-
[QUOTE=Konja7;5156718]The mantle doesn't always return to the first person. I mean, Barbara wasn't the first Batgirl, the first Batgirl was technically Betty (although she was Bat-Girl).
You know, I wouldn't use Duke and Harper as an example to introduce succesful characters. I mean, I really understand fans of other characters are happy that they don't interfere with their favorite, but I don't think many writers have so much interest on these characters (especially Harper).
In any case, they would be proof that the lack of a recognizable mantle means writers won't have so much interest on them.[/QUOTE]
Also Kate wasn't the first Batwoman either, that honor goes to Kathy
-
[QUOTE=Konja7;5156718]The mantle doesn't always return to the first person. I mean, Barbara wasn't the first Batgirl, the first Batgirl was technically Betty (although she was Bat-Girl).
You know, [B]I wouldn't use Duke [/B]and Harper [B]as an example to introduce succesful characters.[/B] I mean, I really understand fans of other characters are happy that they don't interfere with their favorite, but I don't think many writers have so much interest on these characters (especially Harper).
In any case, they would be proof that the lack of a recognizable mantle means writers won't have so much interest on them.[/QUOTE]
It's rather early to go taking a dump on Duke, considering how new the character is, and that he's about to star as the Last Monitor in the Dark Multiverse.
[QUOTE=Tsukiakari1203;5156817]Also Kate wasn't the first Batwoman either, that honor goes to Kathy[/QUOTE]
Kate Kane is a modern reboot of Kathy Kane, hence they are both Katherine Kane. The first Batwoman was deleted from continuity in the same way that Bat-Girl was deleted. I see you guys are itching for an argument, but I'm not going to waste my energy, so find someone else. Have fun with that.
-
[QUOTE=Caivu;5156173]Issue #11.[/QUOTE]
I very vaguely remember this mention which as you can imagine would not make me like said 'mother'. Considering the the other comments about making Bette be retconned into Kate's younger sister and the mention of neither "parent" showing up after The Hook, does make me believe my own head canon is the right one; she's Kate's half-sister (Jacob did it).
Regardless it does seem like a lot of fan focus on her lately. Must be Mars Retrograde?
-
[QUOTE=Bat-Meal;5157826]It's rather early to go taking a dump on Duke, considering how new the character is, and that he's about to star as the Last Monitor in the Dark Multiverse.
Kate Kane is a modern reboot of Kathy Kane, hence they are both Katherine Kane. The first Batwoman was deleted from continuity in the same way that Bat-Girl was deleted. I see you guys are itching for an argument, but I'm not going to waste my energy, so find someone else. Have fun with that.[/QUOTE]
I'll let Caivu handle this one, but you're not quite correct.
Certainly we can say that Kate is a sort of homage to the original Batwoman, Kathy Kane, but the latter was not retconned out of existence, her whole story as Batman, Bruce's aunt by marriage, inheriting the circus of that uncle to Bruce, etc, etc. Being the daughter of some weird scientist associated with Spyral and that whole story with Nightwing. the original Batwoman exists but no longer goes by the handle. But she was the original BW, not retconned at all.
-
[QUOTE=Bat-Meal;5157826]It's rather early to go taking a dump on Duke, considering how new the character is, and that he's about to star as the Last Monitor in the Dark Multiverse.[/QUOTE]
That's why I said "especially Harper". I like Duke, so I hope the best for him, but I have doubts the character will become enough popular..
It doesn't seem to be so much interest on Duke from writers when Snyder isn't involved.
[QUOTE=Bat-Meal;5157826]
Kate Kane is a modern reboot of Kathy Kane, hence they are both Katherine Kane. The first Batwoman was deleted from continuity in the same way that Bat-Girl was deleted. [B]I see you guys are itching for an argument[/B], but I'm not going to waste my energy, so find someone else. Have fun with that.[/QUOTE]
I hope this isn't directed to me. I just wrote my opinion about your commentary in a forum. I wouldn't say that makes me itching for an argument.
-
[QUOTE=Oberon;5157943]I'll let Caivu handle this one, but you're not quite correct.
Certainly we can say that Kate is a sort of homage to the original Batwoman, Kathy Kane, but the latter was not retconned out of existence, her whole story as Batman, Bruce's aunt by marriage, inheriting the circus of that uncle to Bruce, etc, etc. Being the daughter of some weird scientist associated with Spyral and that whole story with Nightwing. the original Batwoman exists but no longer goes by the handle. But she was the original BW, not retconned at all.[/QUOTE]
The continuity about these aspects is so confusing. It doesn't help that writers have different ideas for the continuity.
As you say, Kathy as Batwoman exists in the current continuity. However, Betty as Bat-Girl doesn't seems to exist in the current continuity (at least, her story with Dick seems to be erased or retconned).
-
[QUOTE=Oberon;5157943]I'll let Caivu handle this one, but you're not quite correct.
Certainly we can say that Kate is a sort of homage to the original Batwoman, Kathy Kane, but the latter was not retconned out of existence, her whole story as Batman, Bruce's aunt by marriage, inheriting the circus of that uncle to Bruce, etc, etc. Being the daughter of some weird scientist associated with Spyral and that whole story with Nightwing. the original Batwoman exists but no longer goes by the handle. But she was the original BW, not retconned at all.[/QUOTE]
We actually had that discussion here once and reached out to Rucka on Twitter. If I remember correctly, he said that Kate was originally supposed to be a modernization of Kathy Kane. There nothing definitive about this in the books but it was implicitly true until Morrison reintroduced Kathy with Batman Inc., retroactively making them two seperate characters. So from retrospect they are explicitly two separate characters and I'm sure that there is absolutely nothing to contradict that reading of it, but upon her introduction people would not have been mistaken for saying that she was in fact a modernization of Kathy Kane rather than a wholly new character.
