
(Source)
SAN DIEGO COMIC CON | Discussion on the Earth-2: World's End Weekly.

Heading into the real world’s future, Bennett and Wilson discussed “Earth 2: World’s End,” and the challenge of doing a high-profile weekly series.

"This is my first panel at Comic-Con with comic book people," said Wilson. "It’s great to be a part of that, now! … For me, this was like getting thrown into the deep end of the pool. We’re in a situation where we’re continuing what’s going on in ‘Earth 2’ and there are some catastrophic events on the way and we’re bridging into the future. On the ground level, we have characters like Dick Grayson who are surviving on the ground, then you bump up a bit and you have the World Army — then, to the top level. Having all of this play out at the same time is really interesting; figuring out who deals with what and what’s happening to the world.”

Bennett said the series is the story about a world getting destroyed, and she was inspired by the work the “Eternal” team was doing. “It’s not just a story of attrition or the death of the world, it’s a story about the people in that world,” she said. “It’s a story of triumph, of love and hope that’s coming out of the ruins.”

Wilson has destroyed worlds before in novels, and he said what emerges out of it are the relationships between the people. “They’re not fighting to preserve even their cities or the planet itself. It all boils down to these relationships,” he said. “It has to ultimately be about the emotions or you don’t have anything to move the characters across the board and get good stories out of.”

The first issue of “World’s End” will have an intro to what’s been going on in “Earth 2,” and Wilson said it was challenging to try and explain it all. “It involved going in clinically — because we’re doing world-building here — and required a lot of research to get it all out there on the page,” he said.

"It was important to us to make it immediate and accessible as possible," said Bennett. "Tom Taylor laid such a great groundwork with the ‘Earth 2’ monthly, and we wanted moments of levity and moments of joy to be very present."

Wilson said one of the things he always wanted to know from “Earth 2” was “What happened to Sam?” and noted that readers might get a chance to get a little bit of closure in that area.

So Earth-2 Dick does exist after all?

(Source)

beachgnome:

helenawaynehuntress:

beachgnome:

ITS FINE TO ENJOY DINAH DRAKE AND HELENA WAYNE

IT IS, HOWEVER, NOT OKAY TO SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN JUST SWAP WOMEN AROUND LIKE THAT

Sure they would have been interesting as friends to Barbara but it is MORALLY WRONG for DC to have done what they did. That fact needs to be acknowledged.

I have to ask, did you similarly think it was ‘morally wrong’ for DC to:

  1. Erase Helena Wayne as the Huntress for two decades and REBOOT her as another woman—in this case, Helena Bertinelli—while Batman’s sons get the privilege of keeping their origins intact?

  2. To EXPROPRIATE Helena Wayne’s name, origin, physical appearance, modus operandi, and identity as a superhero and as a woman onto an essentially different woman without ever acknowledging Wayne as the original Huntress?

  3. To give Helena Bertinelli MEMBERSHIP into the Bat Family, a family that is more rightfully Wayne’s?

  4. To pair off Helena Bertinelli with Dick Grayson romantically, even though Dick Grayson was an important person in Helena Wayne’s life, was her family, and even teased as a potential love interest for her?

  5. To pair off Helena Bertinelli with Catman in a way that heavily alluded to Batman and Catwoman’s relationship, even though Batman and Catwoman are Helena Wayne’s parents, and would therefore be the more appropriate Huntress to explore this idea with?

  6. For Helena Bertinelli to be written as wanting Batman’s approval despite not really having any real reason for it beyond her former life as Helena Wayne?

  7. For Helena Bertinelli go be given membership into the Justice League and work with other superheroes Helena Wayne teamed up with regularly in the pre-Crisis days?

More importantly, did you support any or all of those ideas and developments with your money at any time within the last two decades? Because, if so, you immediately invalidate any point you are trying to make here.

No one here is denying that DC Comics has a serious problem with women. But if you are going to have a legitimate discussion about DC treating their women as interchangeable, you yourself need to acknowledge that the problem with the Huntress started with Helena Bertinelli post-Crisis, not with Helena Wayne in the New 52.

I’ve said it before, I will say it again: the idea that Helena Bertinelli existed as a rebooted Helena Wayne in the post-Crisis continuity is a well documented FACT that’s been acknowledged in two legitimate DC Comics sources: the introductions to Huntress: Year One and Huntress: Darknight Daughter trade paperbacks.

