Unpopular Opinions

[Joe]

While I previously loved the MCU, I hated Ant-Man and Captain America 3. Most people point to the problem of AM being not enough Edgar Wright, but I've seen his stuff before and didn't like it. To me the problem was too much Edgar Wright. Cap 3, both sides were wrong. Neither side acknowledged it. The movie had no proper ending. It just kind of stopped.

Dr Strange doesn't look any better. Worse, because it stars Benedict Cumberbatch. He went from unknown to overexposed in record time, and I'm not going to pay to see him shouting at me for two hours.

[Danny Franks]

5 hours ago, Joe said:

While I previously loved the MCU, I hated Ant-Man and Captain America 3. Most people point to the problem of AM being not enough Edgar Wright, but I've seen his stuff before and didn't like it. To me the problem was too much Edgar Wright. Cap 3, both sides were wrong. Neither side acknowledged it. The movie had no proper ending. It just kind of stopped.

Dr Strange doesn't look any better. Worse, because it stars Benedict Cumberbatch. He went from unknown to overexposed in record time, and I'm not going to pay to see him shouting at me for two hours.

I enjoyed Ant-Man, but really had some issues with Captain America 3. All the fears I had that it wouldn't be about Cap or Bucky were borne out, and I was asked to sit through 'The Tony Stark Angst Hour, featuring Black Panther and Anyone Else We Can Shoehorn In'. It felt shallow, empty, soulless and a complete waste of time, and did nothing whatsoever to enhance the universe that Marvel are trying to build.

As for Doctor Strange? I have no interest in the comic book character, and no interest in a movie about the comic book character. Especially one starring Cumberbatch, who I will never understand the fuss about.

[Spartan Girl]

I hated the original black and white movie Frankenstein that everyone regards as a classic.  Boris Karloff was great and all that, but the movie basically butchered the classic novel.  Don't even get me started on how Mary Shelley was credited as "Mrs. Percy Shelley."  Screw '30s sexism.

Say what you want about the Kenneth Branaugh version, but at least it was (somewhat) faithful to the original story.  And he credited Mary Shelley by her full name, thank you very much!

[Kel Varnsen]

8 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I hated the original black and white movie Frankenstein that everyone regards as a classic.  Boris Karloff was great and all that, but the movie basically butchered the classic novel.  Don't even get me started on how Mary Shelley was credited as "Mrs. Percy Shelley."  Screw '30s sexism.

 

My unpopular Frankenstein opinion is of course the damn monster is called Frankenstein. Calling it Frankenstein's monster is stupid, since no one calls the Model T or the Mustang Mr. Ford's Automobile, they call it a Ford. So why wouldn't you call the monster a Frankenstein?

[kiddo82]

17 hours ago, Joe said:

While I previously loved the MCU, I hated Ant-Man and Captain America 3. Most people point to the problem of AM being not enough Edgar Wright, but I've seen his stuff before and didn't like it. To me the problem was too much Edgar Wright. Cap 3, both sides were wrong. Neither side acknowledged it. The movie had no proper ending. It just kind of stopped.

I don't like Guardians of the Galaxy.  I said it.

[supposebly]

10 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

I don't like Guardians of the Galaxy.  I said it.

Me neither. Painfully unfunny and I could barely keep the bad guys apart. I don't understand why Chris Pratt is a thing. Wonderbread is more exciting. I fail to understand why bad dancing to bad music is now something we should find interesting. Or a monosyllabic tree with the vocabulary of one. Or a talking racoon. Or Zoe Saldana being green but otherwise not really playing anything much different from her Uhura.

Making another one is utterly unnecessary in the world I would like to live in.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

17 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

I enjoyed Ant-Man, but really had some issues with Captain America 3. All the fears I had that it wouldn't be about Cap or Bucky were borne out, and I was asked to sit through 'The Tony Stark Angst Hour, featuring Black Panther and Anyone Else We Can Shoehorn In'. It felt shallow, empty, soulless and a complete waste of time, and did nothing whatsoever to enhance the universe that Marvel are trying to build.

To a point, I agree with this, but OTOH I do not share what is apparently a third of the internet's obsession with all things Sebastian Stan, so I'm fine with less Bucky Barnes whenever the opportunity arises. So that's my double whammy of a UO for today.

[Blergh]

I got to admit I never thought all that re the 1930's movie based on Mary Shelley's work but you're right! Also, it appears Mr. Branaugh did at least acknowledged  the MO of reviving folks due to the protagonist's mother's death in childbirth which the original author herself DID feel a literal lifetime of guilt over do to her own mother the pioneering feminist Mary Woolstonecraft Godwin   losing her own life to give the authoress life. It sounds more compelling that just Dr. Frankenstein becoming a kook for no good reason.

