Tom Hiddleston: Loki Redux

[elizah72]

Hmm...maybe this is why my attraction is starting to cool and I'm going back to my earlier obsession, Orlando Bloom.

oh, no! Sorry to hear that! Have you seen Hobbit yet? I am planning to go this week.

 

[Godzilla2000]

oh, no! Sorry to hear that! Have you seen Hobbit yet? I am planning to go this week.

Oh yes, yes, I loved it a lot. I mean how can you not love a movie that has one of the monsters singing in it. My only regret is that I have to wait a full year to see Orli as Legolas again. I guess I can seek solace in the LOTR Trilogy for now.

 

[jaqua99]

So many many wonderful layers to MCU Loki, so much going on in that head of his. Branding him as just selfish, jealous, power hungry or evil is really not the whole story. Aspects of that, of course but that is not a complete picture of the character at all.

To quote Tom, "every villain is a hero in his own mind" and this is especially true of Loki. Loki believes he knows best, and that is a large part of what drives him in these two films. Is it evil to believe that he can lead the Midgardians into an age of peace just as what his father wanted him to do with the Frost Giants? No, of course that's not evil. not at all. If however one goes about it, in a very misguided "the end justifies the means" kind of way, as Loki does, then that's where the evil acts come in. But that driving force of it is not simply power hungry or hateful or evil on it's own, it's sprung from good intention, and a very relatable intention that I believe most of us would have, but then it is acted on in a misguided, wrong, wrong, wrong, way. Much the same way that Thor at the beginning of Thor 1 acts on his intention of protecting Asgard in a very wrong misguided way.

And of course, Loki is not the only one who believes in "the end justifies the means" in the MCU. We have Nick Fury who takes out Coulson's cards from his locker soaks him in his blood and throws them on the table in order to get the Avengers to act together, and the Council who sent that missile off and potentially kill A LOT of people in order to save the rest of the world. But no one would consider those characters "evil" because of it, I don't think. Note this behavior all falls under a theme of "moral sacrifice" which we believe will be a continued theme in Thor 2.

Now, it is a BIG mistake to think that in Loki's speech to Laufey that Loki let the FG's in simply as "a bit of fun". In that scene he is clearly trying to convince Laufey that he is nothing more than a greedy second son trying to be king, and that he wants him to kill Odin (when he really doesn't) in order to lure Laufey in and take him out, both for his own gain, but for the gain of Asgard and the 9 realms (without that threat around anymore). Loki is an excellent liar, and he is lying there to Laufey. I love how people assume Loki is lying when he says something good but then assume he's telling the truth when he says something bad. It's not that cut and dry. He's being a champion poker player there and not showing his true hand in the game. Why did Loki let the FG's in then, you may ask? The answer is he was being a hero for Asgard in his own mind. He loves Thor, and at that point accepted Thor would be king at some point, but he truly believed that Thor was not ready, no matter what father said. And so for the good of Asgard he creates this distraction, to push the coronation back more, and he'd probably done all he could to drag it out prior to that too, for the same reason.

THOR
(re: the empty hall)
This was to be my day of triumph.

LOKI
It will come. In time.


LOKI
And if I do, then what? I love
Thor more dearly than any of you,
but you know what he is. He's
arrogant. He's reckless. He's
dangerous. You saw how he was
today. Is that what Asgard needs
from its King?

The others exchange glances, torn. Loki has a point.

So again, he's letting the Frost Giants in as a distraction to put off Thor's coronation here, because Thor was clearly not ready for the responsibility. And ironically, unknowingly, he's screwed himself out of his own kingdom in the future with that act. 2 warriors died, it was certainly not a good thing to do, but the intention did not come out of selfishness, jealousy, or evil. It came from wanting what's best for Asgard and believing he knows best. I believe Loki's love of Asgard is a theme in the comics as well.



Much the same happens in Avengers actually. Those speeches (and the way he delivers them, very importantly!) where he says "freedom is lie's great lie, and once you accept that you will know peace" and the majority of the speech in Germany, and his chiding of Thor and what a marvelous job he's done with Midgard, citing how they "slaughter each other in droves". He believes he is above them, and he will bring them peace, and he believes he will do a hell of a lot better job than his brother has done. That intent, in itself, is not evil, not whatsoever. Most everyone wants a world in order and a peace. How he goes about it is what is terribly misguided and wrong. Joss also states as much in the DVD commentary of the Germany scene, that it's messed up to want to be that person, to be "daddy" and make everything better. But that is not selfish or evil in itself. again, it is how he goes about it that is seriously messed up.

Another example, using the bifrost to destroy the frost giants, as I've stated there is more than one reason for this, one certainly being wiping off any evidence that he is what he is, so he doesn't have to accept that part of himself, but also, it is a way of stopping a war that is imminent, with 0 bloodshed for the Asgardians. so this is a way of ending that war quickly and stopping the "monsters" from threatening the 9 realms again, thus keeping the peace. He's a hero in his own mind and the end justifies the means in his mind.

Note: at the end of WWII, the US dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Within six days of the second bombing the Japanese surrendered. A LOT of people died, and it seems pretty horribly at that, but WWII was finally over and a further tremendous sacrifice of American lives was avoided. Now, was Harry Truman evil?

Going back to if he wants to be king or what. I think he wants what's best for Asgard, in Thor 1. And he comes to the conclusion that he is what's best, not Thor, and he has to make Father see that any means possible. He wants father's approval and to be the "worthy son". Again, it is not evil in itself to feel this way, but messed up in how he reacts and in the way he goes about trying to get that approval. Then when it all comes crashing in around him, after being so close to having that approval, mother and father's love, his place and purpose in the world, and feeling worthwhile, that is when he snaps and we get that " is it madness?" moment with the tear. Ken actually instructed Tom that he wanted to see something in his brain snap, and it might take him a few takes to get it. (LOL, Ken) But it's basically I think a "how am I the only one who sees, that I am right? Is he calling me mad?" moment... not to mention, partially probably "is it madness for me to want a purpose and place in the world? Is he saying I am so worthless to not deserve that?"

