Listen, I know y'all are obsessed with all those “Loki fucked the Grandmaster” theories, but are we really gonna ignore the fact that the Collector, the Grandmaster’s cousin, very likely knows Loki? Are we just gonna ignore how Loki could’ve used that fact to get special privileges on Sakaar?
Okay, THANK YOU, @stellophia ! I’ve also posted about this in the past, myself. I’m sorry, but I can’t help
Loki gave The Collector an Infinity Stone. Hello, gave him one of the most powerful objects in the universe. Loki and the Collector definitely knew each other. They were allies. Knowing both of their tricky personalities, they may even have been in cahoots somehow.
As a result, it is highly likely that the Grandmaster knew Loki, or at least knew Loki had given the Collector an Infinity Stone. He would have known e Collector owed Loki a colossal debt.
Let’s assume the Collector and the Grandmaster were on good terms with each other (I recall Jeff Goldblum saying so, but that was an unofficial comment). The Collector would have had every reason to give Loki shelter and treat him like an honored guest.
Even if the two brothers hated each other, the Grandmaster would have known Loki is a very important person who had—at at least one point—possessed two Infinity Stones at the same time. (This dude has so many Infinity Stones he’s giving them away!)
So, the Grandmaster would have been highly motivated to treat Loki well in either circumstance, just based on the knowledge that Loki should be handled carefully. Just like the Collector and Grandmaster, he is also deceptively more powerful than he appears to be.
But the movie wasn’t about Loki, so Taika was apparently happy to leave this little plot bunny vague.
Even if you put aside Loki’s relationship with the Collector, it isn’t a stretch to assume Loki knows how to fend for himself in the kind of environment on Sakaar. The fact that so many people think this would mean Loki had to stoop to prostituting himself says more about them than it does about Loki.
Seriously, people. Loki is a prince. He’s also an experienced and influential diplomat. Loki had been the King of Asgard for three years, right up to that very day. And you guys think he wouldn’t be able to succeed politically without taking his clothes off?
Remember, Loki didn’t arrive on Sakaar helpless, without his special hammer; he had his sorcery, and certainly had all the money, tools, and weapons he might have needed, kept in the dimensional pocket where he always keeps his armor and the Tesseract.
Loki could have paraded into the Grandmaster’s palace like Prince Ali from Aladdin, complete with his own Disney theme song. But you’re probably right, it makes more sense that he just waltzed right up to the Grandmaster and dropped trou.
It’s not just that Loki wouldn’t need to sell his body for the privilege of hanging out in the palace on Sakaar. The idea is also completely out of character for Loki in some very significant ways.
Loki is prideful.
He was raised to believe he is above everyone else.
He comes from a patriarchal warrior society.
He hates his own Jotun body.
Loki does not like to expose his body. We have never seen him in anything less than full-length sleeves. We’ve never seen him kiss anyone, and he rarely even touches other people. This is not a dude who would look at his options and think, “Hmm, I sure do like Sakaar. Maybe the Grandmaster will let me hang out if I sneak into his bedroom, strip down, oil up, and get my groove on.”
But I suppose it’s titillating for some people to imagine Loki gave it up to the Grandmaster for dubious political gain. Especially for the people who passionately hate Loki, anything he represents, and his fans; I’m sure it’s enjoyable for them to imagine Loki being demeaned, particularly in a sexual way. You guys know that’s pretty effed up, right?
Yeah, that’s a whole nother rant, I think.
Just one more quick note about why the “Loki f**ked the Grandmaster” theory is just stupid as hell: what makes you think the Grandmaster would even be interested in Loki, sexually?
Grandmaster was surrounded by gorgeous people of all sorts of species, many probably throwing themselves at him every day—no doubt some very skilled professionals amongst them. Grandmaster could have anyone he wanted, anytime. If anything, he was probably bored of it all.
Knowing Loki would have his own hangups about his body, but that he’s also very confident in the many skills he has in so many other areas, it just seems very unlikely that the relationship between them was a sexual one.
I have never liked the selling-himself take on this because it is so vastly out of character, for all the reasons above. It just made no sense. Then again, considering the treatment surrounding Loki both in and out of this movie, the implied defamation of character is sadly absolutely on par with the movie, the director, the quarterback, etc.