[Joe]

6 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

I don't like Guardians of the Galaxy.  I said it.

While I loved the movie, I didn't like the music. Space adventure, not old pop.

[Hybridcookie]

3 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

To a point, I agree with this, but OTOH I do not share what is apparently a third of the internet's obsession with all things Sebastian Stan, so I'm fine with less Bucky Barnes whenever the opportunity arises. So that's my double whammy of a UO for today.

Same, I have no interest in Bucky, and to go one step forward, I have no interest in Steve either.

Clint and the Maximoff twins are my favourites

[TaraS1]

My unpopular opinion is that I don't like movies*.

*Except Godfather I & II, A Few Good Men and Spiceworld.

[AimingforYoko]

4 hours ago, TaraS1 said:

My unpopular opinion is that I don't like movies*.

*Except Godfather I & II, A Few Good Men and Spiceworld.

♪One of these things is not like the other...♫

[TaraS1]

I know, I know.  I was kinda, sorta being facetious about not liking movies (I just prefer TV by a lot), but I really did like Spiceworld! lol

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I wasn't sure where else to put this, but since the movie doesn't come out until next year, here we are. From the Thor: Ragnarok thread:

4 hours ago, IWantCandy71 said:

As you said, we all have our preferences. Give me a character with actual layers-which Loki has-over a character who doesn't have them. It's not so much that I think Thor doesn't have them, but he's far less interesting to me than Loki. In point of fact, when you step back and look at a lot of Thor's actions, especially towards Loki-sometimes, he comes across as a mini-Odin. And well...Odin is not someone to emulate IMO. Not in this verse. Of course, really...none of these characters are someone to emulate, either because they are not morally good, or they are boring and self righteous and THINK they are just and morally good...when they are not.

I watched The Avengers On Demand the other night, so I feel qualified to address this, at least until I forget half of what I watched again.

"Morally good" is not the first thing I would use to describe Loki. It isn't even the fifteenth thing, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. In The Avengers alone, he mind-warped Dr. Selvig and Barton, pretty much caused Banner to hulk out, and killed Coulson. Stabbed him in the back, no less. And because of....what? Because he's whiny and jealous and power-hungry? That Thor often comes off as not too bright just makes Loki's behavior even worse, since its like a battle of wits with someone who's barely armed. If Thor's so boring, why does Loki want to be just like him?

[ribboninthesky1]

On 10/25/2016 at 5:38 AM, Hybridcookie said:

Same, I have no interest in Bucky, and to go one step forward, I have no interest in Steve either.

Steve is only about a step below Tony Stark for me on the annoyance scale.  He's not level mostly because I've never liked Tony Stark, whereas I liked Steve once upon a time. I was over both of them in Civil War, and would have been okay with Zemo or Black Panther taking them out with Bucky.  If only T'Challa had been more emo and bloodthirsty and immature...

I preferred Bucky when he was just The Winter Soldier.  I assume he was brainwashed in the comics as well, but mostly, there's only so much of "It wasn't his fault he murdered a lot of people" I can take.  I mean, I get it, but I tend to be more sympathetic to the people who lost their loved ones (even Tony, in this context).  To his credit, he acknowledged it.  

[JustaPerson]

Quote

To a point, I agree with this, but OTOH I do not share what is apparently a third of the internet's obsession with all things Sebastian Stan, so I'm fine with less Bucky Barnes whenever the opportunity arises. So that's my double whammy of a UO for today.

I like Sebastian Stan as much as the next girl, but the faction of tumblr girls who worship his every move creeps me out. Especially the ones who want him and Chris Evans to hook up as much as they want Steve and Bucky to. Honestly, I'd be okay with the MCU killing off Bucky just to see their heads explode.

[IWantCandy71]

5 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I wasn't sure where else to put this, but since the movie doesn't come out until next year, here we are. From the Thor: Ragnarok thread:

I watched The Avengers On Demand the other night, so I feel qualified to address this, at least until I forget half of what I watched again.

"Morally good" is not the first thing I would use to describe Loki. It isn't even the fifteenth thing, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. In The Avengers alone, he mind-warped Dr. Selvig and Barton, pretty much caused Banner to hulk out, and killed Coulson. Stabbed him in the back, no less. And because of....what? Because he's whiny and jealous and power-hungry? That Thor often comes off as not too bright just makes Loki's behavior even worse, since its like a battle of wits with someone who's barely armed. If Thor's so boring, why does Loki want to be just like him?

