Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The title pretty much says it all. (Apologies, Digi, if this is a repeat thread.)

What, to you, makes a character good? What makes you a fan of particular characters? If you have any example characters then that would be good too.

Is it their origins? Is it their tragedies? Is it that they're easy to relate to? Their character design even? Or is it simply that they beat this person or did that thing? (A lot of the time to the outside observer this last reason does seem like the reason some characters garner fans.)

On the flip side, what do you think makes for a bad character?

Nice design really helps.

It's all of those. Also their powers should be interesting, if they have them.

Originally posted by llagrok
Nice design really helps. Yeah, I think I need a good character design for at least initial interest in a character concept. I'm shallow that way.
Originally posted by King Kandy
It's all of those. Also their powers should be interesting, if they have them. I agree about the powers part, on the whole the brick characters, or flying brick characters don't appeal as much to me because they have the most mundane abilities.

And I agree for a lot of characters it is a combination of all of those mentioned characteristics that makes them appealing, but then there are some characters who gain followings, while lacking a lot of the above...

So are those characters considered good characters because they manage to attract a following or are they considered bad characters because they don't really have the qualities one would normally see in a great character concept.

Well for me I like characters that when written right create an absolute sense of awe and presence despite what abilities they have.

I also like them to have some personal flaw.

I think the personal flaw thing really humanizes a character and is part of the whole "easy to relate to" thing.

On a similar note to characters having flaws being a good thing - it often seems that some villains often have great potential when it comes to being good characterwise, and under good writers live up to it, sometimes even more so than the characters they were created to antagonize. But then they also say a measure of a hero is in the calibre of his foes I suppose.

Powers should make sense and work well with the personality. Also, it's always nice if there's some originality to the power. Even if this is a small thing, like growing dumber as you grow bigger, that separates you from every other super sizer.

Dumbasses are not fun characters to follow. Witty, clever or geniuses are more fun, though hopefully there's an element of wit or humor to the prodigies.

Finally, characters should be defined by their traits and personality, not their powers. Powers are nice and good, but there should be something that defines and separates them intrinsically from every other character with the same power set, or of the same personality archetype.

IMO.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The title pretty much says it all. (Apologies, Digi, if this is a repeat thread.

You know I'm running a tight ship when people start prefacing their threads with this.

No, you're just an *******.

Also I think a character can become popular just because they appear with such an air of power and importance and badassness, that they can be seen as cool even with horrible development. This typically works better on villains I find.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Also I think a character can become popular just because they appear with such an air of power and importance and badassness, that they can be seen as cool even with horrible development. This typically works better on villains I find.

The character in your sig is a perfect example of this.

??? Sentry is very well developed.

Lulz

Originally posted by Martian_mind
Lulz

Good character development and great art.

Wolverine for me IMO has ran out of good character development.

Originally posted by King Kandy
??? Sentry is very well developed.


I dunno yet....haven't read his mini yet, but I can see from other issues he's not written too well...I have to give him time.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The title pretty much says it all. (Apologies, Digi, if this is a repeat thread.)

What, to you, makes a character good? What makes you a fan of particular characters? If you have any example characters then that would be good too.

Is it their origins? Is it their tragedies? Is it that they're easy to relate to? Their character design even? Or is it simply that they beat this person or did that thing? (A lot of the time to the outside observer this last reason does seem like the reason some characters garner fans.)

On the flip side, what do you think makes for a bad character?

I think originality and development are important. Not everyone hero needs a tragedy in their childhood.

Too many clones.

lets take superman for example. Besides the obvious superman clone type characters their is the NON-obvious superman clones.

Like Wonder woman, martian manhunter, green lantern. Hell even flash.
Most of the JL are similar in their power nowadays.

back int he day they all were very different. Now after all of them got powerups through out the years they all basically have the same powers.

Flight, super strength, speed, ect. Yeah their powers differ a bit but the basics are there.

Back in the day ww couldnt fly thats why she had her jet, and she was not super strong.

I just used supes as an example. There are alot more cases like these as well.

And it makes characters less unique and unoriginal. Thus less interesting.

This is just one aspect of it. Of coarse there is also, a characters story , feelings, struggles, personality, ect. But i wasnt getting into that.

1. unique and interesting personality (not cookie cutter bland) - ie. Wolverine

2. well developed background that explains the motivations behind the character - ie. Batman

3. complex character (meaning character isn't just a black or white hero/villain type, but rather has many issues to deal with in life beyond fighting superpowered beings) - ie. Spiderman

4. good rogue of enemies - a character is only as good as the enemies he faces daily - ie. Batman again

5. cool factor (some characters are JUST cool, while others are duds) - ie. Superman

Originally posted by endrict
I dunno yet....haven't read his mini yet, but I can see from other issues he's not written too well...I have to give him time.
It's true that he was written very poorly outside his own series.

Originally posted by King Kandy
??? Sentry is very well developed. crylaugh

Really simple. For me, its a character who can truly stand out as a unique individual even if their powers are rather standard and cliche. Its a combination of various factors like background, personality, character quirks, and to a lesser extent powers and physical appearance.

Alpha Flight's probably the single best example of this, and I'll lump the Authority in with them too. The Sentry also has great potential to become more than Marvel's latest pastiche of Superman, but so far the writing has failed to truly distinguish him (the mini is better about this), though at least he isn't as close as Hyperion.

Peter Quill.

Best character....ever

Hulk used to be a good character,writers didnt stick to the plan at all.
Greg Pak and the subconcious calculating thing is crap to me,it should have been kept unofficial or explored in a different manner,it seemed rushed.Peter David wrote a good Hulk but in his series I didnt find Hulk as formidable as he should've been.
Bruce Jones=FAIL.
The Old days were good though,I could read them all day.

Originally posted by King Kandy
??? Sentry is very well developed.

Originally posted by King Kandy
??? Sentry is very well developed.

