Comic Book Resources

Definitely... NFL SuperPro.

The Punisher.

Probably Thor. I'm just not that interested in the sword and sorcery stuff, and I think that's where he functions most appropriately.

No. There are some superheroes who in their current iteration I wouldn't be interested in, but don't see why with the right revamp they wouldn't become interesting to me. Alan Moore's anatomy lesson at the start of his Swamp thing run is a clear example of this.

There is an interesting question as an aside to this that is just as pertinent. How far can you change a superhero before the superhero is no longer the same superhero?

Take the current Blue Beetle and compare him to the last. OK so through the scarab there is a link that has been established, but is a mystical superhero in anyway truly related to the crime fighting vigilante?

The Flash. Any of them. I just can't get interested in a character who by rights should be able to end each story on page one. Super Speed, on the level that the Flashes posess, is just an absurd power.

Nope. There are some writers who apparently can't make any character they write seem interesting to me though. Probably not the same thing.

Hal Jordan comes close as a character that no writer can do much with for my tastes, but I liked him in the early 80's Green Lantern book a bit (was that Steve Engelhart?) so even that isn't really true.

For me, it's the "android who tries to be human, but can't quite do it" characters, most notably Red Tornado and The Vision. Toss in Star Trek's Data if you like. I almost always find these guys deadly dull. Brad Meltzer actually managed to get me interested in the Red Tornado for about half an issue, in JLA #1, but it passed.

The main problem is, there's pretty much only one storyline about this type of character, and while it's not a terrible one, it's one we've seen a zillion times, and one that's hard to make fresher.

There are many, many superhero characters who I doubt will ever interest me--however, I'm sure I could be interested in their themes, concepts, supporting casts, etc. The X-men are practically non-entities to me, but Grant Morrison made their comic ungodly entertaining. I doubt any of the Green Lanterns will ever really interest me (especially Hal Jordan), but turn loose on them a writer with a great take on the mythology and the green energy ring concept, and I'm there. I have no particular investment in the current Blue Beetle as a character, but I'm very much enjoying the comic for the entertainingly healthy take on teen superheroing.

Now that I think about it, there are very few characters or groups in superhero comics whom I find intrinsically interesting; it's specific runs or takes on them that interest me.

Definitely… NFL SuperPro.

You're dead to me.

Probably Thor.

You too, heh.

I think a good writer can interest me in anything-- hell, I hated the X-Men, but loved New X-Men. I'm sure somebody could make me care about Iron Man, or the Teen Titans, or Hal Jordan, or whoever else.

Hmm, NFL SuperPro... Yeah, you might have to put him on the list. I could actually see the basic character concept working (a "Booster Gold" type approach might work.) But not as a "licensed by the NFL" character. The NFL would be too stifling of any real creativity brought to the project.

Didio got it right - Sports themed characters are awful.

I don't consider him a superhero, but The Punisher.

I have a hard time with Superman. i have tried to jump on with the "big events" but have found that the event is more entertaining than the character. Once the event is over, I can't keep my interest. I have followed some of my favorite writers to the character (Busiek to name a current one) and the lustre quickly fades. All Star is even starting to lose its shime (although it has held up better than expected.
I think the flaw is that the character is too powerful. I had an interesting talk with Gail Simone at a local Con. She was writing Action Comics at the time. i told her about my frustration with the character. She said that she agreed, and the real joy came not from Superman, but from his supporting cast. They were his weakness. They were the interesting peoiple to watch and follow. Dunno...why have a book (let alone 4) about a character whose main hook is he supporting cast?

I don't think so.
But the question itself isn't without problems, as I'll discuss.

I DESPERATELY want to say SUPERMAN, (not going to go into WHY I dislike him, for fear of starting a tangent FLAME-WAR), but suffice it to say, that I think there MIGHT be a writer out there who could make me enjoy Supes too.

I'm not reading ALL STAR, so, for all I know Morrison is doing things that I might love.

Anyway, there HAVE been characters that I've disliked and thought I could NEVER like, but then someone cranks out a yarn that is a slightly different take and it grabs me.

Captain America bores me to tears.
However, old Kirby tales with Arnim Zola, the Cosmic Cube and "SLEEPER" sentries were pretty good.
I still didn't like CAP himself, but the stories grabbed me.

Recently, the Winter Soldier stuff interested me, because ...

***SPOILERS of WINTER SOLDIER story below (for anyone who's been living in a cave in WhereTheHeck-istan)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...they DARED to do the unthinkable!

