Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 306
  1. #31
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    152

    Default

    Truth be told I’m not sure if I want Loki to become king, not just because I fear that it would mean a lot less panel time, but I also fear it will be used to revert Loki back to the status quo and I sometimes feel that after AOA, that certain writers have been trying to revert Loki back to his previous old evil self. Jason Aaron is the prime suspect for this and has tried to do this in each of this works, first Thor, then Valkyrie when he did something to Tyr, which we still don’t know about and the in Mighty Valkyries when he made a comment about becoming the All-Father which seemed very ominous. I know it’s Cates writing the Thor run now and I did like his Loki in his appearance in the Doctor Strange arc, but it does feel at times writers are trying to revert him back and I just fear that if he gets too involved in Asgardian affairs or becomes King that it will be used as an excuse to go back to the whole status quo of things.

    This is why I hate the whole roles things because it only makes Asgardian stories and characters stagnant and often, they fall into a rut. Or at least they should have done a
    the whole thing better like having a better explanation why there needed to a God of lies and that reason could be that the God of lies needs to exist because lies need to exist. Which is why shifting makes sense rather than it being able cycles and Ragnarök and there needing to be a bad guy, a good guy and a king etc.

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raye View Post
    Hm, I always got the feeling he liked Billy, hence trying to sabotage the relationship between him and Teddy (subconsciously, cus a lot of that came from 'Leah' but still) and of course he hit on Prodigy in the final issue. Tho it's a bit frustrating how we keep getting hints and almosts with Loki as far as relationships go. I am not saying i want him to get attached to someone on a permanent basis, but... when the most substantial 'relationship' he's had since the face turn was Zelma, which was only for a few issues, and then they broke up (tho he seemed interested in starting things again in Strange Academy) it's a bit frustrating. Guy or girl, new character or established, I'm not terribly picky about who, I just think it would be nice.

    So, shower thought this morning, which would be another point in favour of Loki (or well, just someone besides Thor) taking over the throne, assuming it all goes in repeating cycles.... Odin was not the first to take the throne after Bor. Cul was. And he ran things into the ground, which necessitated the throne to be seized from him by Odin. I can't believe this hadn't crossed my mind earlier. Now, Cul was an actual tyrant, while Thor is just incompetent, and I very much doubt Thor will have to be locked up for thousands upon thousands of years, only to come back as a villain later. (that honor may go to Blake. who was locked up by Loki, not Thor, so still fits.) But still... the succession between Bor and Odin wasn't direct, it had a blip with a bad ruler in between. Just saying.... Also, maybe Angela is the new goddess of Fear rather than War?
    I guess he's playing the field in YA. They could always do a political marriage for Loki if he remains the Frost Giant King.

  3. #33
    Protector of Mortals Prof. Aegis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    517

    Default

    Whoa! Just saw this over at BleedingCool.

    Getting a new Loki: Agent of Asgard story coming in April!!!


    This April, the halls of Asgard will erupt with thunder as its greatest legends return home to tell thrilling new tales in an oversized spectacular honoring 750 issues of Thor!

    THOR #24 will take place in the aftermath of "GOD OF HAMMERS," the latest epic in writer Donny Cates and artist Nic Klein's hit run on the title. After a scorched-earth victory, Thor and all of Asgard reel from a brutal loss. And as Thor and his allies come together so will fan-favorite creators from throughout Thor's history! In addition to the main story by Cates and Klein, join some of Thor's most acclaimed writers and artists as they revisit their landmark runs with all-new adventures:

    -Writer J. Michael Straczynski and artist Oliver Coipel reunite for a story set during their redefining Thor saga
    -Legendary comics creator Dan Jurgens writes and draws an incredible Thor and Balder teamup
    -Comics icon Walter Simonson writes and draws an all-new adventure starring his beloved creation, Beta Ray Bill
    -Al Ewing and Lee Garbett collaborate for the first time since LOKI: AGENT OF ASGARD to bring you an all-new chapter for the god of mischief
    -Superstar team Tom DeFalco and Ron Frenz are back together to captivate you with an Enchantress story
    -And prepare for a revelatory tale about Odin that only writer Jason Aaron and artist Das Pastoras can deliver!

