Page 45 of 47 FirstFirst ... 3541424344454647 LastLast
Results 661 to 675 of 692
  1. #661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raye View Post
    Hopefully not reading too much into it, and it really is the start of something more substantial for him. His appearances have been fairly sporadic, so sometimes when something like this comes up, i wonder if i am making too much out of it. Like, here he turns down Thor asking him to do a quest, basically, and I'm like 'oh it's finally starting!' which taken in isolation seems.... odd. But then I remember all the other foreshadowing, and feel better about it. It's just that it only lasts like a page or two here and there, so it doesn't seem quite linked together sometimes. But it's definitely present, the couple pages in issue 4, where Loki lifted Mjolnir and the captions were all like 'this is a story for another time' remain the strongest bit of foreshadowing that keeps me pretty sure I'm not just making up shit out of nothing. Pretty certain this is the start of the story those pages were referring to.

    With all the role swaps, their destined opponents would get all swapped around too, though right? If we assume Ragnarok matchups still line up the same way according to role rather than character, (not a guarantee, but probably a safe bet) and Loki is Thor's replacement, he would end up facing the replacement to Jormungandr. (and Sif would kill Blake) It wasn't terribly clear on this point, but I still feel like More was being set up to be the new Jormungandr. Had the potential to be world ending, was left free, and was set up as a sort of opponent to Loki. It wasn't quite explained why they hated Loki that much, but they did. Hard to say if Cates will use this though, stuff from Valkyrie has been a crap shoot on whether it counts or not. I guess this means Thanos is the new Surtur, rather than Sindr, which is a bit odd.

    and yeah Loki had a wife, and she was in the comics for a while early on, but she vanished with like, no explanation at all, years ago. Just one day she was gone and that was it, no one even really commented on it. If Sigyn is still alive, no idea where she might be.
    If they wanna give Loki something to do..finding Sigyn might be a good place to start. .
    Last edited by the illustrious mr. kenway; 10-18-2021 at 11:04 AM.

  2. #662
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    3,478

    Default

    I have been wanting Sigyn back for years now but she seems to be seen as not relevant to Loki's story, which is a shame. Verity is number two on the people I want Loki to have regular contact with.

    I have become more of a lurker in these parts than ever before but I will say I do enjoy reading all the different theories and honestly wish something concrete would come from all of it to get me back into reading comics again. I don't want Cates to go the way of Aaron who had plenty of build up that seemed like it was leading to something juicy for Loki even if he wasn't being used all that much, only for it to fizzle out because the story got way too big and there was just no time or room to go deeper into Loki's shenanigans. They put a stop to Loki's book prematurely, the least they could do is actually use him beyond the fleeting few panels every second or third Thor (and Valkyrie) issue.

    I second the motion of moving Loki to a revived JiM book while Thor goes about his own business in his own title book.

  3. #663
    Astonishing Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,989

    Default

    The thing with Sigyn is that I think maybe the time has passed for them to tell the story of looking for her, and there's not much of a hook there. Like, when she disappeared, it wasn't a plot point or anything, it was just a side character that made occasional appearances, and then one day in the... early 80s i think? those occasional appearances.... just stopped. Same thing has happened to a lot of characters over the years, it's just strange because she was a fairly prominent character's wife, so it should have affected him, but because he was a villain, the focus wasn't really on his personal life, and it was just never brought up... But yeah, her final appearance (aside from a few flashbacks since then) was probably not actually intended to be her final appearance, she just got forgotten about by the writers. So there's not much to build on there, it was like 40 years ago that we last saw her, and there was no plot point to her disappearance at all. Even in universe it's been years since she was last seen, so what would prompt them to finally go 'hey, we haven't seen Sigyn in like 10 years, maybe we should finally look for her.'

    I do think it could create some interesting story if they did bring her back though, but only because I think Loki's moved on. We've seen him show some romantic interest in some other characters, and he's never mentioned Sigyn, so.... And Loki is very different now than when Sigyn last appeared, so it would be a completely different dynamic. But she probably would not have moved on, cus that was kinda her whole deal, even if Loki had. But by that same token, it would mean there would need to be a very good explanation as to why she never tried to contact Loki in like 40 years of comics, because devotion to him was her entire thing, she was literally the goddess of fidelity. Which did create some bad messaging and may be part of why she fell out of use, because it was like, presented as loyalty to someone was a virtue, even when they are being awful to you, which Loki frequently was, and even if you got tricked into marriage, and that's a harmful message to send. So I think maybe that would need to be addressed too.

    But still, I think it might be interesting to see her devotion finally be directed towards Loki when he actually isn't a horrible person. I guess it could go a few ways, but the two that spring to my mind are either he's just moved on and isn't interested any more, and has to deal with this one sided interest... which was kind of always the case, but at least this time Loki would be less toxic to her. Or, she could come back from wherever, and see how different Loki is from the last time she saw him, but rather than be happy that he's not a shitty person any more, she feels like he's not being himself, and maybe try to push him to be more like the man she knew back in the (real time) 80s, so back to full on villain. But either way, it could maybe work with the whole roles thing, cus Thor had Jane (and other mortals before her) on Midgard, but also Sif back in Asgard. So hook Loki up with some mortal, I still think it would be interesting to make it a guy, and then Sigyn comes back, maybe Thor uses his new All-Father powers to bring her back or something, for reasons, and then things are complicated.

