Tom Hiddleston: Loki Redux

[Godzilla2000]

If they really want to bring the character in the direction of how he is currently in the comics Loki can be much more evil, devious and mischievous all at the same time. Sometimes pranks can be destructive in nature too. I believe Loki was the Vikings way of explaining when things went wrong, it was Loki that caused it just to pull a wonderfully amusing prank on the mortals. Doesn't mean Loki's pranks are of the harmless sort though when talking of his comicbook movie counterpart.

[elizah72]

It occurred to me that if his nature is to be mischievous and devious and that he enjoys that, then he doesnt necessarily have to direct that always towards the good guys, that he would, due to his very nature, not be able to help himself but do the same to any bad guys he may find himself in line with. Is that part sort of in line with the comics? Does he have a habit of screwing over the other bad guys too?

I really see him sort of walking the line this way for the majority of the films left, sometimes doing mischief for/against good, and sometimes for/against evil. Where he ends up in the final installment is anybody's guess at this point (even Tom's). Though as you all know I have leanings in a certain direction. This sort of take on him walking the line and messing with both sides would also prevent some of the rehashing of the same thing where Loki does something bad to rule the world and Thor has to stop him.

I also really liked the mischievous silver tongued more subtle manipulative charmer that we saw more in Thor 1, and as it stands I dont really feel he can fool any of the good guys in the same way, and believably. Thor may fall for some stuff, due to the fact that he wants desperately to bring his brother back to the fold, but not so sure anyone else would. (maybe Odin and Frigga, but I dont know). A bad guy like Malekith that he's gotten to trust him, would certainly be an opportunity to bring that more subtle mischief and manipulation back. Myth/Comic Loki's wife Sigyn coming into it would also put in place a character who would believably trust him, and he'd be able to manipulate into helping him going forward, even if she is no on board with what he's doing and why. I continue to think that would be a very interesting relationship for them to explore going forward (if well written and casted).

[jaqua99]

lol i could do with out the charmer bit of it.

[elizah72]

Originally Posted by jaqua99

lol i could do with out the charmer bit of it.

lol, I'm sure but you know what I mean in general I hope. More subtly dangerous and less overtly aggressive. I just think it's more interesting and more fun that way.

[American Maid]

Originally Posted by elizah72

It occurred to me that if his nature is to be mischievous and devious and that he enjoys that, then he doesnt necessarily have to direct that always towards the good guys, that he would, due to his very nature, not be able to help himself but do the same to any bad guys he may find himself in line with. Is that part sort of in line with the comics? Does he have a habit of screwing over the other bad guys too?

Loki is by no means a positive force. But I would have to hand it to him if he pulled that off.

Originally Posted by elizah72

I also really liked the mischievous silver tongued more subtle manipulative charmer that we saw more in Thor 1, and as it stands I dont really feel he can fool any of the good guys in the same way, and believably. Thor may fall for some stuff, due to the fact that he wants desperately to bring his brother back to the fold, but not so sure anyone else would. (maybe Odin and Frigga, but I dont know). A bad guy like Malekith that he's gotten to trust him, would certainly be an opportunity to bring that more subtle mischief and manipulation back.

Originally Posted by jaqua99

lol i could do with out the charmer bit of it.

Oh, I'm not sure I agree. In some ways, the manipulative charmer can be more of a threat. He can possibly propogate more evil, because he's better able to get people to trust him and thus give him leeway.

I disagree with elizah72 that this approach would work better with bad guys than with good. Good guys generally want to give people the benefit of the doubt, second chance, believe there's still good, etc etc. In the eyes of someone willing to manipulate that, such a disposition is a weakness to be exploited.

Bad guys, on the other hand, will just make you pay dearly the first time you cross them.

Originally Posted by elizah72

Myth/Comic Loki's wife Sigyn coming into it would also put in place a character who would believably trust him, and he'd be able to manipulate into helping him going forward, even if she is no on board with what he's doing and why. I continue to think that would be a very interesting relationship for them to explore going forward (if well written and casted).

While I can see how that could be some fertile ground for storytelling, I think there's not room in the movies for that. Too many other plot lines going on and too many other characters running around.

