Stephen Strange: Doctor Strange Appreciation 2021

[Albert1981]

It's important to remember two facts when discussing Doctor Strange:

1. The MCU is not the comics!

Let me state that again:

The MCU is not the comics!!!

Movie Strange is not a horror character (yet?). The first film was indeed "trippy, psychedelic fun", but the second film could easily have a different tone (there is precedent, with both Cap & Thor drastically changing after their first & second films, respectively). Nothing in the comics proves or disproves that because (repeat after me...):

"The MCU is not the comics!"

2. In the comics, Stephen's portrayal has changed over time. He's been everything from a fairly grounded occult investigator/exorcist to the closest thing Earth has to a native comsic entity, capable of performing surgery on the embodiment of reality itself. Sometimes he's a spandexy superhero, sometimes a horror character. There is no One True Characterization™.



"They" say a lot. Sometimes, "they" even guess right.



It's possible. I get the feeling the MCU films & TV shows will start interacting more organically, especially since everything (except Spidey) is under one umbrella now. Whether this is the right move or not remains to be seen.

Oh yeah dude. I agree with you. I have long said that I WANT the MCU to be different from the comic books. Keep the themes and spirits of the stories and characters of the source material, but do different things with them that would make sense in live-action. As you well know, I was never a committed comic book reader. Hell, I read more HARDY BOYS books than comics back in the 90s, so if you wanna ask me about "smuggling", then I'm your man! I think there is no one definitive version of Strange. I've only started looking at him as a horror character because that's what Feige and Olsen keep telling me he will be. He's already done some cosmic, kung fu, and superhero stuff. What can I say, it seems that Strange is an extremely versatile character. And his visual aesthetic is amazing. All kidding aside, I have really mixed feelings about Loki. I loved that there was no ridiculous CGI battle at the end of the show and how the magic use in it was somewhat grounded and restrained. And it was pretty funny too. But as you probably know from my other comments here, I'm not a big fan of time travel/alternate reality stories. They are by their very nature CONFUSING. People aren’t going to care if suddenly the characters they’ve been following have a hundred duplicates. Disney's gonna have to be careful. Feige has never disappointed me yet, so I have a certain degree of confidence in his planning. I thought Sylvie was a GREAT addition to Hiddleston's show and the MCU (Di Martino is a lovely actress). But I do wonder why was Sylvie was a better fighter than Loki (I guess this played a part in my earlier comments about "self-taught" magic)? Why was practically everybody else in the show smarter than him? Where was the fun? Loki is a fan favorite because no matter what evil he does, you still like him. Being untrustworthy is what makes him fun to watch. But he was so docile and passive throughout this series. I mean Loki was literally working for the man for a good portion of it. Sylvie was much more dynamic and entertaining than Loki was in my opinion. Which makes me sad because Hiddleston is one of the best things in the MCU by a country mile. Remember I posted an earlier link to a website describing how comic book "magic/time travel/alternate reality" stories are disasters waiting to happen? Here's how its author described different versions of the same characters in the comic books: "More often than not, the copy character is much flatter than the original. Not only are the motivations of the copy not as carefully considered, but the mere presence of the copy undercuts our emotional involvement with the original." Sadly, I think this phenomenon is already happening to Hiddleston's Loki.

I'm still looking forward to Strange 2, but the Loki show definitely dampened my excitement a bit. As has been posted elsewhere, it felt like Loki wasn't so much a story in its own right as a lengthy info dump to catch non-comic readers up on the concept of a multiverse. Worse, I fear that bringing the multiverse concept into the MCU opens the door to retcon almost anything and everything, rendering the stories we've watched meaningless. I think even huge comic fans hate how easy it is to hit the reset button, bring characters back from the dead, etc. I don't want to see the MCU embrace this particular storytelling flaw. I'm worried that Strange 2 will CONTINUE talking about the logistics of time travel/multiverses and get bogged down in more comic book nonsense. These are strange comments coming from me because I really REALLY like the "rules" of things to be spelled out CLEARLY in stories, but I feel with time travel/multiverses, this will never be achieved.

