#mobius identity theory

[okilokiwithpurpose]

Mobius' identity theories masterpost

(Note that i have yet to see any episode from s2 so I have no idea if any of this could even remotely apply at all now ^^)

the jet-ski seller

a FBI agent who investigated the D. B. Cooper case

Cowboy/Bounty hunter

Asgardian Mobius

Confectioner/Baker

Mobius is a robot!

Mobius was living in New York in 2012

some dude living in Tønsberg circa 965 A.D.

the racing driver

Mr. Tesseract

the Space Stone

a fighter in the Multiversal War

Private Investigator

a citizen of Sakaar

Jotun Mobius

Child of Thanos

the station master

Sorcerer Supreme

an ordinary life with an ordinary job

the TVA

[mischief-lies-and-stories]

Wait a HOT SECOND

So in episode 3, when Renslayer enters 1868 Chicago but before she changes the course of history, the caption for the year and place denotes Sacred Timeline. As soon as Loki and Mobius transition 25 years into the future to the World's Fair, a future in which Timely has had the Guidebook to allow him to construct the Loom, the caption changes to say Branched Timeline.

But in episode 5, everywhere the members of the group are in time, the caption says Branched Timeline, before Loki even makes contact. What the fuck does that mean? Either it means they've been sent back after their Nexus Events (or whenever the TVA/He Who Remains picked them up to recruit them) would have taken place, OR

Or those aren't their real pasts.

[percheduphere]

LET'S TALK ABOUT MOBIUS'S HEAVY KEYS

I wrote a meta on S1 Mobius here, mostly exploring his interrogation persona and emotional trajectory toward S1E6. I also have a fun little list on all the things I love about him here.

@mitromana posted about how we should talk about Mobius's sass and even cruelty more. @wowwwmobius posted how Mobius realistically would not be doing well post-S2E6 (I wholeheartedly agree), and they and @inwantofamuse shared amazing comments. All of this inspired this meta.

Thank you @mitromana @wowwwmobius @inwantofamuse!

Mobius's interrogation scenes are him at his most cruel and ruthless. The flipside of being a highly empathetic person is that it is very VERY easy to use this skill in highly abusive, cunning, and powerful ways. This is especially true if the person armed with this skill is exceptionally intelligent and is convinced their motivations are good. At the TVA, before Loki's exposure of the truth, Mobius is both of these things. Worse, he has access to the TVA's more ethically unconscionable technology, which he does not hesitate to use.

The road to evil is paved with good intentions. Mobius strolls onto this road more than once, but he manages to not stay on it because two people curb this risk: Loki and, yes, Sylvie.

Take in Loki's words and posture in this scene. The words alone are a frail and weak comeback for a silver-tongue God of lies. They do nothing but reveal Loki is in FACT scared. His arms are crossed tightly over his abdomen, a primal protective response. He's leaned as far away from Mobius as possible. This is the best Loki can come up with in the face of a boring man in a boring suit, really?

You can see why Mobius was moved into the position of Analyst from Hunter. He may not be able to prune children, but he can literally bring a God like Loki to the ground, breathless, confused, and frightened, with nothing more than WORDS. And this is with a variant Mobius likes. Imagine what he can do to a variant he hates.

For HWR and Ravonna's purposes, Mobius is the perfect weapon to get whatever they want out of whatever variant they capture before sending them off to get pruned. How do they keep him from questioning anything?

Memory-wiping (more than once), brainwashing, propaganda, and:

A little something for Mobius's identity, something that fulfills his intrinsic need to take care of others while also gently stroking his ego.

Yes, the genocide of multiple timelines over the span of eons is horrifying. But Mobius is capable of being complicit with it as long as his environment feeds his intrinsic psychological and emotional needs. The people on the Sacred Timeline become his new children, and he will do anything ANYTHING to protect them.

There was one thing HWR and Ravonna didn't anticipate: that this man's empathy for a specific Loki would be the very thing that liberates the multiverse and his own bondage from a corrupt bureaucracy.

However...

I don't believe Mobius ever anticipated becoming emotionally compromised when he advocated on Loki's behalf. He likely genuinely believed that after centuries of studying Loki, he knew him well enough to make him useful for the TVA. But the subconscious, oh. That is a different story, and in Loki's own words, Mobius has a gift for lying to himself.

I discuss the interrogation scene and Sif loop scene in depth here, so I won't repeat myself, but I'd like to draw our attention to the 2 gifs below, framing my analysis:

Imagine where Mobius's mind must be at:

I spent centuries studying you and believing in you. I waited more centuries for your nexus event to come. I tasked every hunter to inform me of your arrival immediately, no matter what I was doing, no matter where I was. I abandoned a case. I ran to your trial. I put my job, reputation, and eons-long friendship with Ravonna on the line. I tested your theory. I brought you with me on the field. You talked to me. You challenged me. You made me proud. You made me laugh.

I gave you daggers and you stabbed me. You STABBED me. When all I wanted to give you was--

Mobius cracked hard and fast. Applaud Owen Wilson for THIS interpretation of the script and THIS delivery.

Thankfully, the very person who put Mobius in this fragile state of mind is also the person Mobius deeply wants to believe in. Even after being betrayed, Mobius still wants to believe in Loki and his capacity to be a wonderful person. And so he looks at Ravonna's TemPad, decides Loki deserves to be with whoever he wants to be with (even if that person will never be Mobius himself), frees Loki to help him save the woman he loves, and gets pruned for it.