RE: Brother... I believe the times he's throwing out the world "brother" there at Thor in a very bitter painful and/or spiteful way. His heart is broken he is not Thor's brother, not Odin and Frigga's son but a son of a "monster", not truly a son of his beloved Asgard, and his jealousy and anger over everything.



I think he is a god of chaos truly now, he has no place in the world. The place in the world he thought had as a brother and a son was a lie. The purpose that Odin had for him is no longer possible. He is in chaos. In the beginning he is "burdened with glorious purpose", and wanting purpose in life is most certainly not evil and something very relatable, but again, the way he goes about it is completely misguided and wrong.

So I guess I feel the thing that would bring him happiness and calm his now chaotic mind is stability and a purpose in life that makes him feel worthwhile. How they can bring him to that point in future films I don't know but should be interesting.

note: Loki's comics and myth, wife Sigyn, aka "victorious woman" she is the goddess of Fidelity, but also the Goddess of Constancy. If he is Chaos, she is stability and constancy, the quality of being enduring and unchanging. An "odd couple" indeed. But from a fairytale/myth storytelling point of view, it is a very interesting combination. It is too bad so much is missing of their life together in the myths as I feel certain she was meant to be a pretty amazing female symbol. I just hope that if they do bring her in at some point in the mcu, that they do more with her to bring him much needed "constancy" than to have her being an abused and neglected wife or blind Loki fangirl as she sort of seemed to be in the comics. (not always. She has her moments. but she should have been handled a hell of a lot better from the panels I've seen, that is for certain). I'm not holding my breath for her to show up, but just saying. It would be an interesting development.

one thing you said, regarding Loki wanting to better the world, or he thinks the world will be better suited in his rule, isn't evil, just the way he did it is flat out wrong. I may partially disagree. Look at it this way. What gives him the right to decide how humanity lives? Unless that is what you mean by "doing it wrong". Loki's intentions are good, yeah but people WILL look at that and say it is evil. It may not be an intentional evil, but to many, it is still an evil. Loki thinking that the earth will be better under his rule WILL be looked at by people as evil, so on that part, I disagree with (I think? Or am I going off onto something different? I can't tell, I read this post once, I've been studying for 10 hours today and I am exhausted). he decided earth would be better off under his rule. Sure, it may be good intentions, but it can still be looked at as evil, people will thinking, who gives him the right to decide what is best for US? LOL this is like Thor Lord of Midgard. it's exactly like that. Thor continued to LOVE humanity, asgard was on earth. So he decided to rule over midgard, and had people basically live how he thought would be best for them. Some worshipped him, others thought he was evil and was the anticrist, and that thor turned evil. It took thor's son to help him realize that he was wrong, and that he has no right to decide what is right for humans. So like Loki, sure, the intention is good, but deciding that it is your right to determine how someone else lives can certainly be evil. Again, Elizah, if this paragraph is just agreeing/ellaborating with what your saying, please do say so. I really don't feel like scrolling back up to read it again lol

Now, branding loki as evil, power hungry, or jealous, that isn't the whole thing at all. Loki isn't the only villain like that. the thing is, you can look at almost all villains that way. I would flat out say Thanos is evil. But there is so much more to his character than being evil and loving death, and killing in her name. Has to do with his upbringing, etc, growing up, what he delt with. there are things like that for every villain. You aren't born evil, loki wasn't born evil, but Loki IS evil. But there is more to him than that evil. Which is what you were saying. A villain may have completely good intentions in their mind, they do what they think is right. it's just we percieve what they are doing as evil. Villains are like that. and they are great. Thanos is evil. But there were a lot of things that made him that way, and there is a lot more to him than just that evil titant who wants to kill everything, but, he is evil. just like Loki. Loki is evil, and jealous, and power hungry, he is. But there more to his character than that. Just like there is more to Thanos than just an evil genius who wants to destroy the universe, (he has had a conflicting emotional up bringing as well) That is what I mean. Hopefully my point is little clearer. I'll admit, I am not the best at formulating my thoughts and opinions into words, and because of that, my thoughts get scrambled and contradicting, and I am sorry. It's a bit of an issue i've always had growing up. Expressing my thoughts. But essentially this is what I mean. Yes, Loki is jealous, he is evil, he is power hungry. He is. To deny that is to flat out lie, but there is more to his character than that, his motives, his reasons that made him that way. Just like there is more to Thanos than a titan who is in love with death, and who will kill the universe in her name. Do you understand what I mean by that? a villain can be evil, while having so much more to them. A lot of villains are like that.
That is why I love villains. There are usually some great great back stories to villains, great great characters. Ultron is another one. Evil, no doubt about it. But looking at his relationship with hank pym, what has happened to ultron over the years, Ultron IS evil. But I could say all the things about ultron that you are saying about Loki. and they are 100% true. It's all part of a full villain, which is what makes a villain so complete.

Look at cletus cassidy. Possibly one of the most evil men in the marvel universe. Absolute psycho serial killer (he's carnage btw), and even him, his backround, the type of environment he lived in, his father, all that made him into who he is. He is a psycho killer (talking heads hahahaha) a maniac, and carnage, that's what we see, but really, there was more to him, his issues growing up, his home life. That's what is great about villains. You need to understand, when I say Loki is evil, power hungry, and jealous, I mean it in the same sense when I say, Kletus cassidy is just an evil twisted maniac killer, and that Thanos is a mad evil titan obsessed with death, and Ultron is an evil robot who wants to destroy humanity and has daddy issues. hopefully that gets confusion aside

regarding loki's motives for thor 1, I am going to ignore that part of the post. We've been in that debate before, you see it your way, i see it my way, so it's pointless to debate that, So I am not even going to say anything. and I am SURE you agree to leave it at that lol

However, for the most of it, i think you generally hit the nail on the head. Loki's actions sometimes are for what he believes is the best well being of as asgard. Granted he ends up being wrong, but in his own eyes, its for what he believes is best for asgard. "protect asgard from thor's idiotic rule for much longer"...TIMEOUT