[chamber-music]

[jaqua99]

Originally Posted by American Maid

Loki is by no means a positive force. But I would have to hand it to him if he pulled that off.





Oh, I'm not sure I agree. In some ways, the manipulative charmer can be more of a threat. He can possibly propogate more evil, because he's better able to get people to trust him and thus give him leeway.

I disagree with elizah72 that this approach would work better with bad guys than with good. Good guys generally want to give people the benefit of the doubt, second chance, believe there's still good, etc etc. In the eyes of someone willing to manipulate that, such a disposition is a weakness to be exploited.

Bad guys, on the other hand, will just make you pay dearly the first time you cross them.



While I can see how that could be some fertile ground for storytelling, I think there's not room in the movies for that. Too many other plot lines going on and too many other characters running around.

Unless I am missing the meaning of "charmer"? I still sorta disagree. Being manipulative, and faking relationships, yes, no doubt, but being a charmer, to me, that's not Lokis thing (of course, unless what I described IS what you mean by being a charmer)

See the charmer manipullative characteristic already belongs to another character though (one who will probably eventually show up in the Thor franchise)

Her name is Amora the Enchantress, she is a charmer, and manipulator, and I'd bet my butt she'll appear in the third movie. Let the manipulative charmer role stay to the character it belongs too. Loki has soo many characteristics, he doesn't need to borrow one, that just so happens to be the MAIN CHARACTERISTIC of another character. Ya know? I mean, I wouldnt completely mind seeing Loki with that characteristic, but I'd strongly prefer not to. And here's why.

Assuming Amora DOES show up, then what? Her main characteristic as a villain is how she is charming and manipulative, in my opinion, she doesn't have the depth of character Loki does. if Loki continues again to be a charmer, then Amora will be just a "female copy of Loki" which isn't the case, she's a great Thor villain. It's her defining characteristic as a villain, and given that she will probably turn up, let that defining characteristic be exclusive to her, ya know what I mean in that respect?

It's similar to the Hulk and Thor debate in the movie universe. Idk if you knew, but in the comics, Thor and Hulk are actually similar in strength. In fact, as you know, hulk gets stronger with anger, Thor starts off stronger than Hulk, and it takes a little while for Hulk to get to Thor's level of strength.

Howeer, in the movie universe, it would be pointless to make thor as strong as hulk, he has all these other abilities, while Hulk has only his strength and durability, giving thor strength RIGHT on par with Hulk will take away from Hulk


Same goes for Amora and Loki, ya know?

[elizah72]

Oh, I'm not sure I agree. In some ways, the manipulative charmer can be more of a threat. He can possibly propogate more evil, because he's better able to get people to trust him and thus give him leeway.

Yes, exactly. And it's more fun to watch unfold (to me anyway lol)

I disagree with elizah72 that this approach would work better with bad guys than with good. Good guys generally want to give people the benefit of the doubt, second chance, believe there's still good, etc etc. In the eyes of someone willing to manipulate that, such a disposition is a weakness to be exploited.

Bad guys, on the other hand, will just make you pay dearly the first time you cross them.

Agreed. However, lets not forget this is Loki we are talking about, and remember Tony to Loki in Avengers "And you, big guy have managed to piss off every one of them"

Loki smirks "that was the plan"

Loki doesn't care if he pisses them or anyone off at this point. Well, except maybe Thanos I think... but I think another villain he fancy's himself better or more powerful than, I can definitely see him messing with.

While I can see how that could be some fertile ground for storytelling, I think there's not room in the movies for that. Too many other plot lines going on and too many other characters running around.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Unfortunately, probably true. I do think there may be more room for her if Frigga is killed, since Frigga, I feel confident, will be used to re-humanize Loki at least some after the events of Avengers and then so their may be room for another character to fill that void when she's gone. I keep hoping that since they are being very secretive about Loki in general, that they are not even leaking that she's been cast until closer to release time. (I know, I know, don't hold my breath! ) I think Tumblr and Twitter might explode if that happens. LOL

