Originally Posted by Moonwing
BTW the writer of new Loki series said that Loki now officially bi cam out of nowhere really and look like fandom pandering to me. We will see thought.
Okay, to go off topic to the comics a bit, Loki was always the slightly odd duck, more effeminate than the rest of the manly-man pantheon, even if he's misogynist and wishing to assert his masculinity. He was willing to steal a woman's body and saunter around in that being glamorous, too. So the news that he'll be shapeshifting sex in this series isn't such a shock. And he seemed a bit flirty towards men in that "female" body too (even with Balder, ew Loki). Who knows, maybe his "bisexuality" will just be flirting with dudes to get what he wants whilst in that form.
As for "came out of nowhere", there was a time, a very long homophobic time, when no character was written to have same-gender interests. Some fans who have followed more of his story than mine say there was some hints at it (and certainly it's villains who tend to get saddled with non-masculine-hetero traits). Loki is in a new, teenage body, having spent time with young, queer, modern, humans, and he's hellbent on change, so I don't find it too unprecedented that he might be more interested in sex. And we all know that a) sexuality is fluid b) not all bisexuals are always with both/all genders all the time, right? c) sexuality =/= personality
Arguing that (because of homophobia), long running characters weren't explicitly shown to be queer before, and now are in less homophobic times, therefore they shouldn't be now, is an argument I have little patience with, especially as we haven't even seen how the story is handled. It's not like anyone's claiming Loki isn't still interested in women, though sometimes that change happens in real life.
Fanservice? Something else I notice when queer elements are introduced, how much people say things like this, or "politically correct" or "gratuitous" or "clumsy" or "obtrusive" or "unrealistic" or "disservice to the plotline and characters". This is singling out this one thing for attention and criticism, as if queerness is not something that is as natural and common as breathing. It's not a "special" thing, it's just a fact of life that has been deliberately and egregiously omitted in fiction until recently, and still gets singled out by well-meaning liberals as a being bit kinkier and rarefied or as some put it thinking they're not homophobic, "hip". Excuse me.
Unlike the wank fantasies that are most superhero comics for men, Marvel are obviously trying to do one for women, I mean how many times can you shove the word "sexy" into an interview. They admitted they're inspired by Hiddleston's movie Loki. They want some of that fangirl money. Let's look at Thor: The Dark World. In how many ways are they using fanservice to sell to audiences? Oh, they made Thor hot. They took his top off again. They introduced comic relief via Darcy. Jane's the romantic old-fashioned sort to conveniently be the damsel to the hero. Let's put her in danger. Let's put in some really big explosions. Yeah, and some heads really getting kicked in. Loki's popular so let's focus a bit more on him. Let's have a human audience identifier and make her the fish out of water this time. I'm yet to read anyone complaining that the deliberate inclusion of fan-pleasing elements will automatically make the in-universe seem pandery and false (except where Loki for Teh Fangirls is concerned).
So I'd rather see the actual comic, and see how this new, teenage, super-spy, "sexy" Loki carries himself, before criticising it as contrived and "hip".