[Clea]

I didn't view Loki's role or story in S1 as docile or passive. It was introspective, which is new for him. S1 was about character growth for him, not his usual entertaining antics. Loki faced and acknowledged the truth that Mobius told him: his 'glorious purpose' was simply to be a malicious failure who existed so that others might achieve greatness by defeating him. He saw the futility of his own future and his death, and then found himself literally removed from time. Probably for the first time in his life, he had the luxury to assess who he really was, why he did the things he did, and who he actually wanted to be. All of Loki's 'action' in S1 was emotional and thoughtful. He wasn't working for the TVA, he was on a quest to understand what it all meant and who he wanted to be now that he had the luxury of not being trapped by his own history. Sylvie is essentially who he was back in his first appearances in the MCU: all action and lying and manipulations. I expect that we'll see Loki back in action in S2, using his new found understanding of himself and the TVA to take charge and fix things. Hard to say what Sylvie will do next season.

So far as time travel and the multiverse in Marvel is concerned, these concepts are integral parts of the Marvel Universe. Doctor Strange has traveled back in time to the very dawn of the universe and got to witness the universe being destroyed and rebooted so he's no strange to time travel. He fought in a 5,000 year war in a different dimension. He routinely travels between dimensions, and he's dispatched opponents into pocket dimensions. All of this is in the comics. In the MCU we know that Strange viewed 14,000,605 possible different timelines looking for the way to beat Thanos. I think he's uniquely positioned in the MU to deal with fractured timelines and encountering other dimensional versions of himself. Clashing multiverses and timelines can make for some terrific stories, but IMO it all can easily fall apart if it's not done well.

[Albert1981]

I didn't view Loki's role or story in S1 as docile or passive. It was introspective, which is new for him. S1 was about character growth for him, not his usual entertaining antics. Loki faced and acknowledged the truth that Mobius told him: his 'glorious purpose' was simply to be a malicious failure who existed so that others might achieve greatness by defeating him. He saw the futility of his own future and his death, and then found himself literally removed from time. Probably for the first time in his life, he had the luxury to assess who he really was, why he did the things he did, and who he actually wanted to be. All of Loki's 'action' in S1 was emotional and thoughtful. He wasn't working for the TVA, he was on a quest to understand what it all meant and who he wanted to be now that he had the luxury of not being trapped by his own history. Sylvie is essentially who he was back in his first appearances in the MCU: all action and lying and manipulations. I expect that we'll see Loki back in action in S2, using his new found understanding of himself and the TVA to take charge and fix things. Hard to say what Sylvie will do next season.

So far as time travel and the multiverse in Marvel is concerned, these concepts are integral parts of the Marvel Universe. Doctor Strange has traveled back in time to the very dawn of the universe and got to witness the universe being destroyed and rebooted so he's no strange to time travel. He fought in a 5,000 year war in a different dimension. He routinely travels between dimensions, and he's dispatched opponents into pocket dimensions. All of this is in the comics. In the MCU we know that Strange viewed 14,000,605 possible different timelines looking for the way to beat Thanos. I think he's uniquely positioned in the MU to deal with fractured timelines and encountering other dimensional versions of himself. Clashing multiverses and timelines can make for some terrific stories, but IMO it all can easily fall apart if it's not done well.

Thank you so very much for your thoughtful and detailed reply. You are my go-to gal for all things Strange on these forums. I definitely see the show in a different light and perspective thanks to your comments (when it comes to Loki's characterization). I'm just not used to Loki being an agent of order as opposed to being an agent of chaos. And I do understand this series was all about "self-love". I also appreciate this show is about Loki's redemption, but to me Loki already redeemed himself by trying to save his brother in Infinity War. I do think the temptation of his own throne, an Infinity Gauntlet and the chance to kill Thanos SHOULD have at LEAST tempted him back to the dark side. But he's just a "good guy" now through and through? I personally felt Loki turned into a Nice Boyfriend way too quickly, as if all his interesting contradictions had evaporated. Sylvie brought out the worst (by which I mean, morally, the best but most boring) in him. As has been said elsewhere: "The Loki of this show was not the Loki of the MCU. That made the series much less fun. The show was not, "Hey let's do a show about Loki!" it was "Hey, we need to set some stuff up, how bout we use Loki, the people like him?" To me, Loki stories equal chaotic FUN stories. And I definitely expected some fun in this series. But that didn't really happen at all (for me). I hope Loki 2 will be great. I loved Di Martino in the first season (her debut was very exciting). Of all the "Lokis" in the show, Sylvie was basically the only one who did anything consequential. Let's just say I was very disappointed to see Hiddleston just stand around looking bewildered. But it's clear I'm in the minority (again) here when it comes to these Disney Plus MCU shows. I thought they were really well-done and enjoyed them, but I expected so much more after being blown away by the movies.