Mobius survives thanks to plot-armor. And who is the first person he meets?

The bane of his existence.

And Sylvie wastes no time driving a knife into a very fresh wound. Mobius, however, only recently unleashed all his rage. His reservoir for compartamentalizing has refreshed, so he can take Sylvie's truth bravely, without a flinch, and acknowledge that truth with one of his own.

Mobius owns it. He doesn't deny it. He tacitly agrees with her and gives her a reason why.

We should remember how dangerous Mobius can be. He is currently sitting in a car with the variant he is most likely to hate. Sylvie is strong, clever, and resilient, but her ability to regulate her emotions is weak, especially if she is triggered. Mobius can destroy her very easily with his words.

But Mobius can't hate her. He can't. She was right and he was wrong, but most importantly Loki loves her.

He won't hurt the person Loki loves most. No. He will take her to him instead. He can stomach the pain, the disappointment. He's good at that. Loki's well-being, his happiness, comes first.

In fact, Mobius stomachs Sylvie's knife twists a second time and chooses not to defend himself. I don't doubt a large part of him agrees with her. Nevertheless, he can't help but hope Loki might stand up for him in that moment. He tries, and fails, to make light of it by rolling his eyes and turning to his friend. When Loki leaves him not explaining why, his true feelings about this interaction surfaces on his face.

Aren't you going to say anything?

The saddest thing is that this is the LAST intimate moment THIS Mobius has with Loki before Loki crosses the gangway and never returns. This is it. This is what he's left with: the thought Loki didn't care enough to defend him and Loki leaving.

HE doesn't get to hear that he's just trying to see in the dark and is doing everything he can to keep the surviving timelines alive. SYLVIE does.

HE doesn't get to hear Loki tell him he saved his life. DON does.

HE doesn't get the final goodbye and "thank you, Mobius", his PAST SELF does. And if Mobius happens to remember this moment in the present, he will know that he was the one who propelled Loki to bear this massive burden ALONE.

My worry for Mobius post-S2E6 is that he is more than talented at ignoring his own needs and addressing his own problems. He is infinitely better--a master, even--at taking care of anyone else. It's a devastating flaw, but it comes from a very raw place:

His heart, his soul, will always remember being a single parent.

Being a parent at all is hard to begin with. There are only so many hours in a day, and the majority of it is devoted to putting someone else's needs before your own. Being a single parent is even harder. You might have a few people to help you, but ultimately, there's no partner to share every high and low intimately. To be a single parent of not one but TWO children?

Game over.

Some viewers have interpreted Don ignoring his sons' phone calls at work as negligent. Honestly, I don't think that's the case. He will call them back. Don is Mobius and Mobius is Don. He will take care of them. But refusing every beck and call at work is the only personal boundary he has. He cannot have many boundaries for himself at home or anywhere else. He has to decline not one but two calls for his own sanity. Nevermind that he works Monday through Saturday, nine to five, to make enough money to keep them healthy and happy. Where is the break? There is none. This is Don's glorious purpose.

Mobius leaving the TVA is understandable for two crucial reasons: One, it is a reminder of all his horrifying acts and complicity. Two, it is a reminder Loki is no longer there. But by leaving the TVA, Mobius separates himself from his only support system. That's not good. That is decidely unhealthy. The fact that it doesn't cross B-15, Casey, or OB's minds that this is a very bad idea tells you everything you need to know about the number of genuinely close friends Mobius has.

Mobius has two. He walked away from one to be with the second, and the second walked away from him, too. TWICE.

But he still loves him anyway.

When you take a man like this and take away everything that's kept him functional: the TVA, Ravonna, Loki, and then show him a content life in which he cannot even be with his own children because another version of him already exists, what do you think will happen to him given we've seen how violently Mobius can snap?

And guess what: only one person has ever seen Mobius snap on more than one occasion. Only one person understands the triggers and how to handle them. I'll give you three guesses as to who it is.

Mobius "has a happy ending" is absolute bullshit. He is at risk.

[demonicseries]

in my personal headcanon, before being taken to the tva, mobius was a mathematician who specialized in chaos theory. That's why he studies Lokis at the tva, and has the name mobius (named after the 1800's mathematician August Mobius who invented the mobius strip. He worked in analytic geometry and topology AKA analyzing multiple dimensions including time. This represents his new job here, since he is studying "chaos" from his new identity of a time analyst.)

[almostyours]

random question but for a group that is considered an angel group theres a lack of angel imagery in the graphics and blog and knowing you i am sure there’s a reason for that????? 🎤

LMAOOOOOO KNOWING ME?!  😭😭😭  ok.  but ur right.  i actually do have a reason but i’ve never said anything about it because that’s lore territory and i’ve always wanted to do something “fun” to talk about those silly theories.  but with the way i’m moving…  ok.  u didn’t ask for this but i will do a little lore dump on the reason why i don’t really include angel visuals to their content with a tldr because before i am an human i'm a yapper!

in their world,  the mobius,  there’s an otherworldly god i call "i"—  though sometimes i call them "mother" or "father" as well,  since,  really,  they’re only a concept.  and,  in a way,  "i" could even be u. 