I had not thought about the Collector, mostly because I tend to try to ignore Ragnarok. When I am forced to remember its existence, I see it mostly as Thor regaling hangers-on with glorious and exemplary, if not utterly embellished and untrue, exploits to cement his grandeur. (He’s totally the ex-QB who never moved beyond high school.)
And no matter how hard they tried, Loki was still as Loki as possible. Love ya, Tom, for loving Loki.
Just so we’re clear… Mobius could have picked any bad memory for loki’s prison, God knows loki has enough of them, and he picked one where loki was at home, on Asgard after playing a prank.
Not the memory of him finding out he’s a frost giant.
Not the memory of him falling from the bifrost.
Not a memory of him being tortured by Thanos.
Mobius sent him home.
He put him in a time loop of being beaten up and told that he deserves to be alone to break him down psychologically and it worked. On a meta-narrative level that was the memory because Jaimie Alexander was who was available to film the scene but within the story he chose that memory because of what he wanted Loki to internalise: that he is undeserving of love and will always be alone. That is the entire point of that time loop. It is not in any way an act of kindness and it’s fucked up to frame it as one, or to act like some people in the notes as if it’s a positive thing for Loki psychologically that he ends up on his knees apologising to someone who — by dint of not being real — cannot actually accept that apology from him.
You can try to say that Mobius didn’t have a choice because he had to “play along” with the TVA so he tried to choose a nice memory but (1) the only two people who knew what the content of that time cell was were Mobius and Loki, he could in fact have put Loki in an actual good memory or somewhere neutral rather than giving him the “pathetic worm” special, and (2) he laughs as he is putting Loki in.
Try to be told that you deserve to be alone a million fucking times and also being beaten up. Oh, yeah, sure Mobius the Saint was totally looking after Loki by putting him in that time loop.
Yikes
I love Mobius but this post is absolutely right. Twisting that scene to be romantic in any way is just delusional.
Right. Okay. I don’t usually reply to comments but here we go…
First off, sure, loki gets a kick in the nuts a few times. Not exactly fun, that’s true. But this is the guy who was thrown around by the hulk and was cracking jokes like five minutes after. It’s fair to say that would not have been too painful for Loki, relatively speaking. To be fair, I have not been kneed in the balls so I can’t speak, but I’m almost certain that being shaken like a rag doll by hulk, or enduring systematic torture from Thanos, or being hit with mjolnir would have been a lot more painful. Also, is loki experiencing new pain or just reliving the memory of pain from when this originally happened?
Secondly, Mobius was definitely being monitored. Or, at the very least, believed he was. “Timekeepers are watching” is a hint that Mobius believes that his every action was being watched. Also, if a time cell is meant to be the TVA’s prison cell, then surely these would be under constant supervision to make sure their prisoners weren’t trying to escape? Probably not a coincidence that Renslayer was waiting for Mobius the second he and loki exited the time cell. Even though she knew Mobius had switched the tempads, she knew immediately knew that Mobius was planning on betraying the TVA. And hunter B15 took Sylvie to an apocalypse, not a time cell when asking her about the memories as apocalypses are proven TVA blind spots while time cells are not. Mobius had to choose a memory that appeared to demonstrate how he was “working his loki”. Don’t think he could have gotten away with a memory of loki playing with a load of puppies or going to town on a big pile of nuts and grapes.
My main point concerns why Mobius picked a memory where loki is told he will always be alone. Obviously, this isn’t exactly pleasant but, presumably loki has heard way worse. His own adopted father told him is birth right was to die, for example. (After this variants nexus event but I would bet Odin has been saying this type of shit to loki for centuries.) This is coming from Sif who Loki doesn’t exactly hold in high regard so I doubt he really cares what she thinks. In fact, apart from his family, loki doesn’t really care about what most of Asgard thinks about him which could be an essay in itself. Loki even says this himself, by stating he never thought about it ever again. This bit is my really main point, I promise. Mobius wants loki to think about Sif’s words, to consider if he really deserves to be alone. In my opinion, loki didn’t think about Sif’s words because he believed them and accepted that he would be alone. We never see him form any relationships, romantic or otherwise, and he even admits that he betrays his family which leads to the breakdown of these relationships too. Loki believes he deserves to be alone so does nothing to maintain relationships. Until Mobius.
