A Huntress was in the BOP movie and Arrowverse so I can see writer of that piece thinking she's an A list character.
Anyway if it is Levitz what a twist but not unprecedented... Todd McFarlane and Neil Gaiman over Angela.
A Huntress was in the BOP movie and Arrowverse so I can see writer of that piece thinking she's an A list character.
Anyway if it is Levitz what a twist but not unprecedented... Todd McFarlane and Neil Gaiman over Angela.
It depends on whether or not the company classifies Bertinelli as derivative of Helena Wayne. For instance, Gerry Conway claims he never saw a dime from Power Girl being used in video games and other media since the company claims that she's derivative of the Superman franchise, and thus any money owed to her "creators" goes to the estates of Shuster and Siegel. By contrast, he says he also got nothing from Killer Frost being used in the Arroweverse since the shows specifically used the more recent Caitlin Snow version of the character, not the original one he introduced in the pages of Firestorm back in the 70s.
So how the company doles out money to creators already sounds somewhat confusing, and it's entirely possible that Levitz was able to get money out of this deal by it being argued that Helena Bertinelli was derivative of Helena Wayne.
Kurt Busiek refuted the claim against Levitz on Twitter, so that clears him in my book.
Yeah IP law has all sorts of weird technicalities like that. Some of the "legacy" characters have been suggested as existing for no reason other than to NOT pay royalties for using the original. I dunno how true that is though. But it's easy to see how(just a theoretical example) the creator of Alan Scott would not get royalties for anything using Kyle Rayner. But that could be why they chose to use Caitlin Snow instead of the previous Killer Frost. Or maybe they just wanted to use her because she fit the story better.... hard to be sure.
The one that makes the most sense to me, and keep in mind that this is purely speculation, is Geoff Johns trying to take full credit for creating The Trench, which is why he and Ivan Reis don't work together anymore. The last thing they did together was that short story in the GL 80th Anniversary special and who knows how long ago that was finished beforehand.
The Paul Levitz rumor makes no sense and has been debunked by numerous credible people already. Levitz was the main reason DC creators were getting money from WB to begin with and the article goes out of its way to praise him for doing so.
Bruce Timm, you're up!
And the witch hunt commences...
Screen Shot 2021-07-19 at 7.26.11 PM.jpg
Staton and Layton
Visit www.busiek.com—for all your Busiek needs!
Well for a time they were developing (or thinking about developing) Trench spin-off movie so that would have made them, in my opinion, bigger than Huntress or Cyborg.
Easily checked:
So it's an A-list character. However, I think all that "A-list" means here is mainly that the character in question has been regularly occuring in multiple adaptations or long-running books.THR learned of an instance in which the co-creator of an A-list DC character secretly maneuvered behind-the-scenes to have themselves listed as the sole creator on paper, with regard to merchandise or adaptations, cutting their partner out of payments.
Also, remember that in discussions like this, there is a strong tendency to smooth things in public over once things are settled, and say as little as possible before that (people like Ray Fisher are very much the exception). So while I think it's less likely that it's Huntress and Levitz the article refers to after Layton's and Staton's statements, the animated credits is still a smoking gun.
«Speaking generally, it is because of the desire of the tragic poets for the marvellous that so varied and inconsistent an account of Medea has been given out» (Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History [4.56.1])