I'm not quite sure why you even bothered to quote me, since I never once said Loki is morally good. Did I? Nope. Sure didn't. I am also not sure why you say you are not sure where to put "this" when you could have simply just replied to me in the thread I posted in. This whole reply, and the way in which it was handled, is quite confusing. Especially since I don't think the opinion that Loki is wildly popular, nor that his character, and Tom's performance, are a huge reason for the success of the Thor franchise, is an unpopular opinion. Even one of the guys BTS, can't remember which one, stated he considered the movies the Tri-Loki. I disagree too, that Loki wants to be just like Thor. He wants his acceptance and love. But to be just like him? Loki would be bored to death.Anyway, we can agree to disagree, yes? Yeah, sure we can. Thanks, and have a great night. 

Edited October 27, 2016 by IWantCandy71

[proserpina65]

On ‎10‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 8:40 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

My unpopular Frankenstein opinion is of course the damn monster is called Frankenstein. Calling it Frankenstein's monster is stupid, since no one calls the Model T or the Mustang Mr. Ford's Automobile, they call it a Ford. So why wouldn't you call the monster a Frankenstein?

Whereas I'm the complete opposite: the creator is Frankenstein, his creation is Frankenstein's monster.  I say, ten paces at dawn!

[proserpina65]

I think Sebastian Stan is a terrible actor.  He was okay in The Martian, but then again, there wasn't much of him.  I also don't find him very attractive.

[Popples]

On 10/24/2016 at 8:40 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

My unpopular Frankenstein opinion is of course the damn monster is called Frankenstein. Calling it Frankenstein's monster is stupid, since no one calls the Model T or the Mustang Mr. Ford's Automobile, they call it a Ford. So why wouldn't you call the monster a Frankenstein?

Most people will just say "Model T" or "Mustang", so they have names to go along with Ford.

2 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

Whereas I'm the complete opposite: the creator is Frankenstein, his creation is Frankenstein's monster.  I say, ten paces at dawn!

It's been a while since I was made to read it, but in the book I believe that Dr. Frankenstein named the monster Adam. Don't for get the 10 duel commandments.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Popples
Typo: "the" and "that" aren't synonyms.

[Enigma X]

48 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

I think Sebastian Stan is a terrible actor.  I also don't find him very attractive.

YES! YES! and AMEN!

[topanga]

Some of the "less popular" Denzel Washington movies are among my favorites: The Mighty Quinn, Mississippi Masala, The Bone Collector, and Deja Vu. Great entertainment all day. 

And Malcolm X--arguably his best performance ever--just isn't a very fun movie. 

[proserpina65]

2 hours ago, Popples said:

Most people will just say "Model T" or "Mustang", so they have names to go along with Ford.

It's been a while since I was made to read it, but in the book I believe that Dr. Frankenstein named the monster Adam. Don't for get the 10 duel commandments.

I read it in Greece in 1995 so I'll trust you on that.  (I read the Odyssey in Italy that same year - probably should've read that in Greece but I didn't own it yet.)

I haven't seen Hamilton, and since I don't like rap/hip hop, I've never heard any of it either.  But I trust the commandments are reasonable. :-)

Edited October 27, 2016 by proserpina65

[Popples]

20 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

I haven't seen Hamilton, and since I don't like rap/hip hop, I've never heard any of it either.  But I trust the commandments are reasonable. :-)

I don't like rap/hip-hop or modern R&B (after the early 00's) either, but I shockingly really enjoyed Hamilton (and I was really reticent to give it a chance due to all the hype). My least favorite song was the one inspired by a Beyonce song, which after finding that out explained so much. : )

[Jazzy24]

3 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

I think Sebastian Stan is a terrible actor.  He was okay in The Martian, but then again, there wasn't much of him.  I also don't find him very attractive.

I've only seen him in Marvel movies and even then he has never grabbed my attention. I've never found him attractive either I wouldn't have noticed him either if the fandom wasn't jizzing so hard for him. 

[Shannon L.]

22 minutes ago, Popples said:

47 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

I haven't seen Hamilton, and since I don't like rap/hip hop, I've never heard any of it either.  But I trust the commandments are reasonable. :-)

I don't like rap/hip-hop or modern R&B (after the early 00's) either, but I shockingly really enjoyed Hamilton (and I was really reticent to give it a chance due to all the hype).

I don't like rap and think hip hop is just ok and I can't stop listening to the soundtrack.  Probably because there isn't as much of it in the soundtrack as you would think. 

 

23 minutes ago, Popples said:

My least favorite song was the one inspired by a Beyonce song, which after finding that out explained so much. : )

Which one is that?  I went through the book that talked about the making of the show, but I don't remember what it said. 

