Loki Appreciation 2021

[juan678]

[CosmiComic]

It does matter, because it informs his better choices today rather than repeat his bad ones or specifically, his motivations.

Loki will never be an all round hero in a traditional sense. That's not the point of his character. He's on a different path than the one driven by jealousy, hatred and resentment. He sort of learning from his mistakes. Its not perfect or pretending the past didn't happen. No one ever let's him forget anyway. Its interesting watching him chart something different or even unique for himself, staying the course of not being bad for the sake of being bad because someone else's story demands it.

I guess when you put it like that.

But the problem is that the rest of comics are fairly static. So when the most prominent villains become heroes, who replaces them? Because everyone else still goes through the same motions, and comics seems fairly focused on heroes vs. villains.

[Raye]

My argument is that comics SHOULDN'T be static. It's BORING. It's time for the illusion of change to die. Let characters progress and develop, for good or ill. It won't always mean a face or heel turn, but it might in some cases. It's one of the reasons I have been enjoying the Thor books in particular the past while, and why the whole role-switch aspect intrigues me. Same with Hulk, or X-Men.

And villains are EASY to replace. As I said a couple pages back:

Good thing is villains are way easier to make than hero characters, and if one doesn't click, just try another one. And Cates has already set up Blake to fill that role, (I mean, he's gonna escape, obviously) and there is the Thanos tease still. But Thor has lots of baddies in reserve. They could bring in Enchantress, Hela, Tyr, Malekith, etc. So Loki's spot as big bad is pretty replaceable, really. The one thing that can't be replicated is their relationship as brothers, (tho Cates tried to kinda make that a thing with Blake) but antagonists in general are easy. I don't really see any need to revert Loki. Aaron did all of 'God of Thunder' without Loki appearing once, (he was appearing in Young Avengers and Agent of Asgard at that time) and it worked fine. I would prefer Loki appear as a supporting character in Thor's book (and vice versa if Loki has a solo) because I like that aspect of both of them, but I don't think it's necessary that Loki be the villain, specifically.

And it's not like most villains are turning face, anyway. A few here and there, though most end up as more of an anti-villain or anti-hero. But the door also can swing both ways, with heroes becoming villains. There will never be a shortage of villains. Thor stories will be just fine without Loki being a mustache twirling villain. But really a lot of the most memorable stories I've read recently haven't been villain focused. They may have featured villains at times, but the point is more about other things, and the villains are more just devices used towards that end. I mean the Loki TV show, while they were working towards uncovering the man behind the curtain, it wasn't really your standard hero vs villain story, and it worked fine.

It does matter, because it informs his better choices today rather than repeat his bad ones or specifically, his motivations.

Loki will never be an all round hero in a traditional sense. That's not the point of his character. He's on a different path than the one driven by jealousy, hatred and resentment. He sort of learning from his mistakes. Its not perfect or pretending the past didn't happen. No one ever let's him forget anyway. Its interesting watching him chart something different or even unique for himself, staying the course of not being bad for the sake of being bad because someone else's story demands it.

Yeah, and that kinda reminds me of another aspect that I enjoy, just the fact that he's fighting against letting other people define him. It's just an aspect of his character that I really like, and the fact that it involves him fighting against being defined as a bad guy, all the better. I mean, yes, i get that he's hurt people, and those people are not going to easily forget or forgive what he's done. But I also don't think that should mean he can't start doing good now, or that he should just continue to be defined as a simple villain forever because of those things.

OK, let me explain myself. In the series, they brought him to the same state of mind he had in IW. Heroic, humble, brave. The difference is that in IW he only stayed alive for five minutes, while in the series we see him like this for three episodes. But, as they weren't originally planning Season 2, or at least the majority of the creative team didn't know about it, that was supposed to be his final and ultimate state. But this is not enough for another six episodes, he needs to have more individual Loki vision to be an interesting protagonist. It happened in AoA, when he stepped away from the traditional hero's role. I just wonder, now that he brought the wolf to the door, do they really know what to do with him?

I don't see why they can not continue to develop him further in the show. The comics have come with lots of 'stopping points' that the creators were unsure of the next step, (end of JIM, end of YA, end of AoA, end of WotR. these were all points where the writer in question kinda brought him to a point where they were done, and left it to someone else. That Gillen ended up writing YA after JIM wasn't his intent, he has said that his intent with the ending of JIM was to leave things open for the next writer, while being unaware at the time it would be him) and it's worked out fine, so I don't see why this would be any different.