I took some time to ponder had all that not happened, how would the 9 realms be? With thor ruling asgard the way he wanted to? Lol, i had a good laugh at that, as he would probably bring in ragnarok himself :P

anyway back to loki, again, a lot of his actions are due to what he truely believes are the best intentions of asgard, regardless of if they are right, wrong, or appear evil, those are his intentions, what he believes is best for asgard. It really may not be what is best for asgard, but generally, in that respect, his intentions are for the well being of asgard. Again, See Thor: Lord of Midgard. See Siege.

have you actually read any comics yet? lol I would suggest (since we are in this topic of loki and asgard) to pick up the thor lord of midgard arc, and siege of asgard. wiki'ing comics, or even googling them is not nearly enough to understand a character and how they are in the comics. You have to read them for yourself. Loki is a pretty major character in those, and in fact siege, shows this perfectly. He does what he believes is best for asgard, and in turn, asgard gets destroyed. You should read those. A lot of people hate siege, not too sure why, i enjoy it. But Thor's ruling of Midgard is one of my two favorite Thor arcs. Again, not popular among people, but I recomend them

 

[jaqua99]

oh, no! Sorry to hear that! Have you seen Hobbit yet? I am planning to go this week.

me too. not sure though, my old college roommate (who loves LoTR) HATED the hobbit. he said it was just horrible and poorly made and rushed. :/ so I'm torn

 

[American Maid]

So many many wonderful layers to MCU Loki, so much going on in that head of his.

Indeed. Interesting to think about.

Loki believes he knows best, and that is a large part of what drives him in these two films. Is it evil to believe that he can lead the Midgardians into an age of peace just as what his father wanted him to do with the Frost Giants? No, of course that's not evil. not at all. If however one goes about it, in a very misguided "the end justifies the means" kind of way, as Loki does, then that's where the evil acts come in. . . . Much the same way that Thor at the beginning of Thor 1 acts on his intention of protecting Asgard in a very wrong misguided way.

. . . Note this behavior all falls under a theme of "moral sacrifice" which we believe will be a continued theme in Thor 2.

. . . Why did Loki let the FG's in then, you may ask? The answer is he was being a hero for Asgard in his own mind. He loves Thor, and at that point accepted Thor would be king at some point, but he truly believed that Thor was not ready, no matter what father said. And so for the good of Asgard he creates this distraction, to push the coronation back more, and he'd probably done all he could to drag it out prior to that too, for the same reason.

This aspect that Loki perceives his actions to be for the good of Asgard is one that I had not considered in my earlier posts. I can see how Loki feels that way. His analysis is not completely correct of course (though not completely incorrect, either, as your example of Thor's tantrum shows).

And as you point out, Thor's exile comes over similar actions. (Of course, Loki did goad him a bit there.)

Going back to if he wants to be king or what. I think he wants what's best for Asgard, in Thor 1. And he comes to the conclusion that he is what's best, not Thor, and he has to make Father see that any means possible. He wants father's approval and to be the "worthy son".

I think he also wants Odin's approval for its own sake.

when it all comes crashing in around him, after being so close to having that approval, mother and father's love, his place and purpose in the world, and feeling worthwhile, that is when he snaps and we get that " is it madness?" moment with the tear. Ken actually instructed Tom that he wanted to see something in his brain snap, . . . But it's basically I think a "how am I the only one who sees, that I am right? Is he calling me mad?" moment... not to mention, partially probably "is it madness for me to want a purpose and place in the world? Is he saying I am so worthless to not deserve that?"

I am inclined to think Loki tends to think that himself, to be so vulnerable to the idea.

RE: Brother... I believe the times he's throwing out the world "brother" there at Thor in a very bitter painful and/or spiteful way. His heart is broken he is not Thor's brother, not Odin and Frigga's son but a son of a "monster", not truly a son of his beloved Asgard, and his jealousy and anger over everything.

The maddening irony is that they still consider him a brother, a son, and they all tell him so. But he cannot accept that. Could he accept it in the future?

I said:

So what's Loki's deal in the MCU? What is he really after? And will he obtain it in Thor2?

I think he is a god of chaos truly now, he has no place in the world. The place in the world he thought had as a brother and a son was a lie. The purpose that Odin had for him is no longer possible. He is in chaos.

Now that the events of The Avengers have happened, he can't be privileged royalty now. And he has hurt his family, so those relationships have changed. But I think they still consider him part of the family, after all this. (It would be like the scenario I mentioned a while back of family members traveling to see their loved ones in prison.) But maybe he could not bring himself to accept that, because he had been living a lie all these years. So maybe his solace must come from somewhere else. (I'm still mulling over this, so I would be receptive to a compelling case to the contrary.)

So I guess I feel the thing that would bring him happiness and calm his now chaotic mind is stability and a purpose in life that makes him feel worthwhile. How they can bring him to that point in future films I don't know but should be interesting.

Yes. What can that be? Can Loki quench this thirst? Can he come to the point where he feels he is worthwhile? Is it achievable?

note: Loki's comics and myth, wife Sigyn, aka "victorious woman" she is the goddess of Fidelity, but also the Goddess of Constancy. If he is Chaos, she is stability and constancy, the quality of being enduring and unchanging. An "odd couple" indeed.

I think in myths they often pair contrasting elements. So to me it would make perfect sense that constancy is paired with chaos.

 

[Godzilla2000]

me too. not sure though, my old college roommate (who loves LoTR) HATED the hobbit. he said it was just horrible and poorly made and rushed. :/ so I'm torn

Well, I can say that The Hobbit is not as dark in tone as Lord of the Rings, but I think it's still a good movie. Basically this is Middle Earth right before Sauron's dark power starts rising so it's not going to have the same tone as LOTr of course. I say you go see it and decide for yourself whether or not you like it. I love it myself and I think that Martin Freeman was quite excellent as Bilbo.

