Maya is undoubtedly the most advanced and versatile of the character modellers. (I'm a Maya user, but also make some limited use of Max, Lightwave and XSI.) Currently, it is in "industry standard" for movies and very high end fine art.

There have been at least three significant developments in character modelling technologies (technically, "rigging" and "skinning") over the last decade. The first generation technology is present in all of the major 3d applications, although these applications differ significantly in terms of ease of use and presentation of features and tools designed for character modelling.

Autodesk MAX might reasonably be said to not go further than this - as it tends to be used more for architecture and general-purpose modelling. Lightwave, C4D, XSI and Maya certainly contain more powerful skinning tools than MAX - they could be considered to have "second-generation" character modelling and animation  technologies.

But, now to disagree respectfully with some of the above comments.  While I like Lightwave very much, especially having purchased and admiring the latest tutorials for character development in it, I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Potter on the notion that Lightwave and Maya are equivalent when it comes to character modelling. Actually, the very latest technology for character modelling (the third generation of technological developments)  is one which is being developed to realistically simulate the movement and deformation of muscles under skin. To my knowledge, this technology is reasonably present only in Maya, as "Maya Muscles." I would have to say that this is a technology still under development, although Maya's tools are quite sophisticated and advanced.

Also, I would like to disagree with the comment that Zbrush or Mudbox are necessary, and perhaps lean hard on an implication that they could be useful character creation and animation tools all by themselves. I find this implication in the above comments, and think that it would seriously mislead a non-knowledable person asking where to begin. (And to clarify, I'm speaking as a Mudbox user also.) 

ZBrush and Mudbox are polygon/subdivision surface model sculpting tools. They are important and powerful tools in the process of creating the massive amounts of fine details that make a character truely realistic. Mudbox additionally has super-fine texture creation and painting tools for characters. (I've finally given up Maxxon's Body Paint (part of C4D) in favor of Mudbox.) For those of us who do a lot of character development,

But the basic processes of building the roots of a character's shape, of ensuring that the essential elements of mesh topology are laid out in good and efficient ways for a particular kind of character, and that will support realistic deformation of joints and skin, and therefore enable good animation are best done in applications such as XSI, C4D, Lightwave, Max and Maya. Skeleton development and rigging of the mesh are far, far better and more powerfully done in these tools. Building good control rigs (those things that control a character's animation movements) also is best done in these tools.  While it certainly is possible to build characters from scratch in Zbrush and Mudbox, and to animate them, (and people do this all the time), this is not how one who is interested in character development, with an eye to animation really would do things. That is, building a character's mesh is only one fourth of the task of character creation - if it is assumed that we are talking about animation. Character creation's four task are 1) building the mesh [including UV mapping and texture or material creation and application], 2) rigging the mesh [giving the mesh a suitable skeleton or set of joints for general purposes or for a particular kind of animation], 3) skinning the mesh (attaching all the various vertices of the mesh to appropriate joints, using appropriate weighting so that more than one joint can move an area of the mesh), and then 4) building a good set of controls over the skeleton for purposes of animation.

Both Zbrush and Mudbox are made with systems of interfaces or linkages to Maya, Max, Lightwave, sometimes C4D and others, just so that the latter main applications can be used for these primary tasks.

I am a long, long ways from expert in the business of character development, but I would consider it a significant disservice to point someone new to Zbrush or Mudbox, and tell them to start here, this is all that you will need if you want to enter the realm of character creation. The only time this might be acceptable, in my humble opinion, would be for a person who wants to sculpt still (non-moving) characters - as in the process of building statues.

For me, and for most of us in the profession, I would recommend Lightwave to a person on a restricted budget and who might be unsure of whether or not they really want to get into this kind of thing.

If the person is an experienced IT professional (as I was when I started in this field), and certain-sure they want to enter take up this endeavor, I would have them purchase Maya. The cost of the program will not be misspent, and ALL the relevant technologies are present. There is quite a lot to learn well before a person ever needs Mudbox or Zbrush. Maya is complex and certainly has a long learning curve, but for an IT professional, this is not going to be an impediment. (Unless, of course, the person you have in mind was basically a network professional - in which case this is all going to be quite a new world, indeed.)

Paula, character modelling is really quite a complex enterprise - requiring mastery of many more things than just box modelling and texture application. As you probably know, in the movie studios, model-builders, riggers and skinners, and animators often are completely separate occupations, with few people in one of those areas having anything other than rudimentary knowledge of the other areas. It is only us general-purpose free-lancers that have to learn it all. 

I think if I were advising someone like the IT professional that I used to be, the first thing I would do is recommend a three-month or six-month subscription to Digital-Tutors, and advise that person that they want to start with the Maya character modelling, character rigging, character skinning, and finally animation series of tutorials. Unfortunately, neither Gnomon Labs nor Digital Tutors organize or point out that their tutorials span the history of character development technologies, so that sometimes, you start out with old stuff, or only after working through it all, you come to realize that you have been looking at a history of three techological developments.  I've purchased all of Gnomon Labs and DT's tuts on these subjects and found them worth every penny. Unfortunately, I also spent a bunch on books on these same subjects over the years. Looking back, I should have spent zero on the books, and every dime on the interactive tuts, instead. (Some of the specialized character development books I own are pretty good references for me now, but they were never the best way to learn, in the beginning.)

If I was advising myself, the person I used to be when I first entered this field, I would day, purchase Autodesk's Creation Suite (it will include Maya and Mudbox, as well as MAX and XSI, and possibly Matchmover), and take out a three-month subscription to Digital Tutors.

Then, start with the DT Intro to Maya tuts. Don't worry about character creation for a couple of months. Just learn the basics of 3D modelling - polygon, NURBS, subdivision surfaces, UV mapping, Hypershade (the Material Editor), and then the basics of animation. (A little on Lighting and Rendering, of course, but not much.) This gives a reasonable foundation.

Then, start with the DT tuts on character modelling. Regardless of technology, the basics of character modelling and typology are ever the same - the old tuts are good. Once the person can build a basic character model satisfactorily within, say, eight-hour's time, it is time for the next step.

At this point, I would have a person take up Mudbox or Zbrush. Again, the DT tuts are good, but Gnomon Labs also has an excellent tut or two on Mudbox. My next comment is purely person opinion, but I prefer Mudbox to Zbrush. To me, Zbrush appears a bit as an end in itself, a tool maybe more for still sculpturing than as part of a larger toolkit for character creation and animation. Mudbox is simpler and more than servicable.

Whoops - an interrupt - more later.