@ Mik: Loki as a character gives a glimpse of hope to people who aren't perfect, who have doubts, who question themselves. Actually, God of Outcasts was a good title.

Aloso this. I mean no i haven't done anything on the scale of what Loki has done, but I've screwed up sometimes, and I would not want to be forever defined by my worst mistakes, and have any attempt to improve be written off as pointless.


Also, those posts before were from last night, and i was tired. So besides being a bit disjointed, I forgot to mention the whole 'necessary' aspect. I don't like the idea that character development has to be justified with some kind of concrete reason, because that is an impossible task. No character NEEDS TO BE anything. It's all just about creating good stories, no character NEEDS to be a good guy, or a bad guy, or turn face or turn heel or anything else. The writers are just trying to make stories that are interesting to read, and for me, they've succeeded there with Loki. He is more interesting for me to read about than he is as a straight up villain, so as far as I am concerned, mission accomplished, I don't think the move has to be justified beyond that.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

OK, let me explain myself. In the series, they brought him to the same state of mind he had in IW. Heroic, humble, brave. The difference is that in IW he only stayed alive for five minutes, while in the series we see him like this for three episodes. But, as they weren't originally planning Season 2, or at least the majority of the creative team didn't know about it, that was supposed to be his final and ultimate state. But this is not enough for another six episodes, he needs to have more individual Loki vision to be an interesting protagonist. It happened in AoA, when he stepped away from the traditional hero's role. I just wonder, now that he brought the wolf to the door, do they really know what to do with him?
@ Mik: Loki as a character gives a glimpse of hope to people who aren't perfect, who have doubts, who question themselves. Actually, God of Outcasts was a good title.
@ Mr.Kenway: Unfortunately, the magazine article is in Russian. They mostly analyze how Episode 6 brings together the author (Kang) and a character who has always been given secondary roles (Loki) .

Ok that's a fair critique and I'm curious how season 2 handles it. I don't expect Dr.Strange 2 to really change him or affect him but I'm cool with it just being a romp. Having Loki hang out with Strange and Wanda are enough.

Granted you could use his appearance in Dr.Strange 2 to further his arc/ test his convictions.

[rpmaluki]

I guess when you put it like that.

But the problem is that the rest of comics are fairly static. So when the most prominent villains become heroes, who replaces them? Because everyone else still goes through the same motions, and comics seems fairly focused on heroes vs. villains.

As @Raye has said, Thor has no shortage of villains. Let them have the spotlight thus freeing Loki to do his thing. Thor is not struggling just because Loki stopped trying to kill him or usurp the Asgardian throne. We've seen that a million times over, repeating it one more time just exposes the creators' bankruptcy in creative storytelling. The same goes for the Avengers who have other villains to keep them busy for years to come. Aaron at least tried to spin the old story of the Avengers coming together because of Loki by doing so intentionally and with ulterior motives to help the good guys as opposed to being an outright villain. Ultimately, Loki as the mustache twirler is played out. Its been over a decade of comics moving away from that.

[CosmiComic]

My argument is that comics SHOULDN'T be static. It's BORING. It's time for the illusion of change to die. Let characters progress and develop, for good or ill. It won't always mean a face or heel turn, but it might in some cases. It's one of the reasons I have been enjoying the Thor books in particular the past while, and why the whole role-switch aspect intrigues me. Same with Hulk, or X-Men.

And villains are EASY to replace. As I said a couple pages back:

I don't want comics to be static either. I've often criticized that. It just seems odd to me if only some parts change while others don't.

As @Raye has said, Thor has no shortage of villains. Let them have the spotlight thus freeing Loki to do his thing. Thor is not struggling just because Loki stopped trying to kill him or usurp the Asgardian throne. We've seen that a million times over, repeating it one more time just exposes the creators' bankruptcy in creative storytelling. The same goes for the Avengers who have other villains to keep them busy for years to come. Aaron at least tried to spin the old story of the Avengers coming together because of Loki by doing so intentionally and with ulterior motives to help the good guys as opposed to being an outright villain. Ultimately, Loki as the mustache twirler is played out. Its been over a decade of comics moving away from that.

But will Marvel actually make more effort for those other villains to be in the spotlight?

And, do people only want Loki redeemed because they like him? Has he actually earned this in any way?

[rpmaluki]

I don't want comics to be static either. I've often criticized that. It just seems odd to me if only some parts change while others don't.



