Page 18 of 26 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 384
  1. #256
    Spectacular Member Fanto.mx's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    139

    Default

    It feels like maybe we have two problems in understanding each other here?

    Part of the trouble here seems to be conflation of Marvel's version of the mythology and the actual mythology. I mean, Ragnarok has happened several times in Marvel, so at the very least that should tell you they're only barely taking inspiration at this point. Also, from the start, Loki was the god of evil in Marvel, and he absolutely never was in the myths. And being bound forever until breaking free and leading the dead in the ultimate showdown is no more Marvel Loki's fate than he is Odin's brother (both of which are true in the sagas).

    The other part seems to be that the titles and the roles somehow got all tangled up. Part of that, I'm sure is that the roles were so traditionally tied to the characters, but if there can be other Thors while Thor is still Thor's name, we have to accept that, at least in the MU, the roles aren't ties to characters. But even there, we've got a little bit of weird entanglement in that the role came with a set of powers, where what we're talking about with Tyr taking over the betrayer/antagonist role, Loki (possibly) taking over the protector of Midgard role, and Thor taking the benefactor/heart of Asgard role (NOT necessarily tied to being the All-Father, but they've gone hand-in-hand so far) (and which he's done a sh*t job of so far), doesn't necessarily mean anything as far as powers go. I don't expect Tyr to become a witch and Loki to start counting on being a flying brick, for example. But then again, we're taking Mjolnir as a symbol of the role, while it's also the bestower of the powers and in the past has been literally the thing that makes you Thor, not just the protector of Midgard, torn between two worlds, in one of which you're royalty.

    Just typing that out made me realize how confusing this can be if we don't separate the story roles/archetypes from the titles from the powers from the characters. We're still talking about them lining up to some extent, but they're not really a single system.

  2. #257
    Astonishing Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,609

    Default

    Yeah, titles and roles seems to have been conflated. They do overlap to a degree, which makes it a bit confusing. I'm just going to try and break down as simply as I can what I mean in terms of 'role' and 'title'

    Title:
    - Personal, it is something that describes that particular person, their personality, methods, abilities, goals, whatever, but it is something that is distinctly them and not necessarily tied to the role they may occupy
    - Can be self-chosen
    - Subject to change or fall by the wayside if the person changes, but can not change hands.
    Examples: God of Thunder, God of Mischief


    Role:
    - Impersonal, not tied to any one person, and can change hands (but they can become associated with certain characters over time, but this does NOT make the role theirs specifically, even if they believe that)
    - Don't necessarily have names, because they are defined more by the place they fill in the story.
    - They are there to give structure to the Asgardian pantheon by making them live according to a predefined story framework. 'The gods are creatures of story'
    - Fixed and unchanging, at least in broad terms. Details can probably change, such as the person, their methods, the setting etc. I've described it before like adapting Shakespeare. In a more restrictive sense, just placing the original plot in the modern world like they sometimes do, maybe un-Shakespeareing the language and updating details to match. Or in a more loose sense, the vague suggestion adaptation like 10 Things I Hate About You (Taming of the Shrew). Personally, I hope for more of the latter, but we've seen some signs where it's possibly the former.
    - Fate (or something similar) drives these and can force a person to remain in a role, or may influence their behaviour once in it.
    - But you do have to have the right qualities to land a role in the first place.

    I think the primary roles (though there are probably dozens of minor ones as well) are:

    King/Heart of Asgard - First held by Bor
    Hero/Defender - First held by Sigurd
    Villain/Betrayer - First held by Cul (? possibly he was the second, with the first being unknown right now)

    Though there are other roles, everything revolves around these three, they are what drives the story of Asgard forward.

    As for Mjolnir, I know Thor and most characters in-universe seem to see it as a symbol of the role, but the more I think about it, the less that makes sense. Because Sigurd (the ever glorious) was the first hero of Asgard, in the reign of Bor, but Mjolnir wasn't even CREATED back then, he used Gram. Odin made Mjolnir sometime around when he first became All-Father. Yeah, that was over a million years ago, if Avengers is anything to go by, but still, these are gods, the timescales are ridiculous. Odin did wield it first, when he was still kinda doing the hero of the realms thing, while he was on the BC Avengers. He, like Thor is doing now, apparently tried to do both for a while before settling into full time All-Fathering, but like, it has Thor's NAME on it. But then there was Jane, and... but she was kind of like, a temp fillin, so the rules may have bent a bit for her. I think, like Thor, Mjolnir has become associated with that role, so it's used as a symbol for that position, but in reality the "Thor" or more accurately hero of the realms, has to create their own weapon, or lay claim to one, to use as a symbol for their time in that position. Maybe with it's own worthiness requirements, or maybe the enchantment can like, transfer to a different weapon, or something.