[Clea]

I view the Loki S1 completely differently from you. I see it as being almost 100% about Loki, with all of the TVA antics and Sylvie in a distant second and third place. This season was all about Loki figuring out who he truly is and being freed from having to perpetually be that sharp tongued, amusing but destructive guy that he's been in every single other appearance. Now that he's come to grips with that, I expect he'll take a much more dynamic action role in the next film. He's never been fully bad or fully good and I don't expect that to change for him going forward. I was impressed that the MCU granted Loki actual character growth and didn't just wind him up and have him repeat the same old, same old Loki schtick. (That was Sylvie's job in S1).

Perhaps the Doctor Strange movie will be more to your taste. I actually am hoping for character growth and more insight into Strange as a person and as a sorcerer, and not just glorious eye candy in the form of special effects and cool Sam Raimi camera stunts. Not that I mind Sam Raimi camera stunts, because he's amazing.

[DigiCom]

I don't want to get into it too much, but consider this: Loki always claimed to be about mischief & chaos, but his actions showed him someone who wanted to be in control.

He ended up being forced to confront the fact that he never was.

[Clea]

I don't want to get into it too much, but consider this: Loki always claimed to be about mischief & chaos, but his actions showed him someone who wanted to be in control.

He ended up being forced to confront the fact that he never was.

Strange is someone who thought that he had his entire life and future under control. He also had to learn how irrelevant his assumptions and worldly goals were before he could become truly great.

[DigiCom]

Strange is someone who thought that he had his entire life and future under control. He also had to learn how irrelevant his assumptions and worldly goals were before he could become truly great.

The whole thing reminds me of this classic bit, from the first Kung Fu Panda:

[Albert1981]

I view the Loki S1 completely differently from you. I see it as being almost 100% about Loki, with all of the TVA antics and Sylvie in a distant second and third place. This season was all about Loki figuring out who he truly is and being freed from having to perpetually be that sharp tongued, amusing but destructive guy that he's been in every single other appearance. Now that he's come to grips with that, I expect he'll take a much more dynamic action role in the next film. He's never been fully bad or fully good and I don't expect that to change for him going forward. I was impressed that the MCU granted Loki actual character growth and didn't just wind him up and have him repeat the same old, same old Loki schtick. (That was Sylvie's job in S1).

Perhaps the Doctor Strange movie will be more to your taste. I actually am hoping for character growth and more insight into Strange as a person and as a sorcerer, and not just glorious eye candy in the form of special effects and cool Sam Raimi camera stunts. Not that I mind Sam Raimi camera stunts, because he's amazing.

I can definitely see your point of view. What you have stated absolutely makes sense. Maybe I'll have to watch the series again to get a different perspective. I'm not sure I'd enjoy watching six solid hours of cackling-villain Loki either now that you mention it. It's fun enough where we've seen him so far, but the schtick can only go so far. I suppose it was interesting demonstrating how he could change when forced to confront the consequences of his actions. As I mentioned previously, I just liked the contradictions that were inherent in Loki's personality from the movies. Now they seem to be gone and I felt he wasn't Loki anymore. I'm definitely NOT saying I disliked Loki. In some ways, it was my favorite Marvel Disney Plus series. I do think I liked McAdams, Wilson and Hiddleston more in another time travel fantasy movie/show though. Remember Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris (it is EASILY my favorite movie of the 2010s)? I thought the whole Monet scene was HILARIOUS! Since Allen has been "cancelled", I doubt we will be hearing from him again:



I would have liked Hiddleston and Wilson to have more screen time in Loki.