Whether you ship them or not, Mobius and Sylvie are the first relationships we see Loki fight to preserve. When Mobius asks Loki if he believes he deserves to be alone, loki sates he is unsure. However, by the end of the episode Loki is willing to tell Sylvie his feelings for her, something which is ‘new’ to him after previously denying his relationship with her to Mobius. He also goes on to acknowledge his friendship with Mobius. For the first time, we see Loki actively trying to build relationships with those around him rather than push them away.
Mobius wanted loki to accept that he is worthy of love and happiness. That is why he put him in that time cell. Loki needed to re-evaluate his internalised self-hatred so that he could embrace the new relationships being extended to him… Small price to pay for a knee to the bollucks in my opinion…
If I see one more time that user oceanian piss milk or any other user talk about how “antis” making the show a better success because of our “hate” [of that goddamn ship], I am going to self combust.
Is this what we as fandoms been reduced to? To only see the surface level pettiness drama of a ship and not all angles of problematic aspects, from a story point as well? Like yeah I talked about the shipping aspect of Loki but it’s a lot more than “hurr durr Tommy Hiddlies kissed another wahman1!1!1!” It’s been more than that. You can not tell me all this time you somehow avoided all the new (bad) takes this show keeps popping up with that people rightfully are criticizing.
Yes the selfcest shit is still gross but we are beyond that point. It’s like y’all are aware y’all have selective hearing and are deliberately ignoring the other crap besides selfcest, the other characters and their crappy treatment, development and how that also affected the plot and people’s perception: of the show and outside of it.
I beg you if you do not want to participate in critical discussions of a show (which it’s fine, you do you), don’t hijack it by trying to pretend to be this holier than thou fan who feels superior because you suck disney and marvel execs’ toes harder than everybody else.
The Loki show and the aftermath of it all is going to be such great material for my communications major. I soon start to work for my Unis magazine and the whole shenanigans of its existence is enough to make a thesis out of it.
Excited (for once) to earn another Bach. Going to be an interesting two years.
How “Loki” managed to make Loki’s “outed” version also be their most heteronormative one
Well hello again!! This one’s gonna be a single post, and relatively shorter than my previous ones (God I hope). I just want to get into one little detail that bothered me while watching Loki—the blatant heteronormativity of all that.
I’m not even talking about plot, the well is deeper ( that’s a Brazilian saying, I don’t know if it exists in English. Oh well)
SO KKKKKKKKKKK LOKI HUH. Unless you’ve been hibernating for the last few months, you probably know that some time ago, Disney+ debuted its third series on the platform,Loki, AND TUMBLR WAS ON FIRE. And there’s already been a lot of discussion regarding some aspects of the series, some plot choices, well, all sort of things. However, I won’t get into all the issues regarding his bissexual representation, or the gender fluidity issue, or even anything regarding Sylvie or Mobius. If you want to know more about it, you can have quick walk around tumblr, or even just go and see what Russell T. Davies has to say about it. It was a crazy ride, this series.
But I know there are a lot of different takes on this matters, and there’re many ways in which you can relate to a media or story, and it’s not my place here to meddle. If you liked the series, if the queer representation of this series was something that resonated with you, was something meaningful to you, that’s genuinely great. So I’ll abstain myself to my area of study, Visual Culture, and therefore what I want to talk about here is costume design. More specifically, Loki’s.
(just a disclaimer, I’ll be refering to Loki using he/him pronoums, since in the series is clear that he identifies himself as male. Also, I won’t cover any aspects of Loki in the comics — or even Norse mithology or other medias —and their portrail there, because otherwise this would be WAY longer, so I’ll just stick to the MCU)
Okay can anyone, other than mdcoochie since they blocked me, make sense of this lol
(please read the whole entire thing you won’t be disappointed…or maybe you will)
This is why I said what I said. Yes they used manipulation. Yes they are a villain! No it wasn’t for the same reasons; not even the same ways.
Loki caused all the ruckus by inviting Frost Giants to Thor’s inauguration because he wanted to not only sabotage it but to prove to Odin Thor wasn’t fit for the throne. In a mischievous and shitty way yes, but that was the goal. Because Odin raised Loki into a falsehood that he was meant to be king of Asgard when that was never going to happen, at least, not on purpose. Causing Loki to feel disregarded and always on Thor’s shadow. Odin’s goal of Loki was always to use raise him as a political pawn; his so called benevolence raised him like that to supposedly one day tell him his real origins so he can “peacefully” take over become king. Finding out his origins disrupted everything; what he believed, his true purpose, everything. Not to mention he then moved on from being Odin’s pawn to Thanos’.