    Celebrate the long and storied history of the God of Thunder with the writers and artists who helped build his legacy when THOR #24 hits stands in April.


    Looking forward to info coming over the months as to what the story might deal with or where it's placed in the AOA storyline.
    EDIT: Okay, rereading that Loki part, I don't know if it's during AOA or maybe something in the current THOR storyline. Either way I'm looking forward to what these two create.
    Last edited by Prof. Aegis; 01-10-2022 at 01:35 PM.
    The Doors of Wisdom are never shut! - Benjamin Franklin

  4. #34
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    I was actually just on my way here to post about this! tho i was gonna share the link to Marvel's own site: https://www.marvel.com/articles/comi...-of-750-issues

    and yeah, unclear if this take place in the past or present. Some of the other stories are explicitly set in the past, and I suspect this one may be as well, in part because it is Al Ewing. While Kieron Gillen has worked with post-JIM/YA Loki since those ended, Ewing seems less likely to do that. It's seemed like he has been avoiding Loki like the plague since his run ended, there have been instances where he's quite obviously used another character as a substitute for Loki in his Avengers stuff, and on Valkyrie, he left co-writing the book literally the issue before Loki appeared. I think he may be one of those writers that, if they have a significant enough run on a book/character, they don't want to see what others do with them afterwards. I also expect he will probably avoid Hulk from now on, if so. Which makes me think it could be a flashback but the 'all-new chapter' bit kinda says present to me. We'll see, i guess.

    But also glad to see Loki on the cover (at least, I think that's him behind Jane, even tho the crown looks a bit odd) which eliminates him as the person who died. Looks like, aside from Thor himself, Loki, Jane, Throg, Sif, Odin, Hogun and Volstagg are safe. But that makes me worry for Freyja in particular, she seems kinda likely here. But Balder, Angela, Bill, Fandral are all possibilities, among others, those are just the main ones that come to mind for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lambadelta View Post
    Truth be told I’m not sure if I want Loki to become king, not just because I fear that it would mean a lot less panel time, but I also fear it will be used to revert Loki back to the status quo and I sometimes feel that after AOA, that certain writers have been trying to revert Loki back to his previous old evil self. Jason Aaron is the prime suspect for this and has tried to do this in each of this works, first Thor, then Valkyrie when he did something to Tyr, which we still don’t know about and the in Mighty Valkyries when he made a comment about becoming the All-Father which seemed very ominous. I know it’s Cates writing the Thor run now and I did like his Loki in his appearance in the Doctor Strange arc, but it does feel at times writers are trying to revert him back and I just fear that if he gets too involved in Asgardian affairs or becomes King that it will be used as an excuse to go back to the whole status quo of things.

    This is why I hate the whole roles things because it only makes Asgardian stories and characters stagnant and often, they fall into a rut. Or at least they should have done a
    the whole thing better like having a better explanation why there needed to a God of lies and that reason could be that the God of lies needs to exist because lies need to exist. Which is why shifting makes sense rather than it being able cycles and Ragnarök and there needing to be a bad guy, a good guy and a king etc.
    The way I look at it, is the roles are the reason it HAS remained stagnant in the past, but changing the roles means an opportunity for change. Yeah, the roles themselves are more or less stagnant, but stepping into a new one means change for the individual characters. Or it should, anyway. Obviously Thor is struggling to adapt to his new role, but others like Loki, Jane, Sif etc. seem fine with things changing. They can also use the roles to further make commentary on the stagnant nature of comics, which I enjoy. It's a framework that can be used to keep things locked to a status quo, yeah, but only if you use it in the most boring way humanly possible. It can also be used for commentary and change, and I think they are going for that. If Loki becomes king, that may not be my first pick as a role for him, and yeah I do worry it could result in less panel time, but one thing it is NOT is a reversion to his old status quo. He's never been king of Asgard before, at least not for more than a few issues at a time, and certainly not legitimately. If he ran it like a tyrant, maybe, but I am not really seeing any evidence of that so far.

