Which DC creator is this article talking about?

[M L A]

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.

[Holt]

I saw that on FB as well.

The thing is the Helena Wayne Huntress was created by Paul Levitz, Joe Staton, Joe Orlando and Bob Layton. The Helena Bertinelli Huntress was created by Joe Cavalieri and Joe Staton.

The version that appeared in Batman: Brave and the Bold was the Helena Bertinelli Huntress but she was wearing Helena Wayne's costume. Now, this could just be a minor oversight on DC's part. So the question is, who is credited during Helena Bertinelli's other appearances? Was this the only episode where she was incorrectly credited? Who was credited in her appearances on JLU, the Birds of Prey movie and tv show?

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.

[SJNeal]

Kurt Busiek refuted the claim against Levitz on Twitter, so that clears him in my book.

[hairys]

Kurt Busiek refuted the claim against Levitz on Twitter, so that clears him in my book.

What did he say? And does it have the authority of Joe Staton, who is still alive, clearing Levitz himself?

[marhawkman]

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.

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.

[SJNeal]

What did he say? And does it have the authority of Joe Staton, who is still alive, clearing Levitz himself?

Hmmm, I just searched and the tweet as well as replies have been deleted. The author of said tweet did post a screenshot of a statement from Levitz himself:

[Bored at 3:00AM]

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.

[hairys]

Bruce Timm, you're up!

[SJNeal]

And the witch hunt commences...

[Kurt Busiek]

What did he say? And does it have the authority of Joe Staton, who is still alive, clearing Levitz himself?

Screen Shot 2021-07-19 at 7.26.11 PM.jpg

Staton and Layton

[Holt]

Screen Shot 2021-07-19 at 7.26.11 PM.jpg

Staton and Layton

As always thank you for the insight!

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 article specifies an A-list character, however. Even a writer with no familiarity with the comics would be hard pressed to call the Trench anything approaching a-list.

[HsssH]

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.

[married guy]

Hmmm, I just searched and the tweet as well as replies have been deleted. The author of said tweet did post a screenshot of a statement from Levitz himself:

Stuff like this is why I'm a fan of Paul Levitz.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

As always thank you for the insight!



The article specifies an A-list character, however. Even a writer with no familiarity with the comics would be hard pressed to call the Trench anything approaching a-list.

Unless I'm mistaken, the article said it was an A-list creator, not an A-list character.

[kjn]

Unless I'm mistaken, the article said it was an A-list creator, not an A-list character.

Easily checked:

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.

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.

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.