Can someone finally realized that the way Loki will plan, manipulate, lie, kill after the fact would never be the same as Killmonger(please read my Killmonger analysis here then come back).
Killmonger goals are not the same. What if? gave an alternative to his plans which was always going to have the same outcome- to take over what he felt entitled to (because he was robbed of such opportunity for an ignorant reason) and come back to his rightful place (home) with later on intentions to help those who were in the same spot as him. The struggles he felt as a POC can’t be compared to Loki therefore their methods (and the why) can’t be either! Not when you downplay it like this to the point it doesn’t even make any sense!
Y’all this is why some of you need improve your critical thinking skills! It’s not about who murdered more, who ranks more as “evilier”, who’s more of a piece of shit. None of that will matter if you don’t make sense of why they used those methods to get where they are in the first place!
Just like Jimmy Woo said “an over simplification of events”.
Blocking me and telling me this afterwards isn’t making your argument any smarter.
I’m kinda glad I not so accidentally came across this. Stupid reason to get blocked because someone gave you more insight because they don’t hold the same supposed morality standards as you do but whatever it’s tumblr
Your point is that they used the same methods therefore they are equally bad because they even have the same motives. Like huuuh?
This is why I said in my In Killmonger’s Defense post on why not every POC story is meant to be understood by everyone.
I’m wondering if the Loki show has anything to do with this kind of thinking. Because after the Loki show, there was been this surge where people disregard fan favorite villains and the reason why they are understood (not praised for what they did). I’m willing to bet the whole argument this user talked about initially is probably made from their head so they can justify writing how they really felt about Loki. Just throwing a theory out there.
It must have been such an uncanny thing for Loki, when he became king in Thor. I’m not talking about when Frigga had him given Gungnir; I’m talking about right after that, when he left her and Odin with it in his hand, and walked alone to the throneroom, and alone all the way to the throne, with just Einherjar around. And then he would have walked up the steps to the throne, and still nobody really was around, and he just sat down on it. It would have seemed so much to him like he was just pretending–you don’t really become a king alone, just some morning, do you? But he had.
I always thought that the fact that they showed Loki having Fandral while Thor was off fighting the Jotnar without caring about his friends’ safety was something the writters did on purpose. It enhanced the fact that, despite the way everything ended, at the beginning of the film Loki had good intentions, and probably much more of a conscience than Thor did. He was a hero in his own way, even thought most people (including his friends and family) didn’t realize.
It makes a lot of sense that Loki was the responsible one, following the rules, trying to do the right thing up to the point where he breaks. It just didn’t do him any favors. By the time he returns from the unknown to retrieve the tesseract he’s gone full “no more Mr. Nice Guy” because he’s learned that it doesn’t matter how much he tries; he’ll never be getting the recognition he deserves.
I really can’t blame him.
And that he told the guard where they were going, so that Odin would come. He didn’t anticipate it would take as long as it did.
As I understood the plan, they weren’t even supposed to make it to Jotunheim at all, so there had to be some level of guilt with Loki. He initiated all this, goaded Thor into making the decision and now everyone’s lives were in ACTUAL danger, whereas the danger was only supposed to be implied originally. It was partially Loki’s fault they were there at all, so it makes sense to me that he would feel some additional responsibility for their well-being (beyond that which he would feel for his friends and brother to start with). He knew what Thor was and says it later in the film: arrogant, reckless, dangerous. That was the whole point of what he was trying to illustrate to Odin by tricking Thor into defying him.
What I will probably never understand is why Odin couldn’t see that for himself. Blind spot, I guess.
Yet again, proof that Loki always cared about others
LOKI to the rescue is literally his fucking brand.
but LOKI didn’t trick thor into going to jotunnheim. it was thor’s idea from the start - he shouted it at odin in the vault before they went to the dining hall.