    And the reasoning for the roles makes sense to me. It has been established since JIM at least that the Norse gods are creatures of story, it's their lives being made into myth that gives them power. So they work according to story rules, which means narrative roles makes sense for them. This story-nature has been used to make meta commentary in the past and I don't see why that would stop now. Also, it doesn't need to be an either-or situation, there. You can have both, quite easily.

    also, um, looks like the mods fixed my stupid thread title typo, (I accidentally had an extra e in Appreciation, whoops) but you may have to re-sub to the thread, or at least i stopped getting notifications about replies yesterday, sorry about that. I am real bad about typos and never seem to learn to double check (you may notice i tend to edit a lot, that's part of it. I just needed help to fix this particular one)
    Last edited by Raye; 01-11-2022 at 08:50 AM.

  5. #35
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    152

    Default

    I think the horns look a bit off because of the angle of Loki’s head being bowed in the cover of issue #24. But I didn’t really have any worries about Loki dying because at this point, he’s almost impossible to kill at this point.

    On Al Ewing not seemingly wanting to do Loki anymore. Can you blame him? Loki after AOA has been a constant mess of every single writer trying to undo everything that AOA set up, no there was no trying about it because they succeeded. Loki is no longer a character who had that character development in AOA but rather someone who reverted back into villainy as soon as the run was over.

    Changing the roles don’t do anything if the change that occurs is the person who takes on the role. It’s still the same role but with a different person so nothing actually changes. Changing actual roles altogether changes things like Loki tried to do but the writers just decided that Loki can’t change, he has to remain the God of Lies and the God of evil. Donald Blake being that role by Loki won’t negate the fact Loki is still the God of lies and Evil. Sif has just basically taken on her brother’s role and hasn’t changed it at all. Thor is just the same as ever but with more power because he’s now the All-Father as well. In fact, right now Thor seems to be playing two roles, King and champion. We also know that Thor will be able to lift his hammer again at the end of this arc which means we know that he will continue with the so call champion role and likely be king as well.

    But either way it’s all the same thing. I didn’t expect everything to change but I did want them to continue to develop Loki’s character and not revert him back to his old status quo.

  6. #36
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    I don't think they have been trying to undo what Al set up. I don't think they went in a direction he would have done himself, but that doesn't mean they were trying to undo it. It's still been moving forward, even if it's been a rough road. I don't think the end goal of Aaron was ever to revert Loki back to being a full on villain, just to explore the pull of fate aspect some more. He did revert the 'god of stories' bit but honestly i think that was a good move, because what Ewing set up there was WAY too powerful, and I hated that it erased his memories of the past. Also, I think it's kind of beside the point, because I have doubts Ewing has even READ Aaron's take on Loki to make a judgment on it either way. It's not about what followed being good or bad, just not what he envisioned, because no writer would have EVER done what he had envisioned.

    And, sorry, i just disagree. I don't know how to explain it better, but just what I said above still holds. I think you are looking at this in a super cynical way that kinda ignores the room for growth. Even if the roles are static, that doesn't mean the characters have to be. Like, Loki being the Hero or the King in this story is OBVIOUSLY going to mean some changes for him on a character level, because those roles come with different expectations than his old one. And in the case of Thor, the fact that he is refusing to adapt to his new role is causing problems. The fact that Cates plugged Blake into Loki's role is obviously going to make Blake a different type of character than he was before, as well as it being a fairly overt statement that blocks Loki from filling that role in the future. And the same holds true for Loki and whatever role he ends up in. I don't really give a damn if the background overarching story is static, as long as the characters get shaken up some, because shaking up the characters filling the roles will make the story play out differently enough, and the static background story can give room to make some meta commentary they would not otherwise be able to make.