-
[QUOTE=Pohzee;5157971]We actually had that discussion here once and reached out to Rucka on Twitter. If I remember correctly, he said that Kate was originally supposed to be a modernization of Kathy Kane. There nothing definitive about this in the books but it was implicitly true until Morrison reintroduced Kathy with Batman Inc., retroactively making them two seperate characters. So from retrospect they are explicitly two separate characters and I'm sure that there is absolutely nothing to contradict that reading of it, but upon her introduction people would not have been mistaken for saying that she was in fact a modernization of Kathy Kane rather than a wholly new character.[/QUOTE]
In 52 a lot of people kept calling her Kathy though
-
[QUOTE=Konja7;5157962]The continuity about these aspects is so confusing. It doesn't help that writers have different ideas for the continuity.
As you say, Kathy as Batwoman exists in the current continuity. However, Betty as Bat-Girl doesn't seems to exist in the current continuity (at least, her story with Dick seems to be erased or retconned).[/QUOTE]
Bette being Bat-Girl in current canon is tenuous. In flashbacks to Kathy's career as Batwoman in Batman Inc we see a girl wearing the Bat-Girl costume but it's never explicitly stated to be Bette
-
[QUOTE=Tsukiakari1203;5158029]Bette being Bat-Girl in current canon is tenuous. In flashbacks to Kathy's career as Batwoman in Batman Inc we see a girl wearing the Bat-Girl costume but it's never explicitly stated to be Bette[/QUOTE]
It is even more complicated because (if I'm not mistaken) the flashbacks about Kathy's career hapenned in Batman Inc Pre-Flashpoint.
Many events in Batman Inc Pre-Flashpoint were retconned for New52 (Catwoman knowing Batman identity, Barbara as Oracle, Stephanie as Batgirl, between others).
That said, Kathy was mantained for Batman Inc Post Flaspoint, so her flashbacks maybe aren't retconned/changed.
-
[QUOTE=Konja7;5157944]That's why I said "especially Harper". I like Duke, so I hope the best for him, but I have doubts the character will become enough popular..
It doesn't seem to be so much interest on Duke from writers when Snyder isn't involved.
I hope this isn't directed to me. I just wrote my opinion about your commentary in a forum. I wouldn't say that makes me itching for an argument.[/QUOTE]
To take this back to the context of what was being discussed: so you're basically saying Duke is a failure, and for Ryan to be in the comics she has to take the Batwoman mantle from Kate, and Kate has no right to the mantle anyway because Kathy had it first. :p
This is why I have no interest in engaging further.
-
[QUOTE=Bat-Meal;5158174]To take this back to the context of what was being discussed: so you're basically saying Duke is a failure, and for Ryan to be in the comics she has to take the Batwoman mantle from Kate, and Kate has no right to the mantle anyway because Kathy had it first. :p
This is why I have no interest in engaging further.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't the person who say Kate wasn't the first (the issue of Kathy/Kate is too complicated). I mentioned Barbara wasn't the first person with the Batgirl suit, after you mentioned it will always return to her. It seemed appropiated since this is the Betty appreciation thread.
Also, I've never said Ryan should be in comics to take Batwoman from Kate. I don't care about Kate, but I don't have interest in Ryan as a new Batwoman either.
Regarding Duke (or Harper), my point was never to attack the characters. It was mainly mention that a recognizable mantle is pretty important, because writers easily forgot the characters without one.
I think you should know that a mantle is pretty imoortant for a character. After all, I don't think you wouldn't have so much problem that Kate lost Batwoman if she will be totally fine without that mantle.
In itself, I was just tired of the hypocrisy of some fans saying that new characters doesn't need to start with recognizable identities, while their favorites should definitely mantain the recognizable identities. It is better to directly say "I don't want this new character to interfere with my favorite character, so give him/her any other identity".
I'm sorry if that wasn't your intention.
-
[QUOTE=Konja7;5158296]
In itself, I was just tired of the hypocrisy of some fans saying that new characters doesn't need to start with recognizable identities, while their favorites should definitely mantain the recognizable identities. It is better to directly say "I don't want this new character to interfere with my favorite character, so give him/her any other identity".
I'm sorry if that wasn't your intention.[/QUOTE]
Proves my point about you itching for an argument. Not wanting new characters to come at the expense of existing characters isn't hypocritical. We're done here. :mad:
-
[QUOTE=Bat-Meal;5158343]Proves my point about you itching for an argument. Not wanting new characters to come at the expense of existing characters isn't hypocritical. We're done here. :mad:[/QUOTE]
I'm not totally sure if that was "itching for an argument", but I wanted to say my opinion.
I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to imply that not wanting new characters to come at the expense of existing characters is hypocritical. I totally agree that feeling that way isn't hypocritical.
If fans just say they don't want their favorites were affected and they don't care what happens with new characters. That would just be honest and totally valid.
However, many fans never say this directly, they say that new characters don't need recognizable identities to be succesful, while they will never allow their favorites to loss their recognizable identities. That attitude seems hypocritical (and tiresome) to me.
PS: Now, we're done here. :)
-
[QUOTE=Restingvoice;5151649]What's the age difference in the comic, if they have any? The impression I got in the Silver Age she's the same age[/QUOTE]She is treated as beeing the same age as Dick and the rest of the Fab5, post crisis it is said that she was 16 when she stared as Flamebird, which would fit with Dicks age (about 15 or 16) by the time Bette became Batgirl in pre-crisis. it was also allready in pre crisis established that she is younger than Barbara
