Spoilers WandaVision vs. Falcon and the Winter Soldier vs. Loki

[InCali]

Don't force me to bring my crew in on this. I don't want things gettin ugly.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

Is not about which is the best series, more like in which order to watch it?

 

[First Avenger]

For me, Loki and Wandavision were fantastic, I have little to no complaints about them, while Falcon was held down by the underwhelming Power Broker reveal and the underdeveloped Flag smashers subplot. I chose Loki for the huge repercussions it's going to have on the MCU going forward.

 

[Docker2.0]

Don't force me to bring my crew in on this. I don't want things gettin ugly.

 

[The_Manhunter]

Loki is easily the best. Universe changing, and it told its story in a new way using a completely new type of story (time travel - which we've seen in Endgame, but not like this).

WandaVision is next. It was wonderfully weird but the finale fell a bit flat. They picked the least exciting choice possible for every plot thread. Still entertaining and emotionally resonant storytelling though.

Falcon and Winter Soldier is last, not because it's bad, but because it's just not quite as good. The story was boring and the villains were really bad. However, the character development was fantastic and the race themes of the show were really well done.

Can't wait for the upcoming shows!

 

[Spider-Fan]

It is very close for me between Loki and Wandavision. Both are top shelf MCU in my opinion. That said, I would rank them:

Loki
Wandavision
Falcon and the Winter Soldier

 

[Batmannerism]

They were all varying degrees of mediocre to absolute crap, mostly because of the ineptitude of the writers:

1) Wanda Vision, an interesting concept until the end when we find out that Wanda is the real villain who enslaved a town full of people and turned them into human puppets because she couldn't deal with grief like an adult.

The writers betray their lack of talent when they have Rambeau try to paint Wanda as giving up something..." they'll never know what you sacrificed " what did she sacrifice ? Nothing, the Vision she created wasn't real, the kids weren't real - but the townspeople suffering was real.

So they show us Wanda doing something really evil , but tell us she's the victim. This is why good storytellers show rather than tell.

I do give the show points for developing Wanda's character in a way that makes sense and is consistent with some heel turns she actually went through in the comics.

All up 6/10.

2) Falcon and the Winter Soldier

Don't you love it when escapist entertainment brings in real world contemporary political issues and starting preaching a particular agenda - not in a subtle or clever way, but by literally shoving it in the audience's face..... well I don't!

Let's think about the most enjoyable and popular MCU films and how they tackled contemporary political issues.... they didn't, unless you want to take Thanos as making an important statement about overpopulation.

Remember how all the other Captain America movies dealt with racism. They didn't, but still managed to be great.

Some of you probably enjoyed how the series incorporated 2020's American racial politics into its story. Fair enough, that's your call. Me, if I want to see that stuff I'll watch the news. Superhero and comic book films are escapism, and I'm not interested in watching the characters import real world angst. "Do better Senator!" Thanks Sam, got any concrete suggestions or solutions as to how to resolve the complex multifaceted issues that have arisen after an unprecedented event like the snap/blip ? Nope, okay then.

Like WandaVision this show has some terrible messages - some of which come from the main character, that terrorism ( including murder) is actually okay.

Remember how Bucky was a deadly hand to hand combatant with decades of experience, and super strength? Wouldn't it be awesome if some angry millenials ( true they had taken the serum, but there's no way and women half his size could give him a legit problem in a fight....nope, it wasn't.
And I loved hearing about his feelings.

Sharon Carter turning to the dark side ( deciding to sell govt secrets ) totally made sense.... nope, pass on that one.

On the plus side I thought Mackie and Stan had good chemistry. That was enough to make the show watchable.

Zemo was very entertaining, but unfortunately he was so clever that he made our heroes look like morons over and over again. But the show was better for having him in it.