 

7 minutes ago, Jazzy24 said:

I've only seen him in Marvel movies and even then he has never grabbed my attention. I've never found him attractive either I wouldn't have noticed him either if the fandom wasn't jizzing so hard for him. 

I've only seen him in the two Captain America movies and The Martian.  He didn't have a lot to do in either of them, really, except (in CA) to brood and fight.  I do think he's cute as Bucky, though. 

[proserpina65]

1 minute ago, Shannon L. said:

I've only seen him in the two Captain America movies and The Martian.  He didn't have a lot to do in either of them, really, except (in CA) to brood and fight. 

I saw him first in the Mad Hatter episode of Once Upon A Time, and hated his performance.  So I've generally given him a wide berth.  But that just means more for you and the other women and men who do like him.  Other fish, and all that.

[Shannon L.]

Thanks for responding, proserpina65.  I just realized I quoted Jazzy24, but forgot to include your comment.  Anyway, yeah, other fish and all that.    I guess I like the dark, brooding type  :)   However, if we're comparing Marvel heroes and villians, he's not at the top of my list.  There are others that I find more attractive and better actors. 

[Popples]

41 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

Which one is that?  I went through the book that talked about the making of the show, but I don't remember what it said. 

 

Helpless. It's not a bad song, just not my cup of tea. Slate has an article on the song allusions, inspirations, and references for all the music.

I'm really sorry for veering from the topic of Movies.

[scarynikki12]

9 hours ago, Popples said:

It's been a while since I was made to read it, but in the book I believe that Dr. Frankenstein named the monster Adam. Don't for get the 10 duel commandments.

Dr. Frankenstein never gives him a name.  He rejects his creation so thoroughly that he (the monster) goes the whole story without something as basic as that.  The monster refers to himself as "the Adam of your labors" but that's the closest he comes to having an actual name.  Otherwise he gets called monster whenever anyone looks at him.  I think some of the (really awful) adaptations have made the choice to actually name the monster Adam but that's not in the original story.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

8 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

 However, if we're comparing Marvel heroes and villians, he's not at the top of my list.  There are others that I find more attractive and better actors. 

A sorta revised UO:

By themselves, Bucky Barnes and Loki aren't that bad. The Marvelverse needs anti-heroes and villains in order for their stories to work, and individually they fit the bill just fine. But I'm just way too jaded by fifty bajillion other conversations not related to this particular fandom and not even to movies in general to not be all "WTF is the appeal of these characters?" when its explained to me why they shouldn't be blamed for their actions. Not saying that anyone on these forums has done that, but I see it in other places, and as @ribboninthesky1 said earlier, there's only so much "It isn't their fault!" I can deal with.

[JustaPerson]

What excuse could Loki possibly have? Bucky I can see, but Loki's only justification is daddy issues. He's just a dick.

Edited October 28, 2016 by JustaPerson

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, JustaPerson said:

What excuse could Loki possibly have? Bucky I can see, but Loki's only justification is daddy issues. He's just a dick.

Yeah, Loki has funny lines, but that doesn't mean I have to like him personally or feel sorry for him.  I don't.

[kiddo82]

5 hours ago, JustaPerson said:

What excuse could Loki possibly have? Bucky I can see, but Loki's only justification is daddy issues. He's just a dick.

Loki and Kylo Ren should hang out.

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Yeah, Loki has funny lines, but that doesn't mean I have to like him personally or feel sorry for him.  I don't.

This.  But I will add as my .02,  that it was Tom Hiddleston's performance that made Loki funny and charming (the latter at times). He also gave him gravitas and layers in Thor II when told of their mother's murder, and when he and Thor teamed up.

It's weird. I should hate him, but I don't.  At the same time, I HOWLED when Hulk tossed him around like a rag doll and called him "Puny God" in Avengers.

Yet with Kylo Ren, I see nothing but a petulant little shit.

Well, this is the Unpopular Opinion Thread, after all.  So I guess I can have contradictory feelings.?

Edited October 28, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Kel Varnsen]

On 27/10/2016 at 0:05 PM, proserpina65 said:

Whereas I'm the complete opposite: the creator is Frankenstein, his creation is Frankenstein's monster.  I say, ten paces at dawn!

Naming a creation after the creator is pretty common at least in English. A painting by Picasso is called a Picasso, jeans made by Levi Strauss are called Levi's and as i mentioned above a car by Henry Ford is called a Ford. So based on that calling the monster a Frankenstein or just Frankenstein doesn't seem unreasonable (compared to insisting he be called Frankenstein's monster).

[Wiendish Fitch]

Aw, come on, I've been smugly correcting people about "Frankenstein" vs. "Frankenstein's Monster" for years! Don't take that away from me!