Bring back Bucky and make him a VILLAIN?!
And toss in the Cosmic Cube as well?

PLUS, A-1 artwork?
SOLD!

Sure, CAP has had "Bucky-on-the-mind-games" before, but THIS time they were real.

***END SPOILERS***
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

But other characters who may be too "uber-powerful" to some might be the problem.
I don't like FLASH, but I'm not willing to say that there aren't super-cool things that can be done with him that haven't been done before, OR that there haven't ALREADY BEEN some great hooks to the character.

Doctor Strange is "uber-powerful" and I LOVE that guy! Sure, most of his tales in the last decade (or two) have sucked @$$, but not ALL.

SOME writers can turn things to gold.

Just as some writers couldn't find a hook on a title/character even with both hands and a road-map.

The primary difficulty is that if FAN # 1 likes a myth-based THOR, he'll probably hate a take where it's a guy with a tech-hammer and superpowers, who may or may not be delusional in thinking he's divine.

But FAN # 2 would prefer that since he can't wrap his head around mythology, sword or sorcery.

So, by asking if there's a character who can or can't be changed to suit your liking, you're basically borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.
Potentially losing existing fans of the CURRENT "take" to gain fans of a NEW one.

Maybe.

Until it all goes "back to basics" for a revamp.
OR they kill the hero off, replace him/her with a new version until the fans demand the return of the original.

Possibly THAT's why most fans like their characters in "amber".
Unchanged and with the "illusion of growth".

IF you want a different version of the same character, maybe they should just MAKE a NEW (but SIMILAR) character.

I mean you may have family or friends who are VERY much like yourself.
(and even complete strangers may be so eerily like you that you've heard people say "aren't you that guy?")

But there's something different.
So, why can't the world of superheroes have 2 characters who are so very similar except for a few tengents?

Don't like your swamp-monsters all silent and emo with mystical/pseudo-science based abilities and psychological stories?

Don't change MAN-THING.

Just create a SWAMP-THING where he can be chatty and full of angst.
(At least until Alan Moore takes him and changes him into something that is better too).

IRON-MAN & WAR-MACHINE.
Similar, but different.

BATMAN & QUESTION.
Similar, but different.

Tha hard part may lie in keeping BOTH versions IN PRINT.
Would a BATMAN / QUESTION shared title be a better gamble for DC than a solo QUESTION book?

It could be 2 stories; 1 for each, where they don't interract.
Then, you have one story-line for each that will allow them to MEET once in awhile within the pages of that comic.
Essentially "guest-starring" in the other's half of the book.

Crap.
Now I've started another problem, haven't I?

Sorry.

~P~
P-TOR

Superman. I just can't remember ever giving a crap about him. Too powerful, just not interesting.

Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn Spawn ...Spawn.

X-23

Before Slott's GLA X-mas special, I would have said Squirrel Girl. But his (her) unique takedown of Modok has to one of the funniest non-fights I've seen in my life.

I would, at first, say Superman; but I've been loving All-Star Superman, enjoyed the Richard Donner films, and I really like Smallville. As someone else pointed out, though, the best part of Superman is from his supporting cast. Lex Luthor is an amazing villain who rarely gets old, Lois Lane (when being her fiesty self) is a lot of fun, and the Daily Planet crew (Jimmy and Perry, notably) are usually more interesting than Clark himself. I also think that Superman could be an even better character if he wasn't in a shared universe. The idea of an alien with supreme power who does good only because he so desperately wants to be human is an endearing story when told correctly.

I'd then say Aquaman, but the two-part Aquaman story from the Justice League cartoon had a great take on the character, though he felt more like a Conan-type than he did Aquaman.

For the most part, though, I think even the lamest characters can be interesting in the rights hands and both Marvel and DC seem to be buying into this with their increased push in B, C, and D level characters in the last year or so. Books like Day of Vengence, Villians United/Secret Six, and Civil War Frontline have proven that even the lamest characters can be pretty amazing in the right situation with the right creative teams.

I vow to bring back Superpro and make him cool. Now if I only worked for Marvel...

B'Wana Beast

In short? No. There are plenty of superhero characters I have no interest in, or outright dislike, but it's impossible to say that there's nothing that could be done to make any character interesting to me.

I'm sure there's a writer out there who can make me care about Hal Jordan. It'd be an enormous feat, and I'd definitely have to buy them a drink after completing it, but I'm certain it can be done.

Woulda said Batman until Morrison and Dini, so, no, there isn't.