    The roles themselves are broad enough that the characters can still be themselves. You can have narrative roles of hero, villain, etc. and a set (though vague) narrative structure governed by fate, and ALSO let those characters be themselves. this is a story that isn't terribly specific, it's more of a narrative framework. I mean, it's not like 'protagonist' or 'hero' or 'villain' or even when you get into more tropey and specific roles like 'the dragon' that it is specific enough that it actually describes a character in any way besides what function they fill in the story, and even that function is pretty broad, otherwise you could never really use that archetype more than once. There are still decisions and explanations to be made abut why a character within a role has particular traits, or why that particular sub-archetype was chosen. Like, yeah, right now, Thor is the 'Sketchy Successor', and he was previously 'the Hero', but he still has lots of room to be his own character within those roles, he can be 'sketchy' in ways unique to him and this story, and there are reasons behind that shift that still can be explored. The roles are not the entirety of the story. Same for the whole 'god of lies' thing. You can have the villain role in the story as a narrative function and ALSO explain why it has to be 'lies' specifically for this particular story.

    Yeah, they could make some moves to have the characters try to dismantle the whole narrative roles things in the future, I'd be ok with that. But right now this IS the system in place, it's what the characters, and we the readers, have to work with for now.
    Last edited by Raye; 01-11-2022 at 09:12 AM.

  7. #37
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    152

    Default

    That’s exactly what they’ve been trying to do and Aaron undoing the whole God of Stories angle or at least trying to, was a very bad move on his part. Luckily it seems most writers seem to ignore this including Cates. At least when Kibblesmith tried to do it he tried to make Loki go in a new direction that wasn’t the God of Lies and Evil like Aaron did. And I’m sorry but I just don’t buy that Aaron wasn’t trying to revert Loki, the evidence suggests otherwise and he’s constantly trying to revert Loki back to his evil self in pretty much every appearance that he has appeared in, in all of Aaron’s books.

    The fate angle would have been good if it wasn’t trying so desperately to revert Loki back to evil and instead set up that it was still possible to change fate but that it wouldn’t be easy instead of the idea that one can’t change their fate at all because they are stuck living the same fate for the end of time. That was a crappy message and has not done Loki any favours.

    How would it make him way too powerful? Like Thor isn’t powerful? Or Scarlet witch isn’t powerful or Doctor Strange etc. isn’t power?

    This isn’t the MCU where Loki is nothing but a clown of himself.

    But they are though which is why Loki is being reverted and everything else is being reverted just with different players in different roles. As Freyja and fate says though Loki will forever be the villain. I mean look what he did to Donald Blake and tell me that’s not Cates turning him back into a villain. I mean he even killed his own people and is plotting to take Asgard from Thor.

  8. #38
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    Nah, just don't see it. Going to have to disagree again, pretty hard. Aaron had Loki playing the part of the bad guy, as a sort of ploy, and because he felt pulled to do so by fate (he could not escape the God of Lies role, because fate, but he could use that role to help ensure a positive outcome overall, even if it meant sacrificing his own happiness. this is also where a bit of commentary came in), but he was always clear about the fact that Loki felt terrible about it, that he was trying to act for the greater good, and in the end, he had a symbolic rebirth where it was implied he had finally escaped his role. That is NOT a reversion, it's a temporary backslide. It's character exploration, that strengthened his motivations for wanting to change. And in Avengers, yeah, there was the celestial thing, but it was followed up by the whole Phoenix Wolverine from the future thing that laid out that Loki had good intentions, and that he should continue. And in Valkyries, there is some ambiguity, but in the end, he did good. One weird line of dialogue that may not be too relevant doesn't change that. My main complaint with Aaron is that he likes to play Loki's motivations close to the vest and play up the ambiguity too much, but in the end, he's always had Loki come through on the right side in the end, even if he makes some missteps (which he can learn from) along the way. I mean geez, if it was an actual full reversion, Loki would not even be in the position he is right now, where he's helping Thor, nor would he have been in a position to tell the story told in Kibblesmith's run. He'd just be back to openly trying to hurt Thor or cause chaos for bad reasons.

