Which film is better? Thor or Thor: the Dark World?

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm not the biggest fan of these films but I loved Hemsworth's performance in the first film. He and to a far lesser degree Hiddlestin are the main reasons I watch these films. I felt Thor was only okay in The Avengers so I was looking forward to seeing him shine again and that didn't happen. If Marvel treats Thor even worse in the 3rd film I will not bother watching it.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^He just didnt seem like the main character in his own movie with TDW, I think they under-used Hemsworth to much in the sequel, were as, as you said, he had a great arc in the 1st movie and had a lot of the focus.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^He just didnt seem like the main character in his own movie with TDW, I think they under-used Hemsworth to much in the sequel, were as, as you said, he had a great arc in the 1st movie and had a lot of the focus.

I guess I could have accepted his lesser role if the story and villain were even a little compelling to me.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Same, I mean, I dont know about anyone else, but with these comic book movies I look forward to seeing the villain almost as much as the hero. But Malekith was awfully represented in this, he made no impact because he did nothing. Add Thor's lesser role and no arc at all and its all very disappointing.

Give me Thor 1 anyday, and do this poll in a years time and I think the results will be very different.

 

[one4smoke]

I agree. Some will vote TDW because it is the newest/latest film.

Take the poll again in a year or two and the results will probably be much different.

Thor is the better movie.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I agree. Some will vote TDW because it is the newest/latest film.

Take the poll again in a year or two and the results will probably be much different.

Thor is the better movie.

The newer/latest movie in a franchise always gets the votes at 1st, but I think with this one people will be voting more for Thor 1 in a year or so.

 

[Mjölnir]

^Same, I mean, I dont know about anyone else, but with these comic book movies I look forward to seeing the villain almost as much as the hero. But Malekith was awfully represented in this, he made no impact because he did nothing. Add Thor's lesser role and no arc at all and its all very disappointing.

Give me Thor 1 anyday, and do this poll in a years time and I think the results will be very different.

What does Loki do that's more than what Malekith does? I see plenty of difference on a character level but not when it comes to impact of their actions.

And I see the people that dislike TDW still go the route of trying to say that people that disagree don't know what they think.

 

[cherokeesam]

What does Loki do that's more than what Malekith does? I see plenty of difference on a character level but not when it comes to impact of their actions.

Malekith fails miserably to defeat Asgard 5000 years ago, and kills off the vast majority of his own race in the course of the battle. In 2013, he fails miserably to defeat Asgard again, and gets the rest of his race killed off.

Worst. Marvel villain. EVARRRRRRRRR

Loki, on the other hand, winds up getting out of jail, disposing of his hated (foster) father, taking the throne of Asgard, paying off his debt to Thanos, sending his hated (foster) brother off to Midgard to cavort with mortals, deceiving the universe into believing that Loki is dead and turned out to be a really nice guy after all, and keeping the Tesseract all for himself.

Mission accomplished.

Best. Marvel villain. EVARRRRRRRR

 

[Lord]

In the first film Loki was a weak villain too though, his character was much more enjoyable in The Dark World, i think i even liked the humor more there too. I remember when the first film came out and some idiotic threads saying it was the best comic book movie ever, so i don't think i just jump at the newest thing thinking it's "the best thing ever".

My vote goes for Thor: The Dark World, very flawed film, but still an improvement over the first film and not bad.

 

[Mjölnir]

Malekith fails miserably to defeat Asgard 5000 years ago, and kills off the vast majority of his own race in the course of the battle. In 2013, he fails miserably to defeat Asgard again, and gets the rest of his race killed off.

Worst. Marvel villain. EVARRRRRRRRR

Loki, on the other hand, winds up getting out of jail, disposing of his hated (foster) father, taking the throne of Asgard, paying off his debt to Thanos, sending his hated (foster) brother off to Midgard to cavort with mortals, deceiving the universe into believing that Loki is dead and turned out to be a really nice guy after all, and keeping the Tesseract all for himself.

Mission accomplished.

Best. Marvel villain. EVARRRRRRRR

I get it, TDW is better than itself! Where's the poll option for that?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

What does Loki do that's more than what Malekith does? I see plenty of difference on a character level but not when it comes to impact of their actions.