Definitly The Flash (Wally, Barry or Bart), Kyle Rayner, John Stewart, Guy Gardner (I like Hal and Alan though), Supergirl (any of them), Iron Man, Thor, most of the Avengers after the 70s, Robin solo stories, Up until recently Teen Titans, Hawkman, Hawkwoman, Hawkgirl, Captain Comet, Up until the last year Superboy (and then they killed him), Steel, Captain Marvel Jr, Firestorm, Spawn, Silver Surfer, Nova, Many different Marvel characters.

Green Arrow. There is no way anyone can make Green Arrow the least bit appealing to me.

Wolverine

Cable or Gambit.

There's no character - not even any of the duds that've been named here - that can't be made compelling (or at least wildly entertaining) with the right storytellers and the right approach.

I think a good writer could probably "fix" any character in such a way that I might actually enjoy the character. That said, I would first have to give the character a chance and there are several character in whom I just can't generate chance-giving interest.

These are characters like the Punisher (who I loved in juniour high - most likely because he was a character with juvenile sensibilities), Stacy X, Captain Mar-Vell, and Rom (Spaceknight!).

I'm always surprised when certain characters do become interesting due to a specific creator's run. I would have never imagined that Thor, Hulk, Superman, or a Mary Jane comic could ever really be that interesting. And yet, Each of thoe characters have had brilliant stories told that actually made them pretty interesting characters.

Magic characters. Dr. Strange, Dr. Fate, Zatanna, and the rest. To me, the flaw with these characters is that they can do *anything* unless the writer doesn't want them to, so there's no sense of scale to their power. With Superman, sure, he's pretty much bound not only to survive any given conflict but to win, but at least when a Mongul-sized creature shows up, he's probably going to have a serious fight on his hands. You can just tell based on appearance and a little knowledge of Superman's abilities. With the magic characters, it's all "Oh, it's the disembodied mouths of Myttork! I must use my heretofore never-once-mentioned spell of gobsmacking! Well, *that's* done."

I think the way to make magic users interesting in comics is if somehow the writers can connote or denote a set of rules, and the reader can understand what those rules are. Certainly, that keeps it interesting in fantasy role playing: you may or may not know the level of the magician you're up against, but once you see the spells they're tossing (and the intensity of the spells), you can size them up and know just how scared to be.

All that said, I kinda get the impression that DC is moving towards a "magic always costs something" approach that might just appeal to people of my sensibilities....

Magic characters. ... To me, the flaw with these characters is that they can do *anything* unless the writer doesn’t want them to

That's actually why I like those characters so much. The conflict is never about "can I beat Bad Guy X up?" or "can I lift that rock?" It's always internal, which makes it much more interesting. The Ostrander/Mandrake Spectre is a great example of this.

Yeah, I'll grant you Ostrander *anything*, pretty much. I also almost added that what I thought was good about Hellblazer was that Constantine isn't much of a magic user himself, but just a trickster (and, of course, a bastard).

I'm looking forward to Ostrander's NFL SuperPro meets B'wana Beast!

Cable, definately Cable. Nobody can scrub the stench of Liefield off that character.

I'll actually say Squirrel Girl, although that's at least partially because Slott and Nicieza are probably the only writers in existence who will ever acknowledge her existance. She's basically a joke that I am never going to find funny, and the only interesting thing I can think of do with her storywise is kill her horribly.

Other than that, Hal Jordan, Bishop, and Spider-Woman come to mind immediately.

Well, yes, Superman's supporting cast is more interesting than he is, but if All-Star Superman is teaching us anything, it's that Clark Kent is even more interesting and entertaining than them and Superman combined.

I don't know why the dynamic was Superman=cool and Clark=boring for so long, but it really works best as Superman=perfect and Clark=flawed.

Ghost Rider. Any of them, except the one on horseback.

Maybe a writer would be able to craft an interesting story about a demonic motorcycle nut with a blazing head, but I don't think there is a marketing hook out there that would get me to buy it.

Punisher & Venom also come to mind. Peter David made Hulk interesting, and even I found reason to enjoy what Frank Miller did with Daredevil, or those two characters would be on the list as well.

Odd that they are all from Marvel. There have to be some DC names as well... OK, I never cared for Prince Ra-Man.

Greg

I think it might be Daredevil. I can enjoy Miller's run with him in an abstract sense, but would much prefer to read Miller's similar and more refined Batman stuff. I've never read any other story featuring Daredevil that I could bring myself to like. He always comes off as a poor man's Spider-man or Batman to me, or some combination of the two.

