The Superman Family Message Board >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat Oct 23, 2021
Subj: Re: WORST NEW CHARACTERS of the 90s Triangle Era
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 at 02:28:35 pm EST (Viewed 93 times)
Reply Subj: WORST NEW CHARACTERS of the 90s Triangle Era
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 at 10:35:23 pm EST (Viewed 108 times)

Previous Post

1) The Contessa: such a tedious character that the only thing I remember about her is that she was tedious

2) Thorn and Ashbury: what the hell was this?

3) Alpha Centurion: I don't recall if there what happened to him and have no interest in finding out

4) Conduit: Kenny, Kenny, had all the means to acquire Nukes and make a million robots that looked like your dad, but you couldn't just enjoy your life?

5) Ron Troupe/Franklin Stern: don't mean to be harsh, but they were interchangeable to me. They were always the "saintly black guy" PC token to me; no character, no flaws.

6) Dirk Armstrong: rightwing strawman/punching bag par excellance

7) Strange Visitor/Sharon Vance: what the hell was this character?

8) the Tribunal: these blue guys were just dumb

9) Jose Delgado/Gangbuster: just a dopey, badly designed character

10) Guardian/Newboy Legion: Cadmus is cool, but didn't like Jim Harper or those old timey newsboys. So very shoehorned into 90s comics.

Any other stinkers you guys can remember?

1. The Contessa could have worked if Lex Luthor was out of the picture but, instead, they made her his love interest. I liked her at the time but in hindsight, she's lost her appeal.

2. Thorn and Ashbury was proof the writers were running out of ideas.

3. Out of all the characters you mentioned, Alpha Centurion is the one I hate the most. There is literally no point to this character and he was written badly from the very beginning, which killed any chances the character may have had.

4. Ah, Conduit. The precursor to Hush and where Jeph Loeb got that inspiration from while "somehow" managing to make it better. Kenny was a villain that would have worked better had he been revealed to be Pete Ross instead. But instead of taking that risk/chance, the writers created a whole new character that so happened to be Clark's childhood best friend (despite that role previously being filled by Pete). And the whole thing felt like it was shoehorned into Superman's past. Which, in the end, never worked. It's too bad, too. Conduit has all the makings of a great villain had he been handled just a little differently. The formula was there, but it was poorly executed.

5. I liked both Stern and Troupe just fine, but I do see your point. I think the problems lies in the fact that neither character got the chance to truly shine or stand on their own. Instead, both got sidelined and that's unfortunate.

6. Dirk "The Jerk" Armstrong wasn't a very likable character for me, but at least he had flaws (i.e. terrible Dad and overprotective). I'm glad he's no longer around, though.

7. Strange Visitor was, and still is, the LAMEST superhero name EVER to be invented. I get the feeling she was created because DC wasn't finished telling stories about Superman having energy powers. But with a lame name and so soon after the sour note that was left after Superman himself became a being of pure energy, the character of Sharon Vance failed to resonate with audiences because it reminded them too much of what happened with Superman. At least, that's the impression I got.

8. I don't even remember the Tribunal. I guess that speaks for itself.

9. Cir-El would be my personal pick. She failed as a character from the moment she first appeared. Lame costume on top of that. It's no wonder then that, outside of the rare exception, she hasn't appeared since then.

10. Linda Danvers. While I liked Matrix Supergirl, I hated the Linda Danvers part of it. Especially when the character took over the role of Supergirl and adopted that butt ugly white T-shirt and blue skirt look. I'm glad she hasn't been back since her series got canceled.

It's interesting that a hero/villain performs one amazing feat, or use a power they haven't used for 20+ years, and that automatically propels them to a high status despite scans and evidence to the contrary. I don't know what is worse, selective feat picking that has only been done once or twice 20, or more, years ago or ignoring evidence from scans or the lack thereof. We need to stop putting our favorite heroes/villains on pedestals and start putting them where they really belong. But it's evident that people never will because they would rather accuse others of cherry picking feats, when they don't, and being 'morally superior' when they aren't. I guess being honest and as fair as possible only opens one up to being the target of childish accusations and fault finding by those who insist on acting petty and childish. What happened to a good debate between two civil, mature, adults?
Posted with Google Chrome 96.0.4664.93 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software