Given that reality, it was neither a coincidence nor an accident that the post-Crisis Helena Bertinelli was developed in ways that either alluded to or were more more appropriate for Helena Wayne. As such, the post-Crisis Helena Bertinelli embodied all of the problems you and many others are complaining about here.

The fact that she was created as an Italian-American woman who is Catholic, connected to the mafia, and often times depicted as an ultra-violent heroine who was deliberately made to look worse than other antiheroes does not change any of that. If you so much as rationalise how unique Helena Bertinelli was while looking the other way at all the different ways her development borrowed heavily from Helena Wayne’s Huntress, you compromise your position in this argument.

Helena Wayne is the original character who originated and defined the Huntress as we know her. Much of what we like about the Huntress did NOT originate with Helena Bertinelli in any way, including:

  1. The idea of the Huntress as a female Batman. More specifically, becoming the Huntress in response to losing family to criminals, especially one who functioned as a criminal. That was Helena Wayne’s origin.

  2. The idea of the Huntress not dealing with sexism or misogyny, and beating unconscious any criminal who insults her on the basis of her gender. Helena Wayne did that first.

  3. The idea of the Huntress as a woman with psychological issues that in part influence why she does what she does. Again Helena Wayne got there first. There was even a whole story arc devoted to that in Wonder Woman.

  4. The idea of the Huntress as an aggressive fighter and being willing to use excessive force as a way of getting criminals to talk. Again, Helena Wayne got there first, particularly in the mid-1980s.

  5. The Huntress being willing to kill under extreme circumstances and not always feeling bad for any criminals who die during their encounters with her. Again Helena Wayne got there first, even during Paul Levitz’ original run of her. The main difference with this one here is that the Comics Code of Authority (which was still in place during Helena Wayne’s original publication) prevented writers from depicting heroes actively killing anyone, and writers often had to ‘find ways around that,’ which they did with Helena Wayne.

That being said, people are entitled to like what they like, yourself included. People are also allowed to like things that are problematic as long as they don’t ignore the problems. 

You are absolutely NO ONE to say to anyone how they should spend their own money or support the characters they want to support. Many of the problems that exist with DC Comics are beyond the reach of most fans and even creators alike.

Even if we don’t actively support the changes they are imposing, that doesn’t mean (let alone guarantee) that DC Comics will bend back on their decisions and actually give fans what they want. If that had always been the case, Helena Wayne fans would’ve gotten Helena Wayne back A LOT sooner than we actually did because Helena Bertinelli was not initially successful with fans earlier on in her publication.

All of the problems that exist with DC Comics is up to executives to fix. It is up to them to LISTEN to their customers and make appropriate changes that will improve the quality and reception of their product.  

As for fans, we will buy anything that features our favourite characters and creative teams. That is how we roll. We may not support every decision that gets made with our favourite characters by the publisher (I sure as hell don’t), but we will nonetheless buy anything that features those characters we like in hopes of getting more of those characters.

And you know what? We are entitled to do that.

You’re all throwing up valid points. Though I am going to say that Catman argument is a bit of a stretch. Also, at her best written, Helena B could give less than two shits about Batman’s approval. It’s one of her selling points.

My main points in regards to these characters is this:

  • I am so sick of everything revolving around Batman
  • We have Earth 2 again so why couldn’t we have BOTH of these ladies? Really DC? I would have loved that shit.

I would be PUMPED about Helena Wayne if she was running around doing Helena Wayne things on Earth 2 but she’s specifically doing Helena B. things on Earth 1 and it freaks me out.

Having been lied to about which Helena I was reading for her series really drove me past the rage point in regards to the Huntress title. Heck, I used to think Helena Wayne was neat, some of the first comics I ever bought had stories of hers at the back. 

I just want her far away from the Birds of Prey because that belongs to everyone’s favourite Mafia bashing catholic vigilante schoolteacher.

Though I am going to say that Catman argument is a bit of a stretch.

It isn’t a ‘bit of a stretch’ when the character in question was created as a male version of Catwoman in the 1960s, and whose modus operandi for most of his publication history was—excuse the pun—a direct copy cat of Catwoman’s. Prior to Gail Simone’s reinterpretation of his character, he literally didn’t have much going for him in terms of originality.

Additionally, Huntress and Catman explored many of the same tropes that you often see with Batman and Catwoman, including:

  1. The iconic dancing while flirting scene.
  2. Flirting while fighting.
  3. Huntress feeling conflicted about pursuing a relationship with a criminal despite being very attracted to him.
  4. Catman wanting something more with the Huntress but knowing it’ll never happen.