    And yeah, I just feel like there's a big risk of Loki's story getting sidelined again to focus on Thor, so JIM or new Loki solo would be ideal, I think. But the JIM thing just seems to be lining up, time wise, if they wanted to do an anniversary launch. JIM first debuted in 1952, and Thor first appeared in the title in 1962, so either way, 2022 would be an anniversary year. And if it deals with Loki kinda doing the same story beats as those early Thor appearances... pretty fitting. But if they can spin it out of Thor, and make them sister books that connect, maybe not necessarily cross over, but one informs the other and vice versa so reading both gives you a better understanding of what's going on, that would be ideal. You'd need either for Cates to do both, or a writer that would work well with Cates in that case though, because they would need to work very closely together, which I think pretty much narrows it down to Chip Zdarsky, who i think would be fantastic on a Loki book regardless. He's worked with Cates before, on both Dr Strange and Crossover, they talk socially (even if they play arch enemies in public) so they ought to work well together on a sister book situation.
    Last edited by Raye; 10-18-2021 at 06:23 PM.

  4. #664
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    3,478

    Default

    I get what you're saying in how they could use Sigyn but that's not how I want the character to be used. An obsessive ex is not high on my list of prioritises for Sig. She may just as well as stay gone if her only option is to twist and warp what she's always been towards Loki and because loyalty a faithfulness have fallen out of favour in modern times. At most, I want her to be acknowledged to be alive and existing somewhere living a good life. Her devotion to Loki at his worst should be no different to her being supportive of his new journey. It's not about championing her and Loki to get back together since yes he has been a crappy husband and she deserves better. Loki needs to have more people on his side in healthy ways than anything else.
    Last edited by rpmaluki; 10-18-2021 at 11:35 PM.

  5. #665
    Astonishing Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,989

    Default

    I don't think faithfulness and loyalty have fallen out of favor, just that the attitude about why loyalty should be given has changed some, so there's more emphasis on earning loyalty, which is the part that was missing, and needs to be addressed if they bring her back, or even just bring up the relationship. Loki never earned her loyalty. Though there were some bright spots, he usually treated her badly. He lied, gaslit her, cheated on her, was just generally overtly annoyed by her presence to her face, etc. But her loyalty was still given because of vows, (which were said under false pretenses no less) and that is the part that's changed, there's less emphasis on the vows themselves, and more on earning the right to say them.

    *edit - and as I think about it, I think this bit in particular is something that could actually make bringing her back relevant to the story being told, but it would mean a lot of old baggage needs to be addressed, and they have to explicitly explain why the relationship was problematic. Changing society and attitudes are probably the reason the pantheon needs a refresh now and then. It's why i keep emphasizing that I don't think any of the characters should become carbon copies of their predecessors. Even if they repeat certain key moments, it should be in an updated way. And addressing some of the things in the original myths and older comics that are no longer a good fit for today's world would help illustrate that. And Sigyn's whole deal would be one of those things. Back in the middle ages, the vow was the important bit. Women frequently got married off to men they'd never even met, and they were expected to stay married until death. period.(tho actual Scandinavian society was a bit different in that regard, but... when the myths got written down things got... tweaked, so... complicated. but whatever) Keeping that vow was absolutely considered a virtue, even if it meant suffering abuse, or there was no love in the relationship. I mean lots of people were still unfaithful of course, but the ideal remained. So Sigyn's part made sense in that context. It doesn't make sense now, in a world where it's generally agreed upon that a marriage should be born of love, not duty, and that if you mistreat your partner, they would be justified in leaving. /edit

    I was just trying to come up with some ideas that would give some drama, cus just revealing that she's still out there somewhere just doing her thing has nothing to add to the story, really. It's ancient history at this point, which has no bearing on current events, so there would need to be some kind of reason to make it relevant, is all. The books aren't here to give status updates on characters, they're here to tell stories, and anything included has to add to that story in some way. I guess she could have some kind of MacGuffin or something, and just come and go when it was done with, but it would still require a lot of baggage to be addressed, not to mention coming up with a damned good explanation as to why she just vanished, if she's not dead. (which frankly seems more likely, tbh) Tho, yeah, I do like the first idea better, and if it were me, i would not make it a permanent thing, I was picturing more of a resurrection, and while she was dead she was essentially stuck as the way she was last time we saw her (if you've seen pages from Wanda's recent resurrection with no recent memories... sorta like that, kinda) and then i'd have her and Loki both do some character development, hash out some old baggage, and eventually go her own way, or they agree to be friends but no longer married or something.
    Last edited by Raye; 10-19-2021 at 01:44 AM.

  6. #666
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    3,478

    Default

    I agree with that first bit (before your edit) just not the part in twisting her in service to Loki's story, who would have more prominence and command of plot. It's similar to the complaints I have seen against Cates with what he did to Donald Blake. It's breaking a character for reasons, while one can enjoy seeing that happening to certain characters, I almost always find that there's no continuing fleshing out of such a turn because the story isn't about them, it's about someone else. So you can't even enjoy this turn because the thread is left hanging while the focus moves elsewhere. Over the years Loki suffered through this but there was always room for a little character work, where the spotlight would shine on him for a bit and that was great, sometimes there was even glimmer of positives in his stories. Things are getting better now for Loki on that front but the difference between Loki and someone like Blake is that he'd always been a "villain" because that was his purpose, not just in comics but also in norse mythology, thus it was acceptable to write those kinds of stories where writers weren't beholden to fleshing him out and his behaviour, attitude, motives etc were generally bad. I would never want Sigyn used in a manner that won't at least delve a little deeper into her traditionally "forced" devotion towards Loki, relegating her to a quickie arc, but that's not my only problem with the premise.

