Why rated so high?

Yes. His role as Loki was MUCH more interesting and exciting that

How? Loki's character (in movies, of course) has always been bland and weak. He lacks depth and motivation. The only reason why he is so popular is because: A) People like you simply piss all over their paints every time when they see cutesy face of Hidleston. B) Out of all horrible MCU movie villains so far, he sucked the least (which doesn't say much).

Ledger's Joker In Name Only.

But Ledger's Joker was way more accurate to the comics in his portrayal than Hidleston was to Loki, right? You do know that Loki was never a petty twat with weak motivation with sympathetic nature. He was bloodthirsty, pure evil, and unlikable And he never had cutesy face. He was not attractive at all. Comic book Loki had rapist face. But since you don't know the comics, it's no surprise that you liked that squirt-machine so much. There's a reason why he gain the biggest amount of popularity among horny teenage girls that love writing yaoi fanficks.

I was bored by JINO. I didn't find him intimidating at all.

But you found Loki intimidating? A spineless loser that was beaten down by Hulk like a cheap doll at the end of the Avengers?

I wondered why no one had put a bullet into his brain years before.

The same question can be asked to the comic book Joker, who's been around in comics way longer than Ledger was in The Dark Knight. Will you also address this point to comics? I wouldn't be surprised if you did, considering that you hate the source material with your full heart.

His plan was way too complex and depended upon incredible luck to have ever gotten off of the ground.

So you hate Civil War, I guess? Because if you have problems with villains that are too dependent on perfect planning, Civil War is the movie that just falls flat on its face once you start picking apart all the nuances of Zemo's plan.

I didn't find "The Clown Prince of Crime" to be funny at all.

Did you find the scene from Killing Joke where it's implied that he raped Barbara Gordon to be funny? Or when he skinned one guy alive in a strip bar?

Hiddleston, on the other hand

Is the most overrated, overpraised villain in movie history. Not only is he superbly bland and one-dimensional, but the main reason why he gain such popularity has nothing to do with the character himself. It's just so happens that the actor who played him is very attractive (not for me, since I'm straight). Loki is not intimidating, interesting, profound, or even fun. He just sucked the least, but it doesn't say much, since I truly believe that MCU villains will go down in history as a purest example of how not to make a movie villain if you want him to have an actual character instead of being characterless punching bag with weak motives.

had the whole range with his performances.

Such as? Being one-dimensional punching bag for a Hulk and being the main source of inspiration for hundreds and hundreds of terrible gay-incest fanfictions from horny teenage girls, and hundreds and hundreds of disgusting yaoi art? Yep. That's a great performance, do'!

He went from just being

One-dimensional twat with weak motivation to being... One-dimensional twat with even weaker motivation. EVOLUTION!

When he appears at SHIELD HQ in The Avengers the look he has on his face is

Laughable? Since I laughed out loud when I saw that scene. That scene like illustrates, "What, you thought you'll see a complex, multi-layered, non-mustache-twirling villain in this movie? Bah! Idiots!"

Then in Thor 2 he goes from desperate to arrogant to nuts.

I wish if I could say something to disagree with your point, but Thor 2 is such a horrendously bad and forgettable movie, I don't remember single thing from it, so I can't really say anything about this. I don't think I even saw that movie more than once. I think I saw Iron Man 3 even more times, and I hate that movie as much, if not more.

The choice of Ledger was trashed right up until his untimely death.

Didn't he died before people saw The Dark Knight? I know that you probably have mental retardation, but can't you at least try to make a rational point? People trashed Ledger before they saw the movie. After they saw the movie, they loved him, because they weren't expecting him to be as great as he was. They thought he will never touch what Nicholson did, and Ledger whooped the floor wit Nicholson.

Your retarded point says that people at first hated Ledger when they saw the movie, but after he died, they all started glorifying him. Your point is retarded for main reason: Ledger died BEFORE the movie. People did not like him as Joker solely based on their predetermined perception of what he might be. Not on what they actually saw in the movie afterwards.

After that it was praised.

Because he was great in that role, duh.

People don't like speaking ill of the dead

That's probably why Paul Walker is now considered one of the best actors that ever lived, right? Oh, wait, he's not, since he was never that good of an good actor, while Legder always was. In this case, it doesn't matter if you're dead or alive. If you were a good actor, people will remember you as a good actor regardless of your death. If you were never a good actor, not many people will pretend as if you were.

so they were quite biased in how they viewed his character.

If that is true, tell me, why people hated the last few films with Robbin Williams that came out shortly after his death? The Night at The Museum Three was slammed by critics and auidence alike, despite the fact that it had very sentimental moment that's clearly been added to the film after the death of Williams. No one was biased against that movie. Why? Tell me, please. Maybe it's because it was not a good movie, hmm?

I liked Begins, but found the other two movies to be exceedingly dull and, especially TDKR to be filled with huge mistakes, stupidity and poor film-making.

You've already said this in your original response. Do you think that by repeating the same retarded argument twice you will make it more valid?

reply share

add reply

formatting help