John Walker.... well, again the writers clearly didn't know what they were doing here, especially his turn from enraged, revenge driven man to joking and backslapping in no time at all. It's like, the super serum made him unstable....and then it didn't?
Him killing that guy with the shield made sense, he lost control after the terrorists kidnapped and killed his friend right in front of him. After that his fight with Bucky and Sam made sense, although again Bucky was seriously nerfed here. I mean are you telling me that Walker could push Bucky harder than Cap ? Other than that a pretty good fight scene with emotional stakes.

All in all 7/10.


3) Loki. While the other shows were a mixed bag this show was almost entirely shirt.

First and worst, Loki himself. He goes from being a clever, calculating charming and dangerous villain in the films to being everyone's bench.
He spends the entire series running around after smarter, stronger characters - namely Sylvie, who's the real protagonist of the show. Loki is a side character in his own show.

Remember how Loki is super humanly strong and tough, yet human TVA agents can manhandle him? Or that he suddenly has magic powers that he never used in the films ? This is not good writing.
Alligator Loki has more agency than he does.

I feel like the writers mistook character destruction for character development.

Then there's the underlying premise, which makes everything that happened in the MCU films utterly meaningless. In fact even then all the stuff that happens in the show is pointless because Kang manipulated it all so that they would reach his office.

On the positive side, Classic Loki was awesome and Alligator Loki didn't take any crap.

I could go on about nearly every other aspect of this show, but I don't want to relive it so I'll sum it up by giving it a 1/10, mostly because it takes a huge steaming shirt on everything that came before it.

The fact that so many people seem to enjoy Loki and are entertained by him running around like a clueless ash flash, except when he's having long pointless conversations, depresses me no end.

So I guess Falcon and Winter Soldier wins..

 

[Kev4000]

Best Series
(1) Wandavision
(2) Falcon & Winter Soldier
(3) Loki
Im in the minority here, I still like Loki but all the variants were too random for me.

Best Actor
(1) Sebastian Stan
(2) Tom Hiddleston
(3) Paul Bettany

Best Actress
(1) Elizabeth Olsen
(2) Sophia Di Martino
-

Best Supp. Actor
(1) Wyatt Russell
(2) Daniel Brühl
(3) Owen Wilson

Best Supp. Actress
(1) Kathryn Hahn
(2) Gugu Mbatha-Raw
(3) Wunmi Mosaku

Directing
-> Wandavision

Writing
-> Wandavision

Music
-> Loki

Cinematography
-> Loki

Costumes
-> Wandavision

 

[Green Goblin]

Loki surprised me with how much I enjoyed it, thought it was going to be a poor man's Doctor Who after the first episode but I really enjoyed the series as it went on and is the first time a TV series has had major effect on the MCU going forward.

Wandavision was also very strong. It really suit the TV format and had some if the best MCU performances.

Falcon & The Winter Soldier was definitely the weakest. While enjoyable it was very unfocused and to be honest would have benefited from being a film rather than a TV show.

 

[AvengerPA]

1. Wandavision
2. The Falcon and the Winter Soldier
3. Loki

 

[Docker2.0]

They were all varying degrees of mediocre to absolute crap, mostly because of the ineptitude of the writers:

1) Wanda Vision, an interesting concept until the end when we find out that Wanda is the real villain who enslaved a town full of people and turned them into human puppets because she couldn't deal with grief like an adult.

The writers betray their lack of talent when they have Rambeau try to paint Wanda as giving up something..." they'll never know what you sacrificed " what did she sacrifice ? Nothing, the Vision she created wasn't real, the kids weren't real - but the townspeople suffering was real.

So they show us Wanda doing something really evil , but tell us she's the victim. This is why good storytellers show rather than tell.

I do give the show points for developing Wanda's character in a way that makes sense and is consistent with some heel turns she actually went through in the comics.

All up 6/10.

2) Falcon and the Winter Soldier

Don't you love it when escapist entertainment brings in real world contemporary political issues and starting preaching a particular agenda - not in a subtle or clever way, but by literally shoving it in the audience's face..... well I don't!