    *edited to add, before i go to bed, because looking back i see this is where a lot of the confusion came from. I just want to clarify that I read the end of Agent of Asgard and the whole God of Stories thing as him wanting to change his role, not title. His goal there was to escape being the villain, and changing the title would not really accomplish that, and the changes he seemed to envision for himself were far larger than what is usually just a descriptive label or nickname could ever possibly accomplish, it felt like he was attempting to change where he fit into the pantheon completely. It felt like it was him saying 'this is what my new job in Asgard will be, no more villain because this will take its place'. And the fact that later, when he realized he was still being pulled into the role of the bad guy, he definitely seemed to equate that with the God of Stories not sticking, so seemed to support that he saw it as an either-or situation, where he was trying to replace being the villain with being the God of Stories. On the other hand, I felt 'God of Outcasts' was much more in the 'title' category, as it was just him reflecting that he had always felt drawn to outcasts, like Wolverine, or Drrf, etc. because he is one, so he could empathize with them more easily, and even helped them when he was still in full on villain mode in most other respects. It was just him recognizing something about himself that was already there, would not affect his personality, motivations, or how he fit into the pantheon much at all, besides that he wanted to focus on more. it's way smaller scale. But he may have also thought of it as a role, it's a bit fuzzy there, but I do think it is more likely to stick because of its smaller more personal scope. It's not a role, even if that was his intent, it's a guiding principle that he has always had.
    Last edited by Raye; 04-10-2020 at 11:46 PM.

  3. #258
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    139

    Default

    God of Stories isn’t a role it’s a title. And you have once again proven that Loki cannot change his role or destiny as a villain. This is further proof that no matter what Loki does or how hard to he tries to change, he will always be a villain. The God of Outcast thing isn’t because he understands outcasts, he’s just being conceited and giving himself the most ridiculous title going. A title he has no right to give himself anyway. If he can’t call himself God of Stories then he can’t call himself God of Outcasts either, he has no right to decide that. Plus, he has his title. The God of Evil. That’s his title and that’s his role. That’s the role that the fates bestowed upon him and that is the fate he will always have. We have seen this in both King Thor and Agent of Asgard.

    Also, Jane won’t tell anyone it was Tyr. She will either tell everyone it was Loki, or she won’t say anything at all. If and this is a big if she does actually say anything then it wouldn’t really matter either way. As I mentioned before Tyr is family, Loki is not. If it’s a choice of throwing Loki under the bus or Tyr under the bus then there’s no choice where the likes of Odin, Freyja and Thor are concerned. They will choose to throw Loki under the bus. Loki is meant to be the scapegoat. That’s his purpose besides from being evil that is.

    Speaking of Jane and Loki’s upcoming interactions with each other, they seem sinister to me, especially with the front cover we have seen where you see Loki and Jane in the mirror, as their true selves.

    About this weapon thing. It doesn’t matter anyway, Gram is destroyed, and Loki can’t lift Mjolnir anyway, remember him “lifting it” was just a coincidence just like it was with Moon Knight.

  4. #259
    Spectacular Member Karabaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Okay, I'm confused how did Raye prove that he can't escape/change his fate. What did I miss?
    As for him lifting MjŲlnir, it was coincidence with Moon Knight as Cates himself said, but how and why do we know it's that very strange and clumsy coincidence again? It seemed to me he was legit holding it, not just lifting it.

    Yeah, that cover seems ominous, but covers are often deceiving, so I wouldn't worry yet. Especially where Loki is concerned, the cover often shows him looking all evil and sinister, while the issue itself turns out to be the exact opposite. I think we'll either see him double cross Jane over something (not surprising and not necessarily the act of evil, depends on the situation), or they will have a heart-to-heart talk about their inner weaknesses and demons (less likely).
    Last edited by Karabaja; 04-11-2020 at 10:50 AM.

  5. #260
    All-New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    19

    Default

    I’m confused too to be honest how that proves he’s forever chained to the role no matter what he does. I think if I remember correctly, he understands that he could fall back into being evil again but is going to keep doing all he can not to go that far. To me him giving himself the title god of outcasts was no different than Thor giving himself the title god of the unworthy, it’s just another title under his belt. He seemed to still kind of had the role of god of stories powering the sun with them in king Thor and that comic also showed that he still wasn’t irredeemable in the end and that there were people in his family that still believed that.