    The reason I mention loyalty and faithfulness falling out of favour in modern times is because as a society, people don't understand the constancy that some folks have even in the midst of someone behaving badly, like having a healthy emotional aptitude that allows them to weather (against all odds) through the other's messiness. This isn't about enabling, or condoning constant victimising people. Some people are just genuinely good/loyal/forgiving not because the other person earned this kind of devotion or that they are suckers for not giving up on these bad people. It's because there is no drama in showing this kind of condition in people, it's fallen out of favour in modern story telling, hence Sigyn continues to be missing to the point of Marvel pretending she never existed or played a significant role in Loki's story beyond showing how he was a terrible person. I want Sigyn back as Sigyn not some expy reflecting how the world today views someone who was in her position. Perhaps the problem is that Marvel used her as a victim and nothing more but that was then, times have changed but it's not hopeful because they are more likely to double down on the negative instead.
    Last edited by rpmaluki; 10-19-2021 at 02:21 AM.

  7. #667
    Astonishing Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,989

    Default

    congrats on post 666 \m/

    I guess I just don't see it as twisting or breaking her character. That WAS her character, complete devotion to someone who had mistreated her. Yeah there was a bit more nuance to it, but at it's core... And keeping that there and using it isn't twisting things, to me. Particularly in the first example where it's literally just a one sided relationship because of Loki moving on, but she hasn't. (and as i clarified, i was kinda picturing a supernatural reason as to why she hadn't) That changes nothing about her character, especially if it is just the starting point. Bringing her back while not either keeping those traits, OR giving a really good and thorough explanation as to why she's changed (but personally, I'd prefer to see the change happen, rather than be told about it after the fact) would be like bringing her back in name only, to me. Yeah, i get that there's personality there beyond just Loki, but that is still an elephant in the room that NEEDS to be addressed. You can't just bring her back and not have some kind of story or at least a discussion about that. It ended in such a vague way, that it needs some kind of explanation and closure before you can move forward with either of them, if she is brought back.

    Like i said, my first post, it was spitballing and not getting into the details, but they are just starting points, I'm not really arguing strongly in favor of any particular story, or proposing new status quos that i want to see dragged out for years and years. You know I'm always about stories that evolve over time, and it's no different there. They're just starting points for things to evolve from there. I'm also open to other scenarios, and in whatever scenario, i wouldn't want her to be left in a bad place. But I just don't see how using her established character traits and relationship to Loki when we last saw her as a starting point would be twisting her. Blake was last seen as one thing, and came back as another, that's why it was jarring, even if there was an explanation given. The scenarios i gave, I'm just kinda picturing how she was when we last saw her as the starting point. The second one is more of a twist, yeah, but.... I'm not picturing malice there, just that she had grown attached to Loki as a certain way, and wants HER Loki back, not this (from her perspective, and assuming she hadn't been following his development) impostor walking around in his skin. Again, it kinda only works with a resurrection, i guess, where she essentially went into stasis. I'm also not particularly attached to it. As i said, spitballing.

    And as for focus.... so for one, I really do not think they are done with Blake yet. Not even close. He's just on the back burner for a bit, and he will be back to explore his new role, once Loki is in his, I'm pretty sure. And in a similar vein with Sigyn, I don't see why it couldn't continue to be brought up (though in smaller, occasional ways) after the initial story either. But probably only in a Loki specific story, for the same reason we only ever see Verity in Loki solo stories. Those are Loki's supporting characters, specifically, not Thor's, and there's diminishing returns with supporting characters when the main character appears in another character's book. There's just only so many panels that can be devoted to other characters, and the ones with the closest relationships will be given priority, generally, unless there's some kind of plot reason. But that's just the way it is for side characters, it's the best we can expect. I just don't see the point in wishing for something that has almost no chance of happening. If they do something with Sigyn, it will be in a story about Loki, it just will. It might take place in the Thor book, but only if Loki has a big part to play in the particular story. She's had like what, 20 appearances total? She's not going to be high on many people's list to get a ton of focus in Thor, she's not why they're reading. There might be more interest in seeing Sigyn in a Loki specific book, but people are still primarily going to be there for Loki. I know they've elevated the status of some supporting characters in recent years, and it's certainly possible to shine a spotlight on a previously forgotten character and make them a star, but they can't all get that treatment, it's not going to happen often, and I think it's pretty unlikely for Sigyn. This is the same reason I want Loki's story split off into a new JIM, because he's not the focus in Thor either. It's Thor's book and he'll get the most story focus, and he should, even if it is sometimes frustrating as a fan of Loki, but it's just the way it is. (tho i do think Loki could get a bit more focus) But Loki at least has the potential to carry a solo story, Sigyn not so much.

    And yeah, I agree that there should be room for forgiveness of some missteps, but chronic long term patterns of behaviour, not so much, and that was the situation with Loki. Yeah, he did eventually change, but it was long after the point at which the relationship had become very toxic, and should have ended...
    Last edited by Raye; 10-19-2021 at 03:26 AM.