[Ceindreadh]

5 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Naming a creation after the creator is pretty common at least in English. A painting by Picasso is called a Picasso, jeans made by Levi Strauss are called Levi's and as i mentioned above a car by Henry Ford is called a Ford. So based on that calling the monster a Frankenstein or just Frankenstein doesn't seem unreasonable (compared to insisting he be called Frankenstein's monster).

True, but all the other examples are inanimate objects and not living beings.  I guess it depends on whether you see the 'creation' as a person, rather than a thing.

[Kel Varnsen]

2 hours ago, Ceindreadh said:

True, but all the other examples are inanimate objects and not living beings.  I guess it depends on whether you see the 'creation' as a person, rather than a thing.

Well the only living beings i have been involved in creation of share my last name so by that logic the monster should also be called Frankenstein.

[Ambrosefolly]

Here is mine.  I fucking hate Wolverine and hate while every other X-Men is so recastable, Hugh Jackman is the sacred cow. Now we have Logan. I really miss the 90s X-Men (though could do without the insipid Jean/Cyclops/fucking Wolverine triangle. The only pairing I liked him in that show was the alternate reality with him being married to Storm). Hugh Jackman is good as Wolverine, but I never got what all of the fuss was about. 

[Jazzy24]

1 hour ago, Ambrosefolly said:

Here is mine.  I fucking hate Wolverine and hate while every other X-Men is so recastable, Hugh Jackman is the sacred cow. Now we have Logan. I really miss the 90s X-Men (though could do without the insipid Jean/Cyclops/fucking Wolverine triangle. The only pairing I liked him in that show was the alternate reality with him being married to Storm). Hugh Jackman is good as Wolverine, but I never got what all of the fuss was about. 

Well good news, if I'm not mistaken Logan is Jackman's last time ever as Wolverine. 

And I agree, I have never gotten the fuss about Wolverine and never understood why he got his own movies. Wolverine as a character IMO works better as a X-Men not solo or as team leader. 

Here is my UO speaking of the X-Men is that I hate all the movies some less than others. And I hold a massive grudge against Fox because of the way they have handled their female characters. Storm is one of my all time favorite female characters EVER yet Fox has been horrible to her and many others. I'm angry cause the X-Men has always been my favorite team(the Avengers have taken that spot)and they haven't been given a proper movie by Fox. 

[Ambrosefolly]

1 hour ago, Jazzy24 said:

Well good news, if I'm not mistaken Logan is Jackman's last time ever as Wolverine. 

And I agree, I have never gotten the fuss about Wolverine and never understood why he got his own movies. Wolverine as a character IMO works better as a X-Men not solo or as team leader. 

Here is my UO speaking of the X-Men is that I hate all the movies some less than others. And I hold a massive grudge against Fox because of the way they have handled their female characters. Storm is one of my all time favorite female characters EVER yet Fox has been horrible to her and many others. I'm angry cause the X-Men has always been my favorite team(the Avengers have taken that spot)and they haven't been given a proper movie by Fox. 

Yeah but I read 

Spoiler

they are planning on killing off the character, 

and considering the equally rapid movie fans, they probably won't be doing a reboot and recast (though after the 5 billion Wolverine movies, I kind of get it).

And really started off with the casting of Storm, because Halle was always fucking terrible as her. There are so many better actresses or at least actresses that would have been better suited to play her.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Ambrosefolly

[IWantCandy71]

Quote

 

What excuse could Loki possibly have

 

What excuse did Thor have for wanting to slay all the Frost Giants in the first Thor movie? He was basically a racist- that's exactly what he was. He hated the Frost Giants mainly because he'd heard Odin's opinions of them his whole life, as did Loki. Loki has done horrible things, but at least when he went to Earth to try and rule it, he wasn't intending on slaying the entire race of humans. What would be the point of that, when there would be no one left to rule? Thor specifically went to murder the Frost Giants. There's a lot about Thor people tend to overlook because he's supposed to be a "good" guy, and a lot people refuse to acknowledge about Loki because he's supposed to be a bad guy.

And I wouldn't say his only justification is "daddy" issues. This is someone who grew up hearing that Frost Giants were to be hated, that they were horrible, monsters, enemies, etc. He was never allowed to know who he really was, until and unless Odin decided the time was right. He wasn't even taken by Odin because he was wanted, he was taken to possibly be used as a future political tool. Who do you know, if they learned that who they were, was something to be depised and hated, who had the same kind of background, would NOT become destructive and possibly psychotic? I see Loki's issues as self fulfilling prophecy. If you tell a child they are bad, they are going to be bad. And no, Odin didn't tell Loki HE was bad, but Odin instilled in Thor and Loki,  hatred for Loki's true race. What kind of sorry piece of excuse of a person DOES that to a child? Never mind that Odin also kept telling both boys they were born to be kings, but only one of them could be. 