For a bonus, even Deadshot was often written pointing out the obvious attraction between the two, even commented to Catman in Secret Six #1 that the Huntress was ‘the closest thing [he had] to doing with it with Batman.’

So no. It’s not ‘a bit of a stretch’ at all. It very much does play into the idea of a reverse-gendered Batman and Catwoman relationship. That is still Helena Wayne’s territory. 

Also, at her best written, Helena B could give less than two shits about Batman’s approval. It’s one of her selling points.

This completely misses the point of the issue I was addressing. She still appeared in Batman narratives for most of her publication history. She was still more closely associated with the Bat family than any other superhero family in the DC Universe. Most of her friends and relationships she acquired (or even wanted to acquire) from this family were Helena Wayne’s.

Even with the times that she was written as ‘not giving two shits about Batman’s approval,’ that doesn’t erase the fact that it still happened in other narratives. It also still doesn’t erase any of the other problems that came with her character that very much called for the systematic erasure of one woman while simultaneously using those same developments to service another.

I would be PUMPED about Helena Wayne if she was running around doing Helena Wayne things on Earth 2 

Now you’re backpedalling because this wasn’t in your original discussion at all. 

but she’s specifically doing Helena B. things on Earth 1 and it freaks me out.

You do realise you are talking about a character who post-Crisis was created as a rebooted version of Helena Wayne, right? You also realise that Helena Bertinelli’s modus operandi post-Crisis WAS Helena Wayne’s pre-Crisis, yes?

Again, Helena Wayne is doing what she’s always been doing since her very inception. I admit that the story in the Huntress miniseries was a more appropriate narrative for Helena Bertinelli given her Italian and mafia roots, and it is, in fact, very problematic how Helena Wayne was reintroduced in the New 52. I’m not going to argue against that. But beyond that? Helena Wayne isn’t ripping off of Helena Bertinelli at all. Helena Wayne is doing in the New 52 what she has always done as the Huntress pre-Crisis. The Huntress identity and subsequent mode of operation has always belonged to her.

I just want her far away from the Birds of Prey because that belongs to everyone’s favourite Mafia bashing catholic vigilante schoolteacher.

While I am not going to argue against your feelings on this matter (which are legitimate), it is worth nothing that if you are seriously going to argue that Helena Wayne should stay away from everything you identify with Helena Bertinelli, then you just placed yourself in another sticky spot in this discussion. Because by that same logic, you shouldn’t even be fan of the post-Crisis Helena Bertinelli either given how much of her own development heavily hinged on the pre-Crisis Helena Wayne’s. Outside of the few things that were truly unique to her character, she very much had Helena Wayne’s life and place in the post-Crisis DC Universe. 

This actually brings me back to my original point: your position in this discussion is not as sincere as you’re trying to make it look. If you want to have a legitimate discussion about DC Comics’ problem with women, you literally cannot look the other way at a problem that very much applies to the character you like. Once you do that, you immediately invalidate any point you are trying to make. On that same note, you also don’t get to tell other people how they should support their favourite characters, and even less so if you yourself supported characters you liked, problematic developments and all. 

As I said in my original response to this post, you are entitled to like the things that you like, even if they are problematic. What is NOT okay is for you to ignore the problems that do exist with the things that you like because you happen to like them. Even less so if you are attempting to address a very legitimate problem with the way DC Comics treats and repurposes their women, and more specifically, how they tend to throw out certain women like yesterday’s trash sometimes in favour of other women. This isn’t a problem that started with the New 52. It’s been a problem throughout DC’s publishing history that intensified especially after the Crisis reboot.

beachgnome:

ITS FINE TO ENJOY DINAH DRAKE AND HELENA WAYNE

IT IS, HOWEVER, NOT OKAY TO SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN JUST SWAP WOMEN AROUND LIKE THAT

Sure they would have been interesting as friends to Barbara but it is MORALLY WRONG for DC to have done what they did. That fact needs to be acknowledged.

I have to ask, did you similarly think it was ‘morally wrong’ for DC to:

  1. Erase Helena Wayne as the Huntress for two decades and REBOOT her as another woman—in this case, Helena Bertinelli—while Batman’s sons get the privilege of keeping their origins intact?

  2. To EXPROPRIATE Helena Wayne’s name, origin, physical appearance, modus operandi, and identity as a superhero and as a woman onto an essentially different woman without ever acknowledging Wayne as the original Huntress?