Originally posted by King Kandy
??? Sentry is very well developed.
crylaugh

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The title pretty much says it all. (Apologies, Digi, if this is a repeat thread.)

What, to you, makes a character good? What makes you a fan of particular characters? If you have any example characters then that would be good too.

Is it their origins? Is it their tragedies? Is it that they're easy to relate to? Their character design even? Or is it simply that they beat this person or did that thing? (A lot of the time to the outside observer this last reason does seem like the reason some characters garner fans.)

On the flip side, what do you think makes for a bad character?

For me a good character must have the following:

- A very unique origin.

- Human behaviour which the reader can understand and connect.

- Ability to understand the differences between good and evil. Who wants a comic book character which uses philosophy to combat his enemies?

- Some sort of spirituality or chi.

- Indepth into their personality and what makes them fight for what they believe.

- Above all...the character must be in very good physical form. Now who would want a comic book character that sits on the sofa muching chips and watch tv?

What makes a bad character?

A cool costume and horrendous writing. Case in point comic book characters from Image and Ultraverse in the 90's.

Sorry but I have to lulz a little at the Sentry comment too... as he was one of those that came to mind for me for characters who attract a following while lacking a lot of qualities people have mentioned they need in a "good character" another one being Vulcan; also don't get the appeal of Superboy/man Prime nor Apocalypse - the latter even moreso since he doesn't even have all the super mega awesome-o power.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Sorry but I have to lulz a little at the Sentry comment too... as he was one of those that came to mind for me for characters who attract a following while lacking a lot of qualities people have mentioned they need in a "good character" another one being Vulcan; also don't get the appeal of Superboy/man Prime nor Apocalypse - the latter even moreso since he doesn't even have all the super mega awesome-o power.

Apoc's motivations are actually somewhat interesting.

SBP could be considered unique because he's so blatantly emo.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Apoc's motivations are actually somewhat interesting.

What villain doesn't have a Darwin complex? His motivations don't interest me.

Originally posted by batdude123
What villain doesn't have a Darwin complex? His motivations don't interest me.

most villains are interested in power. Apoc isn't really, sure if no one is fit to defeat him, he'll gladly rule. But he's just as ok if he is proven to be less fit than those who challenge him. His ultimate goal isn't domination by himself, rather that the fittest, whether that be him or not, rise and the weak are removed from the genetic pool.

that's pretty unique motivation

The fight between Apocalypse and the High Evolutionary pretty much sums up the character of Apocalypse.

http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/1886/annxfactorv100315roughexc1.th.jpg http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3544/annxfactorv100316roughesn8.th.jpg http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5879/annxfactorv100322roughegu2.th.jpg http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3301/annxfactorv100323roughenr3.th.jpg http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/2467/annxfactorv100324roughejg4.th.jpg

This page gives an interesting light on Apocalypse.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/6026/xfactor050page37qz1.th.jpg

During his discussion with Hulk, Apocalypse shares a rather tragic (and unusual) view of himself.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1601/incrediblehulk456p06yw5.th.jpg http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/6431/incrediblehulk456p07qe8.th.jpg http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/6779/incrediblehulk456p08dc7.th.jpg

Louise Simonson wrote Apocalypse best. Other writers misunderstand Apocalypse's perversion of the Darwin's evolutionary theory. Apocalypse has been miswritten for several years now (he does NOT want to conquer the world, dammit), but his true shining moments in comics was back in X-Factor. Read any Louise Simonson X-Factor (1986) story. Apocalypse is far more menacing because it appears any short term goal--even losing to X-Factor--fits into his plans. Like Mister Sinister, short term setbacks mean nothing to Apocalypse because he largely works from the shadows through his pawns in the Alliance of Evil & the Horsemen of Apocalypse.

Apocalypse has always stood out more as a villain. He doesn't join some team consisting of master bad guys nor he is part of the "supervillain community". He did not want to partake in Loki's "Acts of Vengeance." Sure, Apocalypse is primarily an X-Men foe, but two of his minions, Moses Magnum and the Harbinger, have shown to be serious threats to the Avengers.

I don't think that being a standalone villain in itself would contribute to a character being a good character. It should in theory give more opportunity for character development - but frankly Apocalypse has been pretty severely lacking in that department - and really nowadays doesn't come off as more than a typical despot.

Without development a character can become pretty stagnant. For me, having an interesting initial premise isn't enough for a character to remain interesting over time.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It should in theory give more opportunity for character development - but frankly Apocalypse has been pretty severely lacking in that department

Rise of Apocalypse?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
and really nowadays doesn't come off as more than a typical despot.

I haven't come across Apocalypse as a despot since the AoA.

Originally posted by Bad Ash231
Rise of Apocalypse?
I haven't come across Apocalypse as a despot since the AoA. Read it a while back. Added a semi-interesting origin story; I'm still not seeing oodles of character development though. He simply doesn't strike me as a particularly complex or intricate character - something I generally prefer in characters if I'm to remain interested in them.

Also this thread isn't "Is Apocalypse a good character?" it's what makes a good character...

Breasts...that is all.

Originally posted by King_Mungi
Breasts...that is all. Rob Liefeld Captain America ftw?
http://i.somethingawful.com/mjolnir/images/livestock~captain.jpg

that must've been a stretched image. right?

Originally posted by Bad Ash231
The fight between Apocalypse and the High Evolutionary pretty much sums up the character of Apocalypse.

http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/1886/annxfactorv100315roughexc1.th.jpg http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3544/annxfactorv100316roughesn8.th.jpg http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5879/annxfactorv100322roughegu2.th.jpg http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3301/annxfactorv100323roughenr3.th.jpg http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/2467/annxfactorv100324roughejg4.th.jpg

This page gives an interesting light on Apocalypse.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/6026/xfactor050page37qz1.th.jpg

During his discussion with Hulk, Apocalypse shares a rather tragic (and unusual) view of himself.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1601/incrediblehulk456p06yw5.th.jpg http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/6431/incrediblehulk456p07qe8.th.jpg http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/6779/incrediblehulk456p08dc7.th.jpg

Louise Simonson wrote Apocalypse best. Other writers misunderstand Apocalypse's perversion of the Darwin's evolutionary theory. Apocalypse has been miswritten for several years now (he does NOT want to conquer the world, dammit), but his true shining moments in comics was back in X-Factor. Read any Louise Simonson X-Factor (1986) story. Apocalypse is far more menacing because it appears any short term goal--even losing to X-Factor--fits into his plans. Like Mister Sinister, short term setbacks mean nothing to Apocalypse because he largely works from the shadows through his pawns in the Alliance of Evil & the Horsemen of Apocalypse.

