Treating villains in a serious manner and as a viable threat, as any leading comic book villain should be, doesn't mean they're better than the A listers. Let me make an analogy using the aforementioned Dark Knight Rises and Bane as an example; technically Bane taking all of Gotham City hostage for 5 months is worse than what Joker did to Gotham. Does that mean Bane is a better villain than the Joker? Of course not. The Joker was a deadlier threat in a different way. He hurt Batman more personally. He killed Rachel, he forced Batman to become a fugitive, he turned all of Gotham against Batman, he destroyed Harvey Dent etc. The consequences of Joker's evil had years of effects and repercussions on Batman, Gordon, Gotham etc.
My point is just because a villain is treated as a deadly threat doesn't mean they are as good or better than the A listers.
I'd call them F list. They're villains who are so comical and who have no great stories at all lol.
Writing and story telling go hand in hand with character portrayal. It's all about how the character was written. And as someone else pointed out before Electro is the only villain out of all the Spider-Man movies (I don't count Rhino because he was nothing but a glorified cheesy cameo) who had zero effect on Spider-Man as a character. He didn't learn anything from him. He didn't affect Peter in a personal way. He was a non entity who was just brought out for a couple of flashy action scenes in between being tucked up in jail where we're tortured with god awful Dr. Kafka interactions.
Hear hear