Loki Appreciation 2018

[Raye]

Comics are a very unique medium, especially when it comes to Marvel. It offert longterm storytelling in a way that he simply don't find in any other form.

But part of that means regressions and sliding timescales, not out laziness but because people want to writer characters as they know them.

The thing Loki has going for him is that, at this point, the Loki we're seeing now is, in the eyes of many fans, his own man, his own character. "Regression" for him would be essentially turning him into another character.

That's the way it has often been done, but I'm saying I don't think it HAS to be done this way. Nor should Loki be the only one it works for, I love him, but he ain't that special. Those other characters are ALSO 'their own characters' especially Doom. But any character would struggle to become well rounded if they are continually reset, especially if it's a character like Galactus who has a very limiting 'traditional' role.

And comics are not that unique. There have been other long term stories that have allowed their characters to progress, look at Dr Who. Or any of the countless soap operas, a few of which have gone on for just as long as the MU, pumping out a new episode every day. The longest running ones are apparently at around 15,000 episodes. So while they've 'only' been around since the 50's (or even as far back as the 30's, a couple of them started as radio dramas, and switched to TV in the 50's, continuing the same storyline. apparently, Guiding Light reached a total of 18,262 episodes if you count the radio episodes as well) so about the same as Marvel in terms of time, but, I mean, 15,000 episodes blows the longest running comics out of the water, the longest running (American) comics haven't even cracked 2,000 yet. so yeah, don't tell me it's impossible to do in a long runner, it is done every day.

Now, I am not saying it has to be as much change as happens in TV, a lot of that has to do with actors aging and quitting the show, which comics don't have to deal with, so the changes are often quite dramatic over time. But I think it can still allow the characters to actually progress without continually reverting things, and those shows demonstrate that it is absolutely possible. If writers want to write a version of a character that tickles their nostalgia, do a what-if, or a flashback story or something.

There are other comics universes/stories where they do allow the characters to grow, as well. A few have the universe progress in real time rather than use a sliding timescale. They are not as popular as Marvel, true, but they show it is possible. There is nothing inherent about superhero comics that means they HAVE to be frozen in place in terms of character development. One of the most notable and my personal favorite ones was sadly cancelled when DC did their New 52 thing, the Wildstorm universe. It progressed in real time, so the characters aged, had kids, and changed over time, and it was great. I didn't like all the changes, but overall, it was cool. Another notable example is the Image universe, in particular Savage Dragon, which, though it sells kinda paltry numbers these days, admittedly, has been going since the 90's and seen some dramatic changes in that time.

dislcaimer - not a fan of soaps myself, personally, haven't watched one in many years, (my sister used to be huge into a few of them, and I'd sometimes watch them with her when we were like, high school aged-ish, but not since then) but I do have to give them some serious props for managing to continue a story for THAT long.

[Rosebunse]

The difference between Marvel and those soaps is that you have to make changes with soaps because people get old and die. They have to replace actors. Even Doctor Who isn't immune to this and even that show manages to suffer from some of the same recons and redoing old stories that Marvel does. The fact, when it comes to comics, they could offer change, but you have so many things against it. Yes, you have the companies that have a vested interest in keeping things the same-it's easier from a marketing standpoint-but it's also because all writers have their own agendas and to be honest, plenty of the remaining writers aren't that far removed from the "original" writers who came up with most of these characters to begin with. Maybe we will see more change as these writers leave and/or die off, which isn't a happy thought and I'm sorry to bring it up. But until then you're going to have yet another reason why writers keep reusing these old stories.

We know comics change and we know that they can change and stay changed for a long time. Look at Spiderman or even the X-Men-drastic changes have occurred which have left their lasting marks. It's just that those are a little more subtle than some of the larger changes which, honestly, tend not to last.

I will say that as for the current "regression" with Doom and Galactus, I think things are a little more complex than this just being things going back to normal. Let's just take Galactus: Galactus has never been truly evil. In fact, he has been shown to be quite noble and selfless and even kind when the occasion arises. But he's also known to be extremely petty, self-absorbed, and full of self-loathing. His turn back to the Devourer of Worlds isn't tragic because he sacrificed his own happiness for the greater good, but because he drags the Silver Surfer down with him. Does he really need Norrin Radd to find suitable planets? Or is he so lonely and petty that he has to hurt share his pain with someone and that someone just happens to be poor Surfer? Let's remember, Galactus actually likes Norrin quite a lot. He respects him and cares for him as a friend, but if he is going to suffer, then he is going to spread that suffering to the one person who can't leave him, despite how much pain it causes Norrin.

Heck, even Doom's situation has less to do with him being truly evil and more to do with him being petty and vengeful than being truly evil.

But I think if you want to look at both of these examples and what they have to do with Loki, it's that they tell us that it's hard to change. It's not just about you changing yourself, but about the random crap and shit that the world forces on you that could change you back. Sometimes shit happens and you aren't really given a choice but to revert to old patterns. But you can do things to lessen the impact and you can make the choice to not hurt the people around you.

