#tom hiddleston has the best loki meta

[stillness-in-green]

Saw your latest ask answer and the idea the author really wanted destruction to be all shigaraki was meant for reminded me of Loki from the mcu. Spoilers if you haven’t seen the show but in the first episode a Loki from before all his character development is shown his entire life in the mcu and during that there’s a monologue from mobius about how Loki exists only to cause death destruction and suffering but he services of other people so they can become the best versions of themselves. Just was curious if you had any thoughts on how his portrayal and handling compares with shigaraki since horikoshi is such a fan of western media especially comics.

I’m afraid I can’t really weigh in on TV Loki’s presentation because I haven’t watched any of the MCU shows since the Netflix ones.  MCU Loki’s also one of those characters I resent just slightly because their runaway popularity negatively impacted the story of other characters.  (MCU Tony is the far, far worse version of this, but I remember reading that Malekith in Thor 2 had his scenes reduced to make more room for Loki.)

My impression is that their superhero intake is more DC-centric, but I wonder if @linkspooky might have any insight?

That said, I do think, “You only exist for the betterment of other people, none of whom have the slightest chance of improving you in turn,” is a pretty loathsome sentiment.  Like, there’s some leeway there when you’re talking about the narrative role of a villain in the story they occupy, and it does sound like that was meant to be a fourth-wall breaking moment that acknowledges Loki as that villain.  But it’s a vile thing to tell a real person, and therefore a vile thing to tell a character in-story, regardless of how fourth-wall breaking its intention.

It’s also a particularly odd thing to say about Loki, who I understand to be a much more sympathetic figure in the MCU than he is in the comics![1]  Like, the guy who whose father lied to him and weaponized against his original people for centuries?  The guy who was hugely traumatized by the time he spent with Thanos?  The guy who fought on Thor’s side to save Asgard from Hela, who fully supported Thor from then up until being killed by Thanos?  That Loki exists only to cause death, destruction and suffering?  #Yikes

1: This is not to say Loki is totally without redeeming value in the comics!  I haven’t read anything like enough Thor or Avengers comics to say that, and obviously the more recent Young Loki iteration (though himself influenced by the MCU, iirc?) is intended to be sympathetic.  But the baseline Marvel comic Loki I know of is the grinning dude in the bodysuit with the horned helmet and cowl that means you never see his hair, a grown man who delights in causing problems on purpose.  Not nearly as soulful as Tom Hiddleston’s version!

I guess in that sense, it does remind me somewhat of Horikoshi’s treatment of Shigaraki, in that no matter how sympathetic his backstory or what connections he’s made with others or what good he might be capable of doing in the world, he has to be treated as an existence that in the long run can only cause harm, that must only ever be opposed, because to do otherwise would be to upend the entire framework (both in-universe and meta-narrative) in which he exists.

It’s just a really cynical way of looking at a character—that they’re only there for protagonists to level grind against until they’re sufficiently heroic that the antagonist is no longer useful to that purpose, at which point they can be killed or put back away in a box until the story needs them again.  Again, that is what antagonists do in a story, ultimately—serve as a contrast/warning/foil/motivator/whatever all else for the protagonists—but (Marge voice) that doesn’t mean they have to say it.  And also too, it’s hardly the only purpose an antagonist can serve!  What about the ones who are ultimately saved/won over by the protagonist?  What about expanding on the worldbuilding in ways the protagonist might not be able to?  What about calling attention to some problem in the world that the protagonist might not otherwise have noticed?  What about propelling the plot in the traditional “villains act” fashion?  What about getting the best song numbers?

The reductive absolutism of the claim reminds me that, some years ago, I got really into Captain Marvel (the Shazam! version, not the Marvel one, no offense to Carol), but it was frustrating because the whole concept of him seemed so rich in potential stories but so limited by the needs of a serialized medium.  The stories I imagined you could tell with Captain Marvel/Billy Batson were so interesting in part because of where those stories would end, but in a medium like American cape comics, they can’t end, they’re never allowed to, not permanently.

That problem carries over to comic book villains—they’re virtually never allowed to really and truly change, nor can they ever count on being really and truly dead, and that means they do only ever serve to make other characters the best versions of themselves,[2] and the best they can hope for is spates of antihero/reformed villain happiness in between writers.

2: “Best versions of themselves” here meaning, of course, “best suited to the needs of the story”.  Do not ask yourself if e.g. Batman might better like the person he would be if the Joker were ever allowed to make a complete and total permanent recovery.

That’s not the case in manga, of course, where stories end and characters die, and the finality makes for a profoundly different medium.  The difference does not help BNHA’s case, however, because that means there’s no cynical marketing or medium-based explanation for why Shigaraki and the other Villains don’t get a more hopeful ending—only the cynical ideological one.  That is, Horikoshi is either too unimaginative to rewrite his setting’s status quo, too afraid of the reader response to try, or he honestly believes that the Villains deserve the endings they got.

The last one is the most harrowing, because it would mean he was willing to actively sabotage the development and conclusions of his story’s protagonists because punishing the antagonists was more important to him.  That is, the Heroes are forced to end up distinctly less than the best possible versions of themselves because if they weren't—if they were allowed to be the idealists their world needed them to be in order for it to truly change—then the Villains might have gotten anything less than the fullest, heaviest extent of retribution their author believed had to be levied against them.

Thanks for the ask, @9trixieturner6!

[lokittystuckinatree]

It’s my birthday, Pride is half over, and the Sylki fandom is half dead.

Here’s a useless meta proving Sylvie and Loki are closer to an Andrew Garfield vs. Tom Holland Spider-Man situation than “GeNdErBeNt SeLFcEsT”

🐍🐈‍⬛🐍🐈‍⬛🐍🐈‍⬛🐍🐈‍⬛🐍🐈‍⬛🐍🐈‍⬛

When Sylvie was introduced, all Loki variants presented so far resembled Tom Hiddleston. By episode five, we know the vast majority of Loki variants are not Tom Hiddleston clones, (like a Spider-Man, a Loki could be anybody,) so Sylvie likely isn’t his clone either. However, since they’re played by different actors, with vaguely similar facial features, it could still be argued that perhaps Loki and Sylvie are the same individual, just the “other sex.” (Insert iconic Loki eye roll). Today I’m demonstrating why that argument is stupid.

Skin ~ Loki’s skin tone is consistently cooler and paler than Sylvie’s, as demonstrated by earlier films. His skin is more neutral and saturated in the series, a decision by Tom Hiddleston to make Loki seem more alive and tangibly real. Still, his typical skin tone is best described as a creamy ghostly porcelain, whereas Sylvie’s is a light rosy beige. Sylvie has a rougher, less polished, more ‘human’ look, whereas sacred timeline Loki sometimes verges on the ethereal. These skin details suit their characters well.

Tom and Sophia filming season two

Note: Sylvie’s skin seems slightly tanned in this image, while Loki looks as deathly pale as he did in the movies. Likely a difference in lighting, but I think it does a good job showing how different the two characters can look at a glance.

Hair ~ this is the strongest argument. Loki’s natural hair color is visibly darker and deeper than Sylvie’s natural hair color. Loki’s hair is raven black, and Sylvie’s hair is dark brown. Sylvie dyes her hair a muted ash blonde.

Loki and Sylvie side by side.

This hair color difference is suspiciously intentional, and even carries over from final concept art, official merch, and their child actors. Baby Sylvie’s hair is dark ash/golden brown in better lighting. Baby Loki’s hair is always raven black.

Baby Sylki. (Look at these little squishies I want to boop their noses!)

The two variants also have noticeably different hair textures. Loki’s natural curl pattern seems messier and tighter than Sylvie’s fluffy waves, even with too much greasy hair product.

Contrast ~ Sophia and Tom’s eyes are similar shades of blue. Less is certain about the in character eye colors of Loki and Sylvie. The fandom is not in agreement whether Loki’s (and Sylvie’s) eyes are blue or green, so I tend to compromise on blue-green. Tom’s eyes appear slightly lighter than Sophia’s, so I headcanon that Loki’s eyes are lighter than Sylvie’s too. Combined with their hair and skin tone differences, Sylvie has a lower, softer, more muted contrast between her hair, skin, and eyes, compared to Loki, with their higher, clearer and more striking contrast.

Color Season Analysis ~ Going off of that, and taking this next part with a grain of salt, as I am in no way an expert on color analysis, I would guess Loki is a winter, and Sylvie is a summer. Sylvie could be a spring, but from what I’ve seen, her hair is more ashen than yellow, and it makes sense Sylvie would lean cooler then warmer since she, as a former Loki variant, is a frost giant.

Summers typically look best in sunny pastel colors, whereas Winters look best in jewel tones. Sure enough, when Loki and Sylvie venture outside their classic green, black, and gold, the costume department decided to dress Loki in deep jewel tones such as blue and purple (the guard turtleneck, some of their costumes in Ragnarok.)

Another costume department chose to put Sylvie in subtle pastels (her tie die shirt.)

Typically, cool seasons look better in silver (grey) than than gold (yellow). Coincidentally, Loki and Sylvie are both wearing gray in the pictures above. Obviously, Lokis are to gold as goths are to black. However, few people fit a color season perfectly (I’m ironically a winter in the winter and a summer in the summer,) Sylvie and Loki have fairly neutral pigmentation, and saying a Loki wouldn’t look good in gold is blasphemy.

In Summary ~ Sylki are not genderbent clones, they’re not identical twins, and though it’s near certain they don’t share much dna at all, because this is not Game of Thrones, the closest they could physically be is full siblings, and while it would be questionable, your siblings aren’t you, so it wouldn’t be selfcest.

If the multiverse was a cinematic universe, Loki and Sylvie would be two different actors playing two different adaptations of the same character by two different studios, at most. Loki and Sylvie have different personalities, different experiences, different bodies, and different lives. Honestly, they’ve lived such different lives, with Sylvie breaking away from her sacred timeline and Loki identity so young that she’s a different gender and mostly based on Sylvie Lushton, that they are possibly less the same character than any of the Spider Men variants, from Spiderverse through MCU. Likely, all the two share is a mind, heart, and soul. To me, that’s beautiful.

⚔️💚⚔️💚⚔️💚⚔️💚⚔️💚⚔️💚⚔️💚⚔️💚⚔️

[hello-there]

Communities are a new way to connect with the people on Tumblr who care about the things you care about! Browse Communities to find the perfect one for your interests or create a new one and invite your friends and mutuals!

[iamanartichoke]

I was looking for where Tom said, in an interview somewhere, that Loki is always ten steps ahead of everyone else bc I would swear on my life that I read it (or saw it?) somewhere. And, I mean, I didn’t find it, but I did dig up this treasure of an interview from April of 2012: 

“Well, I think Joss loves Loki because he loves complexity and the great thing about Loki is that there is almost no ceiling to his complexity as a character.  He is a shape shifter, he’s intelligent, and he has strategic gifts but he also has reservoirs of pain ... Joss and I sat down for a long time at the end of Thor and he said, “Tell me everything about living inside of this man for 6 months.  Tell me what makes him tick, what keeps him up at night.  What are the nightmares of his soul?”  We just shared all of our ideas ... [h]e loved all of Loki’s damage and that somewhere at the bottom of Loki’s credentials as a bad guy he is a searching spirit.  He is a damaged soul searching for the answers to something.  Why he exists, what is his role in this universe, that he isn’t just somebody who is evil for the sake of being evil.  He has complicated reasons for that.” 

This is lovely, just lovely, and if you’ve ever used basic compare/contrast skills in an English class, I’m pretty sure you could spot the differences between the way Joss and Tom worked on Loki vs the way other directors have approached Loki. 

[iamanartichoke]

^^ "If you wouldn't mind, Owen, I really need you to pay attention here. It's quite important - that is, I realize everything is important about this show, of course, and I don't mean to undermine anyone else's role - but, you know, the show is called Loki, and this may be my last chance to get all of my headcanons Loki backstory into the actual story, so as you can imagine, I care quite a lot about this and I hope you will, too. I know you will, actually, because you're as professional as I am. You're wonderful. But, I do recognize that you may not be as emotionally invested in Loki the character as I am, and that's quite fair but still, I cannot stress enough that this really, really matters and so if you could pay the utmost attention during our 'lessons,' so to speak - ehehehe - I would really appreciate it. Okay? Okay, great. Now, where did we leave off ...? Oh, yes, just here on page 428 in Tom's Loki Anthology; I believe we were discussing Loki's true motivations in Thor 2011? I see you've lost your highlighter. No, no - no need to go find any, I've brought extra. Would you like yellow or pink? I'm using green - oh, but, I don't mind switching if you'd prefer the green one. It's the least I can do to thank you for being such a good sport."

[dailylogyn]

Logyn Meta: Loki & Sigyn’s Family in Myth and Marvel (Comparison)

Photo Source: https://www.deviantart.com/youkai-no-shimo/art/Colouring-LOKI-s-FAMILY-260392721

The family that is ready to begin Ragnarok in order to defend your honor. It’s a tragic tale, but family is something worth fighting for!