But will Marvel actually make more effort for those other villains to be in the spotlight?

And, do people only want Loki redeemed because they like him? Has he actually earned this in any way?

I like Loki because of Loki not because he was a villain for 50 years. I love him because he's not stagnant compared to the a majority of comic book characters who are bound and stuck, unable to grow and develop because creators can't think outside of the box they have determined. He's my favorite Marvel comic character at the moment it would be sad to regress him simply because they cannot creatively write other characters well enough to make their own mark in the tapestry that is the MU.

[Raye]

I don't want comics to be static either. I've often criticized that. It just seems odd to me if only some parts change while others don't.



But will Marvel actually make more effort for those other villains to be in the spotlight?

And, do people only want Loki redeemed because they like him? Has he actually earned this in any way?

Well you have to start somewhere. Just because some parts are static isn't an excuse to not make the start elsewhere to make things more dynamic. It's not something that's just going to change across the board overnight, you start with a few books and work from there. Some writers/editors still favor putting things back the way they found them, but more and more writers are more about moving things forward in more meaningful ways. And Thor is a good place to do that, in both the comics and movies. (as much as some old school fans may gripe) Thor has a pretty solid rogues gallery that won't really miss Loki turning face, and it's long had a way built in for Thor himself to progress as well, with becoming King of Asgard. (though the comics and movies went different directions with that. Which is fine, they don't necessarily have to match) He's been the heir to the throne for decades, so let's see what it's like to see him actually take the throne. (and have it stick for more than a couple arcs, it's happened on short term in the past or in flash forwards before)

And we will just have to wait and see if Marvel will, but by removing Loki from the role of the Big Bad, they kinda have to. Aaron pushed Malekith hard, and created his own villains like Gorr and Dario Agger, and that worked out pretty well. Now Cates hasn't had much to do with that yet, because he's still getting the pieces laid out, but he introduced the Black Winter, and had Donald Blake do a heel turn to take Loki's place, and I presume he will be doing more with that. And it's definitely likely more of Thor's more obscure villains will be brought to the forefront as well, or he can make new ones. It will be fine.

And at least in my case, you have that kinda backwards. I like Loki because he did a face turn. The story where it happened was interesting, and I just like characters that turn face, and enjoy following those kinds of stories. Jaime Lannister, Zuko, Spike, Angel etc. are all favorites of mine, but at least part of the reason I like them is because of the face turn. As rpmaluki said, a lot of that is that the turn means they are not stagnant, and have meaningful character development. Oh and heel turns too, but in a sort of different way, and you have to be more careful with them. I LOVED Breaking Bad. I wasn't one of the ones who was cheering Walt on to become a bad guy, but the heel turn WAS the story, and so in that way I enjoyed his slow burn heel turn. But like, I feel like I am one of the few who is enjoying Beast's slide down to the dark side, and I liked the Moira twist in X-Men.

[CosmiComic]

I like Loki because of Loki not because he was a villain for 50 years. I love him because he's not stagnant compared to the a majority of comic book characters who are bound and stuck unable to grow and develop because creators can't think outside of the box they have determined. He's my favorite Marvel comic character at the moment it would be sad to regress him simply because they cannot creatively write other characters well enough to make their own mark in the tapestry that is the MU.

Ok.

Well you have to start somewhere. Just because some parts are static isn't an excuse to not make the start elsewhere to make things more dynamic. It's not something that's just going to change across the board overnight, you start with a few books and work from there. Some writers/editors still favor putting things back the way they found them, but more and more writers are more about moving things forward in more meaningful ways. And Thor is a good place to do that, in both the comics and movies. (as much as some old school fans may gripe) Thor has a pretty solid rogues gallery that won't really miss Loki turning face, and it's long had a way built in for Thor himself to progress as well, with becoming King of Asgard. (though the comics and movies went different directions with that. Which is fine, they don't necessarily have to match) He's been the heir to the throne for decades, so let's see what it's like to see him actually take the throne. (and have it stick for more than a couple arcs, it's happened on short term in the past or in flash forwards before)

And we will just have to wait and see if Marvel will, but by removing Loki from the role of the Big Bad, they kinda have to. Aaron pushed Malekith hard, and created his own villains like Gorr and Dario Agger, and that worked out pretty well. Now Cates hasn't had much to do with that yet, because he's still getting the pieces laid out, but he introduced the Black Winter, and had Donald Blake do a heel turn to take Loki's place, and I presume he will be doing more with that. And it's definitely likely more of Thor's more obscure villains will be brought to the forefront as well, or he can make new ones. It will be fine.

