Page 17 of 34 FirstFirst ... 713141516171819202127 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 509
  1. #241
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    152

    Default

    All his solo showed us that no matter what Loki will be forced into the role of a villain. It’s why he was arrested, and it was made it clear he was back to his supervillain ways. A hero doesn’t get arrested. The Cul thing just proves that it doesn’t matter if someone takes the role of villain because at the end of it all, it will only be for a short while before Loki resumes the role.

    You know what I think it would be best if they bring another Loki in, that way at least he can bear the burden of being the villain that everyone wants. Or better yet take Loki away from the Asgardian stories altogether. Thor doesn’t really care for Loki and doesn't really think of him as his brother. Freyja is more than happy to feed him to the wolves and will try and make sure that Loki will fulfil the role as a villain.

    They have already basically reverted everything that Kieron Gillen and Al Ewing set up. Loki has been regressing ever since AOA. Sure, he’s done some small heroic stuff, mostly for his own benefit. Loki will never be seen as a hero.
    Last edited by Lambadelta; 04-08-2020 at 09:58 PM.

  2. #242
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    https://www.cbr.com/arrested-develop...-who-did-time/

    Lots of superheroes have been arrested. And not even talking as part of their backstory like Luke Cage, after they had become heroes. We don't know why Loki was in the Raft, it could have been a misunderstanding, or maybe something he orchestrated (hence how easily he broke out) or he could have actually done something. We don't know, but it doesn't automatically mean he was back to villainy.

    And they haven't undone JIM and AOA, they have built on them, they still inform where he is headed. Like, sure God of Stories didn't work, but the fact that it didn't was part of his motivation. Progress doesn't always mean success, and things going to plan. Sometimes plans fail, and that's what happened here, but it doesn't mean it meant nothing, it all still happened and was acknowledged and played into his motivations, because he was upset that it didn't work. Verity kind of was ignored, I will grant you that, though there, I suspect the reason was more to do with the fact that having her there would have made things less ambiguous, and Aaron, though not undoing Loki's progress, even if he had him stumble, clearly wanted things to be ambiguous with Loki if you wer not paying very close attention. That she can spot any lie means that if she is still hanging out with him on panel, then that automatically makes any bad thing he does at worst a bad thing done for a good reason, because Verity would not just go along with him going all supervillain again, so she had to be kept off panel, she is inconvenient to an ambiguous plot, sadly.

    I also think Freyja realized the error of what she did in Agent of Asgard, she was clearly distraught over what happened with Laufey. And Thor is going through some ****, so I am not prepared to write him off just yet. I think they both love Loki, even if he makes them angry sometimes.

    I don't know what it was that set off this pessimism, but I really did not mean to imply that the way fate and the roles worked meant it was hopeless for Loki. Quite the opposite, I think that with all the roles changing, fate has finally taken him out of his old role, and he is on the verge of finally proving to everyone (in universe and out) that he actually means it. Has he had some rough spots along the way? Fucked up? Even come close to failing? Yup. But if this was an easy journey, where he just wished himself a new role and everything was fine afterward, it wouldn't be as impactful, either to him or to readers. He was a villain for a long time, there is no reason to expect that this was ever going to be easy for him. He needs to work for it, try hard at something that may come easily to some other characters, and yeah he will get it wrong sometimes. But that is not a bad thing for him, if anything it means he has to really want it, if he hasn't given up yet. It means this is more likely to stick, because he has worked hard for this, displayed guilt for his past actions on multiple occasions, and displayed disappointment at the idea that he may not be allowed to escape the role of the bad guy. He's shown the readers at least (though not the MU, due to him pretending to be the bad guy) that he wants to change, feels remorse over things he has done, and that he has good intentions even if his actions are questionable, and that will make it so much harder for a writer to just make him a villain again and have it make sense. He has had so many chances to just give up and go back to what is familiar and easy, and he came close to doing that on occasion, including in Agent of Asgard, but in the end he chose the hard road, and the longer he sticks to that, the harder it is to undo. If some readers are too stubborn or too dense to accept this, then oh well, too bad. Not like Marvel has a habit of caving to angry fans, anyway.