Does it mean I feel sorry for him? Yes. Because even if daddy issues WERE his only problem, consider the source. Odin's influence is enough for me to have pity on him. Does it mean I root for him to win when he is doing something treacherous? Absolutely not. And I do not give him a free pass for what he does. Understanding the character, feeling  sympathy for the character, doesn't make it okay what he does. A lot of his actions are still horrible. However, in the Marvel verse, the "good" guys really aren't all that good, and most are so self righteous, I can't really care what he does to them, either. Thor to me especially, is just so unbearably bland and holier than thou. Can you imagine those people without someone like Loki around to humble them a bit? I can't. Those movies are made brighter by the presence of someone like Loki. Without him, it would just be: super perfect "good guys" beat some horrible enemy. Wash, rinse, repeat. Like Loki or not, he brings much needed color to this universe. And I don't see Loki as a villain-but he's also not a hero, either. Yet-not sure he fits "anti-hero"(except for maybe in Thor II). I haven't figured him out yet, and I like that, because IMO he's one of the only characters in this verse with TRUE layers. Except for perhaps Tony Stark and Fury. Everyone else in this verse bores me to death.

 Thor got what, a punishment of banishment to Earth of less than a week, for murdering some folks, but that was okay because: Odin sucks and pretty much forgives Thor everything, Thor was just murdering Frost Giants and they are "monsters", so that's okay, and Thor learned to sacrifice himself for others at the end of the movie. Loki has always been a trickster, always been manipulative, cunning, clever-and he's done horrible things. But in what way, shape or form, is Loki being banished to a dungeon for eternity/the rest of his life, and Thor getting a punishment of a few days, remotely equal?  Most *normal* people would probably have psychological issues over that, and Loki isn't normal. Besides...if Thor can get a respite/forgiveness for simply putting his life on the line, where is Loki's respite for putting his life on the line for Jane and Thor? Yes, we know he didn't die-but Loki didn't know he wouldn't, when he did what he did to help them.

I'm not excusing Loki's actions. But I'm also not excusing Thor's. I don't think Loki saving Thor and Jane erases his culpability for anything he's done, but neither does Thor doing acts of heroism excuse the fact that he thought nothing of murdering some people just because they were different.

Edited October 31, 2016 by IWantCandy71

[Cobalt Stargazer]

16 hours ago, IWantCandy71 said:

Thor got what, a punishment of banishment to Earth of less than a week, for murdering some folks, but that was okay because: Odin sucks and pretty much forgives Thor everything, Thor was just murdering Frost Giants and they are "monsters", so that's okay, and Thor learned to sacrifice himself for others at the end of the movie. Loki has always been a trickster, always been manipulative, cunning, clever-and he's done horrible things. But in what way, shape or form, is Loki being banished to a dungeon for eternity/the rest of his life, and Thor getting a punishment of a few days, remotely equal?  Most *normal* people would probably have psychological issues over that, and Loki isn't normal. Besides...if Thor can get a respite/forgiveness for simply putting his life on the line, where is Loki's respite for putting his life on the line for Jane and Thor? Yes, we know he didn't die-but Loki didn't know he wouldn't, when he did what he did to help them.

I'm not excusing Loki's actions. But I'm also not excusing Thor's. I don't think Loki saving Thor and Jane erases his culpability for anything he's done, but neither does Thor doing acts of heroism excuse the fact that he thought nothing of murdering some people just because they were different.

Most normal people would also have psychological issues from watching their parents disappear into the crater that was once their kitchen floor too, but I don't recall anyone saying that the Maximoff twins were perfectly right to go after Tony and the other Avengers, particularly when Tony wasn't even the one who built the bombs that blew up their house.  They were kids when it happened, and then they volunteered to become Strucker's guinea pigs so that once they had powers as well they could get revenge. Almost everyone in the Marvelverse has something tragic in their backstory, so Loki isn't really that special or different as far as that goes.

Thor was the favored son? If Loki was always sneaky and deceptive*, I can see why, and I think that's where we're actually disagreeing. Nobody likes a backstabber, and he gets the chance in The Avengers to help stop the Chitauri invasion and refuses it. That Thor elects to take him back to Asgard to face the consequences of his actions rather than letting the Hulk stomp another mudhole in him is really the most "respite" he deserved.

*If no one has ever read any of the Norse myths, that Loki is even less charming than Hiddleston's version.