Does Venom count as a superhero? Heck, I don't even like him as a villian. It's like his primary role in Spider-Man's rogues gallery is "crazy guy on streetcorner who yells at me."

Without picking the painfully obscure characters whose basic concepts are just...bad...I can think of two headliners, one at Marvel and one at DC, who've simply never worked for me and likely never will:

-- At Marvel, Skull the Slayer, the crummy "castaway and aliens" protagonist who represents the lamest of the 1970s popular film-inspired characters. Arguably anticipating "Lost," he's a falsely-accused soldier who crashlands on a mysterious isalnd full of aliens and dinosaurs and has to lead a hostile supporting cast. He also gets a generic strength-boosting power belt, and his real name is Jim Scully. And despite all the trappings, he has never, ever been cool and probably never will be. Despite being reinvented by Gruenwald and later by Nicieza, the basic blandness of the character and the dated elements of the origin story just keep bleeding right through the fresh paint. And the repaints were ugly, too.

-- I might get some flak for this one, but...Judomaster. The name is bad. The costumes have been bad. But mostly, it's the name. It locks him in to another of those sort of dated fads -- the 60s and 70s judo craze -- and badly, badly limits what a writer can do with him. It's no accident that of the major Charlton heroes DC acquired, he's been the least used and least seen. (Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt, is a special case, and even so he got a short-lived series in the 1980s.) But Judomaster? Guy didn't even get a Watchmen analogue, for Pete's sake.

Even lame-os like the Stilt-Man can at leas turn up for comedy purposes. These guys, though...they're just fundamentally boring and limited in some fashion.

Swamp Thing or Man-Thing.

Just can't find myself caring.

She Hulk. It's already been proven in the fact that I love Dan Slott and can't read She Hulk for the life of me.

Sleepwalker. Bad concept, bad execution.

Cyclops

"Cable, definately Cable. Nobody can scrub the stench of Liefield off that character. "

Joe Casey, Darco Macan, Robert Kirkman? Its been done.

Sam, that is the most brilliant distillation of Venom I've yet heard... and I like Venom.

Sleepwalker. Bad concept, bad execution.

You're going to wake up with a horse's head in your bed tomorrow.

Starfire.
To me she seems to just be there for her body.

Rouge. She might have been good if she had stayed a villain, but now...and what is the explaination for the white in her hair? It was supposed to show she was old, but she isn't old, so what's the explaination?

"Joe Casey, Darco Macan, Robert Kirkman? Its been done."

I must respectfully disagree. The entire character concept is lame, from his generic powers, to his apropos of nothing name, to his multiple-choice origin(s). There's just not enough creative bleach in the world to mask the smell of Liefield that clings to Cable.

Nope.

I'm as comic nerdy as anyone, but I'm not emotionally invested in hating superheroes.

And I'd love to write Judomaster.

Omar Karindu,

Wasn't OZYMANDIAS supposed to be the "WATCHMANIZATION" of JUDOMASTER?

I read that... somewhere...in the late 1980's.
I can't recall where.

But, if I recall, Moore had given OZY a superior body (like Judomaster) but also had him delvelop a superior MIND, as well, since the harmonious workings and development of mind and body are tennets in martial arts training.

But since punching things coudn't truly solve anything, OZY focused him MIND on the problems instead.

I could be remembering wrong, but I really seem to remember that being the story.

Oh, and Glenn Simpson, you made Man-THING (and me) cry.

Oh, and I'd watch out for Mike Sterling on that Swamp-Thing bash, if I were you. He'll cut you. He'll cut you baaaad.)

~P~

Ozymandias was Thunderbolt. Judomaster was set in WWII, and I don't think there's a Watchmen analogy for him.

Forgot to mention Storm. Hate just doesn't do it justice....

I can think of a few, and there's others that people have mentioned that I would agree with. The first I thought of was Spawn. That is a concept that has zero interest to me. I suppose it might be interesting if it didn't have lame 90's Image baggage. I've never read the Alan Moore stories, but even those I have precious little interest in.

I wavered back and forth on whether to get Wildcats last week. I thought Morrison would have an uphill battle in getting me to care about the characters, and I don't think he quite made it up the hill yet. I'll be wavering just the same when #2 comes out. None of those characters interest me at all. I was hoping Morrison would break out some good concepts, but he didn't quite do it. Like I said, maybe I'll read #2, maybe not.