    The God of Stories thing was a bit of a walkback, but only of the very end of Ewing's run, literally just undid like 2 issues. And as time goes on, the more I hate the God of Stories thing set up. I don't like how his whole personality got changed, how that new personality was less a character and more a generic archetype, and how he had his memories erased, because I would have preferred a continuation of the slower character development that started in JIM, rather than just have a brand new character walking around with Loki's face and name. We did that with Kid Loki and it was fine, but I don't think that needs to be something that needs to be repeated. And, as mentioned, I think what Ewing set up was WAY to powerful to do good stories with. So I think Aaron made the right call, even if i was miffed about it at the time. Got back to the character development that built upon the past and family connections, and powered him down so he could still be interesting to read about, and wasn't a walking deus ex machina where you would be constantly wondering why he didn't snap his fingers to rewrite the story and make everything work out perfectly. This is WAY beyond Thor, or Dr Strange levels of power, this is like Beyonder levels.

    And again, also going to have to disagree about where Cates is going with this. For one, Freyja's statement was from well before his run began, so doesn't really apply here. And also, what Loki did to Blake, while it could be seen as cruel, but, like what was he SUPPOSED to do, after what Blake had just done, and what he had been stopped from doing? He had killed Red Norvell and others, stolen the power of others, and was setting out to destroy all of Asgard. Loki didn't bestow that role and punishment on him for no reason, he EARNED what he got. I do think Loki was also seeing it as an opportunity to ensure he would not get sucked into that role again, but it's not as if he did that to an innocent, he never made Blake do what he did.

    ... where did he kill his own people? I don't recall anything like that during Cates' run. And again, one weird line doesn't necessarily mean he is plotting things, there may have just been a miscommunication behind the scenes, and it came across badly. And by all appearances, he may be justified in trying to take the throne, if Thor continues to screw things up.
    Last edited by Raye; 01-11-2022 at 10:17 AM.

  9. #39
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    152

    Default

    Okay I guess Loki was too overpowered as the God of Stories and that also showed in Kibblesmith’s run, even though his title was changed from God of Stories to God of outcasts he pretty much was given power over the narrative at least somewhat anyway. Basically, allowing him to change past and even future events by just his thoughts alone and I guess that would be too much a powerful thing. Plus I guess Loki is powerful enough.

    But this is what angers me most about Aaron that he undid all of Loki’s character development. The God of Stories thing I am a little upset about, but I can at least somewhat understand the change but making Loki go back to caring about what Asgardians think of him and making him care about Freyja when she made it perfectly clear that she didn’t care about him at all, nor did she see him as her son like she did the others. It completely made Loki look pathetic because they could have still had him not caring what they thought of him and still had him be mad at Freyja for what she did to him but instead we had the opposite.
    I guess you are right that Loki did do a lot of good in the end of Aaron’s run.

    I know Blake did a lot of bad things but that was too cruel and Loki knows how cruel that is. I suppose though that at least Loki wasn't as cruel as to use Blake's own son's tendrils to tie him down with or at least someone Blake might care about since Blake doesn't have a son and he didn't say Blake was to stay there for eternity like Odin did to Loki. So I guess Loki is no where near as cruel as Odin.

    It happened last chapter. Weren’t you all questioning if Loki killed his own people? That must mean he did.

  10. #40
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    But he didn't undo everything. While i would prefer not undoing anything, undoing a few aspects is a LONG way from undoing EVERYTHING and doing a full character reset. The Freyja thing, yeah, after what she had done to him in Agent of Asgard... but overall that's a fairly small thing in terms of his character development, and comes nowhere close to reverting him back to his old villain status quo. I'm, more concerned with his overall motivations and trajectory than i am with how much he loves his mom, though. I also thought cutting ties with Asgard was another mistake in the ending of Agent of Asgard (I loved AoA.... right up till the final couple issues. which still had elements i liked, but I did not like the status quo set up) because Loki needs Asgard to be a full character, he is not at a place yet where he can stand on his own as a character without them, he doesn't have enough supporting cast or strong enough ties to other MU characters. If they had kept to him severing ties with Asgard, we'd have seen WAY fewer appearances by him, because i don't think his solo would have lasted all that long. I'd rather have him as a guest in Thor every few issues to maybe an appearance every year or so in the wider MU. I also think his ties to Asgard have made the turn more likely to stick. If he has no solo, and can't appear in Thor, then he is appearing in guest spots in other books in the MU, were hey have FAR more reason to want him acting as a villain. But also, I don't think he would have done what he did if he had actually been motivated by what they thought of him. What he did made them hate him, and he knew that would be the result. you could argue that he did that because he didn't care what they thought of him, but after it was done, he realized that.... actually he did care, he couldn't just will himself into NOT caring, even if that may make his life easier.

