But when it comes to D&D and PF- I just cannot gel. I had a severe dislike for the 3.X Iconic characters and like the PF versions even less. It may be the ridiculous amount of Dungeon Punk- Spikes, gigantic swords, bandoliers of daggers/potions/components/wands, buckles, straps, tats, earrings, and the like. In fact I know it is.
I am fine with the Pathfinder Iconics, though I suppose they could have made new ones for the new edition reused the old ones as older, more powerful, and better equipped. I think v3.5 had "epic level" versions of their Iconics? The Iconics have pretty good backgrounds at this point though. Maybe if PF3 rolls around one day they can switch them up.
I really like some iconics, am indifferent to others, and strongly dislike a few. I am happy with Paizo continuing to use their established iconic characters, that makes sense to me. Although, from what I've seen, I generally prefer the original iterations to the re-imaginings of 2e.
The useful thing about Pathfinder's iconics is that when you see them in art, you immediately recognize that the art was done for Pathfinder. That is the strong selling point for iconics in TTRPG books. I don't really have strong feelings one way or another about the PF iconics, but I can't deny their usefulness for brand recognition.
Of the core Iconics I mostly just find Lem to be utterly forgettable. His only selling point for me is that he has an evil brother, Meligaster, the Iconic mesmerist. I am also not as keen on Fumbus as he is not as wickedly cutesy as the 1e goblins.