 

[jaqua99]

American maid, you said this

This aspect that Loki perceives his actions to be for the good of Asgard is one that I had not considered in my earlier posts. I can see how Loki feels that way. His analysis is not completely correct of course (though not completely incorrect, either, as your example of Thor's tantrum shows).

And as you point out, Thor's exile comes over similar actions. (Of course, Loki did goad him a bit there.)

yes yes. Loki has always cared for the well being of asgard, in his own way. Again, the simonson run shows it as well. His reasons for joining his father and brother against surtur, he has his own reasons, but simply, it is for the well being of his home

again, that, Siege of Asgard, and Thor lord of Midgard. perfect examples of how Loki's intentions are completely for the good of asgard, what he thinks is good for it, and it turns out obviously his analysis is incorrect. Obviously, since asgard gets destroyed in one of them.

 

[jaqua99]

Well, I can say that The Hobbit is not as dark in tone as Lord of the Rings, but I think it's still a good movie. Basically this is Middle Earth right before Sauron's dark power starts rising so it's not going to have the same tone as LOTr of course. I say you go see it and decide for yourself whether or not you like it. I love it myself and I think that Martin Freeman was quite excellent as Bilbo.

I plan on it. I am just kinda shocked that he said that. He was like..sincerely dissappointed. Not to the point that, oh i didn't like this. To the point where it seemed like it sorta hurt him and was dissappointed

 

[American Maid]

He is a psycho killer (talking heads hahahaha)

Funny you should mention that:

"Realisant mon espoir
Je me lance, vers la gloire"

anyway back to loki, again, a lot of his actions are due to what he truely believes are the best intentions of asgard, regardless of if they are right, wrong, or appear evil, those are his intentions, what he believes is best for asgard. It really may not be what is best for asgard, but generally, in that respect, his intentions are for the well being of asgard. Again, See Thor: Lord of Midgard. See Siege.

Again, my question from a few posts back:

So if obtaining power will not ultimately quench this thirst, what will?

What say you, Jon?

 

[Godzilla2000]

I plan on it. I am just kinda shocked that he said that. He was like..sincerely dissappointed. Not to the point that, oh i didn't like this. To the point where it seemed like it sorta hurt him and was dissappointed

Aw, I'm sad to hear he was disappointed by it. I think the issue comes with the fact that compared to LOTR The Hobbit was geared more for a juvenile audience of readers. I guess Guillermo Del Toro and Peter Jackson in the development process have done their best to tweak the source material to be a bit to be more adult. But I think this will better serve the next two movies where things do get serious and dark than in this movie where it's more or less a fantasy adventure style road trip without the urgency that LOTR has.

And I don't know where I saw this conversation about Loki and Sigyn, but they are not two sides of one coin with one being the polar opposite of the other. They're both cut from the same cloth. Remember that in the comics Sigyn killed Donald Blake, albeit accidentally, and covered it up by creating a clone of him tp cover her own arse. Not quite the polar opposite of Loki but something strait out of the Loki Book of Deception. A polar opposite of Loki would not have put Donald in danger in the first place. I think a more apt description of those two has Loki as the addict and Sigyn as his enabler.

 

[American Maid]

And I don't know where I saw this conversation about Loki and Sigyn, but they are not two sides of one coin with one being the polar opposite of the other. They're both cut from the same cloth. Remember that in the comics Sigyn killed Donald Blake, albeit accidentally, and covered it up by creating a clone of him tp cover her own arse. Not quite the polar opposite of Loki but something strait out of the Loki Book of Deception. A polar opposite of Loki would not have put Donald in danger in the first place. I think a more apt description of those two has Loki as the addict and Sigyn as his enabler.

Well, I said something about opposite symbols/facets/aspects often being paired in mythology. I was speaking about the abstract concepts of "Chaos" and "Constancy", which do not represent the sum total of Loki's and Sigyn's characters respectively.

I am only beginning to be aware that Sigyn has appeared in the books. So I was not aware that she had killed Don Blake and then covered it up.

I don't think an enabler would be able to help Loki out of the maze he is in. So if they were to do something with Sigyn, I would hope it would be different from that.

 

[Godzilla2000]

I am only beginning to be aware that Sigyn has appeared in the books. So I was not aware that she had killed Don Blake and then covered it up.

I've been doing some research on the character of Sigyn from the comics, mostly the Wikipedia page and she is quite loyal to Loki, even when he's been very very bad as far as I can tell. I'm interested in Sigyn because I have been working on a fanfiction, or rather majorly overhauling one, where I've inserted her into the story. I'm surprised that she's not a very major player in the comics though and has been presumed dead since the last Ragnarok event.

I don't think an enabler would be able to help Loki out of the maze he is in. So if they were to do something with Sigyn, I would hope it would be different from that.

I guess this is the fanfiction writer in me because the story I'm working on, my main inspiration, is that Loki is an addict of power and dark energy while Sigyn is more or less passive about her objections. Of course where I'm leading the story it'll draw Loki and Sigyn closer together and she will become an enabler of sorts coddling Loki more than trying to get him to see what he's doing to himself and those he professed to love so he can turn away from the darkness.

 

[jaqua99]

Funny you should mention that:

"Realisant mon espoir
Je me lance, vers la gloire"

I love that song lol


Again, my question from a few posts back:


What say you, Jon?

Honestly. I really don't know. Cause no matter what his outcome is, I still think he will find something missing. I haven't put a lot of thought into this, but for now, I think I'll say that, that thirst may be unquenchable, if that's a word.

 

[American Maid]

<Sigyn as enabler>
I guess this is the fanfiction writer in me because the story I'm working on, my main inspiration, is that Loki is an addict of power and dark energy while Sigyn is more or less passive about her objections. Of course where I'm leading the story it'll draw Loki and Sigyn closer together and she will become an enabler of sorts coddling Loki more than trying to get him to see what he's doing to himself and those he professed to love so he can turn away from the darkness.

That would be very interesting! (albeit likely with a grim ending) I'd be interested in a pointer to it when it is finished.