Loki does a lot more, He manipulates his brother into starting a war with Jotunheim, said brother then gets banished to Earth, through further events Loki ends up on the throne of Asgard by getting his brother out of the way and tries to ensure that his brother doesnt return. He ACTUALLY kills Thor through the Destroyer and almost succeeds in destroying Jotunheim and the Frost Giants. Thor has to pay a heavy price to save them by destroying the rainbow bridge and cutting him off from the 1st woman he has seemingly loved in his. Loki then 'commits suicide' by letting go of the staff leaving his brother and family to mourn his passing. And this was just in Thor 1, Loki's actions effected EVERYONE around him in a negative manner. He was a great villain.

Malekith just had nothing about him, CSam put it best, he failed in his plans both times trying to play them out and even with the Aether he couldnt defeat Thor. Add to that no depth what-so-ever and he simply pales in comparison to Loki.

And I see the people that dislike TDW still go the route of trying to say that people that disagree don't know what they think.

I am not trying to change anyones mind and I wasnt talking about you when I made that comment, I am making an observation based on past polls on here in the last 10 years when I have been a member and making a prediction based on that, nothing more. We will see if this comes true in a year or so. If it doesnt, so be it. No need to get offended, if you still prefer TDW in a years time thats up to you.

Malekith fails miserably to defeat Asgard 5000 years ago, and kills off the vast majority of his own race in the course of the battle. In 2013, he fails miserably to defeat Asgard again, and gets the rest of his race killed off.

Worst. Marvel villain. EVARRRRRRRRR

Loki, on the other hand, winds up getting out of jail, disposing of his hated (foster) father, taking the throne of Asgard, paying off his debt to Thanos, sending his hated (foster) brother off to Midgard to cavort with mortals, deceiving the universe into believing that Loki is dead and turned out to be a really nice guy after all, and keeping the Tesseract all for himself.

Mission accomplished.

Best. Marvel villain. EVARRRRRRRR

 

[Mjölnir]

Loki does a lot more, He manipulates his brother into starting a war with Jotunheim, said brother then gets banished to Earth, through further events Loki ends up on the throne of Asgard by getting his brother out of the way and tries to ensure that his brother doesnt return. He ACTUALLY kills Thor through the Destroyer and almost succeeds in destroying Jotunheim and the Frost Giants. Thor has to pay a heavy price to save them by destroying the rainbow bridge and cutting him off from the 1st woman he has seemingly loved in his. Loki then 'commits suicide' by letting go of the staff leaving his brother and family to mourn his passing. And this was just in Thor 1, Loki's actions effected EVERYONE around him in a negative manner. He was a great villain.

Malekith just had nothing about him, CSam put it best, he failed in his plans both times trying to play them out and even with the Aether he couldnt defeat Thor. Add to that no depth what-so-ever and he simply pales in comparison to Loki.

You seem biased to the point where you're either trying to mislead people or not seeing clearly. Not that it wasn't expected after seeing you saying that Malekith doesn't do anything.

While Loki is my favorite CMB villain together with Magneto I'll take the opposite stance for the sake of the argument. With the logic you apply to Malekith you can say the following about Loki.

Loki most likely had no clue that Thor would be banished, he always plays these kind of tricks. Him ending up on the throne is pure luck as Odin falls into the Odinsleep unexpectedly to all. Him sending the destroyer to Earth is what finally makes Thor prove his worthiness, so without Loki it's very possible that Thor wouldn't have been back in quite a while. Loki is no closer to destroying Jotunhem than Malekith is to destroying the universe, and Loki is bested by a Thor that holds back while Thor needs help to defeat Malekith (and his henchman).

As for grieving, Malekith causes more visible grief than Loki did as well. Making Odin go half-mad, Thor perhaps grieving the same as for Loki and even manages to get Loki to step to his brother's side.

Your statement about that Loki does a lot and Malekith does nothing doesn't hold water at all. I prefer Loki but it's not because he succeeds more, because he doesn't. It's rather because of him being a more interesting character and has very deep ties to the protagonist. You mention that at the end here, but it's an addition to the comment I originally questioned and has nothing to do with that.

You're just as off on that Thor doesn't have an arc in this movie of course.

I am not trying to change anyones mind and I wasnt talking about you when I made that comment, I am making an observation based on past polls on here in the last 10 years when I have been a member and making a prediction based on that, nothing more. We will see if this comes true in a year or so. If it doesnt, so be it. No need to get offended, if you still prefer TDW in a years time thats up to you.