    And yeah what he did to Blake was cruel, but it's also quite far from being his old self, and is literally no worse than what Odin did to him, and Odin, though deeply flawed, and sometimes an antagonist, was not a villain. Loki is better than he was before, that doesn't mean he's perfect, I think he still has a bit of a mean streak, but I think it's now more at 'character flaw' levels rather than defining characteristic and motivation.

    And Loki did not kill those giants, Mjolnir did, that was very clear. Loki teleported Thor there to show him what Mjolnir had done, hence the 'lose something?' line. Mjolnir went on similar rampages across all the realms, as shown in the opening page. What I was questioning (which was just a nagging feeling as a potential possibility, not something actually shown in the story) was that Loki MIGHT have been riling the other realms up into rebellion, but just saying he was keeping them in line to Thor. But again, it's not something that's actually in the story, it's just a nagging thought that crossed my mind, which I think is not terribly likely.
    Last edited by Raye; 01-11-2022 at 10:57 AM.

  11. #41
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    152

    Default

    But Loki was completely reset though back into his evil villainous self who is hated by everyone. This even shows in Cates run. No maybe that doesn’t but it does put the message across that Loki was in the wrong for thinking Freyja did something wrong and that he deserved what Freyja tried to do and they also had the audacity later to have Freyja call Loki “Son” and make out that she did actually care about him which is a load of nonsense. It wouldn’t have been so bad if they hadn’t made Freyja into a saint who had done nothing wrong or had tried to make out, she cared.

    But he shouldn’t care. This is the problem that Loki is always going to have and what they will use to always make him slide back into old ways. As long as he cares about the Asgardian people the more it’s clear his character will be forever doomed.

    Being part of Thor and the Asgard plot drags his character down. So basically, he’s doomed either way. Either he has to be in the Asgard plot and be treated as the villain or don’t appear nearly at all.

    I mean right now Loki is basically the villain of the story, who is also hated by all of Asgard and Thor who will be accused of killing the frost giants instead of Mjolnir.

    Then why is it a debate that Loki could have done it?

    I mean really name me one good thing Loki has actually done since AOA?

  12. #42
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    .... but he's not? Just, like, he's clearly NOT back to being a villain, I just don't see it at all. There is still an enormous gulf between pre-JIM Loki and the Loki we have now, even if a few aspects have been walked back here and there.

    People are complicated, including Freyja. During Agent of Asgard, she thought she was acting for the good of Asgard, she literally thought Loki being trapped in the role of villain was necessary for the survival of all of Asgard, so decided Loki's happiness was an acceptable sacrifice towards that end. She was mistaken, because she was being manipulated, but that's what she thought, that's what was motivating her. That doesn't mean she didn't love him at all, or mean she couldn't come to regret her decisions later, it meant her motivations were complex. If we accept that Loki can change, and have guilt over his past actions, we have to accept that she can as well, after she learned she was wrong to do what she did.

    And I think Loki needs Asgard as an anchor. Not for in-story reasons, but for real-world reasons. I don't think he can support a solo fr more than a year or so at a time, and Asgard focused things are far more likely to use him as an actual character and respect his character development, because he can still have an interesting part to play as a supporting character to Thor rather than villain, than non-Asgard focused stories, where it is more likely that he would show up as a bad guy of the month.

    Whether Loki killed those giants is not a debate that I recall, at least not in this thread. Maybe you are crossing wires with a discussion elsewhere, but I know I've never suggested that Loki killed those giants. Again, we weren't debating the giant slaughter, we were debating the idea he might (MIGHT!) have been stoking the fires of rebellion, two different things.

