Loki Appreciation 2021

[Raye]

I don't think Kang will be filling Reed's role. That would necessitate he be the protagonist in a movie, but that doesn't seem to be the case, he's being set up as an antagonist, who has apparently already figured out the multiverse, considering he's apparently the head dude at that alt universe TVA. Also, He Who Remains kept it to one timeline because his variants caused a Secret Wars type event by fighting with each other, assuming he was telling the truth, so while there will likely be a council of Kangs, cus that's just how they do, which then presumably crumbles due to in-fighting, I don't think it's going to be as cerebral as you think it will be. It will probably just be Kang's assorted variants duking it out and dragging the multiverse into an incursion type scenario, like apparently happened before. They may omit the Beyonders entirely, the way they've set up Kang renders them unnecessary. I don't think anyone really needs to be behind Kang, Thanos etc. And Reed will likely fill Reed's role, I mean we know FF is coming, even if no official announcement has been made yet, it's definitely been teased, so.... They are probably using phase 4 to introduce the FF (Phase four) and Doom in a big way, and Secret Wars will likely be the big thing to cement their position as important members of the MCU.

[Iron Maiden]

I don't think Kang will be filling Reed's role. That would necessitate he be the protagonist in a movie, but that doesn't seem to be the case, he's being set up as an antagonist, who has apparently already figured out the multiverse, considering he's apparently the head dude at that alt universe TVA. Also, He Who Remains kept it to one timeline because his variants caused a Secret Wars type event by fighting with each other, assuming he was telling the truth, so while there will likely be a council of Kangs, cus that's just how they do, which then presumably crumbles due to in-fighting, I don't think it's going to be as cerebral as you think it will be. It will probably just be Kang's assorted variants duking it out and dragging the multiverse into an incursion type scenario, like apparently happened before. They may omit the Beyonders entirely, the way they've set up Kang renders them unnecessary. I don't think anyone really needs to be behind Kang, Thanos etc. And Reed will likely fill Reed's role, I mean we know FF is coming, even if no official announcement has been made yet, it's definitely been teased, so.... They are probably using phase 4 to introduce the FF (Phase four) and Doom in a big way, and Secret Wars will likely be the big thing to cement their position as important members of the MCU.

And it's about time too. It's been delayed because the time taken for the negotiations to take back the rights to the Fantastic Four and some of their characters from Fox. We were lucky in that regard in that Fox simply gave up and was ready to make a deal when Trank's Fantastic Four bombed. If it hadn't Fox would get to keep it as long as they had something in production every x amount of years, I don't know if we ever saw all the details of their original agreement when Fox got the rights to the FF and the X-Men.

[Albert1981]

I liked the Loki show a lot myself, and thought it was well-written and well-acted, but I DO feel SOME members of the audience would feel frustrated by the series. One British dude I found online was not so much disappointed for himself, but for his daughter (who LOVES Hiddleston):

"As family viewing, I found it strangely inaccessible; silly in a 'middle aged nerd' sci-fi kind of way (everybody's noticed the Dr Who, Hitchhikers vibes); but also serious and verbose with little of the humour, action and fun of the previous Marvel films that feature the character. I think the main reason I'm being such a negative nelly is that my daughter was anticipating this. She loves the first Avengers film, Guardians, Endgame and especially Thor Ragnarok- mainly for the zany antics, goofy humour and cool action scenes. She laughs uncontrollably at those and I had been looking forward to watching this with her for more of the same. I can't imagine her sitting still for this exposition dump of a show that's almost exclusively set up for future films, full of arcane comic references, and places greatest emphasis not on Loki but on a stroppy, serious side character.

Loki is just along for the ride in this. Barring a few moments where he takes momentary control, he's been like a feather in the wind. Captured, lost, recaptured, beaten, berated, scolded, bewildered. Not a God of Mischief, but a God of listening to exposition and following Sylvie around. Where’s the duplicitous throne seeker from Avengers? Or the charming, comedic cad we know and love from the later films? Where's the mischief?

Seems to me when you have a 'God of Mischief' in a series that heavily involves time travel (!) the possibilities for hilarious and imaginative shenanigans are almost endless. We could have him undermining crucial historical events, meeting famous figures from history, or interacting with other Avengers at earlier moments in time. What we got was fairly dreary to my eyes, but then I've never been a comic book reader so perhaps the more exciting references were lost on me."