And we see that Loki is actually trying to lessen this impact. He's warning people about the Celestials, he's not murdering Cap, he's not murdering his mother, he brought Bats back from the dead, etc.

[Raye]

The difference between Marvel and those soaps is that you have to make changes with soaps because people get old and die. They have to replace actors. Even Doctor Who isn't immune to this and even that show manages to suffer from some of the same recons and redoing old stories that Marvel does.

Now, I am not saying it has to be as much change as happens in TV, a lot of that has to do with actors aging and quitting the show, which comics don't have to deal with, so the changes are often quite dramatic over time. But I think it can still allow the characters to actually progress without continually reverting things, and those shows demonstrate that it is absolutely possible. If writers want to write a version of a character that tickles their nostalgia, do a what-if, or a flashback story or something.

The fact, when it comes to comics, they could offer change, but you have so many things against it. Yes, you have the companies that have a vested interest in keeping things the same-it's easier from a marketing standpoint-but it's also because all writers have their own agendas and to be honest, plenty of the remaining writers aren't that far removed from the "original" writers who came up with most of these characters to begin with. Maybe we will see more change as these writers leave and/or die off, which isn't a happy thought and I'm sorry to bring it up. But until then you're going to have yet another reason why writers keep reusing these old stories.

I understand why it happens. I just don't agree with it, nor do i think it's something that HAS to be done that way. It is a decision some within Marvel have made, not some inevitability. A decision I disagree with.

Marketing? Far more people buy the merchandise than read the comics, most merch-only people never will pick up a comic. So for most people, the fact that a character may be a bit different than they are in some merchandising material will be wholly irrelevant, they'll never know. The few people who decide to try out the comics based on a T-shirt or something, well, I'm sure they are savvy enough to figure out that characters can evolve over time. Especially now, when TV shows like Breaking Bad, Westworld etc. have broken that trend of an unchanging status quo in television. People have come to expect characters to grow and change.

My niece's first exposure to the Marvel characters was merchandise, sticker books, stuff like that. so she was first exposed to classic Parker Spider-Man and Bruce Banner Hulk and classic Vision. I got her a Champions subscription, it has Miles and Cho and Viv. She's fine, she figured it, out and she's 10.

Agendas? I don't deny they exist, but these are supposed to be professionals, they should be able to work with what's come before, including character changes, or the shared universe means nothing. If it the current status of a character goes against their mental image born of nostalgia, too bad, suck it up and do your job. If they are unable or unwilling to do that, find someone who will.

We know comics change and we know that they can change and stay changed for a long time. Look at Spiderman or even the X-Men-drastic changes have occurred which have left their lasting marks. It's just that those are a little more subtle than some of the larger changes which, honestly, tend not to last.

I know here are exceptions to the rule. I just wish that was reversed. so that progression is the norm, and resetting is the odd exception.

And you realize you bring up Spider-Man when he JUST had his status quo reset? Everything from Parker Industries is gone, he's back at the Daily Bugle, fighting Norman Osborn again, shitty apartment, shit luck, etc. Yeah a few details are altered a bit, not a photographer, a few new faces among the supporting cast. But he's pretty much back to square one all the same. And he had one of the most notorious status quo resets in all of comics when he had his marriage erased, too.

I will say that as for the current "regression" with Doom and Galactus, I think things are a little more complex than this just being things going back to normal. Let's just take Galactus: Galactus has never been truly evil. In fact, he has been shown to be quite noble and selfless and even kind when the occasion arises. But he's also known to be extremely petty, self-absorbed, and full of self-loathing. His turn back to the Devourer of Worlds isn't tragic because he sacrificed his own happiness for the greater good, but because he drags the Silver Surfer down with him. Does he really need Norrin Radd to find suitable planets? Or is he so lonely and petty that he has to hurt share his pain with someone and that someone just happens to be poor Surfer? Let's remember, Galactus actually likes Norrin quite a lot. He respects him and cares for him as a friend, but if he is going to suffer, then he is going to spread that suffering to the one person who can't leave him, despite how much pain it causes Norrin.

Heck, even Doom's situation has less to do with him being truly evil and more to do with him being petty and vengeful than being truly evil.

But the point isn't that they are going evil or not, it's just that they are returning to an old status quo just for the sake of returning to the old status quo. Good or evil is irrelevant, I'd have issues with them returning a hero that had done a heel turn to their previous characterization as well. Hell, I've got issues with the Deadpool mind wipe, or what they are doing with Spidey right now. It's just about character development being undone. I think characters should be allowed to keep their progress rather than continually being brought back to square one. That's a massive part of why I am even a fan of Loki right now, because his story was commentary on that very phenomenon. And it's not as if Galactus was any less a 'force of nature' as the Lifebringer than he was as the Devourer. And it doesn't really open up any new stories that we haven't already seen a ton of times to make him the Devourer again. You can not convince me he is more interesting in his old status quo than the new one. How many times do we need to see Galactus trying to eat the Earth and some heroes have to stop him? they can stop in in different ways, sure, but surely we can come up with a planetary threat that we haven't seen before and that would be more interesting, no? wouldn't it be more interesting to see Doom on the same side as Reed and exploring how their relationship has changed now, rather than returning to the whole 'cursed Richards!' shtick?

and look, If you can say all that about Galactus, I don't see how you can say he's 'not his own person', let alone Doom. You said that their face turns couldn't stick because there wasn't as much to them or their turns as there was with Loki, but then you illustrate yourself that's not true.