  8. #668
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    3,478

    Default

    Not everyone is going to be a star in a book, their own or someone elses. Side characters play supporting roles to varying degrees, it wanes and waxes for any given reason depending on the writer. My interest in Sig is not about elevating her. I just want her acknowledged and if they ever decide to use her, I'd prefer it not be in a reduced manner, not in terms of importance (to the story, she doesn't need to be featured all that much really) but in characterisation, mainly hers because everything is forever framed from Loki's POV. She would be more of a plot device today, much like in the past, something I'm averse towards if her constancy is used in a negative way (against her not him). I just don't want it to be more unflattering towards her (a victim in Marvel's case) than it already is. And the argument can be made for 'breaking' someone like Sig for the sh*tty way Loki treated her, in that situation, I would then want to see more of her POV, not to make her into the star of the story but to write something like this with the kind of nuance it deserves. At least give the woman some agency! And because that's way too much to expect from Marvel where Loki (the character) is concerned, I guess it makes sense to keep her gone and that, ironically, is a disservice to his story as a whole because she is a gaping hole that no one wants to address. It's why I want her back, not to slip her back into the problematic role she played in his life all those years ago, but to move forward and possibly forge a healthier connection now that he's on this new journey in life.
    Last edited by rpmaluki; 10-19-2021 at 06:45 AM.

  9. #669
    Astonishing Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,989

    Default

    But what you want is something that only will happen if she is the star of the story. She has been gone for 40 years, if they bring her back, they will most likely either need some kind of plot macguffin as an excuse, where she would be more of a plot device, or use her connection to Loki for a more character story for him, but yeah, it would ultimately be his story. Those are our choices, due to her current status. Either have her play the part of a plot device in Loki's story, or have her remain gone. I was just trying to come up with a couple scenarios that would fit that, because the chances of her being brought back for her own sake are vanishingly small. And, as I said before, even if they did, the marriage and how it was left, and how her return would affect Loki, would be a massive elephant in the room, no matter what they did. It needs to be addressed. And I just would prefer that be done in a story rather than an exposition dump where she explains where she's been. Once back, maybe she could then be her own thing, but she has to come back first, and she needs Loki for that. That doesn't mean she is being put back into the same role, forever, but putting her back there to start is a pretty likely scenario here, because if people remember her, that's what they expect her to be like. And I don't see it as mistreating her, if she is given some nuance (I didn't envision anything without nuance, though it may have come across that way due to the fact that it was just a vague outline of a story. No one comes across as nuanced ina couple lines) and the room to have some development from that point. And victims can be strong characters, if handled well.
    Last edited by Raye; 10-19-2021 at 12:20 PM.

  10. #670
    Spectacular Member Fanto.mx's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    193

    Default

    With the punishment of Blake, there is space for an interesting Sigyn story, since that punishment comes straight from the myths. (Sorry if this shows up somewhere above) In the myths, Sigyn's role was to hold a bowl above Loki's eyes. Periodically, she had to empty the bowl of the venom, at which point Loki would writhe and cause earthquakes. But as Raye pointed out, both in the myths and Marvel, Sigyn's role is small and her characterization even smaller.

    With Blake facing Loki's mythological punishment and Sigyn missing, there's opportunity there to to have her helping Blake. It would give her reason to reappear, since her mythological role essentially was reintroduced, and it would give her a clear role in the story (and set Blake loose as the new God of Lies). I think that having her be the Evil Spurned Woman is not a great idea, but it could be a starting place for some actual development. As she develops and interacts with the other Asgardians (especially Loki), there is a lot of potential for her to be a non-obsessed counterpart to Loki as he develops into his new role. Still a support role, but not the super problematic devoted/spurned/obsessed woman trope.

    To be clear, I don't think this will happen, but there's the opportunity there.

    -----------------------

    I read through Cates's Thor to this point yesterday. A few dangling threads and points I want to talk about:

    • Sif lied to Thor. She sent Mjolnir "where no man can lift it," but she sees everything. So she would know (proven by how she sees Thor's fear), so she knew Loki would be able to lift it, and she threw it right at his feet. Also interesting is the fact that Sif can't see into Blake's "fairytale," though Jormungandr could somehow break in and Ratatoskr was free to come and go, apparently. There's some interesting magics and geography stuff going on there.

    • "Galactus will destroy--" -- A future Galactus? A little unclear whether Galactus was speaking in the third person about himself, or warning that a new, less familiar Galactus will come along in his absence. As I've mentioned here a couple times, Galactus has been established as both Galan of Taa AND as a sort of universal truth / force of nature, like the Phoenix and Infinity Stones, an individualized expression of a part of the fabric of the universe.

    • Adam Aziz picked up the hammer as part of the anyone-but-Thor-can-lift Mjolnir thread, and immediately transformed and got the powers of Thor...when Loki did not. And then Tony grabbed it from them, but no transformation there, either (and Adam stayed transformed). Same kind of thing as with the location of Blake's former prison, where it's unclear how and why and what it means, but also seems very careful and intentional.

    • "The golden shadow, the second god of lies, the lightning that walks, the king in stone" -- The first two are explicitly, definitely Blake. Are all four? Throg is referred to as "The thunder that hops," so the lightning that walks is Thor or Blake? The king in stone is even less clear to me, but could be reference to Blake's punishment. Any thoughts?

    • Blake is an insane Peter Pan. Obvious, I know, but fitting that he would become the God of Lies, being literally a lie himself.