“i” is beyond mortal understanding,  something like a biblically accurate angel that no one is worthy to look upon.  a literal god of whom no one shall make a carved image.  their vision when creating the mobius was to make a “perfect world,”  free of sin and disobedience,  where angels and disciples would serve them and their word alone.  to do this,  “i” created three angels from the heart of nature,  because whatever came from mother nature itself would surely obey them,  right?  but there was one rule in “i’s” book:  noooooooo one could ever resemble the likeness or idea of “i.”  because if their angels inspired the same awe or dread "i" provided,  how could they ever spread their message?

so,  these angels were made to radiate kindness,  each a vessel of their season,  born to share “i’s” teachings without stirring fear.  they’re almost like concepts themselves:  a glimpse of what they might be,  but always held back by “i’s” rules and doctrine.  basically,  they were created solely to serve.  (not trying to be funny here lmaoooooooooo).  in their gentle,  human-like forms,  the sillies are the perfect reflections of “i’s” ideals,  inspiring trust rather than dread to those they cross paths with.  

yet,  after the aengel of the season project,  they saw how “i” had limited them as angels,  as “humans,”  as individuals because they didn’t even have the right to think on their own without consequences.  they were even bothered by the fact that “i” didn’t fully respect mother nature by allowing their disciples to slowly destroy her.  this realization sparked anger toward their god,  their roles,  and even their own identities because who the fuck am i?  eventually,  they understood that they were as close to god as anything could be as they were created by "i" and their own creation,  so why serve when they are their own person slash actual angel?   🤭  now,  with “i’s” gift,  aka their serene,  human-like forms as they don’t portray themselves as the biblically angels they actually are,  they quietly but definitely defy “i’s” words by sharing their own doctrines of self-love,  self-expression,  and self-respect.  :)  

TLDR.  their human forms are simply “vessels” to gain people’s trust,  as they’re actually biblically accurate angels  :)  because how can they share their own doctrine and encourage mmmmmmm individuality?  uniqueness?  if everyone is screaming and kicking their feet while they’re going plsssssss do not be afraid  D:  their aura alone is angelic enough,  aka the main reason angel imagery isn’t present enough in the blog  :) 

[thepickupartist]

Loki is MCU Jesus and was by himself during all season 2

1 theory: HWR created his tempad from Loki's crown, i.e. he rulled everything not only with his technology, but with stolen piece of magic. However, being human, HWR could not really live in the world beyond time. He didn't remember the repetitive dialogues with Loki while Loki did. And he needed Loki to create a crown and sit on the throne so that this time loop would lead HWR to moment, when he steals a piece of Loki's crown again and become HWR. But his plan was doomed to failure, because Loki is the true owner of this magic. HWR didn't create time slipping of Loki, he lied. If HWR could create time slipping for someone, he would do it for himself. However, he couldn't. This was Loki's natural inner power. Loki is kind of Jesus who makes a redemptive sacrifice for the sake of all mankind. He grew up without fully realizing his essence and purpose, so his powers were not revealed untill the right time. And when he understood what kind of god he needs to be, he was able to do what only God with a capital letter can do. All questions about Loki paradox are now identical to questions about paradox of Jesus. And answers are the same. By the way, some believe that Loki's name came from λόγος ( lógos, "word", a name or title of Jesus, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"), and his very image was inspired by Jesus, who was alien to Scandinavian paganism at that time, so they interpreted this image their own way. I'm talking about this from literature and mythological perspective, so don't be mad, if you religious. I'm just talking about inspiration for this Loki. We know that Loki is Jötunn, frost giant (the first inhabitants of the world, in time preceding the gods and people). Ymir was the first living being, a frost giant, from which the world was created (from meat — dry land, from blood — water, from bones — mountains, from teeth — rocks, from hair — forest, from brain — clouds, from skull — the vault of heaven. Each of the four corners of the firmament of the new gods rolled in the shape of a horn. Auðumbla — is a primeval cow, that appeared from the melting ice at the beginning of time together with the first giant Ymir (who fed from her milk), and over the course of three days she licked away the salty rime rocks and revealed Búri, grandfather of the gods. In deleted scene form 2011 movie Thor calls Loki cow. So now we have that Loki is frost giant and god at the same time and his crown is symbol of life and creaton of the world.

On this screen you can see that after dialog with Mobius Loki was already surrounded by dead timelines (not just when he destroyed the loom) and it seems Loki vanished Mobius by his will at that particular moment. I think he was there the whole season 2, just didn't realise it. When Sylvie killed HWR in season 1, all timelines died too, but not this Loki, because he has glorious purpose (Atoning sacrifice, payment for the mankind, power to provide hope).

2 theory: timelines began to die for the reason that HWR warned Loki (multiverse war would begin in which no one would survive). Seeing confirmation of this prediction after destruction of the loom, Loki begins to feed timelines with his magic (which, unlike the loom's rings, is infinite), thereby serving as a multiverse artificial ventilation of the lungs. Loki keeps multiverse alive, giving TVA and everyone else a chance to win instead of die trying to fight for free will. The branches of the Yggdrasil are purple (the color of Kang, there is a war in the "future"), and the trunk is green (the color of Loki, which provides artificial ventilation). Thus, Loki needs to keep the multiverse alive until TVA and Avengers defeat Kangs at the top of the purple branches before timelines finish mutual destruction. When Avengers succeed, Loki will retire because multiverse will be able to breathe on its own.

[a-boat-on-the-sea]

** Loki spoilers, or at least Loki theories **

Mobius welcomed Loki and gave him a job and a new home in the TVA. McDonalds Jack welcomed Loki variant Sylvie and gave her a job and a home in 1982 McDonalds.

Mobius’ ‘real’ identity on the timeline is McDonalds Jack, and Loki variants need to befriend Mobius variants, otherwise something bad happens?

Or Sylvie’s actions are what caused variant McDonalds Jack to be kidnapped by the TVA and become Mobius in the first place? (I have no understanding of how time works in this show, so probably not, but it would be clever/tragic).

On that note, are actors Owen Cunningham Wilson (Mobius) and Jack Cunningham-Nuttall (McDonald’s employee Jack) related? Because Jack looks exactly like a young Owen Wilson (his actor headshots even have the hair).

[valkyrieandstrangeridingaragorn]

The Loki series genderfluid discussion has me wondering - Is Loki genderfluid because they can shapeshift or is that just their personal gender identity?

I’m a non-binary AFAB person and I can’t just change my appearance to suit my gender. Loki can but that’s not explored at all in the MCU.

Also, is the shapeshifting an ability that Loki was born with (not sure how that would work with him being a frost giant unless I’m ignorant) or is this a spell that he has learnt from Frigga?

It would be nice if it was something he was born with so it’s part of his gender identity, as a non binary person it would be nice to see them and think “Oh, he was born different like me!” Rather than just a spell they acquired.

If it is a spell, it could explain Sylvie not having the same identity in theory. Maybe she didn’t learn the spell like Loki did?

Idk if I’m making sense, also if this is a topic you would rather avoid please feel free just to delete my ask - I won’t take it personally :)

I'm happy to discuss any and all topics so, I love your ask! 😉

To be honest with you I don't think they actually had any interest in truly developing that part of Loki. They shared a teaser video a few days prior to release because they wanted the headlines and the hype -- but when push came to shove that genderfluidity was swept under the rug.

It is super canon in the comics...

... they are the ones doing the actual representation here. But the MCU? They want the hype without any effort. They just wrote Sex=Fluid and then gave interviews like these...

... with Herron saying they just wanted to "acknowledge" it, which basically translates into "we wrote it on a paper, what else do you want?!".

So it's all up to interpretation as she says. I would personally ignore that godawful scene of "oh no, a female variant, how terrifying!" and assume Loki is in fact genderfluid the way we understand it here. Not a spell, not something that is external to him but quite simply that's who he is. As you say, if it was a spell then whoever learns how to shapeshift would be considered genderfluid but I feel like that would be slightly... insulting? Dunno, I'm not an expert.

As for Sylvie, it's even more confusing because Marvel just can't seem to make up their minds: either the variants are the exact same as the OG characters or they're not. All Spideys were the same, all Stranges are the same, but when it comes to Loki and Sylvie they're different? Mobius showed a bunch of variants in ep2 and he says: "no two are alike, slight differences in appearances and different powers"... so does that extend to his genderfluidity or his bisexuality? We don't know, they didn't explain it.

So, in short: it's up to us. And since we know better than these terrible directors and writers, I say... what the hell. Loki is super bi and super genderfluid and that's something innate in him because that's who he is. Disney+ be damned.

[piepeloe]

Loki S2E5

Ok, that was pretty excellent!

Things I loved:

It looked amazing, that scene in the record store alone was fantastic. Oh, and the empty TVA!

There was great, realistic, character stuff, especially for Loki.

It was nice to spend some time with all the characters in their timelines, more than just a glimpse from afar.

'Mobius is my space name'

Things I didn't like

It got a tad bit melodramatic at the end, with the grasping at the time spaghetti?

I missed our characters, and the interactions we know and love. I hope we get more of them next week, since it's the last ep.

A Concern:

I was pretty sure that none of the theories regarding Mobius' timeline identity would be true, and it does seem like he's just a regular single dad with a pair of bratty kids, obsessed with jet skis. But... I do think he'll be the key to it all and it won't be pretty. Maybe he won't die, but Loki will have to stop him from ever 'joining' the TVA? That would be painful, so definitely a possibility.

[boredtechnologist]

"The Caligula Effect Overdose" for the Nintendo Switch, a psychological role-playing game, immerses players in a dystopian world known as Mobius, where individuals seek refuge from the harsh realities of life. The game delves into themes of identity, social alienation, and the effects of modern societal pressures, providing a rich framework for a sociological analysis. By drawing on the insights of sociologists such as Erving Goffman, Michel Foucault, and Anthony Giddens, this analysis explores how the game's mechanics and narrative reflect contemporary societal issues and their impact on individual agency and collective identity.

The setting of "The Caligula Effect Overdose" mirrors the existential and societal pressures that characterize modern life, reflecting themes of escape, alienation, and social control. The game's premise, where individuals retreat into Mobius to escape their real-world problems, echoes sociological theories on societal dissatisfaction and the quest for identity in a fragmented world. This premise sets the stage for a deeper exploration of sociological themes through the lens of various theorists.

Transitioning from the societal context to individual identity, Erving Goffman’s theory of dramaturgy offers a lens through which to view the game’s portrayal of social interactions. Goffman argued that individuals present themselves in different ways depending on the social situation, likening these presentations to theatrical performances. In "The Caligula Effect Overdose," characters take on new personas within Mobius, reflecting the performative nature of social roles. This duality between real-world identity and Mobius personas highlights the fluidity of identity in modern society, emphasizing the tension between authenticity and social performance.

Building upon Goffman's analysis, Michel Foucault’s exploration of power dynamics provides another layer to the game’s narrative. Foucault argued that modern societies are governed by structures of control that shape individual behavior. In "The Caligula Effect Overdose," the game's antagonist, μ (pronounced Mu), represents these structures, as she controls and manipulates Mobius’s inhabitants to maintain the illusion of a utopian society. This dynamic mirrors Foucault’s concept of biopower, where governing entities regulate and manage populations, revealing the ways in which societal structures can dictate individual agency and contribute to a sense of alienation.

Anthony Giddens’ theory of modernity and reflexivity offers a concluding perspective on the societal themes explored in "The Caligula Effect Overdose." Giddens argued that modern societies are characterized by reflexivity, where individuals continuously monitor and revise their actions based on changing societal norms and expectations. In the game, characters navigate a complex web of societal pressures, balancing their desires to conform with their personal goals. This dynamic reflects the reflexive nature of modern identity, highlighting the constant negotiation between societal expectations and individual agency.

To conclude, "The Caligula Effect Overdose" offers more than just a role-playing experience; it presents a profound sociological narrative that reflects the complexities of modern identity, societal structures, and the effects of societal pressures. By exploring the perspectives of Goffman, Foucault, and Giddens, the game’s narrative and mechanics emerge as a commentary on the fluidity of identity, the pervasive influence of societal norms, and the ongoing negotiation between individual agency and collective expectations. This analysis not only deepens our understanding of the game's narrative but also invites reflection on the broader sociological issues shaping modern life.

[whyohwhydoris]

Man oh man, there is just so much that is wrong with this.

Let's start with a little basic multiverse theory: If every conceivable universe could exist, then, by definition, all possible cross-universe relationships are "selfcest". Which is a fancy word you've made up for "ew, I don't like it and I need to articulate a reason to hate it because of a faux obsession with modern concepts of rationality, which I am blindly applying to art as if there was any sense of objective truth in art."

But, you ask, how so? Well, if there is an infinite envelope of possibility, then, by definition, there is a universe in which Loki is Mobius, and a universe in which Mobius is Loki. It's really rudimentary.

"Ah ha!" I hear you say, about to postulate about how our Mobius isn't a Loki and vice-versa! Doesn't matter. If the argument is that "any degree of life-path congruence across an arbitrary separation of universes is selfcest" - and that is your argument: That Loki and Sylvie is wrong because - despite existing in two separate universes, manifesting different skills and appearances, and having quantifiably different lives - they both share a similar enough life, then the reasonable extension of that is that all people are the same across the multiverse and that individuality is an illusion imposed by our limitations as inhabitants of a single one of those universes. We know that all persons in the TVA are variants, and that variant timelines are culled when discovered. This mean that Mobius and Loki are from different universes, and because we know over an infinite number of potentialities Mobius is Loki, Lokius is selfcest.

But, I've got more for you. It actually does matter that Loki and Sylvie engage in a bi-for-bi relationship which is not same-sex presenting. Research shows that Bisexual people, despite being a larger share of the population than their homosexual comrades, also face the greater prejudice within the queer community. And that hostility and hatred is often focused precisely on the fact that different-gender relations within the context of a Bi relationship are still inherently queer.

In the context of shipping and fandom, there has long been an obsession with homosexual romance. This stems from the historical and continuing under-representation of queer characters, but in recent decades has morphed into a decidedly fetishistic strain as well, with a Bi-phobic character where openly and explicitly Bi characters are involved. A Bi character is treated as insufficiently queer if not placed into a performatively queer relationship. And the assertion that someone must be shown with "both" a man and a woman to be Bi is equally Biphobic, as it erases Bi experiences in which sexual attraction is present to multiple genders and expression, but where relationships have not been as diverse. This creates the false notion that one must not just be attracted to but also engage with multiple genders in order to be Bi, and represents the broader queer community doing what it normally does, which is to thoughtlessly perpetuate Biphobic standards in media and discourse while excluding Bi persons from queer spaces for "insufficient" queerness.

As a Bi person, let me put it this way: Keep your shit out of my sexuality. Bisexuality is big, and it's complicated, and sitting there and calling what is intrinsically an expression of Bi identity "part of the problem" is Biphobic.

You want to ship Lokius? Do that. You want to say "most people don't want to see Sylkie happen"? To bad, because it is literally the text of the fucking show. But don't try to dog-whistle my sexuality to cover for the fact you don't like something. And, if it happens to be your sexuality too? I don't care. You can express a Bisexual Loki in love with Mobius all you want without policing what Bisexuality is and has been since before either of us was born. I'm not going to stand for it. Too many people get fucked up in this world because all they're fed are lies and misconceptions, and I'm not going to see a single Bi person out-there get gaslit into thinking they are less queer or less worthy because their life didn't check a pretty little box. The fact that Loki and Sylvie are Bi is Bisexual representation, and Bisexual people do not need to justify their place in queer spaces by being performatively homosexual. You want to say "people have a right to feel disappointed"? I have a right to feel offended when authentic bisexuality is discarded because it isn't pretty enough for people.

I remember seeing this one post that was like "erm you guys can't ship Lokius, there's no evidence they like each other, that's biphobic, you only want to see Loki get with a man" like what??

First off, who cares if they "canonically" love each other or not, there are ships built off of characters who never interact, I doubt them not expressing their feelings on screen really matters compared to this

Second, Lokius is not a biphobic ship nor are the people who ship it are. There definitely ARE weird people who want to only see Loki get with a man, but the majority just don't want Sylki to happen

Bc. You know. Sylki is selfcest

(And a very toxic relationship at that but I'm not getting into that rn)

Also is it bad that many people wanted Loki to show attraction to men as well? Throughout the whole series, Loki only shows attraction to women; ofc that doesn't make her invalid as a bisexual person, but to claim that bi rep was so important to you yet the only characters they are shown to romantically like are women is part of the problem

And then to justify your lack of bi rep by going "look both of these characters are bi, it's bi rep", knowing full well it is a very straight-passing relationship just adds to it

Again, Loki and Sylvie are in a bisexual relationship; them being straight-passing is not the issue, the issue is that they use the fact that both of them are bi to justify the lack of bisexual representation in the Loki series. People have a right to feel disappointed that they didn't feel represented when creators claimed they would, and to go off and say that they should've been is not the way to go about it

Just let Lokius be, y'all, it's not the end of the world, it's not biphobic, calm down

[okilokiwithpurpose]

Mobius' identity theory 11

On with my 20 days of pre-TVA Mobius’ identity theories event!

[Edit: previous - next | Masterpost]

Day 11: the Space Stone

Told you they'd be some crazy theories, well, here is one!

This time, I'm not talking of Mobius succumbing to the power of the Tesseract like "Mister Tesseract" was all about, but about Mobius being - or at least being made of - the Tesseract, or more so, of the Space Stone.

I'm basing this one on the controversial theory that infinity stones have a mind of their own. In this case, not only would the stone have a mind, but it would also possess a humanoid form and therefore a higher degree of autonomy, as well as a name: Mobius Mobius Mobius (and, well, a Mobius strip happens to be a common symbol of Infinity, a one-sided surface you can loop on indefinitely).

Either a synthetic being à la Vision, a former human that somehow "fusioned" with the stone to become something new, or a stone that "choose" to take a human shape, Mobius' identity would be indissociable to the stone composing him.

Would this have been considered an act of transgression in and of itself by the TVA? Or did he commit another crime against the Sacred Timeline? Anyway, he ended up being arrested, brainwashed, and "put to good use".

Yes, I know that Infinity Stones loose all power within the walls of the TVA, where they are used as paperweight. But it doesn't mean their personalities "dissipate", should they have one. And if Loki doesn't automatically transform back into a Frost Giant when he enters it, I don't see why Mobius' couldn't keep his appearance as well, even if the stone's energy was initially used to acquire it! As for when he goes on the field, sure, he never seems to manifest any extra-human abilities, but how could unleash a power he cannot remember ever possessing? (Also, and yes, this is absolutely me fangirling, but can you imagine the moment he does for the first time before a very confused - and very impressed - Loki??!)

Finally, of all the Infinity Stones, which could have suited Mobius better than the Space one? I know I'm at it again but the angst potential of a Mobius discovering his origins and unable to stop himself from wondering if he and Loki ever got close because Loki, who has a history of reaching for the Tesseract, has been unconsciously drawn to him by his Stone powers... (the answer is no!!!)

[mischief-lies-and-stories]

Loki Series Theories 4/?

My last few theories are shorter, so I’m including the rest of them on this post. I imagine I’ll come up with more theories as season two gets closer and probably as season two is airing, so this probably won’t be my last theory post. 

Theory: Loki doesn’t (always/usually) shape-shift when changing genders

So, listen. I love fan-casting Katie McGrath to play fem-day Loki as much as the next person. Probably more than the next person, because I’m horny as fuck for Katie McGrath. But Tom Hiddleston’s already been cast as Loki, and if we cast another person to play Loki, those implications of genderfluid representation aren’t fantastic. It paints the wrong picture at the very least, and I don’t like that.

And the other thing is, I can’t shape-shift, as much as I would love to. I would love a free top surgery, but I can’t. So, I don’t really need him to shape-shift. Because the thing is, being able to shape-shift does not mean you’re genderfluid, and being genderfluid does not mean you’re able to shape-shift. And shape-shifting is not the end-all be-all of gender representation. Loki should just be able to say, “I’m non-binary today,” and have people be able to use they/them pronouns. He shouldn’t have to be like, “Here are my boobs now, I’m a girl.” Just, let them live. 

And I think Tom Hiddleston would do a good job playing a genderfluid character. It’s a shame we could not have cast a genderfluid actor (as far as I know) to play a genderfluid character, but Loki wasn’t a genderfluid character in the MCU at the time we cast Tom Hiddleston. He was in the comics, but not in the MCU. (Cuz the MCU sucks.)

So he doesn’t have to shape-shift. It’s okay. (But casting Katie McGrath as somebody else is okay. She’s preeeeettttty.)

Canon Likelihood: Loki doesn’t usually shape-shift to express gender.......Likely.

Primarily because the writers don’t understand what the fuck genderfluid means. They haven’t used it. I don’t think Loki’s even shifted to impersonate a woman before. So I think it’s likely that he doesn’t shape-shift to express his gender, because he doesn’t. Because he’s not genderfluid in the MCU, because the MCU is a piece of shit and doesn’t understand what genderfluid means. He’s not genderfluid representation in the MCU. 

Theory: Sylvie is a transwoman.

I’ve already said this in my pinned post. This is not a theory, this is not a head canon. She is a transwoman. Moving on. 

Canon Likelihood: Sylvie is a transwoman.......Not a theory. 

Is it canon? Yes. I don’t give a shit what they say. It’s canon. I don’t care. I disregard your reality and substitute my own. She’s a transwoman. Fuck off. 

Theory: Who is Mobius’s “favorite”?

So people are wondering (and by ‘people’, I mean me) who Mobius was talking to when he hugs Loki but looks at Sylvie and says “You’re my favorite.” Who are you talking to, Mobius?? “You’re” could mean either of them! “You’re” is not a gender-specific pronoun. 

I want him to mean Loki. I get it if he means Sylvie. She’s my favorite, too, she can do no wrong, she’s perfect. But I want to know who he meant.

So here’s what I think: I think they cut a conversation between Mobius and Sylvie in the car. I think Marvel’s a fuck, and they deleted a scene that was very important to this situation and they didn’t care that they cut it and that it doesn’t make any sense now. I don’t know what they said in the car, and I don’t know why. But I think, when he says “You’re my favorite,” he’s talking to Loki, even though he’s looking at Sylvie. He’s looking at Sylvie, because he’s referencing something they were talking about in the car, presumably something about Loki. But he’s talking to Loki.

Because we didn’t get enough of him and Sylvie. I don’t think we even saw a shot of them in the car together. (Is that when they talk about the TVA? That was still too short if they did that in the car, but I don’t remember when that was.) What happened while they were in the car? Did they just sit in silence? No! It’s Mobius and Sylvie! It’s the person Loki likes and the person who likes Loki, like of course, they’re going to talk about Loki! And, on top of that, it’s the cop and the person he was trying to arrest! Like, they’re going to talk about something! Why didn’t we get to see it?

Canon Likelihood: Marvel cut a conversation in the car.......Complicated.

Can you say if something is likely or unlikely to be true in canon if it was a deleted scene? I think it’s Likely that it was a deleted scene. I think it’s Unlikely we’re ever gonna see anything referencing it. We might, if they catch this. We might get a reference later on if Loki gets jealous that he thinks Mobius said that Sylvie was his favorite. And then maybe Mobius will be like, “I was talking to you!” Like a confession scene, maybe. 

[whatthepaagal]

✨ LOKI SPOILERS ✨

look, it's VERY in character for loki to fall in love with himself HOWEVER the way it was executed in the show just felt very off and forced to me

for starters, the head writer, michael waldron, stated in an interview with marvel.com that "in a series that ... is ultimately about self-love, self-reflection, and forgiving yourself, it just felt right that that would be loki's first real love story."

basically this romantic relationship between loki and sylvie is to be a show of how loki is finally accepting and loving himself, which by all means, is absolutely beautiful BUT i would like to share why i personally have a problem with it

first of all, loki's entire story has been about familial and platonic relationships. there's no reason that loki learning how to love himself has to be embodied by a romantic relationship with a version of himself. actually, i would argue that it would be more beneficial for sylvie and loki to have a familial relationship to provide loki with the love he had missed out on in his life.

second, it's a little frustrating that because of this relationship, sylvie has essentially become a plot device to further loki's own character development. a female character was introduced in order to advance the story of the main male character through a romantic relationship. this trope is not only overused in hollywood, but it's also a disservice to female characters in general bc it basically renders them irrelevant to the plot. furthermore, if the relationship truly had to be romantic for loki, why couldn't the love interest be a variant that identifies as male or non binary or just something other than female. loki is canonically a gender fluid bisexual character, there was absolutely no need for sylvie to be the romantic interest.

it also kind of, idk if this is just me, but it just feels kind of disrespectful to people who are gender fluid?? in a way??

loki learning how to love himself is a beautiful concept, however this could've just been done better in my humble opinion.

[brightlotusmoon]

Indeed!

Plus, it widens the unnecessary divide between those arbitrary function labels. For example, I'm high functioning in some aspects and low functioning in others. And I know it was neurotypical doctors who decided all of that in the first place.

Like, I have really bad association with Asperger's as a label because during the Nazi regime that guy only saved kids he diagnosed high functioning, etc, because disabled folks in general were sent to ovens or experimented on, etc etc, and I'm ethnically Jewish with cerebral palsy and ADHD and two dozen other diagnoses, so in my advocacy I don't use those labels. I prefer Identity First Language because it literally is my identity.

But I'm more concerned that Musk will spark a lot of small unneeded battles within the community about what we want to call ourselves versus what society calls us.

The founder of ABA, Ivar Lovaas called us subhuman, not full people without behavioral intervention to rid us of what makes us Autistic (and all the debates I've had with ABA therapists amounted to the same thing, being told they just try to help but they didn't realize how compliant they made the kids). ABA therapists will use dog training tools. It doesn't matter how much they love the kids, they're being trained to manipulate. @fire-fira can help confirm as an allistic who researched that training and reacted with horror.

Internalized ableism in autistics tends to lead to what I've heard is "Aspie Supremacy" and "the Autistic Dark Web" which I have stayed away from.

I know that obviously each autistic has their preference. But sometimes that can lead to dark thoughts that lead to unsettling actions, which people really will internalize.

Does any of this make sense, I hope?

Fellow Autistic Friend made this beautiful perfect thing.

Just because you're Autistic doesn't mean you can use it like an excuse to act like a self righteous annoying trash person, cough Elongated Muskrat.

[lokitvsource]

Tom Hiddleston Says He’s a ‘Temporary Torchbearer’ Playing Loki

Tom Hiddleston has said he sees himself as a “temporary torchbearer” when it comes to playing Marvel’s god of chaos.

Hiddleston made the comments in a panel discussion about Disney Plus’ original series “Loki” on Wednesday evening hosted by the Royal Television Society. Hiddleston was joined on stage in London, U.K. by his co-star Sophia Di Martino, who plays Sylvie, series writer Michael Waldron and director Kate Herron [who appeared via Zoom.]

“I’m a temporary torchbearer,” Hiddleston said of sharing the character with Di Martino as well as Richard E. Grant and an alligator — all of whom play Loki variants — in the series. “I’ve always thought that. It’s a great role. It’s an archetype, the trickster god, the agent of chaos. I’m just here interpreting that for the time being. Loki has been here for centuries and will be here for centuries more and I’m just stepping into that silhouette for now.”

His comments come as the first tranche of Marvel Cinematic Universe faces — including Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans — hang up their superhero suits following the release of “Avengers: Endgame” in 2019.

Hiddleston, who has now been playing Loki for over a decade, explained that he was drawn to making the eponymous limited series due to the show’s themes of identity and acceptance. “This idea of somehow the [Time Variance Authority] confronting Loki with the shape-shifting nature of his identity and asking him ‘Who are you?’ I found it a new avenue to explore with this character I’ve been playing for a while,” Hiddleston said. “It felt original. It didn’t feel like we were repeating.”

“Loki,” which centers around time travel, even touches on more erudite topics such as philosophy and psychology. “Michael [Waldron] and I were having breakfast a couple of years ago when [he’d] written that first pilot and found ourselves talking about psychoanalytic theory and repetition compulsion and [the question of] can you ever change?” Hiddleston recalled. “Is it possible for people to change? Even if you do will people accept that you’ve changed? Is it possible to know yourself entirely?”

“And then Owen [Wilson] came and was so forensic about examining all of that stuff, and then we realized we were in a police detective thriller. When I was cast as Loki however many years ago, I never thought this character is a detective. But he is here.”

In a wide-ranging talk, Hiddleston, Di Martino, Waldron and Herron discussed various aspects of the series, which will be returning for a second season. “You’ve got to test the fences,” Waldron, who has also written the forthcoming “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness,” said of some of the show’s wackier elements (such as the afore-mentioned Loki alligator).

“With [Marvel Studios president] Kevin Feige, you get to see how far you can go,” Waldron explained. “So you write in Sylvie soccer kicking an armadillo with a laser mounted on its back and they tell you ‘OK, that’s too much. I like the mind invasion but maybe pull back on the laser armadillo.’”

Waldron also revealed that “Loki’s” dialogue-heavy structure was “me testing the fences. That could have easily been another laser armadillo situation.”

He recalled turning in a 15-page dialogue scene between Loki and Mobius for the pilot episode with the expectation he’d eventually cut it down. “And instead the response came back, ‘Can this be longer?’” Waldron said. “And so then I got excited.”

In Waldron’s eyes, the extended dialogue made sense for the character. “One of Loki’s superpowers is his ability to talk his way out of any situation, talk his way into any situation. You want to watch Superman fly, so I wanted to watch Loki talk.”

“And so because this was a show — because we had six hours — that was the most exciting thing to me,” Waldron said. “We get to take a villain from an action movie franchise and have these dialogue-heavy scenes that feel like prestige television.”

The extended dialogues and long takes (“I love a long take,” Herron admitted) also gave the actors the sense they were acting in a theater at points. “Owen actually turned to me at one point said, ‘This feels like a play,’” Hiddleston recalled.

The scale of the show presented a challenge, however. “It was like making almost three Marvel movies just because we were filming so many hours of content at the same time,” Herron said. “I think I just didn’t think about it in terms of the massive scale and just tried to tackle it day by day, just because it was such a mammoth task to get it done.”

Di Martino had recently given birth when she embarked on the shoot, which required her to relocate (with her family) across the Atlantic, so she said it took some time to grapple with the enormity of the job. “There was a lot going on,” said Di Martino. “I think I didn’t really come to terms with it. I just sort of ignored it for as long as possible and just treated it like any other job.”

“And then there’s a moment where you’re on the stage in the studio with, you know, Gugu [Mbatha-Raw] and Tom, and we’re doing this huge fight scene,” Di Martino recalled. “And there was a moment towards the end of filming where I was like, ‘Shit. I’m doing a Marvel show.’ I think it took a while to sink in.” (Variety)