Loki Appreciation 2021

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Journey into Mystery is a fun read that feels like a combination of Artemis Fowl and the Sandman by Neil Gaiman.

I actually didn't read the last 4 issues because they weren't in the comixology sale. It was a crossover with the Thor comics at the time so maybe that's why? It also had a crossover with New Mutants. How was that?

I think I read Young Avengers back in the day but I didn't buy it in the sale. So I'll get around to it later....

I finished the first volume of Loki Agent of Asgard and enjoyed it. It's got a slick vibe with Ewing's brand of big ideas, References, canon welding etc.

These comics feel like time capsules but still hold up as stories in their own right.



This theorizes that kid loki is gonna get adapted and I'd be down for that. And when said kid actor inevitably grows up you gave Agent of Asgard .....

Maybe this time let him grow up naturally Marvel

PS. I'm enjoying Loki the TV show. It's pretty funny and helped me figure out what I was missing in my own stories. So thanks.

Episode 3 was fun but I wasn't in love with it. It's a fun character building episode but feels like a diversion we spent too much time on. But the next episode will persuade me.

I rather have Sylvie show us her past than talk about it. It's a problem shared with the Flag-Smashers. They needed a flashback episode like what the Netflix shows did for their villians. But with Sylvie I feel like less of an oversight and more intentional.

I'm still convinced Sylvie is Enchantress pretending to be Loki but she also could be an amalgam of both characters. The MCU tends to splice their villians more than their heroes so it's possible.

The movies squandered the Asgardians so I'm hoping this show could use those characters again.

[Raye]

oh, you gotta get those final issues! those final 4 change it from a comedy to a tragedy, which is kind of a spoiler but... that video spoiled it anyway. But the buildup makes it sad. Like i know what's going to happen but when i re-read it, still sad. That final issue is a keystone in Loki's story.

And yeah, I agree with that video, and his reasoning, Kid Loki would be the perfect way to re-incorporate Loki into the main MCU, and we can keep Tom Hiddleston ovcer on Disney Plus, win win!

If they do age him up after a while though, I think Timothée Chalamet (Dune guy) would be a PERFECT Loki. But yeah we need some serious time with Kid Loki as a real kid too.

and Agent of Asgard is great, i just didn't like the very end as much, it was still good, but some parts of the status quo it set up just didn't sit too well with me, because... well, i won't spoil it. I think Al Ewing and I disagree about some philosophy stuff, basically. But it got mostly undone like 2 issues later anyway.

[jwatson]

I am just loving this show. So far the Loki show is the best one out of all the marvel shows. Though Wandavision was extremely strong i felt it fit more in a binge format but with Loki i feel they finally got the weekly release format right.

[Yoruno]

oh, you gotta get those final issues! those final 4 change it from a comedy to a tragedy, which is kind of a spoiler but... that video spoiled it anyway. But the buildup makes it sad. Like i know what's going to happen but when i re-read it, still sad. That final issue is a keystone in Loki's story.

And yeah, I agree with that video, and his reasoning, Kid Loki would be the perfect way to re-incorporate Loki into the main MCU, and we can keep Tom Hiddleston ovcer on Disney Plus, win win!

If they do age him up after a while though, I think Timothée Chalamet (Dune guy) would be a PERFECT Loki. But yeah we need some serious time with Kid Loki as a real kid too.

and Agent of Asgard is great, i just didn't like the very end as much, it was still good, but some parts of the status quo it set up just didn't sit too well with me, because... well, i won't spoil it. I think Al Ewing and I disagree about some philosophy stuff, basically. But it got mostly undone like 2 issues later anyway.

I'm really curious to find out your point of view! Maybe you could post it as a spoiler? (How do you hide spoilers here, BTW, I don't see the icon?)
A funny but unnecessary detail: the thing I totally dislike in AoA is its official soundtrack on Spotify! I'm OK with YA soundtrack (I think it was the one that started the tradition, although it wasn't on Spotify, just a list of songs on the last page), I love Loki 2019 soundtrack through and through, but I can't find a single song I like in AoA soundtrack, although it's big, published in several parts.