    I don’t see why Jane wouldn’t tell anyone it was Tyr and/or put the blame on Loki. Yeah Loki did some terrible things to her but why would she do that when her first impression from Tyr was causing all of that chaos and mind controlling Thor? Loki may not be related to Thor by blood like Tyr but he’s still considered family by all of them even given his past deeds, Thor still considers him his brother and Freya wouldn’t have been so distraught with him dying if she didn’t care and she even still considers him her son afterwards. She was rightfully upset with him but she did still care even though she didn't completely show it. Everybody else besides Tyr’s actions we don’t know right now how they are gonna treat Loki post WotR. But either way I still don't see Jane lying or covering it up, not to mention it wouldn't look good on her. And I’m sure once Thor snaps out of it being family isn’t going to be enough for Tyr betraying him a second time since the Hel situation. And by then it won’t exactly be a secret that it was Tyr’s doing all along.



    The interpretation I got from the Jane comic was that the mirrored images represented their past selves compared to who they are now. (I can’t wait till we finally find out though what the two have to do with each other.) Not to mention as said above covers can be deceiving like the one from WotR for example with him having a great time with Laufey smashing things. It didn’t end up that way at all the absolute opposite in fact. As with Mjolnir he was legit holding it for a hot minute before Thor recalled it back and I can’t see Cates playing the same trick twice, it would be too predictable.



    It’s ok to think that Loki will be/is evil but given how his actions are right now and what he’s gone through I just don’t see that happening for a very long while especially after his recent reaction to seeing himself becoming an evil king Loki. He's trying to be good in his own way and I give him an A for effort because he's come a long way to where he's at now.
    Last edited by DragonsRazor; 04-11-2020 at 12:21 PM.

  6. #261
    Spectacular Member Karabaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Loki will always have the capacity for evil. He himself said so in AoA, and he added it would be wrong to pretend it isn't there. But having the capacity and going for it are two different things. It's exactly that struggle that makes him worthy of being called a good guy, and maybe even MjŲlnir sees it that way.

  7. #262
    Astonishing Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,609

    Default

    Well at least I am not the only one who is confused. I really have no idea what it is that I am saying that is apparently so convincing that Loki is doomed to be a villain forever. What's especially weird to me is that Loki's actually in one of his high points right now, aside from the fact that Thor's apparently not a fan at the moment. The stuff with Tyr means his old villain spot's been filled, he's free, and just, he's been doing pretty good since WotR ended.

    Yeah I agree Loki will always have the potential to backslide into pure villainy, (though I do not think that is likely right now) and that's part of what makes him interesting to me, that he has to fight that side of himself more than a lot of other characters might, but that he keeps trying despite it being hard for him and he keeps having roadblocks pop up in his path (some of them his own making) really good, and I also think he can win.

    And I can't see why Jane would pin this on Tyr. By doing so, that would make her a bad guy in this situation, not just because she's throwing Loki under the bus, but because it puts people in danger by in effect protecting Tyr, leaving him free to do something else later. I mean, I'm sure he'll break himself free from whatever happens, because that's just how this works, but they have to at least make an attempt, not just let him walk because she has a grudge against Loki because of things from the past. And I mean, Tyr attacked Jane personally, and stole her weapon (I can never remember how to spell it) so she has no incentive to just let him walk. As for the cover, as mentioned, covers lie. Always remember this cover:


    I mean, not even CLOSE to what happened in the issue.

    I from the sounds of it, Jane and Loki have to deal with Hela and Karnilla, so it might tie into that deal Loki made with Karnilla, or something.

    Mjolnir, yeah, Cates said on twitter that he regretted doing that scene the way he did because it confused people, so i can't see him doing the exact same thing all over again with Loki. With Moon Knight, the hammer was moving just a little before MK even touched it, he was just kinda holding the handle as it was raising up on it's own, and then it flew off. Loki, i got the sense that he was actually holding it. Maybe another panel in there would have helped make that more clear, but the way he was holding it seemed like he was acutally supporting it's weight in his hand.

  8. #263
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    139

    Default

    I’m going to stop being so negative since I feel I’ve been a bit too pessimistic about Loki these last couple of days. I don’t know, I just feel that if someone is tied down to their fate/role then it’s pretty much a certainty that they can’t escape it. I mean if the case was that the Gods needs to fill certain roles, but it doesn’t matter which person or God fills which role then that’s different. I guess though my main problem is Loki only being able to be free from the role of a villain because someone else stepped in. To me that’s like saying that someone’s struggle to fight to better themselves don’t matter in the long run because they are only on the path they are on now because someone else filled in that role. I hope that makes sense.

