Do you agree with the saying "There no bad characters, only bad writers"?

[CSTowle]

There are a *few* characters that are pretty much irreparable from the point of genesis, regardless of what talent is assigned to them.

Exhibit A: Big Sir



Given the name "Doofus B. Ratchet," the character was basically a slur against the developmentally challenged. There's nothing ANY writer could do to fix this character.

Cary Bates is one of my favorite Bronze Age writers, and perhaps my favorite FLASH writer, but this was one of the worst character ideas EVER.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

Love Big Sir, wanting to give Major Disaster a peck on the cheek all the time. He's sweet.

[Kieran_Frost]

There are a *few* characters that are pretty much irreparable from the point of genesis, regardless of what talent is assigned to them.

Exhibit A: Big Sir



Given the name "Doofus B. Ratchet," the character was basically a slur against the developmentally challenged. There's nothing ANY writer could do to fix this character.

Cary Bates is one of my favorite Bronze Age writers, and perhaps my favorite FLASH writer, but this was one of the worst character ideas EVER.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

I disagree. I would like to see a few more heroes and villains with developmental challanges. Even as a villain, it can inspire to see yourself in a medium. All you do is erase his name (have it be something cruel his brother called him; and it stuck, when actually his real name can be Darius B. Hatcher); change his costume (but keepy the gauntlet and ball and chain); and the name Big Sir is fine. Add a cool eye mask; and give him a loyal girlfriend/sidekick super villainess. Give him purpose, have him be tired of the taunts, and becoming a villain to stop anyone ever picking on him again; and make him VERY protective of his lover. Confront the cruelty of abuse those with difficulties sometimes suffer by some family members, and presto. A somewhat recovered character. Nothing is impossible.

[Michael P]

Argument for the statement: Deathcry.

[Carabas]

I disagree with the statement. Bad characters exist. They tend to be created by bad writers.

Yes, a really good writer can take such a character and do something worthwhile with it, usually by changing so much about the character that it really isn't the same character anymore. Like how the Yellow Claw was changed into the Golden Claw for Agents Of Atlas.

Of course, in superhero comics, characters don't need one good story, they need a near infinite amount of good stories.

[BTNLegend]

It really depends for me. If the character is lame in appearance and has quirks that I'm just not a fan of and a good writer comes along to "fix" him/her, it's no longer that same original character. For me, it always starts with how good the first incarnation of a character is, which is where I develop or don't develop attachment to the character. For example, if I didn't like Reed Richards from the get-go because I didn't like his powers or his scientific smarts and someone decided to retell his story in a better fashion while retaining those same traits that I initially didn't like, I'll still not like the character and think he's lame. If those traits were disposed altogether for a new revamp, then I wouldn't even consider it the same character.

[Zero Hunter]

It just takes the right writer with the right angle. Look at the Calculator over at DC. One of the all time lamest villains they ever had turned into one that fits in very well with the modern time just by making a few tweaks. Same with guys like the Key and Desparo. The is one thing I will DC credit for is they are not afraid to use their older characters in new ways while Marvel seem the opposite and always likes to revert all of their characters back to something close to the original version usually with no real reason given. Just look at someone like Baron Zemo and how he had almost a decade of character development moving him beyond his original motives only to have one writer come in and basically undue it all in one story.

[Mister Mets]

For the most part.

One thing to remember is that a good character is not the same as a competent character. A lame villain could become a compelling character if writers figure out why someone who has no business being in that position wants it.

[Carabas]

It just takes the right writer with the right angle. Look at the Calculator over at DC. One of the all time lamest villains they ever had turned into one that fits in very well with the modern time just by making a few tweaks. Same with guys like the Key and Desparo. The is one thing I will DC credit for is they are not afraid to use their older characters in new ways while Marvel seem the opposite and always likes to revert all of their characters back to something close to the original version usually with no real reason given. Just look at someone like Baron Zemo and how he had almost a decade of character development moving him beyond his original motives only to have one writer come in and basically undue it all in one story.

What you're talking about is not finding the right angle. It's creating a completely new character and giving it an old name.

Take Calculator...




These two loons have absolutely nothing in common except the name Noah Kuttler.
The Key? Same thing.
Despero? Dunno. Has he ever actually worked even once? There seem to be a bunch of incompatible versions of him around. Your mileage may vary, I suppose.
Zemo? Literally a new character. The original is still dead (I think. Hard to keep up with these things).

[Uncanny Mutie]

It really depends for me. If the character is lame in appearance and has quirks that I'm just not a fan of and a good writer comes along to "fix" him/her, it's no longer that same original character. For me, it always starts with how good the first incarnation of a character is, which is where I develop or don't develop attachment to the character. For example, if I didn't like Reed Richards from the get-go because I didn't like his powers or his scientific smarts and someone decided to retell his story in a better fashion while retaining those same traits that I initially didn't like, I'll still not like the character and think he's lame. If those traits were disposed altogether for a new revamp, then I wouldn't even consider it the same character.

This. I totally agree.

[tombo]

I've never understood people saying Superman being infinitely strong makes him boring. A person with infinite strength needs to find challenges and reasons to live, (not being able to enjoy the fun of sports) and they need the wisdom to know which action of theirs will make the world better, where to intervene and where intervening will make things worse. There's tons of stories to tell about that scenario.

As for the Big Sir i'ts never occurred to me there could be a superhero with something like Downs Syndrome, I think thats an interesting scenario even if it was badly done at the time.