But I think if you want to look at both of these examples and what they have to do with Loki, it's that they tell us that it's hard to change. It's not just about you changing yourself, but about the random crap and shit that the world forces on you that could change you back. Sometimes shit happens and you aren't really given a choice but to revert to old patterns. But you can do things to lessen the impact and you can make the choice to not hurt the people around you.

And we see that Loki is actually trying to lessen this impact. He's warning people about the Celestials, he's not murdering Cap, he's not murdering his mother, he brought Bats back from the dead, etc.

But hard doesn't have to mean nigh impossible. Loki should not be the exception, that's all I'm saying. These reversions have little to do with them showing how hard it is, it's just because they are familiar in those roles. And I think that sucks.

[Rosebunse]

OK, I want to say that when I use the word "agenda," I don't mean anything particular sinister by it. I just mean that many writers want to work with a certain character or concept and use them a certain way. I personally think the word has a lot of unnecessary negative connotations, but it isn't a bad word just because of that.

And what I mean by Spiderman is that while the big changes are pushed away, there are smaller changes that have kept. Black Cat is a crime boss, MJ and Peter are still separated, there are how many dead side-characters, it appears that Horizon Labs will be being used in Iron Man, Eddie Brock and Venom now have some sort of weird semi-romantic relationship that is actually sort of functional, etc. These are small and subtle changes that we don't always appreciate, but they are there.

I'm saying that I don't think these heel-turns are that unexpected and I think they illustrate why these characters were "villains" in the first place. Not just because they did villainous things, but of their own personality flaws. And I don't think it's bad or lazy writing because, honestly, changing is hard. Changing who you are to be better is really hard. And for most people, it doesn't last. It's not even always their fault, sometimes shit happens and being that better person just isn't going to stay.

I really liked what Duggan did to Galactus and Silver Surfer. It was hard to watch, it was tragic, and it showcased the ways that Galactus and the Silver Surfer are great and complex characters. Plus it actually did change up the playing field and put poor Adam Warlock in a pretty uncomfortable situation. Let's remember, he and Surfer are friends. He thought he had saved Surfer from being a slave to Ultron and now the poor guy is back to being a slave to Galactus. That just sucks for everyone.

So if someone can create a story about Loki becoming evil again and make it nice and interesting, I would be fine. It would crush me and hurt me, but I would be fine.

However, I don't think Marvel is going to do that to the current Loki because, well, the old Loki wasn't really that interesting and there are a dozen ways they could bring him back and still keep the current Loki.

EDIT: And Raye, I think you and I just have different opinions on this. I don't think you're completely wrong, I don't want us to stop debating this because it's fun and it showcases how interesting these comics are. Plus it's fun because you use some great arguments and aren't mean. But I do think that there are just going to be some stuff we just don't agree on here. And that's OK.

[Raye]

I get that writers have preferred takes on characters. But the professionalism point still stands. That they have a take that is more reliant on an old characterization doesn't mean they should just undo what more recent writers have done in order to do that. It's disrespectful to the other writers, and to the fans of the stories, who may have become invested in the current status quo rather than the old one. Moving forward may not be to everyone's tastes either, but at least moving forward doesn't render the previous stories kind of pointless the way undoing them would. I get that they would still be a part of continuity on most cases, and stories can be enjoyed in isolation, but to have a character's development taken away is disheartening, and makes what you read seem like the stories just didn't matter. that is why I want Loki to stick with things, I want everything he's been through from JIM and beyond to MEAN something for him. If it just ends in him going back to the same old villain, it takes some of the air out of everything, because he failed, and it didn't have a lasting impact on him. And the same goes for other characters, too. It's disheartening to see Doom and Galactus barely get started on a new life for themselves just to have it taken away.

I think you can move a story forward and end up in a place kinda similar to the old status quo. A bit of a subtle distinction, but better than just a straight up reset. Still not something i am overly keen on when it comes Loki, because again, I don't want him to lose, but can work in some cases. Like, i think this is kind of where they are going with Thor, since his unworthiness period was clearly meant from the beginning for him to re-find what worthiness meant, and when he did that, he'd be back in form. mostly. But doing so doesn't render everything pointless, and he will likely come through it all with some reminders of this time, such as the missing arm. But in that case, there was actual narrative support for a return to form, and though he will more than likely end up in a similar place, it still feels like he's learning something from all this, and it will matter to him in the future. Of course, if the next writer comes along and has him sprout a new arm, then that will be something I'd be disappointed about. I hope Donny Cates takes over, personally, and I don't think he'd be the sort to do that, though.