    I mean I don’t want Loki to become like captain America either. Just like I don’t want him to become Thor. I know this comparison gets thrown out there quite a lot but I kind of see Loki in the same type of hero mould as Tony Stark or even Wolverine. Although he’s like these two for different reasons. Tony it’s more of a case of similar personality which he even pointed out himself in Loki #1. However, with Wolverine it’s more of a kindred spirit? I’m not sure if that’s the right way to put it but it seems more of a meta understanding.

    I’m sort of changing the subject here but I was thinking about the whole classic Loki, Kid-Loki, Ikol and current Loki and how it all really works. The way I look at it is that he’s all of these Lokis. I mean we can’t ignore how alike this Loki is to Kid-Loki. I feel like it was through Kid-Loki how he came to like earth and it’s customs more. How he came to like things like modern music and technology like cell phones etc. In fact, in a lot of way both Ikol and current Loki acts more like Kid-Loki. They are more cheerful and very confident but also full of guilt, self-doubt and can get quite depressed. However, the Kid-Loki connection is more instinctual because I don’t think he actually has Kid-Loki’s memories. So, it feels like he’s more going by instinct then actual memory. I mean this is just a theory, but I feel like that side to him had to come somewhere, maybe it came when he pretended to be Kid-Loki, but I don’t think so. But he also has classic Loki’s memories which is extremely important for Loki’s character.

    On another topic and this one isn’t really about Loki, but I do hope that Thor’s actions and attitude towards Loki, Sif and Beta Ray Bill doesn’t get brushed under the carpet. I can understand Thor’s restlessness just like we can understand Loki’s. I mean he’s been a hero of the realms for quite a long time and a warrior even longer but now he can’t easily do either because he has a kingdom to run and the 10 realms to protect from Asgard. However, he’s throwing his weight around especially when someone tells him something that he doesn’t like. I also kind of feel like he was maybe trying to start something with Loki, to give him an excuse to go into battle against Jotunheim but Loki didn’t take the bait. I might be wrong on that, but it did feel like Thor was trying to start a fight or something. I mean Loki did press his buttons, but I don’t think the intent was to goad Thor.

    I guess that's true about the covers. I'm actually looking forward to Loki's and Jane's interactions and I hope we do get to find out why he didn't die when he was eaten by Laufey. Yeah, it didn't seem like he was holding Mjolnir, I mean he did rest it against his palm when he picked it up and I think he was holding it for a minute or two before Thor recalled it.

  9. #264
    Astonishing Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lambadelta View Post
    Iím going to stop being so negative since I feel Iíve been a bit too pessimistic about Loki these last couple of days. I donít know, I just feel that if someone is tied down to their fate/role then itís pretty much a certainty that they canít escape it. I mean if the case was that the Gods needs to fill certain roles, but it doesnít matter which person or God fills which role then thatís different.
    BUT THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING! Well, not just ANY person can take any role, but the whole point is that the roles have changed hands before, some more often than others, but still, and now they are again, all over Asgard, so it doesn't HAVE to be Loki in the villain role anymore. That is why Tyr being in the role is such a big deal, it means Loki is free to not be the bad guy because someone else is.

    I guess though my main problem is Loki only being able to be free from the role of a villain because someone else stepped in. To me thatís like saying that someoneís struggle to fight to better themselves donít matter in the long run because they are only on the path they are on now because someone else filled in that role. I hope that makes sense.
    But Like i said earlier, That Tyr is now in the role isn't the ONLY factor at play here, it's just one piece of the puzzle. It isn't just, like, fate throwing people into roles at RANDOM. The characters can't just decide to fill any role they wish on a whim, but they can still do things to better ensure they get a particular role, even though in most cases I don't think 'obtain X role' is the goal. (even in Loki's case. he was trying to get a different role than the one he had, but I don't think he had ever seriously set his sights on Thor's old role in particular) But they all still have to display certain qualities, either personality traits, or events in their past history, or familiar relationships, etc. that make them a good fit for the role they are stepping into, Loki included. While certain things are beyond his control, like family, other things, like his personality and morality, is within his control, and changing those will help him tick the right boxes for a particular role (and un-tick certain boxes for the villain role). So he still had to work hard to get a better role, all the work he's done to better himself still matters, otherwise he would probably just have continued on as the villain.

    and yeah, that Loki could not leave it behind, despite no longer being a good fit for it, until it was filled by someone else is tragic and unfair, and I am sure incredibly frustrating from his perspective, I never said it wasn't. But, still, Tyr becoming the new family villain did free Loki from his old role (probably) so that's still a good thing, even if the entire system in general is still confining and sometimes unfair. And I think it is a safe bet that this lack of agency over their own destines will probably be a plot point going forward, but it's a bit early for that to become apparent just yet if it is.