    And right now, with so many roles changing hands, it's past the point that it even can be reset to a familiar status quo in Asgard for most characters, at least not easily. I mean the sheer scale of it, so many roles have changed hands, they would have to do a LOT or reverting things to get it to 'normal' status quo. And like, Heimdall is not even in the afterlife where they can go get him, like happens with so many Asgardians, they made that one in particular super hard to undo. And what Tyr just did with the Rokkva is likely a moral event horizon, there is no turning back from something like that, at least not for a long time, it is simply too evil. They either keep him as the bad guy or kill him, those are the only choices, because there is no going back to his old character after that.

  3. #243
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    152

    Default

    I guess you’re right. I don’t know why I’m being so pessimistic either. I think it’s because if Loki can only be a non-villain because someone else stepped into that role, then I feel those foundations are quite weak of him retaining a non-villain status. As I said before they tried this with Cul but once again Loki was forced back into the role as a villain….sort of anyway. This is why I think it’s important that it was Loki that was the catalyst for the change of roles between him and Tyr instead of the other way around. I would like to think that fate did try and force Loki back on the path that was his never-ending destiny and they nearly succeeded but in the end after many struggles, trials and errors, Loki managed to fight against his destiny and won. Which in turn caused the fates to rethink the roles in their never-ending story. This was when characters stepped into new roles like Thor, Jane and Sif after Odin left his position as All-Father and Brunhilda and Heimdall died. This in turn freed up the Thor role (well if our predictions are true at least) and of course the Loki role was also freed up. Imo, I think it’s important that Loki isn’t in his new role because someone allowed him to but rather as I said he struggled and fought against his fate and won.

    I also believe on top of that circumstances had a lot to do with it to. There has been a change rifts in Loki’s current story that go against previous stories. I think the main things being his interactions with humans. I mean it’s not like he didn’t interact with humans previous, he did but somehow this always felt different. Maybe the key is that he doesn’t seem to look down on humans like he previously did and actually has come to appreciate them in his own Loki way. These changes might be small, but they can have a massive effect.

    I can’t agree with Freyja. I don’t think she regretted what she did to him in AOA and she didn’t seem that upset with what happened with Laufey. In fact, she seemed glad of the fact and was disappointed when she learned that he was actually alive. I mean I don’t necessarily blame her since she has every right to hate Loki and be happy of his death. After all, not only had he tried to kill her recently, but he has tried to kill Thor on many occasions, has killed Balder and tried to destroy or takeover Asgard may times as well. So, her feelings towards Loki as just. Thor the same. I can’t blame him for no longer thinking of Loki as his brother. There was always going to be a time where Thor snapped, and Loki went too far. He went too far in the WOTRs although Thor probably snapped after he found out about Kid-Loki. So, I truly to not blame either of them for washing their hands of Loki. Many will say it’s a long time coming.

    Also, since Freyja doesn’t see Loki as one of her sons, which is pointed out quite often, then she will do everything in her power to make sure that the roles revert to how they were before. After all it’s better if Loki is the villain than her precious oldest son Tyr. Loki can be sacrificed for Asgard, Tyr can’t. Thor will also go along with this because at the end of the day, Loki isn't his brother but Tyr is.

    What I don’t like though is the fact that Loki is still looking for the Asgardians’ approval and that is something I thought was finally over.

  4. #244
    Protector of Mortals Prof. Aegis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lambadelta View Post
    What I don’t like though is the fact that Loki is still looking for the Asgardians’ approval and that is something I thought was finally over.
    What I have learned with this is, and just hear me out, this isn't about Loki still looking for approval. To me, Loki has grown past that. Look at the stories that show this growth, AOA, and the most recent Loki series for example. What holds Loki back in the situation mentioned above isn't Loki...but the writers that can't or do not want to see Loki as more than just a simple character to be used in the stories as the antagonist to move their main character forward. In these cases the writer dismisses all the growth Loki has achieved and that we know to be true, to create the simplistic story direction for the writers needs. Yup, it totally sucks.

    For me, when I read stories of this nature, I dismiss them as non-essential. Loki has grown beyond the desire for approval from the Asgardians. He is more self-assured and confident of the new direction in his own life and the desire to create a life for himself. He no longer seeks approval from others. He seeks to grow and create his own path. These are some of the aspects that makes Loki as a character so fascinating and enjoyable to read. These are the aspects, along with others, I hold to in regards to Loki.