It all is fertile ground for storytelling definitely. Ugh... Dont know if you can tell, but I am trying desperately NOT to get into writing fan fiction again. I used to do that in a couple other fandoms years ago - decent character/plot driven stuff, not just smut for smuts sake or ridiculously out of character self insertion stuff that seems to abound. But my problem was I could never write anything short and sweet, it was always these monstrously long epic series things that would go on forever! I promised myself I'd never do again! It was enjoyable in some ways, and I always got good responses, but it just eats up SO much time and energy, and of course you can't make money on it. Anyway, came here hoping I'd talk about this interesting character a bit and sort of scratch that itch, exercise that demon so to speak, and be done with it. But not sure I'm over the urge yet, (hence all the annoying Loki comments and questions). He's SO interesting! Most interesting villain I've seen in a LONG time! And they can go so many interesting ways both with his past and future! ARRRRGH!!

No. No. No. No. No. I will NOT write any more fan fictions. No.

[jaqua99]

again lol I dont think Loki should be too much of a charmer. Amora will probably appear, and if Loki becomes a charmer, it will take away from amora, cause that is her prime characteristic, let it stay to her, and Let Loki be Loki lol.

[elizah72]

Originally Posted by jaqua99

again lol I dont think Loki should be too much of a charmer. Amora will probably appear, and if Loki becomes a charmer, it will take away from amora, cause that is her prime characteristic, let it stay to her, and Let Loki be Loki lol.

LOL Honestly from what I've seen/know of Amora I can TOTALLY do without ever seeing her in the MCU. But then I am a straight female.

[jaqua99]

well that's totally understandable, however, I like the character...and I'm a straight 20 year old male so :P haha

[elizah72]

I figured as much. LOL

nice manip, chamber-music!

[American Maid]

Originally Posted by jaqua99

Unless I am missing the meaning of "charmer"? I still sorta disagree. Being manipulative, and faking relationships, yes, no doubt, but being a charmer, to me, that's not Lokis thing (of course, unless what I described IS what you mean by being a charmer)

Well, "charmer" can have positive or negative connotations. In this context, I, and I believe, elizah72, were thinking of manipulative and faking relationships, as you put it. Someone who smiles sweetly to you and acts like your buddy and then takes advantage of the trust you give him by stabbing you in the back.

And I'm not saying Loki *is* like that, just that it's a plausible characterization. And the other point I meant to make was that such a person can commit a lot of evil while smiling the whole time.

Originally Posted by jaqua99

See the charmer manipullative characteristic already belongs to another character though (one who will probably eventually show up in the Thor franchise)

Her name is Amora the Enchantress, she is a charmer, and manipulator, and I'd bet my butt she'll appear in the third movie. Let the manipulative charmer role stay to the character it belongs too. Loki has soo many characteristics, he doesn't need to borrow one, that just so happens to be the MAIN CHARACTERISTIC of another character. Ya know?

I started reading this forum right around the time that the rumors about Amora and the Executioner were dying down. So I only read a little bit about Amora (and run across her from time to time while looking up other things). I mentally categorized her as a generic seductress and figured she was probably like every other seductress in the world of comic books.

It's interesting that she has that manipulative charmer act going. And I'll bet she can be pretty nasty, yes?

Originally Posted by jaqua99

I wouldnt completely mind seeing Loki with that characteristic, but I'd strongly prefer not to. And here's why.

Assuming Amora DOES show up, then what? Her main characteristic as a villain is how she is charming and manipulative, in my opinion, she doesn't have the depth of character Loki does. if Loki continues again to be a charmer, then Amora will be just a "female copy of Loki" which isn't the case, she's a great Thor villain. It's her defining characteristic as a villain, and given that she will probably turn up, let that defining characteristic be exclusive to her, ya know what I mean in that respect?

It's similar to the Hulk and Thor debate in the movie universe. Idk if you knew, but in the comics, Thor and Hulk are actually similar in strength. In fact, as you know, hulk gets stronger with anger, Thor starts off stronger than Hulk, and it takes a little while for Hulk to get to Thor's level of strength.

Howeer, in the movie universe, it would be pointless to make thor as strong as hulk, he has all these other abilities, while Hulk has only his strength and durability, giving thor strength RIGHT on par with Hulk will take away from Hulk


Same goes for Amora and Loki, ya know?