[Raye]

yeah i dunno why they don't have a button for spoiler tags, but it's (spoil)stuff(/spoil) but with square brackets

spoilers:

Ok, so basically my trouble with it is the dramatic personality shift and loss of memories. I thought the whole 'God of Stories' thing was great on a conceptual level, reframing lies as stories was a great way to try to frame his role in a more positive light, and could have been a positive step forward for Loki. BUT... the rest of it.... I am in this to watch Loki's character development journey, Kid Loki was great and all, but that doesn't mean I want to essentially get a brand new character every couple years, I want to watch a development over time, not just dramatic shifts from one thing to another. And I though i do prefer Loki to keep trying to be better, I think the memories he carries with him of his bad past really add to the character and his motivations, so to take those memories away and have them no longer contribute to his character felt like a loss to me. And just the character itself it felt like... generic trickster archetype rather than a full character, which I wasn't fond of. It felt like Loki had become less complex and interesting with the change. Also, i really hate bare feet. Now, for the philosophy side of things, I also truly believe people can change, some will have it harder than others due to mental health or circumstances etc. and not everyone will want to, but on a basic level, I do believe we are not just one thing, forever. That change may not always be positive, but it can be. I also don't believe that in doing so, you have to completely lose who you are, I think past experiences still contribute, even if you end up changing in terms of how you treat people, or the things you believe, those past experiences still inform who you are. But the way that was set up, it felt like Ewing was saying people can't change just by trying to be better, or learning new things, they have to completely separate themselves from their past and just like, pretend it no longer counts. That the past is an anchor weighing people down rather than serving as lessons they can learn from, which I don't agree with. I get disassociating with toxic people and stuff, but one person you can not disassociate with is yourself, and your past. I think that's something you have to come to terms with as always being a part of you. So just erasing everything that made Loki Loki felt wrong to me.

end of spoilers

I don't think i listened to the agent of Asgard playlist. I liked the newer one mostly, but.... I am a metalhead, and also just... weird stuff. so playlists are often a bit poppy for my tastes, so I make my own playlists. That reminds me, i need to update the current one for the recent issues. but this is it so far, https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...l6bNYuxpaJ68vx it kinda goes from the end of WotR to the beginning of the Donald Blake stuff. Like i said, it's heavy on... well, it's just heavy. and some picks may only make sense to me heh

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I finished Agent of Asgard today. If Journey to Mystery took after Artemis Fowl, then Agent of Asgard is like Doctor Who. Verity even feels like classic companion character. Volume 3 has him go through a regeneration like experience.

Al ewing even wrote Doctor Who around the same time. It all fits together .

It's probably not that intentional and I'm just digging into my Doctor Who fandom.....

I just saw Loki's scrambled memory as temporary than permanent. So I saw him walking out of this run with the same memories but less the obsessive need to redeem himself or be loved by others.

The God of lies is doomed to fail. How the God of stories turns out is anyone's guess.

Right now I'd say he's an antihero or an uneasy ally of Thor's. I think he was king of the Frost Giants.

[Raye]

Heh yeah it was pretty Dr Who-ish

And yeah the scrambled memory did end up being temporary and that's how i see it now, he was just suffering a bit of mind fuckery from the end of the universe and all, and then got better. But I do think Ewing probably INTENDED it to be permanent, (and is now maybe kind of disappointed it never stuck, and that may be one of the reasons he's actively avoided writing Loki since?) and while I did have some issues with Aaron's handling of Loki, I am glad he walked that shift in personality and the erased memories back. I was also initially disappointed the 'God of Stories' thing was undone during Aaron's run, (like i said, was completely cool with that aspect on a conceptual level) but now that i see where he was going with that, and how he set up the whole 'roles' thing that Cates is now using, i can understand why he did that.