I'm curious to see how folks interpret the Loki show depending on whether they're comic book fans or not. I have a vague understanding of the comics, so I can appreciate why the "geek/nerd" community loved it. But I think the lack of "fun" in this series might have turned off some folks who don't give a **** about the comics. I think Feige would be making a HUGE mistake to neglect the non-comic reading public by appealing to the comic book reading community too much. Kids have EVERY right to enjoy Hiddleston's Loki as much as the adults do. I fell in love with the Transformers when I was VERY young, and I think Marvel Studios should continue to appeal to that crowd for its future prosperity. Sure, I want Loki to grow, but I think this series smoothed away his moral wrinkles FAR too much and made him far too passive in my opinion.

[Raye]

I mean, as with anything, there's no one approach that will work for everyone... What may have pleased her may have felt too light and inconsequential for some others. (while I liked it, I know a few regulars in this thread really don't like Ragnarok in part because they thought it was too silly) But I do still think there were plenty of fun and mischevous elements. I mean, Alligator Loki. A lot of his interactions with Mobius also had that mishevous edge, like when he hit on the idea of hiding out in apocalypses, and how he described it.

And it's not as comic reliant as you make it out to be. Most of the comic stuff was essentially eastereggs for those in the know, but used in a way that you didn't HAVE to know about the comic inspirations. You could have followed along just fine without knowing about the origins of the assorted Loki variants, and elements like the TVA were fairly significantly changed from the comics, and you could follow along without knowing much about them. While I was completely up to speed on the Loki stuff they referenced from the comics, (most of which were changed significantly from their comic inspiration, they mainly just used the visual designs, the personalities were original to the show) I've only read a couple appearances of the TVA, and brushed up with a wiki beforehand, and I was fine, and discovered the wiki brush up was actually completely unnecessary to follow the plot, because all you needed to know was explained. (though it helped with speculation beforehand)

But I still don't get the 'Loki is just along for the ride' thing as a complaint... it's his loss of control over the situation that was the entire point? It wasn't some kind of oversight or failing, it was very purposeful. He had no power to meaningfully impact the situation (which he learned with his escape attempts) and found himself dragged along in a situation he had no control over, discovered his whole life was planned out by someone else, that he had NEVER been in control, even though it felt like he was at the time. This had to happen because his whole deal was trying to take control, before he found himself in this situation. But that realization that he had never been in control, that him taking control was never going to happen, and there were powers far bigger than him controlling his fate, humbled him and is part of what allowed him to grow as a character. I don't think he ever like, accepted fate as something good in his life, or lost the desire to break free, otherwise he would not have tried to break Mobius out of things. But he (particularly since he had lost access to Thor as his anchor) had to have it obviously revealed to him that he was NOT in control, and could not be in this situation, to spark the epiphany that led him to have some self reflection, and open up to and trust characters like Mobius and Sylvie. He had to learn to trust them, to rely on others to help him ultimately escape his fate. But those characters also had to be built up and have arcs of their own. Those connections he established would have meant nothing if they did not take the time to develop Mobius and Sylvie.

[Albert1981]

I mean, as with anything, there's no one approach that will work for everyone... What may have pleased her may have felt too light and inconsequential for some others. (while I liked it, I know a few regulars in this thread really don't like Ragnarok in part because they thought it was too silly) But I do still think there were plenty of fun and mischevous elements. I mean, Alligator Loki. A lot of his interactions with Mobius also had that mishevous edge, like when he hit on the idea of hiding out in apocalypses, and how he described it.

And it's not as comic reliant as you make it out to be. Most of the comic stuff was essentially eastereggs for those in the know, but used in a way that you didn't HAVE to know about the comic inspirations. You could have followed along just fine without knowing about the origins of the assorted Loki variants, and elements like the TVA were fairly significantly changed from the comics, and you could follow along without knowing much about them. While I was completely up to speed on the Loki stuff they referenced from the comics, (most of which were changed significantly from their comic inspiration, they mainly just used the visual designs, the personalities were original to the show) I've only read a couple appearances of the TVA, and brushed up with a wiki beforehand, and I was fine, and discovered the wiki brush up was actually completely unnecessary to follow the plot, because all you needed to know was explained. (though it helped with speculation beforehand)

But I still don't get the 'Loki is just along for the ride' thing as a complaint... it's his loss of control over the situation that was the entire point? It wasn't some kind of oversight or failing, it was very purposeful. He had no power to meaningfully impact the situation (which he learned with his escape attempts) and found himself dragged along in a situation he had no control over, but that humbled him and is part of what allowed him to grow as a character. He had to lose control to spark the epiphany that led him to have some self reflection and open up to and trust characters like Mobius and Sylvie. But those characters also had to be built up and have arcs of their own. Those connections he established would have meant nothing if they did not take the time to develop Mobius and Sylvie.

