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. 😛
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.
Re: What makes a character a good character?
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 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.
This page gives an interesting light on Apocalypse.
During his discussion with Hulk, Apocalypse shares a rather tragic (and unusual) view of himself.
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 Ash231Read 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. 😬
Rise of Apocalypse?
I haven't come across Apocalypse as a despot since the AoA.
Also this thread isn't "Is Apocalypse a good character?" it's what makes a good character... 😬
