Talk:Huntress (comics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
???	This article has no rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and provide comments here.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.

Contents 1 Trivia 2 image 3 Main Image Vote 4 Split/Breakout 5 Grammar/Tenses 6 Chronological order

[edit] Trivia

I backed out the 'This is meaningless TRIVIA.' edits. A lot of other characters involved in the Infinite Crisis are getting this added in (Kyle Rayner, for example), and I think it's a good deliniation between Helena Wayne/Huntress and this one. -- Ipstenu 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That's because other user added the information to all of them under the guise of importance. (Hello, Netty.) The fact of the matter is that the character being from Earth-Eight is not of any importance to the character; she does not even know it. It hasn't served as a plot point in stories involving Huntress beyond having her stand in a crowd and say a few lines. Same goes for the others. Helena Wayne being from Earth-Two is actually important; her stories were always stated to be on Earth-Two when Earth-One was the main canon, making her unique as a character created for Earth-Two, and her death involves her being from another universe. Earth-Eight carries no importance to the current Huntress save a throw-away line in a series that she has little, if any, involvement. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree to the fact that it doesn't matter to HER, but I don't really believe that they'd pitch in that as a throwaway, when the continuity fairy has been so nice to keep track of so much else. Also, I think it helps identify her in the newly reformed (even if only temporary) multiverse. The placement of everyone (i.e the fuckups of Hawkman and Power Girl) is of some import, because it helps us keep track of the 'verse and where and what it is, in its ad hoc insanity. That said, I'll cede with your explanation on the caveat of if the 'real' Earth home becomes important, these all pop back in. I understand that a lot of this is desire to flesh out pages for characters with not so much on them, and sometimes trivia is a grey area. IMO, it could stay, but I ain't gonna cry :) Just wanted to know. -- Ipstenu 01:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont disagree in cases like Power Girl, Donna Troy, and Hawkman. Their "real Earth" is vital to their backstory, as with Power Girl and Donna Troy confusing the universe, or behind-the-scenes stuff, like with Hawkman after CoIE (urrgh). ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 01:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You haven't validated why your view of reverting facts you deem as trivia is the correct presentation of Wikipedia. Or how it is that your POV justifies this position. And please stop launching obscenities towards fellow editors making sincere edits, even if they may not harmonize with your own editing philosophy. Thx. Netkinetic 05:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's really simple, guy. We don't present every detail of a subject, because, huh, that defeats the point of an encyclopedia and repels new readers. Who wants to read that Stargirl happened to fire a beam at Johnny Sorrow in JSA #16? Thus, we only include the important details that pertain to the character. "Earth-Eight", which is only mentioned to give Breach a valid reason to be in Infinite Crisis, is not important to those characters. Thus, they do deserve mention on the character pages. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 07:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely resolved on the issue, but doesn't the Multiverse affect every single character in the DCU? Moreover, pre- and post-Crisis, the Earths from which they come and the nexuses to these are vital in understanding the role of the characters. It could be breaking the fourth wall, but understanding their reality-grounded backstories also adds to understanding of their comic history. Initium 07:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image

ok, now we're relying on personal insults... first of all, it's not even a better pic. second, that Huntress costume was ugly. She looked like a dominatrix hooker. The pose is also very t&a. Third, there was no significant difference between WW's 2 costumes. There is a very significant one here (for starters, the new costume actually covers her body, as opposed to her running around wearing no pants). --DrBat 20:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

First, the only difference in costumes was her leggings. Second, the crosshairs block most of her, so all you can see is her mask and shoulder. The pic I used had her swinging through a window to rescue a child. It shows her fierceness and determination (you seem stuck on the t&a argument when it is blatantly wrong, hang up your sex issues dude). And it ties the Birds of Prey together, since Ed Benes art is used for Oracle and Black Canary pages. And please, leggings are even less of a costume change than changing the emblem and belt of a character (Like Wonder Woman) MetaStar 23:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

From a review for the respective issue: There was worry in some quarters that the addition of Ed Benes as the artist of the series would result in it becoming a T & A showcase. Last month, the new creative team’s first issue, seemed to alleviate those fears but this month has to have people wondering. Jim Lee is to blame for the Huntress’ skimpy new costume but Benes delivers the money shot on the cover with the Huntress breaking through a window with all her barely covered assets on full view. If Hugh Hefner and Stan Lee are looking for an artist for their new Playmates as super heroes series I think Ed Benes just passed the audition. At least the caption doesn’t read “Enter the Huntress.” That pretty much sums it up, imo. It was a horrible, ugly costume that the character only wore for a few months before it changed. She no longer wears it. Why should it be the SHB image?

And there is a BIG difference between her former and current costume. In the old costume, her belly was exposed and she wore no pants. Now, she's fully clothed. That's a far cry from WW's new costume, which has little differences from its predecessor. --DrBat 23:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its so funny how you cling to your sexual hang-ups, her "ugly" costume is just your costume with a bare-midriff and no leggings. GASP how dare she show skin, poor Wonder Woman is a filthy streetwalker if you consider that she flies a round in a corset and thigh-high boots. And a year-and-a-half of BoP comics with her costume (#57-82) doesn't really count as barely worn (or worn for a few months). Really, if any artist shows a woman with curves and any hint of sexuality you scream T&A and cheesecake (I don't see it, I guess my mind's a little cleaner than yours if you see skin and think hooker, maybe she should wear a bhurqa). But maybe I can ease your worried little mind, I've just posted a scan from your precious BoP # 84, showing an un-obscured pic of a non-skin showing Huntress. Perhaps now we can have a DECENT picture of Helena. MetaStar 01:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhmm.... I'm not the only one. Lots of people hated it. [1][2]

And some other comments:

A few years back Jim Less revamped the costume for the Batman character Huntress, and replaced her full-body kevlar bodysuit with a 2-piece outfit that exposed her entire midriff and upper body. Fans whined for weeks about the ridiculousness of the character choosing to switch to a costume that made it almost an invitation to be shot directly in the chest.