    As for what good Loki has done since AoA... I mean, LOTS. Some of it is tied up in actions that LOOK bad on the surface, but he was working towards a greater good, like the Celestial thing (they may have been on their way with or without him, he may have just... massaged events somewhat) to ensure the Avengers were a thing again, AND had a nigh impenetrable base that saved thousands of lives during the War of the Realms. He fixed magic during his Dr Strange story, he also saved Zelma's life, and helped fight back the Void, as well as the assorted Sorcerer Supreme type stuff he did, plus brought Bats back as a ghost to make up for accidentally killing him. He played a vital part in stopping Gamora during that whole Infinity thing. He and Wolverine helped with that Time Gem thing. He killed Laufey who was on the verge of freezing the Earth solid. He stopped Nightmare. He helped protect those 3 goddesses (new Norns?), and bound his fate to theirs as their co-protector, along with Jane. He helped with Blake. If he is telling the truth (and i think he probably is) he's kept the realms from rebelling against Thor. Yes, some of these, especially the ones that took place prior to WotR, involved doing bad things for a good purpose, but the good still outweighed the bad in the end. And after WotR, there's been less 'doing bad for a good purpose' going on. And even before WotR, i mean, Infinity Watch was just straight up him and Wolverine protecting a guy, and in the end it was revealed that it was WOLVERINE that had the ulterior motives, Loki was just in it for... the adventure, i guess.
    Last edited by Raye; 01-11-2022 at 11:57 AM.

  13. #43
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    152

    Default

    I might have agreed if it wasn’t clear that if it had been, let’s say, Thor’s happiness that she needed to sacrifice for the good of Asgard she wouldn’t have even thought about doing it and would have tried to find another way. It was only because it was Loki who she needed to sacrifice that she decided to go along with the plan. So yes, while she was being manipulated it was still her own choice and a choice she would have never even considered with her other children. This is why I dislike Freyja was a good mother to Loki because she wasn’t. Her other kids, yes. Loki, no. That’s fine though I just wish that it didn’t try and paint Freyja in a saintly light or that she tried to be a good mother to Loki because this is just false.

    And yeah, she can change I’m not saying she can’t but first she needs to actually feel any guilt for what she has done but she just doesn’t.

    But Loki has been in non-Asgard stories before and has not been the bad guy.

    Well, whether it was him killing giants or him starting a rebelling both are just as bad as each other and both hint at possibly slide back to evilness.

  14. #44
    Astonishing Member Habis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lambadelta View Post
    I might have agreed if it wasn’t clear that if it had been, let’s say, Thor’s happiness that she needed to sacrifice for the good of Asgard she wouldn’t have even thought about doing it and would have tried to find another way. It was only because it was Loki who she needed to sacrifice that she decided to go along with the plan. So yes, while she was being manipulated it was still her own choice and a choice she would have never even considered with her other children. This is why I dislike Freyja was a good mother to Loki because she wasn’t. Her other kids, yes. Loki, no. That’s fine though I just wish that it didn’t try and paint Freyja in a saintly light or that she tried to be a good mother to Loki because this is just false.

    And yeah, she can change I’m not saying she can’t but first she needs to actually feel any guilt for what she has done but she just doesn’t.

    But Loki has been in non-Asgard stories before and has not been the bad guy.

    Well, whether it was him killing giants or him starting a rebelling both are just as bad as each other and both hint at possibly slide back to evilness.
    Yeah, Freyja was horrible, and nobody called her for it...

    Ironically the Agent of Asgard run was on of the few times Odin was a good father who cared for Loki and loved him, and one of the last times he was a good father at all:




    I miss that Odin...
    Last edited by Habis; 01-11-2022 at 03:10 PM.

