Originally Posted by metaphysician
One of those guys is not like the other, one of those guys doesn't belong. And by "one of those guys," I mean "Voldemort," who doesn't belong anywhere near a "best villains" list.
His past is way more interesting than Loki's. The guy in his youth was really scary and the way he was able to manipulate those around him to do something no other dark wizard had the stomach for makes him particularly malicious, expecially since he did it 7 times.
When he wants to he can be scary, he can be badass,
Originally Posted by Loki882
Why, he's got an interesting backstory, complicated motivations, and is just fun to watch. Just because he doesn't kick people's ass all the time (comic Loki never did that either) doesn't make him a weak villain.
How? He was the son of a frost giant, sure, spent milleniums living happily ever after with his adopted family and brother and after a revelation betrays everybody? I know this is generalising it a lot but for me he's just a whiny douche, he's not very interesting, in fact i saw some reviewers and friends saying he was the lowest part of The Avengers movie, i understand that though, they had too many characters to develop already, more than one or a completelly new villain would hurt that.
And i simply never understood his motivations, at first he wants revenge, in The Avengers he wants to rule, he's not even that good of a schemer, Tony Stark and Black Widow outsmarted him, even Coulson, Hulk and Hawkeye had a chance to hit him in hilarious ways.
You don't have to kick people to be a good villain, that's not why i enjoy the Joker or Dafoe's Green Goblin (not counting the suit), Loki's just nothing special in my book, his motivations change as the plot needs them to, they're almost as badly explained as Eddie Brock's and to me he never comes out as a real threat, just a punching bag for the heroes.
You can make a well developed pathetic villain but i don't think he well written enough for that to be a good excuse.