And... Huntress only wore it for a few months. It is irrelevant and does not need to be in the article. Nor does her small role in Hush (which she didn't get illegally; Tommy Elliot, saying he was a concernced citizen, gave it to her, and after checking him over and thinking he was clean, she took it.) --DrBat 21:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main Image Vote

OK, obviously, we need to have a vote on this main image. Please read the above arguments, or add your own, along with your vote - either:

or

Sign your vote. Votes will only be counted for those who have registered prior to the initiation of this vote, and this vote will last five days. --Chris Griswold 23:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Birds of Prey #57 - In the other picture, the Huntress has her back turned, and the crosshairs on her are distracting. Additionally, while the outfit may not be completely current, it was used during a period in which Huntres was featured much more than usual - in Justice League Unlimited, in the Batman: Hush storyline, in Batgirl, in Birds of Prey, and on an action figure in a the popular Hush line of figures. People with less knowledge of the character who may have seen her in JLU or Hush that come to Wikipedia for information on the Huntress will recognize her in this picture. --Chris Griswold 23:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Birds of Prey #84 Ok... first of all, you mention in changing the Zatanna image that "it's also less cheesecakey." Which is image is less cheesecakey of the two, honestly?

Second, it's an ugly costume. Look around the internet, a lot of people (including Gail Simone, the person currently writing her) hated the costume (hence, Simone changed it.

Third, I find it hard to believe that someone who saw her in the TV show will type in Huntress on Wikipedia and not recognise her from the current image.

Also, using the "popular" Hush example; should we then change the look Jason Todd had in that arc, with the white streak in his hair? He had a popular action figure with that look too, right? --DrBat 02:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Birds of Prey #84. It displays her current look. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 03:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Birds of Prey #57, not that I don't like Melo's art, its just that the crosshairs and green stuff make her harder to see. The Benes one, while a little suggestive is clearer, and easier to see. Coronis 13:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Birds of Prey # 57. Cause DrBrat is Just Wrong. She wore the suit of over a YEAR jackhole. Second the only difference between her "ugly" costume and #84 is leggings (so in theory your preffered costume is ugly too). Third, you can't frickin see her in that pic, so how can it reflect her current look, when nobody can see her costume. Honestly, get a clue, and get past your bias. Just becuase you think her Benes costume isn't relevant, DOES NOT mean others do too. MetaStar 13:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The image from BoP #57 depicts a more active and dynamic HB; I think it's the better one.--Galliaz 16:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're so hellbent on using an outdated costume, then we'll use the one she wore prior to the Lee-cheesecake one (the one she had the longest). And MetaStar, keep on giving examples of your profound maturity. And I must say, your hypocrisy is astounding; for your justification on using the Dodson image for Wonder Woman, you say "the SHB should reflect CURRENT appearances", even though her costume is the same in the original image. Yet, here you're insisting on using an outdated image with the character featuring a costume she no longer wears. --DrBat 22:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Good choice, people! This BoP # 91 is much better than the other two covers. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 23:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. BoP # 91 is the best so far. Let's keep it. --Chris Griswold 00:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent choice! It's a great pic!Coronis 01:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the image from BoP #91 looks good, too.--Galliaz 02:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Birds of Prey #84 captures the more vulnerable side of the Huntress; and she has been fraught with vulnerabilty ever since her world was destroyed by Crisis. Really, the standard pose of crashing through a window? It negates the nuances in every character, that makes them completely unique. It also reinforces the whole "cheapness" stereotypes superheroines are tainted with (and superheroes, for that matter, for the sole reason that Superman has underwear wardrobe-malfunction issues). So, I agree with BoP #84. It's a lot more natural, for one, and it encompasses both her determination, and her innate humanity. It's essentially a great portrayal; the fact that it's more recent (and thus more "accurate", to quibble) is a plus. Initium 07:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split/Breakout

Would it make sense to split this page into Helena Bertinelli, Helena Wayne, and Paula Brooks? Much like The Flash and Nightwing pages have done, the three Huntresses are mildly confusing. Also, I removed Baby Helena, since (a) Not Huntress and (b) that's on the Catwoman page. Even if we find out she is Batman's kid, she's still not a Huntress. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar/Tenses

Though I know Wikipedia urges present tense for articles about ongoing fictional characters, the following sentence fragment is problematic:

When she turns over to Batman the detailed "mob atlas" of Gotham that she compiles...

I see this as grammatically problematic because it implies that HB is compiling the atlas as she is handing it over to Batman. The sentence would be made more precise if it were worded like this:

When she turns over to Batman the detailed "mob atlas" that she has compiled...

It's perhaps a minor point, but still a relevant one. --Galliaz 10:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That was actually a typing error, rather than a tense error. Sorry. --Chris Griswold 01:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronological order

Her new 'Cry for Blood' origin should be in the beginning in chronological order, not after her stint with the JLA. --DrBat 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I checked to make sure it was in chronological order, and it is; the JLA issues in which she is a member were published before Cry for Blood. Everything's in chronological order. --Chris Griswold 07:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant, in order in which it actually happenened in continuity, not when it was published. Her origin should be in the beginning. --DrBat 13:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. In the interest of an accurate representation of the character's publishing history, it is important to keep things chronological. This also helps keep the article out-of-world. Take a look at Superman. Birthright is listed chronologically, not by continuity. --Chris Griswold 19:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)