But yeah, uh, God of Stories never really went anywhere. Loki realized he was still the God of Lies, and that he couldn't just declare a new role for himself. He tried to fill the role in ways that were helpful rather than harmful, but ultimately he was still trapped in the God of Lies role by fate, and this made him quite depressed, to the point where he basically committed suicide. He got better, though, and I think it was at that moment that he actually broke free of his role and he has been drifting without one ever since. He did officially pass on the role to Donald Blake in the latest issue of Thor, but honestly i think he had already escaped it, though passing the role on to Blake still probably needed to be done.

Ok this is kind of complicated and it hasn't been laid out concretely, you kind of have to put the puzzle pieces together over the course of Aaron's run as well as Cates so far, and they both are building on some things from JIM and Agent of Asgard, BUT... how it seems to work is that there is sort of an in-universe narrative that governs the fates of the Asgardians. Like the fates the Norns spin take a narrative form. 'The gods are creatures of story' and all that, and related to how Kid Loki could rewrite Cul's story, and the Teller etc. and why a God of Stories could end up being kind of absurdly powerful. What Aaron introduced, but does line up really well with previous stories, was that the story is cyclical, (there was the Ragnarok cycle before that, but it was like the same exact characters facing repeated Ragnarok events rather than the same roles, filled by different people. So it's been modified.) and the roles change hands. And right now we are in a transition to a new cycle, with roles changing hands left and right. So first there was Bor, then Odin and now Thor in the King role. There was Cul then Loki then Blake in the Villain role, and so on. Jane is now a Valkyrie, Sif's taken Heimdall's place, Balder is the Norn King etc. And the big issue during Cates' run is that Thor was trying to fill the King role AND his old role, the hero/protector role that was filled by Sigurd, then Thor and now.... ??? Thor has until now refused to give it up, so it's remained unfilled.

The big thing i am getting at relating to Loki though is that though I think it does get updated each time to better reflect the times, and specific details may change, the narrative and these roles are pre-defined, you can't just make up a new one and insert it into the story, so 'God of Stories' was a clever attempt to break free and worth a shot, but ultimately it wasn't going to work. The story is starting over, and the story does not include a 'God of Stories' role, so Loki is without a role right now, after passing his role on to Blake.

Which is why I am so excited about the recent solicit. Thor has finally realized he can't play both roles at once, has chosen to focus on being King, and I think it's Loki that will fill Thor's old role. I know a lot of people think this is ridiculous, but I think it fits. I think it's Loki that steals Mjolnir from the Avengers and goes out hero-ing. though I am getting the impression that the enchantment still has not been fixed, which means that a lot of people will not think Loki is fit for the role, more than likely. He's going to have to, you know, prove he's worthy.

[Drops Of Venus]

Well, I was kinda dancing around saying this part out loud until now because it could have been a touchy subject... but.... I think this show is extremely well equipped to deal with trans oppression, because it kinda already is. One of it's central themes right from the very first episode is a pretty cutting critique of religion, with the TVA filling the role of the church. Specifically, in addition to all the fate stuff, one of the themes is about how the church can be a barrier to people being their authentic selves. It is specifically targeting dogmatic, fundamentalist belief that dictates your actions and beliefs, thinks a higher power has a plan for everything, and can dictate right or wrong actions. This can make people with good intent do some pretty awful things, because they believe it is working towards an ideal eternal reward and 'the plan'. "No one bad is ever truly bad and no one good is ever truly good." and all that. The TVA genuinely believe themselves to be a force for good, and have placed themselves in a position of authority to achieve that end. The people in the rank and file are, I am sure, not bad people, they believe they are working towards a beautiful end goal that they find comforting, and truly believe is for the good of the universe. The TVA believes, because of what they've been told by the Time Keepers, (God, which may not even exist, or at least not in the way they think) that preserving the sacred timeline (and of course the use of the word 'sacred' is no accident) is more important than anything else, they are creating their eternal reward by doing so, and feel like they are doing something good because from their view, it will benefit everyone. Their determination of right and wrong is all skewed towards that end, and they end up punishing people for neutral or good actions. Like, saving a person's life could get you hauled in. If Sylvie and Loki had succeeded in launching the ark that would have broken the timeline, and they would have been arrested. For saving thousands if not millions of lives. Or just living your life as your authentic self, in Sylvie's case. From the TVA's perspective, they are not arresting Sylvie 'for wanting to be a girl', they are arresting her because they believe that does not fit their 'sacred timeline' and thus must be stamped out, for the good of the universe. From their perspective, they are the good guys, even though from outside, this seems like an evil act. And of course Sylvie won't see it as a good thing.