    I mean I donít want Loki to become like captain America either. Just like I donít want him to become Thor. I know this comparison gets thrown out there quite a lot but I kind of see Loki in the same type of hero mould as Tony Stark or even Wolverine. Although heís like these two for different reasons. Tony itís more of a case of similar personality which he even pointed out himself in Loki #1. However, with Wolverine itís more of a kindred spirit? Iím not sure if thatís the right way to put it but it seems more of a meta understanding.
    We don't know yet what is going to happen here, but I doubt Loki will just become a carbon copy of Thor. Or if that is something that starts to happen, he won't like it, and will try to stop it. Some things in Valkyrie seem to point to the role shaping the person in it to an extent, (Jane just knowing to say or do certain things without having learned them, and such) but Thor seems to be pointing to the need to make the role your own and do things a different way. I think the roles are pretty broad, and Loki can be his own kind of hero, and still display his own personality and unique way of doing things, as long as he doesn't slip back into villainy again and become unworthy. It may be part of point will end up being that things need to evolve and be updated for new generations. Also, keep in mind that Thor was in the role way back when, and he was a different person back in the Viking age than he is now, I think part of the role is sort of learning on the job, and it can take hundreds of years, which we will never see the entirety of in the comics, so even if Loki ends up more Thor-like a thousand years from now, he doesn't have to become that way overnight like flipping a switch, and we can still have this Loki for a looooong time yet. But yeah, I don't think it's a case where it's going to be that all the characters just adopt all the exact same personalities of their predecessors, or there would be no point in having them change hands. Though the requirements of that role may push them to be come more similar to their predecessors, which may lead to an understanding they previously lacked of what their predecessor was dealing with, maybe? I dunno, but there's lots of things they could do with this which doesn't necessitate overwriting their personalities.

    Like, is Thor all that much like Sigurd? (talking before Sigurd had his fall from grace with the Disir) They both filled the same role. Sure, certain traits are similar, but their personalities and methods are pretty different in other ways. They also left their roles in vastly different ways, with Sigurd leaving the role in disgrace, and Thor leaving because he got a promotion. (which he doesn't quite see as a promotion, but still) which points to the roles having a fair bit of wiggle room.

    Iím sort of changing the subject here but I was thinking about the whole classic Loki, Kid-Loki, Ikol and current Loki and how it all really works. The way I look at it is that heís all of these Lokis. I mean we canít ignore how alike this Loki is to Kid-Loki. I feel like it was through Kid-Loki how he came to like earth and itís customs more. How he came to like things like modern music and technology like cell phones etc. In fact, in a lot of way both Ikol and current Loki acts more like Kid-Loki. They are more cheerful and very confident but also full of guilt, self-doubt and can get quite depressed. However, the Kid-Loki connection is more instinctual because I donít think he actually has Kid-Lokiís memories. So, it feels like heís more going by instinct then actual memory. I mean this is just a theory, but I feel like that side to him had to come somewhere, maybe it came when he pretended to be Kid-Loki, but I donít think so. But he also has classic Lokiís memories which is extremely important for Lokiís character.
    Yeah, I like that there is a connective thread between all the 'different' Lokis, they may all be different, but you cans see how they are really just steps along a path. This was one reason I wasn't actually too hot on the God of Stories change, because it did feel like a much more abrupt change that looked to disconnect Loki from his past. I like the connection to his past, I don't want it to go away and not matter, even if he used to be a pretty shitty person who did some really bad things. Kid Loki was more separate than the others, but I do think that he reminded Ikol-Loki of who he used to be, as well as maybe pushing him along to get back up to speed with the modern world, and so still helped him along the path of change.