Follow me as we explore this crazy, wonderful family that is probably the most famous of the Myth’s. 

We may not know much about Sigyn’s side, but Loki’s side is one that legends are made of. 

From the Norse Myths, to Marvel Comics and the MCU, we will see the similarities and differences for each member in the different universes as well as learn facts about each one and why they are important. 

Laufey (or Nál) - Loki’s Mother 

NORSE MYTHOLOGY

She is Loki’s Mother in Mythology.

Mostly mentioned by the matronymic, “Loki Laufeyjarson” meaning: Loki Laufey’s Son.

Her name (Laufey) is typically thought to mean leaves/foilage. Nal means Needle. 

Not much is known about her. We don’t even know if she was a Goddess, human or giant so it is assumed Loki gets his godhood from her. 

In the poem Sörla þáttr, Nál and Laufey are portrayed as the same person: "She was both slender and weak, and for that reason she was called Nál [Needle]." 

Laufey is listed among Ásynjar (goddesses) in one of the þulur, an ancestry that perhaps led her son Loki to be "enumerated among the Æsir", as Snorri Sturluson puts it in Gylfaginning.

Related to nature like forests and leaves.

MARVEL COMICS (Earth 616)

Laufey is Loki’s Father in this universe. 

As Loki was born small, a motive of embarrassment for his parents, his existence was kept a secret.

A younger Loki sends Laufey into a fateful battle between Odin, leading the All-Father to claim Loki as a son. Laufey was left for dead, wounded, but alive, leaving a future Loki to kill him. 

A group of Frost Giants try to revive Laufey by retrieving his skull. It ends with Malekith performing a spell to resurrect King Laufey. 

Laufey hates Loki and thinks of him as a disgrace

It ends with Loki killing his father again after he tries to steal the Casket of Winters and kill Frigga. 

MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE (MCU)

Same as Marvel Comics Counterpart. Appears in the first Thor movie. 

Fárbauti - Loki’s Father

NORSE MYTHOLOGY

He is Loki’s Father in Mythology. 

Attested in the Prose Edda and in Kennings of Viking Age Skalds.

A Jotunn

The Old Norse name Fárbauti has been translated as 'dangerous striker','anger striker',or 'sudden-striker'.

Related to lightning

MARVEL COMICS (Earth 616)

Mother of Loki in this universe.

Gave birth to an unusually small child to the annoyance of her husband.

It is said the night Loki was born that she stabbed her own heart with an ice dagger, but Loki suspects Laufey is the one who killed her. 

Appears as a figment taken on by a parasite. She’s mostly deceased in the comics. 

MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE (MCU)

Does not appear or have a reference in the MCU

Loki Laufeyjarson - Son of Laufey & Farbauti. Lover of Sigyn & Angrboda (and many others honestly)

NORSE MYTHOLOGY

Everyone already knows the tales about Loki, so I won’t repeat it all again. It’s pretty lengthy. I’ll just point down the basics for him with it. 

He’s famous for causing trouble among the gods as the Trickster and God of Mischief. Not a bad guy, but misinterpreted that way, although he can be a dick too. Despite how much he causes trouble for them, he also helps them out of situations too. He just wants to have fun, even if he takes it overboard at times.

Some sources put as Jotun and some say he is Half-Jotun, Half-Aesir (on his mother’s side.) 

A well-known Shapeshifter who can be anything: Salmon, Male, Female, Horse. The list just goes on. 

A really handsome being who loved to get it on. *finger guns*

Blood Brother’s with Odin. How? We don’t know. It’s interpreted as a friendship or foster-brothers. It’s unclear really.

Gonna start Ragnarok for valid reasons honestly after having his entire family taken away from him or killed by the Gods. #TeamLoki

MARVEL COMICS (Earth 616)

Far too many appearances to document here from 1942 to present. There has been some retcons as well with the fact the current Loki has been reborn in a new incarnation also known as Ikol.

In the comics Loki is the adopted son of Odin and Frigga and Adoptive brother to Thor & Balder. 

He’s depicted as being the God of Evil in the classic comics serval times. In fact, it’s one of his titles. 

Depending on the writer for the classic comics, Loki can have moments of humanity, but all around he causes trouble.

Just wants to rule Asgard and get rid of Thor who is his enemy. 

He’s honestly a bad guy most of the time in the classic comics #VillianTrope

I personally have yet to read any current comics of Loki that aren’t the classics so this is where my knowledge and research stops. 

MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE (MCU)

First off, Tom Hiddleston as Loki is just *chefs kiss* perfection. 

Pretty much the same as comics except for the fact he isn’t really a villain. He plays tricks on people for fun and laughs and truly cares about his family. 

However, things change when he discovers the truth that he is a Jotun and has been lied to about it his whole life despite being told countless stories of how Jotun’s are monsters to be slain (You fucked up a perfectly good kid, Odin. Look, he has anxiety and trauma.) 

He develops major identity problems on top of others things, but despite it, Loki tries to still do best by his family as he wants to belong. Yes, he becomes a villain in The Avengers movie, but not for the hell of it. #Thanos

Honestly, he just deserves better. That’s where this leads. Thank you.

Angrboda - Loki’s Consort/Lover (Fenrir, Jormungandr & Hel’s Mother)

NORSE MYTHOLOGY

She is only mentioned once in the Poetic Edda as the mother of Fenrir by Loki. The Prose Edda describes her as "a giantess in Jotunheim" and as the mother of three monsters: the wolf Fenrir, the Midgard serpent Jörmungand, and the ruler of the dead Hel.

A Jotun known as Mother of Monsters and Giantess of Ironwood. 

In Old Norse, Angrboda means: 'the one who brings grief', 'she-who-offers-sorrow', or 'harm-bidder'.

According to scholars, the name Angrboða is probably a late invention dating from no earlier than the 12th century, although the tradition of the three monsters born of Loki and a jötunn may be of a higher age.

Some scholars say she was a very powerful witch and that she had the ability to see into the future. She was confined to Hel and would not be released from the realm of the dead until Loki was unbound.

In some versions of the Myth’s she knows her children will bring about the end of the world (Ragnarok) as well as being a witch set on fire three times before Loki eats her heart. 

MARVEL COMICS (Earth 616)

A giantess of Jotunheim and a Witch.

Born to Elderspawn Vârcolac and Echidna.

She mated with Loki and gave birth to Fenrir and Jormungadr. Legends say she also gave birth to Hela, but it seems to be nothing more but legends. 

Angrboda died of unknown causes and was sent to the Underworld of Hel. 

When Thor needed to know how to get to Hela's realm because she had been taking mortals to Niffleheim, he went to the Hlidskjalf and summoned Angerboda from the underworld, forcing her to tell him how to get there. Once she revealed to Thor the path he had to follow, she tried to take him with her to the underworld.

Only has one appearance in the comics -- Thor #360 (1985)

MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE (MCU)

Does not appear or have a reference in the MCU

Sleipnir - Loki’s Son

NORSE MYTHOLOGY

Attested in the Poetic and Prose Edda. In both Sleipnir is Odin's eight-legged steed and child of Loki by Svaðilfari. He is described as the best of all horses.

The Prose Edda contains extra information saying he is grey. 

Old Norse meaning: Slippy or the Slipper. 

Sleipnir is also mentioned in a riddle found in the 13th century legendary saga Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks, in the 13th-century legendary saga Völsunga saga as the ancestor of the horse Grani, and book I of Gesta Danorum, written in the 12th century by Saxo Grammaticus, contains an episode considered by many scholars to involve Sleipnir. Sleipnir is generally accepted as depicted on two 8th century Gotlandic image stones: the Tjängvide image stone and the Ardre VIII image stone.

Scholarly theories have been proposed regarding Sleipnir's potential connection to shamanic practices among the Norse pagans.

Sleipnir was born when Loki shape-shifted into a mare and became pregnant by the stallion of a giant, as is recounted in the tale of The Fortification of Asgard.

MARVEL COMICS (Earth 616)

There are two different origins for Sleipnir in the comics: 1. Thor fighting off an army of the undead on Midgard. He promised to help as long as his horses weren’t eaten, however, Thor was betrayed and took his horses remains back to Asgard, coupling it with Asgardian Magic to create Sleipneir. 2. Loki had hastily agreed to let a Frost Giant re-build the wall around Asgard, in exchange for the Moon, the Sun, and Freya, only he had to do it in six months. The Frost Giant had only asked to use his grey stallion, Svadilfari. Right as the last brick was about to be placed, Loki transformed into a beautiful white mare, and lured Svadilfari off. Loki later gave birth to Sleipnir. (Just like in the Myths.) 

MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE (MCU)

Odin’s eight-legged steed. 

Sleipnir’s origins are unknown. He appears in the first Thor Movie. 

Fenrir Wolf - Loki & Angrboda’s Son

NORSE MYTHOLOGY

Attested in the Prose and Poetic Edda as the first son of the Jotun couple. He is a wolf destined to kill Odin. So, they bind and seal him when he's still young, with Tyr losing his arm in the process. When Ragnarok comes, he indeed kills Odin, but is killed by Odin's son Vidar in return.

Fenrir is the father of the wolves Sköll and Hati Hróðvitnisson. 

In the Prose Edda, additional information is given about Fenrir, including that, due to the gods' knowledge of prophecies foretelling great trouble from Fenrir and his rapid growth, the gods bound him, and as a result Fenrir bit off the right hand of the god Týr.

No chain can hold him, except for Gleipnir, a rope made by Dwarves containing the roots of a mountain, the breath of a fish, the sound of a cat's footfall, the sinews of a bear, the beard of a woman and the spittle of a bird, all of which were impossible items to obtain.

MARVEL COMICS (Earth 616)

Pretty much the same as his Mythos with some additional storylines. 

When Raganrok happened, Fenrir was reborn with the other gods on the New Asgard universe on Midgard. No details of his fate on Earth have been revealed.

Fenrir helped the mutant Wolfsbane as she was carrying the child of one of his descendants. 

It is one of the few individuals believed to be more powerful, or equally as powerful, as Dormammu; the others being galactic entities like The Beyonder.

Fenrir is Genderfluid in the comics. 

MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE (MCU)

Fenris is a giant Asgardian Wolf who serves under Hela and is portrayed as Female. She resurrects her as they take over Asgard. 

Instead of being her brother, Fenris is her loyal companion and mount. 

Fenris ends up getting into a fight against Hulk as he pushes her off, sending her falling into the void below to her supposed death. 

Appears in Thor: Ragnarok. 

Hel - Loki & Angrboda’s Daughter

NORSE MYTHOLOGY

Attested in the Prose and Poetic Edda. She is a giantess/goddess who resides over the Underworld that is also called Hel, a place where many of the dead reside. She is the daughter of Loki and Angrboda, sister to Fenrir and Jormungandr and usually depicted as the youngest of the three.

Goddess of Death and Graves and ruler of Hel who welcomes the souls of those who died of old age, disease or by accident.

Hel is described as having been appointed by the god Odin as ruler of a realm of the same name, located in Niflheim.

The Prose Edda details that Hel rules over vast mansions with many servants in her underworld realm and plays a key role in the attempted resurrection of the god Baldr.

Old Norse Name Meaning: Hidden

She’s mostly mentioned only in passing. Snorri describes her appearance as being half-black, half-white, and with a perpetually grim and fierce expression on her face.

MARVEL COMICS (Earth 616)

Renamed Hela in the comics.

Allegedly the daughter of Loki and Angrboda, but it’s never made clear or stated. Hela's genealogy is the subject of controversies and retellings. 

Her path pretty much follows her Mythos where she is destined to do terrible things and Odin makes her the ruler over the dead in the realms of Hel and Niflheim until maturity. 

At some point, she was considered the daughter of Odin and of a long-lost goddess.

Honestly, she usually tries to expand her powers, wanting to rule over Vahalla and obtain Asgardian souls. 

MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE (MCU):

Appears in Thor: Ragnarok as Odin’s firstborn and only daughter. Sister to Thor and Loki.

Kinda pissed her dad locked her away and wants to rule Asgard and take revenge.

The cause of Ragnarok and supposedly dies on Asgard after everything is said in done in the movie.

Jormungandr - Loki & Angrboda’s Son

NORSE MYTHOLOGY

Usually depicted as the middle child of Loki and Angrboda, he is known as the Midgard Serpent or World Serpent who is a giant snake. When Odin takes Loki’s kids away from him, he tosses Jormungadr into the ocean that encircles Midgard. The serpent grew so large that is was able to surround the Earth and grasp it’s own tail. When it releases it’s tail, Ragnarok will begin and he will fight his arch-enemy, Thor. 