And I think Disney+ has a lot more freedom to deal with these subjects, because they don't have to worry about selling tickets to individual movies/shows, they are selling subscriptions, so foreign markets lose a LOT of their power wen it comes to dictating content. Disney can say to them, that they can just choose to not carry a particular show/movie and Disney doesn't lose much in that scenario, becuase people will still probably find something that makes them want to subscribe. Like Disney didn't back down about Out at all when Russia got all mad about it. From what I can tell, they just ignored it. It's still there on the service in North America and Europe, though it may not appear on the Russian version specifically when that launches. It will be sad if China and/or Russia blocks the release of Loki in their particular versions of the service, but they don't have the power to do more than that, unlike with the movies where the ticket sales can cause Disney to capitulate to such demands more easily. (and China already bans depictions of time travel, so Loki was fucked there from the beginning, even ignoring all the LGBTQ themes)

As for the fluid thing... I mean, if they are using the comics as a basis, then Loki is fluid..... but leans quite heavily towards male most of the time. I have said this about the comics depiction as well, but I think it would be a mistake to have Loki begin to shift genders more often, or go by neutral pronouns etc. because that ignores the fact that, particularly for something like this, where there is a spectrum and lots of different ways to be genderfluid, by going for a depiction that's kinda in the middle, more of a 50/50 split, it's invalidating people who are more on the edges of the spectrum, like Loki is. They deserve representation too. Just saying, they are in a bit of a delicate situation here, because there are lots of ways to be genderfluid, and that includes people like Loki who are one gender like 90% of the time, and seems to prefer male pronouns except when specifically in female form, and he's not 'doing it wrong' or 'not being fluiid enough' because of that, and people that argue that are devaluing the experiences of people who are more like Loki in terms of how they view things in terms of gender.

Like yeah, i get that for it to really count it has to be shown on screen at some point, like it has been in the comics, and kind of related, this is also why i am still frustrated they haven't given him a canon boyfriend yet in the comics, it kinda needs to show at least one for it to really 'count' even though lots of bi/pan people in real life do only have the experience of dating the opposite gender, and they are still valid, but fiction... kinda needs something to happen for it to count. Just saying, if they are going to be true to the depiction in the comics, then they can't just have Loki begin flipping genders essentially at random, because that's not how it is in the comics, it has to be a bit more nuanced.

By equipped I was really talking more about Disney and their representation than the creative team of Loki. I don't doubt that they are capable and yeah, I recognize that Disney+ probably can get away with more stuff, but I just can't help but feel uncertain. They JUST got their foot out the door with Loki being bi; I think going from that straight to trans representation is definitely a big step. And Disney usually takes baby steps with that kind of stuff. But we'll see.

I don't need Loki to be switching genders all the time, and I get why he chooses to present as male most of the time. It's the character's most recognizable form, so... yeah, it's natural that it's the form that most writers/artists will choose. I don't mind if it's portrayed just like it is in the comics, but the thing is, so far... it hasn't been portrayed like the comics at all. Besides the ''fluid'' nod on his file, Loki hasn't talked about his gender under any circumstance, not even when he met another version of himself who is female. I just feel like they could've, at least, thrown a comment there in which he acknowledged his female form and is not really weirded out by it because it's a natural part of himself. But with the show treating the two characters as essentially different individuals, it's not clear if Sylvie's gender is something our Loki identifies with on any level. I just think they should in the very least acknowledge it just like they acknowledged his bisexuality; they didn't have to show him kissing a girl and a guy to get the point across, you know?