Apocalypse has always stood out more as a villain. He doesn't join some team consisting of master bad guys nor he is part of the "supervillain community". He did not want to partake in Loki's "Acts of Vengeance." Sure, Apocalypse is primarily an X-Men foe, but two of his minions, Moses Magnum and the Harbinger, have shown to be serious threats to the Avengers.

I am glad someone finally understands Apocalypse's character, its a shame how he was changed for the worse down the line, but at least someone remembers the real Apocalypse.

Apoc sucks.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf

- A very unique origin.

- Some sort of spirituality or chi.

So i'm guessing you're not a big fan of Invincible then

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Rob Liefeld Captain America ftw?
http://i.somethingawful.com/mjolnir/images/livestock~captain.jpg

droolio

Originally posted by Master-Borg
that must've been a stretched image. right?

Nope, your not familar with Mr.Liefield are you?

Cool personality and badass looks.

Loki is a pretty good character when written properly. I liked his recent depiction in Ragnarok.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Read it a while back. Added a semi-interesting origin story; I'm still not seeing oodles of character development though. He simply doesn't strike me as a particularly complex or intricate character - something I generally prefer in characters if I'm to remain interested in them.

Also this thread isn't "Is Apocalypse a good character?" it's what makes a good character...

Does a character HAVE to be complex?

What Villain can you think of that is so great because of his incredible complexity and has developed a lot as well? You really seem to focus a lot of the negative parts about Apocalypse, more specifically the cases where is portrayed as a guy who gets his kicks off by dictating others.

Originally posted by Estacado
Cool personality and big muscles.

Fixed 131

Originally posted by llagrok
Lame outfit and raping skills.
hmm

Originally posted by Estacado
hmm

Dr.Light has the coolest outfit ever

**** you!

For me, first and foremost, the character has to have a cool, preferably original look. Comics are, after all, a visual medium, and personally, I'm getting tired of spandex.

Secondly, cool powers. Not too much leeway with originality on this one. Still, in combination with a cool character design, even the most basic and common powerset can work very effectively.

Thirdly, an original and interesting origin / backstory. And as a corollary to this: like Symmetric Chaos said, not every character needs a tragic childhood. That's becoming about as overdone as opera gloves and thighhighs on female characters.

Originally posted by llagrok
What Villain can you think of that is so great because of his incredible complexity and has developed a lot as well?

Doom, Magneto, Galactus to name a few.

The Authority was great!!!! back in the day when they were not in the main stream and with great writers/artist. Now look what happened to them, the Morrison/Ha run was cancelled and the new Prime run sucks IMO (I stopped collecting it). I am a fan of the swearing but when they changed that....that was their down fall IMO but they can still be good without it if they have better writer like Brubaker...but not like what it use to be.

Originally posted by Citizen V
Doom, Magneto, Galactus to name a few.

Magneto's so called complexity is just borderline inconsistency...

Also, did I ask you?...

Originally posted by llagrok
Magneto's so called complexity is just borderline inconsistency...

Also, did I ask you?...

No it's not.

It's an open forum, don't post questions if you don't want them answered.

Originally posted by King_Mungi
droolio



Nope, your not familar with Mr.Liefield are you?

I am aware of Mr. Liefield's artistic 'talent', but I don't remember his anatomy as ridiculous as that pic of Captain America...it's almost unfathomable how any editor would allow that picture to pass.

Originally posted by Master-Borg
I am aware of Mr. Liefield's artistic 'talent', but I don't remember his anatomy as ridiculous as that pic of Captain America...it's almost unfathomable how any editor would allow that picture to pass.

It was the 90s, common sense decided that it deserved a decade long vacation.

Originally posted by Master-Borg
I am aware of Mr. Liefield's artistic 'talent', but I don't remember his anatomy as ridiculous as that pic of Captain America...it's almost unfathomable how any editor would allow that picture to pass.


Have you seen some of the art out there these days? like Wolverine Origins...how thew Hell did that pass?

Originally posted by Mindship


Thirdly, an original and interesting origin / backstory. And as a corollary to this: like Symmetric Chaos said, not every character needs a tragic childhood. That's becoming about as overdone as opera gloves and thighhighs on female characters.

Have to agree, for once I'd like to see someone become evil just for the hell of it.

"Why am I blowing up this Orphanage Stupendous man ? Why because it makes me feel good , that's why !"

Screw neglect and 'My parent are deeeeeeeead !!!!' , lets have a villain whose a dick just for the sake of it !

Originally posted by grey fox
Have to agree, for once I'd like to see someone become evil just for the hell of it.

"Why am I blowing up this Orphanage Stupendous man ? Why because it makes me feel good , that's why !"

Screw neglect and 'My parent are deeeeeeeead !!!!' , lets have a villain whose a dick just for the sake of it !


yeah but that kinda motivation gets old real fast...just look at Carnage

not saying their must be a tragic underpinnning, but it's nice for a villain to have some more complex reasons for their motivation

Originally posted by grey fox
Have to agree, for once I'd like to see someone become evil just for the hell of it.

"Why am I blowing up this Orphanage Stupendous man ? Why because it makes me feel good , that's why !"

Screw neglect and 'My parent are deeeeeeeead !!!!' , lets have a villain whose a dick just for the sake of it !

