Originally Posted by
Nomads1
I like the concept of redemption (Thunderbolts, as it originally was, being one of my favorite books), and no doubt, the charismatic cinematic versions did give a lot of gravitas to it, but it really isn't something that should be done indescriminately. Chris Claremont gave us an incredible evolution and development of Magneto until he became at the very least a great anti-hero, occasionally, even a full blown version of the noblest kind. However, change in writers, in comes Scott Lobdell, and suddenly he was back to the unidemensional evil laugh Magneto version Stan Lee used to write, however, Nicieza still wrote him as a little bit more nuansced reluctant villain. Morrison made him even more irrationally evil. Than Claremont came back and he started to be good again, then he joined Scott and the X-Men, and now he seems to be on the brink again... It really challenges the suspension of belief thing.
IMHO, Loki is supposed to be, at the most, naughty, not evil. He is the trisckster god, not the god of evil, as some have labled him. I always wince a little bit when peopple write him with murderous intentions. Plus, there is always that hope that he and Thor will finally get along again (especially after Tom Hiddelston's incredibly charismatic, charming and complex version).
So, yes, I'm fine with those two finding a little bit of redemption, as I was with Crusher Creel (Absorbing Man), Cain Marko (Juggernaught) and Flint Marko/William Baker (Sandman), as long as writers/editorial decides to really stick to it, and not keep going back and forth, and I really don't want all that many villains to find their inner-hero.
Peace