And yeah, I agree with that video, and his reasoning, Kid Loki would be the perfect way to re-incorporate Loki into the main MCU, and we can keep Tom Hiddleston ovcer on Disney Plus, win win!

If they do age him up after a while though, I think Timothée Chalamet (Dune guy) would be a PERFECT Loki. But yeah we need some serious time with Kid Loki as a real kid too.

I actually hope they don't age up Kid Loki in the MCU if they have him. I think it would be a good opportunity to do something the comics couldn't do because of their need to rush back to the status quo: give us a child Loki that actually gets to age naturally, and we get to see him growing and changing slowly over time until he becomes his own person. That is one change from the comics that I actually think could be really positive and give an MCU Kid Loki a lot more depth.

[Fanto.mx]

spoilers:

it's possible, and could give an out for the predicament they are in, if it is all fake. though I owuld find it kinda disappointing if none of that rally counted, tbh.

end of spoilers

And though not shown there, in the Marvel Previews, it is shown, though tiny, that Loki will have a variant cover:



So it sounds like rather than changing the enchantment on Mjolnir, he just... leaves it under watch of the Avengers, (out of sight out of mind i guess) telling them to not let anyone take it? But then someone evades detection of the Avengers, and takes it, shocker. Gee, I wonder who could know about that whole situation, cus he was on the cover for the previous issue, and has already picked up Mjolnir twice during Cates' run so knows the enchantment is busted, and may want to and have the ability to sneak into Avengers Mountain undetected. We can't yet be at the Thanos and Infinity Gems thing, he's still dead, and the Infinity Gems are still bound to people, so that's still way off in the future. But that does still remain a possibility if the enchantment is not fixed, so though it appears it hasn't happened yet, i do think that still has to come, Thor has to make a new enchantment, but not for himself, to prevent that bad future.

I really think this is finally heading the way we've been watching for for...three years?

2021-06-27.jpg

This is a story for another time. I think it's time.

Or Kitty Pryde is finally going to take Mjolnir for her own, becoming the Goddess of Ghost Pirates.

I finished my Journey into Mystery with Kid Loki.

Now I'm digging into the Agent Loki of Asgard comics .

Yes! It's the best Loki story I've ever read.

[Raye]

right, even if you ignore everything else, that page was such overt foreshadowing... But there's more than just that page, too. This has been building since the end of WotR, and Loki's speed run of the Hero's Journey inside Laufey. I think he already is in the role, just, no one, including him, has quite realized it yet. I don't think he actually needed to do what he did with Blake last issue, but that may have been more for the reader's benefit, to help make it extra clear that Loki was no longer in that role. (I think they could have done it in a better way though)

And Thor has made some progress, in that he's finally realized that he can't do both roles at the same time, but he seems to have given the hammer to the Avengers simply to keep it away from him, and to keep it out of anyone elses hands. Not for them to USE, or give to someone else in order to take his place. So though he has made some progress, he's still not quite ready to fully give up the role, instead taking 'if i can't fill the role, no one can' stance... so... still baby steps. But of the remaining characters with no role, Loki is the best equipped to break into Avengers Mountain undetected, and though his recent solo book is maybe kinda shaky on how much it counts, he DID make that deal with Iron Man, where he could join the Avengers if he came to them hammer in hand. Now, at that time, the hammer wasn't broken, or at least they didn't know it was. And now they do know the enchantment is busted, so the Avengers probably won't honor that deal, but if Loki can prove himself... maybe. But I bet most characters will be pretty skeptical of his intentions, for good reason. Some may even suspect he's causing the problems mentioned, rather than responding to them. I hope that's not the case though.