I think a lot of non-comic fans still don't understand the significance of Immortus/Kang/Nathaniel or whatever the hell he's called these days is. I've read that in other forums. The references to that character went straight over their heads. They just think he's the Wizard of Oz/Planet of the Apes statue dude. In regards to Loki, yeah, I wanna see the inherent contradictions in his personality remain. I wish he was more tempted by the offer extended to him in episode 6. I know he's a different dude in this "timeline", but Loki completely losing his edge and becoming an "aw shucks best buds heart-on-his-sleeve fool for love" kind of kills a lot of the character's appeal. Bit of a generic hero now that doesn't really register as "Loki" any longer (to me).

And despite my disdain for time travel stories (in superhero comic books, not in Star Trek, the Twilight Zone and Quantum Leap), don't you find it odd that a show that was supposed to be about time travel, ended up not engaging in any actual time travel at all? "The series merely uses it as a device to teleport characters to different places as opposed to actually having them transport through time." I think the show would have been far more "fun" if some time travelling did occur. I'm all for explaining the rules (which I don't think will actually succeed in making sense in five years time), but I would have liked to see some actual time travel.

[Raye]

But it wasn't 'supposed' to be about time travel, I think you were making an assumption that it would be about time travel, when, while it involved time travel, (they did travel to both the past and future) it was really more a story about Loki's character development, and the multiverse. That isn't the show's fault that you went in with a mistaken impression of what it would be.

And i don't think we are supposed to really understand the significance of Kang just yet. Did non comic fans understand the significance of the teaser shot of Thanos way back when? No, but they learned over the course of more movies. Same deal here.

[Yoruno]

Loki himself is quite unpredictable. What I liked about the show is that it was unpredictable, too, so if you came to watch it with any expectations they were mostly unmet, and it's good because it fits the character.
What I still hate is the muddy picture. The director of photograpy was so excited to use filters, low lights, strange angles that she paid no attention to the fact that most of them didn't compliment the actors or the sets.
https://video.twimg.com/tweet_video/E6zyfvtVIAEUUAM.mp4
Now I'm watching the making-of documentary, and goodness, Tom looks awful in postproduction compared to what he looked like on set.
Just like the director of photograpy, the director also tends to lose focus from time to time. She's not doing season 2, so I can only hope for the best.

[Panic]

I liked the Loki show a lot myself, and thought it was well-written and well-acted, but I DO feel SOME members of the audience would feel frustrated by the series. One British dude I found online was not so much disappointed for himself, but for his daughter (who LOVES Hiddleston):

"As family viewing, I found it strangely inaccessible; silly in a 'middle aged nerd' sci-fi kind of way (everybody's noticed the Dr Who, Hitchhikers vibes); but also serious and verbose with little of the humour, action and fun of the previous Marvel films that feature the character. I think the main reason I'm being such a negative nelly is that my daughter was anticipating this. She loves the first Avengers film, Guardians, Endgame and especially Thor Ragnarok- mainly for the zany antics, goofy humour and cool action scenes. She laughs uncontrollably at those and I had been looking forward to watching this with her for more of the same. I can't imagine her sitting still for this exposition dump of a show that's almost exclusively set up for future films, full of arcane comic references, and places greatest emphasis not on Loki but on a stroppy, serious side character.

Loki is just along for the ride in this. Barring a few moments where he takes momentary control, he's been like a feather in the wind. Captured, lost, recaptured, beaten, berated, scolded, bewildered. Not a God of Mischief, but a God of listening to exposition and following Sylvie around. Where’s the duplicitous throne seeker from Avengers? Or the charming, comedic cad we know and love from the later films? Where's the mischief?

Seems to me when you have a 'God of Mischief' in a series that heavily involves time travel (!) the possibilities for hilarious and imaginative shenanigans are almost endless. We could have him undermining crucial historical events, meeting famous figures from history, or interacting with other Avengers at earlier moments in time. What we got was fairly dreary to my eyes, but then I've never been a comic book reader so perhaps the more exciting references were lost on me."