I can see that. She'd look like a copy of Loki, when you could make the argument that Loki so portrayed would be a copy of *her*! And how annoying would that be?

[jaqua99]

Originally Posted by American Maid

Well, "charmer" can have positive or negative connotations. In this context, I, and I believe, elizah72, were thinking of manipulative and faking relationships, as you put it. Someone who smiles sweetly to you and acts like your buddy and then takes advantage of the trust you give him by stabbing you in the back.

And I'm not saying Loki *is* like that, just that it's a plausible characterization. And the other point I meant to make was that such a person can commit a lot of evil while smiling the whole time.



I started reading this forum right around the time that the rumors about Amora and the Executioner were dying down. So I only read a little bit about Amora (and run across her from time to time while looking up other things). I mentally categorized her as a generic seductress and figured she was probably like every other seductress in the world of comic books.

It's interesting that she has that manipulative charmer act going. And I'll bet she can be pretty nasty, yes?



I can see that. She'd look like a copy of Loki, when you could make the argument that Loki so portrayed would be a copy of *her*! And how annoying would that be?

It would literally be a giant circle, an endless loop lol it would be soooo irritating. And for the reason you bolded, that is why I think that characteristic should be left out of him Though I would like to see her and Loki working together.

I wouldnt be surprised if she gets an appearance, just like, a character introduction in this movie, just so we know some of thor's asgardian enemies DO exist

[Doc Ock]

Originally Posted by chamber-music

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

*cannot believe how awesome that looks*

*faints*

[Jenlet]

Originally Posted by jaqua99

lol i could do with out the charmer bit of it.

Same! I dig feral Loki. Didn't give him a thought when I first saw Thor but after The Avengers... I like all villains, honestly. The meaner, the better!

[elizah72]

To each his/her own, I guess. LOL

Somehow sharing this t shirt seems appropriate.
http://www.geeksofdoom.com/2012/07/2...-charms-shirt/

Unless I am missing the meaning of "charmer"? I still sorta disagree. Being manipulative, and faking relationships, yes, no doubt, but being a charmer, to me, that's not Lokis thing (of course, unless what I described IS what you mean by being a charmer)

Well, "charmer" can have positive or negative connotations. In this context, I, and I believe, elizah72, were thinking of manipulative and faking relationships, as you put it. Someone who smiles sweetly to you and acts like your buddy and then takes advantage of the trust you give him by stabbing you in the back.

Yes and no. I am thinking more of the way he uses pleasing ingratiating talk to get what he wants, rather than the motivation necessarily.

In example:

"I'll handle this... Good Heimdall - "

Volstagg: "What? Silver tongue turned to lead?"

"we will accept your most gracious offer"

"after all I've done for you?"

"and you can return Jotunheim to all it's uh.... glory"

"My Friends..." most of that speech greeting the warriors 3 and Sif and trying to get them on his side.

And then there's the scene where he is sitting next to Thor in the dining hall, buzzing in his ear, telling Thor what he wants to hear, that he agrees with him, etc... but all the while he is actually trying to egg on Thor to piss off Father even further. (though I dont think his plan was to actually land on Jotunheim). And as a side note, notice Sif looking at them, she's likely seen this before, him buzzing in Thor's ear, egging him on, and she knows it leads to bad things.

And I maintain that the whole thing where he says "if it's all right, I'll have that drink now" is sort of an exhausted attempt at trying to be charming and wriggle out of trouble. Hence the muzzle later on. They have his number and they're not havin' it.

I like him more subtle and smooth like this I guess, as opposed to "Bah! I'll destroy you all!"

oh, and Tom Hiddleston says... “He is a combination of mercurial intellectual ability, emotional ambiguity, rakish charm, charisma and provocative wit. He has a wicked inclination to mischief, underneath which is a well of spiritual pain. Both these aspects are central to his depth as a character: his unashamed and perverse delight in creating chaos; and his capacity for raw emotional expression."

“Underneath the steely cold veneer of his trickster charm is a certain vulnerability and sensitivity – the wounded fragility of an outcast brother and son. His mind IS a box of cats though! But I love him.”