By equipped I was really talking more about Disney and their representation than the creative team of Loki. I don't doubt that they are capable and yeah, I recognize that Disney+ probably can get away with more stuff, but I just can't help but feel uncertain. They JUST got their foot out the door with Loki being bi; I think going from that straight to trans representation is definitely a big step. And Disney usually takes baby steps with that kind of stuff. But we'll see.

ah, yeah, though their response to the Out thing with Russa (by which I mean, none, they didn't attempt to placate them at all) was encocouraging. I know most of their 'representation' in their bigger movies, Marvel and Star Wars etc has usually been blink and miss it scenes that can easily be edited out, but still. the trans angle does fit from what we've seen... though I saw some speculation today that she may actually be Hela, and that it was Loki that got locked away, which might also fit, but I dunno that doesn't explain a name change.

I don't need Loki to be switching genders all the time, and I get why he chooses to present as male most of the time. It's the character's most recognizable form, so... yeah, it's natural that it's the form that most writers/artists will choose. I don't mind if it's portrayed just like it is in the comics, but the thing is, so far... it hasn't been portrayed like the comics at all. Besides the ''fluid'' nod on his file, Loki hasn't talked about his gender under any circumstance, not even when he met another version of himself who is female. I just feel like they could've, at least, thrown a comment there in which he acknowledged his female form and is not really weirded out by it because it's a natural part of himself. But with the show treating the two characters as essentially different individuals, it's not clear if Sylvie's gender is something our Loki identifies with on any level. I just think they should in the very least acknowledge it just like they acknowledged his bisexuality; they didn't have to show him kissing a girl and a guy to get the point across, you know?

sorry, that wasn't directed at you specifically, I just have seen people before thinking Loki needs to flip more often in order for it to be 'done right' so i kinda have had that in the back of my head i guess. But I was just saying, if they do acknowledge it, it kind of needs the right setup, because of how it is depicted in the comics, so they may just be working towards the right time.

I actually hope they don't age up Kid Loki in the MCU if they have him. I think it would be a good opportunity to do something the comics couldn't do because of their need to rush back to the status quo: give us a child Loki that actually gets to age naturally, and we get to see him growing and changing slowly over time until he becomes his own person. That is one change from the comics that I actually think could be really positive and give an MCU Kid Loki a lot more depth.

If it is Kid Loki without the Ikol takeover I guess he would not actually have any desire to speed up the aging process, because he would not have the whole adult mind in a child's body situation going on. I just think Chalmet would be a good fit for 'modern' Loki, if they were looking to replace Hiddleston int he main MCU timeline, if they did go that route. but I would not complain about them sticking with Kid Loki either.

[Fanto.mx]

right, even if you ignore everything else, that page was such overt foreshadowing... But there's more than just that page, too. This has been building since the end of WotR, and Loki's speed run of the Hero's Journey inside Laufey. I think he already is in the role, just, no one, including him, has quite realized it yet. I don't think he actually needed to do what he did with Blake last issue, but that may have been more for the reader's benefit, to help make it extra clear that Loki was no longer in that role. (I think they could have done it in a better way though)

And Thor has made some progress, in that he's finally realized that he can't do both roles at the same time, but he seems to have given the hammer to the Avengers simply to keep it away from him, and to keep it out of anyone elses hands. Not for them to USE, or give to someone else in order to take his place. So though he has made some progress, he's still not quite ready to fully give up the role, instead taking 'if i can't fill the role, no one can' stance... so... still baby steps. But of the remaining characters with no role, Loki is the best equipped to break into Avengers Mountain undetected, and though his recent solo book is maybe kinda shaky on how much it counts, he DID make that deal with Iron Man, where he could join the Avengers if he came to them hammer in hand. Now, at that time, the hammer wasn't broken, or at least they didn't know it was. And now they do know the enchantment is busted, so the Avengers probably won't honor that deal, but if Loki can prove himself... maybe. But I bet most characters will be pretty skeptical of his intentions, for good reason. Some may even suspect he's causing the problems mentioned, rather than responding to them. I hope that's not the case though.

I think Thor will become a whole lot more like Odin in the short term, which would essentially make him a villain. The hitch in the giddyup there is that there's almost certainly a desire to tell Thor's story, not Loki's, so even if Loki becomes The Protector, I have to wonder how much space he will get for his story.

