Most under/over played characters ever?

Originally posted by Digi
False, imo. Kyle and Alan both have more going on than Hal ever did.

I hate that writers don't get that, outside of the big 3, the other characters literally should be legacies. And maybe even Batman (yeah, I went there). It stunts the character development of all involved when you try to make it otherwise.

👆

I really don't get the appeal of Kyle Rayner, tbh. I mean, he's okay, but the rampant fanboyism is something else entirely.

And disagreed about Batman, because Dick Grayson for me should always be Nightwing, and Bruce should always be Batman.

This Conversation now confuses me.

Where am I!?

Originally posted by Blight
I'm confused by the premise here. Is this about Powerset?

Does this mean "On this forum" Who is considered way more powerful than they should be or "in the comics?"

In the Comics:
- I don't think Wolverine should be tanking Nukes or Lifting Cars over his head, or able to cover a mile or whatever it was in an instant.
- I don't think Thanos should be far above Surfer in Power Level. I never got that impression when he was my favorite comic book character of all time. In fact this forum made me like him less when I found out how powerful he was for some reason.
- I think Spectre should be used less as a stepping stone for characters to punk out and more as a force of nature. If you have the title "Right hand of God" it should actually mean something. As it stands, that's not the case.
- I Thought Superman was a bit too powerful in Final Crisis during the "Infinite Lb." book he lifted. That's absurd and shouldn't even be discussed here in the Vs. Forums but whatever.

I can't think of anything else. Hope I did this right.

I'm simply asking who does the most/least with what they're suppose to be capable of doing?

For instance allot of lower level n street level characters are well known to consistently do more than they should be able to. But this wasn't really aimed at that. I was really thinking about characters with powers they consistently over use by what their limits should be or barely scratch the surface of what they should be capable of.

I agree with your post personally, well except for Thanos but thats jus IMO.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
Under: Silver Surfer: Basically, he can do everything, including time travel. This dude should never loose to anyone unless his opponents are more powerful that he is.

Over: Reed Richards: Talk about an over-achiever.

Under: Thor: He can do most of what Surfer can do (bare telepathy, and he don't possess the cosmic awarness), and even if he gets more respect that Surfer, he shouldn't fall to anyone but to his peers or above him. This apply to Beta Ray Bill too.

Over: Wolverine: In one comic, he survived a damn nuke.

Under: Galactus: Seriously, how is it possible that a human like Doom or Richards can become a treat to Galactus? Isn't he suppose to be omniscient, or almost?

Agreed,

Originally posted by Digi
False, imo. Kyle and Alan both have more going on than Hal ever did.

I hate that writers don't get that, outside of the big 3, the other characters literally should be legacies. And maybe even Batman (yeah, I went there). It stunts the character development of all involved when you try to make it otherwise.

👆 👆 👆

Totally agree with all this! N alil off topic but you have no idea how much I wish both DC n Marvel would be more willing to stop clinging to characters older then the people that write n read them. Especially DC!

Pass the torch of their legacy to the next generation. Either be it directly giving a side kick, apprentice, or friend their name to carry on or indirectly letting a new character take over their roll if only in actions n not so much completely replacing their identity!

Originally posted by -Pr-
I really don't get the appeal of Kyle Rayner, tbh. I mean, he's okay, but the rampant fanboyism is something else entirely.

And disagreed about Batman, because Dick Grayson for me should always be Nightwing, and Bruce should always be Batman.

Kyle has done more with the ring, a weapon that is famed for being able to do ANYTHING YOU CAN IMAGINE!, than pretty much any lantern I can think of. Certainly more than a giant ball, or bat, or glove or airplane.

And he did it all without the training or back up of the guardians or GLC! Writers may wank Hal all they want but Hal's always had the imagination of a potato and no where near as many impressive feats as Kyle before his resurrection, except as Parallax.

Originally posted by -Pr-
It's not his fault he's the most powerful/interesting/rounded of the earth lanterns.

Originally posted by Entity
Totally agree with all this! N alil off topic but you have no idea how much I wish both DC n Marvel would be more willing to stop clinging to characters older then the people that write n read them. Especially DC!

Pass the torch of their legacy to the next generation. Either be it directly giving a side kick, apprentice, or friend their name to carry on or indirectly letting a new character take over their roll if only in actions n not so much completely replacing their identity!

TBH, that would be financial suicide if they went near some of the bigger characters...

Not to mention the fact that I really don't see why they should do it just for the sake of doing it. Conner has a long way to go before he's fit to be Superman.

Originally posted by Entity
Kyle has done more with the ring, a weapon that is famed for being able to do ANYTHING YOU CAN IMAGINE!, than pretty much any lantern I can think of. Certainly more than a giant ball, or bat, or glove or airplane.

And he did it all without the training or back up of the guardians or GLC! Writers may wank Hal all they want but Hal's always had the imagination of a potato and no where near as many impressive feats as Kyle before his resurrection, except as Parallax.