That's surprisingly difficult to do if you want the character to be believable at all (I've tried) but it can be a lot of fun when it works.

Originally posted by Master-Borg
yeah but that kinda motivation gets old real fast...just look at Carnage

not saying their must be a tragic underpinnning, but it's nice for a villain to have some more complex reasons for their motivation

No, the problem with Carnage was overexposure and poorly explained reasoning.

If they used him rarely and came up with something with a bit more weight then 'I'm Batshit Insane ! Deal with it !'. Then perhaps his fanbase would be larger and based more on the character then his appearance.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The title pretty much says it all. (Apologies, Digi, if this is a repeat thread.)

What, to you, makes a character good? What makes you a fan of particular characters? If you have any example characters then that would be good too.

Is it their origins? Is it their tragedies? Is it that they're easy to relate to? Their character design even? Or is it simply that they beat this person or did that thing? (A lot of the time to the outside observer this last reason does seem like the reason some characters garner fans.)

On the flip side, what do you think makes for a bad character?

good character-bad ass attitude.cool costumes.mentaltiy.

bad character-do gooders-corny costumes and origins

Originally posted by llagrok
Does a character HAVE to be complex?

What Villain can you think of that is so great because of his incredible complexity and has developed a lot as well? You really seem to focus a lot of the negative parts about Apocalypse, more specifically the cases where is portrayed as a guy who gets his kicks off by dictating others. I said "if I'm to remain interested in them" I like a character to have some complexity to them - both heroes and villains; if you prefer simplistic and/or unidimensional characters that's completely your prerogative...

And again this isn't a thread about whether or not Apocalypse is a good character, it's about what makes a character good. If you want to explain what makes a good character, in your opinion, and use Apocalypse as an example of a good character that's all well and good, but he came to mind to me alongside SBP, Vulcan and Sentry, in my opinion.

Doom, Magneto before Morrison and then Marvel editorial made him a continuity mess, Mystique.

On another note though, often it's the dynamic between a villain and hero that can add to their character, Magneto-Xavier, Doom-Mr F.

However sometimes is better when villains have no connection to heroes, because it can become to forced, especially if the villain was a pre-existing character.

When villains become villains for reasons that have nothing to do with the hero, it often makes them more interesting. I mean just look at the The Rouges. None of them have any real backstory with the Flash, but they are still compelling characters in their own right.

Originally posted by llagrok
Magneto's so called complexity is just borderline inconsistency...

I knew you'd say something about Magneto when V brought him up as a complex character.

Lulz.

This came purely out of spite on account of everyone here attacking Apocalypse's character. With all bias aside, Erik is one of the most complex villains ever created who's filled with depth.

Originally posted by Master-Borg
most villains are interested in power. Apoc isn't really, sure if no one is fit to defeat him, he'll gladly rule. But he's just as ok if he is proven to be less fit than those who challenge him. His ultimate goal isn't domination by himself, rather that the fittest, whether that be him or not, rise and the weak are removed from the genetic pool.

that's pretty unique motivation

You're sugar-coating bullshit.

Originally posted by batdude123
With all bias aside, Erik is one of the most complex villains ever created who's filled with depth.

I was gonna reply to this statement but you just did it for me

Originally posted by batdude123
You're sugar-coating bullshit.

Originally posted by batdude123

This came purely out of spite on account of everyone here attacking Apocalypse's character. With all bias aside, Erik is one of the most complex villains ever created who's filled with depth.

Not according to Grant Morrison who turned Magneto Xorn, into a crazy drug addict who just wanted to kill people for no real reason other than his own insanity.

Originally posted by grey fox
Have to agree, for once I'd like to see someone become evil just for the hell of it.

"Why am I blowing up this Orphanage Stupendous man ? Why because it makes me feel good , that's why !"

Screw neglect and 'My parent are deeeeeeeead !!!!' , lets have a villain whose a dick just for the sake of it !

Cyborg is that guy.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/6566/returnofsuperman265zh3.th.jpghttp://img524.imageshack.us/img524/4216/returnofsuperman266re5.th.jpg

Originally posted by Avlon
Cyborg is that guy.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/6566/returnofsuperman265zh3.th.jpghttp://img524.imageshack.us/img524/4216/returnofsuperman266re5.th.jpg Hes a villain because his wife died and he blames Superman or something.

Originally posted by Grimm22
However sometimes is better when villains have no connection to heroes, because it can become to forced, especially if the villain was a pre-existing character.

When villains become villains for reasons that have nothing to do with the hero, it often makes them more interesting. I mean just look at the The Rouges. None of them have any real backstory with the Flash, but they are still compelling characters in their own right. I disagree. Some of the best villains have histories intertwined with their archenemy, or are at least deeply connected enough with the primary hero that they actually represent something far more than the ordinary villain.

Joker
Doom
Magneto
Bullseye

etc.

However, I do agree that it can become forced at times, which is unlikeable.

Just look at Hush. Granted, Batman was the pre-existing, but Hush Returns was all forced "this is more personal than ever before"... ugh.

Originally posted by Inhuman
Too many clones. Hmm... I've been thinking about this and while it's generally not a good thing for a character to be a carbon copy - it really depends on how the character is developed.

Take for example two Wolverine clones, X-23 and Daken. (NB not that I'm saying either is the epitome of "good character."

One has been made into a relatively compelling and valid character in their own right, the other is Daken. X-23 has evolved from simply being Wolverine's clone, both figuratively and literally. The latter has basically relied on being a duplicate of the predecessor with no real justification for existing at all.

(Additionally Daken has a retarded character design)

Originally posted by willRules
I was gonna reply to this statement but you just did it for me
You got me so good, man! Ouch!

What I said is the truth.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Not according to Grant Morrison who turned Magneto Xorn, into a crazy drug addict who just wanted to kill people for no real reason other than his own insanity.

Okay?