  15. #45
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    While I do think Aaron brushed aside her flaws, I don't think he presented her as flawless, she, and to an extent Thor, just THOUGHT she was, which is in itself a flaw, she's egotistical and thinks she is always right. That doesn't mean she actually is, even if some characters share that view of her. Having a bit of an ego also doesn't make her a bad person, just a flawed one. And to be fair, we don't actually know if she felt guilt over Loki or not. We have had chunks of time with her and Loki happen off panel, because she, and/or Loki, wasn't particularly important to the story at all times, (and in Loki's case, they were trying to keep his motivations mysterious, which necessitated not getting into his headspace and personal life much. As a fan this was annoying, yeah, but... you can't really do both mysterious motivations AND a lot of personal stuff at the same time) so it's pretty easy to handwave away her and Loki kinda reconciling off-panel at some point between AoA and Loki's first appearance during Aaron's run. I'd have preferred to actually see it happen, sure, but due to comics having limited real estate to show character bits vs plot without bogging things down a ton, it's not like this sort of thing is uncommon, this is part of why people have bits of headcanon to explain away the gaps. Especially in a semi-ensemble cast like Thor, particularly at that time, when it had the whole Jane thing happening. Yeah, it's not canon unless a writer decides to do some kind of flashback, but... until something else confirms or contradicts it, it's also not hurting anything to just kinda decide they made up off panel. In any case, after the whole stabbing incident, I consider things to be even between them. They were both shitty to each other for the greater good, scales balanced between them as far as I am concerned. Dredging up some kind of grudge between them now over AoA would not accomplish anything. As for if she would have done things differently if it were Thor... maybe? We can't really say for sure. but in any case, Thor being the favoured child of the bunch, by both Odin and Freyja, is hardly new. But that doesn't mean they don't love their other children AT ALL, just... they have a favourite. Which I am not saying is good, at all, but that's pretty well established at this point. But that doesn't completely negate them having feelings for their not-Thor children, there's room for nuance there.

    and regarding how differently Odin and Freyja were depicted, personal preferences aside, to be fair, Aaron's depictions should have taken priority. Loki was the spinoff book, it should have been following Aaron's lead.

    And Loki has been in non-Asgard stories and not been the bad guy in them, yes, BUT they couldn't just do whatever they wanted with him. His characterization in the Asgard books took priority, they had to adhere to how he was being depicted in Thor, or Agent of Asgard or whatever. There's still going to be some variances in terms of voice, and a couple appearances you could tell the writer definitely had a darker view on him than others did, and probably would have preferred to use him as a straight up villain, but still, they could still not diverge from his Asgard appearances to the degree that he would be a villain again. The one time he did, (the Deadpool and Gambit thing) the editor had to try and explain that the story actually took place in the past, after fans were miffed about the discrepancy. Take that away, and he can go for like 6 months without appearing in anything and then some writer could decide they want him to come be the villain vs Captain Marvel or Spider-Man or whoever, and there's nothing really stopping them from doing that, because doing so would not contradict any other current appearances, because there are none. Having him appear in Asgard means all the other writers have to use him in a way that does not contradict his characterization in Thor. him having a permanent connection to Asgard protects him in that way.

    And I really don't thing slaughtering dozens, if not hundreds, or thousands, we may have seen only a tiny amount of the destruction, of his own subjects for.... reasons? is anywhere near on the same level as talking trash about Thor to assorted rulers across the realms. Which, again, is not something we have actually seen to be the case, it was just an idle thought. If he is shown to be behind Mjolnir's rampage somehow, or was the one who killed the giants, (in which case why were they not trying to kill him in retaliation? he was right there, and they didn't seem to care, from what i could see, they were only tending to the fallen, it just doesn't make sense if you think about it) or, yes, adding fuel to the rebellion talk, then yes, he would be the bad guy in this scenario. But, while it is technically a possibility that this is the case, that hasn't been revealed yet in story, if so, and we cant really be judging him to be back to being a bad guy again based on possibilities of what might happen.

    Look, I LOVE to speculate and try to guess what's coming down the line. But I know damn well to not take that speculation so seriously that I am making judgments about characters before those events happen. I know this may not always come across in my posts, but I really do try to keep opinions about what HAS happened and what MIGHT happen separate. I like to take some guesses, but at the end of the day i just have to wait and see how things go. I can be wrong, I know that, I've been wrong before. Hell, it looks like I might have been wrong with one of my long standing bits of speculation about Loki taking Thor's place, when it's now looking more likely he might become king. I'm not prepared to declare Loki a villain again on a maybe.
    Last edited by Raye; 01-11-2022 at 04:08 PM.

Posting Permissions

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