Let's think about the most enjoyable and popular MCU films and how they tackled contemporary political issues.... they didn't, unless you want to take Thanos as making an important statement about overpopulation.

Remember how all the other Captain America movies dealt with racism. They didn't, but still managed to be great.

Some of you probably enjoyed how the series incorporated 2020's American racial politics into its story. Fair enough, that's your call. Me, if I want to see that stuff I'll watch the news. Superhero and comic book films are escapism, and I'm not interested in watching the characters import real world angst. "Do better Senator!" Thanks Sam, got any concrete suggestions or solutions as to how to resolve the complex multifaceted issues that have arisen after an unprecedented event like the snap/blip ? Nope, okay then.

Like WandaVision this show has some terrible messages - some of which come from the main character, that terrorism ( including murder) is actually okay.

Remember how Bucky was a deadly hand to hand combatant with decades of experience, and super strength? Wouldn't it be awesome if some angry millenials ( true they had taken the serum, but there's no way and women half his size could give him a legit problem in a fight....nope, it wasn't.
And I loved hearing about his feelings.

Sharon Carter turning to the dark side ( deciding to sell govt secrets ) totally made sense.... nope, pass on that one.

On the plus side I thought Mackie and Stan had good chemistry. That was enough to make the show watchable.

Zemo was very entertaining, but unfortunately he was so clever that he made our heroes look like morons over and over again. But the show was better for having him in it.

John Walker.... well, again the writers clearly didn't know what they were doing here, especially his turn from enraged, revenge driven man to joking and backslapping in no time at all. It's like, the super serum made him unstable....and then it didn't?
Him killing that guy with the shield made sense, he lost control after the terrorists kidnapped and killed his friend right in front of him. After that his fight with Bucky and Sam made sense, although again Bucky was seriously nerfed here. I mean are you telling me that Walker could push Bucky harder than Cap ? Other than that a pretty good fight scene with emotional stakes.

All in all 7/10.


3) Loki. While the other shows were a mixed bag this show was almost entirely ****.

First and worst, Loki himself. He goes from being a clever, calculating charming and dangerous villain in the films to being everyone's *****.
He spends the entire series running around after smarter, stronger characters - namely Sylvie, who's the real protagonist of the show. Loki is a side character in his own show.

Remember how Loki is super humanly strong and tough, yet human TVA agents can manhandle him? Or that he suddenly has magic powers that he never used in the films ? This is not good writing.
Alligator Loki has more agency than he does.

I feel like the writers mistook character destruction for character development.

Then there's the underlying premise, which makes everything that happened in the MCU films utterly meaningless. In fact even then all the stuff that happens in the show is pointless because Kang manipulated it all so that they would reach his office.

On the positive side, Classic Loki was awesome and Alligator Loki didn't take any crap.

I could go on about nearly every other aspect of this show, but I don't want to relive it so I'll sum it up by giving it a 1/10, mostly because it takes a huge steaming **** on everything that came before it.

The fact that so many people seem to enjoy Loki and are entertained by him running around like a clueless *******, except when he's having long pointless conversations, depresses me no end.

So I guess Falcon and Winter Soldier wins..

Loki was treated like ash in his own show. It seems the writers completely forgot he was Asgardian(I know Frost Giant parents but still)and made him a weak magician. He was getting beat one on one by regular people. He showed no super strength or planning, no fighting ability except as a brawler..............they just turned him into a normal person. He was so out of character the entire show! I'm going to end this here because I can write a graphic novel on this!!

 

[Batmannerism]

Loki was treated like ash in his own show. It seems the writers completely forgot he was Asgardian(I know Frost Giant parents but still)and made him a weak magician. He was getting beat one on one by regular people. He showed no super strength or planning, no fighting ability except as a brawler..............they just turned him into a normal person. He was so out of character the entire show! I'm going to end this here because I can write a graphic novel on this!!