I'm not offended, I'm just making an observation that several people that don't like the result say that it's just because the movie they don't like is new. I'm not against the concept of movies sinking in, I actually refused to rate the movie before I had seen it twice. It's more about how that comment goes together with how other things are stated.

I find it odd that you give a thumbs up to that, since it's a post about Loki being better than Malekith in TDW, not at all a comment about TDW vs Thor as was the discussion he quoted. All he points out is really that TDW actually has the very rare case of a villain succeeding for once, because it's only in TDW that Loki finally ends up getting what he wants. Not in Thor and not in The Avengers.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

You seem biased to the point where you're either trying to mislead people or not seeing clearly. Not that it wasn't expected after seeing you saying that Malekith doesn't do anything.

They are both Thor movies, how can I be biased?

While Loki is my favorite CMB villain together with Magneto I'll take the opposite stance for the sake of the argument. With the logic you apply to Malekith you can say the following about Loki.

Loki most likely had no clue that Thor would be banished, he always plays these kind of tricks. Him ending up on the throne is pure luck as Odin falls into the Odinsleep unexpectedly to all. Him sending the destroyer to Earth is what finally makes Thor prove his worthiness, so without Loki it's very possible that Thor wouldn't have been back in quite a while. Loki is no closer to destroying Jotunhem than Malekith is to destroying the universe, and Loki is bested by a Thor that holds back while Thor needs help to defeat Malekith (and his henchman).

I thought I stated that Loki had a lot of luck in the 1st movie. But the other stuff you mention is true, thats what makes Loki such a great villain. He contributes to his own defeat because his hatred and malice blind him to what he is doing. Thats what I loved about Loki in Thor 1, he was the master of his own downfall despite having everthing he wanted given to him through fortuitous events.

Plus, I dont think the Odin sleep was unexpected. Laufey commented on how weary he looked, and Frigga said he had put it off for so long. I dont think Loki knew this of course.

As for grieving, Malekith causes more visible grief than Loki did as well. Making Odin go half-mad, Thor perhaps grieving the same as for Loki and even manages to get Loki to step to his brother's side.

Your statement about that Loki does a lot and Malekith does nothing doesn't hold water at all. I prefer Loki but it's not because he succeeds more, because he doesn't. It's rather because of him being a more interesting character and has very deep ties to the protagonist. You mention that at the end here, but it's an addition to the comment I originally questioned and has nothing to do with that.

Malekith didnt seem to make any impact, that may have been a fault of the film-makers though. Kurse killed Frigga, not Malekith, Kurse actually had more of an impact than Malekith in the movie, and Kurse was only in half of the movie and was just a henchman at the end of it all. There seemed to be a lot more grieving and emotion in the 1st movie compared to here, and by the end of both movies Loki had made more of an impact to the universe than Malekith had, in a big way in fact.

You're just as off on that Thor doesn't have an arc in this movie of course.

Now you are stating an opinion as fact . I am not the only one who has said this but Thor just didnt seem to have an arc, and he didnt change at all throughout the movie, except maybe toward his brother, but that will all change come Thor 3, so really he hasnt changed at all in the movie and has no arc. He didnt want to be king at the start, and he didnt want to be at the end.

I'm not offended, I'm just making an observation that several people that don't like the result say that it's just because the movie they don't like is new. I'm not against the concept of movies sinking in, I actually refused to rate the movie before I had seen it twice. It's more about how that comment goes together with how other things are stated.

Again it was a prediction, I can tell the future, and in a years time we will see what happens. Many opinions change on movies after re-watch, people notice flaws a bit more and grow to like certain things more. Take me for example, I watched Captain America: TFA around 7-8 times and just didnt like it, couldnt get into the movie at all. Then The Avengers came out, and every time I have watched CA since I have loved it. Done a complete turn around on the movie.

I find it odd that you give a thumbs up to that, since it's a post about Loki being better than Malekith in TDW, not at all a comment about TDW vs Thor as was the discussion he quoted. All he points out is really that TDW actually has the very rare case of a villain succeeding for once, because it's only in TDW that Loki finally ends up getting what he wants. Not in Thor and not in The Avengers.

I was giving a thumbs to what he said about Malekith, not the rest.