BTW, does Loki actually love anyone? Or even profess to love anyone? (in any continuity anyone cares to address) Come to think of it, I gather kid Loki loves his big brother. And I suppose Loki loved his brother when they were both kids (though I haven't been able to get to those stories yet either).

 

[American Maid]

Honestly. I really don't know. Cause no matter what his outcome is, I still think he will find something missing. I haven't put a lot of thought into this, but for now, I think I'll say that, that thirst may be unquenchable, if that's a word.

(It is.) That's sad, then.

 

[elizah72]

Oh yes, yes, I loved it a lot. I mean how can you not love a movie that has one of the monsters singing in it. My only regret is that I have to wait a full year to see Orli as Legolas again. I guess I can seek solace in the LOTR Trilogy for now.

Cool. well I'm sure I'll enjoy it. For the Legolas if nothing else. LOL

RE: Sigyn and Loki... see that is my fear, that she would be an enabler to the addict or the abused wife that stays loyal to an abusive husband, if they use her in MCU. And that would be a very very VERY bad message to send to young girls who may be watching for Tom and Chris and Zach. It's a bad message to send a blatant "a good woman can fix him" message too... and I agree an "enabler" would not be able to help him out of that deep dark pit he's dug himself into.

However, her helping him onto a better path, is certainly a story that can be told without sending those messages, but it has to be told very carefully. Because in reality, staying with an abusive husband or boyfriend, or trying to fix the bad boy is really really really not a good idea for a young woman to get involved with. So they'd have to rewrite the whole Loki Sigyn story from the comics quite a bit to do that, starting with making sure that Loki is not abusive to her, and making it actually make sense that she could be in love with him (since it doesn't make any sense whatsoever from what I've seen in the panels)... and very importantly making her her own person separate from him and his needs and problems, and even willing to leave him if he doesn't straighten himself out and let go of his hate. Now, that I'd like to see, the other scenario I would hate to see and it would probably turn me off the whole franchise.

Whether they'll have time to do that character and love story really properly in MCU, I don't know. It may be difficult, but hopefully if they do bring her in, they will do justice to it. It could be a great love story if they did. From the myth there is very little, and I don't think anything indicating abuse on Loki's part, apart from his infidelity, which may have been sort of common for men of that time. However, a person does not witness the horrors Sigyn did, with her own children dying and one used to bind her husband in a cave and torture him, and then stay with him, and try to spare him from that torture as much as possible, possibly for eternity without Love and strength and durability. Sigyn is a "victorious woman" "or woman who brings victory" as her name translates, and her name is a good indication of what her character was meant to represent. She could have left him but she endured his punishment with him. I don't really consider that enabling and blind loyalty but more about compassion for someone you love, and not wanting to allow them to suffer, and she is also known as the goddess of compassion (more modern thinking, I believe). In any case, there was certainly meant to be love between them in the myth, I would say, and it would be nice of MCU could do something meaningful more along that lines, that does not send a dangerous message to young women.

I think in myths they often pair contrasting elements. So to me it would make perfect sense that constancy is paired with chaos.

Yes, and from a storytelling POV, it makes a lot of sense to have that sort of yin and yang relationship. What is Chaos without constancy? It's just running rampant and wild with no direction or grounding. What is constancy without a little chaos? boring, stick in a rut, unable to evolve and adapt. So in that way the two elements need each other, and if you have two characters in a story that represent that (hopefully the characters are A LOT more complex than this), then those two characters need each other in much the same way, to balance each other.

BTW, does Loki actually love anyone? Or even profess to love anyone? (in any continuity anyone cares to address) Come to think of it, I gather kid Loki loves his big brother. And I suppose Loki loved his brother when they were both kids (though I haven't been able to get to those stories yet either).

Yes, and I think there are lines in both films that point to him having been in love in the past (or Loki's version of love, anyway), as I've talked to you about before in PM. Probably loved and lost. If not meant by the writers in the first place, then there are certainly openings to write it in to the MCU, should they choose to do so.

I recall reading somewhere Jane referred to as Thor's first love in MCU, I mean.... how sad is that? He's 1000 years old and he's never been in love before? I mean, come on! (well if you count being in love with yourself! LOL)

 

[elizah72]

Look at it this way. What gives him the right to decide how humanity lives? Unless that is what you mean by "doing it wrong".

Yes. He does not have the right to make the decision to subjugate humanity and force them into peace under his thumb, that is doing it wrong. But at the same time, in a way isn't that what Daddy Odin has been doing for all the 9 realms? And didn't big brother go down to Jotunheim with those same intentions of making them fall under his thumb and fear him. So he is following by example, what he does is really not all that different from what he sees Odin and Thor do in those situations.
And there will always be those who say that "what gives you the right to decide?" etc etc... but in truth, we do need order and someone needs to create that order. We cannot rely upon ourselves with no rules or police or leaders and just live in peace. It's just not possible for humanity (at least not at this stage in our evolution). How that order is gone about, and the morals of the leaders that put that order into effect is more where problems and evil can arise from, than having someone want to lead and bring peace and order in itself. In fact I think that desire in itself is the opposite of evil.

regarding loki's motives for thor 1, I am going to ignore that part of the post. We've been in that debate before, you see it your way, i see it my way, so it's pointless to debate that, So I am not even going to say anything. and I am SURE you agree to leave it at that lol

LOL! Yeah, I was trying to ignore some stuff of yours as well for that reason. I'm getting tired of arguing about it, you think what you think, and I think what I think, and rarely the twain shall meet.

I did agree with what you were saying about him taking some pleasure in fear, and equating fear to respect (since he can't get respect through love, then through fear)... but also Thor equates fear with respect in the beginning of Thor 1. and that is an evil element.

However, for the most of it, i think you generally hit the nail on the head. Loki's actions sometimes are for what he believes is the best well being of as asgard. Granted he ends up being wrong, but in his own eyes, its for what he believes is best for asgard. "protect asgard from thor's idiotic rule for much longer"...TIMEOUT

 

[elizah72]

sorry for the multi posts, trying to deal with certain thoughts all at once, rather than jump around.