Hal outwilled a Guardian and over-rode the ring's programming. Maybe pretty constructs please most people, but for me Hal has always been the most effective, most powerful Lantern.

Sometimes simplicity is a good thing.

Originally posted by Digi
This thread has to do with power set guys, not exposure.

I see, thanks for the precision. Let me see:

Originally posted by Bentley
Doctor Doom is a bit overplayed. Too much exposition makes him feel less special. But can't really argue about Doom punking Hulk, he should always do that 😉

Originally posted by -Pr-
Sometimes simplicity is a good thing.

Yeah, some people like boring instead of coolness in a very visual media, boring ftw.

Originally posted by Bentley
Yeah, some people like boring instead of coolness in a very visual media, boring ftw.

Har-de-har.

Simple =/= boring.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Har-de-har.

Simple =/= boring.

Hal = Boring

Originally posted by Entity
Maybe but,

Hal = Boring

I don't agree in the slightest.

Originally posted by -Pr-
TBH, that would be financial suicide if they went near some of the bigger characters...

Not to mention the fact that I really don't see why they should do it just for the sake of doing it. Conner has a long way to go before he's fit to be Superman.

Hal outwilled a Guardian and over-rode the ring's programming. Maybe pretty constructs please most people, but for me Hal has always been the most effective, most powerful Lantern.

Sometimes simplicity is a good thing.

I agree that he is probably more powerful. But I can also agree that I like Kyle because of his creativity. I used to love reading the Grant Morrison JLA partially because I loved seeing the contraptions he came up with. Some of that stuff was just awesome!

Different Horses for Different Coarses.

I don't get why everyone thinks Hal is so boring. Unless they're just trying to goad PR, in which case he's totally boring...

But I always found him pretty interesting. Sure he's not friggin' Guy Gardner, but who is?

Originally posted by Blight

Not to mention, I like Conner where he is. I like that he's part of a team that I happen to like more than the JLA. I like his Costume (much better than the Reign of Superman one). I think he's a great character and will never need the name "Superman."

I agree that he is probably more powerful. But I can also agree that I like Kyle because of his creativity. I used to love reading the Grant Morrison JLA partially because I loved seeing the contraptions he came up with. Some of that stuff was just awesome!

Different Horses for Different Coarses.

I don't get why everyone thinks Hal is so boring. Unless they're just trying to goad PR, in which case he's totally boring...

But I always found him pretty interesting. Sure he's not friggin' Guy Gardner, but who is? [/B]

Agreed. I prefer Dick Grayson as Nightwing, for example.

Creativity is nice and all, but I don't think it's the be-all and end-all, is all.

lol, people hate hal unreasonably whether i'm in the thread or not, it seems.

I actually really don't like any part of Conner's character. Superman's an interesting case study for character appeal, and I feel like I both understand the appeal of his character and understand why he doesn't do it for a fair amount of comic readers.

Conner, on the other hand, is pretty much lost on me. I just don't give a damn.

I can see Dick taking over as the protector of Gotham, even if he has to redefine that role to be less about the Bat-cowl and more suited to his individual Nightwing persona. I can visualize that working, even if I prefer Bruce sticking around.

I can't really visualize Conner doing anything other than staying on the Teen Titans. I would actually prefer if Kara took over, I think, and she's not boasting a ton of character substance either.

I will always prefer Linda Danvers Supergirl to Kara... mainly because I'm such a Peter David fan (And because she has a.... you know... personality). As for Nightwing, I actually think that he could take over the Batman persona and have it work storywise. I just don't think DC would ever let it happen permanently. I actually think that is a shame.

I don't know what it is I like about Conner. I just relate to the character and really liked reading the budding friendship between him and Tim. I really like his relationship with Wondergirl as well.

Originally posted by -Pr-
TBH, that would be financial suicide if they went near some of the bigger characters...

If they just up and did yeah, but I honestly think that if they spent enough time building it up and had quality writers handle it it could be a success. But I'm talking a multiyear project with that in mind, not simply a story arc or two where a side kick becomes the main hero. Just my opinion though, such a thing could work, it's just a matter of reconditioning the audience to accept it after decades of it being impossible.

Now it would take some superb writing, but it'll work.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I really don't get the appeal of Kyle Rayner, tbh. I mean, he's okay, but the rampant fanboyism is something else entirely.

And disagreed about Batman, because Dick Grayson for me should always be Nightwing, and Bruce should always be Batman.

My point is that a character remains essentially forever static if you don't allow for the legacy aspect. DC tried to make legacies a thing, then tossed it aside in most cases. Bruce is the best Batman, but seeing him deal with mortality and aging should be a part of that. Otherwise he's just this invincible, immortal thing, which is kind of not the point. If they really want Batman to be an idea, an ideal, a legend and myth, that would need to happen.

Or maybe not Batman, since I know everyone would pitch a fit. But GL, Flash...at the very least allow others the limelight. How awesome was Wally taking over? Or Hal being taken down a peg? Or the Titans beginning to come into their own as adult heroes. Then, even before DCnU, they trashed all of that.