 

[The Villain]

Both films are great and as I'm more of a villain fan than heroes I liked the two villains Malekith & Kurse & for what we saw of them did a fine job.

Kurse I thought would never be seen so soon in a Marvel film & again I hope he gets to return later.

Just saw Thor TDW lastnight 2nd viewing & it was more enjoyable than 1st screening. More relaxed for it.

Its actually my fav Superhero film of the year beating IM3 & MOS. t:

 

[Vartha]

We need like buttons on these threads lol I'd like that post Villian lol

 

[Vartha]

AH HA!!! I figured out who sam here really is! JIMMY FALLON lol

Malekith fails miserably to defeat Asgard 5000 years ago, and kills off the vast majority of his own race in the course of the battle. In 2013, he fails miserably to defeat Asgard again, and gets the rest of his race killed off.

Worst. Marvel villain. EVARRRRRRRRR

Loki, on the other hand, winds up getting out of jail, disposing of his hated (foster) father, taking the throne of Asgard, paying off his debt to Thanos, sending his hated (foster) brother off to Midgard to cavort with mortals, deceiving the universe into believing that Loki is dead and turned out to be a really nice guy after all, and keeping the Tesseract all for himself.

Mission accomplished.

Best. Marvel villain. EVARRRRRRRR

 

[MarvelU]

I haven't seen the movie yet, will probably wait till it hits red-box, but from what I could imagine this movie must be better than the first Thor. The first one to me was very average, so I doubt it will be hard to beat the first one, well at least for me.

 

[Mjölnir]

They are both Thor movies, how can I be biased?

You liked one and not the other. I can't think of any reason to judge the villains with such vastly different measuring sticks than that you're actively trying to reinforce your opinion.

I thought I stated that Loki had a lot of luck in the 1st movie. But the other stuff you mention is true, thats what makes Loki such a great villain. He contributes to his own defeat because his hatred and malice blind him to what he is doing. Thats what I loved about Loki in Thor 1, he was the master of his own downfall despite having everthing he wanted given to him through fortuitous events.

Plus, I dont think the Odin sleep was unexpected. Laufey commented on how weary he looked, and Frigga said he had put it off for so long. I dont think Loki knew this of course.

If what I'm saying is true, in what way does Loki accomplish a lot and Malekith does nothing? That makes no sense.

Frigga says that they weren't prepared, which would be odd if they expected him to enter it. That's of course on top of that Odin is wandering about and not making preparations for what is to happen while he's sleeping, which is pretty necessary since what he had expected a day earlier was for Thor to be king.

Malekith didnt seem to make any impact, that may have been a fault of the film-makers though. Kurse killed Frigga, not Malekith, Kurse actually had more of an impact than Malekith in the movie, and Kurse was only in half of the movie and was just a henchman at the end of it all. There seemed to be a lot more grieving and emotion in the 1st movie compared to here, and by the end of both movies Loki had made more of an impact to the universe than Malekith had, in a big way in fact.

Kurse is just an instrument for Malekith, not unlike what the Destroyer is for Loki. Kurse kills Frigga on Malekith's order and generally just does what Malekith tells him to do. Malekith also puts up a lot more struggle than Loki in the two respective final battles. As for Kurse's time he's around more than half the movie. It's not that long between the fight on Svartalfheim and the final battle.

I disagree about grieving. Thor and Odin get sad when Loki lets go but after that there's not that much shown as it's mixed with Thor longing to get to Midgard. In TDW there's a longer dwelling on Frigga's immediate death, there's a pretty special funeral, we get Loki reacting to the news and tearing up his room and himself and Odin just loses it. That's far, far more than what was in Thor.

Now you are stating an opinion as fact . I am not the only one who has said this but Thor just didnt seem to have an arc, and he didnt change at all throughout the movie, except maybe toward his brother, but that will all change come Thor 3, so really he hasnt changed at all in the movie and has no arc. He didnt want to be king at the start, and he didnt want to be at the end.

That's because it's not an opinion that Thor has an arc, it actually is a fact.

At the beginning of the movie Thor has accepted his role and his responsibilities as successor to the throne (fighting to secure the realms, staying in Asgard, not seeking out Jane). During the course of the movie he realizes what ruling does to you and that it's not what he really wants, which ends with him declining the Throne and leaving Asgard, seemingly only to return as a protector. That's an arc.