It blows my mind that people can like this show, if they have seen any of Loki's MCU appearances.

But critics and fans seem to love it. Don't get me started on Kang - worst performance as a villain in the entire MCU. This guy is going to be the big bad going forward ? WTF ?

 

[Docker2.0]

It blows my mind that people can like this show, if they have seen any of Loki's MCU appearances.

But critics and fans seem to love it. Don't get me started on Kang - worst performance as a villain in the entire MCU. This guy is going to be the big bad going forward ? WTF ?

That was the best part of the show, even though that is not saying much....

 

[BoredGuy]

Yall out ya damn minds imo

loki had amazing performances from everyone involved, even characters that were underdeveloped like b15 and especially Kang. I thought Majors was wonderfully manic, and its quite obvious Kang the Conqueror will be a much different character from he who remains. I also didnt mind that he orchestrated everything, i dont feel it takes the agency away from the Avengers in any of their previous films. They still made their choices, and just because it was scripted and destined for them to win in those ways doesnt dilute their heroism (kind of like going to see a movie when you know the hero’s going to win ie. 99% of movies) and now sh*ts gonna go really bonkers

also on the strength issue… as a frost giant runt its entirely possible Odin imbued Loki with magic to make him as strong and durable as an Asgardian, and in the TVA he had none of that. I also assume TVA agents were most likely enhanced to deal with variant gods and the like. Not even a question imo

add to that some amazing visuals and a fantastic score and wonderful supporting performances from Owen Wilson and Richard Grant and Sophia Dimartino (who is clearly not the main character, shes the plot driver but nothing in the show was from her perspective, we followed 2012 Loki literally the whole time) and I thought the show was an absolute winner

 

[Iceman]

Quite hard to choose between Loki and Wandavision. Falcon’s finale let the show down IMO, otherwise it was building up well too. Having such utterly boring and uncharismatic villains hamstrung it throughout too.

 

[Docker2.0]

Quite hard to choose between Loki and Wandavision. Falcon’s finale let the show down IMO, otherwise it was building up well too. Having such utterly boring and uncharismatic villains hamstrung it throughout too.

I love the MCU but just now sure about them going forward. Seems people are way more hyped about Disney plus shows like Moon Knight than they are about the movies of Shang Chi and Eternals. They really should have pushed F4 and X-men.

 

[Iceman]

I love the MCU but just now sure about them going forward. Seems people are way more hyped about Disney plus shows like Moon Knight than they are about the movies of Shang Chi and Eternals. They really should have pushed F4 and X-men.

The shows will hopefully keep people excited and feel like a part of the MCU to the GA. Post-Endgame could have been a hard spot after the biggest event of all (especially with a bunch of the main heroes then exiting), and add on a pandemic and it has become harder to build momentum. But the F4 and X-Men are still coming and they will make big waves when they appear. In the meantime I hope all the released films are well liked by fans.

 

[metaphysician]

What, intrinsically, is supposed to be wrong about people being excited for shows like Moon Knight? Those are just as much a part of the MCU as the movies.

Also, I suspect that even if they had the rights for a while, they would still be putting a bunch of "transitional" movies after Endgame. With such a big story arc climax, you really need room to breath afterwards.

 

[fan4stic]

First and worst, Loki himself. He goes from being a clever, calculating charming and dangerous villain in the films to being everyone's *****.

I think that Loki hasn't really been in the movies since the first Thor movie.

 

[Batmannerism]

I think that Loki hasn't really been in the movies since the first Thor movie.

Okay, I'm going to dial back the sarcasm because that's not a nice way to talk to people. But I think its fair to say that your statement is demonstrably wrong (not something I say often)

Let's think back to the 2012 Avengers film for the evidence to support my view:

In that movie Loki enters and destroys a top secret Shield facility after stealing a powerful artifact.