The maddening irony is that they still consider him a brother, a son, and they all tell him so. But he cannot accept that. Could he accept it in the future?

One issue is in order for Loki to get the respect and love from Odin he desires, and be considered worthy, he must change how he goes about his good intentions. Loki definitely thinks two wrongs make a right, and the end justifies the means, but I'm sure Odin would not agree. So I think in order for Loki to get the approval he craves, he's got to do something good, and do it in the right away, so that Odin does approve and has a chance to show Loki that. And that is a question, whether Loki is capable of pulling that off, doing something right, and doing it with honorable methods? And not only that can he do it without the clichéd old, the character must sacrifice his life in order to redeem himself? Because that is very clichéd story element and I don't want to see Loki die like that. I want to see something new!

Now one of my favorite villain redemption arcs of all time was Faith in Buffy. Interestingly it was the moment where she and Buffy switched bodies, and Faith got a taste of some of the things she was missing in her life that really spelled the end of Faith as a villain. They switched bodies and Faith found out what it was like to be loved and respected and the hero, and depended upon, and loved by a man, not just being used for sex... all that stuff combined, she began to realize that's what she'd been missing. She still did some bad stuff after that, but that is when stuff started to eat away at her, things she'd done etc. and she started to not be able to live with herself. The big climax happening on Angel where she basically collapses on the ground sobbing begging Angel to kill her (been a while since I've watched but this is near what happens)... but Angel won't kill her because he realizes by now that she is conflicted and there is hope for her. She winds up getting some peace of mind by going back to jail and doing her time. Then later having to break out of jail in order to fight with Buffy and the gang and act as a hero. Something like this, in that vein, is what I'd like to see with Loki. The character needs to see and feel that he's done wrong in order to be properly redeemed. not just a spur of the moment, oh I guess I'll do good now and sacrifice/ redeem myself thing.

Now that the events of The Avengers have happened, he can't be privileged royalty now. And he has hurt his family, so those relationships have changed. But I think they still consider him part of the family, after all this. (It would be like the scenario I mentioned a while back of family members traveling to see their loved ones in prison.) But maybe he could not bring himself to accept that, because he had been living a lie all these years. So maybe his solace must come from somewhere else. (I'm still mulling over this, so I would be receptive to a compelling case to the contrary.)

Yes. What can that be? Can Loki quench this thirst? Can he come to the point where he feels he is worthwhile? Is it achievable?

as far as him having an "unquenchable thirst" for revenge on Thor. I think that is really putting him back into the pure evil 1 dimensional villain box again, and I really don't think they want to do that with him. A good chunk of the audience have become emotionally invested in that character, and would be pretty upset if he just became a completely evil bad guy with no humanity left. They also want to keep these characters relatable, and pure evil is not very relatable.

I think There will be something that will quench that thirst, and put an end to the madness, maybe in Thor 2, but certainly by the end of the series. What that will be I don't know. I think Loki needs that self worth and place in the world, and if he's able to find it then that may allow him to leg go of that hate, but I don't feel that his family can provide it for him. If anyone who is already MCU established, that would be Frigga since he does not appear to hate her, and has no reason to really. Other than that, again possibly a story with Sigyn could send him in that direction but as I've stated they'd have to be really really careful how they told and and definitely make some serious changes with how that relationship was depicted in the comics in order to not send a dangerous message.

 

[jaqua99]

Yes. He does not have the right to make the decision to subjugate humanity and force them into peace under his thumb, that is doing it wrong. But at the same time, in a way isn't that what Daddy Odin has been doing for all the 9 realms? And didn't big brother go down to Jotunheim with those same intentions of making them fall under his thumb and fear him. So he is following by example, what he does is really not all that different from what he sees Odin and Thor do in those situations.

It's slightly different though if you think about it, well not so much with thor. Cause he was an idiot who clearly didn't know what was best for someone at the time.

But for Odin, it is a little different. He is the king of asgard, and his people love and respect him. He isn't necessarily deciding how the asgardians live, in the sense that loki was deciding how mankind would live. Odin is Agard's ruler, and his people love and respect them. He is their king, opposed to just deciding how they should live. Af for the 9 realms, well he is the king of Asgard. He will do what he must to protect the 9 realms, but I wouldn't go as far to say that he is telling them how to live. Jotenheim, yeah, but they attacked earth and were going to take it over or whatever. The Asgardians defeated them, and took the source of their power, so they won't attack again (we can assume this is the reason). Again, I think it's slightly different then just declaring yourself king, cause you think you know what's best for them. Slightly different

 

[jaqua99]

as far as him having an "unquenchable thirst" for revenge on Thor. I think that is really putting him back into the pure evil 1 dimensional villain box again, and I really don't think they want to do that with him. A good chunk of the audience have become emotionally invested in that character, and would be pretty upset if he just became a completely evil bad guy with no humanity left. They also want to keep these characters relatable, and pure evil is not very relatable.

But it's really not putting him as a one dimension villain though. Yeah, it's a one dimension aspect, but it's rooted in deeper parts to his character. And it's essential to his character. Again, it's a one dimension thing, but it is rooted in something much deeper. He can certainly have a desire to get back at thor, or cause him pain, or be superior, and still have complex reasons to do so. Regarding your perspective on this, I really don't think loki's opinions on thor are that much of an issue, cause it does go pretty deep. You can have a one dimension aspect without being a one dimension villain. Again, as I said, Thanos wanted to destroy all life, a one dimension aspect, sure. But he certainly isn't a one dimensional villain.

 

[elizah72]

It's slightly different though if you think about it, well not so much with thor. Cause he was an idiot who clearly didn't know what was best for someone at the time.