[Carabas]

I've never understood people saying Superman being infinitely strong makes him boring. A person with infinite strength needs to find challenges and reasons to live, (not being able to enjoy the fun of sports) and they need the wisdom to know which action of theirs will make the world better, where to intervene and where intervening will make things worse. There's tons of stories to tell about that scenario.

But this is corporate superhero comics, where 60-80 pages per month worth of Superman stories need to be filled, month in, month out, decade after decade, with no end in sight, regardles of whether the writers for those stories are up for that challenge, which they very frequently are not.

Hence, Superman is very often a boring character becaue it's really hard to write good stories for him, and more stories need to be written for him than for most other characters.

[FanboyStranger]

But this is corporate superhero comics, where 60-80 pages per month worth of Superman stories need to be filled, month in, month out, decade after decade, with no end in sight, regardles of whether the writers for those stories are up for that challenge, which they very frequently are not.

Hence, Superman is very often a boring character becaue it's really hard to write good stories for him, and more stories need to be written for him than for most other characters.

I think the real problem with Superman is that everything has become so familiar with the character, and I agree it's for the reasons you cite. There has been little imagination in Superman stories over the past 15-20 years, and even the "shake-ups" don't really explore any new territory. (I mean, what really is the difference between Superman being with Lois or with Wonder Woman if the stories are essentially the same cookie-cutter Superman stories?) Every once and awhile you get something like Morrison and Quitely's All-Star Superman or something great that's not officially Superman like Moore's Supreme or Busiek's "The Eagle and the Serpent" from Astro City, but those books aren't month-in, month-out Superman, which tends to play it safe. Imagination is what's needed for Superman, not attempts to make him "relatable" or whatever. The power-levels aren't the problem; it's the way those power-levels are explored.

[FanboyStranger]

What you're talking about is not finding the right angle. It's creating a completely new character and giving it an old name.

Take Calculator...

These two loons have absolutely nothing in common except the name Noah Kuttler.
The Key? Same thing.
Despero? Dunno. Has he ever actually worked even once? There seem to be a bunch of incompatible versions of him around. Your mileage may vary, I suppose.
Zemo? Literally a new character. The original is still dead (I think. Hard to keep up with these things).

The second Baron Zemo, I'd argue, has been pretty consistant since DeMatteis' Cap run in the '80s. He's a villain with a superiority complex who will do the right thing if it coensides with his own interests. That often puts him in anti-hero territory, but make no mistake: Baron Zemo is about Zemo first and everyone else second. Brubaker regressed the character a bit during his otherwise excellent first Cap run, but there's been a fairly clear trajectory for the character all along. He hasn't been the crazed, angry Phoenix from Englehart's run in the '70s for a good thirty years. He's more akin to Doctor Doom without the ridiculous power levels. Like Doom will from time to time take a swing at Richards for revenge after he's saved the whole universe, Zemo will take a swing at Cap (or Bucky) from time to time after he's saved the world. He's a bad guy who can see the big picture unless Cap is standing in front of it.

[Goggindowner]

I think the real problem with Superman is that everything has become so familiar with the character, and I agree it's for the reasons you cite. There has been little imagination in Superman stories over the past 15-20 years, and even the "shake-ups" don't really explore any new territory. (I mean, what really is the difference between Superman being with Lois or with Wonder Woman if the stories are essentially the same cookie-cutter Superman stories?) Every once and awhile you get something like Morrison and Quitely's All-Star Superman or something great that's not officially Superman like Moore's Supreme or Busiek's "The Eagle and the Serpent" from Astro City, but those books aren't month-in, month-out Superman, which tends to play it safe. Imagination is what's needed for Superman, not attempts to make him "relatable" or whatever. The power-levels aren't the problem; it's the way those power-levels are explored.

I think that's just semantics, really. I do agree with you in spirit, because a good Superman story can be incredibly fun and compelling. But pitting him against a villain isn't enough. Superman isn't a superhero anymore, he is a god among men. When you are dealing with that level of power, you can't tell the same types of stories that you can with a Flash, Batman, or Green Lantern. It requires an incredible amount of imagination and creativity to keep that character fresh and not just be boring.

If he weren't so unstoppable, he would be more interesting because there would always be something at stake. As he is, you really have to play with the rules to create those stakes and very few writers can do it well. Which, IMO, if you have a character that is incredibly hard to make compelling, then you have a broken character.

[Carabas]

I think the real problem with Superman is that everything has become so familiar with the character, and I agree it's for the reasons you cite. There has been little imagination in Superman stories over the past 15-20 years, and even the "shake-ups" don't really explore any new territory.

I think the New Krypton was a shake-up that was pretty imaginative and broke into completely unexplored Superman story terrain.
Of course superhero fans do not really like stuff that is too new, so they didn't like it. Therefore it was quickly done away with in a rather clumsy and excessively bloodthirsty way, and immediately forgotten by everyone.
Literally a month later, when Straczynski had Superman go on walkabout to find himself again, was it because he'd just seen a hundred thousand of his people murdered? No, it was because some old lady was mean to him.

The power-levels aren't the problem; it's the way those power-levels are explored.

Like Goggindowner said, that's semantics.

The way I see it, Superman is a progressive character with a strong liberal bent, an immense sense of social justice, and the power of several gods.
Superman would be a non-lethal, one-man Authority, improving the quality of life greatly for everybody on the planet, if he wasn't stuck in a universe ruled by the sacred status quo that restricted his powers to just using them to stop natural disasters and supervillains.