Problem with Magneto (Hell the entire problem with the X-men series) is that it's a cluster-**** of horrible retcons, bad writing and general confusing bullshit. I like to think its because their inherently that bad, but will grudgingly admit it has a lot to do with the fact that they were Marvels poster boy for the Nineties.

Also Xorn is awesome , really the whole character design and idea is unique and masterful.

What they did to it however, was uncalled for.

I thought Malefic was a great villian,and Jason Todd was shaping up to be a gfreat nemesis of the Bat family.

...but yeah,the personal deal can and has had utter failure.

Originally posted by grey fox
Problem with Magneto (Hell the entire problem with the X-men series) is that it's a cluster-**** of horrible retcons, bad writing and general confusing bullshit. I like to think its because their inherently that bad, but will grudgingly admit it has a lot to do with the fact that they were Marvels poster boy for the Nineties.

Also Xorn is awesome , really the whole character design and idea is unique and masterful.

What they did to it however, was uncalled for.

You mean having Wolverine cut his head off? Lulz.

Originally posted by batdude123
You mean having Wolverine cut his head off? Lulz.

Not just that, the whole shindig.

All this 'Mwhahah I really evil Magneto whose dressed up like a good guy and am now using all your special ed kids to take over the school mwahahaha' bullshit , hell i'm not even considering the retcon --which was even stupider-- , overall they had a great character whom they shat on. Turned him into magneto (What a surprise ) and then killed him off suddenly.

I never really cared for Xorn, but I'm relatively glad that Morrison's take on Magneto being a completely evil drugged-up lunatic was retconned from being the real Magneto.

Magneto has never been truly evil, he and Xavier are two sides to the same coin, same destination, different road.

I don't care for Xorn either, I mean they used him as a cheap exit. But the character idea and design I love. His brother is also kickass.

I'm going to revive my thread, but instead of the general question, I'd like people to name a character they think is a good character and why, or alternatively a character they think is a bad character and why.

Jonn:Uniqe origin,rich history to pull stories from,awesome archnemesis and fairly interesting powerset,with a deep character.

Mongul:Crap origin,crap character development,basicallly the epitome of fail.

Black Bolt: Uniqe origin, awesome sense of power and responsibility of a king who can never outright speak to his people,awesome archnemesis and fairly interesting powerset,with a deep character.

Apocalypse: Crap origin,crap character development,basicallly the epitome of fail.

I've always liked the irony of a King who can't directly speak to his people too. And I've always liked the Maximus-Black Bolt dynamic - somewhat Hamlet/Shakespearean... or Disney/Lion Kingish. ermmhappy

Originally posted by StylishSmurph
Black Bolt: Uniqe origin, awesome sense of power and responsibility of a king who can never outright speak to his people,awesome archnemesis and fairly interesting powerset,with a deep character.

Apocalypse: Crap origin,crap character development,basicallly the epitome of fail.

I'll cosign that one.

Apocalypse has a good origin and is a good evil villain type character



So how is that fail ?

Originally posted by Kazenji
Apocalypse was born nearly five thousand years ago in Egypt as a member of the Akkaba clan. Even as an infant, he inspired fear. Ugly and malformed, he was abandoned by the tribe to die in the harsh desert sun. However, a roving band of feared desert nomad raiders, the Sandstormers, slaughtered the population. Their ruthless leader, Baal, found the child crying in rage. Most of them, too, thought the infant should die, though, Baal somehow recognized the potential power in the child. He named him En Sabah Nur ("The First One" in anticipation of others like him and raised him as his own son.

As En Sabah Nur grew, he surpassed the other tribesmen in intelligence and strength. Everyone in the tribe except for Baal hated and feared him for his inhuman looks and great abilities. Nur did not understand their fear, but hardened his heart against it. Moreover, he believed in the principle that Baal and the tribe lived by, that only the fittest, the toughest, most ruthless and pitiless, tested by hardship, would, and should, survive. On the day of his tribal rite of passage into manhood, the seventeen-year-old En Sabah Nur killed three armed warriors of the tribe using only his bare hands. Coming straight to VHS at an old videostore near you, stars Kevin Sorbo and Tia Carrere.

A mutant shunned by society and raised by a group of outsiders?

Surely you jest,such a thing is unprecendented.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I've always liked the irony of a King who can't directly speak to his people too. And I've always liked the Maximus-Black Bolt dynamic - somewhat Hamlet/Shakespearean... or Disney/Lion Kingish. ermmhappy

The entire Inhuman society is just plain awesomeness in its own right.

Maximus' crazy monologues and talks with Black Bolt, they're the best.

Originally posted by grey fox
Have to agree, for once I'd like to see someone become evil just for the hell of it.

"Why am I blowing up this Orphanage Stupendous man ? Why because it makes me feel good , that's why !"

Screw neglect and 'My parent are deeeeeeeead !!!!' , lets have a villain whose a dick just for the sake of it !

I think DCs Scarecrow comes under that category. From what I understand he just decided he was going to be a basterd.

Cnat be assed to go through what I think makes a good character but some of the characters I like are Promotheus. Characters that started from nothing and from hardwork became badasses

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I've always liked the irony of a King who can't directly speak to his people too.

That is pretty awesome writing.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Apocalypse has a good origin and is a good evil villain type character



So how is that fail ?

You didn't post his full origin.



I don't see any problem with Apocalypse's back story. At least he wasn't the third Summers brother that Weinberg planned...

Originally posted by Bad Ash231
I don't see any problem with Apocalypse's back story. At least he wasn't the third Summers brother that Weinberg planned... Instead we get the awesomeness that is Brubaker's Vulcan... huzzah. haermm

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Instead we get the awesomeness that is Brubaker's Vulcan... huzzah. haermm

Y-you mean Terry Kavanagh saw into the future and stole Vulcan's back story for Apocalypse? omg

Apoc as the Third Summers brother would have been kickass.Originally posted by Alfheim
I think DCs Scarecrow comes under that category. From what I understand he just decided he was going to be a basterd.