He then mind controls a bunch of soldiers, including Hawkeye and a scientist, fights Cap one on one, rips out someone's eye to gain access to materials he needs, causes the Avengers to start turning on each other and the Hulk to go on a rampage inside the helicarrier, then he summons an alien army who blast the bad place out of New York, he chucks Tony out of a Stark Tower window, before going one on one with Thor - and eventually he gets smashed by the Hulk. ( oh, and he was fast enough in that film to catch an arrow in flight).

So, in other words, he was a calculating, charming and dangerous villain.

That was the same guy who appeared in the Loki series - well until the start of Episode 1 and he loses his super strength and fighting skills and suddenly becomes everyone's bench, and has a good old cry.

So, if you have seen Avengers maybe you forgot about all that stuff, but if you haven't seen it you should check it out.

 

[fan4stic]

Okay, I'm going to dial back the sarcasm because that's not a nice way to talk to people. But I think its fair to say that your statement is demonstrably wrong (not something I say often)

Let's think back to the 2012 Avengers film for the evidence to support my view:

In that movie Loki enters and destroys a top secret Shield facility after stealing a powerful artifact.

He then mind controls a bunch of soldiers, including Hawkeye and a scientist, fights Cap one on one, rips out someone's eye to gain access to materials he needs, causes the Avengers to start turning on each other and the Hulk to go on a rampage inside the helicarrier, then he summons an alien army who blast the bad place out of New York, he chucks Tony out of a Stark Tower window, before going one on one with Thor - and eventually he gets smashed by the Hulk. ( oh, and he was fast enough in that film to catch an arrow in flight).

So, in other words, he was a calculating, charming and dangerous villain.

That was the same guy who appeared in the Loki series - well until the start of Episode 1 and he loses his super strength and fighting skills and suddenly becomes everyone's *****, and has a good old cry.

So, if you have seen Avengers maybe you forgot about all that stuff, but if you haven't seen it you should check it out.

You don't decide whose wrong or not.

Loki's actions is him using the mind stone and orchestrating a plan, for someone else. His level of destruction and scheming is him using that stick, not something he can actually do. His army has nothing to do with him, but it's something he's given. Except maybe, how his fight with Cap goes. But I'm not arguing for power level, but as a character.

Nah. I thought his character went into psycho villainy, as a character, and I've felt that for some time, for years. Him throwing a tantrum and getting smashed, shows him to be a pitiful, whiny joke of a villain in that movie, to me.

I remember that I thought he was a far weaker character in the first Avengers than he was in Thor and that Whedon botched the character. I've watched in recent years and that perception hasn't really changed.

 

[Batmannerism]

You don't decide whose wrong or not.

Loki's actions is him using the mind stone and orchestrating a plan, for someone else. His level of destruction and scheming is him using that stick, not something he can actually do. His army has nothing to do with him, but it's something he's given. Except maybe, how his fight with Cap goes. But I'm not arguing for power level, but as a character.

Nah. I thought his character went into psycho villainy, as a character, and I've felt that for some time, for years. Him throwing a tantrum and getting smashed, shows him to be a pitiful, whiny joke of a villain in that movie, to me.

I remember that I thought he was a far weaker character in the first Avengers than he was in Thor and that Whedon botched the character. I've watched in recent years and that perception hasn't really changed.

I didn't decide you were wrong - I raised a bunch of facts that demonstrated that you were wrong.
Btw it's "who's " or "who is" whereas "whose" indicates possession, e.g whose shoes are those?
This might help: Whose vs. Who’s

It's a bit like if you said 2+2 = 6 at school.
After being shown factual evidence that 2 + 2 = 4, would you then tell your teacher that they didn't get to decide that you were wrong ?

You said:

I think that Loki hasn't really been in the movies since the first Thor movie.

And I pointed out a number of examples of Loki being a villain, and quite a threatening and clever one too, from the Avengers film, which takes place a year after the first Thor movie.

I'm not going to reiterate them all again ( like the eye ripping, or the murders, or fighting Thor in melee combat, or throwing Tony out window... oh wait, I did forget to mention how he tricked Thor into trapping himself in the Hulk jar before dropping him off the helicarrier and murdering Agent Colson.

I would argue that you attributing Loki's actions and agency to the mind stone/sceptre is a bit like saying Iron Man 's armour is the real hero.
Recently, someone has suggested that Loki was a good guy and the mind stone influenced him toward villainy- I think his actions in both Thor and Thor TDW show this to be unsupportable.

You also said:
"His army has nothing to do with him" I encourage you to think about the logical flaw with what you've written there. Do you mean " Thanos' army has nothing to do with Loki?" other than Loki bringing them to Earth in the first place and at least being nominally in charge.

A common convention in fictional narrative is the villain who works for a more powerful villain. The so called "big bad" often remains behind the scenes until an appropriately dramatic reveal.
This was a foundational element of the Infinity Saga. In a similar fashion, Ronan was the villain of GOTG vol 1, but was subordinate to Thanos.
AS such I don't think its arguable that Loki is not the villain of Avengers ( 2012).

True, he's subordinate to Thanos, but he still shows agency and motivations similar to those he displayed in the first Thor film. This is called consistency, and is indicative of good writing. The Loki show does away with all of that, plus Loki's super strength , reflexes ( remember how he caught the arrow) and fighting skills. That's indicative of bad writing.

Tell you what, the best way forward is for us to just politely disagree, and then we'll just move on.

 

[SockThief]

Loki- far exceeded expectations and I'm super excited that a show about him will end up being so integral to Phase 4 and the MCU as a whole. That said, the Loki story kind of ended with Episode 5 (and it was a great ending) and I felt like Episode 6 was more to set up future stories than to provide a satisfying conclusion to Loki's arc. Would have liked the show to be a bit longer than 6 episodes, I think, since too much is now unresolved. But it's my favorite of the MCU shows.

WandaVision- despite having little interest in this originally, I got really hooked into the mystery elements. I was disappointed with the finale, which I felt took the show in a different direction than previous episodes, and I also felt like few of the episodic concepts were used to their full potential (especially the mockumentary episode). Overall, I was pretty happy with it. Bonus points for all the familiar faces it brought back.

Falcon/Winter Soldier- I was sooooo hyped for this show but it ended up being my least favorite thing the MCU has ever done. I mean, this is the first piece of storytelling from the MCU that I have absolutely no interest in ever revisiting. John Walker, though he got off to a rough start, ended up being surprisingly compelling. It kinda ruined Falcon for me, though, and the villain was about as bad as Malekith.

 

[fan4stic]

I didn't decide you were wrong - I raised a bunch of facts that demonstrated that you were wrong.
Btw it's "who's " or "who is" whereas "whose" indicates possession, e.g whose shoes are those?
This might help: Whose vs. Who’s

It's a bit like if you said 2+2 = 6 at school.
After being shown factual evidence that 2 + 2 = 4, would you then tell your teacher that they didn't get to decide that you were wrong ?

I don't think you demonstrated that. I still think my perception about Loki being a weak character and a moreso joke of a villain, than he was in Thor, works for me.

And I pointed out a number of examples of Loki being a villain, and quite a threatening and clever one too, from the Avengers film, which takes place a year after the first Thor movie.

I'm not going to reiterate them all again ( like the eye ripping, or the murders, or fighting Thor in melee combat, or throwing Tony out window... oh wait, I did forget to mention how he tricked Thor into trapping himself in the Hulk jar before dropping him off the helicarrier and murdering Agent Colson.

I would argue that you attributing Loki's actions and agency to the mind stone/sceptre is a bit like saying Iron Man 's armour is the real hero.
Recently, someone has suggested that Loki was a good guy and the mind stone influenced him toward villainy- I think his actions in both Thor and Thor TDW show this to be unsupportable.

