MCU. BAM.
Laufey was a side villian, more a pawn than anything else.
But a villain nonetheless. This is the sort of character people say Killian was worse than, which is what I'm referring to.
Malekith, well, if I knew what his real motivation was in that movie I'd probably agree with you.
...ok?
Red Skull, I got what I expected
Irrelevant. He was as inconsequential as they come; his only significance in the MCU is that he bungled about with the cosmic cube. Compare that to Killian who destroyed Tony's house, nearly killed him on two separate occasions, kidnapped Tony's best friend, his woman, and the POTUS...the list goes on and on. Red Skull didn't have anywhere near the impact on Cap or the story in the same way that Killian did; him being 'what you expected' is neither here nor there. In fact, that's a big part of most people's problem.
Ross, well, once again, not someone I'd put in the "villain" category.
Perhaps I should've emphasized the word 'antagonist', but my point still stands. He stood in opposition of the hero or protagonist, and was a forgettable cliche by contrast.
Blonsky was a decent villain.
Blonsky was a decent attack dog. Another example of a poorly written villain; his entire subplot is a contrivance in that he only exists as a payoff to the audience - someone the Hulk could actually smash during the climax. Other than that, not much to write home about. Cool fight scenes though, I'll give him that much.
I find it hilarious that you apparently placed Justin Hammer in the category of "villain" with a straight face.
The hilarious part is that Hammer is more compelling than half of the MCUs rogues gallery, come to think of it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "put through the wringer". In what way? He blew up his house. That was Killian's only real accomplishment. Everything else is just a loss due to Tony's own inadequacies. Even the house thing is really because Jarvis somehow couldn't detect the freaking missle heading their way. Seriously, no one dies, no one's worse off because of their experiences in this film. All the main characters are better off because of KILLIAN.
You serious? Not to beat a dead horse, but along with destroying Tony's house, he hijacked his armor, destroyed AF1, kidnapped the POTUS and the two most important people in his life, killed his old flame, hospitalized Happy, and came pretty damn close to owning the White House. This is exactly what I'm talking about - trivializing what occurred. I'm not saying you have to like it, but at least acknowledge what was there. I'm not the biggest fan of Peyton Manning, but...well, bad example, but you get the idea(if you're a football fan anyway).
It's great for him I'm sure, but not that entertaining or interesting to me.
Fair enough, nothing wrong with that, but that's also no reason to be so dismissive. You're glossing over, ignoring, or trivializing key points relating to his scheme, and that's just not a fair way to assess a villain, at all.
I doubt you're even an Iron Man fan let alone know anything about his rogue galleries and his universe. It's fine to dislike the film but sometimes you're coming off as hating just for the sake of it especially when people are giving you valid and cohesive reasons about Killian's motivations and you completely ignore them.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion lol It's fine to dislike the film and Killian for that matter, but your reasons for calling him a crap villain are baffling. I've followed your posts and I agree with Lord, Complaining that a villain is weak because he failed in his plans is just hilarious.