Perhaps indeed the Multiverse of Madness will be more to my taste. I like Raimi's stuff, but his superhero work IS pretty dated. Some of the corniness of the early 2000s Spider-Man movies he did just wouldn't work today. I AM excited that he came to helm the project though. I know that he's always loved Stephen. Personality wise, I don't think Stephen's changed THAT much from his first movie, Ragnarok and Infinity War. So he might become a little less snarky. But as you know, I love Stephen and Wong being "annoying joke machines."

[Albert1981]

I don't want to get into it too much, but consider this: Loki always claimed to be about mischief & chaos, but his actions showed him someone who wanted to be in control.

He ended up being forced to confront the fact that he never was.

That's very true.

[Reviresco]

Oh yeah dude. I agree with you. I have long said that I WANT the MCU to be different from the comic books. Keep the themes and spirits of the stories and characters of the source material, but do different things with them that would make sense in live-action. As you well know, I was never a committed comic book reader. Hell, I read more HARDY BOYS books than comics back in the 90s, so if you wanna ask me about "smuggling", then I'm your man! I think there is no one definitive version of Strange. I've only started looking at him as a horror character because that's what Feige and Olsen keep telling me he will be. He's already done some cosmic, kung fu, and superhero stuff. What can I say, it seems that Strange is an extremely versatile character. And his visual aesthetic is amazing. All kidding aside, I have really mixed feelings about Loki. I loved that there was no ridiculous CGI battle at the end of the show and how the magic use in it was somewhat grounded and restrained. And it was pretty funny too. But as you probably know from my other comments here, I'm not a big fan of time travel/alternate reality stories. They are by their very nature CONFUSING. People aren’t going to care if suddenly the characters they’ve been following have a hundred duplicates. Disney's gonna have to be careful. Feige has never disappointed me yet, so I have a certain degree of confidence in his planning. I thought Sylvie was a GREAT addition to Hiddleston's show and the MCU (Di Martino is a lovely actress). But I do wonder why was Sylvie was a better fighter than Loki (I guess this played a part in my earlier comments about "self-taught" magic)? Why was practically everybody else in the show smarter than him? Where was the fun? Loki is a fan favorite because no matter what evil he does, you still like him. Being untrustworthy is what makes him fun to watch. But he was so docile and passive throughout this series. I mean Loki was literally working for the man for a good portion of it. Sylvie was much more dynamic and entertaining than Loki was in my opinion. Which makes me sad because Hiddleston is one of the best things in the MCU by a country mile. Remember I posted an earlier link to a website describing how comic book "magic/time travel/alternate reality" stories are disasters waiting to happen? Here's how its author described different versions of the same characters in the comic books: "More often than not, the copy character is much flatter than the original. Not only are the motivations of the copy not as carefully considered, but the mere presence of the copy undercuts our emotional involvement with the original." Sadly, I think this phenomenon is already happening to Hiddleston's Loki.

I'm still looking forward to Strange 2, but the Loki show definitely dampened my excitement a bit. As has been posted elsewhere, it felt like Loki wasn't so much a story in its own right as a lengthy info dump to catch non-comic readers up on the concept of a multiverse. Worse, I fear that bringing the multiverse concept into the MCU opens the door to retcon almost anything and everything, rendering the stories we've watched meaningless. I think even huge comic fans hate how easy it is to hit the reset button, bring characters back from the dead, etc. I don't want to see the MCU embrace this particular storytelling flaw. I'm worried that Strange 2 will CONTINUE talking about the logistics of time travel/multiverses and get bogged down in more comic book nonsense. These are strange comments coming from me because I really REALLY like the "rules" of things to be spelled out CLEARLY in stories, but I feel with time travel/multiverses, this will never be achieved.

I'm pretty much going to have disagree with your review of Loki. I loved that show and all the characters in it, and thought it was a great vehicle for Hiddleston. Didn't see it as an 'info dump' at all.

The multiverse isn't a nonsense comicbook concept. It's been around forever in fiction and in myth and folklore. It's been part of several scientific theories for decades.

The multiverse has nothing to do with retcons, quite the opposite. It isn't a retcon if it's another universe.

It's a bit late to be wringing your hands over a reset button and bringing characters back from the dead in the MCU, after Avengers Endgame, isn't it? Or heck, after Avengers with Coulson and Cap.

