Merle norman cosmetics studio. Bare essentials cosmetics.

Valkyrie had to mentor her in being a better person, but the limiting power levels didn't stop her from getting her way.
She'd use her feminine whiles to manipulate the men of the team (Angel & Ice-Man were practically fighting over her attentions).

Her inflated sense of self was always her strongest strength & greatest weakness, because no matter what she was up against, or how low her power level at the time, she still felt like she was queen of the universe.

Plus, with her hubris and Machiavellian sense of values, you could never know for sure whether she was a hero or villain in any specific instance.
She wasn't 2-dimensional and wouldn't act in a "pre-formatted" way.
Different scenarios evoked different reactions or responses.

ALL you would know was that she'd most likely be a celf-centered prima-donna. But, she even bucked THAT on occasion.

Definitely one of the more "sexy" female characters at Marvel.

The addition of the "bi"/lesbian angle was an intriguing and logical next step in her characterization.

I wanted to buy the whole ANNIHILATION saga (she being one huge reason), but I had to draw the line (for the sake of my wallet) somewhere.

And whats this about her and Marlo Chandler? I kinda dropped out for a while, is Marlo still married to Rick Jones? This wasn't PAD taking his fav characters into other titles again was it?

But yeah, the Thor-raping storyline was particularly choice. You just don't do that.

I like when she conquered a world and when she was convinced only Thor deserved to be her consort.

And that comic was the best Assistant Editor's Month issue.

Thanks! I thought as much, but I wasn't 100% sure.

And a lesbian apparently, or at least bisexual, as she once seduced Rick Jones' hot wife away from him...

And sure she has a persoanlity. She's a jerk.

My first real comics indulgence was the Infinity Gauntlet / War / Crusade, and the following Warlock stuff, and I always hated her. Pip, Drax, Gamora, all cool. Moondragon. Not cool.

No personality to speak of. No definable powers.

Waste of votes people.

Ultimate Nick Fury, ahead of Ultimate Iron Man...I think not! Actually I don't care about that, I'm not really into the whole 'Ultimates' thang. Marvel Universe was cool enough without reinventing it yet again...mumble mumble.

Still Man-Thing....cool. He is a character...just one made of twigs and mud is all. He's got more personality than Cable for Chrissakes!!

Though, as much as it pains me to admit, I think the 44 points does not represent 44 people. He would get multiple points for each person, depending on when he was on their lists, I believe. Right Brian?

You are correct, Jordan!

And yes, Man-Thing is a character, obiviously

And yes, he's tons cooler than Juggy. So there.
I'm talking about the Peter David version. Chris Claremont wrote him recently as if he were merely an alternate universe version of Peter Parker, even going so far as to fabricate a completely out-of-character Gwen Stacy/Mary Jane relationship for him! Fuck the hell? And then he wrote him out in a story that made absofuckinglutely no sense whatsoever. Chris Claremont sucks. Please, do us all a favor, and retire.

Also showing up here, my #5, Morph.

Interesting that both the DC and Marvel batches this time around had my #1 and #5 picks.

I miss Nextwave too. Of them, I picked Aaron Stack/Machine Man/X-51, as my #7.

Is Squirrel Girl EVER going to show up?

Under MUCH of his published history, you would probably be correct in your belief that Man-Thing is more plot-device than character.
Far too many of his appearances have him relegated to the role of "watcher" and "focal point", or worse; "the tree-stump Spectre", where he senses "evil" and burns its cowardly lot.

However, there HAVE been some stories where the muck (and tired tropes) part from his mind long enough for the MAN to come forth.

In some instances he is found to be a flawed and unlikable person.
In others, he is shown to have depth and heroic capacity.

He almost NEVER is the "I-will-do-the-right-thing-for-right-thing's-sake" type of hero, but is instead a very relatable character, full of all our strengths and weaknesses and fears.

He is US, thrown into the worst possible situation.
In some sense, like ANY man (or a child) drafted into war and thrown all alone into an unfathomable landscape to battle an ever-changing enemy with ONLY survival as his ultimate goal.
And yet, even then, he has been given some "depth" of character by doing what might not be in HIS best interest if it is instead needed by someone under his protection.

Sadly, it's a rare instance when a writer will do so with him, but it has happened and those are good tales.

One failing, however, is that by the end of the issue, ANY growth and understanding that he has made is lost into the dim recesses of his mind, so that by the start of the next issue, there is only the tabula-rasa again, where the next series of events will prompt a new set of actions & reactions from him.

This COULD be used as a writing strength, as one instance might evoke a completely different response than a similar one might have earlier, thus removing any traditional reactions, but instead, newly learned ones each and every time.
Much like someone who constantly loses their memory (what was that movie..."MOMENTO"?) must re-evaluate every event and their take on it.

Sadly, this has never been properly followed up on in his tales.

However, even as a nearly MINDLESS empath he is not without the lure of viewer empathy and likability.

Sure, nearly all of his stories are dictated in a 2nd or 3rd person narrative style, with his actions and motivations stated to the reader, but even in THIS is shown some depth within the murky mire of his brain.

While he is nearly devoid of higher cognisance and motivation, even within his "lower life-form" level of awareness he has been shown to possess actual "character".

I am reminded of an old French film called "THE RED BALLOON", where a lonely young boy is befriended by a balloon.
The balloon follows him and reacts to him and even ACTS on its own in it's empathy towards the young boy's needs, and damn if the viewer doesn't begin to LOVE the BALLOON.
(This, of course, depends on the viewer not being cold and cut off from their emotions.)

To a MUCH lesser degree (for anyone who has never seen "The RED BALLOON") is the "character" of "WILSON", the soccer-ball "companion" of Tom Hanks' character in the film "CAST AWAY".
The major difference here, however, is that "Wilson" NEVER emotes ANY character of his own, but instead has it superimposed UPON "him" by the tortured and lonely mind of Hanks. When "Wilson" is lost at sea, no one in the theatre was unaffected by the sense of loss.
They were made to care for the "character", while there NEVER was one at all.

The RED BALLOON, and MAN-THING, however, DO have their own CHARACTER, despite their overall existence as "plot device".

Man-Thing is a character in much the same way as the balloon.
One that reflects our own (and the writer's) humanity back upon us.
Almost as a distorted mirror or ourselves (or the writer or characters in the story).

To appreciate HIM as a character is to appreciate OURSELVES as well.

Of course, THAT really relies upon the reader having a properly balanced sense of "right and wrong" so that they can also see what is tormenting the Man-Thing.

If a reader is distant (any puppy-kickers in the audience?), then they will not understand the "character" of the Man-Thing as social-conscience.

Of course, I'm SURE this will open up discussion as to how much of a sap I am (guilty!) and/or how pretentious or erroneous my views are.

That's fine.
I don't claim to be RIGHT.
These are merely my opinions and "takes" on it all.

Your mileage, as they say, may vary.

~P~
P-TOR