They aren't unexpected, but only because it happens frequently. I don't think there was anything in the narrative sense that was pointing to it, only meta. Tragic, i guess, but only in that I think they hit the reset button far too soon, and the alternative would have been more interesting, and that's not going to happen now. I don't think anything was happening there except a return to status quo for nostalgia sake. (presumably for Fantastic Four, in both cases) That they wanted them to be 'classic' because reasons I don't agree with. In a story I personally didn't even like. I said a few posts back that I have hated Infinity, that was part of the reason I said that.

and I don't really count secondary characters when I talk a return to status quo. Of course they aren't reverting every tiny detail, and some things will stay the same. But they are minor, it's window dressing. A bit of misdirection to keep the illusion of change going, while they reset the important bits.

[Rosebunse]

Ok, first thing's first, I looked up Galactus scans over the weekend and one thing I've noticed are all the panels where Galactus just gently holds whoever is talking to him in his giant hands. It's bizarrely cute.

I just feel like Loki isn't really in quite the same danger Doom or Galactus would be. This Loki is really a distinct character from Old Loki. He has his own fans, his own expectations and status quo.

No one, even Ewing, thought Galactus was going to stay as the Lifebringer. And I'm sure Hickman assumed that someone would come along and mess with Doom.

Plus, isn't it just a tad bit premature to act like Doom is back to murdering his exes for their skin?

[Raye]

I realize that Loki is in less danger than the others, because his turn was generally well received, but that doesn't mean I have to like that it happens so frequently with other characters, this isn't just about Loki. But the fact that no one expects the turns to stick just underscores the problem. And to be clear, just because they expect it doesn't mean they approve of it. Ewing in particular has been quite vocal on never reverting a face turn on a book he's writing, just on principle, so I'd imagine he's not exactly supportive of others undoing his turns, even if he does expect it. So yeah, it's not as if everyone is like this. But all it takes is one editorial decree or writer particularly attached to a version of a character from the past to do something like this. Sandman went for like 10 years face turned, and all it took was one shitty decision to undo that, with no explanation until one was slapped on later in another book, that he had his mind messed with as a handwave for the turn.

I love face turns, heel turns too, but usually less so, (but they can be fantastic if done well, like Breaking Bad, though there the entire point of the series was the heel turn) I just like to see characters grow, for good or ill, the face/heel turns are just the most extreme form of character growth. But the changes usually aren't as much fun if they only last a little while and then they go back to how they were. I mean it CAN work, if a character tries and fails, something like Sabretooth who was magically changed, and it was always kinda understood that the spell could wear off, and the point was what would happen if it did. Or flip flops back and forth like Magneto, that works for him, even though it started as an early example of people trying to revert him to a mustache twirler, but there was some pushback. But I don't think that characters should be expected to revert, there should be a good chance for any change to stick, even if every single one doesn't. It gets dull and predictable if we just expect them all to go back to their old characterizations/roles. I mean, wasn't that kinda the entire point of JIM? yeah they framed it as Loki specifically, because he was the star of the book, but it was a meta commentary on this whole status quo pull thing in general, having characters married to a particular role, and how it can lead to dull, predictable stories if everything always resets to a familiar status quo.

It seems like characters are given less of a chance to grow and change now than they were previously. In the past, we had some face turns (and other changes, such as Beast getting all blue and furry) happen and stick for decades. Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Rogue, and more, all ex-villains. But those all happened a while back, some people may not even realize these days they started as villains, their turns happened so long ago. But now, it feels like we're lucky if we get a couple years from a turn before they are reverted. It's like any changes made after the mid 90's are just doomed to fail, until someone gets nostalgic for their old characterization and reverts them. I realize that part of this is that the longer a character spends in a certain role, the more defined they become by that role, so in the early days there wasn't as much tying characters to one side or the other, but still. It sucks that it's so much harder to get real character growth and change nowadays. There is the odd exception here and there, like Loki, maybe Venom, (though that one is complicated because it is actually 2 characters working together and can depend on the host) or someone like Songbird (but she was a newer character, so the less history thing applies to her too) but they are very rare. And when comics only come out once a month, a couple years isn't very long in terms of how much story we get.

And it may be a bit early, but given some things Slott has said, (not to mention the solicit) and the 2 in 1 annual, it's looking pretty likely.