And at least in my case, you have that kinda backwards. I like Loki because he did a face turn. The story where it happened was interesting, and I just like characters that turn face, and enjoy following those kinds of stories. Jaime Lannister, Zuko, Spike, Angel etc. are all favorites of mine, but at least part of the reason I like them is because of the face turn. As rpmaluki said, a lot of that is that the turn means they are not stagnant, and have meaningful character development.

But did Loki ever actually address all the villainous things he did and try to address them in a meaningful way? Or did he just say "I'm good now"? Because just being good now doesn't make one a hero. I'm just not into the idea of a villain just "becoming" a hero without trying to right some of the wrongs they did. Kinda like Magneto in the movies. Character development is good but it can't just be "I want this to happen now"

If comics really wanted to evolve, they'd actually address stuff like this in a consistent manner.

[rpmaluki]

Ok.



But did Loki ever actually address all the villainous things he did and try to address them in a meaningful way? Or did he just say "I'm good now"? Because just being good now doesn't make one a hero. I'm just not into the idea of a villain just "becoming" a hero without trying to right some of the wrongs they did. Kinda like Magneto in the movies. Character development is good but it can't just be "I want this to happen now"

If comics really wanted to evolve, they'd actually address stuff like this in a consistent manner.

AoA and I believe Aaron's run do cover that. He's not good simply because he says so. The end of AoA felt like a turning of the page but it wasn’t. He hadn't achieved much of anything and that's probably because there was a writer change. He still did terrible things because he felt he had no other option in his attempt to quell a worse situation but it didn't help things and he suffered the consequences thereof. I'm probably one of the few people who wasn't overly into kid Loki because I prefer Loki's history inform the character today compared to kid Loki who was basically a new person. I love that he can't wipe his history clean just because he wants to but that doesn't mean I want him to forever remain that one dimensional plot device. I love his struggle. Many in the MU may not buy his face turn, I'm not bothered, the fact that he's making an attempt to better himself, not for anyone else but for himself keeps me interested in his character. Is there an end point to this character development, probably not but it doesn't matter. The journey is always a lot more interesting than the destination and he's not always going to get it right, at least by conventional terms but that's not why I like him.

[CosmiComic]

AoA and I believe Aaron's run do cover that. He's not good simply because he says so. The end of AoA felt like a turning of the page but it wasn’t. He hadn't achieved much of anything and that's probably because there was a writer change. He still did terrible things because he felt he had no other option in his attempt to quell a worse situation but it didn't help things and he suffered the consequences thereof. I'm probably one of the few people who wasn't overly into kid Loki because I prefer Loki's history inform the character today compared to kid Loki who was basically a new person. I love that he can't wipe his history clean just because he wants to but that doesn't mean I want him to forever remain that one dimensional plot device. I love his struggle. Many in the MU may not buy his face turn, I'm not bothered, the fact that he's making an attempt to better himself, not for anyone else but for himself keeps me interested in his character. Is there an end point to this character development, probably not but it doesn't matter. The journey is always a lot more interesting than the destination and he's not always going to get it right, at least by conventional terms but that's not why I like him.

Ok, well, I don't think he was always one dimensional. But anyway, I feel like, if a villain wants to become a hero, they need to address their villainy and try to make reparations for it however they can. Otherwise, any villain can just say "I'm a hero now" and escape any kind of punishment

[rpmaluki]

Ok, well, I don't think he was always one dimensional. But anyway, I feel like, if a villain wants to become a hero, they need to address their villainy and try to make reparations for it however they can. Otherwise, any villain can just say "I'm a hero now" and escape any kind of punishment

I don't think it's possible for Loki to fully make reparation for his actions. This however, should not stop him from doing good today if he's able and willing.

As far as I am aware, he's not called himself a hero. Performing acts that are heroic doesn't necessarily mean he is a hero since that role in comic books is very binary and Loki doesn't fit the role.

[Yoruno]

Ok, well, I don't think he was always one dimensional. But anyway, I feel like, if a villain wants to become a hero, they need to address their villainy and try to make reparations for it however they can. Otherwise, any villain can just say "I'm a hero now" and escape any kind of punishment

He basically stopped the war by killing Laufey, found Thor's lost sister, brought the magic back to the world, killed Nightmare and freed people from his influence, restored the sun and helped it continue burning (although that was in the future). Still not good enough?

