What's the big deal with Loki?

[Ishal]

snip

Yeah, then DC villains might be more up your alley, as well as comic books. What's on the surface is what you get, and if you don't care for that, then Loke isn't the villain for you. Call me crazy, but I've never been a comic book fan and so have never been able to take a villain or hero seriously when they are wearing bright fluorescent underwear outside their pants. Joker in the TDK was fantastic, no arguments there. But Marvel isn't going for that. The draw to Avengers was the characters and their interactions, which Whedon is apparently amazing at. Hammy predictable "shallow" villains is what you are going to get, at least for now. Ultron might be more serious, he being basically the terminator and all. But Marvel was a more fun movie than the DC universe.

Full disclosure, I'm finding myself in disagreement with moviebob on more and more things lately. However, one thing we still agree on is that Marvel and The Avengers was more fun than any of the latest DC movies. I'm not looking for serious stuff from movies who's source material is this.

Spoiler

 

[ForumSafari]

Because so far Marvel Loki is underwhelming, both as a character and a villain. Just a simpleton with a god complex who is doomed to fail every other time.

It doesn't really affect what you've been saying but it bears pointing out that Loki's plan in Thor works damn near perfectly. it fails because, duh, he's the villain but except for one incorrect variable he executes a rather complex and successful plan.

It's worth remembering here that Loki and Thor are pretty damn old by the time the film happens assuming Asgardians don't age at normal rates and then just stop in the film canon. Also remember that Loki has known Thor his entire life. With that in mind the single reason his plan fails, the single solitary reason, is that Thor learns humility in record time and completely changes his personality. Adults don't often have a complete Ebeneezer Scrooge heel-face turn, Loki based his plan on Thor's behavior up to that point and was completely reasonable to do so given he'd never shown any previous inclination to change. Without that he'd have never called Mjolnir to himself and regained his powers and he'd be dead. I'd go so far as to say that in real life he'd almost never have changed a core part of his personality that fast and his plan would have worked.

On topic: I think part of the reason people like Loki is that he's more sympathetic than Thor for most of the film. He feels second best to his bigger brother (and he is), finds out he was adopted and not for 100% altruistic reasons then tries desperately to win his adopted father's approval with a grand gesture that ultimately fails because it's a stupid gesture. I felt for Loki throughout most of Thor far more than I did for the protagonist. Int he Avengers he's far less nuanced and more 'I will conquer the earth because reasons' but even then there are several points in the film where he seems to at least privately acknowledge that he's in way over his head and doesn't have an easy out, it's easy to infer that while Loki wanted to hurt Thor and be worshiped and adored he thinks the invasion is just a step too far.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

snip

Yeah, then DC villains might be more up your alley, as well as comic books. What's on the surface is what you get, and if you don't care for that, then Loke isn't the villain for you. Call me crazy, but I've never been a comic book fan and so have never been able to take a villain or hero seriously when they are wearing bright fluorescent underwear outside their pants. Joker in the TDK was fantastic, no arguments there. But Marvel isn't going for that. The draw to Avengers was the characters and their interactions, which Whedon is apparently amazing at. Hammy predictable "shallow" villains is what you are going to get, at least for now. Ultron might be more serious, he being basically the terminator and all. But Marvel was a more fun movie than the DC universe.

Full disclosure, I'm finding myself in disagreement with moviebob on more and more things lately. However, one thing we still agree on is that Marvel and The Avengers was more fun than any of the latest DC movies. I'm not looking for serious stuff from movies who's source material is this.

You're really building up a case on wrong grounds. I never complained about seriousness and lack of seriousness. I think the first couple of Spiderman movies are good and silly at the same time. And I'm not creaming my pants for DC either. Again, I liked Spiderman. And Obadiah Stane in Iron Man was awesome. I loved that movie. I'm not talking Marvel vs. DC, or cheese vs. grit. I just think Loki is a poor villain, and if Whedon was going to choose his Main Villain he could've done better than that. Because every other villain in a Marvel movie was more compelling than that guy. Stane. Vanko. Red Skull. Even Blonsky. They were all more interesting to watch and figure out than Loki, who is the most shallow and tedious of the lot.

 

[Ishal]

You're really building up a case on wrong grounds

I don't think so, see...

They were all more interesting to watch and figure out than Loki, who is the most shallow and tedious of the lot.

I don't think there is much to figure out, and that's your problem with him. He's pretty forward with what he wants and even in The Avengers realizes he's in over his head. He's got daddy issues and big brother issues to go along with an inflated ego. In the DC universe, especially in Batman, the villains are all reflections of various aspects of Bruce Wayne's psyche. There is nuance and depth there. Same for a lot of the other DC villains. This is not to say that Marvel doesn't have these traits in their villains either, they are there with the ones you mention. But the trend with the movies thus far is that Nolan and all the rest want to be more cerebral with their stories and villains than Marvel does. You seem to want to figure out villains, there isn't anything to figure out with Loki, he's pretty forward with what he wants. And that is character flaw in him.