[IWantCandy71]

I've never said Loki is perfectly right in anything he has done. Saying I have the compassion to understand his motives-doesn't make him justified when committing a criminal act.  I also don't think Loki being sneaky and deceptive is why Odin preferred Thor. Odin preferred Thor because Thor is his blood son, and Loki was a political tool. Perhaps Odin "grew" to love Loki-perhaps not. It depends on your POV, I suppose. I don't think Odin is capable of unconditional love, but that's just my opinion.

I see a lot of things differently, because I don't assume what I see on screen is black and white. For instance, Loki stabbing Thor in the Avengers.  We're talking about two beings here, who have lived about a thousand years, give or take a few hundred. Both have been injured in ways that would kill a mortal man dozens, perhaps hundreds/thousands of times over. But I see people say "oh Loki tried to kill Thor." Oh, really? I'd think Loki, after seeing what he and Thor have gone through over the years, would know a simple stab wound wouldn't fell him. The issue is not, Loki trying to kill Thor. The issue is, if Loki knew it would NOT kill Thor, why did he do it? I always interpreted that scene this way: Thor up till that point has wheedled and cajoled and tried to get Loki to surrender. Loki has too much pride, and won't simply surrender. There's also the theory that Loki was at least a little under the duress and control of the other bad guys, and I can't rule it out, although most of his actions were certainly his own free will. Anyway, Loki won't surrender, so he knows someone will have to take him down. Maybe he wants to die at that point-he certainly wanted to die when he let go at the BiFrost. He didn't care about dying when he told Odin to swing the axe. I think he'd consider it the ultimate insult though, to be killed or imprisoned by the Earthlings. So he stabs Thor to make Thor fight back and subdue him, to take him back. This way, he can face whatever punishment on his home turf. Granted, it's been years since I've watched The Avengers. But that was my take on the scene at the time.

I say all that to simply point out that I never just assume with a  character like Loki, that what we see him do or say, is almost never to be taken at surface value. There's always a motive within a motive, things unsaid or undone, that are going on beneath all of that. And that's why I love the character, those are the characters I love best. They are not easy to LIKE, because they are often the anti heroes, the "bad" ones, the "villains". But liking and loving are different for me, because to me liking means I approve of their general attitude and actions, while loving them means they touch my heart because a part of me identifies with their hurts.

Someone once said the comparison is like "Thor is the big dumb jock who made/makes fun of the intellectual weakling" and that Loki IS that intellectual weakling. I think it's kind of a simplistic analogy, but I can't say it's inaccurate. And hey, I root for  the underdog to be loved, even if I don't always root for them to win. I root for the weakling, because I know what it means to be forgotten and cast aside and treated like you are an afterthought. That's how I see Loki. It doesn't mean I think most of his actions are GOOD. I do not. It just means I love him in spite of them. Besides, he entertains me. I wouldn't want him close to me emotionally if he were a real person, because I either would not be able to trust him, or I would what he might do if he ever got mad at me. But as a fictional character for entertainment, I'll take him any day over the Thors and just about any other character in the Marvel Universe except for maybe Bruce Banner. Hulk is my favorite character, or he was from the TV show many years ago.

Edited November 1, 2016 by IWantCandy71

[KatWay]

Loki is a murdering psychopath & also entertaining as the most layered villain Marvel has got at the moment, but liking him on screen doesn't mean I have any illusions he's not a complete nutjob. He's only interesting because Thor loves him and because of their messy relationship IMO because without that he's just another insane killer seeking world domination in the MCU. That's why he works so well as a villain, because him (& Kilgrave) are the only Marvel villains where it felt personal to the respective heroes. Nobody else really had that. Obie from IM 1 could have been like that but they didn't flesh out either him or the connection between him & Tony enough for it to register. Everyone else is just your standard world-destroying psycho villain.

[NumberCruncher]

1 hour ago, KatWay said:

Loki is a murdering psychopath & also entertaining as the most layered villain Marvel has got at the moment, but liking him on screen doesn't mean I have any illusions he's not a complete nutjob. He's only interesting because Thor loves him and because of their messy relationship IMO because without that he's just another insane killer seeking world domination in the MCU. That's why he works so well as a villain, because him (& Kilgrave) are the only Marvel villains where it felt personal to the respective heroes. Nobody else really had that. Obie from IM 1 could have been like that but they didn't flesh out either him or the connection between him & Tony enough for it to register. Everyone else is just your standard world-destroying psycho villain.