The major sources for myths about Jörmungandr are the Prose Edda, the skaldic poem Húsdrápa, and the Eddic poems Hymiskviða and Völuspá. Other sources include the early skaldic poem Ragnarsdrápa and kennings in other skaldic poems; for example, in Þórsdrápa, faðir lögseims, "father of the sea-thread", is used as a kenning for Loki. There are also several image stones depicting the story of Thor fishing for Jörmungandr.

MARVEL COMICS (Earth 616)

Both Loki and Angerboda were descended from the Frost Giants of Jotunheim and were of humanoid appearance; however, the sons Angerboda bore Loki, Jormungand and the Fenris Wolf, did not. It has been suggested that Jormungand and the Fenris Wolf were born as sentient animals because their parents each had the magical ability to change his or her own shape. Hence, Jormungand and the Fenris Wolf each bear the form of the animal that their parents had assumed at the moment they were conceived.

Jormungandr follows the same as his Mythos to a certain degree with his fate to fight Thor during Ragnarok as the God of Thunder would die from his venom. 

MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE (MCU)

Does not appear or have a reference in the MCU

Sigyn - Loki’s Wife

NORSE MYTHOLOGY

Sadly, not many stories that have Sigyn in them have survived to this day. She is only attested in the followings works: Poetic Edda & Prose Edda. 

The most famous of her story tells of how Loki has been bound by the gods with the guts of his son, Nari, and how his son, Vari, has been turned into a wolf. The Goddess Skadi fastens a venomous snake over Loki’s face, from which venom drips. Sigyn, stated as Loki’s wife, stays by his side and holds a basin under and catches the venom so it won’t drip onto her husband, but when the basin grows full, she pulls it away to empty it, during which time venom drops onto Loki, causing him to wither so violently that earthquakes occur that shake the entire earth.

In the poem, Gylfaginning, Sigyn is introduced in Chapter 31 as being married to Loki and that they have a son by the name of “Narfi or Nari”. She is then mentioned again in Chapter 50 where events are described differently than in Lokasenna; Vali, described as a son of Loki only, is changed into a wolf by the gods and rips apart his brother, “Narfi or Nari.” The guts of Nari are then used to tie Loki to three stones, after which the guts turn to iron, and Skadi places a snake above Loki. Sigyn of course catches the venom in a bowl. This process is repeated until he breaks free, setting Ragnarok into motion.

In the poem, Skáldskaparmál, Sigyn is introduced as a goddess, an Æsir, where the gods are holding a feast for their visitors and in kennings for Loki: “husband of Sigyn” and “cargo [Loki] of incantation-fetter’s [Sigyn’s] arms.”

Old Norse Name meaning: Victory Girlfriend. 

MARVEL COMICS (Earth 616)

Lonely and looking for female companionship, Loki ends up coming across Sigyn and plans to make her his. However, she is already engaged to a warrior of Odin’s Crimson Hawks -- Theoric. Hence, Loki sets up a trap to have Theoric killed during a mission so Loki can disguise himself as Theoric. Once they are wed, Loki reveals himself and despite Odin attempting to annul the marriage (which goes against Asgardian Law)), Sigyn tells the Allfather that she will follow the duties of a loyal wife since she is Loki’s now. 

This is when Odin proclaims her to be the Goddess of Fidelity. This was a thing first started by the Marvel Comics.

Sigyn doesn’t have much of an agency in the comics except being a loyal wife to Loki, sometimes going along with his plans or getting on him for it. 

I personally haven’t been able to find any evidence of Sigyn’s parents being Iwaldi and Freya in the comics, so I’m not sure if this fact is Fanon or not. 

Sigyn has suddenly seemed to vanish from the comics with her last official appearance being in 1996. It has been allueded at that she died or was killed during Ragnarok. 

Her relationship with Loki in the comics is...complicated and changes a lot depending on the writer. 

MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE (MCU)

Does not appear or have a reference in the MCU

Narvi/Narfi & Vali - Loki & Sigyn’s Sons

NORSE MYTHOLOGY

Not much is known about Narfi and Vali except for being Loki & Sigyn’s sons with Vali being transformed into a wolf by the gods and killing his brother whose inners are used as a chain to bind Loki in the cave. 

Narfi and Vali are referred to in a number of sources. According to the Gylfaginning section of Snorri Sturluson's Prose Edda, he was also called Nari and was killed by his brother Váli, who was transformed into a wolf; in a prose passage at the end of the Eddic poem "Lokasenna", Váli became a wolf and his brother Nari was killed.

Snorri also names "Nari or Narfi" as the son of Loki and his wife Sigyn earlier in Gylfaginning, and lists "father of Nari" as a heiti for Loki in the Skáldskaparmál section of his work.

Narfi’s name could mean “Corpse” in Old Norse, relating to how he was killed by his brother. 

There's no mention of what became of Vali after he became a wolf.

MARVEL COMICS (Earth 616)

Narvi never makes an appearance in the comics and is only mentioned in: Free Comics Book Day Vol 2018 Avengers. 

There is a Vali in the comics called Vali Halfling. He is the son of loki and a unnamed mortal woman. So, I don’t consider this to be the same Vali that is the son of Loki and Sigyn. 

MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE (MCU)

Does not appear or have a reference in the MCU

_________________________________________________

Thanks for reading everyone. This required a bunch of research, but I hope this helps and has been educational. We only have what we can work with considering the surviving myths, but there is so many stories out there that we don’t know of that aren’t clear because of it. 

I tried my best to cover everything I knew about them in Marvel too, but sometimes so many retcons is too much to keep up with. I know there may be some errors in places, but it’s the best I could get this with what we have to work with.

SOURCES:

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Laufey_(Earth-616)

https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Laufey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laufey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fárbauti

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Farbauti_(Earth-616)

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Angerboda_(Earth-616)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angrboða

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Hela_(Earth-616)

https://norse-mythology.org/gods-and-creatures/giants/hel/

https://norse-mythology.org/gods-and-creatures/giants/jormungand/

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Jormungand_(Earth-616)

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Sleipnir_(Earth-616)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleipnir

https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Sleipnir

https://norse-mythology.org/gods-and-creatures/giants/fenrir/

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Fenris_Wolf_(Earth-616)

https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Fenris

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigyn

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Sigyn_(Earth-616)

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Narvi_(Earth-616)

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Vali_Halfling_(Earth-616)

https://norse-mythology.org/gods-and-creatures/the-aesir-gods-and-goddesses/loki/

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Loki_Laufeyson_(Earth-616)

https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Loki

https://skjalden.com/narfi-and-vali/

https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Hela

[beautifulterriblequeen]

Trickster: an Ethari theory

I've had yea many Ethari headcanons, and I hope I live to have yea many more. Most of them are probably wrong, or incomplete at best. But boy are they fun.

I love to wonder what Ethari will really be like in canon when we get to know him for more than 3 minutes, but whoever he really is on his own, he will have an effect on Runaan , Rayla, and everyone who loves him, because they love him.

The first headcanon I can remember having for "Tinker" was that he could be like Leonardo da Vinci: a genius, creative, surrounded by beautiful ideas given shape by his hands, but also capable of creating deadly weapons, enchantments, and devices with equal beauty, and perhaps not really seeing where the line between them was. It was fun, but Ethari has ended up far softer than my headcanon, and I love and support him in his softness!

After a nice string of Ethari headcanons, this year I've started poking at the Trickster archetype and seeing if it applies to him. And I think it absolutely does!

Tricksters often seem like Chaos. But they're not. They're just Difference. "Chaos" is subjective. Like the "divergent" in "neurodivergent." Who says? Divergent from what, exactly? Perspective matters, and Tricksters have a very broad take on things which allows them to think outside any box people might try to invite them into.

My enjoyment of Loki has brought all kinds of ideas to my dash with the arrival of the Loki show. I've got a copy of the Edda, and I highlighted the hell out of it a couple of years ago as I searched for the roots of Loki's origin story. (It's truly fascinating reading and the symbolic language hidden inside their poetry is dazzlingly amazing and I'm super using it sometime just so you know)

Loki is a Trickster, and he's far from alone in myth and legend. Anansi, Coyote, and Sun Wukong are some you may have heard of. Aaravos is another, of course. Tricksters can be called upon to lend aid and wisdom when the rules don't have an answer for some extraordinary circumstance which the Trickster's people find themselves in. But that's not because they are truly outside the rule of order. They are actually a part of it. They are the catch-all for when the everyday ordinary rules fail people, and something "unthinkable"--in the literal sense--might just hold the answer.

This post crossed my dash today, and something finally clicked in my head, and all of this coalesced from what felt like separate places. But they're not separate, not anymore! Serotonin, baby. It's basically upped my headcanon to a full-blown theory.

What caught my eye was an answer to why Ethari's clothing is so determinedly asymmetrical, compared to Runaan's specifically, but Moonshadows in general. It's because of this:

Long protective sleeves below patterns on shoulders. A high collar paired with a bright and noticeable swoop around the neck. Fine detailing and graceful taste. Asymmetrical tunic point on the left, below broad strappy leather. Knee high boots with stylish protective gaiters.

And let's not forget the curling horns! In some comics, Loki has a broken horn. So does Ethari.

Yes, there is a lot of similarity here, but I'm not focused so much on the visuals as the reason they were chosen. Feel free to consider other aspects of Ethari's personality and how they might be similar to certain parts of Loki's. I did! But I wouldn't be me if I didn't go deeper than that.

My favorite book in the universe (so far) is Lois McMaster Bujold's The Curse of Chalion, and one of the many reasons why is because of her pantheon. It holds five gods, represented by a hand: Father, Mother, Son, Daughter, and Bastard. The first four all have their roles and places. The Bastard--the thumb--inherits everything else. He is the god of all things that do not belong to any other gods, and that includes self-sacrificing vengeance and queerness. He is a Trickster, and his influence on Cazaril's life is far deeper than at first glance. Chaos has its place. It belongs, and so do the Tricksters who engender it. God, I love this book. Please read it if you haven't. Bujold's work is amazing.

If you've seen or read any version of MDZS/Untamed, you know that Wei WuXian is a trickster. Competent and badass in battle, but playful and teasing to the point where sometimes even he isn't sure what he truly wants, he can bring a massive amount of power and focus when he wants to. It's always a matter of "but is it important to me?"

I love WWX so much. The Trickster vibe is very apparent in his character, and in a way you just don't get in Western media. We see him on his own, and we see him with family and loved ones. And he's always feeling something so intensely! He's driven by his emotions, for good or ill. He vibes with chaos, and he will create it if it doesn't exist yet. But he will also create family from nothing, and that's something you don't see enough of! WWX is a Trickster with an emotional preference for joy.

In TDP, Ethari doesn't have a lot of lore yet. It's being Moonshadowed because spoilers for future seasons, and I respect that. The longer the wait for S4, the more ideas I will just amuse myself with in the meantime--and yeah, this is one of them, so what? :))) But we do know a little about him.

He loves music. He loves to read. He leaves his mark on things in swirly form. He works very hard, even through headaches, because what he's doing is that important to him, even though he would much rather be making jewelry. He loves taking the time to polish rough stones into brilliant jewels, and he adores big pretty flowers and had them at his wedding.

Ethari has a temper, but he also loves puns. The weapons he crafts are exquisite: "light, elegant, strong, and clever." And he knew darn well that Runaan was trying to flirt with him, but why return a sentiment he may or may not feel yet when he can play with the overly earnest assassin just a little bit first?

Okay, just... A "simple craftsman" deciding that it's going to be fun to toy for a bit with a broody assassin's feelings? Would you risk that? Ethari got balls the size of the moon, and a brain to match. When he has to make weaponry, he does not half-ass it. Ethari's stabby creations nearly have a life of their own. His creations are literally called "trick weapons." This elf is a lot, okay. And it's possible that he doesn't even know how "a lot" he is. Yet.

We're meeting Ethari after he's found something that is, in fact, genuinely important to him: Runaan, and Rayla, and Laindrin too. Ethari has found a relatively stable place to settle and find a role to adopt. I say adopt, though, because making weaponry for his loved ones is not what he grew up wanting to do. It's what he had to do to keep them safe, once he found a place to bestow his heart.

But in the show, Ethari has lost his family, one by one. First Lain and Tiadrin, ghosted. Then Runaan, supposedly fallen on his mission. Then Rayla, ghosted for abandoning Runaan. He and Rayla have reconnected now, but the rest of his family is still out of his reach. If Rayla has indeed told him, by S4, what she learned at the Moonhenge in TTM, then Ethari may parallel Rayla's journey to seek answers. But even if he doesn't know yet, and gets pulled into some other story arc first, we will be seeing Ethari without his family.

Remember the ATLA episode "Zuko Alone"? Consider: "Ethari Alone."

Ethari has chosen, for love, to fit himself into a box that wasn't of his own making. And now that box has broken. His family doesn't need him to be their craftsman anymore. Perhaps others will need him to be other things to them. Or perhaps he will know that his family does need him, but to be far more than just a maker of pretty swords. A rescuer, perhaps. A healer, a guide? An avenger?