  3. To give Helena Bertinelli MEMBERSHIP into the Bat Family, a family that is more rightfully Wayne’s?

  4. To pair off Helena Bertinelli with Dick Grayson romantically, even though Dick Grayson was an important person in Helena Wayne’s life, was her family, and even teased as a potential love interest for her?

  5. To pair off Helena Bertinelli with Catman in a way that heavily alluded to Batman and Catwoman’s relationship, even though Batman and Catwoman are Helena Wayne’s parents, and would therefore be the more appropriate Huntress to explore this idea with?

  6. For Helena Bertinelli to be written as wanting Batman’s approval despite not really having any real reason for it beyond her former life as Helena Wayne?

  7. For Helena Bertinelli go be given membership into the Justice League and work with other superheroes Helena Wayne teamed up with regularly in the pre-Crisis days?

More importantly, did you support any or all of those ideas and developments with your money at any time within the last two decades? Because, if so, you immediately invalidate any point you are trying to make here.

No one here is denying that DC Comics has a serious problem with women. But if you are going to have a legitimate discussion about DC treating their women as interchangeable, you yourself need to acknowledge that the problem with the Huntress started with Helena Bertinelli post-Crisis, not with Helena Wayne in the New 52.

I’ve said it before, I will say it again: the idea that Helena Bertinelli existed as a rebooted Helena Wayne in the post-Crisis continuity is a well documented FACT that’s been acknowledged in two legitimate DC Comics sources: the introductions to Huntress: Year One and Huntress: Darknight Daughter trade paperbacks.

Given that reality, it was neither a coincidence nor an accident that the post-Crisis Helena Bertinelli was developed in ways that either alluded to or were more more appropriate for Helena Wayne. As such, the post-Crisis Helena Bertinelli embodied all of the problems you and many others are complaining about here.

The fact that she was created as an Italian-American woman who is Catholic, connected to the mafia, and often times depicted as an ultra-violent heroine who was deliberately made to look worse than other antiheroes does not change any of that. If you so much as rationalise how unique Helena Bertinelli was while looking the other way at all the different ways her development borrowed heavily from Helena Wayne’s Huntress, you compromise your position in this argument.

Helena Wayne is the original character who originated and defined the Huntress as we know her. Much of what we like about the Huntress did NOT originate with Helena Bertinelli in any way, including:

  1. The idea of the Huntress as a female Batman. More specifically, becoming the Huntress in response to losing family to criminals, especially one who functioned as a criminal. That was Helena Wayne’s origin.

  2. The idea of the Huntress not dealing with sexism or misogyny, and beating unconscious any criminal who insults her on the basis of her gender. Helena Wayne did that first.

  3. The idea of the Huntress as a woman with psychological issues that in part influence why she does what she does. Again Helena Wayne got there first. There was even a whole story arc devoted to that in Wonder Woman.

  4. The idea of the Huntress as an aggressive fighter and being willing to use excessive force as a way of getting criminals to talk. Again, Helena Wayne got there first, particularly in the mid-1980s.

  5. The Huntress being willing to kill under extreme circumstances and not always feeling bad for any criminals who die during their encounters with her. Again Helena Wayne got there first, even during Paul Levitz’ original run of her. The main difference with this one here is that the Comics Code of Authority (which was still in place during Helena Wayne’s original publication) prevented writers from depicting heroes actively killing anyone, and writers often had to ‘find ways around that,’ which they did with Helena Wayne.

That being said, people are entitled to like what they like, yourself included. People are also allowed to like things that are problematic as long as they don’t ignore the problems. 

You are absolutely NO ONE to say to anyone how they should spend their own money or support the characters they want to support. Many of the problems that exist with DC Comics are beyond the reach of most fans and even creators alike.

Even if we don’t actively support the changes they are imposing, that doesn’t mean (let alone guarantee) that DC Comics will bend back on their decisions and actually give fans what they want. If that had always been the case, Helena Wayne fans would’ve gotten Helena Wayne back A LOT sooner than we actually did because Helena Bertinelli was not initially successful with fans earlier on in her publication.

All of the problems that exist with DC Comics is up to executives to fix. It is up to them to LISTEN to their customers and make appropriate changes that will improve the quality and reception of their product.  

As for fans, we will buy anything that features our favourite characters and creative teams. That is how we roll. We may not support every decision that gets made with our favourite characters by the publisher (I sure as hell don’t), but we will nonetheless buy anything that features those characters we like in hopes of getting more of those characters.

And you know what? We are entitled to do that.