^^^This.  I fully accept the idea that Loki is a murderous villain but that's not going to stop me from being utterly engrossed by his complex history and ability to pull off evil-doing in such an alluring way.  My clearly unpopular opinion is that I never want to see a Thor movie without seeing the brotherly relationship affecting the overall storyline.  Frankly, without Loki, I think Thor 2 would have been a complete disaster.  The plot was weak and most of the cast seemed to be phoning it in but TH's performance saved the movie for me.

[IWantCandy71]

15 minutes ago, NumberCruncher said:

^^^This.  I fully accept the idea that Loki is a murderous villain but that's not going to stop me from being utterly engrossed by his complex history and ability to pull off evil-doing in such an alluring way.  My clearly unpopular opinion is that I never want to see a Thor movie without seeing the brotherly relationship affecting the overall storyline.  Frankly, without Loki, I think Thor 2 would have been a complete disaster.  The plot was weak and most of the cast seemed to be phoning it in but TH's performance saved the movie for me.

I can agree with most of this. And I'll repeat it: I don't think acknowledging Loki's popularity, or that he's a huge reason for the success of the Thor movies, is an unpopular opinion in general. In fact, I think it's the majority opinion. I think Loki's relationships are ALL messy, not just his with Thor. I think what is most fascinating about Loki, is that these people(Frigga and Thor, perhaps Sif when they were younger, that depends on which verse you are looking at) all love(d) him. I don't think it's a "he's family and I *have* to love him love. They found wonderful things inside him to love. This is someone they've spent hundreds of years around. That to me means that there are good things in him, and if there *were* good things in him, those things could still be there.  And ICAM-without Loki, Thor II would have been unwatchable. As would have the first Avengers, IMO. And he's only in it the second Thor about 25 minutes. And not in any of the other movies all that much more, really. The fact that anyone thinks he's "overexposed" or overused, when in reality he has minimal screen time, just accentuates what a powerful, dynamic character Loki truly is.

[NumberCruncher]

26 minutes ago, IWantCandy71 said:

I can agree with most of this. And I'll repeat it: I don't think acknowledging Loki's popularity, or that he's a huge reason for the success of the Thor movies, is an unpopular opinion in general. In fact, I think it's the majority opinion. I think Loki's relationships are ALL messy, not just his with Thor. I think what is most fascinating about Loki, is that these people(Frigga and Thor, perhaps Sif when they were younger, that depends on which verse you are looking at) all love(d) him. I don't think it's a "he's family and I *have* to love him love. They found wonderful things inside him to love. This is someone they've spent hundreds of years around. That to me means that there are good things in him, and if there *were* good things in him, those things could still be there.  And ICAM-without Loki, Thor II would have been unwatchable. As would have the first Avengers, IMO. And he's only in it the second Thor about 25 minutes. And not in any of the other movies all that much more, really. The fact that anyone thinks he's "overexposed" or overused, when in reality he has minimal screen time, just accentuates what a powerful, dynamic character Loki truly is.

You may be right re: Loki's popularity but in these forums I don't think that's the case, hence my "unpopular opinion."  Clearly he must have some appeal since Kevin Feige specifically mentioned in interviews they added more Loki scenes in Thor 2 because they felt the movie needed more (and I don't disagree).

I do agree with you, however, that he's not as "overexposed" as people claim.  As you mentioned, he has never had nearly as much screentime as the heroes in any of the Marvel movies and has only appeared in 3 movies, 2 of which were specifically centered around his family.  He's nowhere near as pervasive as say, Tony Stark or Steve Rogers who seem to pop up in every Marvel flick as of late.  Yes, I realize they're the heroes of the universe, but villains need some character development too--especially those who have such strong familial ties to the Avengers.  Perhaps if the MCU wasn't built in such a way that tied all of the plotlines together into a central arc (i.e. fighting Thanos as the big bad) it would be easier to exclude Loki from the narrative but since that's not the case, it would look silly to make him suddenly disappear.  After all, Loki was working for Thanos against the Avengers.

Edited November 1, 2016 by NumberCruncher

[GHScorpiosRule]

I also forgot to add, that it wasn't just in Thor II that Loki had gravitas. Even from the first movie, I never got the sense there was this jealousy/envy seething inside him toward Thor, who was, pretty much an arrogant obnoxious jerk.

All I knew of Loki before this movie was that he was a trickster and he was fugly looking compared to Thor (I'm speaking of 'toons here, and that horrid horrid version of Thor in that tv Hulk movie doesn't count) so it was a pleasant surprise to see a more serious Loki, if you will. And the credit for Loki not being a moustache twirling, jester like villain goes to Tom Hiddleston as far as I'm concerned. The fact that I find him utterly charming and sexy (Definitely an Unpopular Opnion!) is beside the point.