I was giving a thumbs to what he said about Malekith, not the rest.

That wasn't very clear as you quoted everything and didn't make any other remarks. I don't find it very logical either. The post says Malekith is a bad villain because he ultimately fails (disregarding some permanent effects he brought). That logic makes pretty much every villain in any CBM ever a bad villain. Except of course a villain in the very movie that's being criticized; Loki (and as said, it's only in TDW he succeeds).

 

[cherokeesam]

No, Malekith isn't a bad villain because he ultimately fails: he's a bad villain because he's cardboard, predictable, boring, poorly written and lame. And when you put someone like that in the same scenes as more interesting villains like Loki and even Kurse, then he looks even *more* lame. This is reinforced by the fact that he meets an ignominious demise when his own ship falls on him after Jane Foster and her crazy friends use some geehaw-whimmydiddle gadgets to blast the Aether-empowered neo-godling back to New Jersey Svartalfheim.

....And he fails.

That makes him the worst. Marvel villain. EVARRRRR>>>>

 

[Vartha]

lol egads

 

[one4smoke]

No, Malekith isn't a bad villain because he ultimately fails: he's a bad villain because he's cardboard, predictable, boring, poorly written and lame. And when you put someone like that in the same scenes as more interesting villains like Loki and even Kurse, then he looks even *more* lame. This is reinforced by the fact that he meets an ignominious demise when his own ship falls on him after Jane Foster and her crazy friends use some geehaw-whimmydiddle gadgets to blast the Aether-empowered neo-godling back to New Jersey Svartalfheim.

....And he fails.

That makes him the worst. Marvel villain. EVARRRRR>>>>

What gets me is, he had the Aether and supposedly all the "power" but couldn't/didn't do squat with it. You'd think he would've been much more powerful than Kurse, but noooooo. Thor was so ineffective against Kurse (even Mjolnir bounced off of him), but not the Aether powered Malekith.

 

[one4smoke]

So, I just saw TDW again, and I must admit I DID like it a bit more the second time around. Some things I do like better over the first film are:

(1) Better look for Thor.
(2) Better look for Asgard.
(3) Thor after a two film evolution (even though the evolution was fun to watch) and Hemsworth seemingly more comfortable in the role.
(4) More action scenes
(5) Zachary Levi over Josh Dallas

But still ...the first one is better overall.

 

[Visualiza]

No, Malekith isn't a bad villain because he ultimately fails: he's a bad villain because he's cardboard, predictable, boring, poorly written and lame. And when you put someone like that in the same scenes as more interesting villains like Loki and even Kurse, then he looks even *more* lame. This is reinforced by the fact that he meets an ignominious demise when his own ship falls on him after Jane Foster and her crazy friends use some geehaw-whimmydiddle gadgets to blast the Aether-empowered neo-godling back to New Jersey Svartalfheim.

....And he fails.

That makes him the worst. Marvel villain. EVARRRRR>>>>

What gets me is, he had the Aether and supposedly all the "power" but couldn't/didn't do squat with it. You'd think he would've been much more powerful than Kurse, but noooooo. Thor was so ineffective against Kurse (even Mjolnir bounced off of him), but not the Aether powered Malekith.

You both hit the nail on the head.

 

[Mjölnir]

No, Malekith isn't a bad villain because he ultimately fails: he's a bad villain because he's cardboard, predictable, boring, poorly written and lame. And when you put someone like that in the same scenes as more interesting villains like Loki and even Kurse, then he looks even *more* lame. This is reinforced by the fact that he meets an ignominious demise when his own ship falls on him after Jane Foster and her crazy friends use some geehaw-whimmydiddle gadgets to blast the Aether-empowered neo-godling back to New Jersey Svartalfheim.

....And he fails.

That makes him the worst. Marvel villain. EVARRRRR>>>>

That's the point I've been making to the guy I'm discussing with, the relevant complaint is if you don't think he's a good character. He doesn't succeed any less than the rest of the villains. I would personally prefer a more mature tone than yours though as then it might be possible for me to take it seriously.

What gets me is, he had the Aether and supposedly all the "power" but couldn't/didn't do squat with it. You'd think he would've been much more powerful than Kurse, but noooooo. Thor was so ineffective against Kurse (even Mjolnir bounced off of him), but not the Aether powered Malekith.