I've no idea which author or link you are talking about, but I guess they've never seen Star Trek's Mirror Mirror. Or watched Spider-Man Into the Spiderverse. Or read Kingdom Come or the Ultimate Universe or Gillen's Journey Into Mystery. Or any of the fans of Loki who LOVED all the versions of Loki in his Disney Plus show. Croki and Richard Grant's Classic Loki are AWESOME, and I wish we'd gotten more time with the other Lokis too.

[Reviresco]

A Terry Dodson commission, I think, I found on Deviant Art. I was wondering about the book title, but I'm betting the "Doctor" it was addressed to is a dentist? Regardless, I love the reading glasses.

[Shadowcat]

I get to review Death of Doctor Strange, and the Darkhold for Comic-Watch! I’m going to have a very magical fall.

[DigiCom]

A Terry Dodson commission, I think, I found on Deviant Art. I was wondering about the book title, but I'm betting the "Doctor" it was addressed to is a dentist? Regardless, I love the reading glasses.

Well the title is Teeth Today, so probably.

It reminds me of this Bachalo sketch:

[Clea]

A Terry Dodson commission, I think, I found on Deviant Art. I was wondering about the book title, but I'm betting the "Doctor" it was addressed to is a dentist? Regardless, I love the reading glasses.

This is wonderful. I love the reading glasses, too. I can totally see Strange kicking back with a glass of wine and reading a book about teeth. LOL.

[Albert1981]

I'm pretty much going to have disagree with your review of Loki. I loved that show and all the characters in it, and thought it was a great vehicle for Hiddleston. Didn't see it as an 'info dump' at all.

The multiverse isn't a nonsense comicbook concept. It's been around forever in fiction and in myth and folklore. It's been part of several scientific theories for decades.

The multiverse has nothing to do with retcons, quite the opposite. It isn't a retcon if it's another universe.

It's a bit late to be wringing your hands over a reset button and bringing characters back from the dead in the MCU, after Avengers Endgame, isn't it? Or heck, after Avengers with Coulson and Cap.

I've no idea which author or link you are talking about, but I guess they've never seen Star Trek's Mirror Mirror. Or watched Spider-Man Into the Spiderverse. Or read Kingdom Come or the Ultimate Universe or Gillen's Journey Into Mystery. Or any of the fans of Loki who LOVED all the versions of Loki in his Disney Plus show. Croki and Richard Grant's Classic Loki are AWESOME, and I wish we'd gotten more time with the other Lokis too.

Totally and absolutely respect your opinion. And I can definitely see things from your perspective. I posted the article I referred to several months ago on this thread. Surprised nobody looked through it:

http://aboutcomics.blogwyrm.com/?p=47

I don't think multiverses are nonsense in themselves. I think the ways they've been used in the comic books have become nonsensical sometimes. And I really REALLY hope you're right about retcons and resurrections in the MCU. I really do. I think the latest Harry Potter and Fast and Furious films used retcons and resurrections too much (without using multiverses and time travel), and those movies were not particularly well-received. I just don't want Marvel Studios using multiverses and time travel to do the same. I don't think they will, but they HAVE opened the door to it in my opinion. This dude's comments largely reflects my feelings on time travel/multiverses:



I wasn't thrilled that they introduced the main baddie in the last episode, but the writing was pretty good to offset my problems with that approach to storytelling. Not a fan of characters giving long speeches telling interesting stories we don't get to see (maybe this will be addressed in Loki 2?), but you already knew my thoughts on that. Not a fan of that storytelling approach either. But the speech was interesting in itself. I agree with you that I liked the other Lokis very much indeed. They were great additions to the show. Didn't get enough of them. I thought it was really dumb to have Loki and Sylvie actually kiss, I actually didn’t think they'd go there. The strength and appeal of Loki as a series was Loki himself (or him selves/her selves). In the final episode, both Lokis just reacted in a linear way, they weren’t acting as the God of Mischief or Chaos so it was the plot proceeding. The show was at its best when Loki and Mobius were interacting and trying to out wit/out charisma one another. Without that interaction, it fell flat. Of course these comments are merely just my lowly opinions. Clearly posters on this thread feel very differently, and as I said, I respect and appreciate that.