Cnat be assed to go through what I think makes a good character but some of the characters I like are Promotheus. Characters that started from nothing and from hardwork became badasses

Nah, Crane was bullied in school and became Emo for a while before putting on his goofy-ass costume and doping people with his 'fear gas'.

It's bullshit, EVERYONE gets tormented by Kids. EVERYONE. You don't see me, Scoob or Xmark putting on some retard costume and drugging people just because Billy Jean thought it'd be funny to fling a mud ball at you.

The characters I like always appeal to aspects of myself. Like Deadpool nails my humor. Guys like Doom and Iron Man earn their notches through intelligence instead of lucking out and receiving powers. In a similar vein, Magneto improved what he had through intelligence showing once again how knowledge is power. I could go on and on.

Originally posted by grey fox
Apoc as the Third Summers brother would have been kickass.

Nah, Crane was bullied in school and became Emo for a while before putting on his goofy-ass costume and doping people with his 'fear gas'.

It's bullshit, EVERYONE gets tormented by Kids. EVERYONE. You don't see me, Scoob or Xmark putting on some retard costume and drugging people just because Billy Jean thought it'd be funny to fling a mud ball at you.

Actually the real Billy Jean wanted to sleep with you kids when y'all were kids...that's enough to drive a kid crazy and emotionally nuts.

Originally posted by grey fox
It's bullshit, EVERYONE gets tormented by Kids. EVERYONE. You don't see me, Scoob or Xmark putting on some retard costume and drugging people Actually... Xmarks might... mmm

Originally posted by grey fox
Apoc as the Third Summers brother would have been kickass.



You don't see me, Scoob or Xmark putting on some retard costume and drugging people just because Billy Jean thought it'd be funny to fling a mud ball at you.

I wouldn't put it past you.

Originally posted by Nod
I wouldn't put it past you.

If I DID become a Supervillain I wouldn't be 'Scarecrow'. I mean scaring people to death has its own charm but I'd prefer to either warp reality to drive them insane or become some kind of explosive based villain.

BOOM !

Originally posted by grey fox
If I DID become a Supervillain I wouldn't be 'Scarecrow'. I mean scaring people to death has its own charm but I'd prefer to either warp reality to drive them insane or become some kind of explosive based villain.

BOOM !

He's in the UK anyways, might as well be MJJ.

Nah, I don't look like Terry Thomas enough, Ironically I do look vaguely (And I mean VAGUELY) like a young Alan Moore.

I think Thor is being written really well in his series.

Juggernaut is a good character when he finally got the much needed screen time he had been lacking before.

And I like Superman only when he is SUPERMAN.

Not the chump who gets auto wins or when people try to make him far more complex then what he is.

This ISN'T spam. I promise.

Originally posted by StylishSmurph
I hate Newjak.

I saw what you had before haermm

Originally posted by Blair Wind
I saw what you had before haermm Good.

Then I'm justified in my NJ hate.

Jerk posts in two different threads, screwed me up... furious

Originally posted by StylishSmurph
Good.

Then I'm justified in my NJ hate.

Jerk posts in two different threads, screwed me up... furious Its ok cause I love you 313

Originally posted by grey fox
Apoc as the Third Summers brother would have been kickass.

r u srs?


All the pot in the world would be required for someone to understand that shit. Go and read the whole thing. Its ridiculous.

Emma Frost: To quote ExodusCloak "A character with such flare and personality, such wit and finesse. A character who has many faces, the callous White Queen as a opposed to the caring teacher.

She's not overpowered so if you're looking for flashy feats I suggest looking elsewhere, however she is still extremely gifted, creative and skilled when it comes to her powers. An extremely diverse and deep characterisation allows her to stand out from the rest of the crowd. On first-impression she comes across as this flawless being but dig deeper and you'll find one of the most screwed up souls to ever grace the corners of an X-Men comic. When it comes down to it her ethos is far more practical then Xavier's Dream or Magnetos Realistic approach to mutant/human coexistence. Her morals or lack of them allows her to take Xavier's dream to the next level...this balanced by her boyfriend Scott Summers good nature allows for an efficient, realistic and practical approach to the running of the Xavier Institute."

She also has the self-proclaimed "best body money can buy."

Originally posted by Bad Ash231
r u srs?


All the pot in the world would be required for someone to understand that shit. Go and read the whole thing. Its ridiculous.

I DID read it. Incredibly retarded Nineties Cable and his time-travel plothole-along would of been stupid. The core IDEA though was Gold (Again, like Xorn).

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The title pretty much says it all. (Apologies, Digi, if this is a repeat thread.)

What, to you, makes a character good? What makes you a fan of particular characters? If you have any example characters then that would be good too.

Is it their origins? Is it their tragedies? Is it that they're easy to relate to? Their character design even? Or is it simply that they beat this person or did that thing? (A lot of the time to the outside observer this last reason does seem like the reason some characters garner fans.)

On the flip side, what do you think makes for a bad character?

a face like a prune.blue and gold outfit with pointy shoulder pads

Originally posted by LORD B
a face like a prune.blue and gold outfit with pointy shoulder pads

Thanos' chin resembles a Skrull's...


He is loosely based on Darkseid...






Thanos sucks. uhuh

Depth.

Originally posted by Bad Ash231
Thanos' chin resembles a Skrull's...


He is loosely based on Darkseid...






Thanos sucks. uhuh
shitfan

your for it nowbeware

Originally posted by LORD B
shitfan

your for it nowbeware

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r23/princeofcrime/CHUCK%20NORRIS/chuck_norris.jpg

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Emma Frost: To quote ExodusCloak "A character with such flare and personality, such wit and finesse. A character who has many faces, the callous White Queen as a opposed to the caring teacher.

