EW's 100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years

[Randy]

Uh, how is Master Chief a fucking character?  How many lines does he even have in the Halo series, 5? 

No Jimmy James or Bill McNeal? Invalid list!

[Dan]

Where the fuck is Meatwad??

[ExpendablesFan]

Where the hell is Chuck D. Head from Decap Attack?

[Hayner]

Master Chief is the king of everything, hold your tongue.

[Randy]

I would gladly take Toe Jam & Earl over Master Chief every day of the week!

[DerickA]

Also, Parker Lewis was a better Ferris Bueller than Ferris Bueller was.

[sean]

How many of those characters have been around since 1990 or earlier (that is, more than 20 years)?  I got bored after I counted five out of the top 11.  But I see Frasier Crane is on there -- now, come on!

[Wolfe]

How many of those characters have been around since 1990 or earlier (that is, more than 20 years)?  I got bored after I counted five out of the top 11.  But I see Frasier Crane is on there -- now, come on!

I think the loophole they employed for most of them was that they cite specific incarnations of the characters in the article. Frasier Crane is specifically from FRASIER, the Joker is Heath Ledger's, etc. And Homer and Kramer each only appeared in one episode in 1989, so that's close enough to look the other way on (though one must also ignore THE TRACEY ULLMAN SHOW). Roseanne Conner and (I think) Elmo are the only two flagrant violations they made, as near as I can tell. Well, the only two time-related violations.

[BrianLynch]

Where's that guy that I like? 

[DerickA]

I think the loophole they employed for most of them was that they cite specific incarnations of the characters in the article. Frasier Crane is specifically from FRASIER, the Joker is Heath Ledger's, etc. And Homer and Kramer each only appeared in one episode in 1989, so that's close enough to look the other way on (though one must also ignore THE TRACEY ULLMAN SHOW). Roseanne Conner and (I think) Elmo are the only two flagrant violations they made, as near as I can tell. Well, the only two time-related violations.

Or I think they just chose characters that had the height of their popularity or origin in the 90s.

[sean]

Frasier Crane is specifically from FRASIER,

That's the thing, it *didn't* specify that, that's what caught my eye.

the Joker is Heath Ledger's, etc.

I get that, but it's a weak distinction; that character wasn't created out of scratch in the past 20 years -- at the very least, it's derived from 'The Killing Joke' and a few even older stories.  Especially when the list also includes "literary" characters interchangeably with movie characters [example: "Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs", even putting aside 'Manhunter', that was a book first, and the list includes book characters; oddly, they *do* specify "Jennifer Hudson's Effie from Dreamgirls"].

And Homer and Kramer each only appeared in one episode in 1989, so that's close enough to look the other way on (though one must also ignore THE TRACEY ULLMAN SHOW). Roseanne Conner and (I think) Elmo are the only two flagrant violations they made, as near as I can tell. Well, the only two time-related violations.

My other point was, if we're saying the last 20 years, 2010 should be on the list at the expense of 1990.

It just seems like a weird commentary on our times how many of "the greatest characters of the last 20 years" were created earlier.  (I heard somebody, possibly Joe Rogan?, make a similar point about music, that most of the best music of the past 20-25 years was being done by guys who started in the 20-25 years prior to that.)

[Luke Erik]

Where's that guy that I like? 

[Dobbin]

I have tried on 4 separate occasions to read KAVALIER AND CLAY, and I just can't do it. I found myself actively *angry* at the horrible, overblown, pretentious prose. And this is ME who is saying that.

I found myself kicked out of the book at least 5 times per page by the some egregiously pretentious way a thought or sentence was formed, where I was aware of the author, writing, as opposed to the story happening. Many times, I even said, "Oh, fuck YOU!" out loud. To a book.

I'm not opposed to convoluted, complex descriptions or long-form ways of getting to points. I love Neal Stephenson. He does that stuff, too, but he does it well.

[sean]

I wasn't a fan of Kavalier and Klay either, though I did make it through.  There's a section I think you'd really like that you probably didn't reach yet, allow me a moment to go check the book and then I'll edit this post...

EDIT: I'm having trouble finding it, I think it's "Part V: Radioman".  I just remember there being this whole 50-75 page chunk of that book where it randomly turns into his adventures with the Navy, and it feels like a different book, like this is the part where, even in his style (flipping back through it reminded me), still evokes the adventure feel of the sort of comics the book is supposed to be homaging.

A lot of opinion on this book seems to come down to whether you respected and knew a lot about comic books going into it.  Many of the people I know who loved it were the ones who knew nothing about comic books, and the people I know who didn't like it were the ones who, because they loved comic books, somebody said "Oh, you'll totally love this!"  (But that's not to take away from anybody who loved comics before reading the book and still loved the book.)

[Dobbin]

I wasn't a fan of Kavalier and Klay either, though I did make it through.  There's a section I think you'd really like that you probably didn't reach yet, allow me a moment to go check the book and then I'll edit this post...

EDIT: I'm having trouble finding it, I think it's "Part V: Radioman".  I just remember there being this whole 50-75 page chunk of that book where it randomly turns into his adventures with the Navy, and it feels like a different book, like this is the part where, even in his style (flipping back through it reminded me), still evokes the adventure feel of the sort of comics the book is supposed to be homaging.

A lot of opinion on this book seems to come down to whether you respected and knew a lot about comic books going into it.  Many of the people I know who loved it were the ones who knew nothing about comic books, and the people I know who didn't like it were the ones who, because they loved comic books, somebody said "Oh, you'll totally love this!"  (But that's not to take away from anybody who loved comics before reading the book and still loved the book.)

I can see that. I went in super-enthusiastic. I mean, it won the Pulitzer, the IDEA of the book greatly interested me, the subject material, the construction of the story. I just hated slogging through his writing *that* much.