But for Odin, it is a little different. He is the king of asgard, and his people love and respect him. He isn't necessarily deciding how the asgardians live, in the sense that loki was deciding how mankind would live. Odin is Agard's ruler, and his people love and respect them. He is their king, opposed to just deciding how they should live. Af for the 9 realms, well he is the king of Asgard. He will do what he must to protect the 9 realms, but I wouldn't go as far to say that he is telling them how to live. Jotenheim, yeah, but they attacked earth and were going to take it over or whatever. The Asgardians defeated them, and took the source of their power, so they won't attack again (we can assume this is the reason). Again, I think it's slightly different then just declaring yourself king, cause you think you know what's best for them. Slightly different

it is and yet, I feel certain Laufey would have been like "what gives him the right to keep my people down. What gives him the right to keep my people from expanding and growing across the cosmos?" So order is needed and leaders are necessary in order to keep the peace, even on Midgard, because we have people like Laufey here too, who would use bloodshed in the furthering of their own group.

But it's really not putting him as a one dimension villain though. Yeah, it's a one dimension aspect, but it's rooted in deeper parts to his character. And it's essential to his character. Again, it's a one dimension thing, but it is rooted in something much deeper. He can certainly have a desire to get back at thor, or cause him pain, or be superior, and still have complex reasons to do so. Regarding your perspective on this, I really don't think loki's opinions on thor are that much of an issue, cause it does go pretty deep. You can have a one dimension aspect without being a one dimension villain. Again, as I said, Thanos wanted to destroy all life, a one dimension aspect, sure. But he certainly isn't a one dimensional villain.

The moment you say it is unquenchable, it kind of does go into one dimension villain land. I'm sorry it really does. Because once there is nothing that will satisfy or stop it, all the deeply rooted pain that those feelings came from is obsolete. it means nothing at that point, and the character has lost all humanity.

Think what I said about Faith on Buffy a few posts ago, certainly there were moments that people could have wondered if her hatred jealousy and need to harm Buffy was unquenchable, but yet she did stop hating Buffy and find that peace in the end. That's what made her a great character and a great story arc, and not just purely and simply a villain.

I wish I could remember better what happened with Callisto and Xena on that series too, they managed to redeem her in an interesting and different way, and of course Xena herself committed some atrocities before becoming a hero, and yet she was always troubled/tortured by her acts from the past (a big part of which is where Callisto as a villain came from).

In regards to Thanos and Death, from my understanding from what I've read, if he received Death's love somehow then that thirst for killing may very well be quenched. He would no longer feel the need to impress her by killing everything for her because he thinks that's what she wants, he would have her love already. he may still have desire for power but he would likely no longer feel the need to kill indiscriminantly. So in that way, I dont think that Thanos' need to kill is unquenchable. But from my understanding of her character, what he doesn't understand is she doesn't want the death of all things, she wants balance for the most part, with perhaps a slight advantage to her sometimes, because if all things are dead, then she has no place in the world herself, nothing for her to do, similar to the story where nothing dies. There was also reference in a character bio to Death not being able to stand suffering, which makes sense since suffering often ends in Death. So the suffering that Thanos creates (such as with his "granddaughter") horrifies her, but he can't understand why it wouldn't impress her. Or why him being all poweful wouldnt impress her, she wants balance in all things, even their potential relationship. So it's an endless circle for them, unless Thanos can suddenly figure out that what she wants is balance and he needs to keep that balance for her so she will love him (and that doesnt mean killing *everything*). So I believe her desire is balance and Thanos doesn't understand that about her and so keeps going about wooing her the wrong way, just as Loki keeps trying to do the right thing to impress Odin but in the wrong way. The question is can Loki or Thanos ever accomplish their goals in the right way? And that is what makes them multidimensional, btw, not just a tragic past and wounded emotions, but as soon as you say that nothing will quench that desire for revenge or killing, *absolutely nothing* that is when they go into 1 dimensional villain land again, no matter the past.

 

[Silvermoon]

MTV's Splashpage has Loki as one of the "Heroes of 2012" (in the sense of "list of individuals who made a major impact on the comic book movie community in 2012.") - the guest blogger writing about it was one of the masterminds behind "Project Wendy" (still slightly bummed I let myself miss out on participating... I'm an introvert that doesn't like taking pictures of myself, and I was too lazy to come up with a clever alternative like some other people did):

Heroes Of The Year: Tom Hiddleston In 'Avengers'
Posted 3 hours ago by Splash Page Team in Commentary, Hero of the Week, Marvel

Throughout the week, we'll be presenting the Heroes of the Year, our list of individuals who made a major impact on the comic book movie community in 2012.

Kicking things off is Tom Hiddleston, who starred as the mischievous villain Loki in "Marvel's The Avengers." Honoring the "hero" is guest blogger and Hiddleston fan Kate Miller, one of the masterminds behind Project Wendy.

It may seem counterintuitive to consider a villain in the context of "Heroes of the Year." Yet although "The Avengers" owes much of its success to Joss Whedon&#8217;s brilliant screenplay and deft directorial hand, not since Darth Vader in the original "Star Wars" series has there been as charismatic and compelling an antagonistic portrayal as Tom Hiddleston's Loki &#8212; and the resulting impact on both the film and the genre is significant.

We've always had a soft spot in our hearts for our Tricksters. Charming and vain, clever and cocksure, they represent a personification of our collective id &#8211; that force within us that rails against authority, order and predictability. Refusing to be defined by such narrow terms as "good" or "evil," the Trickster is alternately the bane or boon of mortal existence, and the Loki of the Marvel Universe is no exception.

Building on the nuanced performance he delivered in prequel "Thor," Hiddleston gives us a God of Mischief whose ambitions and motivations are not only clear, but authentic; there is reason behind the madness, pain behind the megalomania, which makes it possible to relate to him even as he commits despicable acts. Furthermore, his Loki is a perfect foil for each member of the Avengers, and through this interaction helps define them and what they will become. In essence, he is the glue that binds them together &#8212; without that strong characterization the team, and the film, simply would not work.

Perhaps ironically, in real life Hiddleston exemplifies many qualities one might associate with a hero: humility, gratitude, graciousness and selflessness among them. And it is his commitment to and passion for the craft of acting that makes such an effective performance possible. Thus in terms of influence on the comic book movie space in 2012, his Loki seems an appropriately heroic candidate indeed.