If it is Kid Loki without the Ikol takeover I guess he would not actually have any desire to speed up the aging process, because he would not have the whole adult mind in a child's body situation going on. I just think Chalmet would be a good fit for 'modern' Loki, if they were looking to replace Hiddleston int he main MCU timeline, if they did go that route. but I would not complain about them sticking with Kid Loki either.

In the MCU, the Ikol role would have to be a variant, right? The main Loki has essentially already gone through the "I can be good, if tricksy" arc, so they would need to go further with all of this in order to make it more than a recast. But there's certainly room for that in the already-announced three seasons of the Loki show.

New mid-season trailer dropped.



Not a whole lot new there, but some interesting stuff. For example, is Loki fighting an invisible enemy with a sword near the end?

Also, we see the USS Eldridge drop from the sky. It was one of the Philadelphia Experiment ships: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Eldridge

BUT b3f3e98d4bd7a4c269f3c04c18e403a1.jpg

The Eldridge looks a whole lot like it's falling out of a Bifrost, rather than a time door, so shenanigans are definitely afoot. And this means some part of this almost definitely takes place in 1943.

[Raye]

I think Thor will become a whole lot more like Odin in the short term, which would essentially make him a villain. The hitch in the giddyup there is that there's almost certainly a desire to tell Thor's story, not Loki's, so even if Loki becomes The Protector, I have to wonder how much space he will get for his story.

I think Thor will find his own way of doing things, and end up being a good king, but... he's proven himself to be slow to adapt, so it may take a while.

But yeah the situation is almost certainly going to focus on Thor, i mean, it IS his book, so it presents kind of two problems, one, a lot of Thor fans want the same formula he had before, where he went and did the superhero thing, punch bad guys and all, not a political drama. So Cates is going to have to do a really good job in order to convince people this new direction is interesting and good for Thor. and as you say, it won't leave a lot of room to focus on Loki. So that may have to be done elsewhere, either in a solo book (which may not be launched for a few months after this, to avoid spoilers) and/or in Avengers. I am hoping for a solo, obviously.

In the MCU, the Ikol role would have to be a variant, right? The main Loki has essentially already gone through the "I can be good, if tricksy" arc, so they would need to go further with all of this in order to make it more than a recast. But there's certainly room for that in the already-announced three seasons of the Loki show.

Yeah, there is no real way to set up an Ikol situation, now that i think of it... unless the spirit of the Loki that was killed is still out there, kinda prepping for the whole Ikol thing, and then they plop Kid Loki variant into the main MCU timeline, then things could go like in JIM? so yeah Kid Loki just.... being a kid, may be the only way to go.

New mid-season trailer dropped.



Not a whole lot new there, but some interesting stuff. For example, is Loki fighting an invisible enemy with a sword near the end?

I think that's a shot we've seen before where he's making a sword all light on fire, I am really not sure what's up with him having a flaming sword.

I really like that Mobius is still trying to get through to Loki and push him to be better, even after they have the variant they needed Loki's help tracking down in custody, so he technically doesn't NEED to, they could just reset him and be done with it. But Mobius and broken things.

Also, we see the USS Eldridge drop from the sky. It was one of the Philadelphia Experiment ships: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Eldridge

BUT b3f3e98d4bd7a4c269f3c04c18e403a1.jpg

The Eldridge looks a whole lot like it's falling out of a Bifrost, rather than a time door, so shenanigans are definitely afoot. And this means some part of this almost definitely takes place in 1943.

oh wow, good eye! So i guess in the context of the show, the ship really DOES disappear! but through time, or something, not a cloaking device. huh, wonder what all is up with that.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Didn't Loki have a solo or was it cut short by the quarantine?

I thought of Kid Loki as a 12 year old. So letting him grow up to be Agent Loki is a big time investment. That's 2 or 3 phases right there. But I don't think the MCU needs to rush and age him up. Because I don't think the MCU needs him as much anymore. They have a bunch of new franchises with new villians in the spotlight.