    Writers that don't see this or dismiss this, are writers I take with a small amount of accuracy on their portrayal of Loki. It is the only way I can deal with stories that direct Loki back to his former self. In the grand scheme of things, those retreads of tired story and character beats, just no longer hold for me and I might enjoy the story for what it is, but will not hold to Loki's portrayal in those stories. It is not a character flaw, but a writer flaw for me.
    The Doors of Wisdom are never shut! - Benjamin Franklin

  5. #245
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    If the foundations are weak, how did it keep Loki chained to his role for a thousand years? Loki doesn't have to be the only character that is bound to the role that strongly, at least not by the in-universe rules. There is no in-universe reason Tyr can not be bound to the role just as strongly as Loki was. I also don't think that's the ONLY thing determining Loki escaping the role, I can see now how what I said may have come across that way, but no. All i meant was that I think it is an essential step that needs to happen, because it is an important linchpin role that must always be filled, and Loki did become so strongly associated with the role over time, so momentum wants to keep him on that path. But there is more to it than just that, including Loki's own personal development. Loki can not step into a new role until he also becomes worthy of the new one (whether it is the 'Thor' role specifically or not, he still has to tick the right boxes to fill a new role) and that's all on him and his personal development. What's keeping it tied to Loki right now is real world stuff, the writers, the fans etc. but I don't think that is something that is insurmountable. I do think the illusion of change is falling out of fashion, it definitely seems to have less grip on characters in recent years.

    I agree that Loki sees humans differently now, and I think that will be a major factor moving forward. Remember, that was a lesson Thor had to learn as well in his early days, and protecting humans and spending time on Midgard is actually a key part of the 'Thor' role, imo.

    I also don't think the writers are regressing things all that much between runs, really. There has always been forward progress, it just is not usually as straightforward as I think some people want, it's been kind of two steps forward, one step back sort of progress, but it is still progress overall. I know as fans it is tempting to kind of want his progress to look like this (ignore the values, i just googled for a graph that had the basic shapes i wanted)



    Just steady, consistent, forward progress, and it can be discouraging when, instead, we got something like this:



    When in one of the dips, it can feel like a regression, but if you step back and look at the bigger picture, it is still making progress overall, though maybe slower than you may have wanted. But it's not like Loki is regressing all the way back to pure villain each time there is a dip, he's still keeping some of his previous progress. And all those ups and downs make for a more interesting story, and more interesting character, overall, imo. I don't think it's writers ignoring previous progress, (just talking the more core appearances here, not weird stuff like Slott's take) just making things harder for Loki, and trying to make his progress more interesting.

    The God of Stories not sticking thing keeps being brought up as a regression or reset. Admittedly, it did feel like this to me at the time, like i just said, a dip can feel like a regression if you are focused on the recent events. I remember being pissed off when it first became clear that the God of Stories thing didn't stick, that he'd had his win taken away. But now that I have the benefit of hindsight, and seeing where things landed in the end, looking back I don't see it that way any more. Especially if we consider that the whole King Loki situation may have actually been building towards the whole roles thing, and we just didn't realize that at the time. It may have even been that even Ewing didn't even expect the God of Stories thing to actually stick. It may have always been intended to fail. Sure, it can be read as a new status quo that was ignored, if you just take it on it's own. But if you place it in the larger context, it fits a trend of Loki trying to accomplish something, but it goes wrong somehow, but he still progresses anyway, just in a kind of unexpected way. He's just been taking a route towards redemption with a lot of twists rather than a straight line. It happened at the end of JIM, where i think everyone was super sad that Kid Loki died, and it was seen as a possible regression back to Loki being a bad guy... but nope, it was a setback, and he did almost gave into the temptation to go back to being bad, but guilt won out, and he didn't, instead he decided to try and be better. And it's gone on like that ever since, Agent of Asgard it also had him almost give up when confronted with the idea that he might be doomed to forever be the bad guy, but hope won out and he tried to make a new role for himself. And Aaron's run is really not so different, where the ending of the previous run didn't really go according to plan, but he moved forward anyway, after a setback. Roadblocks and failures do not have to mean progress is undone, it just means they get diverted to a different path.