Anyway, I have been doing Sims the past few days, so I could get Skurge added. I had moved Tony, Carol and Cap into Asgard because the brothers are filthy rich, so i could then move them into an absurdly expensive house lfrom there, and add the rest of the team. But then just kinda forgot about it, until I read the first issue of Thor, and realized i kinda needed to add Skurge. Which meant kicking the Avengers out. So I built the Avengers mansion, finally. I mean, technically, it is supposed to be 'Avengers Mountian' according to the solicit, but... there are limits to what I can do. So I just built them a house, and moved in Tony, T'Challa, Carol, Robbie, Jen and Cap. Thor remains at Asgard, and Strange remains at the Sanctum, but they are in the game. It's nothing too fancy, I was mostly going for functional, but I actually had a lot of fun decorating all their rooms. (even though they all have the exact same bed, except Tony, who needed a dream pod for his lifetime wish, and has a lock on his door instead. I had hoped it would minimize bed stealing, because they are all exactly the same, no bed is better than any other, but no, they still sometimes steal each other's beds for some reason)

https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067844105
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067846398

Tony:
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067846398
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067854355
Tony gets more space than the others, because I made him an 'Inventor' (obviously) and he needs more stuff to do his job, the others just go off to a rabbit hole to work, he works from home. So he gets a lab attached to his room.

Carol:
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067857738
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067859158
Probably my least fave of the bunch, honestly. She is also a real PITA to get along with, something about the personality traits i chose just makes her INCREDIBLY difficult to get along with, all her relationships are at like 0.

Cap:
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067871340
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067874283
I love his bed sheets so much.

Jen:
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067881542
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067886628
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067889694
You know how hard purple and green is to work with? But it came out pretty good.

T'challa:
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067913388
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067911969
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067914917

Robbie:
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067892199
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067898755
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067902815
Sadly, i could not find a mod that would allow me to add his distinctive white hair streak. I had a lot of fun going for a whole teenager look with this one, though, so lots of posters and stuff on the wall. And of course flame pattern sheets. obviously. And, naturally, I downloaded a mod so he could have a proper Hell Charger:
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067905104
1969 Dodge Charger, though it is missing the custom modifications the comics version has, and it of course will never have flaming wheels, but still.

And they have a little something special lurking in the corner of their living room...
https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067917230
I mean, the gems are the wrong colour, but close enough

And then, once that was done, I made Skurge today, finally. Just in time for issue 2. (watch, as he's written out. But I doubt it, because Asgardians of the Galaxy) since it looks like he will be a fairly big part of this arc, seems to be Balder's right hand man, and looks like he will be getting resurrected at some point.

https://steamcommunity.com/id/RayeGu...83319067922887
I couldn't get the head tattoos, but... still, it works. to fit his room in, i moved the cars outside, and split the former garage into his room and a workshop type area with a lot of miscellaneous equipment that is needed but won't really fit anywhere else. Now that i have that extra room, I think I will take the boys to France to do some adventuring and also pick up a Nectar (wine) maker, cus of course Asgard needs a steady supply of booze and now i have the room to put it in.

[Raye]

So I read Thor. Some interesting developments.

spoilers:

so yeah, that was Hela on the train. And it was a complete (well, nearly, but I don't think we're going to see the long-absent brothers Hermod and Vidar anytime soon) Odinson brother reunion, cus Tyr showed up as well (on a T-REX cus he's just that badass) but apparently Tyr is on Team Hela rather than Team Odinson, so things just got more complicated there. However, Loki did try to warn Thor that Tyr might betray him, which raises some questions about how he knew, but could earn him some forgiveness points. But how did Loki know? We know he's got some inside info from Malekith, which he is presumably using now, but Hela escaping seems to be separate from that. It is possible he knew Hela was on the train, but his reaction, asking what kind of weapon was kept in a cage, didn't make that seem too likely. I also noticed that Tyr and Karnilla were the ones who said they uncovered the "weapon" so... is Karnilla with Tyr on this? If he said that he learned about the "weapon" being transported while she was there, and she never contested that, and he knew it was Hela and he was trying to free her the whole time, that does seem to imply Karnilla is on Team Hela as well. She was also the one that led the charge on trying to have Loki chopped into tiny pieces, could it be that she knew that he knew she and Tyr were going to betray the brothers? In any case, if she is on team Hela, poor Balder. I did like that Thor stood up for Loki... sort of. the others all seemed ready to hack him to pieces, except Balder who left it up to Thor to decide, and Thor said he would take responsibility for Loki. It was accompanied by a threat should Loki betray them, but still. also, he said he had a pact with Loki he intended to honor, but I don't seem to remember Thor actually AGREEING to that deal, before Loki tried to teleport him to Hel, so I don't think he's actually bound by a pact as such, personally. I'm going with the idea that he was using the pact as an excuse.

end of spoilers

[Rosebunse]

OK, so, no one complain about their fan favorite character getting shat on because fucking Jared Leto has been cast in the Morbius movie and it makes me so freaking mad! I love Morbius and I find Jared Leto repulsive!

Also, when it comes to what Slott says and what he actually does with a character, those are two different things. I mean, I remember all the hate he got at the beginning of Superior Spiderman. And ultimately it was a very fun run.