    • Interesting to note that Blake can read the book that can only be read by fully fledged Asgardian kings, though at that point he does contain the Odin Force, along with some stolen enchantments.

    • In the end, I actually think Loki's punishment is fitting and not the extreme cruelness I had assumed before all the set-up. He knows how the story is shaped. The story of the God of Lies begins with a great betrayal, followed by extensive punishment in exactly this manner.

  11. #671
    Astonishing Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,989

    Default

    But why would Sigyn want to protect Blake? She protected Loki because of her vows to him, but she swore nothing to Blake.

    Curious if reading it all in one chunk, (i so far haven't done a front to back re-read, i just go back to individual issues sometimes to check things i remember) makes the foreshadowing and stuff more clear. Like i said the previous page, because Loki's been used pretty sporadically, it sometimes makes the foreshadowing from previous issues, like issue 4, not quite seem to connect to current events.

    As for Sif, it does seem like she should have seen Loki, and that it seemed like it might have been a test or something that she sent. But then it wasn't brought up again. So it might be her attention was focused entirely on Thor. She can see everywhere (almost).... but not all at once. She's not omniscient, just has the ability to see/hear to the ends of the universe. She still has to actually direct her attention to what she is watching, which will take her focus from other things. Remember, Loki used this limitation in Agent of Asgard to sneak past Heimdall. She hasn't said anything to Loki since then, which makes me doubt whether it was intentional on her part, or whether she was watching. It might have been Mjolnir itself that directed it to Loki's feet specifically, even if it Sif her that sent it to Jotunheim in general. But still could have been her, if she said something about to Loki it next issue, it would not contradict anything. Which brings us to...

    I think the Lightning That Walks is Mjolnir itself. In recent solicits, it says: ""GOD OF HAMMERS" PART 2 of 5. Mjolinr is on a rampage across the realms and is leaving death and destruction in its path! Thor must act fast to save his kingdom for the deadly prophecy of the God of Hammers is about to be unleashed!" which seems to imply Mjolnir acting autonomously, at least until this 'God of Hammers' gets it, which does seem to fit with how Mjolnir has been acting, in particular the parts where it pinned Thor to the ground, and attacked Cap. It would also explain how no one was detected breaking in to Avengers Mountain to take it, because no one took it. But it may also be wonky wording due to them not wanting to reveal the wielder in a solicit.

    King in Stone though, no idea. Haven't had any stone anything so far. Loki's a king of an ice realm, so he doesn't seem to fit, nor do any of the other 'king' characters i can think of.

    Also, I'm not sure if Blake was actually reading the book, so much as just curiously flipping through the pages, but seeing nothing. But it may have also been that as an aspect of Thor, he has the ability to read it due to that connection.

    And I know Loki knows how this story goes, and was likely doing this because of that. BUT he also knows what the being in the role means. By trapping Blake in that role, THAT is the punishment, and the prison, not the snake and the cave. That's what's cruel about it. Loki knows this role is to continually be screwed over by fate, to always try to win, (in a bad way, but still) but be destined to always lose in order to make the designated hero look good, and to have fate actively try to prevent you from changing and moving past your mistakes. By giving Blake this role he's simultaneously elevated his prominence, because it is an important role, and he will presumably become one of Asgard's most prominent enemies, but it's also neutered him, because he's always destined to lose, though he may be allowed to come close to winning at times. Granted, it took Loki himself a long time to realize that himself, otherwise he would have given up trying his various plots. But still, he did figure it out towards the end, and now he's knowingly trapping Blake in that cycle. BUT I still think Blake earned this. Blake killed people, tried to destroy Asgard, tried to trap Thor in an eternal prison, he would not have just stopped if they gave him a slap on the wrist. These aren't things where he should escape punishment.

    I do like the observation that Blake is the God of Lies in a different way than Loki was though.
    Last edited by Raye; 10-19-2021 at 05:44 PM.

  12. #672
    Astonishing Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raye View Post
    I bet Loki's next dialogue will be something to that effect. Saying he thinks Thor is lying about trusting him, or asking why he thinks that, when other options like Balder, Jane, the Warriors 3, the Avengers, etc exist for this mission.
    Quote Originally Posted by Raye View Post
    those Pops are cute! Also there is a new Hot toys:
    Other options remaining are ones Loki can't fill, like the role Freyja just left vacant, or somewhat lower profile things like The Warriors 3. But... and yes this is a real shot in the dark, I am kinda getting the vibe that we might be getting an unconventional squad of heroes there next issue. Throg, Thori, and Bats. Or maybe throw in Lockjaw so it's all dogs, and Throg is more of the Sif. It's just a gut feeling, but... I dunno, kinda makes sense to me, Pet Avengers Warriors 3, it would be hilarious and fun.)
    Called it

    Ok, not entirely, i had assumed Thori, cus Asgard stuff, but it was Lockheed. Which does make sense for a Pet Avengers thing, but still. We got a team of Throg, Lockjaw, Bats, and Lockheed, and Hugin and Munin are there, as well, but I am not sure i'd quite count them, as they've been established as being more of an extension of Thor, despite their personalities on the letters pages... so I'm kinda still leaning towards calling it 3 with an extra, like the Warriors 3 plus Sif, and Hugin and Munin standing in for Thor. But I realize that's kind of stretching it. It still feels Warriors 3-ish to me tho. Maybe the specific number isn't too important. Except... they're not warriors, (except Throg) they're spies. But I think that is intentional. Thor kept calling his old role the 'warrior' role, but I keep calling it the 'champion' for a reason, and that's because I think a 'warrior' was what was needed back in the middle ages, but today's Champion may need to be something else. And if the Warriors 3 were warriors like Thor, then the new group should be something similar to the new Chamoion, right? But, I am kinda getting into the reeds here. moving on.

    I did totally call that dialogue tho, even if i wasn't quite right about the people he'd list as people who Thor could have called on. Not that i think that one was hard to guess. What I didn't guess was that Loki, when presented with what was needed would just naturally start coming up with plans of what would work best, and that Thor likely was counting on this, judging by his expressions. So he did need Loki, he just didn't need him for what he said. I wonder what Thor would have done if Loki had just said yes, though. But yah, Throg was Loki's idea. So... if that goes badly, and it turns out he actually should have gone himself... Throg may not have been one of Loki's friends or family but still, it could serve a similar purpose as the Uncle Ben moment. Throg also knew what was going on. He just said it was cus he knew everything, but... I dunno... I think someone told him this was coming. and the list of people who know, besides Thor, is very small, and of the people who would think to contact Throg, it's pretty much down to Loki and Sif, imo.

    But, unlike what he said, Loki could totally be a spy. he's a fucking shapeshifter and master of illusions. He's famous in his default form, yeah, but he doesn't have to use that face. He just doesn't want to do it.

    Thor used the exact same spiel on Throg that he used on Loki. Makes me wonder how rehearsed it is, and how many people he's used it on. Come on Thor, at least tailor it to the specific person.

    Pretty massive art mistake on the page where Thor arrives in Throg's kingdom tho. Whole issue is about the fact that Mjolnir has gone missing and THERE IT IS, in his hand. I wonder if they will fix that for the trade, cus DAMN. How did that even get past?
    Last edited by Raye; 10-20-2021 at 01:56 AM.

  13. #673
    Spectacular Member Yoruno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    135

    Default

    In the movies, the whole point of "God of Hammers" was that Thor could be a hero without Mjolnir. I'm not sure if I'll be able to express myself clearly, but...
    Recently both brothers act nothing like their older selves. Thor is aggressive and arrogant (not that he wasn't before, but now it's over the top). Loki is subdued, almost solemn, he never plots and never lies. What if THIS was the role shift? Without the Norns, everyone is doing what they were not supposed to do, like actors who have no script. Now look how enthusiastic Loki becomes when Thor gives him a chance to return to his former role - "Pour me a drink, I'm plotting". So, could it all be about Thor being a hero while being a king, possibly not depending on attributes like Mjolnir? That could also lead to Loki being a king and a trickster at the same time. MCU Loki is currently facing the same dilemma, he's become a hero but stopped being a trickster, losing all the features that made him a distinct recognisable character, so MCU will have to combine his new heroic persona with his trickster charm. I can also see this happening in the comics.
    Last edited by Yoruno; 10-22-2021 at 02:36 AM.

  14. #674
    Astonishing Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,989

    Default

    I think... we'll first off, character development by definition changes the characters, and that can include their personalities. By saying they have to act more like their old selves is just saying that character development shouldn't happen in any meaningful way. It's fine to have a favorite period in a character's history, but you can't have character development without the characters changing how they act to some degree. I get that you're just saying what Loki does, is trying to accomplish, should change, but not HOW he goes about things should be the same. And I do hope Loki keeps a bit of his edge, and fun, and I do think he will break out of his funk in a little while and be more fun after he deals with some things with Thor. But I don't think it's a flaw to have him be more reserved, given the things that have happened to him.

    But also, I don't think the changes are that big on a fundamental level, we are just seeing different aspects due to them reacting to the situation at hand. Loki is a bit more solemn and reserved, but mostly only when talking to Thor. I think because he is frustrated with Thor only ever calling on him when he needs someone to be deceitful for him. I made this post on Tumblr the other day, but I think it fits here:

    As for the question in the tags about why Loki lied in Valkyries, but didn't like Thor asking him to lie and spy for him... I think some of that is just different writers having different perspectives, but I am rationalizing it as that it's less about the lying, and more that he wants Thor to acknowledge the work he's done recently to change. I think Loki is still quite open to using deception as a tool to accomplish what he wants if the situation calls for it... but it has to be on his own terms, and wants to be given the opportunity to use other methods as well. He doesn't want to be 'the god of lies' and he's gone to extreme lengths to escape that role, and he just wants Thor to acknowledge that he can help him in other ways. Thor keeps seeing Loki as who he WAS rather than who he IS, and only seems to come to him when he needs someone to lie for him, and Loki finds that frustrating because he wants Thor to see him as more than that, but Thor's not giving him a chance to show that he's anything other than what he used to be.

    Basically, yeah Loki has changed, but the being more reserved isn't exactly part of that. He's just sulking because Thor won't acknowledge and support how he's changed. He's even said as much to Thor at the beginning of Prey, he keeps trying to say it here, but it got brushed aside. If Thor would acknowledge that change, and give him something to do that wasn't basically 'ignore all the growth you've done recently, I need the old you' I think he'd perk right up. Hell, he showed that the previous issue when he started coming up with ideas, it was like a light switch. I don't think he even minded right then that Thor had manipulated him, (and he did know he'd been played, he said as much) because he got caught up in what he was doing. That clever plotting aspect is still there, and he still enjoys that sort of thing... You could also see it come back when he was interacting with Strange. He just is upset that Thor can't seem to see or value anything BUT that part of him. I said a few posts back that i didn't want to think that Thor was only using him, and didn't actually mean it when he said he trusted him, but... I was also right that him saying he could only trust Loki didn't seem quite right, and Loki thought so too. And I can see why that would be disappointing to Loki, to know that Thor was lying, and only valued him for what he was, instead of what he is, and it is ok for him to actually show his disappointment.

    And Thor, well, I think he's just kind of overwhelmed, and has the idea in his head that being the All-Father means being strong and dominant, and is trying to project that. He is obsessed with not being seen as weak, and is over compensating. Ironically, it is this desire to project strength which is actually making him look weak and incompetent. The last issue was even pretty blunt about that, when he flat out said as much to Throg. The book was being subtle about it at first, but the past few issues it's been pretty blunt, making sure everyone gets the damn point, which has been flying over the heads of some readers who have been cheering on Thor's stupid aggressive posturing.

    But yeah, basically people show different faces to the world depending on the circumstances, different aspects of their personality come to the surface that are best suited to dealing with a situation that they find themselves in... or at least, what they think is the best way, they may be mistaken about what is needed, as Thor is. And people have emotions, and those emotions will express themselves in various ways that may make them act differently for a while. Thor is scared and overwhelmed, Loki is frustrated and disappointed, and this has brought out aspects of their personalities. But in any case, people are never all one thing all the time. Right now Thor and Loki are showing a different face in response to the circumstances, but that doesn't change who they are at the core.

    Long winded way of saying, I think the roles may be bringing out different aspects in their personalities in a way, because new roles may call for different aspects of their personalities to come to the forefront, while others fall back. But it's still rooted in the core of their characters, and they are just reacting to events. It may seem sudden, particularly in Thor's case, because he can only become overwhelmed and act out in response to that after he is in the role. But underneath that posturing, I think the core of the character is the same, though he may need to make some changes, going forward, or put a different aspect of himself on display, to fit the role better. Same with Loki.

    edited to add - I actually find it interesting though because there is a contrast between them. Loki took a change first approach. Like, he consciously tried to change, and is now looking for a place, a role, that will allow this new identity he's developed to be given a chance to be put on display, rather than the old one. (though he still may need to make adjustments, but at least he's got a head start) Aspects of the old identity do still exist inside him, and can come out when needed, but he wants to be able to show this new face to the world, and needs a role to do that, but Thor keeps trying to get him to put that new identity away. On the other hand, Thor was given a new role, and now has to come up with a new identity to fit that role on the fly, and he's not doing so good at that, at least initially. He has to fumble around and discover what will work. He'll get there, but I doubt it will just be, like his old self, but it may incorporate more aspects of it going forward. But he's tried that, his old identity is a poor fit. So he tried making a new one, but it went too far, and he became cruel and overly aggressive, he's still trying to find the right balance. Judging by the last issue, what's called for is something more thoughtful.
    Last edited by Raye; 10-22-2021 at 11:25 PM.

  15. #675
    Spectacular Member Fanto.mx's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raye View Post
    But why would Sigyn want to protect Blake? She protected Loki because of her vows to him, but she swore nothing to Blake.


    I do like the observation that Blake is the God of Lies in a different way than Loki was though.
    My thought was that if you wanted to bring in Sigyn after literally 25 years of absence and only 18 total appearance in nearly 60 years of publication, the real opportunity to do so is to make her address that, at least a little. Out of universe, she has been missing, so sure seems like in-universe, she's been missing. And the reintroduction of the Venom Prison also lends itself to a Sigyn reintroduction, if they wanted to go that direction. And out of everyone in the Marvel Universe that could help someone who was stuck in a hole and ignored for years get revenge on the person who left her there? Blake hates Loki most.

    But as I indicated above, leaving her as a "woman scorned" trope would be a complete lost opportunity and there's zero reason to bring her back if that's the case, and negative reason to bring her back just to reintroduce a dated, problematic story trope that we've basically all moved on from. So she would need to develop through letting go of her hate and desire for revenge...and that's a fairly large story commitment for a character that nearly no one knows, especially when the cast of characters is already fairly huge.

    I *really* like the observation that the "God of Lies" title is as much or more the prison as the snake and cave are. And it's a prison Loki is, in some ways (see Thor's ask of him in the latest issue) still trying to escape.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raye View Post
    i had assumed Thori, cus Asgard stuff, but it was Lockheed. Which does make sense for a Pet Avengers thing, but still. We got a team of Throg, Lockjaw, Bats, and Lockheed, and Hugin and Munin are there, as well, but I am not sure i'd quite count them, as they've been established as being more of an extension of Thor, despite their personalities on the letters pages... so I'm kinda still leaning towards calling it 3 with an extra, like the Warriors 3 plus Sif, and Hugin and Munin standing in for Thor. But I realize that's kind of stretching it. It still feels Warriors 3-ish to me tho. Maybe the specific number isn't too important. Except... they're not warriors, (except Throg) they're spies. But I think that is intentional. Thor kept calling his old role the 'warrior' role, but I keep calling it the 'champion' for a reason, and that's because I think a 'warrior' was what was needed back in the middle ages, but today's Champion may need to be something else. And if the Warriors 3 were warriors like Thor, then the new group should be something similar to the new Chamoion, right? But, I am kinda getting into the reeds here. moving on.
    I LOVE THE PET AVENGERS. Huginn and Muninn make sense as a form of reporting back. They can literally be a comms link to Thor that is untraceable and untappable, functioning as his eyes one this, though that's not how they were introduced, and there was a lot made of the fact that they've been sort of replaced by technology. Their presence is a little bit mysterious in that way...but with the Blake-can-read-the-book info, perhaps Huginn and Muninn will be unwitting double agents for Blake? (I think Blake will be haunting the story in the background for quite some time before making a Very Bad Return.) They were, however, introduced as full-on mega spies, with access and familiarity to certain realms that living beings don't usually get into.

    In fact, as you point out, all of the team, even Throg, are introduced as spy roles. Throg has the eyes of Midgard and nature. Huginn and Munnin the eyes of death. Lockjaw can track anyone and easily traverse the less mystical universe. Lockheed is infiltration and immediate scouting. And Bats has a different eye on death and mystical senses the others do not have. All the bases covered...but they're all spy bases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raye View Post
    I did totally call that dialogue tho, even if i wasn't quite right about the people he'd list as people who Thor could have called on. Not that i think that one was hard to guess. What I didn't guess was that Loki, when presented with what was needed would just naturally start coming up with plans of what would work best, and that Thor likely was counting on this, judging by his expressions. So he did need Loki, he just didn't need him for what he said. I wonder what Thor would have done if Loki had just said yes, though. But yah, Throg was Loki's idea. So... if that goes badly, and it turns out he actually should have gone himself... Throg may not have been one of Loki's friends or family but still, it could serve a similar purpose as the Uncle Ben moment. Throg also knew what was going on. He just said it was cus he knew everything, but... I dunno... I think someone told him this was coming. and the list of people who know, besides Thor, is very small, and of the people who would think to contact Throg, it's pretty much down to Loki and Sif, imo.

    But, unlike what he said, Loki could totally be a spy. he's a fucking shapeshifter and master of illusions. He's famous in his default form, yeah, but he doesn't have to use that face. He just doesn't want to do it.

    Thor used the exact same spiel on Throg that he used on Loki. Makes me wonder how rehearsed it is, and how many people he's used it on. Come on Thor, at least tailor it to the specific person.

    Pretty massive art mistake on the page where Thor arrives in Throg's kingdom tho. Whole issue is about the fact that Mjolnir has gone missing and THERE IT IS, in his hand. I wonder if they will fix that for the trade, cus DAMN. How did that even get past?
    One interesting thing is that Loki started scheming...but Throg had his own scheme. Throg set it all up before Loki and Thor even thought about it. So what did Loki plan? And will getting "showed up" cause him to re-evaluate? Like he clearly denied Thor trying to make him a spy...and then immediate fell into his old habit of scheming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoruno View Post
    In the movies, the whole point of "God of Hammers" was that Thor could be a hero without Mjolnir. I'm not sure if I'll be able to express myself clearly, but...
    Recently both brothers act nothing like their older selves. Thor is aggressive and arrogant (not that he wasn't before, but now it's over the top). Loki is subdued, almost solemn, he never plots and never lies. What if THIS was the role shift? Without the Norns, everyone is doing what they were not supposed to do, like actors who have no script. Now look how enthusiastic Loki becomes when Thor gives him a chance to return to his former role - "Pour me a drink, I'm plotting". So, could it all be about Thor being a hero while being a king, possibly not depending on attributes like Mjolnir? That could also lead to Loki being a king and a trickster at the same time. MCU Loki is currently facing the same dilemma, he's become a hero but stopped being a trickster, losing all the features that made him a distinct recognisable character, so MCU will have to combine his new heroic persona with his trickster charm. I can also see this happening in the comics.
    Thor was always a little bit blunt instrument in how he dealt with things, and we've seen him overreact to fear before. And his fear of not being worthy of his station has just shifted a little bit from fear that he's not worthy of Mjolnir to fear he cannot measure up to Odin and Odin's legacy. At first, he overcompensated by flipping straight back to warrior and became perhaps the most powerful warrior the universe has ever seen. He did this by abusing the Odinforce. When he finally decided to ask for help, he didn't look before he leapt and we fully saw the limits he thought (and we thought) he didn't have, as he was locked out of his own body and was imprisoned without being able to free himself (until he got clever). There's a whole bunch about how the magic put in place by Odin is broken (and pretty clear that that's what's going on with Mjolnir, too) because Thor hasn't been maintaining them. There was this whole hidden side of Odin and Odin's work that was hidden from Thor (and mostly from us) because of the concentration on being "strong" and "worthy". Yet even now, Thor isn't trying to figure THAT out, but panicking that Mjolnir is gone.

    Loki is also still in keeping with his post-JIM core in violently reacting to any suggestion that he is still the pre-JIM Loki (which he is...a little. The denial and the truth keeps him from truly accepting it, even though he keeps having that revelation and seems to accept it). He also continues to deny his own ability to truly step out of that role. He could have reacted to Thor's request with a "Yes, I'll help, but not as a spy. Let your allies know I'm coming and on your side and I'll lead this investigation from the light." Instead he was mad that Thor was lying and trying to shove him back into the darkness.

    TL;DR: I think their reactions are still in keeping with their long-standing cores, despite the roles shifting.

Posting Permissions

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