    the Freyja situation is weird because clearly Ewing and Aaron had very different takes on her. (and Odin) Under Aaron though, Freyja definitely considered Loki her son. She referred to him as such several times during WotR, but, sadly mostly after he had been killed, because she was mad at him prior to that, but she was devastated when he died, she put together an entire mission to try and avenge his death. It's a bit hard to reconcile that with her extremely pragmatic approach to him in Agent of Asgard, but I think a middle ground can be found between the two, and i don't believe she doesn't consider him her son, even if it took the shock of his death right in front of her for her to really acknowledge that. I just don't see her reaction to Loki being alive again as her being disappointed, i don't know what else to say, except that it just did not come across that way to me at all, not even close. She seemed disappointed that he was alive and she never got to see him, it seemed to me that she just really wanted to see him with her own eyes, but he ran off to Jotunheim before she could.

    I don't think Loki is looking fro approval any more. I'm just not really seeing that, i think he wants a relationship with his family, but that is not the same thing as doing things in order to gain their approval as his primary motivation. I think he's mostly acting just out of a sense of self improvement or just reacting to situations that arise right now.
    Last edited by Raye; 04-09-2020 at 12:25 PM.

  6. #246
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    152

    Default

    The thing is though this isn’t Tyr’s destiny like it is Loki’s.

    I was thinking about something though and I think it could help further Loki’s status although this would be mostly from the fans view though. But I think it will help massively if they do a future storyline where Loki is not shown to be evil or at least go down the wrong path again, like in King Thor. We had this in Loki where he is shown with Mjolnir and saving that young girl (Izzy) from Thor or rather a Thor that seems to have been taken over by Ultron. However, I think Loki needs to be established more as a hero in a more popular series, like Thor and it needs to be established that Loki doesn’t have to fall back into old ways by showing this in showing the future stories. Of course, I think there will always be those who will always be doubtful of Loki’s change and whether it will last.

    I actually came across someone who said that Loki didn’t lift Mjolnir but rather it was a coincidence; that Loki picked the hammer up as Thor recalled it, which doesn’t make any sense at all but that’s some people’s logic for you. I mean forget the part that he was holding it in his hand for a couple of seconds before it flew out of his hands but eh.

    I don’t think it’s that simple with the God of Stories title though. I don’t think it’s the case of it didn’t work out but more of a case of how one makes a title stick or at least I think that might be a big part of Loki’s arc at some point. Someone once said that Loki can’t just call himself the God of Stories because it doesn’t work like that but then I was thinking on it some more and I the problem with that is that a title needs to start somewhere. I mean why is there a difference between Loki calling himself the God of Stories and the God of Outcasts? It’s still the same thing, it’s still him choosing the title, a title that is likely not going to stick. Why is that though? Is it really because Loki can’t decide his own title or is it more because he’s stuck with those old titles? I mean look at that scene in Star #1 when he’s still referred to as the God of Lies because that’s what he’s been known by for thousands of years. It’s also the question of why are bad titles more readily accepted for Loki than good titles?

    I think that both the God of Stories and the God of Outcasts (if it’s not ignored) is still an important part of Loki’s character.

  7. #247
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lambadelta View Post
    The thing is though this isn’t Tyr’s destiny like it is Loki’s.
    But it can be.

    The only ingredient missing is time. We are dealing with a timescale in the millions of years, and the only reason we (and the MU in general) consider Loki specially linked to the role (or Thor his, or Odin his, or Heimdall his etc.) is because we are just looking at a tiny slice of the timeline, and he has been in that role for over a thousand years, so he is the only one we have personally experienced filling that role. (aside from the brief return of Cul, mentioned before) So to us (and to him by now) it feels like it's his role. But the role IS NOT LOKI'S in the grand scheme of things, it's bigger and more abstract than that, the role belongs to no one in particular. Same with all the others, that's the point. At some point way back when, Bor was as strongly linked with that role as Odin is now, or Sigurd was as strongly linked with that role as Thor is now. All of them had to take over their roles from someone who had been associated with that role for hundreds if not thousands of years, they were all upstart newcomers who seemed to be taking the place of someone that seemed inexorably linked to that role at some point, including Loki. Loki was in Tyr's spot way back when, where it seemed like Cul would always be that bad guy. To them, that was Cul's role. But a thousand years later, it's become Loki's, (and Cul sacrificed himself to save everyone so he escaped the role in the end) and he same can happen with Tyr, at least in theory.

    I was thinking about something though and I think it could help further Loki’s status although this would be mostly from the fans view though. But I think it will help massively if they do a future storyline where Loki is not shown to be evil or at least go down the wrong path again, like in King Thor. We had this in Loki where he is shown with Mjolnir and saving that young girl (Izzy) from Thor or rather a Thor that seems to have been taken over by Ultron. However, I think Loki needs to be established more as a hero in a more popular series, like Thor and it needs to be established that Loki doesn’t have to fall back into old ways by showing this in showing the future stories. Of course, I think there will always be those who will always be doubtful of Loki’s change and whether it will last.
    Yeah, while it was sad to lose a new solo so quickly, it is probably best for the character, and the change sticking, if it happens in Thor, and if the Black Winter shows Thor his true death, i mean maybe that could show Loki as well. though, I suspect if that is the case, it may got for a more ambiguous angle, for drama's sake.

    I actually came across someone who said that Loki didn’t lift Mjolnir but rather it was a coincidence; that Loki picked the hammer up as Thor recalled it, which doesn’t make any sense at all but that’s some people’s logic for you. I mean forget the part that he was holding it in his hand for a couple of seconds before it flew out of his hands but eh.
    the reason they said that is because Cates wrote another scene with Moon Knight where that happened, so they're assuming it's the same with Loki. While I can see why they may think that, because Thor did recall the hammer shortly afterward, it wasn't really presented in the same way as the Moon Knight scene where it was pretty clear that Moon Knight wasn't actually supporting the weight of the hammer, and he was just kind of delusional to think he was worthy, cus Moon Knight.

    I don’t think it’s that simple with the God of Stories title though. I don’t think it’s the case of it didn’t work out but more of a case of how one makes a title stick or at least I think that might be a big part of Loki’s arc at some point. Someone once said that Loki can’t just call himself the God of Stories because it doesn’t work like that but then I was thinking on it some more and I the problem with that is that a title needs to start somewhere. I mean why is there a difference between Loki calling himself the God of Stories and the God of Outcasts? It’s still the same thing, it’s still him choosing the title, a title that is likely not going to stick. Why is that though? Is it really because Loki can’t decide his own title or is it more because he’s stuck with those old titles? I mean look at that scene in Star #1 when he’s still referred to as the God of Lies because that’s what he’s been known by for thousands of years. It’s also the question of why are bad titles more readily accepted for Loki than good titles?

    I think that both the God of Stories and the God of Outcasts (if it’s not ignored) is still an important part of Loki’s character.
    I think the roles are pre-defined, so you can't just make up new ones, it just doesn't work that way. the cast of characters is fixed and unchanging, set in place in the time of Bor, it's just that the actors in the parts keep changing (some more frequently than others, but still). Loki can call himself the god of outcasts and use that to give himself a direction to follow, and in that sense it is important to him, but that doesn't make it one of the 'official' roles in the same sense that his role as the villain of the Asgardian pantheon worked. but with the God of Stories, he was expecting it to give him something more similar to how the official titles worked where it got slotted into all the official already existing roles, rather than just a guiding principle like the outcasts thing.

    Like, Thor is the God of Thunder, but I think that is something specific to Thor personally, because of his powers, and it is something that he was IN ADDITION TO being the hero of the story, and becoming All-Father doesn't mean he stops being the Thunder God. Though there it gets a bit muddy because Mjolnir has a storm powering it, so it also grants thunder/lightning powers, but that may be why they added the bit about 'the Thor makes the hammer' and while Loki may prove his worth with Mjolnir, in the end he will have a weapon specific to him, and Mjolnir either gets retired or returned to Thor. I mean, the other heroes, like Sigurd, never had Mjolnir, but he had that role, until he fell from grace. Hell, Sigurd had Gram. If the Thor makes the hammer, then it stands to reason that either Thor or Loki gathered up the pieces of Gram, and it will be reforged, and become Loki's 'hammer'. I mean, he DID make it himself. sort of.
    Last edited by Raye; 04-10-2020 at 10:31 AM.

  8. #248
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    152

    Default

    Titles aren’t roles though, the two are completely two different things. And once again you just have proven my point that Loki’s role can’t really change. He will always be the God of Lies, the God of Evil, the God of Mischief because as you said you can’t change roles. This is his role from now on.

    Also, the God of Outcasts isn’t a guiding principle. In fact, the God of Stories was more that and at least with that he wasn’t necessarily changing anything just making “lies” sound much nicer. Lies and stories can very much be one in the same thing. God of Outcast is Loki trying to get out of his role as being a villain, which again he can’t escape.

    Sol Loki didn't lift the hammer then? I guess that makes sense.

  9. #249
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    When did i say anything about titles being roles? The roles have no titles (except maybe All-Father) aside from the ones the current role holder assigned themselves, but those titles are not actually a part of the role. or about Loki not being able to change his role? I feel like everything I am saying is coming across wrong, but I don't know why, it's like you're taking the opposite meaning of what I am trying to say.

    He can absolutely change his role, as can everyone else. Like i said, the roles have changed hands a few times now, why on earth would the villain role, and Loki specifically, be exempt from that? Seriously I am REALLY confused how you could read what I said and think I was trying to say he could not change his role. The roles are fixed, the PEOPLE IN THEM, including Loki, ARE NOT. That is the whole point. It might SEEM to people right now that he is forever linked to the role of villain, but that is only because of time, give him more time in a different role, and that will fade. The stories will likely deal with this, with the shadows of their predecessors looming over them in their new roles, at least that's what i would do, but that doesn't mean that they will not become associated with their new roles given enough time.

    and I think Loki DID lift the hammer, it's Moon Knight that didn't. I don't think Cates would do the same fakeout twice, especially after he realized the Moon Knight scene came across wrong to most people.

    And I dunno, I just see the Outcats and Stories things as opposite to you. The Stories thing seemed more like he was trying to escape his role by creating a new role for himself, he set out specific rules, created a new persona, and even tried to erase his own memories and ignore parts of his past to make it all fit. but it didn't work, clearly his memory is fine, and it all amounted to little in the end. Outcasts was him just recognizing that he had always been drawn to outcasts, hence the flashback to 200 years ago when he helped Wolverine, and he realized this is something that has always kind of been a part of him. It wasn't him trying to replace one role/title with another, it was just recognizing what was already there, and deciding to make it a more central focus.

    *edit ok i went back and read what I said and i see i accidentally slipped up and said 'title' at one point when i meant role. My bad, but yes, titles and roles are different, it was just a slip of the fingers.

    And when I went on about Thor being the God of Thunder and how that was something that was not going to change because he was All-Father that is ABSOLUTELY NOT meant to imply that Loki will likewise always be 'the God of Lies.' I guess I can see how it might have come across that way, but it is NOT what I meant. I only was trying to illustrate how the titles and roles are not linked together, not that the titles are permanent. In Thor's case, the 'thunder' bit is not something that's going to change because he undergoes some character development, it's something that's just part of him, like having blue eyes. But since Loki's title is based more on an aspect of his personality, that can change if his personality changes. These titles are just descriptive labels that point out a significant aspect about them. If that aspect no longer applies, then the label no longer does either.
    Last edited by Raye; 04-10-2020 at 11:28 AM.

  10. #250
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    152

    Default

    When did he try and erase his memories? As I saw it, it was more the case of the memories still catching up to his new self rather than him actually erasing them. Also, technically they aren’t his memories anyway but the memories of the original Loki. It was also established that Kid-Loki, Ikol and the Loki (if you want to believe Ikol and current Loki are different which I don’t really) now isn’t actually classic Loki but merely a copy. Classic Loki died in Siege. Also, he wasn’t creating a new role for himself if that was the case then he would have given himself a title that is completely different to God of Lies, like I don’t know….God of Outcasts maybe? I mean who calls themselves that anyway? Trust Loki to be stuck with a title that means absolutely nothing or rather try and choose a title that means nothing. This is why his brothers are taken much more seriously.

    Because if Loki is stuck with titles such as God of lies, God of Evil and God of Mischief then he’s stuck with the role of a villain. It’s as simple as that. These are bad titles for villainous characters, these are not titles that belong to heroes.

  11. #251
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    After he did the whole God of Stories thing, he said he was only going to keep certain things that were important, and when he came back he seemed totally different, and didn't remember a lot of stuff.

    Eh, we had this discussion here before. I don't believe that because the memories are technically a copy makes the memories not his, or that they shouldn't have any impact on him. I consider Loki to be the same character as old school Loki in all the ways that matter, a copy of the memories is still the same thing in effect. He still did all those things in all the ways that matter. And that's ok. He can still be better now even if he did all those things. But if his past no longer counts for him because he's technically a copy, then logically the same goes for all characters in the entire MU since Secret Wars, they are ALL copies now, and I don't think anyone would seriously argue that since Secret Wars, no one's backstory should have any impact on them because the memories are are copies. Are you going to argue that Uncle Ben's death should no longer have meaning for Peter Parker because he is now a copy of the Peter that happened to? Loki used the copy thing as an EXCUSE to try and distance himself from his past actions, same as the 'murder weapon' excuse, but it was a flimsy one imo.

    and does 'God of 'Thunder' really mean anything? How is Outcasts any less meaningful than that? At least it does actually describe something significant about himself beyond just his abilities, and it describes who he will be primarily looking out for.

    And he is NOT stuck with the titles. How long has it been since anyone has actually seriously called him the 'God of Evil'? It's a part of his past, but that doesn't mean it has to be a part of his future. Yeah, these titles will linger in some people's minds, and they will still apply to who he used to be, but but they don't have to define him forever. Like, Iron Man used to have titles like 'merchant of death' when he was an arms manufacturer, but no one calls him that any more. Same for Loki.
    Last edited by Raye; 04-10-2020 at 12:02 PM.

  12. #252
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    152

    Default

    I think he was talking in a metaphorical way of changing himself going forward. He was going to stop caring what others thought of him, which didn’t happen because he still very much cares about what the Asgardians think of him. He continues to be their scapegoat while he’s pathetically trying to gain their love and attention.

    I didn’t say that his memories don’t matter, and I also said they technically don’t belong to him. Also, this just means he’s the Original Loki and no one else. Original Loki was evil; therefore, this Loki is evil. Look I want to believe that there is hope that Loki can remain on the path he is now but everything you have said and everything that has been done with Loki’s character up to this point has proven that Loki will always be stuck in the role of a villain, in a role of the scapegoat. Watch Loki get the blame for Tyr’s actions because they happened at Jotunheim and watch him get blamed for Thor’s current predicament because that’s his role, the scapegoat, the villain.

    Worst yet he’s also really weak. I mean I see Thor fans moan about how weak Thor has become but Thor is still a powerhouse. Loki on the other hand…...he can’t even beat a powerless human now a days.

    He was called the God of Evil recently in Doctor Strange Academy. And God of Outcasts has meaning? What meaning?

  13. #253
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    I am really confused how you keep saying i am proving with what I say that he's doomed to always be the bad guy. How can what I say be proof, if I don't believe that? What is it that I am saying that is convincing you of this?

    I don't think Loki is still trying to gain their approval, as I said before. Wanting a relationship with his family, and wanting love, is not the same thing as doing things just to get approval from them. He said at the end of Agent of Asgard that he was washing his hands of them, and I think that was a mistake. There is nothing wrong with wanting love from your family, that is only bad if that becomes all consuming and makes you act in a self destructive way, like he used to. But just wanting love and trying to have a relationship with them is not a bad thing, it doesn't make him weak or pathetic. It might be if he keeps trying and they keep rejecting him, but so far since the end of WotR, he's bad both good and bad interactions with Thor, so hard to say just yet where that will head, and we haven't seen him even try to interact with anyone else from his family since the end of WotR, so can't say there just yet.

    People change, he's shown that, it happens in real life, too. It is hard, but we are not doomed to always be the same thing forever and ever. Just because someone WAS bad doesn't mean they are going to always be that way. Just because old-school Loki was bad doesn't mean Loki has to be bad now.

    and... weak? Where is that coming from? He is still a very powerful sorcerer. He used magic to literally bring himself back to life not that long ago, he kicked Nightmare's ass, he kicked the Void's ass (with Strange's help, but still), he used a forcefield strong enough to shield Cap and himself from the center of the sun. When he died to Laufey, I think he had kind of given up, it was a suicide. Otherwise I think he could have beaten him. He hasn't had a lot of opportunity since then to show much raw power, but I do not think he is weak.

