A serious question for debate, i know people will bring up some fantastic villains for discussion.
But i just find him a wonderful combination of sinister, funny, demented, powerful and dare i say it likeable.
Hiddleston is the driving force to that character, he delivers his lines with a sense of intellectual superiority and playfulness that makes him the essence of that part IMO. If the critics cant see another man other than Hemsworth in the Thor role the same has got to be said about Hiddleston as Loki.
While Loki is a great character, he isn't necessarily a great villain. You have to hate the villain for him to work as such. When the hero puts him down, you cheer. If you like the villain, then he's not really much of a baddie, is he?
I see what you are getting at and maybe placing him in a question as the best villain was wrong. Maybe best antagonist would have been a better way of placing it, but i cant help but feel that in this current day and age the bad guy (or at least the anti hero) is the one people like more because they are more interesting than the by the book saintly hero.
Think about it, who is the favourite between clean cut cyclops or troubled angry wolverine? Its no accident people like judge dredd, the punisher and deadpool have such cult popularity (comic versions over film in all those cases!), to in a sense to love the portrayal of the villain shows a real work of art.
Its a cliche i know but Ledgers Joker brings an absolute monster to the screen who you cant help but want to see more of. That to me is the quality of a great villain, wanting to see as much of them on the screen as possible and hoping they arent killed off.
Hating a villain and cheering when they die means they are throwaway to me.
You have to hate the villain for him to work as such
Not exactly. While it's true that one way to make a great villain is to make him so detestable that he really is villainous, another way to make a great villain is to make it so that you don't know whether to love or hate him. There are many ways to create a good villain, and Loki made one such.
reply share
There is the danger that he could have been played as a brattish conjurer.
But he is a great mix of intelligent evil, and slapstick whipping boy (it was a cheap laugh but when he gets slapped about by hulk in avengers thats a belly laugh moment for me).
There are moments where you long for thor to be more than a 2 dimensional good guy (which they flirt with on occasion) just so you are presented with one of those face off moments like when the joker meets batman or magneto meets xavier over the chess board... avengers also gave glimpses of it when they had loki trapped, but i dont think there is anyone in that setup who could go toe to toe with the sarcasm at this stage... i think stark vs loki in a proper face off verbal arguement might be what i wish for one day
No, i agree totally. Hiddlestone has brought an extra level. Because in my eyes he manages to bring snivelling weasel AND dangerous b*****d to the table.
But the problem with making these opinions is some will start to assume its DC vs Marvel, or Nolan vs the world
Its not that I dont enjoy our little chats, Its just ... that I dont
Kakihara from Ichi the Killer and of course Freddy Krueger are both much more epic bad guys then Loki. Sure, Loki is cool, but he doesn't hold a candle to the 2 greats.
Freddy is an interesting offering, i cant comment on the other as im not familiar im afraid, but at the very least with Mr Krueger there is no outright hero facing off against him.
And i seem to remember in the (ill advise) freddy vs jason they ultimately had freddy as the out and out villain over the rather misunderstood Jason (eh?).
A classic villain no doubt, but it will i guess come down to what you want from your villain... and i prefer the one i kinda like. Magneto, Loki, Joker, Rickman as any villain whatsoever... you get what i mean :P
Its not that I dont enjoy our little chats, Its just ... that I dont
First, I'll just say I completely disagree with the poster that said you have to hate a villain. A villain, by definition, is a character at odds with the hero. Yes, it can also be a straightforward evil person but, with the latter, a truly, one-dimensional evil character, the movie becomes much less about the villain and more about the other characters affected by the villain's actions. A great villain, such as Loki, is a combination of evil AND good, even if it's just a smidgen of good or good that has turned sour. A great villain is tortured or has suffered and has an agenda or motivations that people can relate to on some level. Sometimes what makes a villain great is believing that they have a shot at redemption (even if, logically, we know that is never going to happen). Great external conflict begins with some serious internal conflict.
That said, I think the only one who currently gives Loki a run for his money is Magneto. They share a lot of similarities actually. Both incredibly acted. Both share a long-time bond with one of the heroes and that bond started as a positive one. Both are highly intelligent and have their own superhero abilities. Both have suffered some kind of trauma which becomes the impetus for the path they eventually choose (speaking as a non-comc book reader). One of my all-time favorite comic book movie scenes is from X-Men 2 when Prof. X visits Magneto in that plexiglass (or whatever it is) prison. Charles notes the bruises/burns on Eric's neck. Even after all they've been through, Charles is still concerned about the punishment doled out to Eric and Eric is still genuinely sorry that he revealed information about the mutant school as home for cerebro. That's good stuff. That's good hero/villain story-telling. It's much the same with Thor and Loki.
I guess if I had to pick right this second, I'd still say I prefer Magneto but much of that is due to my undying love for McKellan (and I'll add that Fassbender is off to a fantastic start as well). Hiddleston's Loki is right on his heels though.
Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.
Magneto though was as good as a banker for memorable villain in a marvel film, the fact they brought in two outstanding actors to bring him to life merely added to that. The same deal applies to the joker, if handed to a competent actor its a banker so when someone comes in with a performance of a lifetime it simply elevates it to the next level. In theory lex luthor should be a banker of a character, so should they cast him well (i feel spacey didnt do it justice, not just the film around him there im afraid) in a future MOS film it has the potential to join these sdort of characters mentioned.
Loki is a big deal villain but we have seen how they have been handled before, so for hiddleston and the writers to have launched him up there to a magneto standard.
I think the one good thing that came out of Wolverine (besides that epic lether jacket origin story ) was a credible and memorable portrayal of sabretooth. Shame it may never get a better vehicle for them two characters, but at least someone gave that character claws (pun intended).
Its not that I dont enjoy our little chats, Its just ... that I dont
Magneto though was as good as a banker for memorable villain in a marvel film, I am the only one that i see magneto as a tragic hero and not a villain?