[Drops Of Venus]

Actually, I've recently become more sceptical of the show concept, and I think it's the first time in my life when I wish there were fewer tropes and less meta, because, unfortunately, I take the character too close to heart (yes, I know, bias is a bad thing when you discuss art). Basically MCU = Kang paving the way for the characters to achieve his goal, and it seems that the character development was secondary, more like a plot device. At least I got this impression after reading the director's interview: https://www.thewrap.com/loki-was-alw...director-says/
I've also read a very profound review in a big sci-fi magazine which concentrated on the tropes used in the show, and they actually came to the same conclusion as Ravonna and Kang: this story has never been Loki's, he's a flea on a dragon's back. The thing is I shouldn't complain because that's how the trickster archetype works, but they weren't going to transform Loki into a trickster. His role in Dr Strange2 might be similar to Cassandra's, he'll be warning everyone but nobody will believe him.
On the other hand, now that he has Season 2, it's no longer necessary for him to be a plot device and I really hope for something good.

I've been thinking about this and I came to the conclusion that yeah, this is the reason Loki ended up becoming my least favorite D+ Marvel show so far. With WV and TFATWS, it felt like the story was revolving around those characters. With Loki, it felt like he was revolving around the story. It's not that it's not a valid storytelling method, but it just didn't meet my expectations for a Loki show. When I first heard about it, I really imagined an epic dive on norse mythology and Loki's role in it, and there is so much they could borrow from the comics for it. But clearly they just wanted a multiverse show, and sprinkled some Loki elements on top because they knew he was a popular character. I think I probably would've felt less cheated if this was advertised as an event show (like they're doing with Secret Invasion and Armor Wars).

I think the season finale was specially frustrating to me. Some people complained about how rushed the WV and TFATWS finally were, but I honestly take that over how Loki ended. The exposition dump was just too much and it didn't really add anything we didn't know already. Because the He Who Remains explanation is pretty much exactly the same Miss Minutes had already given on episode 1, just changing who was behind the events. It really felt like the entire episode was just there to set up Marvel's next big bad, and I think that was disappointing considering how much the previous shows dedicated to the growth of the titular characters (Wanda becoming the Scarlet Witch, Sam becoming Captain America). I wanted that for Loki too instead of feeling like he was mostly a stepping stone for 3 upcoming movies.

I guess, ultimately, you could argue that maybe it's ok for the show to have been structured this way because we have another season confirmed, and boy, do I hope they make up for it. I'm praying that between What If...?, Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, Ant-Man all apparently coming out before season 2 of the Loki show, enough of the multiverse will have been explored that the show won't feel burdened with having to answer all of those questions again. We're confirmed to be getting a new director for season 2, so hopefully that means a quite literal different direction, and a season that can actually prioritize Loki as a character.

[Raye]

Ok, well, I don't think he was always one dimensional. But anyway, I feel like, if a villain wants to become a hero, they need to address their villainy and try to make reparations for it however they can. Otherwise, any villain can just say "I'm a hero now" and escape any kind of punishment

He died trying to make up for his mistakes. Twice. Yeah, he got better, but by doing so, as Yoruno says, he stopped the war. I think that shows there is more value in having a character trying to do good, than simply punishing them for the wrong they did. You add more good to the world by allowing them to help if they want. And any villain that says 'I'm a hero now' (which Loki never did btw, except during Axis, but that doesn't really count) has to back it up with actions, which Loki has done. It's not just a declaration he made and then did nothing about it. In addition to all that's listed above, he helped stop Gamora from trapping the enrtire universe inside the Soul Stone, then protected the Time stone from falling into the hands of some pretty bad people... And while fixing magic, Strange attacked him with the Void, which, unless it was stopped, could have destroyed the planet. And during that time, the spell needed was locked inside Zelma, Strange's assistant, and to remove it, Loki cold have just killed her, but didn't, he saved her life. An the spell involved taking all magic on the planet into himself, where it could have ended. ultimate power. But no, he put it right back into the planet, jumpstarting magic again, in time for Strange to use that magic during WotR to save thousands of lives.

I mean, yeah, he won't ever fully be able to make up for everything he's done, probably. but at least he's trying. It's not something he can fix with being punished or some grand gesture, and then the slate is wiped clean. It will take time, and as long as he's continuing to do good (though sometimes in unconventional ways. anti-hero, not straight up good guy) it's at least adding good to the world as he tries.