    On another topic and this one isnít really about Loki, but I do hope that Thorís actions and attitude towards Loki, Sif and Beta Ray Bill doesnít get brushed under the carpet. I can understand Thorís restlessness just like we can understand Lokiís. I mean heís been a hero of the realms for quite a long time and a warrior even longer but now he canít easily do either because he has a kingdom to run and the 10 realms to protect from Asgard. However, heís throwing his weight around especially when someone tells him something that he doesnít like. I also kind of feel like he was maybe trying to start something with Loki, to give him an excuse to go into battle against Jotunheim but Loki didnít take the bait. I might be wrong on that, but it did feel like Thor was trying to start a fight or something. I mean Loki did press his buttons, but I donít think the intent was to goad Thor.
    While I have noticed some Thor fans who don't seem to realize or care that Thor is behaving pretty badly right now, or even thinking his behaviour is good, only caring that he's being all tough and kicking ass, I think, especially after Sif dressing him down last issue, that his behaviour will be a concern. I just can't see how it couldn't be, he's just SO angry and aggressive, it's just not good, and pretty sure it's intentional, after Sif's little talk there, pretty sure Sif is sort of going to be the voice of reason in most things, and may be a bit of an author mouthpiece, so if she says something, probably best to pay attention.

    He might have been trying to start something with Loki, but yeah I don't think Loki was trying to intentionally push his buttons. If you read the script for that issue in the back, the script says Loki is 'concerned' when he asks about Mjolnir. I don't think 'concern' really came across in the art, but it still kind of shows what Cates' intent was there, and it doesn't line up with Loki just trying to get a rise out of Thor.

  10. #265
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    139

    Default

    Yeah, when it comes to Thor it seems that many Thor fans have a habit of seeing Thor through rose-tinted glasses. To them Thor can’t do anything wrong, but this isn’t something new. This has always pretty much been the case where any hero is concerned, especially the main hero of a comic series or any media in general really. I don’t know if you watched Game of Thrones but the same also applied to Jon Snow who most saw as the main hero as the TV show or even the books if you have read them. However, this type of mindset I feel is slowly dying out or at least you have a lot more people who will point out the flaws in hero like characters and not instantly think they are right. I think another trope that is dying out is so called “perfect” characters. Many readers or watchers want to see characters they can relate to, characters who are flawed. Thor is a flawed character. Now more than ever. But that is okay because that to me makes him more interesting.

    Actually, I think most Thor fans are just happy that Thor has gotten this extremely powerful power up. For me this is probably the most boring part of the arc. I don’t get the need to make a character so powerful that hardly anyone could challenge them. It seems pointless to me and there’s not much you can do with a character like that. That is why I really hope this is a powerup that Thor has doesn’t last beyond this arc.

    What I’m interested in is how Thor’s personal story will be handled. What his relationship with Loki will be like going forward. In issue #1 I don’t think their relationship was on bad terms, but it wasn’t on good either, mostly because of Thor throwing his weight around. The question of whether or not Thor knows that perhaps Loki is now the chosen one of Mjolnir (if he is of course) and whether or not in the end whether fully willing or reluctantly, he hands his old title over to Loki.

    Changing the subject here but does anyone think that Loki is overused? Apparently, he’s the most overused villain who doesn’t allow for other villains that are less known the spotlight, but I personally think that is false. In fact, ever since his face turn, we’ve seen more villains step into Loki’s old role (not the same way we were discussing in previous comments though). We have seen the likes of Cul, Malekith and the dark elves, Laufey and the frost Giants. Loki is no longer the villain really, at least from our point of view and hasn’t been for nearly 10 years. I think it will be 10 years next year, this has often paved way for villains who don’t get the spotlight to get some or even new villains to make an appearance like Gorr.

    Personally, I don’t think Loki is overused. The way I see it and maybe those who hate Loki won’t like this, but he will always have a big part to play in the Asgardian side of things and hopefully the non-Asgardian side of things. Loki is also quite popular and someone who can fit into a story quite easily.

    It looks like no new comic releases again this week. I have a feeling we may be waiting weeks maybe months before a new comic comes out.
    Last edited by Lambadelta; 04-14-2020 at 12:49 PM.

  11. #266
    Astonishing Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,609

    Default

    Yeah, I think in general Thor fans and Loki fans look for different things from a story, which makes it difficult to please them both at the same time. OR, if they both like a story, they see it in different ways, even if they both enjoy it, but it can make it frustrating when the two discuss it, because they took away vastly different things from the story. Like, just talking very broadly here.