With Loki, what you see is what you get. He's a jerkwad with daddy issues and compensates for that with an inflated ego. He likes to think he's smart, and like you said, he's supposed to be the trickster god, but in spite of that he screws up. His alliance with the chitari have him in a bind and he displays trepidation with his involvement. Not because he cares for humans, he still wants to rule them, but because he feels he's weaker and the chitari will punish him for failure. Again, character flaws that run in contrast with his supposed wit as the witty trickster god. He's not to your liking, but there are plenty of reasons why others find him charming and tragic.

 

[Irridium]

You're right, why would anyone find him relate-able. He's not the best, the alpha-male, the hero, the winner. He has some serious family trouble and he feels worthless, ignored, and marginalized because of it (and other things). Because of who he is he doesn't feel like he belongs, and feels terrible while everyone else is telling him to just "be happy" which makes him feel worse because he can't just "be happy" after feeling he was lied to his entire life. The harder he tries, the harder he fails. And all of this means he's essentially broken.

Yeah, how could anyone ever empathize/pity/relate to any of that.

 

[RJ 17]

Superhero movies live and die on the quality of their villains. "Thor" has a shabby crew. The Frost Giants spend most of their time being frosty in their subzero sphere of Jotunheim and occasionally freezing their enemies. Thor's brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is dark-haired, skinny, shifty-eyed and sadly lacking in charisma. He might as well be wearing a name tag: "Hi! I can't be trusted!" These villains lack adequate interest to supply a climactic battle, so the movie fabricates a Metal Giant, sends him to the New Mexico town, and has him blast fiery rays that blow up gas stations real good but always miss his targets. He is apparently killed by a sword through his spine, but why does he need a spine since when his mask lifts we can see his head is an empty cavern? - Ebert.

Wait...didn't Thor destroy The Destroyer by stuffing it's own fire-beam back down its throat?

Then The Avengers came out, and suddenly everybody's creaming their pants over Loki. I remain unphazed. What's so sexy and devious about an alien invasion? Now he's back in Thor 2 and they're hyping him in his asylum box snarking like he's freaking Hannibal Lecter. Whatever the fuck did he ever accomplish, besides being the designated bad guy in a couple of movies where he failed stupendously at EVERYTHING? What's he so smug about, why is he so popular?

To be fair, there's two reasons he failed in his ultimate objective in both movies:
1: He's the badguy.
2: His own hubris.

If you look at any villain's track-record, it's full of minor successes but over-all failure. Even The Joker ultimately failed in Dark Knight. Villains win right up until the very end, when it counts the most.

In Thor he fails because he wanted to make sure that Thor was dead. He could have just left him in exile and when Thor's friends went to go get him, he could have just told what's-his-face that they were officially banished as well. He had won. He was already the king. The Gatekeeper (since I can't remember his name) was honor-bound to obey whatever Loki said because Loki was the king. But Loki, being the arrogant prick that he is, fires the gate-keeper thus making him no longer bound to obey, which leaves the door open for Thor and company to return.

In Avengers, he successfully plays all the heroes against one another. He destroys SHIELD's airship and scatters the heroes. The only mistake he made in that movie was overestimating the power of the army he was promised, which could be taken out Phantom Menace style by simply destroying the mothership, thus somehow magically killing all the alien soldiers. Up until that point he was winning. The failure wasn't really on his part, it was on the part of the aliens and deus ex machine writing.

Now, having said all that, I do agree that I really don't find him as a character to be that interesting. As a villain I thought he was decent, but there's been numerous examples of better villains out there. So to answer the question "why is he so popular?" I have to go with the answer that other's have already supplied: the fangirls. It's all about appearances and you have to admit, Loki looks damn good in a suit.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

You're right, why would anyone find him relate-able. He's not the best, the alpha-male, the hero, the winner. He has some serious family trouble and he feels worthless, ignored, and marginalized because of it (and other things). Because of who he is he doesn't feel like he belongs, and feels terrible while everyone else is telling him to just "be happy" which makes him feel worse because he can't just "be happy" after feeling he was lied to his entire life. The harder he tries, the harder he fails. And all of this means he's essentially broken.

Yeah, how could anyone ever empathize/pity/relate to any of that.

Oh please, because victimizing a character makes him immediately interesting and sympathetic. Never mind the stuff that HAPPENS to him. He's the freaking God of Trickery and Deceit, and can't pull a decent long-lasting shenanigan for his life. He truly has the proverbial name tag stuck on his forehead: "I am not to be trusted". Shocking!

 

[KINGBeerZ]

I believe the Nostalgia critic did a video on the topic, but what it ultimately seems to boil down to is that he is the perfect balance of failure and cockiness and ego.

 

[Jonluw]

Yeah, definitely teenage girls.
I agree with you completely. Marvel's Loki is boring as shit.