It's historical evidence that the motives of people in power who commit genocide are not considered to be reasonable to a rational person.  And yet, you have some kind of hang up about needing a fictional character to possess a "reasonable motive" for his actions in order to be considered credible by your standards.  All you did was dodge the question of what villain has "realistic motives" to you.  

I think Loki, vulture, kilmonger, zemo and ego were very good villains. And Ultron, hela, hammer, Ronan, red skull and obadiah were decent. Ive always found the 'bad villian' critiscm for marvel film's to be a bit excessive. A lot of them arent great but most of them are pretty passable.

I didn't say that Thanos isn't a credible, simply that he fails at being a good villain in a piece of media that is supposed to provide me with entertainment. 

It's not about his motive being unrealistic, but that it is simply not needed. Darth Vader is a villain who had a need, and in going towards its accomplishment became a villain. 

If there was an actual problem in the universe, then Thanos would be a better villain, as he would come in with his solution. Instead their isn't,  and he's simply acting for a predicament that doesn't exist. 

I find Ronan good because he's a nice contrast to the guardians. He takes himself so seriously, despite all the silly shit going on around him.

I like obadiah mostly due to jeff bridges performance. Hammer was the only interesting part of iron man 2. He is a rival weapons manufacturer. Sam Rockwell elevates a fairly dull villain with a great performance.

Large populations using up resources at too rapid a rate, is a real issue. It is something that will affect us in real life. 

Entertainment is subjective.  Just because he didn't meet your specific criteria, by no means that he failed at being a "good villain".  Infinity Wars 1.6 billion and counting at the worldwide box office says that he didn't fail at all to the mass audience.  By the way, Darth Vader is a poor example.  Vader is most accepted as a great villain when he is simply introduced in Star Wars as such without motive.  His actual motives for turning to the dark side in the prequels were far less well received.

No it isn't the movie didn't show at all how it is a problem in the universe.

All it did is state that the home planet of Thanos was destroyed, and it doesn't even go into the details. 

IW wasn't a movie about two different sides, about two sides who have two different solutions to a problem, it was about a mad man and super heroes. 

That's why it's my opinion that he's a bad villain. I can acknowledge that others think otherwise. 

While i agree with what you said about the prequels, we didn't need them to feel sympathetic about DV. 

The performance in China is more impressive than I thought it would be. Frankly, I didn't expect China would ALLOW Infinity War to get the record for highest opening there, given the control they exert in this area. Perhaps it's the vested interest they have in the two Disney theme parks over there, which I think they own like 50ish percent a piece of. Infinity War is bound to be good advertisement for the Marvel attractions they surely have.

In any case, kudos to Disney for cracking China someway somehow. It should have a very real shot at the 2 billion club now, though I still suspect it may end up falling just shy.

In the film they show him slaughtering the people  of Gomorrahs home world. Which improved greatly since his genocide. It worked once so it will work on a larger scale. I assume that is the angle he is going with. 

The thing is creating more resources might cause problems As well, where do they go, does he have to create more planets for them. Cutting the population in half will solve a lot of problems, adding more stuff will likely lead to more issues.