    Especially after the whole unworthyness thing, a lot of Thor fans, at least the most vocal ones, just seem to want him to be powerful and dominant, and they're getting that, and a lot of them apparently don't care much that he's is also doing some extremely questionable things. (even tho I get that the fate of the universe is on the line) And don't seem to realize that the story seems to be criticizing this extreme aggression and obsession with asserting his dominance. The appeal seems to be that he's the big strong powerful hero who always wins and is right in the end. (which to me is kinda meh) So Aaron having him stumble and fall (but get better) was anathema to them, but I thought it helped make him more rounded and interesting. So here, even though I think he's doing some things that are clearly in the wrong, (and that's ok, as long as the story is good) some of them just... aren't seeing it, somehow. Whether this is is due to them actually agreeing with his actions or might makes right attitude, or putting blinders on regarding some of the things he does, I dunno, but... (it is nearly as baffling to me as the segment of X-Men fans who can't seem to see that they are a dangerously manipulative cult at the moment, even as the 'cult' red flags keep coming in. It seriously checks nearly every point of the BITE model. this does seem to be lessening with time though.)

    Loki fans, while if recent discussion is any indication, we can get discouraged, but in general I think we're more used to Loki losing and being brought low, and are generally more ok with that, or at least used to it happening. I mean sure it sucks if he never gets a win, but it's just kind of part of him that he lose sometimes, because he spent so much time as a villain and he was CONSTANTLY losing, cus that's just how these things go. And even now that he's more of a good guy, we don't necessarily have to have him be the strongest and most badass, or always get his way to find hm interesting. At least to me, it's more important that he be interesting and complex, and be part of some interesting stories, rather than just seeing him be powerful and win. I would like to see him succeed in the long run in terms of bettering himself, and it is nice to see him get some wins now that he is trying to do good. (like a reward for being better) But I think in general we're a bit more ok with some setbacks in a story where he fails before ultimately succeeding in the end, and are better able to see that setbacks can make a more interesting story in the end.

    Also, I think Loki fans are more interested in high concept elements, themes, or what the story is trying to say, and Thor fans are more interested in the surface narrative and adherence to continuity. How it's told vs what happens. And I think Loki fans are more interested in seeing things change and evolve, while Thor fans want a more safe and familiar status quo. (and I think Thor himself wants this, but will have to learn he can't have it, that things change whether he likes it or not, and he's got to move forward rather than look backward, so those fans may not like that.) and I think Thor fans are less likely to accept the things that have changed, like with Loki's face turn.

    Some of this may be what you said about the general trend towards more gray complex flawed characters in general, including with Thor. But a lot of his fans are old school, (at least in attitude, even if they haven't been reading the books for decades) and want things to fit the old school way of doing things with clear cut good guys and bad guys. A lot of Loki fans are newer, at least to the Thor side of things, so they're more willing to accept the newer changes. Tho interestingly, Marvel has always been the 'flawed character' publisher between the Big Two, and that included Thor. But it seems a lot of the fans expected Thor to learn his early lessons about arrogance etc and then that be the end of it, lesson learned, he's perfect now. But no.

    Again, generally, there are exceptions, and some overlap, I like Thor too after all, and just because I care less about continuity doesn't mean i don't care at all, etc. Just talking about the most visible and vocal fans, and all that. But yeah, it makes it difficult to please both groups at once.

    I don't think Loki is overused. For one, as you say, he's not being used as a villain recently, so he's not blocking other villains from doing their bad thing. I suspect Loki's face turn actually may have necessitated the use of Malekith in what was originally intended to be Loki's place for War of the Realms, so Malekith at least may have benefited from that.

    And he doesn't even appear that much? He literally went years without appearing in God of Thunder even ONCE, he stuck to Young Avengers and Agent of Asgard almost exclusively during that time. And while I don't feel like counting pages for all of Aaron's post-GoT Thor stuff, in the most recent run so far, he appeared for a total of 6 pages out of 4 issues, (Sif has had 8, for comparison) Sure, a couple of those pages were ones I don't think a lot of traditionalist Thor fans would like very much because of what it might mean for the future, and that may lead to him appearing much more over the course of coming issues, but it's still a long way from Loki being all over the story, for him to be in 6 out of 80 pages. And though he's popped up here and there in various guest spots more often recently, it's usually only for a few pages, and, again, not as the villain. He had the brief solo recently, but in that case, if you don't want to see him, don't read it, it's that easy.

    And yeah, Loki will probably always have a big part in the Asgard side of things, even if there are sometimes dry spells like God of Thunder. Though I think what may make it seem like he is appearing more, is that he seems to be having more of an impact on things, and can actually be the protagonist more than before, it gives his actions more impact because they're not automatically just going to be stopped by the good guys in the end, he is one of those good guys. Or good-ish anyway. I do think he's making more guest appearances recently, I think that since so far a lot of his face turn happened in isolated books that could be ignored, OR his appearances were ambiguous where you weren't sure which side he was playing, meant that a lot of fans aren't all that up to speed with his face turn, and they're trying to get it out there so more people know. But that will calm down with time.
    Last edited by Raye; 04-14-2020 at 05:35 PM.