You also said:
"His army has nothing to do with him" I encourage you to think about the logical flaw with what you've written there. Do you mean " Thanos' army has nothing to do with Loki?" other than Loki bringing them to Earth in the first place and at least being nominally in charge.

A common convention in fictional narrative is the villain who works for a more powerful villain. The so called "big bad" often remains behind the scenes until an appropriately dramatic reveal.
This was a foundational element of the Infinity Saga. In a similar fashion, Ronan was the villain of GOTG vol 1, but was subordinate to Thanos.
AS such I don't think its arguable that Loki is not the villain of Avengers ( 2012).

True, he's subordinate to Thanos, but he still shows agency and motivations similar to those he displayed in the first Thor film. This is called consistency, and is indicative of good writing. The Loki show does away with all of that, plus Loki's super strength , reflexes ( remember how he caught the arrow) and fighting skills. That's indicative of bad writing.

Tell you what, the best way forward is for us to just politely disagree, and then we'll just move on.

And I pointed out how I think he isn't particularly that.

Saying that him killing and all that makes him intimidating or a good villain, to me, is like saying the first order is intimidating, because they're more powerful than the resistance in the sequel trilogy. I think it doesn't work for either. Maliketh kills a lot of people in Thor The Dark World. That doesn't make him an intimidating or good villain, to me.

No. Tony built the Iron Man armor and is a heroic character. Loki was given a stick and an army by someone else. Nothing he built or earned, as a character, in story. What he does with it has nothing to do with what his personal abilities are, that I remember.

Thanos' army. It's not Loki's army. He didn't gain it through leadership tactics or something. I actually think Loki doesn't work as how he's written in Avengers, that I think Thanos seemed lame for it to happen that way, at the time.

Him being a flunky isn't really my issue, but that I think, as a villain, on his own, he's not a strong villain or character. I think Avengers is the the version of the character, I think works less, to me.

I thought Ronan sucked as well.

I think Loki is shown to have agency and motivations in the Loki show. The conflict between him and Sylvie at the end is based on him having his own motivations and agency.

 

[Batmannerism]

I don't think you demonstrated that. I still think my perception about Loki being a weak character and a moreso joke of a villain, than he was in Thor, works for me.And I pointed out how I think he isn't particularly that.

Saying that him killing and all that makes him intimidating or a good villain, to me, is like saying the first order is intimidating, because they're more powerful than the resistance in the sequel trilogy. I think it doesn't work for either. Maliketh kills a lot of people in Thor The Dark World. That doesn't make him an intimidating or good villain, to me.

No. Tony built the Iron Man armor and is a heroic character. Loki was given a stick and an army by someone else. Nothing he built or earned, as a character, in story. What he does with it has nothing to do with what his personal abilities are, that I remember.

Thanos' army. It's not Loki's army. He didn't gain it through leadership tactics or something. I actually think Loki doesn't work as how he's written in Avengers, that I think Thanos seemed lame for it to happen that way, at the time.

Him being a flunky isn't really my issue, but that I think, as a villain, on his own, he's not a strong villain or character. I think Avengers is the the version of the character, I think works less, to me.

I thought Ronan sucked as well.

I think Loki is shown to have agency and motivations in the Loki show. The conflict between him and Sylvie at the end is based on him having his own motivations and agency.

What seems contradictory is that you struggle to take Loki seriously as a villain in Avengers but are okay with him as a subordinate character in his own show - he literally has zero agency, until maybe the last 5 minutes of the entire season. Otherwise he is literally led around by the other characters.

Hey, if you liked the Loki show , fair enough, but next time you're marvelling at its clever writing
think about the bit where Loki gets cold and makes a blanket - he's a frost giant, in the Thor film, he's shown to be immune to the cold touch of other Frost giants which damages even Asgardians with a painful instantaneous frostbite. He doesn't get cold. Certainly not in a space that is capable of supporting trees and grass. That's how much thought the writers put into this show.

Let's just go for polite disagreement then.