She's not overpowered so if you're looking for flashy feats I suggest looking elsewhere, however she is still extremely gifted, creative and skilled when it comes to her powers. An extremely diverse and deep characterisation allows her to stand out from the rest of the crowd. On first-impression she comes across as this flawless being but dig deeper and you'll find one of the most screwed up souls to ever grace the corners of an X-Men comic. When it comes down to it her ethos is far more practical then Xavier's Dream or Magnetos Realistic approach to mutant/human coexistence. Her morals or lack of them allows her to take Xavier's dream to the next level...this balanced by her boyfriend Scott Summers good nature allows for an efficient, realistic and practical approach to the running of the Xavier Institute."

She also has the self-proclaimed "best body money can buy."

Multiple Man > Xavier > Emma.

Originally posted by Bad Ash231
http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r23/princeofcrime/CHUCK%20NORRIS/chuck_norris.jpg

im sorry there's need for chuck to get involved*runs away*

Continuity seems to ring a bell for a lot of characters. I noticed its the characters with the short runs that are usually regarded as having the best stories. Too much focus on continuity can ruin characters but not enough can turn readers off. Wolverine, Spiderman, Superman, Batman are all victims of this. I notice I am more emotionally involved with characters that don't have a pre history and status quo.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Emma Frost: To quote ExodusCloak "A character with such flare and personality, such wit and finesse. A character who has many faces, the callous White Queen as a opposed to the caring teacher.

She's not overpowered so if you're looking for flashy feats I suggest looking elsewhere, however she is still extremely gifted, creative and skilled when it comes to her powers. An extremely diverse and deep characterisation allows her to stand out from the rest of the crowd. On first-impression she comes across as this flawless being but dig deeper and you'll find one of the most screwed up souls to ever grace the corners of an X-Men comic. When it comes down to it her ethos is far more practical then Xavier's Dream or Magnetos Realistic approach to mutant/human coexistence. Her morals or lack of them allows her to take Xavier's dream to the next level...this balanced by her boyfriend Scott Summers good nature allows for an efficient, realistic and practical approach to the running of the Xavier Institute."

She also has the self-proclaimed "best body money can buy."

Wow someone actually quoted me.

I think a characters ingenuity with their powers is also something that makes a character appeal to me. I also think character depth is something that is necessary for a certain bracket of character eg however I believe if applied to the wrong type of character it can actually make them worse. An example being Apocalypse, IMO they would be better off trying to make him less relatable then trying to turn him into a grey character like they did in Blood of Apocalypse. I mean a villian doesn't necessarily have to be grey to be appealing.

Characters like:

- Cassandra Nova who are constrained to black and white morals make up for that with their dialogue.

- Selene I believe has the potential to do the same in terms of dialogue because of the background that was layed out for her.

- Exodus doesn't appear much so maybe that's why he's not that annoying to me. He's a complete bigot but he expresses himself so eloquently in his dialogue, both literary tone and words.

- Mr. Sinisters appearance only needs slight modifications apart from that it seems like the look is timeless. I think what saves him is that his Marauders have done far more damage to the X-Men then most of their villians. He's also quite calculating. He wouldn't be a favourite but he's an acceptable villian.

- As for Apocalypse, what really put me off him was TAS his voice was terrible. Though it must be said that Evolution turned him into a threat. For once I actually felt as though he was a threat. And as mentioned above the best thing about Evo Apocalypse was that he only said a line or two in the whole series. His blue design was a no, no. I think he needs a new look. I liked the Pharaoh look more then most of his other looks. He also needs to become more of a threat, more calculating and use his powers in a way that isn't so mundane.

- As for Vulcan, he's a train wreck when it comes to character depth but I don't dislike the character mainly because of his character design. It's far better IMO then the other potential 3rd Summers Brothers: Adam X, Gambit and Apocalypse. He's also insane which is always a good thing. Add that to his lineage and powerset and I believe there is a good foundation layed out for a good writer to come and salvage.

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
An example being Apocalypse, IMO they would be better off trying to make him less relatable then trying to turn him into a grey character like they did in Blood of Apocalypse. I mean a villian doesn't necessarily have to be grey to be appealing.

He doesn't need to be grey skinned either so he doesn't look like Darkseid with blue lips...

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
As for Apocalypse, what really put me off him was TAS his voice was terrible.

Die.


His voice was damn scary (Well, at least in the first two seasons). He had some pretty good lines too...

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
Though it must be said that Evolution turned him into a threat. For once I actually felt as though he was a threat.

TAS Apoc wasn't a threat?



He killed the X-Men when he got pissed. And once he got his hands on some time travel technology, he became a universal threat...

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
His blue design was a no, no.

...

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37/Nightmareman95/HAL10WEEN/12.jpg

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
I liked the Pharaoh look more then most of his other looks.

AoA/Apoc vs. Drac look >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pharaoh look uhuh

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
He also needs to become more of a threat.

You do know why Cable went back into the past, don't you?

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
more calculating and use his powers in a way that isn't so mundane.

Been done on a some occasions, actually.

I think EC meant "grey" metaphorically... ermm

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I think EC meant "grey" metaphorically... ermm

I know... ermm

Originally posted by Bad Ash231
His voice was damn scary (Well, at least in the first two seasons). He had some pretty good lines too...


X will probably kill me if we turn this into an Apocalypse thread. But TAS? Really? I must have been 5 or 6 when I first saw the Apocalypse TAS version on T.V. He sounded more menacing when he was dubbed in portuguese .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt8WF2pHh6E&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZJy82k3Gbg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXBaB9XtytQ

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
X will probably kill me if we turn this into an Apocalypse thread. But TAS? Really? I must have been 5 or 6 when I first saw the Apocalypse TAS version on T.V. He sounded more menacing when he was dubbed in portuguese .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt8WF2pHh6E&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZJy82k3Gbg&feature=related

I believe John Colicos, who voiced Apocalypse for the first & second season was replaced by James Blendick.

He started laughing a lot in the third & fourth seasons.

But in the first two seasons, you could really feel how utterly insane and evil he was when he spoke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q_qlEtYlfc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs8lEa49Qkg&feature=related

TAS Apoc just scared me as a kid. The X-Men couldn't beat him.