So they could afford to keep him on the backburner and experiment with him. He could be a Young Avenger before he is an Agent. Maybe he burns those bridges along the way, becoming the friend no one likes?

I thought about him hanging out with Sprite from the Eternals. A former villian turned kid teams up with a villian stuck as a kid.

[Raye]

He did, and yes it was cut short, but not by the quarantine, it got cancelled before any of that started. Based on what happened in the book, the themes it was exploring, and some things Kibblesmith said on twitter, my impression is that it was cancelled because it would have conflicted with the story Cates wanted to tell with Thor. I don't remember the exact wording, but Kibblesmith said something on twitter about how the ideas he had for the book ended up being 'too good' or something like that, and in context... yeah, he and Cates probably hit on the same basic ideas, and Cates and Thor took priority, so Loki was cancelled. In the cancelled solo, it had Loki wrestling with the conflicts of wanting to go to Midgard and do stuff there, and trying to be a good guy, (though in somewhat.... let's say 'unconventional' ways) and it was very similar to what Thor is going through now as King of Asgard, where trying to be king and be a hero at the same time is not working. So the characters are flipped, but same idea, and I can see how they couldn't both work at the same time. But that's not all, there was a glimpse of the future, where Loki has Mjolnir and has to fight off an Evil Thor (who got taken over by Ultron, so more like Loki had to fight Ultron with Thor's powers) Also, some foreshadowing with the first issue's cover AND a discussion Loki had with Iron Man, where Loki wanted to join the Avengers, and Iron Man told him he could do so only if Loki came to him with Mjolnir in hand and Loki was like 'fine, deal'. That all pointed to Loki getting Mjolnir, and taking Thor's place. He also made a deal with some cosmic entities, the Children of Eternity, break his fate and no longer be the 'God of Lies' and instead be the hero. The series never got to that place, but it was clearly working towards that before it got the ax. So I think that may have been another conflict that led to the cancellation, because again, Cates is doing the same basic thing, strongly hinting at Loki getting the hammer and taking Thor's place. This is all why it's a bit iffy on how much of the recent solo actually counts, it may be that Marvel is trying to kinda quietly brush it under the rug, so Cates' story can just go forward without having to worry about what happened in Loki's book. Though, Valkyrie also had some conflicting ideas, like it set up Tyr rather than Blake to be the new God of Lies, but that was allowed to continue, kinda, in the form of a couple miniseries, but maybe Aaron just has more clout.

Anyway, that's to say I think because of the likely circumstances surrounding the cancellation, it's not a stretch to think they may try again, but with the writer being fully aware of Cates' plans and working with them rather than against them.

And the MCU is clearly building towards a Young Avengers.... something. It's set up Billy and Tommy in Wandavision (they got un-made, but they can always be re-made in Dr Strange) America Chavez in Dr Straange, got Cassie over in Ant-Man, Kate Bishop in Hawkeye, and you could throw in some other characters that weren't in the YA, but could fit, like Ms Marvel, or Iron Man's daughter. So Kid Loki would fit right in with that. The one concern is how fast do Asgardians (well, frost giant technically, but he apparently aged at the same rate as Thor in the movies) age? They live to be very old, way older than humans, so are their childhoods stretched out? That may pose a problem for allowing Kid Loki ti age up naturally.

[Yoruno]

I guess you've read this, but, anyway, I found this extract from Cates' interview quite interesting:

The new take on this character that Kieron [Gillen] developed is that he lulls you into a false sense of security where you as the reader believe Loki. So sometimes what ends up happening now is he ends up lying to you, and betraying you the reader. He becomes much more personal as opposed to this grand bad guy who has all these schemes about superheroes and stuff. So you fall into that same trap that Thor and everyone else has fallen into of forgiving, trusting, and being betrayed over, and over again. To me, that's who Loki is.

If the writers insist that Loki can't (and doesn't want to) change, why do we expect a different approach from the readers?