I'm curious to see how folks interpret the Loki show depending on whether they're comic book fans or not. I have a vague understanding of the comics, so I can appreciate why the "geek/nerd" community loved it. But I think the lack of "fun" in this series might have turned off some folks who don't give a **** about the comics. I think Feige would be making a HUGE mistake to neglect the non-comic reading public by appealing to the comic book reading community too much. Kids have EVERY right to enjoy Hiddleston's Loki as much as the adults do. I fell in love with the Transformers when I was VERY young, and I think Marvel Studios should continue to appeal to that crowd for its future prosperity. Sure, I want Loki to grow, but I think this series smoothed away his moral wrinkles FAR too much and made him far too passive in my opinion.

My sister, who read my comics up until she was into her late teens, said she more or less enjoyed the series, but that every time that Tom Hiddleston wasn't on screen the show just lost her interest; and she's not actually a big Hiddleston fangirl or anything, she simply didn't find anyone else that interesting (except Alligator Loki!). Most of the comics references went over her head, and I'm not sure she remembered who Kang was.

I enjoyed the show (with caveats) up until the last episode, which really did feel like the main thing was to set up Kang for the MCU.

I didn't like that Loki was written like the writers had forgotten he's superhumanly strong, or that he lost that spark of mischief and cunning which is part of his appeal. I also felt Sylvie lacked those things, and I didn't feel that Loki and Sylvie had much chemistry, which was a pity as the show kept putting them together. However, overall I thought it was a fun ride, and I always find Hiddleston watchable.

But it wasn't 'supposed' to be about time travel, I think you were making an assumption that it would be about time travel, when, while it involved time travel, (they did travel to both the past and future) it was really more a story about Loki's character development, and the multiverse. That isn't the show's fault that you went in with a mistaken impression of what it would be.

I think Albert might be referring to the original pitch, which as I understand it was to have been a show about Loki traveling through time and having unexpected influences on characters throughout history.

[Yoruno]

I'm not sure Loki and Sylvie were supposed to have chemistry. They showed two people one of whom is only learing how to love, while the other still doesn't know how to be loved (which was initially Loki's problem in the main timeline).

[Panic]

I'm not sure Loki and Sylvie were supposed to have chemistry. They showed two people one of whom is only learing how to love, while the other still doesn't know how to be loved (which was initially Loki's problem in the main timeline).

I wasn't talking about romantic chemistry, I just meant that they are less interesting together on-screen than, say, Loki and Mobius.

[Yoruno]

Oh, I see. Actually, I don't like the way Sylvie was written and played. I realise she's an Apocalypse Mowgli concentrated on revenge, but this robs her of emotions and, basically, layers. I find all her interactions bland - with Loki, with Mobius, with Ravonna. They modelled Sylvie on A1 Loki, but she lacks his charisma.

[Panic]

Oh, I see. Actually, I don't like the way Sylvie was written and played. I realise she's an Apocalypse Mowgli concentrated on revenge, but this robs her of emotions and, basically, layers. I find all her interactions bland - with Loki, with Mobius, with Ravonna. They modelled Sylvie on A1 Loki, but she lacks his charisma.

I did feel the writing did the actress few favours. As soon as she goes from antagonist to protagonist (more or less, you get what I mean) she goes from being a calculating, unstoppable force to being someone who's pretty much just a brawler. And again, she lacks that mischievous spark which would have given her more than just that revenge persona. I kind of wonder at the choice of actress to play Sylvie - despite a long CV she's not someone I recognised, even though she's been in a few things I've watched. Considering most of the other actors playing main characters are better known than her, I wonder if Marvel had originally intended the character to be played by a bigger name that they just couldn't land?

[Albert1981]

But it wasn't 'supposed' to be about time travel, I think you were making an assumption that it would be about time travel, when, while it involved time travel, (they did travel to both the past and future) it was really more a story about Loki's character development, and the multiverse. That isn't the show's fault that you went in with a mistaken impression of what it would be.

And i don't think we are supposed to really understand the significance of Kang just yet. Did non comic fans understand the significance of the teaser shot of Thanos way back when? No, but they learned over the course of more movies. Same deal here.