    And I don't think Loki will be used as the scapegoat for Tyr's actions. Early on, I thought it might be a possibility, because the Rokkva was sealed away in Jotunheim. Now I see that the writers probably placed it there so that Loki would have an excuse to become involved with stopping Tyr. Jane saw Tyr with her own eyes as he stole Undrajarn from her, he did a big villain monologue explaining his plan right to her, and she saw that Thor was already under his thrall. Jane knows damn well it's not Loki, and they will believe Jane, even if they are not inclined to take Loki's word. Not to mention that Loki is solicited in Valkyrie after the Rokkva story ends, and it didn't seem to be in an antagonistic way.

    He wasn't called the god of Evil in Strange Academy. What he said was "I'm just saying, I'm pretty sure you were all like, "you're a bit too evil for me, Loki"" he was describing what he presumed Zelma thought of him when she first met him. And yeah, she probably did, because of his past. But obviously she got over that once she saw how he is now.

    And god of Outcasts means he will look out for the people who are on the fringes and don't fit in, people who are excluded from what is considered mainstream society, or people who don't follow the herd.

  14. #254
    Spectacular Member Karabaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    165

    Default

    As long as modern Loki has bigger and louder fanbase than old school Loki (does he? I honestly don't know), I believe we are more or less safe with him continuing to be the flawed hero/anti-hero/chaotic good or neutral. Anything goes with me. I just hope he won't get to be written by a writer who prefers the classic villain Loki. In that case, he's screwed.
    As much as I hope he won't be reverted to his villain self, I just as much hope he won't be turned into a golden boy scout hero, either. His whole moral soap opera with himself, his hidden motivations, twists and turns are what makes him so interesting to me. He just wouldn't be him if he was all on the straight and narrow.
    As for the titles, I much prefer God of Mischief above all. Mischief doesn't equal evil, not in the slightest. Mischief can serve both good and evil and everything in between and fits his chaotic, intelligent nature perfectly.
    His memory impairment was cleverly mentioned in several books, by different writers, since AoA, through WOTR. (One unexpected mention was when he said in Angela's book how his memory was rubbish due to all those deaths and resurrections.)
    When was he beaten by any regular human? The only thing that comes to my mind was the casino scene in his last book, but that wasn't him being beaten by humans, that was him getting wasted and tripping over a cord. That was funny.

  15. #255
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    Yeah, Mischief is neutral, so it can always apply, though I think Loki right now is in search or new purpose, like he's trying to find something that will give him a direction to follow and 'mischief' doesn't do that, so much. That's more about the methods he uses, or just kind of more about the 'old' him even though it's not anything inherently bad. so i can understand why he's kind of trying to find a new label to apply to himself, because he's trying to move forward and be something different.

    and yeah, I don't want him to start acting/talking like Captain America or anything, I like him to be a bit gray. But I do want him to be generally on the good side, so that Kid Loki did not die for nothing, and so that all Loki has been through hasn't been in vain.

    As for the casino thing, the way i took it was that it was the price he paid for the magic he did earlier. Each magic user's price seems to be different, Dr Strange ends up getting sick and eating weird foods, Wanda gets physically older, (but hidden with an illusion, oddly a lot like Melisandre in GoT) Loki.... has things go awry in unexpected ways. But apparently only when he is on Earth, if he is on Asgard or Jotunheim, magic is free for him. And it's kind of inconsistent, like all of the 'price' stuff.

    As for the fanbase, I don't know. The movie fanbase is quite large, and movie Loki has more in common with the current depiction than old-school, so... it's a bit fuzzy, I think the fans of comics Loki specifically is fairly niche, though probably not as niche as before, but if Marvel wants to lure in the movie fans, the current comics are going to appeal to those fans more. I know there are fans of old school Loki, though I think it's smaller, and when most people want him reverted, it's often more because they want Thor reverted as well, and see it as a package deal. But I do think regardless of fanbase size, Loki as he currently is is definitely more viable to stand on his own and carry a story without Thor.
    Last edited by Raye; 04-10-2020 at 04:16 PM.

Posting Permissions

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