A trickster. Capable of taking many shapes, because he understands them all. Ethari works with form and function. If he needs to transform himself, he will.

That's what Tricksters do. It's delightfully queer and delightfully neurodivergent. Ancient peoples accepted and revered the different among them and actively sought their help with things they themselves struggled with.

Tricksters are Difference. Sometimes that manifests as chaos, sometimes as genius. But if you do not love and appreciate your chaos, it will absolutely turn on you. Wei Wuxian did. Loki certainly has, many times. Perhaps Aaravos is doing so as well.

I cannot wait to see what Ethari does with his difference. I have something very specific that I hope he goes and breaks.

All this from a picture of Tom Hiddleston in his Avengers 1 Loki costume? Yeah. Because Ethari was designed to wear asymmetrical clothing, in a Moonshadow culture that prides itself on balance. Sure, there are some other Moonshadows who wear this or that asymmetrical item, and I do love to see it. But Ethari has the most asymmetrical lines of them all. The meta glee I feel knowing that Moonshadow elves are designed to hold many layers of meaning in their appearances--that the writers, creators, and character designers just flexed with them--is truly a delight.

Ethari is asymmetrical. The full and practical application of that is a glass casket, and I hope it becomes a gift that keeps on giving, because boy do I want to keep receiving it. But right now, I'm genuinely seeing evidence of the Trickster archetype in him. And I really hope it gets to come out and play.

[icyxmischief]

I honestly cannot stand the Loki fandom on tumblr anymore. This is the most toxic, hateful fandom I've encountered in a long, long time. I don't know how you've managed to stay for so long, but I've always enjoyed your content and wish you the best of luck going forward here. I don't think I've ever been so disappointed or outright ashamed of a fandom before, but this series has really brought a whole lot of ugliness out of Loki's. And it's such a shame, because it wasn't always this bad.

Friend, it makes me so sad that you feel this way. I know from negative experience in other fandom spaces what you're going through. It's really painful because we come to fandom with an earnest piece of ourselves that we want to share, project or INject, into characters who resonate with us, for any variety of reasons. This means each of us has a very personal, individual, and sometimes fever-pitched stake in how our "comfort character" is portrayed in canon.

This fandom angst derives from a couple of logical fallacies which I wanna spell out here, and from which, I hope, you can free yourself, in order to remain in a psychological space where you can still enjoy the things you love. <3 No really. I am a 38-year-old, successful professional, I have been around the block with fandom discourse and "grown-up real-world" intellectual discourse, and I am telling you, THIS is how I've "lasted this long":

1) Fallacy One: "Canon is the "most real" version of characterization." No. We don't even have to go into "Death of the Author, baybee" or Reception Theory or any of the other stuff in 20th and 21st century media crit to refute this. Simply put: you experience the media. The media exists in a wholly fictional realm anyway. The only difference is money/resources and breadth of audience. Your experience and, say, Kevin Feige's, or Kate Herron's, are all equally "real." Your Variant of the Sacred Canon (I DO think they're being that meta with the fans in the Loki series, yes), if you will, deserves to exist as much as the one Tom Hiddleston acts out on screen. You have a right to the Loki that exists in your head. 2) Fallacy Two: Seemingly opposite but often entwined with Fallacy One, as a defense/coping mechanism against Fallacy One: "My version is the 'most valid' version, and departure from my version equates lack of authenticity or effort, or, most dangerous of all, moral/ethical inferiority." No. We all have the right to the Loki in our heads. Now this one is trickier, admittedly, because the people who gravitate to characters like Loki tend to share his experience with social Othering/marginalization and trauma. That means that if you tell them "you're wrong, and stop getting in my face and being so aggressive," you could be accused (indeed, perhaps rightfully) of tone-policing someone who identifies with a marginalized group (racially, in terms of ability, in terms of gender identity or sexual orientation, etc). The best thing, therefore, for you to do is acknowledge that your readings of the "text" (here, a tv show) differ, and that you respectfully decline to discuss the matter. Even if it rankles you, don't engage. These people have a very personal stake in the media and in essence, it's kindest to let them depart to be angry in their own space.

3) Connected closely to the above, “What we condone in fiction equates what we condone in reality,” God, no. Much ink has been spilled by more eloquent writers on this, so I won’t expound. But don’t go there. Don’t fall for that. Lol. It leads only to misery. 

Habits I would encourage, to avoid Big Fandom Wank:

1) When you see content you don't like, especially spoken in an incendiary or absolutist manner, block or unfollow. Do not engage directly. Vent about it in your own space if you must, or better yet, in private, to trusted friends. If you engage, which...sometimes it IS worth it to do so, if something has real personal significance to you as a consumer of that media, then be braced for people to be rude or even abusive, because human beings, especially in internet spaces, are messy emotional creatures who leap to conclusions without gauging for nuance. There is disagreement over different and valid interpretations of content, and then there is just being unpleasant on principle.

2) See advice in Fallacy Two re avoiding tone-policing.

3) Find your people and curate your dash strictly. This can be ten people or it can be two. Make a close-knit small group in a private space for all your sharing of ideas. Make sure these are people you trust, who, when you spend time consuming the media with them, make you feel better, not worse.

4) Unfollow liberally. Block liberally. You don't owe anyone your time, energy, or, especially, happiness. People will accuse you of cowardice or "running away from a grown-up debate." Let them. It's pitiable, in perspective. They're insecure and sad and they need to say manipulative things. But you know better, don't you? You're just preserving your peace of mind.

5) If you mess up, go quiet for a while, take a break from social media, and it will blow over. I promise. Delete anon hate (and know that you can block the sender, even an anon, on Tumblr, too!).

--------

Friend, thank you for your kind words. I'm so sorry you're so sad. I hope I see you here again someday. <3

Anyone who needs a boost can reblog this advice, btw.

[iamanartichoke]

Meta writers right now:

(From the scan of Total Film posted by @thetwotees)

Tom Hiddleston has a *very* accurate idea of the three sections into which the Loki fandom can be more or less classified, and now I’m left wondering 1. Did he get this information from Tumblr or from Twitter? and 2. Has the poor man ever been the same again after his investigation?

[9worldstales]

MCU “Thor: Ragnarok” - The elevator scene

So I’ve heard that Tom Hiddleston’s interview “Tom Hiddleston Looks Back at 10 Years of Loki | Entertainment Weekly” has sparked some discussion…

…because, when talking of the elevator scene Tom said Thor had been honest in it, sparking the joy of who enjoyed that scene which is one of the few emotional moments of the movie between the two in which Thor says something ‘nice’ to Loki (I think that scene is actually one of the most well known and popular about the movie) and the disagreement of who remembered that Thor used that moment to place an obedience disk on Loki’s back, an obedience disk that basically tortures who wear it once it’s activated… and Thor later activated it when Loki attempted to betray him, and left it activated, abandoning him in that hangar where the grandmaster, which he knows has no qualms to melt people who disappoint him, could find Loki. The fact that Korg finds Loki first and free him from that torture is mere luck on Loki and on Thor’s part as Loki will then bring Asgard a ship large enough to save all the Asgardians.

Long story short, a part of the fandom felt that Thor said such words to cause Loki to lower his guard so that he could place the obedience disk.

So I wanted to share my two cents about it.

But first let’s look at the full script for it.

Thor: Hey, so listen, we should talk. Loki: I disagree. Open communication was never our family's forte. Thor: You have no idea. I've had quite the revelation since we spoke last. [The door opens, revealing a bunch of guards. Thor and Loki heft up two Sakaarian guns.] Thor: Hello! Loki: Hi! [Thor and Loki BLAST all the guards, moving to another door.] Loki: Odin brought us together, it's almost poetic that his death should split us apart. We might as well be strangers now. "Two sons of the crown" set adrift. [A guard tries to ambush Loki through the door. Thor TAKES OUT the guard.] Thor: Thought you didn't want to talk about it? Loki: Here's the thing.

[ELEVATOR. Thor and Loki are going up.] Loki: I'm probably better off staying here on Sakaar. Thor: That's exactly what I was thinking. Loki: ...Did you just agree with me? Thor: This place is perfect for you. It's savage, chaotic, lawless. Brother, you're going to do GREAT here. Loki: Do you truly think so little of me? [Thor pauses, considers his brother. Then:] Thor: Loki, I thought the world of you. I thought we were gonna fight side by side forever. But, at the end of the day, you're you, I'm me... I don't know, maybe there's still good in you, but let's be honest, our paths diverged a long time ago. [Loki is wounded by Thor's willingness to discard him. Masks his feelings with:] Loki: It's probably for the best that we never see one another again. [Beat. Thor pats Loki affectionately on the shoulder. Hold on Loki. Did Thor just get through to him?] Thor: That's what you always wanted.

Yeah, I included the bit prior to it because it kind of introduced the scene. And as the obedience disk scene is also part of the discussion, let’s look at it as well.

Loki: I know I've betrayed you many times before, but this time it's truly nothing personal. The reward for your capture will set me up nicely. He triggers the alarm. Thor: Never one for sentiment, were you? Loki: Easier to let it burn. [But then Loki sees Thor holding up a fob device. Loki realizes that Thor affixed an Obedience Disk on him in that heart-to-heart moment.] Thor: I agree. [BZZZT! Thor ZAPS Loki and HOLDS DOWN the button. Loki HITS the ground, WRITHING in pain. Thor approaches. Pause.] Thor: Oh brother, you're becoming predictable. I trust you, you betray me. Round and round in circles we go. [Thor continues to "think about it" for a beat while Loki convulses in agony on the floor. Finally, Thor kneels down:] Thor: See, Loki, life is about, it's about growth. It's about change. But you seem to just wanna stay the same. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you'll always be the God of Mischief, but you could be more. I'll just put this over here for you. [Thor places the fob on top of the security panel, so close but so far from Loki's paralyzed reach.] Thor: Anyway, I got places to be so good luck.

Okay, now with these scenes in mind, let’s go and see how Tom comments the elevator scene.

The elevator scene, in “Ragnarok.” The dialogue was… was scattered across these different… places as they were trying to escape and find their way through. Taika said: “Guys, do you know the rest of the scene?” and we both said: “Yeah.” He said: “Maybe we should just do... do one where we just do all of the dialogue here in the elevator and you haven't really had a chance to catch up and maybe you should just talk to each other,” and Thor… is quite honest with him. And I think it really affects Loki, he thinks ‘oh actually maybe… maybe I got this wrong, maybe I did have a place in that family. Maybe… maybe this guy is my brother,’ but it was a really enjoyable scene because it was just a very quiet moment with Chris in a very calm space in a big colourful spectacular film. [“Tom Hiddleston Looks Back at 10 Years of Loki | Entertainment Weekly”]

So… is Thor being sincere? Or just being manipulative?

When one look at Thor’s sentence there’s a thing that hit me:

Thor: Loki, I thought the world of you. I thought we were gonna fight side by side forever. But, at the end of the day, you're you, I'm me... I don't know, maybe there's still good in you, but let's be honest, our paths diverged a long time ago.

At Loki’s question ‘Do you truly think so little of me?’ Thor doesn’t say ‘No, I think the world of you.’ He says he THOUGHT the world of him. As in previously he thought the world of him and we can speculate this previously refers to before he stopped considering him a ‘brother’ something that happened likely in “The Avengers” according to “Thor: The Dark World”, probably when Thor told him they could stop the Chitauri together and Loki stabbed him.

Thor: I don't. Mother did. You should know that when we fought each other in the past, I did so with a glimmer of hope that my brother was still in there somewhere. That hope no longer exists to protect you. You betray me and I will kill you.

And I can believe Thor used to love Loki before all that, so he’s sincere in saying that, back then, he thought the world of him.

Now, I know there’s people who think Thor didn’t properly appreciate Loki in “Thor”, especially when he used the pretty unlucky sentence ‘Know your place, Brother’ but also when, in a cut scene, he waved away Loki’s contribute to the victory saying ‘Some do battle, others just do tricks’ but this is exactly the point.

Thor’s ‘sin’ in that moment is his vanity, his arc in the movie centred on him learning humility.

Thor loved Loki, same as Kevin Lomax, in “The Devil’s Advocate” loved Mary Ann. There’s quite a good quote in that movie.

John Milton: I rest my case. Vanity is definitely my favorite sin. Self-love, the all-natural opiate. It's not like you didn't care for Mary Ann, Kevin. You were just a little more involved with someone else: yourself.

Thor also in the first half of the movie was more involved in himself than he was in his brother. Or his friends. Let’s remember Fandral got hurt and it was Loki and Volstagg which helped him, while the Thor is described by the script as busy fighting the Frost Giants, his bloodlust rising, with Loki and Sif both telling Thor they’ve to leave instead.

Loki: Thor, we must go! [Thor, still without his hammer, fights his Jotun foes mercilessly, a man consumed by blood lust. Loki sees the look on his brother's face -- the savage thrill of the heat of battle.] Thor: Then go! Sif: There are too many of them! Thor: I can stop them! [The others hesitate. Jotuns break up through the ice all around them.] Sif: Thor! [But Thor ignores his comrades, continues fighting.]

When they’ll be back to Asgard it’ll be Odin who’ll say Fandral has to be taken to the healing room, not Thor, something that the movie will technically address when it’ll show that Thor, once back to Asgard after he learnt humility on Midgard, will be the one to tell his friends to bring Heimdall to the healing room.

in “Thor”, Thor had to be a bad brother due to his vanity… but this doesn’t mean he was an unloving one, just one who might have thought the world about Loki… but thought the whole universe about himself and thought more about himself than he ever did at Loki… because he was vain.

Sadly although most of the second half of the movie is set up to prove Thor is the opposite of how he was before, they never quite manage to prove he would have an opposite dynamic with Loki. He tries to save him twice, and clearly didn’t want him to let go, he tells his brother not to let go, he’s the one who screams when Loki does anyway, while Odin merely says a quiet no which wasn’t even in the original old script, but, unless we consider the fact he accepted Loki to be the king to exist to be the opposite of ‘Know your place, Brother’, this is maybe the only aspect in which the movie doesn’t prove Thor now has a reverse mentality (I’ve listed all the scenes the movie had or was meant to have that proved how Thor made a 180° turn in another meta if someone is interested).

But whatever, Thor’s ‘Loki, I thought the world of you’ was clearly meant to be the truth, Thor used to think so of Loki, the movie is just skipping on the part he wasn’t so good at showing it because in “Thor” Thor was a vain boy.

And it’s likely also the truth how Thor said ‘I thought we were gonna fight side by side forever.’

In “The Avengers” Thor not only insisted for Loki to come back home but also for them to fight together against the Chitauri.

Thor: Look at this! Look around you! You think this madness will end with your rule? Loki: (tries to look away) It's too late. It's too late to stop it. Thor: No. We can. Together.

And the fact they used to fight together is implied in the already mentioned cut scene of “Thor” as well as again, in “The Avengers”.

Thor: We were raised together, we played together, we fought together. Do you remember none of that?

So yes, Thor for a while thought they were gonna fight side by side forever, then things in “The Avengers” went downhill and by the time “Thor: The Dark World” comes around he refuses to acknowledge Loki as his brother… even though he still needs him.

There’s no lies in Thor’s words, he said something he thought before Loki’s fall, that he and Loki would always fight together, on the same side and, all considered, he had no reason to think otherwise. He had no idea things would take a turn for worse so of course he would think Loki would continue to fight at his side. The old script and the novel implied the original plan prior to the coronation was for Thor to rule and for Loki to be at his side, offering him counsel.

Odin: Do you think he's ready? Frigga: He thinks he is. He has his father's confidence. Odin: He'll need his father's wisdom. Frigga: And his humility? [Odin reacts.] Frigga: (cont’d) Thor won't be alone. Loki will be at his side to give him counsel. Have faith in your sons. Odin: Yes, but Thor's still a boy. He could be a great King...

So yes, in this too Thor is sincere. He assumed Loki would stay at his side. He had no reason to think otherwise.

The last bit though, ‘But, at the end of the day, you're you, I'm me... I don't know, maybe there's still good in you, but let's be honest, our paths diverged a long time ago’ is just Thor basically letting go of Loki. Loki is not him, maybe there’s good in Loki, maybe he’s just evil but anyway he isn’t going to be a hero like Thor. As he said before, for Thor, place like Saakar, savage, chaotic, lawless, is perfect for someone like Loki.

Is he being manipulative here? He’s rejecting Loki knowing Loki actually needs Thor to tell him he needs him?

Well this is what Hemsworth said Thor was thinking about Loki:

One of the more fascinating parts of the franchise has been the relationship between Thor and Loki… How do you continue that relationship without repeating what you’ve already done before? Hemsworth: Without giving too much away, I didn't want to repeat that relationship either. And Tom felt the same. All of us were like, ‘What can we do again here?’ There’s a bit of reversal as far as... In the first films, a lot of the time you’re seeing Thor going, 'Come back Loki, and da-da-da-da.' [But now] there’s a feeling from Thor that’s just like, 'You know what, kid? Do what you want. You’re a screw up. So whatever. Do your thing.' [Chris Hemsworth ‘Thor Ragnarok’, Embracing the Comedy, the Thor-Loki Relationship and More]

Loki is a ‘screw up’. He’s no more someone he thought the world of. He doesn’t think anymore they would keep on fighting together. He doesn’t care.

And this is what Waititi said.

Hewitt: For Loki, he might actually be the most emotionally independent of the movie, and I love that the big emotional epiphany comes when one brother is essentially electrocuting the other? Ah- Waititi: *chuckles* Hewitt: *chuckling* Yeah. But there’s a speech to Loki that Thor gives about change and about how you should change, that’s the first time I think Loki’s ever really listened. Waititi: Mm-hmm. Hewitt: From what we’ve seen, you know, there are moments in this movie where, you know, the betrayal takes place as you might expect, and then you begin to move it on beyond that and the character actually begins to change. Ah, can you talk about... progressing Loki, I guess, as a character? Waititi: Yeah. Yeah, well I feel like we were- You know, we didn’t want to change him too much because he was so popular and the fans love that version of him. We wanted to keep- we needed to retain who he is, because when you start changing all of the characters and just doing it for the sake of change, you know, people can’t handle that and definitely fans can’t handle that. So you know he was one of the few characters that we, you know, that we changed and so I made sure that- *pause* -that the main changes that were gonna happen there were to do with the brothers, and to do with their relationship, because I think people wanted to see that arc end on a satisfying way and culmination of all these films and all of the events being that Thor and Loki finally found some sort of way of co-existing without Thor always saying, “Loki, stop this madness! Come hooome! Oh, you can do better!” Instead of pleading with him, just, you know, I feel that’s the most mature version of these guys, you know, is to say to him, “Man, it’s cool. You keep doing what you’re doing, I’m- You know, I don’t need to change you. I’ve all the other stuff to concentrate on, that change thing is up to you, I’m not gonna- I’m sick of, like, pleading with you to, you know, to change your ways.” And I feel like giving that decision to Loki and letting him make that decision for himself was actually the most satisfying version of those have been. [“Empire Podcast Spoiler Special Thor Ragnarok with Taika Waititi”]

To be honest most of the discussion more than about the elevator scene is about the electrocution scene and the first part is Hewitt’s interpretation but Waititi does not disagree. Anyway the root of the discussion is that, according to Waititi, Thor isn’t trying to get Loki to change his mind, Thor is just done with Loki, which fits not just with the electrocution scene but also with the elevator scene. It’s not a very loving message.

If I were to question Hiddleston’s interpretation, I wouldn’t disagree on Thor being honest, I would just find weird that Loki had reacted to such words thinking ‘oh actually maybe… maybe I got this wrong, maybe I did have a place in that family. Maybe… maybe this guy is my brother,’ for two good reasons. One is that Thor spoke not in present simple but in past simple, so maybe that guy WAS his brother, now he doesn’t care about him anymore. As he said in “Thor: The Dark World” Thor has again renounced him. The second is… the electrocution scene, which starts with Loki betraying Thor.

Yeah, I know there are fans who interpret it as Loki not wanting Thor to die fighting Hela which I TRULY love because sometimes fans have better interpretations than the authors on why the character do what they do, but, skipping that the idea of handing him to the Grandmaster who could very well melt him wasn’t that bright (but whatever, Loki could still think he’ll manage to persuade the Grandmaster to let him alive and use him to replace the Hulk), this clearly wasn’t Waititi’s intent.

Waititi didn’t correct Hewitt when he talks about the scene and how that’s the first time Loki’s ever really listened. In Waititi’s intent the elevator’s scene is just an addition, something in which Thor and Loki talk to each other because they hadn’t had the chance to catch up before the electrocution scene that would remark how Loki is again betraying Thor but how Thor this time has grown and can predict Loki’s betrayal and be ready to strike back and even give him the speech that will cause Loki’s change of heart. Long story short, the elevator scene was an afterthought, what was meant to be included was the electrocution scene because on that scene was supposed to be rooted the idea Loki would change.

And of course this is a HUGE problem, because if you, up until a moment before, were willing to sell your brother to someone like the Grandmaster for money, the fact that he electrocute you and leave you writhing in pain on the floor, KNOWING if the Grandmaster finds you empty handed he will melt you… well, this normally wouldn’t inspire you to have brotherly feelings, speech about having the potential for being more or not.

Long story short, the idea that Loki would go to save Thor and the Asgardians DESPITE that, merely due to Thor’s pretty speech, doesn’t really feel that logic at all, never mentioning that something that gives you enough pain to cause you to crumble on the floor and be unable to move might not help you to be an attentive listener.

I’m not even sure why there’s this idea that Thor was always ‘come back, brother’ since in “Thor: The Dark World” Thor definitely wasn’t asking him to come back, he was actually giving up on him in an even more drastic way than he did in “Thor: Ragnarok”…

Loki: You must be truly desperate to come to me for help. What makes you think you can trust me? Thor: I don't. Mother did. You should know that when we fought each other in the past, I did so with a glimmer of hope that my brother was still in there somewhere. That hope no longer exists to protect you. You betray me and I will kill you. [Loki smiles]

It’s not said solely in the script, this is what Hiddleston said about Loki in “Thor: The Dark World” as well:

…and in a way reverse the arc of the character. Because he’s always defined himself in opposition. Thor has always been offering an olive branch. ‘Come back. We forgive you. Come back.’ And it’s Loki’s kind of arrogant privilege to say ‘No. I still hate you.’ And…in this film I think…nobody’s offering the olive branch. He’s in prison, condemned to be written out of history, forgotten, unseen, unheard, and haunted by his demons. You have to change at that point. So that surprised me. How far further down does he go before he hits rock bottom? Is there one for him? And…could he come back up? [“Nov 2013 Hiddleston Interview: Commentary on the Commentary (and much more)“]

…and yet, in “Thor: The Dark World”, despite his brother saying he previously held back when fighting because he hoped his brother was still there (a clear hint he loved such brother) and that now he no longer believes in such hope, Loki didn’t sell him to the Dark Elves and even stopped the Kurse from killing him, which lead him to be stabbed… and mind you, originally the wound was meant to be fatal… but whatever, this is a discussion for another post.

Anyway basically what Thor told him back then… is more or less the same he told him in the elevator scene so Tom Hiddleston’s explanation about how this would AGAIN affect Loki would make sense if it wasn’t for the electrocution scene that gets in the way.

On another note the Junior novel is apparently based on an older script for “Thor: Ragnarok” and in it things work a lot more better.

There’s no elevator scene or electrocution scene. The two brother had a talk in which Thor bares his soul to Loki and encourages him to change as well.

“You’ll help us free Asgard from Hela’s grip when we arrive? I can count on you?” Thor asked. “Of course. After all, I’m sure you blame me for her resurgence. It’s at least I can do.” Loki appeared contrite. “Although, I am curious, why the sudden change of heart to become Odinson and assume the throne?” “It is what is needed to defeat Hela. Therefore it is my duty,” Thor said plainly. He let out a small sigh, his voice almost apologetic. “In the past I demanded the throne when I hadn’t earned it, and then refused the throne when Asgard needed me most. You stole it. Twice.” “Yet you are always forgiven,” Loki said, trying not to sneer. “My point is that our self-centered conflict over Asgard has ruined our kingdom. We have been so focused on fighting for the top we’ve forgotten there’s a middle and a bottom. If I’m to be king, then I want to be a custodian, not a conqueror.” “Why the sudden baring of your soul to me?” Loki asked. Thor turned to his brother. “Because I want to change. I want to be better. And I think you can, too. Helping us escape has shown you can take strides toward that.” He looked at Loki earnestly. “Make a fresh start, brother. It’s time.” [“Thor: Ragnarok - The Junior Novel”]

While this bit is clearly not perfect (especially since there are some canon mistakes) it contains the same idea that Loki should change and be more that is also in the electrocution speech, but it’s way more love inspiring than having your brother leaving you wriggling in pain on the floor.

Thor doesn’t try to pass himself for a perfect hero but admits his faults as well as the wish to be better. This dialogue continues with the theme of “Thor” in which Thor tries to be worthy and, in opening his heart to Loki and saying they can both improve could have reminded him again they used to be brothers who loved each other and their own country.

But, okay, I’m digressing.

On another note… it’s clear they expected Tom Hiddleston to say something nice about “Thor: Ragnarok”. I know there’s a huge part of the fandom who would just love if it were to respectfully disrespected but, for start, I don’t think that’s Hiddleson’s style and, anyway, he wouldn’t be allowed to do so. Not only “Thor: Ragnarok” was successful but Waititi is now directing “Thor: Love and Thunder”. Marvel clearly counts on it to ride the success of “Thor: Ragnarok” and be successful as well so it’s not like they’ll want us to forget it or allow Hiddleston to speak poorly of it.

Still there are some interesting things to point out.

The first is that Hiddleston spoke about the other movies a lot more than about this one. It’s around 1 minute commenting versus the 1 minute and a half of the other 3 movies and he mentions just that one scene while in the others we see more than 1 (I’m obviously skipping “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Avengers: Endgame” because Loki’s role in the was way too small to discuss it at length).

Long story short, while Hiddleston doesn’t say anything against “Thor: Ragnarok” he clearly didn’t have much he wanted to say. He focused on what to the audience felt a nice moment about Thor and Loki and then moved on.

The second scene is that in the montage of the video they cut part of Thor’s sentence so that all the viewers hear is “I thought we were gonna fight side by side forever. But, at the end of the day, you're you, I'm me... I don't know, maybe there's still good in you, but let's be honest, our paths diverged a long time ago.”

Basically they left out the “Loki, I thought the world of you.”

Maybe it’s a coincidence but still it’s interesting they didn’t realize they were cutting the most emotional line of that bit.

Whatever, it happens.

Anyway, for what’s worth, those are my two cents on the whole thing.

[juliabohemian]

the sky is falling

Apparently...

I have been a fan of LOKI since he first appeared on screen. I will admit that I did not seek out other fans on social media until after The Dark World. Mostly because I had a lot of other things going on in my life.

I distinctly remember being filled with hope that LOKI would appear in Age of Ultron, and being filled with hope that Ragnarok would magically resolve everything between LOKI and his family. I remember being disappointed about both. I remember having renewed hope that Infinity War or Endgame would somehow make up for those disappointments, only to be further let down by the kind of mediocre writing that is typical of blockbuster movies. That is a disappointment that many of us have shared, and even bonded over.

And I was so relieved to have a fandom where I could share my disappointment. I was happy to critically analyze what had been problematic about LOKI's story so far, even if most of it was due to poor/inconsistent writing as opposed to a conscious decision on anyone's part (minus Ragnarok, probably, but I digress). I was happy to have a place where I could write meta about problematic themes in fictional media and how they might negatively affect those who digest them.

When I found out the LOKI show was happening, I felt the same lurch in my gut that I'm sure you all felt. Will it suck? Will it just be another cash grab, using Tom Hiddleston as a lure? Even the trailers I was seeing in the months beforehand did nothing to quell my fears. The trailers were carefully edited for the sole purpose of gaining viewers for the show. Which is an almost laughable notion, since people would probably have watched it anyway. But I was still apprehensive, right up until the last minute.

Then, I watched episode one.

And I immediately realized a few things.

The first is that what we are seeing, now, is as close to 100% Tom-Hiddleston-approved as ANYTHING we have seen on screen so far. 

Take a minute to let that soak in. What we are seeing is how Tom sees LOKI. It isn't the product of someone else's editing, or someone else's vision. This isn’t a product of LOKI being a side character who they simply don’t have time to develop. This is a show about LOKI.

The second thing I realized is that this show is almost like an AU story that exists separately from everything else. So, LOKI isn't going to be exactly like any other specific version we have seen before. And that's totally fine. Because he has never been in this situation before, we have no idea how he would behave under these circumstances. It is uncharted territory.

Now, I realize that not everyone in the fandom has written fiction, or knows what it's like to construct a long narrative. I can personally attest to throwing in an occasional plot device that made slightly less sense than I would like, simply to put the story where I wanted it to be. I can also attest to completely disregarding minor aspects of canon that would have rendered my story pointless or required me to write an additional 5 chapters, simply to explain them away. That is writing, folks.

What I DO know is that we have only seen episode 1. We don't know what the big picture is yet. And I can tell you that if I had written a story and planned the whole thing out and, after posting chapter 1, people had posted giant rants about how everything I'd done so far was wrong, I would be extremely concerned about the mental health of those people. And I would hope that they would stop reading my story and go find something else to do.

From a purely scientific perspective, we don’t have enough information to draw a conclusion. And yet, I have been inundated with Chicken Little posts about how the sky is falling. I am practically getting whiplash from scrambling to unfollow these people.

This show is not going to be perfect.

There are going to be things about it that you don't like.

It is totally okay not to like the show, or to simply dislike things about it. But PLEASE PLEASE acknowledge that you not liking something does not equate to it being problematic. It doesn't even equate to an objective measurement of the show's value. It just means that YOU don't like it. I feel like a lot of LOKI fans have an image in their heads of who they think LOKI is and they feel so strongly about it, that they would assert their headcanon as being more in character than whatever Tom Hiddleston might choose to do with LOKI. And frankly, that is very sad. It also means that those people will always be disappointed, because you have zero control over what Tom chooses to do with his character.

I think that after so much continued disappointment, many LOKI fans have learned to seek their dopamine reward from criticizing LOKI content, as opposed to actually enjoying it. Because, frankly, that affords them more control over the outcome. If we go into a situation assuming it will be bad, and it turns out to be bad, we get to pat ourselves on the back for our genius. If we go into it hoping that it will be good and it ends up being bad, then we have to cope with that negative feeling. And no one wants to feel disappointed over and over again.

And I’ve realized that all the time I spent ranting about what I didn’t like about the MCU has not been good for me, mentally. It is not healthy to dwell on negative things, unless that dwelling is somehow productive. And this hasn’t been productive. It hasn’t led to anything but more ranting and whining.

I am choosing to have an open mind, not because I think that everything is going to be wonderful, but because it is the most mentally healthy thing for me to do.

I am GRATEFUL to have this show. 

Even if it ends up being less than awesome, I am still grateful to have a show that is all about LOKI, that gives us lots of Tom being LOKI on screen without anyone trying to steal the mic from him. I want to do my best to enjoy it. And so far, I am enjoying it.

And if, when the show is all over, I realize that it contained some genuinely problematic scenes or themes, I will explore those OBJECTIVELY. I will analyze them CRITICALLY.

But we're NOT there yet. 

[iamanartichoke]

In that recent thread w bardicious u mentioned this

Which felt straight out of fanfic and I am almost 90% in all seriousness convinced that Tom or someone has an AO3 and/or tumblr account but that's another topic lmfao.

I am soo curious what u have to say on this topic if u wanna talk abt it

Haha thanks for asking! lmao well it's mostly a joke but also at this point it's kinda getting to not be a joke? No, it is a joke, and I will continue to disclaim that several times bc this fandom latches onto things and runs with them and I don't even want to open that Pandora's box.

But, the seeds were planted awhile ago (maybe a month?) when this post was going around - basically, Tom had a surprisingly accurate assessment of the main categories into which Loki fans fell, regarding Loki's characteristics, and so some of us sat up like, and how would you know, Mr. Hiddleston?

So that was a fun time for all, and then after the first episode came out, I made a post about the little things that felt weirdly specific to things we've discussed at length on tumblr? With the same kind of tone/phrasing, I mean.

Then there's the professor bit, which I need to add to my list, but basically we all know "Professor Tom" is a nickname that gets tossed around fairly often in the fandom, the joke being about how he often goes on at-length about things even if no one actually asked. In episode 2, Loki spoke up at length about the difference between two powers, when no one actually asked, and gets hit with a Professor Loki.

Next, a couple of days ago, the post going around was about how Tom apparently, in addition to giving everyone on set in-depth lectures on Loki's character, showed up at Owen's house specifically to talk to him about Loki, and while this is hilarious, for me I kinda had the feeling like, okay Tom's probably not just sitting on that much meta, it's gotta come out somehow, he's probably secretly right here beside us, commenting and offering his own perspectives lol jk unless ...?

Finally, the bit you quoted - not just the metaphor or the way he delivers it feels like fanfic but I felt like there were so many, like, fanfic/fandom tropes? I mean, Loki's magic is always underutilized and needs to be fixed: Popular fandom topic check. All of the references to Loki being a magician? Fic check. Loki is way more powerful than they ever show on-film: Popular fandom topic check. (He telekinetically threw a building I'm-). Loki singing for one reason or another: Fic check. Loki complaining about physical activity: Fic check. (This happens a lot in pre-canon fics when he and Thor go on quests.) He and Sylvie on the train and there was only one bed booth: Fic check. There is literally even a Thorki fic called Vows from a Dagger (and it's very well-written, btw, if any Thorki friends are reading this and haven't read it) in which Loki gives Thor a dagger as a symbol of his love and devotion, which is the first thing I thought of but also just in general, the ~poetry~ of it all felt like fic to me. So, fandom and fic check. Hence the bit up above where I'm like, okay for real now, which one of you is secretly Tom and can I read your fics please lmao.

But anyway. It really is just a joke that I personally think is really funny bc like imagine if Tom has been lurking all this time and ended up giving himself away bc he kept slipping fandom/fic tropes into the tv series and we're all like

so yeah. But each time I post about this, I must include the disclaimer that it is a joke, I'm not really serious, I don't really believe Tom lurks around here bc I'm sure he has better things to do - but, the "evidence" I've compiled just makes me feel like, if it turned out he did, I would not be surprised at all.

[iamanartichoke]

See, I thought that metaphor was great. I thought it was simple enough to get his meaning across - love may or may not be real but either way, it's beautiful and it hurts - while there were also a lot of layers that you could take apart if you really tried. (@alwida10's breakdown is a great example of these layers.)

I have another post that I may or may not try to finish now about how the metaphor hints at (or even reveals) that Loki feels things very deeply and always has, but that he's afraid of how deeply he feels things because he's afraid of pain, which is ironic and sad considering pain is all he ever really gets -

- but my point here is, it's very strange that such a fitting metaphor would be dismissed by Mike (and Tom!?) as not that deep, or not that profound.

However, I think a case could be made that they may be viewing it as many of us view our own writing; that is, when you come up with something brilliant and it's totally by accident and you're like, wow, I just meant that the curtains were blue but yeah, your interpretation works too ... I don't know.

I think that Tom's words are especially interesting, though. I mentioned somewhere (it may have been in a dm?) that I couldn't reconcile the stories of Tom lecturing everyone and their mother, for hours, on the essence and characterization of Loki only for the show to turn around and not reflect a lot of those things - but, in this case, I think there may be an element of Tom's words being taken out of context.

What I mean is, the word "pompous" is pretty loaded and offhand, and calling Loki pompous implies that there's this perception among the show's ptb that Loki is this prissy, uptight spoiled prince. We, the audience, know that this is not true, exactly -

- but there is a wider fandom perception of Loki as uptight, as stiff, as regal. What I mean is that 80 out of 100 fanfics I've ever read depict Loki as "solemn, irritatingly grand, self-important" (via google dictionary).

Fanfic!Loki is, more often than not, snarky rather than outright funny; he's rarely very mischievous and, in fact, is reserved and portrayed as easily irritated, especially at Thor's shenanigans and bolder tendencies to act out and be boisterous. At feasts, for example, Loki is the one fussing with his leathers while Thor is shouting and slamming his cups to the floor with mead in his beard.

Furthermore, so many fics show Loki having expensive, even ostentatious tastes when it comes to clothes and jewelry, like he's always playing the part of a prince. Almost all of us have picked up on Loki's preference for being as covered up as possible, as well, with sleeves down to his wrists and hardly so much as a collarbone showing.

There's always tons of focus on Loki spending hours in the library, being particular and careful with his spells and his studies, and showing a general lack of interest in 'cutting loose.' He considers himself so much smarter than everyone else and will help get Thor & co out of a bind, but it's very much in the "okay, I'll help you, but I'm going to complain about it the whole time" sense.

I had no issue taking Loki's "I've never walked so much in my life" line at kinda face value, bc I've read so many fics where he says some variation of the same thing to Thor while they're trekking through forests or god knows what.

So what I am saying is that, while none of these fics are canon obviously, the collective characterization that shows up again and again lends credence to the perception that, at least of the two princes, Loki is the pompous and stuffy one. It doesn't mean he's spoiled, and it doesn't mean he's inferior; it just means he's pricklier than most, which is something I - and apparently a lot of fic writers - agree with. I think that pompous was the wrong word to use to describe it, though.

In that sense, I can see Tom mentioning something like that and someone like Mike (who does not seem to be very 'deep' at all) misconstruing it, even as he keeps repeating it. And when it comes to the metaphor aspect, I think it's less that Tom would say/imply "haha, Loki thinks he's deep but he's not," than it is Tom probably has a headcanon of Loki as someone who takes himself too seriously and that is reflected in some of the things he says, especially if he happens to be drunk and too deep into his own thoughts.

In viewing Loki as taking himself too seriously, it could be a headcanon that's separate from Loki's trauma; before Loki fell, he was still a whole ass person and, while there is a lot of trauma and heartbreak just as a result of Loki's general upbringing, there's still more of a personality to Loki than just being a broken thing. Tom may be saying, Loki takes himself very seriously. He wants to be acknowledged as the smartest person in the room, especially since he's never the strongest person in the room or the best warrior in the room. He may lean on his own strengths in order to feel less inferior; he may very well think, well, I'm not as strong as Thor and I'm not as fun as the Warriors Three and I'm just a nothing, but I can say pretty things and that's princely, too.

Like, I don't know. I'm just speculating. I just think that there may be a lot going on here, from Tom's initial statement to Mike's interpretation of it to the final result we got on-screen. I don't think any one statement or 'headcanon' should weigh the most, and I think that for better or for worse, it's absolutely impossible for anyone, including Tom, to be able to pin down exactly what's going on with Loki at any point in time. Loki's as mercurial as a subject of analysis as he is in-universe as a character.

Did you read this interview?

"It’s a chance for Sylvie to burst the bubble of Loki's pomposity. He's always coming up with things that he thinks are profound, but actually, they're not particularly profound.” (The drunk scene and the speech about love)

Waldron went on further to explain

"I wrote that really, really quick. I remember I was revising Episode 3 in the two weeks leading up to my wedding. It’s interesting because that's probably the most romantic episode. At that point, Loki is a little bit drunk. That freed me up, where it was just like, ‘Don't think too hard about it,’ which is sort of my first thought that Loki would think here.”

"I just ran with it, ‘Love is a dagger.' And fortunately, like many of Loki's metaphors, it almost works.”

Everything this man says is so stupid. So this just proves that we aren't wrong for thinking that it didn't make much sense. He didn't even put much effort into it at all. And again he still thinks that everything Loki says is just pompous. He sucks.

No I didn’t see this? Do you or anyone else have a source to verify it? (I will edit this post to include it if anyone can link me).

It certainly sounds consistent with things Mike has said in the past tho. He really doesn’t understand Loki at all and has no respect for the character or his fans. He also takes no pride whatsoever in his work and has an amazingly big ego for such a lazy and untalented writer. (Also I’m still annoyed about that tweet where he said Loki should’ve been shirtless in his intro scene in Avengers. If anyone tweeted that about Black Widow people would be outraged; male characters deserve dignity and respect from the writers too).

He keeps talking in multiple interviews about Loki being “pompous” when he’s really not. Pompous is defined as “affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important” which is different from arrogant or superior. Loki is someone who is deeply defined by self loathing and insecurity which is…the opposite of that. He’s also someone who is genuinely competent. That’s not how Mike writes him though. Mike writes him as overconfident loser who vastly overestimates his own importance and abilities and consistently fails pathetically as a result. 

That’s not Loki. Loki is someone who has felt chronically overshadowed and we see even in the beginning of Thor 2011 that he is not well liked, is routinely overlooked and also routinely mocked by the W3. Loki isn’t overconfident. He’s genuinely competent. He has an air of superiority sometimes yes. But that’s different. He acts like royalty not because he thinks he’s important but because he is! He’s a prince! He thinks he’s powerful because he is - he’s a formidable warrior who can hold his own against Thor and a very gifted sorcerer. And he acts like it. Also a lot of his aloof and arrogant seeming behaviors are performative. It’s his way of shielding himself in moments of weakness. Like when he lashes out at the Hulk it’s because he knows he’s lost. When he acts insouciant and aloof in TDW it’s because he thinks he’s about to be executed. 

Mike misses all this complexity and is intent on just taking Loki down a peg and making a narrative that consistently disrespects and mocks its central character. I think it’s because he resents that Loki takes attention away from his original characters. And also maybe he just doesn’t like Loki at all because of harmful attitudes he holds in real life. After all he’s made offensive comments about victims having their hearts hardened by trauma and about adopted people all having control issues. So maybe he also projects some of his real life biased and bigoted attitudes onto Loki.

[britesparc]

Weekend Top Ten #498

Top Ten Movie Cameos

The first time I think I ever noticed someone cameoing in a movie was Steven Spielberg. I was watching The Blues Brothers, and there was this guy, who I was sure was Mr. The Berg. I must have seen him in some behind-the-scenes something or the other. But he was a director, not an actor, so it couldn’t have been him, right? Then years later I was reading Empire, and sure enough, I was vindicated. It was indeed the play mountain himself. But more on that later.

So, cameos, then. What is a cameo? Now, in my opinion, I think it really has to be small. Really, it should just be one scene – or even one shot. The smaller the better. I’ve seen people online refer to Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love or Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder as cameos, which is very, very daft, as those are clearly supporting roles – even if they are quite small (and remember, Dench didn’t win her Oscar for “Best Cameo”, she won it for “We Meant To Give You This Last Year”, which is a very important category in the Oscars). I also think the best cameos should be unexpected; a nice surprising treat. And usually they’re funny – the incongruity of seeing that person in this film. Because that’s the other thing: for a cameo to really work, the person cameoing has to be kinda famous. For instance, some might say that Ashley Johnson in The Avengers is a cameo, but whilst she’s obviously awesome and prodigiously talented, I don’t think she’s instantly recognisable enough (which, y’know, she’s mostly famous as a voice actor); also there’s nothing inherently funny or surprising about her role, she’s a waitress who’s saved by Captain America. It doesn’t feel like it’s saying anything to have Johnson play that role, other than I guess Joss Whedon wanted her in the movie (it’s actually funnier that her brief scene is referenced in Loki, because Kate Herron had the whole of the MCU to draw from in a montage, but chose to use an unknown character who’s in one tiny bit of one film, entirely because she’s a huge fan of The Last of Us – see, that is arguably a cameo).

So my rationale for what is and isn’t a cameo might seem complex or even arbitrary, but when has that stopped me in the past? And so, with no further ado, we now get deep into the weeds of it and celebrate my favourite movie cameos of all time. Oh, and there’s no Bill Murray here; I know, I know, it’s a really famous cameo, but, er, I’ve never seen Zombieland. Sorry.

Stan Lee in Pretty Much Everything (2000-2019): I mean, who else? The absolute King of Cameos. Lee was a massive publicity hound all his life, and passed up no opportunity to get in front of the camera, so once big, proper movies were being made of his comics, he was right there, selling hot dogs in X-Men (2000), rescuing children in Spider-Man (2002), and then right through every MCU film until his sad death in 2019 (and even popping up in Teen Titans!). Hearing him tell Miles Morales “I'm going to miss him,” in Into the Spider-Verse chokes me up every time.

Carrie Fisher & George Lucas in Hook (1991): this has always been one of my favourites because unlike virtually every other entry in this list, you only know this if you’ve been told. But it’s funny and it’s sweet. When Tinkerbell takes Peter to Neverland, she flies over a bridge, where a silhouetted couple are seen canoodling. Her pixie dust falls across them, and they begin to float into the air. And apparently the unrecognisable couple are played by Princess Leia and the director of Star Wars. Which, I think you’ll agree, is pretty cool (Hook is really good for cameos).

Brad Pitt in Deadpool 2 (2018): having an invisible character offers plenty of opportunity for some good gags, especially in a Deadpool movie, but the real laugh in the film comes when the Vanisher is electrocuted and we get to see his face for a split second. And – ha – it turns out to be the hugely mega-famous Brad Pitt. It’s funny because he’s a massive star.

Martin Sheen in Hot Shots! Part Deux (1993): it’s one thing for the movie to do an Apocalypse Now gag, as Charlie Sheen’s Topper Harley sails down a river on a military boat, but hanging a lampshade on it by making it cross over with Martin Sheen’s Willard from the classic seventies Vietnam epic is another thing entirely. And then both actors notice each other – ha, funny, they’re father and son in real life – and say in unison, “I loved you in Wall Street!”. Very on-the-nose all the funnier for it.

Steven Spielberg in The Blues Brothers (1980): well, I mentioned him, and here he is, a totally nonplussed-looking administrator bloke just merrily eating a sandwich. He’s frightfully young (I’m guessing he was probably about 32 or 33) and he’s got a big brown tache instead of his usual ‘Berg Beard, he’s dressed very smartly and he’s awfully polite. His demeanour is hilariously in stark contrast to the mayhem around him, and his public persona is also hilariously in contrast to the raucous and ribald mood of the movie.

Cate Blanchett in Hot Fuzz (2007): this is one I didn’t even notice till I read about it after seeing the movie. In a very funny scene where Simon Pegg’s Nick Angel chats to his ex-girlfriend Janine, she is head-to-toe in forensic gear throughout, with a mask covering her face, so all we see are her eyes. But the gag of it is, she’s played by the phenomenally famous Cate Blanchett. You get a megastar to do one scene but make her unrecognisable. So funny it beats Peter Jackson’s evil Santa.

Don Ameche & Ralph Bellamy in Coming to America (1988): this is another one I remember finding hilarious when I was a kid. Walking down the street late at night with love interest Lisa (Shari Headley), Akeem (Eddie Murphy) nonchalantly gives a huge wad of cash to some poor homeless bums. But it turns out that they’re played by Murphy’s old Trading Places co-stars Ameche and Bellamy – and they refer to each other by their character names from that earlier film. “We’re back!” declares Ameche, referencing the end of Trading Places, when their crooked broker characters were defeated and ruined by Murphy and Dan Aykroyd. It’s a great bit of shared-universe tomfoolery, and very funny for fans of Murphy’s movies. Oh, and speaking of Aykroyd…

Dan Aykroyd in Casper (1995): in 1995 it had been six long, bitter years without a new Ghostbusters film; back then, we could still hold out hope for a proper Ghostbuster 3. Sadly that never came to pass, but it was a very pleasant surprise when Ray Stantz himself popped up in Casper, of all things, fearfully running out of Whipstaff Manor in full ghostbusting regalia and declaring, “Who ya gonna call? Someone else!”. I mean, after facing down Gozer and Vigo and who knows what else, you’d think three sarcastic arsehole ghosts would be no match for him, but maybe the ‘busters were having tough times. Maybe this will all be backstory in Ghostbusters: Afterlife. Maybe Cathy Moriarty and Eric Idle will return the favour and do cameos of their own. We can but hope.

Matt Damon, Luke Hemsworth, & Sam Neill in Thor: Ragnarok (2017): twenty years ago you could point to Goldmember as the, er, gold standard in multi-character cameo pile-ups. And while that is great – Danny DeVito giving the finger, Spielberg back-flipping – I think it’s been surpassed by this minor gaggle of stars hamming it up. Matt Damon – famouser than anyone actually billed in the movie – is An Actor Playing Loki. Dr. Alan Grant from Jurassic Park is An Actor Playing Odin (whilst Odin’s actor, Anthony Hopkins, plays Tom Hiddleston playing Loki playing Odin – do keep up), and Thor’s Real-Life Brother plays An Actor Playing Thor. It’s all delightfully meta and hilarious.

Ollie Johnston & Frank Thomas in The Incredibles (2004): this one’s really sweet, and like the Hook cameo, would very easily slip you by. At the end of the film, after the climactic battle, two old men cheer on the superheroes – “That’s old school!” “Yep, no school like the old school!” – but what’s great is that they’re voiced by – and designed to look like – Ollie Johnston and Frank Thomas, the last two surviving members of the famous “Nine Old Men” group of Disney animators, who’d worked on many of the classic Disney films. This was Pixar and director Brad Bird giving a tip of the hat to the legends who came before them, and made all the sweeter by the fact that Johnston and Thomas (both sadly now deceased) were absolute best buds in real life. A cameo that educates and makes you think! How nice!

There you go. Sadly no room for any of the many great Star Wars cameos, from Daniel Craig through to George Lucas’ entire family. Oh well!

[qwanderer]

Haha whoops, I couldn't sleep well and I watched the new episode at four in the morning so you get long meta before I go to work! Do not click if you don't want the episode spoiled! Mama, this means you!

I've been wondering exactly what it is that makes Loki keep the TVA outfit on when he could conjure any clothing he wanted. And I've come to the conclusion that there are a lot of possible factors. (Yes, I mean other than Tom Hiddleston not wanting to wear armor for a whole show.) We know he enjoys the human businessman look - whenever he's on earth he's got a different suit and tie look going unless he's going into battle against people with guns or superpowers. So it's not necessarily unrealistic that once he's ditched the jacket that says "variant" in big orange letters across the back, he'd be happy to keep the rest of the ensemble.

I think there's also something like a "dress for the job you want" factor - where most Lokis we encounter want to rule Asgard or return to Asgard and wear something like Asgardian armor, where president Loki may have wanted to rule Midgard in a Midgardian fashion, our Loki has come to a place where his priority is the TVA. The TVA is the realm he wants to conquer and that's sort of what defines him right now. So the TVA uniform seems appropriate.

