^ I'm fairly sure thatThe G-Man knew that; I suspect that he was trying to point out that audiences were willing to accept a villain with that sort of look.
Exactly. Movie audiences don't always insist that science fiction and superheroes be "more real." That's just one approach. Heck, nobody seemed to mind that the climax of THOR featured a thunder god flying up to a rainbow bridge--or that the villains were a sorcerous Norse god and a bunch of Frost Giants.
If Loki (and the Red Skull) worked, why not the real Dr. Doom?
Ian: Just saw your post. To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "low-key" or "more real." The Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, the Harry Potter movies, and Thor all seem pretty out there to me. Sure, they toned down Stan Lee's mock-Elizabethan dialogue a little bit, but it's not like Loki was now a corrupt business tycoon or mob boss trying to take over the drug trade, or a crooked politician out to fix an election. You still had Asgardian gods, in colorful Kirby-esque costumes, fighting black magic, a giant robot, and Frost giants to save the mystical realm of Asgard.
Likewise, Doctor Octopus is still a mad scientist climbing around on buildings with his berserk robot arms. And the Green Goblin is flying around on a winged scooter wearing a bright green fright mask. If that's "more real" than the comics version, it's a pretty fine distinction. Nobody would mistake any of that for realism.
More importantly, I'm not sure why superhero films should be subject to different rules than any other sf/fantasy blockbuster. I mean, Harry Potter is still about magical kids attending a school for wizards, complete with elves, gryffins, and all manner of fantastic creatures, and nobody complains that they need to be "more real."
Why should people expect superhero movies (of all things!) to be more "realistic" than Star Wars or Transformers? Because comic books are known for their gritty contemporary realism?