Source: http://www.totalfilm.com/news/tom-hi...ards-interview

So it would sort of appear, at least to me, and seemingly to the actor who plays him, like being a charmer on some level is already part of the established MCU Loki's personality. Like it or not...

No reason there can't be more than one charmer and manipulator in the MCU, it is more interesting that way to see how one master chess/poker player goes against the other. We saw a bit of that with Loki vs Black Widow. I dont really see how Amora (who I was quite aware of, believe it or not), as she is, could ever be considered a copy of Loki in the MCU because there is no way they will do the amount of character development with her, that they did with Loki (or Black Widow for that matter). She'd just be sort of a generic seductress/villainess.

Now it would be wickedly fun to see Loki work with Amora, to see how Tom plays it (especially if Whedon were writing it) BUT, that would get tired real quick, I'm afraid. It would quickly turn into the Boris and Natasha of the 9 realms, with a lot of evil mustache twirling and sneering, and we'd lose all that wonderful depth that was built into MCU Loki in the first place. Which, in my opinion anyway, for whatever it's worth, would be a real shame.

And honestly, I know Amora is really into Thor in the comics, yes? MCU Thor already is working on a relationship with Jane, and possibly they will wind up going towards a Jane - Thor - Sif triangle (considering Sif is his Myth wife and engaged in the comics, yes? ) SO I really can't see yet ANOTHER female vying for Thor's attention in the context of the MCU here. It would be really gratuitous and out of place with what they are doing to just throw her in there to randomly seduce him or whatever. I just dont see what actual value she'd really add to the MCU storylines and character arcs at this point in time, so I'm going with she will not show up in MCU at all.

[jaqua99]

Originally Posted by elizah72

To each his/her own, I guess. LOL

Somehow sharing this t shirt seems appropriate.
http://www.geeksofdoom.com/2012/07/2...-charms-shirt/





Yes and no. I am thinking more of the way he uses pleasing ingratiating talk to get what he wants, rather than the motivation necessarily.

In example:

"I'll handle this... Good Heimdall - "

Volstagg: "What? Silver tongue turned to lead?"

"we will accept your most gracious offer"

"after all I've done for you?"

"and you can return Jotunheim to all it's uh.... glory"

"My Friends..." most of that speech greeting the warriors 3 and Sif and trying to get them on his side.

And then there's the scene where he is sitting next to Thor in the dining hall, buzzing in his ear, telling Thor what he wants to hear, that he agrees with him, etc... but all the while he is actually trying to egg on Thor to piss off Father even further. (though I dont think his plan was to actually land on Jotunheim). And as a side note, notice Sif looking at them, she's likely seen this before, him buzzing in Thor's ear, egging him on, and she knows it leads to bad things.

And I maintain that the whole thing where he says "if it's all right, I'll have that drink now" is sort of an exhausted attempt at trying to be charming and wriggle out of trouble. Hence the muzzle later on. They have his number and they're not havin' it.

I like him more subtle and smooth like this I guess, as opposed to "Bah! I'll destroy you all!"

oh, and Tom Hiddleston says... “He is a combination of mercurial intellectual ability, emotional ambiguity, rakish charm, charisma and provocative wit. He has a wicked inclination to mischief, underneath which is a well of spiritual pain. Both these aspects are central to his depth as a character: his unashamed and perverse delight in creating chaos; and his capacity for raw emotional expression."

“Underneath the steely cold veneer of his trickster charm is a certain vulnerability and sensitivity – the wounded fragility of an outcast brother and son. His mind IS a box of cats though! But I love him.”

Source: http://www.totalfilm.com/news/tom-hi...ards-interview

So it would sort of appear, at least to me, and seemingly to the actor who plays him, like being a charmer on some level is already part of the established MCU Loki's personality. Like it or not...

No reason there can't be more than one charmer and manipulator in the MCU, it is more interesting that way to see how one master chess/poker player goes against the other. We saw a bit of that with Loki vs Black Widow. I dont really see how Amora (who I was quite aware of, believe it or not), as she is, could ever be considered a copy of Loki in the MCU because there is no way they will do the amount of character development with her, that they did with Loki (or Black Widow for that matter). She'd just be sort of a generic seductress/villainess.