And damn, Raye, your Sims look lovely! Even if they don't look exactly like the characters, they really capture what makes them them, just in Sims form I forget, have you done Hela yet or do you have any plans for her?

I really liked this issue. Poor Loki just seemed so sad through. Like he has to confront just how much the other actually hate him, which is something I don't think he's really had to deal with yet.

I have a few theories on how Loki knew Tyr would betray them. Loki likely knew that Malekith had captured Hela and the Fenris Wolf. He also knew that Tyr is in love with Hela. He also knows that it's not like Thor and Baldur are Tyr's favorite people. So he just put two and two together and figured that Tyr would betray them sooner or later. I can also see Loki trying to get on Thor's good side by taking advantage of the rift between Thor and his other brothers. He knows that he was always the favorite with Thor and as you point out, if Thor really wanted him gone, now would be the time to do it.

The interesting thing is how you just don't know how much Loki's sadness in this issue is an act and how much of it is how he really feels about the situation he's found himself in.

[Raye]

I like Jared Leto allright in most things he's done, but I don't think he should be allowed near a superhero franchise again.... but, then again, you could have said the same thing about Ryan Reynolds after Green Lantern and their first stab at Deadpool, so you never know.

In other movie news tho, it looks like a Young Avengers movie is possibly in the works, though several years off. We know nothing of it yet aside from the fact that Cassie will be in it if it happens, but it could be pointing towards them going the Kid Loki route for resurrecting Loki.

And no, I have not created Hela yet, I wanted to see more about how she was added to the story first. So far, looks like I may have to have a Team Hela household, with her and Tyr and Fenris (who will have to be a LOT smaller) and of course we will have a marriage! (maybe) between her and one of the brothers.

"War rages across the land of the dead, and not even the reunion of Thor with his brother Balder can stop it! Perhaps peace might come from the wedding of the century… in Hel! With Hela, the goddess of death, as the bride, which Odinson brother is going to be the lucky groom? And what special surprise guest is looking to put a deadly stop to the nuptials?"

But which brother is marrying her? before, when the solicit was first announced, the only brothers we knew for sure that would be there were Thor, Balder and Loki, and it's Thor and Balder shown on the cover. But now Tyr is in the mix, and even if he wasn't on the cover, I think he's a candidate. I see no benefit to Hela from marrying Thor or Loki, she nor they have anything to gain from it, not to mention they seem to be playing into Loki's parentage of her (even though in the comics that doesn't really work very well, she's older than he is, but here's hoping it's just referring to the JIM time travel thing in the case of Hela) which would make that squicky, so I think we can scratch them. So Balder or Tyr seem most likely. Balder because it could gain her the throne back, Tyr because of his relationship with her.

I still think Thanos is the wedding crasher. Which means it's basically a situation that goes from bad, to worse, to even worse.

As for all the others reactions to Loki... I dunno if sad is how i would describe his reactions to it. A bit, sure, but i think it's a more complex mix of things than just sad. More sad plus frustrated and annoyed is how I would describe it. Though I think he must realize he brought a lot of this on himself, but not like knowing that would make the situation any easier to deal with. You can kinda understand now why Loki wanted to send Thor there alone. At the time, it just seemed like he was using Thor to get what he wants... and, well, he was, but not just out of laziness or just because he could. though he framed this as a favor to Thor done in anticipation of payment of some kind, Loki chose the location, he had to know at least vaguely what awaited on the other side, and knew what Thor would do once he got there, more or less, based on the type of person he is. So besides what he wants in return for sending him, he wants Thor to do his thing and stop the situation. Something he could have done himself, or planned to go with Thor, except he knew his other brothers and others would likely react in this way, obviously he would have been of little use. They would have never accepted him without Thor there to vouch for him, they may have just tried to kill him. Not that Thor is overly fond of him, he's definitely anger, but I am getting the sense now that a lot of it is bluster. Karnilla though, her reaction was... unusual in how extreme it was. It was strange that she was the one who led the charge on wanting to hack him up. She and Loki have worked together before, and not like she has enjoyed a perfectly loyal reputation herself. I think something is up with her.

And after Tyr's betrayal, I am suspecting that during their time in Hel, Loki may actually be the most loyal to Thor of all the brothers. I think Tyr's allegiance to Hela may be the one that stings the most, but what Loki said about Tyr's loyalties could also apply to Balder. All four of the brothers are different people now, in different situations, and i think they will react differently than expected because of that.

[Rosebunse]

Leto is actually a fine actor, really, but he's also unprofessional and, frankly, bizarre. And not the good sort of bizarre. The difference between him and Ryan Reynolds is that the later wasn't a huge creep on the set of Green Lantern. He was also probably the best part of the movie. His issue wasn't that he was a bad actor, but that his good looks and charm made him seem like a leading man when in all reality he's a character actor. Leto was known to harass his costars and the only film I've really been impressed with is Dallas Buyer's Club. But he had to be restraint in that movie.