Evo Apoc sounded like Megatron, and was defeated by Rogue... oh, and his plan was basically just a rip off Magneto's in the first X-Men movie.

Originally posted by Bad Ash231
I believe John Colicos, who voiced Apocalypse for the first & second season was replaced by James Blendick.

He started laughing a lot in the third & fourth seasons.

But in the first two seasons, you could really feel how utterly insane and evil he was when he spoke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q_qlEtYlfc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs8lEa49Qkg&feature=related

TAS Apoc just scared me as a kid. The X-Men couldn't beat him.


Evo Apoc sounded like Megatron, and was defeated by Rogue... oh, and his plan was basically just a rip off Magneto's in the first X-Men movie.

*Punches Bad Ash*

Megatron sounded infinetly cooler then 'ol blue lips.

Originally posted by grey fox
*Punches Bad Ash*

Megatron sounded infinetly cooler then 'ol blue lips.
protestbeware

Originally posted by grey fox
*Punches Bad Ash*

Megatron sounded infinetly cooler then 'ol blue lips.

*Punches grey fox*


He sounded like Megatron from Transformers Armada.

Originally posted by Bad Ash231
I believe John Colicos, who voiced Apocalypse for the first & second season was replaced by James Blendick.

He started laughing a lot in the third & fourth seasons.

But in the first two seasons, you could really feel how utterly insane and evil he was when he spoke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q_qlEtYlfc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs8lEa49Qkg&feature=related

TAS Apoc just scared me as a kid. The X-Men couldn't beat him.


Evo Apoc sounded like Megatron, and was defeated by Rogue... oh, and his plan was basically just a rip off Magneto's in the first X-Men movie.

I liked Evo Apocalypse until he spoke. I guess we both have different definitions of cool and scary.

Originally posted by Bad Ash231
*Punches grey fox*


He sounded like Megatron from Transformers Armada.

Ohhhhh.


*punches Bad-Ash*

Be Specific !

Also David Kaye isn't that bad, he voiced Xavier in X-men Evo.

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
I liked Evo Apocalypse until he spoke. I guess we both have different definitions of cool and scary.

Well, I actually did like Evo Apocalypse (even if he spoke).

Originally posted by grey fox
Ohhhhh.


*punches Bad-Ash*

Be Specific !

Also David Kaye isn't that bad, he voiced Xavier in X-men Evo.

*Punches grey fox*


I needed to make Evo Apoc look bad! ninjafist

Originally posted by Bad Ash231
Well, I actually did like Evo Apocalypse (even if he spoke).



*Punches grey fox*


I needed to make Evo Apoc look bad! ninjafist

Then- *Uppercuts BA into air* -you- *draws in energy* -Failed !

*fires*

"GOU HADOUKEN !!!!"

All this talk of Apocalypse in a thread about good characters...?

peaches

Bump.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
All this talk of Apocalypse in a thread about good characters...?

Shows what you know. 131

Pfft. Ichigo would getsuga tenshou those blue lips right off ol' Bluelips' face.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Pfft. Ichigo would getsuga tenshou those blue lips right off ol' Bluelips' face.

They're actually markings, not his lips, but whatever.

having the name batman.

It's a relatively generic name... ermm

What makes a good character depends on the medium form that they're in, honestly. If you supplant a comic character with Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights, then all of the sudden Healthcliff isn't necessarily the same legendary and archetypical character that he is.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Pfft. Ichigo would getsuga tenshou those blue lips right off ol' Bluelips' face.

I don't think anyone who likes Ichigo has the right to call any fictional character generic.

Originally posted by llagrok
I don't think anyone who likes Ichigo has the right to call any fictional character generic. I didn't call bluelips generic... I said Batman's name is generic... which it is.

I liked the picture, so I made a sig, and the anime is entertaining enough to watch. I'm not obsessed over a character so much so that I particularly care if someone says the character is generic in some convoluted "I know you are but what am I" retort... ermm

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I didn't call bluelips generic... I said Batman's name is generic... which it is.

I liked the picture, so I made a sig, and the anime is entertaining enough to watch. I'm not obsessed over a character so much so that I particularly care if someone says the character is generic in some convoluted "I know you are but what am I" retort... ermm

Dude, Mayuri.

Originally posted by llagrok
I don't think anyone who likes Ichigo has the right to call any fictional character generic.


liking a character such as ichigo doesn't mean you have a clouded judgement on what is a generic character or not.

Originally posted by ScarletSpeed
liking a character such as ichigo doesn't mean you have a clouded judgement on what is a generic character or not.

Of course not, it just removes his right to call any other generic.

Ichigo is like one of the worst characters to exist. I like Bleach a lot more than most others on this forum, but Ichigo is shonen stereotypes incarnate.

Originally posted by llagrok
Of course not, it just removes his right to call any other generic.

Ichigo is like one of the worst characters to exist. I like Bleach a lot more than most others on this forum, but Ichigo is shonen stereotypes incarnate.


edit,

never mindcrackers

Originally posted by llagrok
Dude, Mayuri. The captain of the 12th squad...? And if so... what about him...?

Bump

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Peter Quill.

Best character....ever
Almost.

That honor goes to Christopher Rudd.

Originally posted by Enyalus
Almost.

That honor goes to Christopher Rudd.

I stand corrected.

I was going to make a new thread seeing if people could describe why they like their favorite character (without citing the character's powerset or battles won or feats as reasons).

But instead I decided to bump my old one with a similar premise, and hope people give more substantive reasons than those in brackets above. 313

a good origin and well developed characterization having a motivating factor with why he is the way he is and does the things he does.

powers/ability's

but not just that also the attitude and principles.

for example i do not like green arrow but i do like his ability....just not his character so to speak

Three factors mainly:
Conception- the original idea behind the character
Execution- how the character is actually written
Development- how the character has held up over the years and whether newly introduced ideas have hurt the character or helped it.