Once he's in the void, there are a couple of new reasons. He views himself as distinct from the other Lokis and wants to keep that visual distinction. He is of course the best and most sensible of all Lokis. They all are, inside their own heads, and what they wear represents their own version of that.

I also think he is still hoping to encounter Sylvie and Mobius again and wants them to immediately recognize which him he is.

It could all just be a default, not bothering to change what he's wearing, until he conjures that shoulder holster. That was the moment I knew he had accepted the mid-century detective aesthetic as part of his personality now. He could conjure any clothing or any kind of scabbard and he intentionally went with that look.

Speaking of clothes, I wasn't sure how I felt about classic Loki's outfit, but as his story played out, I decided it fit. His whole attitude is like, "Loki trying to fit into the culture of Asgard is a fool's errand - which I guess makes me a goddamn clown."

And Sylvie - her arc so far seems to have been about revenge, the past, everything she lost. Her comment to TVA Loki about the armor being uncomfortable seems like a sign she might be ready to let something else into her priorities. He doesn't replace her outfit. She's not ready. But she's getting there.

Now, the plot:

I'm happy to have been right so far about the nature of the relationship between Loki and Sylvie in broad strokes, at least. I thought Loki might have realized that they could combine their powers and that caused the nexus event, but what actually seems to have happened is that they reached a point where they trust each other enough to do so. I like that it was Sylvie who actually suggested it because they have shown how deeply Loki has come to trust Sylvie but that was the ultimate symbol of Sylvie trusting Loki. She let him blend his powers into hers and trusted him to back her up.

So what's going to happen, past that gateway? I don't know.

I've seen the "most everyone in this place is a Loki/a Loki created them and the TVA" theory and while that's not my first guess, I have to admit that this episode only supports that theory more. I definitely had a moment where I was like "omg, is Ravonna a Loki?" And another like "wait, is Mobius a Loki?" Neither of them has gotten the mind whammy, so we might not know.

But I think a more likely explanation is that the TVA is built around rules that just mean people like that survive and gain power. People who are used to operating in an authoritarian context, and who react to wanting to be able to do what they want by trying to gain some of that authority. People with tricky, suspicious minds who can play different parts when necessary.

The thing is, the TVA's story was that they were literally made to be ruled.

Dunno. I guess we'll see!

[carinyms]

We're three days from the Loki finale and I’m back to spout more meta and theories about episodes 5 & 6! It’s a long one (again.)

I really enjoyed episode five. People have complained that they felt it didn't do much to move the show forward, but one of the things I've loved most about this show is the time it takes to sit with the characters and learn about their backstory, their feelings. (I'm always a little bugged when critics say that an episode hasn't done enough to move the plot forward, because without adequate character development, why should I care about the plot?) I thought the pacing of it was really well balanced.

….and I have never been so nervous for a finale in my entire life. There’s a lot of reasons.

The first is just the fact that I’ve been waiting for this show for a whole year, and the anticipation and excitement of it literally helped get me through the pandemic--so when those final end credits roll I’m going to be a whole mess no matter what happens. (I really hope the rumors floating around about season two are accurate) I also just feel like it’s somewhat inevitable that this is our final farewell to Tom’s Loki, and like—I’ll never be ready, but especially right now, amidst all the rampant controversy around this show, I’m just not ready to deal with that. I have a *small* modicum of hope that this won't be the case, but it feels unlikely. Anyway, guess I’ll die.

I really want this show to stick the landing, so to say. I loved the last episode, but a lot of the response has been that it felt like a lull in the plot. I want this show to end in a satisfying bang so it can get the credit it deserves.

Also I’m a whole hypocrite eating my words from last week—I’m fully on-board with Loki/Sylvie now (not that I was ever really against it)--I’m not sure why I’m surprised. They’re so adorable and wholesome, and I’m in love with seeing Loki in love. It’s so precious. (Just as a PSA, if you’re not into them that’s chill, and you’re allowed to dislike a ship without trying to justify your opinion by labeling shippers as morally problematic. Selfcest isn’t a real thing, therefore there isn’t a moral high ground to stand on here. Okay? Okay.) Wherever it ultimately leads, their relationship is still a really sweet exploration of them both growing and learning how to love themselves and trust others. Also, them cuddling under a tablecloth is the cutest shit I’ve ever seen with my two eyes.

MY THEORIES:

I love Sylvie so much, SO MUCH — and she is 100% going to stab Loki in the back by the end of the next episode. I don’t think the betrayal is going to stick, and by the end they’ll both be on the same page again, but the conversations on trust have been way too one-sided for my comfort. If nothing else she's going to seriously consider it. Here’s one way I can see that going. Spoiler alert: it hurts.

Sylvie betrays Loki at one point—and we see Loki’s growth and arc come full circle as, even after being betrayed by the person he hinged his entire development around, he still believes in doing the right thing, in saving her regardless. It ends in a heart-wrenching self-sacrifice of some kind, and his actions serve as the catalyst for her full development as well. We keep seeing different versions of Loki die for their ‘glorious purpose’, just like how Classic Loki shouts the phrase as he was consumed by Aloith (RIP King, I love you).

Loki has already called Sylvie his glorious purpose (or inferred it). There’s been backlash around him saying that, but the way I see it, it’s less “I’m obsessed with this girl she’s my purpose now” and more “I believe that she’s the best version of us and I’m going to make it my purpose to help her succeed and be what the rest of us aren’t”. That’s why seeing all the other variant Loki’s at their worst in the Loki clubhouse (? what do I call this lol) only fuels him more to find her. I think about what Mobius told him: “You exist to cause pain and suffering and death, all so others can achieve the best versions of themselves”. I don’t think Loki truly believes he can be the best version of Loki — I think he saw Sylvie and thought, "it's her". He’s decided he’s going to help her achieve the best version of herself, but he'll do it giving her love and trust and devotion, rather than through betrayal, pain and suffering. He’s re-writing his pre-determined role, in his own small way. I’m so proud of him.

So who’s behind it all and what’s truly going on here? (This isn’t really one theory, more like a string of possibilities and I don’t really know how they’d fit together.)

I still think it’s another version of Loki. And if it is, I can’t help but appreciate the connections between his position dictating the end of time in the show in relation to Loki’s role in the Norse myths, where he’s the catalyst for the destruction of all things. It feels relevant, considering the whole idea that ‘the end of time hasn’t been written yet’ has come up twice now. That would be a fascinating tie-in to the mythology. (Also—Alioth looks like a giant dog. And Fenrir’s role in Ragnarok was devouring the world—I realize this is a reach but am I the only person seeing this connection?) The thing I really can’t predict is the motivation. What would cause a Loki to want to prevent Loki’s from changing? Was there something that happened in the sacred timeline this Loki is trying to preserve? (I also like the idea of us maybe seeing another version of Sylvie behind it all, but I’m just going to leave that rabbit hole alone. )

But here’s the theory I can’t stop thinking about. There’s a theory floating around tik tok (by user twelvepercentcredit) saying the ‘castle’ we see beyond Alioth looks like a place called the House of Ideas, something that appeared in a (discontinued?) Loki comic. Here’s the wiki page on it. Just looking at the imagery of this compared to the location we’re seeing in the trailers, it’s too similar to be a coincidence. The huge bookshelves, the towering ceilings.

Here’s a description from the wiki:

“The House of Ideas is also home to a library which archives the exploits of every hero who has ever existed in the form of books, written unconsciously by the collective minds of their believers. This collection is curated by Now and Then, two of the children of Eternity. Now and Then routinely seek out heroes to bring into the House of Ideas to bargain with them and give their collections more pages, therefore more time for adventures and exploits. “

And later on the page on how Loki ties in:

“Heeding the desire in Loki's heart to do more with his life, Now and Then approached Loki and brought him to the House of Ideas,[5] where they struck up with him the deal to give more pages to his collection of exploits, rewriting the Books of Loki with a hero's stories in exchange for an eventual hero's death.”

Are they gonna play with the exact happenings of this? I don't know, but it sounds pretty cool!

It would be gutsy to go this route with the show given how meta it is, but I love the idea of it. Would they put characters that embody the abstract ideas of “Eternity” “Now & Then” into the show in the last episode? I’m not sure. Something I could see as a possibility though is an alternate version of Loki having overthrown whoever was previously guarding the timeline, and Loki and Sylvie will have to take them down in turn, thus ‘releasing’ the multiverse to its default, chaotic state.

What if our Loki’s ultimate destiny, ultimate Glorious Purpose, is to release the timelines--restoring all the variants back to their original timelines--and remain in this place for eternity, guarding the timeline and ensuring the multiverse is allowed to exist in its natural state? It seems a pretty fitting role for the God of Chaos. It would also explain why whoever’s behind the TVA would be so desperate to eliminate all variant Loki, if that was his ultimate destiny.

It would be an effective way to remove Hiddleston’s Loki from the movie-verse without killing him, AND place both Sylvie and any other Loki variants back in the the main timeline for use in future films—which we know has to happen somehow, because Young Avengers is definitely happening, and Kid Loki has got to get out of the void somehow.

And yea, this outcome would hurt like a bitch. Because even though that would truly be a lovely glorious purpose for our Loki, he’d be alone. And the whole point of this show is that he doesn’t have to be alone! It would be a very poetic sacrifice for him to take on the burden of watching over the timelines alone for all eternity so that his other variants could be the best versions of themselves, but I really just want him to be happy. I will be crying my eyes out if this happens. I’ll be proud but I won’t be okay.

And this all is probably speculative nonsense and could go off in an entirely different direction. Who knows. All in all, I just really want to see Loki fully believe in himself and his ability, to truly absorb what he said about being stronger than he realizes, and to take control of his destiny.

WHAT I WANT (NEED) FROM EPISODE 6:

Let Hunter B-15 and Mobius team up to burn the place to the ground. She was nerfed in the time-keeper fight, I want to see B-15 kick some ass.

I kind of want Ravonna to escape and be a character that carries over into the films for her tie-ins with Kang? I want to see more of her.

Give Loki a new badass costume. I’m begging. If he’s gonna go down, he deserves to go down in something other than khakis.

And then I want to see him and Sylvie fighting side by side in matching outfits.

I want a Mobius-level hug between them. Or a kiss. Or both. But I want the hug more. And you know what? I want her to initiate the hug or kiss or whatever it is because I want Loki to experience receiving love and affection from others as much as giving it. He deserves it ok??

I expect Mobius on a jet ski in the post credits and if I don’t get it I riot

@marvel these are my demands.

As always, if you've made it this far I'd love to hear your thoughts!

[iamanartichoke]

Thanks to @thehumming6ird who was so kind an provided scans from Tom’s interview with the Empire you can now read the whole thing here.

Some things caught my eye. The photos are cut from the @thehumming6ird ‘s Scans, but the highlighting is mine.

1. Tom talks about the ‘break’ he took after 2017. To me, it sounds like he’s playing it down, but perhaps he just wants to prevent misunderstandings or sounding like he would blame anyone. I deeply respect that, especially since there are less classy people who didn’t show such courtesy.

2. He knew of Loki’s death in infinity war before filming Ragnarok. (Also, just when I thought my respect for the Russos could not dip lower, I was proven wrong. How are these people professionals?! And if you go for the worf-maneuver, how can you do it so incredibly shitty? Whyyyyy?!)

3. He doesn’t deny how hard Loki’s death has been on him. (Also, he mentions the Russo’s initiated a round of applause after his death scene. Is it me or does that feel distasteful to anyone else, too? Am I developing an arch-nemesis? Who the fuck applauds after an execution? Even if it’s a fictional one?)

4. Until now I had been convinced that it has been Tom choice to revive the 2012 Avengers Loki instead, let’s say the 2013prison Loki or the post-Ragnarok version. Turns out, this wasn’t even intentional but the easiest fit. *sigh* ok. I’ll just assume we - the ones who like the avengers version best - got lucky.

5. At this point the interviewer says ‘malevolent streak’ which means he is -unlike in the introduction- not accusing Loki to be malevolent, but refers to his actions.

Tom agrees with those characterizations: bruised, broken, capricious, malevolent streak, and something to prove. These characterizations fit better the Loki from Thor 1 and TDW than Ragnarok Loki, I’d say. Also, he mentions The most ‘fun’ parts of Loki would be his defense mechanisms. (Not the potty humor.)

Regarding the snake story, he makes it very clear that this was Thor’s story, leaving it open if it truly happened like this or not.

6. He assures us he doesn’t want ‘to break’ Loki. Well, he also says he didn’t want to dilute what was already done, which also can be interpreted as ‘it won’t be worse than the former canon’ but the sentence about breaking Loki takes the ambivalence out. He seems pretty sure it is good, so the only question remains if his taste fits ours.

Regarding the team, he points out Kate’s knowledge. I think that’s a good sign. You don’t research things you’re not into this well. But I wasn’t me if I wouldn’t point out that ‘extraordinary’ doesn’t equal ‘good’.