About the author: Kate Miller is an inveterate bibliophile with a predilection for bladed weapons and a propensity to quote Monty Python &#8211; all while cleverly disguised as a responsible adult. She also is purported to be the culprit behind the LokiIsMyCopilot Twitter and Tumblr accounts, and the mad scientist responsible for #ProjectWendy. She lives on a houseboat, struggling to stay afloat despite a burgeoning library and action figure collection.

Stay with MTV Splash Page throughout the week for the rest of our heroes of 2012! Let us know what you think of our choices in the comments or on Twitter!

 

[Aging Fangirl]

So many many wonderful layers to MCU Loki, so much going on in that head of his. Branding him as just selfish, jealous, power hungry or evil is really not the whole story. Aspects of that, of course but that is not a complete picture of the character at all.

I love complex psychological studies, especially those of characters whose minds are like "bags of cats".

To quote Tom, "every villain is a hero in his own mind" and this is especially true of Loki. Loki believes he knows best, and that is a large part of what drives him in these two films. Is it evil to believe that he can lead the Midgardians into an age of peace just as what his father wanted him to do with the Frost Giants? No, of course that's not evil. not at all. If however one goes about it, in a very misguided "the end justifies the means" kind of way, as Loki does, then that's where the evil acts come in. But that driving force of it is not simply power hungry or hateful or evil on it's own, it's sprung from good intention, and a very relatable intention that I believe most of us would have, but then it is acted on in a misguided, wrong, wrong, wrong, way. Much the same way that Thor at the beginning of Thor 1 acts on his intention of protecting Asgard in a very wrong misguided way..

I can agree with this to an extent, but there is definitely a cruel element to Loki's character. I don't know if it's due to nature or nurture - I'm asssuming there are centries worth of MCU Thor/Loki back story we're not yet privy to - but it's there. Having said that, I have to disagree with this:

...He loves Thor, and at that point accepted Thor would be king at some point, but he truly believed that Thor was not ready, no matter what father said. And so for the good of Asgard he creates this distraction, to push the coronation back more, and he'd probably done all he could to drag it out prior to that too, for the same reason.

THOR
(re: the empty hall)
This was to be my day of triumph.

LOKI
It will come. In time..

I don't think Loki had any intention of Thor ever coming back. Quite the opposite, he wanted Thor permanently out of the way. That scene in Thor I where he appears to Thor in the SHIELD interrogation room ... still gives me chills. Those lies he told -- 'Father is dead, Mother doesn't want to see you, peace with Jotunheim is contingent on you staying where you are' -- were calculated to hurt in the worst possible way, and would only hold traction if Thor stayed right where he was. Not to mention the fact that permanent exile on Midgard with no access to Idun's apples meant nothing less than a death sentence.

I agree that his intention might have been to do what he felt was best for Asguard, but his methods left no room at all for brotherly feeling.

 

[American Maid]

RE: Sigyn and Loki... see that is my fear, that she would be an enabler to the addict or the abused wife that stays loyal to an abusive husband, if they use her in MCU. And that would be a very very VERY bad message to send to young girls who may be watching for Tom and Chris and Zach. It's a bad message to send a blatant "a good woman can fix him" message too... and I agree an "enabler" would not be able to help him out of that deep dark pit he's dug himself into.

However, her helping him onto a better path, is certainly a story that can be told without sending those messages, but it has to be told very carefully. Because in reality, staying with an abusive husband or boyfriend, or trying to fix the bad boy is really really really not a good idea for a young woman to get involved with.

Yeah, they have to be very careful about that. And since it's been used with regularity in the past, it can be hard to avoid it (see the Joss Whedon quote about why he keeps writing strong female characters).

In a similar (but lighter) vein, I have kind of mixed feelings about the Pepper-Tony relationship. Although I enjoy their banter, there's an element of her being essentially Wendy to his Peter Pan.

So they'd have to rewrite the whole Loki Sigyn story from the comics quite a bit to do that, starting with making sure that Loki is not abusive to her, and making it actually make sense that she could be in love with him (since it doesn't make any sense whatsoever from what I've seen in the panels)... and very importantly making her her own person separate from him and his needs and problems, and even willing to leave him if he doesn't straighten himself out and let go of his hate. Now, that I'd like to see, the other scenario I would hate to see and it would probably turn me off the whole franchise.

I agree. Not certain how they could orchestrate it. Maybe it's not possible.

<I asked whether Loki loves anyone, in any of the continuities>

Yes, and I think there are lines in both films that point to him having been in love in the past (or Loki's version of love, anyway), as I've talked to you about before in PM. Probably loved and lost. If not meant by the writers in the first place, then there are certainly openings to write it in to the MCU, should they choose to do so.

Well, I confess that had slipped my mind (sorry! ) But I would have probably left the question open anyway, so as to give you the freedom to share as little or as much of that as you preferred.

I recall reading somewhere Jane referred to as Thor's first love in MCU, I mean.... how sad is that? He's 1000 years old and he's never been in love before? I mean, come on! (well if you count being in love with yourself! LOL)

Well. . .some people are late bloomers

More seriously, I think that it was from a press release or perhaps the plot synopsis from the first film. Probably it was an "oops", or else written by someone not very familiar with the books.

 

[Aging Fangirl]

Hmm...maybe this is why my attraction is starting to cool and I'm going back to my earlier obsession, Orlando Bloom.

Hmmm. Orlando Bloom looks pretty posh in a suit too. Just sayin. t:

Just playin with ya. You have every right to be attracted to whoever you want for whatever reason.

I remember an interview where Mr. H talked a little about his style evolution. As a teen he pretty much dressed for comfort (skateboarder gear - baggy everything). After becoming an actor though, he learned that the way he dressed (his costume if you will) would influence how he felt, be it shorts and flip flops or a well made suit. This worked for him both personally and professionally.

I guess you could say he learned to dress for his job.