  12. #267
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    139

    Default

    At times it really doesn’t feel like Loki appears all that much at all. I think in the last couple of months ever since his solo ended, we’ve only had a couple of guest appearances. In 2020 he’s only really appeared in Thor, Valkyrie, Star, Strange Academy and immortal Hulk. I can’t remember what else he has appeared in. That’s extremely low considering how many comic book series there actually are. I don’t really get the logic that he appears too much or the logic that he’s taking away the spotlight from other villains when he hasn’t been one for a while.

    I think what it is though is that people want to see the spotlight go to villains that they love but doesn’t ever get the spotlight themselves, like Amora for example. However, what most fans don’t seem to get is that Loki showing up is not the reason why Amora hasn’t been given the right treatment that the fans think she deserves. It’s because the writers choose not to use her when they have the opportunity to or because they simply do not know what to do with her character. Or the writers are simply choosing to introduce new villains which many have done over recent years. None of this is Loki’s fault though. I love Amora by the way and it’s sad she isn’t used more. In fact I wouldn’t have minded to see her become Loki’s antagonist if his solo hadn’t had ended. I always wanted to see what it would be like if those two truly squared off against each other. Maybe if another Loki solo is picked up which I think is likely. Maybe not more a bit now though.

    In fact, Loki not being a villain has paved way for other villains to claim the spotlight for a little while.

    I’m guessing you are referring to Loki picking up Mjolnir. Yeah, that would definitely mean he would be appearing more, not only that, but I think Donny Cates said he wanted to use Loki quite a lot down the line. However, I think Loki lifting the hammer also means he could be appearing in more stuff away from Thor as well.

    I think at the end of the day, people just need to deal. Loki isn’t going anywhere.

    That’s a point. I think even when he only has a cameo appearance, he still kind of has an important role. I think it comes with his nature of being a trickster God as well. As I mentioned before, at least I think I did, is the original main purpose of a trickster God was to help the other Gods achieve things they wouldn’t normally achieve without some pushing and to cement change as well. This is kind of what Loki has been doing for quite a while now, the prime example to this was when he “became” sorcerer supreme so Strange could do what he needed to do which he wouldn’t have done if he didn’t get the right push from Loki.

    Yeah, Loki has made a lot of guest appearances lately in a few books and I think it has gotten fans a bit confused at times. I think the main issue is as well is that most media, not in the comics, but things like websites, cartoons, movies etc. all have him down as a villain, which isn’t wrong, but it can be confusing to comic book fans. I think the other issue, as I think I have already mentioned, is that a lot of the time Loki’s actions have had dubious intent until the end where we finally learn of his intentions. As I said before I think we need a time period where he’s just a hero or more precisely, a time period where we know his intentions from the beginning, none of that “what is Loki truly up to?” kind of situations.

    Actually, I think another reason that maybe there are some fans are thinking Loki appears too much is that he’s often involved in the big events, or at least has been for the last couple of years.

    Actually, I was thinking on why Thor might be acting the way he is. I wonder if what happened with Tyr forcing him to be his puppet has something to do with it?

  13. #268
    Spectacular Member Karabaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    131

    Default

    If you're referring to the thread about the overused villains, I think most of the complaints about Loki being overexposed is from 2014-2015, recently not so much.
    I was thinking too about how it would be nice if it turns out that the events in Valkyrie are the reason why Thor is pissed at Loki. Though he seems to be pissed at everybody at the moment. Still, treathening to pluck his eyes out..wtf man.

  14. #269
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    139

    Default

    I mean I'm guessing that might be one of the reasons he may be pissed off in general not just at Loki, and why he may be trying to force his dominance as King because he wants everyone to know that he is the king, he is powerful and he can't be easily used like Tyr tried. It's a show of power but in the wrong way. I'm probably wrong though since Thor has found himself in similar situations before now thinking about it.

    Also I'm not sure how Loki was overused between 2014-2015.
    Last edited by Lambadelta; 04-15-2020 at 10:57 AM.

  15. #270
    Spectacular Member Karabaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    131

    Default

    That was the post-kidLoki and AoA era, and the movies too did their part, so he did get around more then he does now. Though I agree he wasn't overexposed, just more exposed than he had ever been before that period.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •