Loki Appreciation 2021

[Yoruno]

I've got a question regarding the show. Did your local fandom accept it well? I'm asking this because here where I live the fandom has split in two, with lots of people thinking Loki was OOC. They hoped to see Loki "shining and victorious", and the concept of humility as something necessary for a god/hero seems totally alien to them. Probably it's not even part of the local culture (to my deepest regret).

[rpmaluki]

I think Loki's always been humbled by his circumstances whether as a villain or something else. The difference is his reaction. As a villain, he took it in stride because of his mindset, forever seeing himself above people/things so the experience almost has no impact on him. It's when he's in flux between being a villain and exploring something quite different that being humbled is ... humbling for him. So when he gets knocked down, he feels it and as a reader/viewer we get to see its effect on him. People will either accept it or reject it based on whether they want character growth to take place. Regarding the show, I will say that they moved at the speed of light getting him from "Avengers" mode Loki to a Loki that wan't interested in world domination or an equivalent of that wherever the TVA is located. It did feel jarring because I expected for him to still have those Thor 1/Avengers tendencies of seeing himself as cunning, cleverer, better and most equipped to lead/take over. I'd say President Loki felt the most familiar throughout the show.

[juan678]

[Raye]

Heh, nice! I like that they kinda kicked him out towards the end, cus he's a protagonist now.

I think Loki's always been humbled by his circumstances whether as a villain or something else. The difference is his reaction. As a villain, he took it in stride because of his mindset, forever seeing himself above people/things so the experience almost has no impact on him. It's when he's in flux between being a villain and exploring something quite different that being humbled is ... humbling for him. So when he gets knocked down, he feels it and as a reader/viewer we get to see its effect on him. People will either accept it or reject it based on whether they want character growth to take place. Regarding the show, I will say that they moved at the speed of light getting him from "Avengers" mode Loki to a Loki that wan't interested in world domination or an equivalent of that wherever the TVA is located. It did feel jarring because I expected for him to still have those Thor 1/Avengers tendencies of seeing himself as cunning, cleverer, better and most equipped to lead/take over. I'd say President Loki felt the most familiar throughout the show.

Yeah, this pretty much mirrors my thoughts. I think he wasn't exactly humbled before the face turn (in both comics and MCU) but he was in situations where it would have humbled most other people.... if he wasn't a toxic mix of jealous and arrogant. (which may have been insecurity being masked by arrogance... depends. but either way) The big difference leading to the turn is a combination of him not blaming everything bad that happens to him on other people, (if it's all someone elses fault, then his response is to take it out on them, not self reflect.) and his arrogance gets tempered, where he realizes he's not inherently the best of the best and deserving of everything automatically, which allows him to realize that he did **** up, and that maybe he needs to work for and earn things. Like he did kinda work for things before, but it was more that he saw people as standing in the way of something he was OWED, and that he was just inherently deserving of, so in his mind he was lashing out because something was taken from him. But now, (in both the comics and MCU) he's more aware of his shortcomings and that he isn't just inherently deserving of power or whatever else, and he has to work for the things he wants, and prove he is worthy of them. And ironically, in both cases, he comes to these realizations while simultaneously realizing he actually isn't in control of his own fate, and someone/thing else really is behind all his failures... just not who he had been blaming, and so it morphed into a sense of him feeling small and insignificant in the face of fate, which went a long way to tempering his arrogance, and wanting to change or escape that fate. So it's kinda just shifted his target, but to one that's acceptable to fight. And if he just kept being the bad guy after that realization, then he's just being a willing puppet, and he's not about that. After that, it's a sort of chain reaction where he began seeing other people on more even footing as him, (he is still kinda arrogant though, just not the excessive extremes as before) and caring about them and what they want. I think it started with a few people, Thor, Verity and Zelma in the comics, Mobius and Sylvie in the MCU, and it's causing a slide down a slippery slope.... but one that's good. That was kind of a rambly tangent, but I think it's important to acknowledge that the turn builds on a really fundamental part of his character, in both the MCU and the comics, it's not something that goes against his character. And it's interesting that though the events that led to them are wildly different in the comics and MCU, they both build on the exact same things. It means the turn has a lot to support it, it wasn't some idle change of path not supported by his character traits, it's something that plays to the very core motivations of the character. They did move pretty fast on the show, but to be fair, it was also implied that a lot of time passed (but kinda not, cus time moves differently in the TVA) between episodes, I mean they had his hair grow (Sylvie's too, you can see more of her black roots between her first appearance and the final episode) between episodes. So it felt rapid as a viewer, but from his perspective i think it was slower. I do wish we could have seen more of that though, i think the show probably could have done with at least 3 or 4 more episodes.

Anyway, yeah, I think people's acceptance of the turn on the show may have been influenced by the speed at which it happened, but in general I agree that I think it just comes down to what we've seen with the comics over and over, as we've been going through this in the books. Some fans just want things to kinda stick to the formula they were established with, so are kind of against turns and major status quo changes in general.

In comics, fans have been conditioned to see the comics as essentially static for decades, because the publishers have maintained an unchanging (or at least minimally changing) status quo, where while some details may change, the basics never do, at least not for very long, 5 years or so tops, in most cases, with a few exceptions scattered throughout. So i can kinda understand it. But I do think it's something that needs to change. I think it just leads fans to be extremely cynical, where every new development good or bad is met with a declaration that it will just get changed back soon, so nothing feels like it matters. I mean, I do it myself, sometimes. (and I don't think every change needs to be permanent, like sometimes a fakeout IS the story, and that's fine, I just think they should be the exception rather than the other way around)This is art of what leads to worry about Loki being reverted, because it does happen a lot. It just robs events of any weight they could have, as people wait for them to be undone. And some fans like this, i guess, like things being familiar, and think that there is an ideal status quo that things SHOULD be, by default, and judge stories merit at least in part by how close they are to that ideal status quo. But the publishers are moving away from that model, we are seeing more lasting changes being made where there is no sign of it being undone, and the Asgard stuff has been one of the areas that have been leading the pack there. So when it doesn't happen that things get rolled back, then people end up not accepting the current status quo because it isn't undoing what had just happened like it's supposed to. Basically, some people won't accept Loki's face turn, ever, because in their mind, he was introduced as a villain and thus should always be one. The turn is perceived as taking something away, because it deviates from what was established, rather than adding something, which is how i think most of the regulars in the thread see things. Yeah, he's lost some of his 'edge' i guess, but he's gained other things as a tradeoff.

The whole situation in the comics with roles basically is the illusion of change given form in the comics, the fundamentals of the story remain, it's all kinda on repeat, it's just changing the characters playing the parts. As with JIM, it's actually making meta commentary on this phenomenon, but coming at it from a different angle. Showing how you can make something FEEL different, at least for a while, while keeping the status quo actually kinda the same. But it only works if you look at it in a bigger picture kind of way, because it actually is a major status quo change for the individual characters. While for some characters the change isn't too impactful to them, for others it's a huge change. Being king, and giving up his hammer, is a huge shift for Thor, Loki being in a more heroic role is a huge shift for him... but the fundamental story of Asgard is still the same, and I'm betting those similarities will be played up, and it will have more to say about it, in the future.

Anyway, I had a random thought the other day, about the whole situation with Throg. It's not speculation, I have no idea if they will do something like this, it's just something i think could be fun. So, let's say Throg does end up trying to be sort of a mentor to Loki, I got to thinking that you know, Thori is probably bored as hell sitting around Asgard all day, he's a dog of action and violence, not a house dog. And he WAS Loki's dog to start with, so.... Thori could join Loki too as another animal companion. And then, I got to thinking that Thor would probably want to back seat drive, and he'd probably do that via Hugin and/or Munin, giving Loki a third animal companion. I just think it would be funny. And, of course, if this happens, at some point Loki has to shapeshift into an alligator. obviously.

[Fanto.mx]

Yeah, this pretty much mirrors my thoughts. I think he wasn't exactly humbled before the face turn (in both comics and MCU) but he was in situations where it would have humbled most other people.... if he wasn't a toxic mix of jealous and arrogant. (which may have been insecurity being masked by arrogance... depends. but either way) The big difference leading to the turn is a combination of him not blaming everything bad that happens to him on other people, (if it's all someone elses fault, then his response is to take it out on them, not self reflect.) and his arrogance gets tempered, where he realizes he's not inherently the best of the best and deserving of everything automatically, which allows him to realize that he did **** up, and that maybe he needs to work for and earn things.

This is my thought exactly and the reason why I really push back on the "he should be a villain!" folks. This is a BIG change to the core of his character. He still schemes and tricks and sometimes goes big with leaning into expectations...but now it's out of a sort of pragmatism and social engineering, rather than because he believes everyone is out to get him and that everything is about him. The move from being very solipsistic, which was his core motivation in the old days, to being hyperaware of his role and place is the world is a HUGE change, even if his actions trend toward similarity, as you note.

It probably is the actions, definitely not the motivation and not even the methods, that need to change to make him The Champion. One of the things he's definitely going to have to struggle with (and that has a lot of story potential) is public perception and the balancing between doing what's expected and what's needed. To this point, because of how dramatic he is, he tends toward I-don't-care-what-you-think as a default. There's a lot of morality philosophy to be mined from pragmatism vs politicking.

Anyway, I had a random thought the other day, about the whole situation with Throg. It's not speculation, I have no idea if they will do something like this, it's just something i think could be fun. So, let's say Throg does end up trying to be sort of a mentor to Loki, I got to thinking that you know, Thori is probably bored as hell sitting around Asgard all day, he's a dog of action and violence, not a house dog. And he WAS Loki's dog to start with, so.... Thori could join Loki too as another animal companion. And then, I got to thinking that Thor would probably want to back seat drive, and he'd probably do that via Hugin and/or Munin, giving Loki a third animal companion. I just think it would be funny. And, of course, if this happens, at some point Loki has to shapeshift into an alligator. obviously.

Loki multi-classes into druid and has to figure out how to boost his Wisdom score after putting all this points into charisma in the campaign so far.

[Raye]

Yeah, because the change is to the core of the character, i think it would take a lot more to undo it, especially this long into things, after he's successfully resisted several opportunities to return to his old ways. You can't just flip a switch and bam, villain again, this shift in his outlook is too big and fundamental to just ignore. Like, part of why some other turns don't stick is because it doesn't really get to the root of their motivations, it's more superficial. Sabretooth's Axis induced turn is a particularly blatant example, where it was literally a magic spell that made him good. As much as i would have liked to see Sabretooth try to be better, without making the turn self driven and address the root of why he did bad things, it's not surprising it didn't last very long. Loki's in a very lucky position where they could devote that kind of panel time to that level of character development, and Thor as a book can easily work without him as the villain, or it probably would have been reverted by now. Most characters, particularly villains just don't get that kind of opportunity, so superficial tricks like what happened with Sabretooth happen. I mean it's not unheard of, just rare.

I think motivation plays into the role somewhat, because I think character development is part of the role, at least if we use Thor as a model, and his whole deal with becoming worthy. But yeah, i think doing the job is the important part, facing the threats to Asgard and all that. But these are narrative roles in a living story, so character development and motivations aren't something that can be completely ignored in a story. But they may not be exactly the same motivations as the previous incarnation of the story. But some may stay the same. like the 'Jane' role is kind of dependent on instilling an attachment to Midgard via an attachment to certain people, for instance.

And heh, yes, druid. Or Disney Princess, whichever.

Anyway, these are a few days old because I don't check twitter often, but Cates did some Thor related tweets:

https://twitter.com/Doncates/status/1421534363192279047
https://twitter.com/Doncates/status/1421611974169825281
https://twitter.com/Doncates/status/1421898562275880960

I get into a big thing about them on my tumblr: https://rayegunn.tumblr.com/post/658...ulation-ramble

But basically, yes, I've been saying that for years, how 'worthy' is not synonymous with 'good' and that being a paragon of virtue is not necessary to lift Mjolnir. So that was some vindication there, but also a bit worrying. Basically, i get more into this on the post, but i may have to adjust my speculation a bit. Not by a lot though. I still think Loki's in the role, it's just that Mjolnir may not be playing as much of a part in that as I had thought, as it appears it may be getting into the whole Thanos thing, or something. But that's ok, it means he could get a special weapon of his own, that's more suited to him. But I don't think this has to mean Loki's the 'terrifying' prospect Cates mentioned, in any case, because Mjolnir and the role are not actually strictly linked, they were only linked for Thor.

and.... hot dogs. I really hope Thor and Loki both are part of that, and they argue about this condiment debate. We can see in Yoruno's avatar that lately Loki's been partial to mustard, and when he had that hot dog with Spider-Man ages ago, he mentioned 'green bits' so i presume relish then. Which means Loki is going for his favourite colours. In which case, this does probably mean Thor is all about ketchup.

Oh yeah, and it dawned on me that 2022 is the 70th anniversary of JIM, which makes me think they may be working towards a relaunch next year? A bit longer than I would like, but it does seem to line up with the upcoming solicits/arcs in Thor... Then we cold have Loki in JIM, and Thor in Thor again

[Fanto.mx]

Yeah, because the change is to the core of the character, i think it would take a lot more to undo it, especially this long into things, after he's successfully resisted several opportunities to return to his old ways. You can't just flip a switch and bam, villain again, this shift in his outlook is too big and fundamental to just ignore. Like, part of why some other turns don't stick is because it doesn't really get to the root of their motivations, it's more superficial. Sabretooth's Axis induced turn is a particularly blatant example, where it was literally a magic spell that made him good. As much as i would have liked to see Sabretooth try to be better, without making the turn self driven and address the root of why he did bad things, it's not surprising it didn't last very long. Loki's in a very lucky position where they could devote that kind of panel time to that level of character development, and Thor as a book can easily work without him as the villain, or it probably would have been reverted by now. Most characters, particularly villains just don't get that kind of opportunity, so superficial tricks like what happened with Sabretooth happen. I mean it's not unheard of, just rare.

Yeah. It basically now boils down to either needing a near-equal epic fall to undo...or a complete, sudden undo with no explanation, like happened to Doom. Everything I said above about Loki, except for the length of time, also applies to Doom coming out of Secret Wars. He finally got what he wanted, literally becoming an all powerful god who was in charge of everything...and he found himself wanting. Then he finally took that one step he had never taken before, admitting that perhaps Reed (and his family) were better suited to save the multiverse. Humbled. And there his motivation finally changed. Over almost 60 years, Doom's core was that he was sure that he if was just in charge, he'd show everyone. He was sure that the problem was people were standing in his way, especially that pesky Reed. But he found out that that very, very literally was not true. And so his motivation explicitly changed. He was pouring his intellect and power into helping. He wasn't very good at it, but it still was a complete and solid change to the core of his character. And then Slott decided "classic" Doom was what he wanted and Doom was completely reverted to his pre-Secret Wars self without explanation.

And I just don't know why anyone would want that sudden and unexplainable change in that direction when they would be exasperated if it was a sudden and unexplainable change away from the core. For all the crying about continuity, it seems like the same people are just fine when ignoring continuity gives them what they want, which almost always seems to be based in a desire for a permanent rut / some imagined status quo that never quite existed.

I think motivation plays into the role somewhat, because I think character development is part of the role, at least if we use Thor as a model, and his whole deal with becoming worthy. But yeah, i think doing the job is the important part, facing the threats to Asgard and all that. But these are narrative roles in a living story, so character development and motivations aren't something that can be completely ignored in a story. But they may not be exactly the same motivations as the previous incarnation of the story. But some may stay the same. like the 'Jane' role is kind of dependent on instilling an attachment to Midgard via an attachment to certain people, for instance.

I am so invested in the "roles" idea that we keep bringing up and that sure seems to be finally happening because it will make everything we're talking about with Loki's motivations more explicit. To this point, his shift in motivation has been very clear, but not overly developed because there wasn't a whole lot of action or page time invested into exploring it. If he were to become The Champion, especially with someone with a very specific contrasting perspective like Throg to bounce off of, there's a whole lot to be explored there and thereby there would be a whole lot more story anchors that solidify the change. It would become harder and harder to ignore and handwave without replacing the character entirely.

Plus all that would likewise be in effect for Thor as his arc is mirrored in/contrasted with Loki's.

And heh, yes, druid. Or Disney Princess, whichever.

I need Loki Disney Princess merch.

But basically, yes, I've been saying that for years, how 'worthy' is not synonymous with 'good' and that being a paragon of virtue is not necessary to lift Mjolnir. So that was some vindication there, but also a bit worrying. Basically, i get more into this on the post, but i may have to adjust my speculation a bit. Not by a lot though. I still think Loki's in the role, it's just that Mjolnir may not be playing as much of a part in that as I had thought, as it appears it may be getting into the whole Thanos thing, or something. But that's ok, it means he could get a special weapon of his own, that's more suited to him. But I don't think this has to mean Loki's the 'terrifying' prospect Cates mentioned, in any case, because Mjolnir and the role are not actually strictly linked, they were only linked for Thor.

Agreed. Mjolnir and the role have been historically linked, but it isn't necessary that they go hand-in-hand. Mjolnir has been more of a shorthand, and I think Cates is eliminating it as shorthand, even while making it important to the role, with all the stuff about whether or not the enchantment is in effect and what "worthy" really means (or could mean). I'm still torn on whether Mjolnir will transform with Loki in the role or whether Mjolnir will just push Loki in the story to find his own way and ultimately leave Mjolnir as the sort of test outside the role.

Oh yeah, and it dawned on me that 2022 is the 70th anniversary of JIM, which makes me think they may be working towards a relaunch next year? A bit longer than I would like, but it does seem to line up with the upcoming solicits/arcs in Thor... Then we cold have Loki in JIM, and Thor in Thor again

OOOOOH. That's perfect.

[juan678]

[Raye]

Yeah. It basically now boils down to either needing a near-equal epic fall to undo...or a complete, sudden undo with no explanation, like happened to Doom. Everything I said above about Loki, except for the length of time, also applies to Doom coming out of Secret Wars. He finally got what he wanted, literally becoming an all powerful god who was in charge of everything...and he found himself wanting. Then he finally took that one step he had never taken before, admitting that perhaps Reed (and his family) were better suited to save the multiverse. Humbled. And there his motivation finally changed. Over almost 60 years, Doom's core was that he was sure that he if was just in charge, he'd show everyone. He was sure that the problem was people were standing in his way, especially that pesky Reed. But he found out that that very, very literally was not true. And so his motivation explicitly changed. He was pouring his intellect and power into helping. He wasn't very good at it, but it still was a complete and solid change to the core of his character. And then Slott decided "classic" Doom was what he wanted and Doom was completely reverted to his pre-Secret Wars self without explanation.

Yeah, Doom just getting abruptly villainized again was sad. Sadly, it's really not unheard of for a character to undergo a face turn and then have it reverted with little to no explanation, it happened to Sandman too. Had a face turn which lasted for years, was a reserve member of the Avengers, and then one day, just on the Sinister Six again out of the blue, no explanation. They had to write in a retcon later explaining he had been mind controlled, after fans were upset. You'd think the mind control angle would have made it easy to flip him back, but nope.

Still, the longer it lasts, and the more rooted in their core motivations and character traits, the better chance it has. Doom's lasted... 3 years? While Loki is going on 11, if you count JIM as the start, but still 7 or 8 years even if you only count it from Young Avengers on. If Doom had cracked 5 years, he may have had a better chance. Though other factors are if the turn took place in a good story, which Loki has going for him, many of the books were not setting sales records, but they are very critically well received, particularly JIM. And also someone to fill his spot. I think what snagged Doom most of all was that Slott thought Doom was irreplaceable as the FF's main antagonist. I would disagree, i think there is potential for him working with them, Zdarsky did a good job of showing that - another reason I would like Zdarsky to tackle Loki at some point. But a lot of people see Doom and FF as a package deal, and Doom has to be the villain. And I suspect Cates gets this, after coming off his long run on Venom, another ex-villain. Venom was only really allowed to fully stick to being an anti-hero (and eventually hero) when Carnage was introduced, because Carnage could fill the symbiote powered villain role for Spider-Man, so the need to use Venom in that role was no longer needed. Which is why the roles stuff is so encouraging in Thor. Though I think there is less need for Loki to be the villain for Thor since he has other connections to Thor they can use to keep him in the story, setting up an explicit replacement with Blake will reduce the need to have Loki be the villain.

And I just don't know why anyone would want that sudden and unexplainable change in that direction when they would be exasperated if it was a sudden and unexplainable change away from the core. For all the crying about continuity, it seems like the same people are just fine when ignoring continuity gives them what they want, which almost always seems to be based in a desire for a permanent rut / some imagined status quo that never quite existed.

Yeah, you often see people actively hoping for a recent story or character development to get flat out erased, or at least it's consequences undone, and Thor gets that a lot, after Aaron. But they'd absolutely cry foul if some part of continuity from 30 years ago that they like was disregarded. It's not just old continuity that counts, and if anything i think recent continuity should count more, since it will obviously have a more immediate impact on the characters. And good stories can arise out of bad ones. Like, Matt Fraction's Thor run was not exactly well regarded, but it did give us Kid Loki, and Kieron Gillen picked up that thread and did great things with it. It's to the point that Gillen gets the credit for Kid Loki a lot of the time, but, no, it was Fraction that introduced him. What I'm saying is, disliking a story is fine, but that doesn't mean it should be erased. It is absolutely possible to move forward from any story in a good way, you don't have to erase it, or it's impact, to do that. I also don't get the desire to see a favorite status quo just made the default, forever. Like, I liked Kid Loki a lot, doesn't mean I want him brought back. His story is done, and bringing him back (for real, not the fakeout from Asgardians of the Galaxy) would diminish that story.

Not saying characters need to be in constant flux, though. If they hit on a status quo that works for a long time, they should not feel obligated to shake it up for the sake of it. Which is kind of the reason i didn't like the ending of AoA, since it seemed to be setting up a 'brand new Loki every 5 years or so!' like Dr Who situation, when I was more interested in following the ongoing journey of just the main character. It all depends on how much story potential a particular status quo has. I think the current one has lots and lots of story potential remaining with a more heroic take, being king of Jotunheim etc. So I am cool with them sticking on this path for a good while yet, though I am hoping for more development, just the gradual kind, rather than an abrupt change. And I do think the role shift can do that, I see the role shift, at least in Loki's case, as more of a recognition of the character development, rather than just abruptly changing his character. giving him a new job doesn't have to alter his personality significantly. Though the responsibilities brought on by that role switch may prompt some further development.

I am so invested in the "roles" idea that we keep bringing up and that sure seems to be finally happening because it will make everything we're talking about with Loki's motivations more explicit. To this point, his shift in motivation has been very clear, but not overly developed because there wasn't a whole lot of action or page time invested into exploring it. If he were to become The Champion, especially with someone with a very specific contrasting perspective like Throg to bounce off of, there's a whole lot to be explored there and thereby there would be a whole lot more story anchors that solidify the change. It would become harder and harder to ignore and handwave without replacing the character entirely.

Plus all that would likewise be in effect for Thor as his arc is mirrored in/contrasted with Loki's.

It's had panel time, just not in Thor. But of course Thor has several times more readers than any of Loki's solo adventures, so they kinda have to recap it in Thor for some people to get. hoping we will see more of that in the upcoming arc. Cus yeah, some people either have not read the preceding stuff with Loki, or, well, a lot of readers are, well, a bit dense. Seems some of them really need to be smacked across the face with something for it to sink in. Not saying we should play to the lowest common denominator in the audience, but nothing wrong with shining a spotlight on an important development sometimes.

I need Loki Disney Princess merch.

heh, yeah!

Agreed. Mjolnir and the role have been historically linked, but it isn't necessary that they go hand-in-hand. Mjolnir has been more of a shorthand, and I think Cates is eliminating it as shorthand, even while making it important to the role, with all the stuff about whether or not the enchantment is in effect and what "worthy" really means (or could mean). I'm still torn on whether Mjolnir will transform with Loki in the role or whether Mjolnir will just push Loki in the story to find his own way and ultimately leave Mjolnir as the sort of test outside the role.

Yeah, he may keep it as a shorthand initially, while simultaneously revealing that Mjolnir isn't as good as people (and Thor! which would be kind of a gut punch for him) had thought. My feeling, after those tweets, is probably that it will go one of two ways. One, Loki gets the hammer, and then after realizing the enchantment is pushing him to be something he doesn't want to be, leaves it (but not the role!) behind, which unfortunately leaves it open to be taken by some bad people, but that would have been the case even if he had not picked it up at all. Or two, the hammer begins acting autonomously or is picked up by some bad person (probably too early for Thanos just yet) and he is tasked with stopping it, which then cements him in the role.

OOOOOH. That's perfect.

And I should clarify, 70 years for JIM as a series, 60 years since the introduction of Thor's story in the book. handily, they introduced Thor 10 years after the initial book launch, so it still works as an anniversary either way. The way I figure, if we assume a 6 issue arc, we could be looking at April or May for a potential JIM relaunch, and that would work perfectly for the anniversary. I know it may be nice to get a new book with Loki's name on the cover, but the timing does line up. And I think dong JIM has more symbolic significance, since that's where we first saw Thor doing his thing.

[Fanto.mx]

That is super cool. Are they putting all these on merch or anything?

Yeah, Doom just getting abruptly villainized again was sad. Sadly, it's really not unheard of for a character to undergo a face turn and then have it reverted with little to no explanation, it happened to Sandman too. Had a face turn which lasted for years, was a reserve member of the Avengers, and then one day, just on the Sinister Six again out of the blue, no explanation. They had to write in a retcon later explaining he had been mind controlled, after fans were upset. You'd think the mind control angle would have made it easy to flip him back, but nope.

Still, the longer it lasts, and the more rooted in their core motivations and character traits, the better chance it has. Doom's lasted... 3 years? While Loki is going on 11, if you count JIM as the start, but still 7 or 8 years even if you only count it from Young Avengers on. If Doom had cracked 5 years, he may have had a better chance. Though other factors are if the turn took place in a good story, which Loki has going for him, many of the books were not setting sales records, but they are very critically well received, particularly JIM. And also someone to fill his spot. I think what snagged Doom most of all was that Slott thought Doom was irreplaceable as the FF's main antagonist. I would disagree, i think there is potential for him working with them, Zdarsky did a good job of showing that - another reason I would like Zdarsky to tackle Loki at some point. But a lot of people see Doom and FF as a package deal, and Doom has to be the villain. And I suspect Cates gets this, after coming off his long run on Venom, another ex-villain. Venom was only really allowed to fully stick to being an anti-hero (and eventually hero) when Carnage was introduced, because Carnage could fill the symbiote powered villain role for Spider-Man, so the need to use Venom in that role was no longer needed. Which is why the roles stuff is so encouraging in Thor. Though I think there is less need for Loki to be the villain for Thor since he has other connections to Thor they can use to keep him in the story, setting up an explicit replacement with Blake will reduce the need to have Loki be the villain.

I thought Doom was safe, since his change was the result of years of build up and the biggest event in a decade, plus then he got a solo series exploring the change by Bendis and had a definite presence in the FF book at the time. Then they relaunched FF and bam. Reed really is his nemesis, but only because Reed is so terrible that they need someone super villainous to contrast him with, I guess. I still think there was SO MUCH to be mined from Doom trying to play nice with Reed, though. And it would have made sense if, over time, Reed just kept poking at Doom until he finally said F** IT, I'MMA KILL THIS GUY, and it wouldn't have been out of character, even after the change, for him to give in to frustration. And then it would have been interesting to see him try to do good while sabotaging and fighting Reed.

Yeah, you often see people actively hoping for a recent story or character development to get flat out erased, or at least it's consequences undone, and Thor gets that a lot, after Aaron. But they'd absolutely cry foul if some part of continuity from 30 years ago that they like was disregarded. It's not just old continuity that counts, and if anything i think recent continuity should count more, since it will obviously have a more immediate impact on the characters. And good stories can arise out of bad ones. Like, Matt Fraction's Thor run was not exactly well regarded, but it did give us Kid Loki, and Kieron Gillen picked up that thread and did great things with it. It's to the point that Gillen gets the credit for Kid Loki a lot of the time, but, no, it was Fraction that introduced him. What I'm saying is, disliking a story is fine, but that doesn't mean it should be erased. It is absolutely possible to move forward from any story in a good way, you don't have to erase it, or it's impact, to do that. I also don't get the desire to see a favorite status quo just made the default, forever. Like, I liked Kid Loki a lot, doesn't mean I want him brought back. His story is done, and bringing him back (for real, not the fakeout from Asgardians of the Galaxy) would diminish that story.

Not saying characters need to be in constant flux, though. If they hit on a status quo that works for a long time, they should not feel obligated to shake it up for the sake of it. Which is kind of the reason i didn't like the ending of AoA, since it seemed to be setting up a 'brand new Loki every 5 years or so!' like Dr Who situation, when I was more interested in following the ongoing journey of just the main character. It all depends on how much story potential a particular status quo has. I think the current one has lots and lots of story potential remaining with a more heroic take, being king of Jotunheim etc. So I am cool with them sticking on this path for a good while yet, though I am hoping for more development, just the gradual kind, rather than an abrupt change. And I do think the role shift can do that, I see the role shift, at least in Loki's case, as more of a recognition of the character development, rather than just abruptly changing his character. giving him a new job doesn't have to alter his personality significantly. Though the responsibilities brought on by that role switch may prompt some further development.

There is definitely a difference between change and development. Change seems to be the thing that gets reverted...but sometimes development gets reverted simply because someone decides they want the pre-developed version of the character, as with Sandman and Doom. I thought about whether being high profile was a good thing or a bad thing. Like it makes sense that they would feel like no one would throw a fit about Sandman...and Loki's profile might be working to his advantage. But then there's Doom, who got development-fridged. And I know one of your worries is that someone will decide that Loki is Thor's main villain and revert him.

It's had panel time, just not in Thor. But of course Thor has several times more readers than any of Loki's solo adventures, so they kinda have to recap it in Thor for some people to get. hoping we will see more of that in the upcoming arc. Cus yeah, some people either have not read the preceding stuff with Loki, or, well, a lot of readers are, well, a bit dense. Seems some of them really need to be smacked across the face with something for it to sink in. Not saying we should play to the lowest common denominator in the audience, but nothing wrong with shining a spotlight on an important development sometimes.

Yeah, it got panel time, but not in a good while now. And the most recent significant comic book Loki times didn't really push it along much (AoA and Vote Loki).

Yeah, he may keep it as a shorthand initially, while simultaneously revealing that Mjolnir isn't as good as people (and Thor! which would be kind of a gut punch for him) had thought. My feeling, after those tweets, is probably that it will go one of two ways. One, Loki gets the hammer, and then after realizing the enchantment is pushing him to be something he doesn't want to be, leaves it (but not the role!) behind, which unfortunately leaves it open to be taken by some bad people, but that would have been the case even if he had not picked it up at all. Or two, the hammer begins acting autonomously or is picked up by some bad person (probably too early for Thanos just yet) and he is tasked with stopping it, which then cements him in the role.

I'm a little torn on what happens with Mjolnir. I think it might solidify the transformation of the role if it transformed into some other, more suitable, weapon for Loki. But it would also be a maybe useful thing for Loki and Mjolnir to part ways when he no longer "needs" it.

[Raye]

That is super cool. Are they putting all these on merch or anything?
I thought Doom was safe, since his change was the result of years of build up and the biggest event in a decade, plus then he got a solo series exploring the change by Bendis and had a definite presence in the FF book at the time. Then they relaunched FF and bam. Reed really is his nemesis, but only because Reed is so terrible that they need someone super villainous to contrast him with, I guess. I still think there was SO MUCH to be mined from Doom trying to play nice with Reed, though. And it would have made sense if, over time, Reed just kept poking at Doom until he finally said F** IT, I'MMA KILL THIS GUY, and it wouldn't have been out of character, even after the change, for him to give in to frustration. And then it would have been interesting to see him try to do good while sabotaging and fighting Reed.

Yeah, it is always a risk, sounds like Loki dodged a bullet with Vote Loki, apparently King may have had a much more villainous take on him in Vote Loki, before he left to go do Batman. Though it's a bit hard to say from that interview, it may have been more of the whole playing the part of the bad guy thing, but you never know. Sucks for Doom though, to be sure. Like it's not even that the new stuff is bad by Doom-as-a-villain standards, it's just that it is a regression, and the way it was undone was so unsatisfying. Hood scars his face and bam, gotta be a villain again? wut? Like you say, if Doom's turn back was more interesting, it would not have been such an issue. I would prefer stagnant and unchanging over having development happen, only for the reset button to be hit, particularly reset in a blatant and unsatisfying way. That just ends up diminishing the previous story, because it ended up not having any impact in the long run.

I am a bit conflicted over AoA's ending tho. On the one hand, I didn't like the new characterization, so i can't say i was particularly upset to see it rolled back a bit. On the other, I am against regression on principle. But, at least there, for one the new status quo had lasted all of one issue, so it was easy to handwave away as a bit of end of the world wonkyness. But it was an issue meant to set up a new status quo, so... And also, it wasn't erased, so much as we were told it hadn't worked the way he hoped. It somewhat diminished the end of Agent of Asgard because it was no longer a win, but a failure which he wasn't aware of yet, but at least it was worked in, and contributed to him feeling like he was trapped by fate. In hindsight, I think it felt worse at the time, because we weren't seeing the full picture yet, and how he was on a downward spiral of depression due to his latest attempt to escape fate's plans not actually working the way he'd hoped. By the time you could see it all, it fit in pretty well.

There is definitely a difference between change and development. Change seems to be the thing that gets reverted...but sometimes development gets reverted simply because someone decides they want the pre-developed version of the character, as with Sandman and Doom. I thought about whether being high profile was a good thing or a bad thing. Like it makes sense that they would feel like no one would throw a fit about Sandman...and Loki's profile might be working to his advantage. But then there's Doom, who got development-fridged. And I know one of your worries is that someone will decide that Loki is Thor's main villain and revert him.

Loki may be in a sort of sweet spot, high profile enough that they don't think a reversion would go unnoticed, like Sandman, but not like, the crown jewel of Marvel villains, like Doom. But I dunno, Loki was kinda up there by like villain ranking standards for the MU, top 5, easy, but maybe just not being among the very top is enough. But also, since Loki is Thor's brother in addition to being his primary antagonist, it leads to more ways to incorporate him into stories with Thor without reverting him.

But yeah, it's a worry that someone has had a story rattling around in the back of their head for like 20 years that they're dying to do, and want to revert Loki to fit that story, and the editors won't tell them no. Again to Aaron's credit, though this is kind of just a hunch, I suspect War of the Realms was originally supposed to be Loki in Malekith's place. But he was looking at Agent of Asgard, and changed gears and brought in Malekith (and maybe Laufey, may have started in Jotunheim with Loki taking the throne there initially) when he realized Loki was not going to be suitable any longer to try and conquer all the realms. But Malekith there very much reads as a Loki substitute, cranked up to 11. Which is fine, it worked. And in a way that worked out well, because he was free to do pretty much anything he wanted with Malekith. Loki was still rolled back a little as mentioned above, but not like, all the way, and the whole trapped by fate angle worked with what had previously been done.

I'm a little torn on what happens with Mjolnir. I think it might solidify the transformation of the role if it transformed into some other, more suitable, weapon for Loki. But it would also be a maybe useful thing for Loki and Mjolnir to part ways when he no longer "needs" it.

Well, while I don't think the pieces are in place for it to happen yet, and I presume the full scope of the destruction shown won't actually happen, cus no way would Marvel allow all the most prominent heroes to be killed and zombiefied, but Thanos is coming at some point, so thinking on it, I guess Mjolnir needs to stay in it's present form to fit with that glimpse of the future. (tho apparently Thanos will bedazzle it with Infinity Gems) Unless, somehow changing it is what prevents that bad future. But I think in that case, maybe destroying it may be the better option. It would solidly make a statement cementing Thor in his new role, and would also free up Loki to have a weapon suited to him, rather than being forced to try and be like Thor. So yeah, I think transforming it is looking less likely. But I do think Loki wielding it for a while, as they learn more about the enchantment, would be the more satisfying story,

[Raye]

so, looks like Loki is going to appear in Secret Invasion! https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/tom-...cret-invasion/
Which is cool, if true. And may be a sign that Loki is going to get re-integrated into the main MCU timeline.

Also, next issue has a Loki variant cover:

https://leagueofcomicgeeks.com/comic...ariant=2092498

technically 2, cus there is also a version without any text. Not his actual comics costume though, more movie inspired, but not entirely, kind of a hybrid. but that means 2 months in a row with a Loki variant cover, which may be pointing to him getting more heavily involved in the story.

So, that playlist i made? I went to add songs for the most recent issue and... things snowballed. I ended up doing a total overhaul. I noticed the Black Winter arc was like half the length of the Blake arc, and had a bunch of gaps (I had no song for the fight with Bill! wtf) and I removed the King Thor part to make it so there was a more consistent thread throughout, and i moved several of those songs to the Black Winter section, since several of them fit there too, also I thought 'Worthy' which i had in there for issue 4, and Loki lifting Mjolnir there, deserved a more important moment, so i removed it to save for a better moment later. I also added some songs to Loki's part way at the beginning on the Youtube playlist... and then after all that, I made a Spotify version, so a friend could listen on a drive. there are a couple minor differences due to song availability between the two.

Spotify version: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6L...d44301850248b6
Youtube Music version: https://music.youtube.com/playlist?l...l6bNYuxpaJ68vx
or just plain Youtube, if you prefer: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...l6bNYuxpaJ68vx

Ok, so the Spotify version covers Cates' run only, the Youtube version covers that plus the end of WotR (Loki's part specifically) and Loki's recent solo, at the beginning. Cates run starts with 'Legend of the King' which starts the Black Winter arc, the mini-arc with that mechanic starts with Gloryhammer, Prey starts with 1979, and the current arc starts with The Writing on the Wall. On the Youtube version, the stuff after New Beginnings is kinda of just me collecting songs i think might fit the upcoming issues, but they are not sorted, and they have a high chance of being cut, i just wanted to keep em handy just in case.

I do this mostly for myself, because it gets me out of ruts and branch out some, and actually pay attention to the lyrics, but if you want to listen, there you go. but fair warning, the Cates stuff alone is 5 hours long, and it has a lot of metal, and 90s stuff, us the 90s is my nostalgia zone. I am open to suggestions, if you have them. I kinda do it as each song represents a story beat, theme, or character motivation, so tell me what it represents so i can slot it in proper like.

Speaking of the 90s stuff, this is the main song i chose for the last issue:



I know it may seem an odd choice, but... it fits, as long as you take it on a more metaphorical level. There are lots of songs about new beginnings, not so much about leaving behind a phase of your life.

[Yoruno]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Marvel/st...216237576?s=20
Two covers feature Loki.

[Raye]

Nice! tho the Thor one, they had a bit of trouble keeping Loki on-model for the first phase of the MCU first time he wore a headdress like that in the movies was in Ragnarok. (which was inspired by the comics)

[Yoruno]

I wonder if it's possible to find AoA pages without speech bubbles (are they called virgin, like the covers?) To be precise, I need #1.