It's not the show's fault, no. But I think it was a missed opportunity. I generally HATE multiverse stories (although I enjoyed Worlds Without End from the 80s G.I. Joe cartoon). I was fucking HYPED to see Loki have to do something with the famous D.B. Cooper case. It's a fascinating story, and I think it would have been fun if the MCU riffed on it a bit more. But he was D.B. Cooper just because he lost a "bet" and that was it. I think Loki would absolutely thrive getting caught up in famous historical events, meeting important figures in human history and exploring different cultures. Audiences would actually LEARN things about the real world which they otherwise wouldn't have (unless they watched PBS documentaries or something). I loved that Hiddleston got to have that amazing Latin monologue scene in episode 2 (it shows how worldly he is), but I got more Star Trek: Next Generation vibes with that terrible Pompeii set which sort of undermined it for me. Loki is one of my favorite (if not favorite) characters in the MCU, and I was just disappointed with how his show turned out. It was a great show, don't get me wrong, but I wanted more from it. I would have preferred to see Loki use more of his magic in FAR more creative ways (although I appreciate the restraint in which he did use it). I really like Sylvie (and Di Martino), but I just felt she was too angry most of the time. Revenge can be a great motivator, but there wasn't much else to her character. Loki had such an ambiguous relationship with his family, and that made his story so compelling in the movies. Audiences sort of loathed and sympathized with him at the same time. Not an easy feat for Hiddleston to pull off. To me, he's just a typical MCU "good guy" now, and that quite honestly kinda bores me. We'll see how Marvel Studios handles Kang. Maybe he'll be the next Thanos. It'll be hard for him to top that dude though.

[Albert1981]

My sister, who read my comics up until she was into her late teens, said she more or less enjoyed the series, but that every time that Tom Hiddleston wasn't on screen the show just lost her interest; and she's not actually a big Hiddleston fangirl or anything, she simply didn't find anyone else that interesting (except Alligator Loki!). Most of the comics references went over her head, and I'm not sure she remembered who Kang was.

I enjoyed the show (with caveats) up until the last episode, which really did feel like the main thing was to set up Kang for the MCU.

I didn't like that Loki was written like the writers had forgotten he's superhumanly strong, or that he lost that spark of mischief and cunning which is part of his appeal. I also felt Sylvie lacked those things, and I didn't feel that Loki and Sylvie had much chemistry, which was a pity as the show kept putting them together. However, overall I thought it was a fun ride, and I always find Hiddleston watchable.



I think Albert might be referring to the original pitch, which as I understand it was to have been a show about Loki traveling through time and having unexpected influences on characters throughout history.

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for expressing my sentiments better than I did.

[CosmiComic]

It's not the show's fault, no. But I think it was a missed opportunity. I generally HATE multiverse stories (although I enjoyed Worlds Without End from the 80s G.I. Joe cartoon). I was fucking HYPED to see Loki have to do something with the famous D.B. Cooper case. It's a fascinating story, and I think it would have been fun if the MCU riffed on it a bit more. But he was D.B. Cooper just because he lost a "bet" and that was it. I think Loki would absolutely thrive getting caught up in famous historical events, meeting important figures in human history and exploring different cultures. Audiences would actually LEARN things about the real world which they otherwise wouldn't have (unless they watched PBS documentaries or something). I loved that Hiddleston got to have that amazing Latin monologue scene in episode 2 (it shows how worldly he is), but I got more Star Trek: Next Generation vibes with that terrible Pompeii set which sort of undermined it for me. Loki is one of my favorite (if not favorite) characters in the MCU, and I was just disappointed with how his show turned out. It was a great show, don't get me wrong, but I wanted more from it. I would have preferred to see Loki use more of his magic in FAR more creative ways (although I appreciate the restraint in which he did use it). I really like Sylvie (and Di Martino), but I just felt she was too angry most of the time. Revenge can be a great motivator, but there wasn't much else to her character. Loki had such an ambiguous relationship with his family, and that made his story so compelling in the movies. Audiences sort of loathed and sympathized with him at the same time. Not an easy feat for Hiddleston to pull off. To me, he's just a typical MCU "good guy" now, and that quite honestly kinda bores me. We'll see how Marvel Studios handles Kang. Maybe he'll be the next Thanos. It'll be hard for him to top that dude though.

No offense, but you might be looking for something else here. This show went in a totally different direction than I expected, and that's good IMO. I didn't need it to be the MCU's early Doctor Who.

And how is he the typical MCU "good guy"? What does that even mean?