Given a little of his craziness, he might actually be a good fit for Morbius. We might actually see an ugly Morbius! But then you have the man's sexual assault allegations against him and his obnoxious behavior and I really don't think I can support this movie.

If you do do a Hela household, show us the wedding! And give us the babies that the comics will never give us.

I think that cover for Thor #3 is misleading. It just doesn't show Tyr because it would be too obvious. Unless Aaron forgot Thanos, I can see Hela using the love she knows Tyr has for her to get to him. But I can also see Hela using Thanos for Tyr's sake.

Actually, even Gillen's recon of Hela could still, in theory, make her Loki's daughter. There are several versions of the myths where Loki gives birth to her himself, so it all really works out quite nicely. Besides, Hela still probably hates Loki. That isn't going to change. She and the Fenris Wolf have no reason to side with him.

Karnilla's reaction makes sense. She is dead and her home is felled to Malekith's forces. Yes, they have worked together in the past and each time she's gotten the short end of the stick. And now Karnilla has the legit fear that Loki will rat them out to Malekith, which will not only destroy her, but potentially her love, Baldur, who you are right to point out. Baldur is King of Hel. His first business is to Hel.

We know Loki's goal is to save the world, but one can't help but feel like he really wants Thor to like him again.

And as for a YA movie, I'm game. A younger Loki would be easy enough to pull off. I just wonder how they'll explain the weirder aspects of the team.

[Raye]

In the myths, the only one of his children that Loki actually gave birth to is Sleipnir. Hela, it is straightforward, Loki and the giantess Angrboða had children. done. I have never heard any other take on things, except in one poem where she is referred to as his sister. But that's kind of irrelevant anyway, because the biological birth origin, whether it is with Angrboða or not, can not work in Marvel, it just can't, because unlike the myths, in the comics Loki is roughly the same age as Thor, and Hela is portrayed as quite a bit older than them both. The problem with her being his daughter in the comics is nothing about who actually gave birth, it's a problem of age, you can't be younger than your children. Which is why Gillen did what he did with JIM, where she is his figurative daughter rather than his biological daughter, after he wrote her into existence as story-Leah, and then sent back in time, and Angrboða was removed from the equation entirely. At least in regards to Hela, she may still be a factor with Fenrir.

And I don't think Loki will side with her or vice versa. What seems to be happening is, kind of fittingly given the recent discussion, is a bit of a commentary on nostalgia. Thor, Balder and Tyr have a very nostalgic view of their past together, i don't think it was unintentional that they were all hugs and smiles almost to an absurd degree. Even if you throw Loki into the mix, it's the same thing, just not in a pleasant way. They are looking at one another and seeing who they (and their relationships to one another) WERE, rather than who they ARE, and likely an idealized version of the past. Just like many fans do. But they are all very different people now, they have changed (yay, character development!) and so I think they are in for a nasty shock when they come into conflict with one another and fall on different sides of the situation. Tyr was the first, but I would not be surprised to see Balder go that way as well, in a different way. And Loki is different too, probably the most different of the bunch, but Thor and the others don't see that, because they are hung up on the past. But he will more than likely come to Thor's defense. His reasons may be a bit murky, is he doing it because it's Thor, or does he just want to get this mystery favor from him? but still, I think he will be the one Thor can rely on most, despite their past and his current feelings towards Loki. I mean, he is in a position right now where he is the only one there that CAN help Thor. Karnilla, Skurge and Balder jumped the river and are apparently headed to Hel, Tyr sided with Hela, so Loki is the only one there that is even able to come to thor's defense. Well, and Thori and the goat.

I still think Karnilla's reaction was very extreme. Malekith destroyed the Nornkeep, true, but Loki was nowhere near there when it happened, he was in Jotunheim with Laufey. How does she even know he's 'working' with Malekith? But at least she is focused on the recent events rather than distant.

and I suspect that if Kid Loki is on the MCU Young Avengers, they will cover his origins in the next Thor movie, first, rather than have him debut in Young Avengers. Cassie is only around 10 or so in the movies, so it's going to be a minimum or 5 or so years off, maybe more, there is time for a Thor movie in that time.

[Rosebunse]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki

Here we have sources of Loki eating a heart to be impregnated. And you have other poems and such. Of course, this being Norse myth, it's up to interpretation. The important thing for our purposes is that this is one story that is alive and well in the larger fandom, meaning that it does hold influence over Loki's story here. Because, well, I still contend that Loki is the God of Stories and that Aaron hasn't completely forgotten that. Which is why she can be his figurative daughter and not really his daughter. Fenir/Fenris and the Midgard Serpent are definitely still his sons, which is nice since it does make things a little less confusing...I think.

I guess my opinion of Hela and Fenir is that even if they aren't blood related, they are sort of related and they've worked together enough on different Ragnorak cycles to be an effective team.