Now it would be wickedly fun to see Loki work with Amora, to see how Tom plays it (especially if Whedon were writing it) BUT, that would get tired real quick, I'm afraid. It would quickly turn into the Boris and Natasha of the 9 realms, with a lot of evil mustache twirling and sneering, and we'd lose all that wonderful depth that was built into MCU Loki in the first place. Which, in my opinion anyway, for whatever it's worth, would be a real shame.

And honestly, I know Amora is really into Thor in the comics, yes? MCU Thor already is working on a relationship with Jane, and possibly they will wind up going towards a Jane - Thor - Sif triangle (considering Sif is his Myth wife and engaged in the comics, yes? ) SO I really can't see yet ANOTHER female vying for Thor's attention in the context of the MCU here. It would be really gratuitous and out of place with what they are doing to just throw her in there to randomly seduce him or whatever. I just dont see what actual value she'd really add to the MCU storylines and character arcs at this point in time, so I'm going with she will not show up in MCU at all.

Same Value as having Loki to thor, or zemo to Cap, The Enchantress and Executioner are a big part of Thor's rogue gallery, don't be fooled, they'll turn up.

[American Maid]

Originally Posted by elizah72

Somehow sharing this t shirt seems appropriate.
http://www.geeksofdoom.com/2012/07/2...-charms-shirt/

Yeah, I love this t-shirt. Glad to know you've seen it too!

Originally Posted by elizah72

<charming>
I am thinking more of the way he uses pleasing ingratiating talk to get what he wants, rather than the motivation necessarily.

<lines of dialogue>

And then there's the scene where he is sitting next to Thor in the dining hall, buzzing in his ear, telling Thor what he wants to hear, that he agrees with him, etc... but all the while he is actually trying to egg on Thor to piss off Father even further. (though I dont think his plan was to actually land on Jotunheim). And as a side note, notice Sif looking at them, she's likely seen this before, him buzzing in Thor's ear, egging him on, and she knows it leads to bad things.

And I maintain that the whole thing where he says "if it's all right, I'll have that drink now" is sort of an exhausted attempt at trying to be charming and wriggle out of trouble. Hence the muzzle later on. They have his number and they're not havin' it.

I like him more subtle and smooth like this I guess, as opposed to "Bah! I'll destroy you all!"

Yeah, "Muah-ha-ha!" would get tedious after a while.

Jon, regarding all these examples that elizah72 has cited, does Loki not say such things in the books?

elizah72, regarding that scene you mention above where Loki is whispering in Thor's ear, if Sif has seen this all before, that does suggest that Thor has been taken in by Loki yet again. (ie, is he ever not going to fall for that?)

Originally Posted by elizah72

No reason there can't be more than one charmer and manipulator in the MCU, it is more interesting that way to see how one master chess/poker player goes against the other. We saw a bit of that with Loki vs Black Widow. I dont really see how Amora (who I was quite aware of, believe it or not), as she is, could ever be considered a copy of Loki in the MCU because there is no way they will do the amount of character development with her, that they did with Loki (or Black Widow for that matter). She'd just be sort of a generic seductress/villainess.

Well, I have to concede that you are probably right on this. They have so many people in Thor2, and I'm sure Thor3 will be the same way. So it will be hard to do a lot of character development for the newcomers.

But you're also right that if they had more time, they could possibly write more than one charmer and have them not be duplicates of one another.

Originally Posted by elizah72

And honestly, I know Amora is really into Thor in the comics, yes? MCU Thor already is working on a relationship with Jane, and possibly they will wind up going towards a Jane - Thor - Sif triangle (considering Sif is his Myth wife and engaged in the comics, yes? ) SO I really can't see yet ANOTHER female vying for Thor's attention in the context of the MCU here. It would be really gratuitous and out of place with what they are doing to just throw her in there to randomly seduce him or whatever. I just dont see what actual value she'd really add to the MCU storylines and character arcs at this point in time, so I'm going with she will not show up in MCU at all.

I had this recollection that they were shacked up, maybe in the '90's. Checking into it, I find a reference that they were married (!) and had a kid! But that looks to be a story line that later got reversed in a go-back-in-time thing.