I wouldn't say he does squat with it as he survives a couple of huge attacks from Thor (but thankfully they actually have some effect), plus being seemingly unkillable while being at the Aether location in the end, and he hits Thor harder than Kurse when it comes to how far Thor is thrown away. I agree that Thor's better performance in that fight makes the gap from Kurse small though. The threat doesn't get very focused on the fight but rather on what the power can do on a macro scale.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

You liked one and not the other. I can't think of any reason to judge the villains with such vastly different measuring sticks than that you're actively trying to reinforce your opinion.

I liked one and not the other?

Thor-9/10
Thor: TDW: 8/10

I dont mean to offend, but that statement is ridiculous, I liked both movies, as I have stated repeatedly, and their ratings are not hugely different. I am not biased and I am not trying to reinforce my opinion, I am STATING my opinion. Malekith was a bad villain, Loki was a good one IMO.

If what I'm saying is true, in what way does Loki accomplish a lot and Malekith does nothing? That makes no sense.

By the end of Thor 1, Loki's actions effected many people in a negative way, His Father, Mother, Brother, his brothers love and her friends, the whole of Asgard couldnt travel anywere due to the bifrost being down, there are more, but you get my point.

Malekith's actions dont really effect anyone in a negative way by the end of the movie, hell Darcy and co were even making jokes during his attempted distruction. Loki caused more pain in this movie than Malekith did.

Frigga says that they weren't prepared, which would be odd if they expected him to enter it. That's of course on top of that Odin is wandering about and not making preparations for what is to happen while he's sleeping, which is pretty necessary since what he had expected a day earlier was for Thor to be king.

Thor's coronation and him going to Jotunheim and then getting banished all happened in one day, the next day Odin fell into the Odin sleep, He didnt really have a lot of time to make plans, and as you said yourself, Thor WAS going to be king, Odin didnt have anything prepared in case that didnt come to pass as it was unexpected it wouldnt.

Kurse is just an instrument for Malekith, not unlike what the Destroyer is for Loki. Kurse kills Frigga on Malekith's order and generally just does what Malekith tells him to do. Malekith also puts up a lot more struggle than Loki in the two respective final battles. As for Kurse's time he's around more than half the movie. It's not that long between the fight on Svartalfheim and the final battle.

But he didnt become Kurse until about 10/15 mins in either, so he hardly had any screen time, and yet still came across as more of a threat that Malekith. Loki was closer to achieving his goals than Malekith was as well. Thor had to make a big sacrifice to stop Loki, he didnt to stop Malekith.

I disagree about grieving. Thor and Odin get sad when Loki lets go but after that there's not that much shown as it's mixed with Thor longing to get to Midgard. In TDW there's a longer dwelling on Frigga's immediate death, there's a pretty special funeral, we get Loki reacting to the news and tearing up his room and himself and Odin just loses it. That's far, far more than what was in Thor.

I disagree back , Loki's actions had big implications for the 9 realms and that was even before his death. Thor states in Avengers many people mourned Loki's death, I didnt see anyone mourning Frigga for more than 5 mins. Again this may be down to the director, but Loki's actions seemed to have a much bigger impact than Malekith's.

That's because it's not an opinion that Thor has an arc, it actually is a fact.

At the beginning of the movie Thor has accepted his role and his responsibilities as successor to the throne (fighting to secure the realms, staying in Asgard, not seeking out Jane). During the course of the movie he realizes what ruling does to you and that it's not what he really wants, which ends with him declining the Throne and leaving Asgard, seemingly only to return as a protector. That's an arc.

Well I wouldnt say its a fact because IMO he has no arc. At the start when talking to Odin he basically says he doesnt want to be king, then he says the same at the end, to me, thats no arc.

That wasn't very clear as you quoted everything and didn't make any other remarks. I don't find it very logical either. The post says Malekith is a bad villain because he ultimately fails (disregarding some permanent effects he brought). That logic makes pretty much every villain in any CBM ever a bad villain. Except of course a villain in the very movie that's being criticized; Loki (and as said, it's only in TDW he succeeds).

See Sams next post, he states why Malekith is a bad villain. I was originally agreeing with Sam not because he states Malekith doesnt succeed, but because he says he's bad villain. I didnt state that because I was responding to him and not you.