Nice point about this being about nostalgia. Honestly, looking at it, I'm not sure Tyr was as genuinely excited to see Thor as Baldur was. By that point, he knew that Hela was captured and he knew that he would need help in freeing her. He also knew that none of them would help him if he was truthful about it...maybe. I think he might have gotten some help, but the issue is that everyone probably wants Baldur as king of Hel instead of Hela as queen. Not that Hela does a bad job. Hel is easily one of the better hells in the MU and Hela is easily one of the more successful Hell Lords. She does good work.

Of course Karnilla is mad at Loki. He might not have killed her himself, but he sided with Malekith and helped to make her death and the loss of her kingdom possible. The woman is a powerful sorceress and a queen of a place that made mystical seer stones. And Loki wasn't exactly hiding who he was working with.

I wouldn't say that it's good that she's so focused on Loki. Baldur was clearly trying to be somewhat reasonable with Loki, but Karnilla is his weakness. What is he going to do if she wants Loki gone or something? What about if she decides that Thor and Loki are making things difficult? Unlike Baldur and Tyr, the only people Loki and Thor have are each other in Hel.

But how is Loki going to prove this to Thor? What is he going to have to do to convince Thor that he's not the true problem?

That sounds about right for the Young Avenger's movie. Recent interviews with producers are also favorable. With Black Panther and Infinity War killing it and making more money in one year than many small countries, we have a clear picture that movies that take risks and do something different can be quite profitable. So, you know, Billy and Teddy can happen and bring on the gender-fluid teen Loki!

[Raye]

Yeah, after Tyr's betrayal (well, probable betrayal, to be fair. We don't know a lot about what's going on yet, cliffhanger and all) I instantly went back and re-read the issue. Tyr HAD to be just flat out lying to them in parts, there's no other way. Probably Karnilla as well, since she accompanied him on the mission where they found out what was being transported. When he said they had discovered this 'weapon' he said it was him AND Karnilla, and she didn't say anything to counter that. So either he lied to her earlier somehow, or she is in on it, and is going to backstab Balder as part of a bid to place the throne back in Hela's hands. And of course that calls into question everything else. And this all sounds very much like we are talking about Loki, but we're not, which is odd. But I think that's the point. The betrayal has so much more impact coming from Tyr, who you wouldn't expect it from (but, when you think about it, it makes sense. he was very close to Hela after he died) than it would from Loki, who most characters and readers just expect to betray people because it's Loki. But Loki has no reason to betray Thor here, I don't think. He'd lose out on his mystery favour, and I can't see how it would benefit him to have Hela back on the throne, 'daughter' or not. She lost the throne fair and square, and he's not obligated to place her on the throne just because she is his child of sorts and she wants it.... oh.... He's been put in Odin's shoes. huh. Anyway, I think he will help Thor. He stands to gain more from it, and I think he just plain likes Thor better, despite their bickering. As for how he's going to prove himself, I think that has already started. The initial deception to get Thor to Niffleheim aside, Loki's done nothing but help Thor, as much as Thor has allowed him to. He also warned Thor about Tyr, and was proven right. If I were Thor, I would be suspicious of how Loki knew to warn him, but still. And if Loki helps Thor in what I assume will be a bit of a clash with Hela, Fenrir and Tyr, that will help as well.

But back to the nostalgia thing. The bid for the throne plays into that as well. Basically, she wants it back because she's pretty much always had it. That's it. She's always had it, therefore she thinks the position should be hers, just because that's her thing. It's actually understandable when you think about it from her perspective, if she liked the position there's no reason she has to just be cool with giving it up. I get it, I can understand where she is coming from. But it's still being done to maintain the old status quo for nostalgia sake. If her motivation is simply to hold the throne because she considers it hers.... I mean, why, besides tradition, is she better than Balder in that role? War of the Realms aside, which wasn't his fault, it's hitting all the realms, I can't see that Balder is doing a poor job. I suppose we will hear more of this next issue, though. If Hela can prove that she is actually better suited to hold the throne than Balder, that it will actually help to have her on the throne, that's something else. But right now it looks like she's just trying to return to a familiar role that she enjoyed holding, not acting to the benefit of anyone other than herself. And what a shitty time for a coup. Muspelheim's forces marching, and they stage a coup, weakening the realm and the defenses. I don't think Hela wants the Queen of Cinders there any more than Balder does, if this was actually about helping the realm, they should be joining forces, not fighting over the throne.

[Fanto.mx]

You made me wonder whether or not Karnilla thinks she's betraying Balder or if she somehow has it in her head that putting Hela back on the throne would be helping him. It's also possible that she's being super selfish or that she has been told one thing and is going to get betrayed herself really soon. I mean, this is based on the assumption that Karnilla still thinks of herself as being on Balder's side, even with her tricking The Soggy Odin Boys into helping free Hela. Tyr was definitely lying, but I wonder if he's going to play it as he just wanted to make sure "the weapon" didn't fall into Sindr's hands, but I sure hope that however the next issue plays out, Thor wakes up to what's happening, rather than what he thinks should be happening.