Writers are scared to make such changes long-term because of sales and notoriety. I want to shake them and remind them that good characters and stories is what made the originals become so popular. Instead of stagnating and staying with all safe characters, create new stories and people will gravitate to them just as much. Part of the outcry over Spider-Man's OMD was that they were regressing Peter, away from a character that had grown and matured over years and years. It was as much an admonition of fear as it was a bad story (which it also was).

...which is partially why I didn't think the reboot was the answer, its good start notwithstanding.

Originally posted by jalek moye
If they just up and did yeah, but I honestly think that if they spent enough time building it up and had quality writers handle it it could be a success. But I'm talking a multiyear project with that in mind, not simply a story arc or two where a side kick becomes the main hero. Just my opinion though, such a thing could work, it's just a matter of reconditioning the audience to accept it after decades of it being impossible.

Now it would take some superb writing, but it'll work.

I honestly don't agree, not in the long term. No more Bruce Wayne as Batman? Sales would be hit hard, imo.

Originally posted by Digi
My point is that a character remains essentially forever static if you don't allow for the legacy aspect. DC tried to make legacies a thing, then tossed it aside in most cases. Bruce is the best Batman, but seeing him deal with mortality and aging should be a part of that. Otherwise he's just this invincible, immortal thing, which is kind of not the point. If they really want Batman to be an idea, an ideal, a legend and myth, that would need to happen.

Or maybe not Batman, since I know everyone would pitch a fit. But GL, Flash...at the very least allow others the limelight. How awesome was Wally taking over? Or Hal being taken down a peg? Or the Titans beginning to come into their own as adult heroes. Then, even before DCnU, they trashed all of that.

Writers are scared to make such changes long-term because of sales and notoriety. I want to shake them and remind them that good characters and stories is what made the originals become so popular. Instead of stagnating and staying with all safe characters, create new stories and people will gravitate to them just as much. Part of the outcry over Spider-Man's OMD was that they were regressing Peter, away from a character that had grown and matured over years and years. It was as much an admonition of fear as it was a bad story (which it also was).

...which is partially why I didn't think the reboot was the answer, its good start notwithstanding.

I honestly don't agree about Batman, nor do I agree that they become static. Good stories will always be good stories.

Wally's more often the exception to the rule, imo, and Hal died during an age when it was expected that comic characters would eventualy come back anyway.

And that's where we disagree, because some people don't want to lose the originals. Not because they're afraid of change or because it's "safe". It's because, put simply, those people prefer Bruce to Dick, or Kal to Conner.

As good as new stories might be, it just won't be the same.

Originally posted by Digi
My point is that a character remains essentially forever static if you don't allow for the legacy aspect. DC tried to make legacies a thing, then tossed it aside in most cases. Bruce is the best Batman, but seeing him deal with mortality and aging should be a part of that. Otherwise he's just this invincible, immortal thing, which is kind of not the point. If they really want Batman to be an idea, an ideal, a legend and myth, that would need to happen.

Or maybe not Batman, since I know everyone would pitch a fit. But GL, Flash...at the very least allow others the limelight. How awesome was Wally taking over? Or Hal being taken down a peg? Or the Titans beginning to come into their own as adult heroes. Then, even before DCnU, they trashed all of that.

Writers are scared to make such changes long-term because of sales and notoriety. I want to shake them and remind them that good characters and stories is what made the originals become so popular. Instead of stagnating and staying with all safe characters, create new stories and people will gravitate to them just as much. Part of the outcry over Spider-Man's OMD was that they were regressing Peter, away from a character that had grown and matured over years and years. It was as much an admonition of fear as it was a bad story (which it also was).

...which is partially why I didn't think the reboot was the answer, its good start notwithstanding.

👆

Agreed, these characters are so popular and loved because of how good the writing and stories were when they showed up. They weren't always there but when they came they were liked. If you handle passing the torch in a proper manner it will be successful in the long run. Assuming they stay consistent with the quality. Sure I see superman needing to stay the same, but that works he can always be there to hep serve as an example to the True next generation. Not one that grows up while their predecessors always stay around the same age.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I honestly don't agree, not in the long term. No more Bruce Wayne as Batman? Sales would be hit hard, imo.

I honestly don't agree about Batman, nor do I agree that they become static. Good stories will always be good stories.

Wally's more often the exception to the rule, imo, and Hal died during an age when it was expected that comic characters would eventualy come back anyway.

And that's where we disagree, because some people don't want to lose the originals. Not because they're afraid of change or because it's "safe". It's because, put simply, those people prefer Bruce to Dick, or Kal to Conner.

As good as new stories might be, it just won't be the same.

See I don't necessarily mean those characters because honestly it's too late for them. I mean more so going forward if they wanted to, they could make true legacies for prominent characters work out. Some may have to stay (like superman etc) and that's fine, but with the right amount of work legacies can only add growth. It doesn't mean you can never tell stories with the old again: untold tales, time travel, etc.

I just feel that they could do it and still sell about the same if they stuck with the same quality.

Which characters do you mean?