Does it Bother You When Characters Act Out-of-Character?

[normanosborn]

My #1 pet peeve in comics.

Mine is the lack of lasting consequences (such as real deaths).

It really depends on the case. Sometimes people behave in absolutely weird ways IRL too. I can accept Stark going slightly mad in Civil War, or Wolverine getting afraid of death after losing his healing powers, for example. Or Doom getting drunk and having his portrait painted.

Heh heh heh.

lol. We need a "Like" button on this forum

[TakoM]

Every now and then, I see people complain that their beloved heroes/villains doesnt act from past issues. Do you let this bother you? Or do you accept it, given theres years, decades of comics feautring these characters, as long as Doom dont start dancing, Galactus dont start fapping, etc?

Yeah it can be a bother, if someone act out of his character for let's say one issues and it has no long term consequences their is no problem but the first which come to my mind in that case is Reed Richards a brave man which never compromised his believes and always found a solution. He was rewritten/act out of character for CW and Hickmans New Avenger to a point were he is nearly identical with Doom only that Doom is braver and Reed seems to thinks he has already conquered the world.

Naturally when the hero make his villain counter-part competition fans get made and things are messed up.(if the villain makes the hero competition thinks are fine)

The second is Tony Stark which are not that much acted out of character but certainly bend some corners or otherwise said the authors over use him with to do evil stuff. I don't see how making him a villain will help him to make more sales the character will be garbage when the story is through.

The third is the Scarlet Witch yeah I know she had a mental breakdown before Avenger Dissemble because her kids but because it was so long ago and she got over it. It was purely built up from the authors and she acted out of character which resulted in even more.. out of character behaviour in M-Day. It is the same as Iron-Man if the authors continue to use her in that way she will end up as garbage

[Fifolet]

I don't mind a character acting out of character as long as there's at least an hint of an explanation or context for it. When there's isn't one, yes it bothers me, because it means the writer and editor are doing a piss poor job and still getting paid for it. It's a clear sign they don't give a shit about the characters and their history, no matter what they say.

In recent years there have been some really bad cases of this.

[Nomads1]

It really has become a run of the mill thing in mainstream comics, but, yes, it still bothers me, with varying degrees of intensity (if it's a character I really like, if it's a writer I trust, if it's one who has proven being bad at those things, if there is an explanation for it - with which I agree or not-, if it's out of the blue, etc...). I will say that while good and sensible charactarization has helped me bond with characters and with the comics in general, the recent trend of not giving a $#!% to these kind of things has helped me become less attached to characters and comics, causing me to drift away from the hobby (or at least, change drastically my reading habits).

Peace

[vitruvian]

Every now and then, I see people complain that their beloved heroes/villains doesnt act from past issues. Do you let this bother you? Or do you accept it, given theres years, decades of comics feautring these characters, as long as Doom dont start dancing, Galactus dont start fapping, etc?

Yes, because if it's truly out of character, and not explained within the story, that is by definition bad writing and storytelling.

[vitruvian]

Mine is the lack of lasting consequences (such as real deaths).

It really depends on the case. Sometimes people behave in absolutely weird ways IRL too. I can accept Stark going slightly mad in Civil War, or Wolverine getting afraid of death after losing his healing powers, for example. Or Doom getting drunk and having his portrait painted.



lol. We need a "Like" button on this forum

It's true that the bar for saying that somebody is truly being written out of character should be set fairly high. People do have off days and act in different ways depending on the situation. There's a whole area of psychology suggesting that personality is more situational than a true constant, in fact. So, if there's a valid reason for unusual behavior shown or even just pretty well implied in the story, then it's not actually a case of OOC writing. But if there isn't a decent in-story explanation, and a character is acting wildly different than they did in past situations that were quite comparable, then it stands out and not in a good way.

[Fokken]

We're fickle fussy creatures.

Fluctuating hair length, hair style, bust size, height variances, civilian attire, use of sarcasm, memory gaps, relationship drama, mannerisms, name dropping, who they're texting ha ha -- it ALL adds to one's appreciation of a character.

I applaud the Marvel Writers who manage to keep it all straight.

[KurtW95]

Every now and then, I see people complain that their beloved heroes/villains doesnt act from past issues. Do you let this bother you? Or do you accept it, given theres years, decades of comics feautring these characters, as long as Doom dont start dancing, Galactus dont start fapping, etc?

I hate it.

[vitruvian]

We're fickle fussy creatures.

Fluctuating hair length, hair style, bust size, height variances, civilian attire, use of sarcasm, memory gaps, relationship drama, mannerisms, name dropping, who they're texting ha ha -- it ALL adds to one's appreciation of a character.

I applaud the Marvel Writers who manage to keep it all straight.

Well, I've already said that one should be careful about throwing out the accusation of out of character writing. It's too easy to miss how there really is a reasonable explanation within the context of the story if you're too attached to a specific view of a favorite character. E.g., even if you've seen a character be cool under fire dozens of times before and the current traumatic events seem no different from a reader's perspective, maybe the writer is playing with the idea that the character has finally suffered enough and started to show signs of PTSD that was developing all along. And actually, given the number of trials and adventures most superheroes go through, that works pretty well for any of them...

But that said, there's also something to be said for the idea that by the nature of fiction, fictional characters in some ways need to be written to be more consistent in their behavior than real life people actually may be, because that's how people tend to understand character and personality both in fiction and the real world. Otherwise, you take many readers out of the story.

Even in the studies that support a situational view of personality theory, it remains the case that people tend to believe that the personalities of both themselves and other people are fairly constant across different situations and milieus, even though that's provably not always the case.

[MASTER-OF-SUPRISE]

Shameless bump.

@virtuvian: That's an interesting point.

[klinton]

No, not really.

I tend to read my favorites though a filter anyhow. So, no matter what's going on on the page, I'm reading my 'ideal' version of the charcter. I think my brain automatically reconciles OOC actions or words against what I 'know' to be true about them.

It might be a problem for characters I'm reading for the first time, as I'm given an unjust bad taste for them... and first impressions are kind of 'set in stone' with me.

[Fordel]

In General, keeping characters internally consistent is easily the most important thing in any piece of fiction.

Plots are actually some of the least important bits of any story for the most part, we'll forgive enormous plot holes as long as the characterization remains enjoyable and likeable. The characters themselves don't have to be good people, just good characters. In order to have a good character, you need them to be believable within the constraints of their setting. Once you can identify with a characters decision, you get can get invested in them and now you care. Even if you don't AGREE with them, you can understand where they are coming from.

Once you remove that bit from a character, and force a character to move in a direction because the story/plot demands it, you put all the focus on the story and then all the enormous glaring holes we were happily ignoring get pushed center stage and now I am upset that both A) the plot is nonsensical and B) the characters are no longer believable.

It doesn't mean characters can't change or grow (or even regress), but those things need to happen as a result of their context, not a means to reach said context. If that makes sense.

[fmvgamer]

[Hellion]

If that's a picture of Chuck Austen, then you, sir, win this thread.

[Mark]

Depends on how bad it is and the circumstances, but usually it does because I see it as lazy writing.