Shadowhawk. Zero interest. I suppose a writer or artist could perk my interest, but I doubt it. Same with Ghost Rider. Cable is close, and I've never actually read his book, but the Soldier X concept seemed slightly interesting, and X-Man also was kind of interesting (especially when Warren Ellis was writing it), so I don't think he is irredeemable.

There's quite a few others that I am not interested in, but with the right writer and artist, I might be able to get interested. Like Blue Beetle, Hawkman, Aquaman, and probably plenty of other characters that seem boring. Although Hawkman would be a long shot. I guess the thing for me is, I tend to be more interested in writers and artists than characters. If my favorite character was being written by a terrible writer, I would not buy it, and even my most hated characters will make me think twice if my favorite creators work on them.

Hal Jordan.

I would have said Nightwing, but I did enjoy bits of Dixon's run

Just curious, about something.

Some of the people who are voting on hating certain characters are saying so because they hate what's been done (or some of the basic character "types" that they would fall into; ie; mystical, sword/sorcery, vengeance-shoot-em-ups, IMAGE-taint).

Would those "haters" be interested in that reviled character if it were handled like a character that they DO LIKE?

Take some things about your FAVORITE character and infuse THOSE concepts into your MOST HATED character. Would you like that "hated" character a little now?

SPAWN is a lame-duck due to his '90's IMAGE stink.
Let's use him for an example.

I don't care one way or another about him.
I bought the book for the first 30 some-odd issues and then dropped it.

The overall CONCEPT, while not ORIGINAL, really, being a bit of a mash-up of FAUST (the opera - not the comic), Ghost Rider (original Johnny Blaze version), FAUST (the comic, not the opera haha) and any "bad-guy dies and comes back wanting to do some good" story, is alright.
It's not Shakespeare, but it's OK.

Now, what if the origin was revamped?
Or a similar character were created with enough similarities, so as to be an understandable "nod" to SPAWN, but with a different angle/ origin / M.O.

Would THAT make a character palateable?

I'm TRULY trying to understand how someone who reads comics (and can see so many similarites even between vastly divergent characters) can state emphatically that they would "NEVER" like "Character Q" because they have never liked "Character Q" before and can't see any way to make "Character Q" work for them.

If someone HATES DC's "Captain Marvel", but LOVED MIRACLEMAN, isn't that just them saying, "I hate the way DC does CAPT. MARVEL, but Alan Moore/Neil Gaiman did it RIGHT"?

Or do they not see that it's the SAME character (at least in TEMPLATE)? Just taken along a new path?

It's the "same" character, but infused with a new life and direction and ANGLE.

If there were a way for DC to have made the transition, in some weird revamp, to make Capt. MARVEL into MIRACLEMAN (BEFORE MIRACLEMAN existed, if need be), wouldn't that "hater" then LOVE Capt. Marvel?

So, WHAT would it take for "Character Q" that you HATE, to be turned into "Character Q++" that you love?

Or is it that you hate a certain TYPE of character / storyline?

"I hate Western heroes"

Do you like Space heroes?

Star Trek was pitched as a Space Western.

So, therefore you might LIKE a WESTERN if it wasn't set in the old west.

"I hate sword & sorcery stuff"

Did you like Star Wars?
That's pretty much all Star Wars WAS (at least the original trilogy).

It may be the TRAPPINGS of a story/genre/hero that you hate.

But remove or tweak a bit of that, and it's NEW, FRESH and DIFFERENT, while STILL being somewhat similar.

Am I missing the point to this?
Or just seeing too deeply into the creative process, since I am a creator (writer/artist) and know that there's always a way to salvage a "bad" idea.

Of course, as I wrote earlier, it might be robbing the rich to give to the poor.

Changing a character so his detractors will love it, but might lose the hard-core fan.

Unless a creator whipped up a similar, but different version of the same character (as an ongoing elseworlds-type) or "creates" a different, yet similar character and placed him/her into the market.

LMK.

ThanX!
~P~
P-TOR

"I’m TRULY trying to understand how someone who reads comics (and can see so many similarites even between vastly divergent characters) can state emphatically that they would “NEVER” like “Character Q” because they have never liked “Character Q” before and can’t see any way to make “Character Q” work for them."

I'd wager there's a decently large sub-set of comic fans who only buy books featuring characters they liked when they were children, or characters they have ALWAYS liked.

So I can sort of see that.

On the other hand; Having a personal vendetta against a fictional character is pretty fuckin' stupid.

Even NFL superpro.