But that does make one wonder, where are all the Thor-Amora shippers? In the vast expanse of the internet, there must surely be some

I agree with you partially that they are likely not to throw in someone else vying seriously for Thor. I also agree that it would be gratiutous to have a random seductress. But then again, it's probably not wise to bet against appearances of seductresses when we are talking comic books!!

More seriously, in a way it would kind of be too bad not to have her show up to scheme and cause trouble, with or against Loki. But I can see the necessity of keeping her out for parsimony of characters.

[elizah72]

elizah72, regarding that scene you mention above where Loki is whispering in Thor's ear, if Sif has seen this all before, that does suggest that Thor has been taken in by Loki yet again. (ie, is he ever not going to fall for that?)

I'd say based on that moment, and the "he's always been jealous of Thor" comment and the staredown they do in the throneroom scene (which is really great little moment), she basically has Loki's number, and has seen him cause trouble for Thor before. But she possibly didn't *at those previous times* feel it was her place to say something to Thor, perhaps for fear of making Thor angry with her (as that would make it seem she's trying to drive a wedge between the brothers, something that Loki would most certainly play up when defending himself to Thor about it).

Going forward I feel like she's likely to be a bit more vocal about any Loki scheming she may pick up on.

I agree with you partially that they are likely not to throw in someone else vying seriously for Thor. I also agree that it would be gratiutous to have a random seductress. But then again, it's probably not wise to bet against appearances of seductresses when we are talking comic books!!

oh, I'm not saying it's out of the question, I just dont see the storytelling/character development value to her at all at this time. it would just be for the fanboys.

[American Maid]

Originally Posted by elizah72

Going forward I feel like [Sif]'s likely to be a bit more vocal about any Loki scheming she may pick up on.

Yeah, I can see that. And a welcome development, too.

[metaphysician]

You know what, I'll say it outright: I hope they give Loki a redemption arc, and a spinoff movie of his own. Oh, he's never going to be liked or trusted again, but that doesn't mean he can't have some fun at the expense of someone deserving of it.

[jaqua99]

Originally Posted by elizah72

I'd say based on that moment, and the "he's always been jealous of Thor" comment and the staredown they do in the throneroom scene (which is really great little moment), she basically has Loki's number, and has seen him cause trouble for Thor before. But she possibly didn't *at those previous times* feel it was her place to say something to Thor, perhaps for fear of making Thor angry with her (as that would make it seem she's trying to drive a wedge between the brothers, something that Loki would most certainly play up when defending himself to Thor about it).

Going forward I feel like she's likely to be a bit more vocal about any Loki scheming she may pick up on.



oh, I'm not saying it's out of the question, I just dont see the storytelling/character development value to her at all at this time. it would just be for the fanboys.

the whole muzzle thing was a homage to Odin sewing Loki's mouth shut in the comics. THere is no doubt about that one I'd say.

And

Well, in regards to American Maid's question (can I call you something else)

I am not too sure. I tend to remember plot and arc apposed to dialogue, there are some characters whose voices pop into my head when I read them, those characters, I remember dialogue. Loki isn't one of those characters for me. Why, is beyond me lol. It's completely random, characters like Absorbing man, thanos, warlock, silver surfer, their voices just appear in my head for some reason, and those characters I can remember dialogue, opposed to plot. Idk, its how my imagination works lol so I can't answer that question too well. But as I recall, it's definitally more manipulating than "charming"

I took the whole "i'll have the drink now" bit as waving the white flag, trying to get a bit out of it.

but the muzzle was definitaly homage to the books

[elizah72]

Originally Posted by jaqua99

the whole muzzle thing was a homage to Odin sewing Loki's mouth shut in the comics. THere is no doubt about that one I'd say.

Oh, I know I've said that before. I'm more talking to the Avengers motivation for putting the muzzle on. They didnt just look it up in a Thor comic book and say, "hey that's a great idea, let's do something like that" they are trying to get him to shut up at this point. LOL Sometimes there is more than one reason for something.

[Jenlet]

Personally, I like the deleted scene where Loki isn't wearing a muzzle or chains. More expressive face. But I get why they did it in the end.

Offhand, I am going absolutely bats**t crazy for more set pics. AND THERE HAS TO BE LOKI.