LOKI told thor that he thought thor was right about laufey, about the giants, about everything. then he insisted, there’s nothing you can do without defying father.
he was provoking something but it certainly wasn’t an unauthorised road trip to put both crown princes and all the mightiest young heroes of the realm of asgard in mortal danger.
and when thor leaps up and starts spouting how going to jotunnheim is the solution, you can see LOKI’s face. he’s got his head in his hands, like, NO thor that’s NOTHING like how you were supposed to react. all his friends have a go at discouraging him, but it’s too late. thor’s original idea has now solidified into a plan of action and all they can do is trail along with him and hope to hel that he doesn’t get them all killed.
that’s why LOKI tips off the guard. he expected they’d be stopped at the observatory… he also expected heimdall to refuse them entry. no one behaved how LOKI had full confidence to expect they would, and everything fell apart.
heimdall was sworn to asgard’s protection, so on what planet did LOKI have any reason to suspect the gatekeeper would help them all leave just to satisfy his own curiosity and soothe his wounded pride? imagine if they had never returned. all of that would be on heimdall’s head.
but it wasn’t LOKI’s idea. he just wanted thor to confront their father, and for odin to push back the succession a few centuries or so.
“it (thor’s coronation) will come, in time.” that’s what LOKI expected.
“i told him (the guard). though he should be flogged for taking so long.”
“i saved our lives! and thor’s. i had no idea father would banish him for what he did.” - this refers to having informed odin of their plans, it’s not an admission that the plans were in fact LOKI’s, because they weren’t.
(to laufey) “that was just a bit of fun, really. to ruin my brother’s big day, and to protect the realm from his idiotic rule for a while longer.”
(Thor: Heroes and Villains - Elizabeth Rudnick)
some tags:
some tweets by thor 2011 writer:
note - thor was the prodigal, LOKI was the good one.
Tom has mentioned during the ACE comic con panel that he has known about the scene for two years.
This was what Thanos said in this test footage: “I got the information that I need, and now I have to break your neck. It’s just the way it is.”
For reference, here’s some stuff from the Avengers: Infinity War director’s audio commentary during the opening scene:
McFeely: We’re starting the script in December, say January of 2016. There’s no Ragnarok script. They’re in in various stages of development, and so the first scene of this movie changed a bunch. And until we figured out that they were gonna end on a trip off of a destroyed Asgard, we didn’t know where Thanos would find Loki.
Markus: We did know we wanted Thanos to come to Loki. And we would find him in any… We have drafts of him in any number of places.
McFeely: It establishes a vengeance story for Thor by taking out his brother and arguably, his best friend.
Joe Russo: Part of what we wanted to do out of the gate was to unsettle you as you’re watching the film. You’re sitting in the theatre thinking, “Most characters in the Marvel Universe have been safe for a decade.” And we wanted to knock you off-kilterandmake theaudience understand that the stakes were going to be significant and the cost was going to be very high in the movie.
Markus: And in that regard, this scene does away with a lot of things from the ongoing MCU. That was… The first MacGuffin from the first Captain America movie just got crushed and stuck into a glove.
Anthony: Bye bye, Tesseract.
Markus: And shortly, the villain from the first Avengers movie…
McFeely: Right. Arguably the best villain in the MCU…
Markus: …will achieve a similar end.
Anthony: Aside from establishing… introducing Thanos as our lead and POV in the movie, this scene also heavily kicks off Thor’s arc in the film.
Anthony: The one thing that’s wonderful, one thing we all really responded to about Thor is where he’s left at the end of Ragnarok with the destruction of Asgard… And there’s something fascinating about exporing these people as you strip away who they are and their built-out identities, and find out what’s left. I think we’re going through a very similar process with Thor in this film, especially with this scene, we’re sort of completing the experience that Ragnarok brought to Thor in the sense that we’re taking away the rest of everything away from him.
McFeely: And remember, he (Thanos) had a relationship with Loki even if it was off-screen where he entrusted him with a duty in Avengers 1 and Loki failed, so...
Joe: He’s making him pay.
McFeely: Yeah. Thanos has a long memory.
Anthony: Yep. Fair enough.
Part of an interview with the IW screenwriters:
Stephen McFeely: Hemsworth came to set, and went, “You guys really need to understand that we are doing something different with Ragnarok.” And we knew they were changing it some, but it was so early in the process, so we flew [Ragnarok screenwriter] Eric Pearson and [director] Taika Waititi in and we had long conversations with them. There are at least a couple of jokes in there Taika himself said in passing that we thought were gold. They showed us a few scenes, so we knew that Thor was being re-toned. And we needed to embrace that.
Christopher Markus: But it was also the realization that even in the “funny” one [Ragnarok], his father and his sister die, and that he’s almost becoming comically unlucky at this point, and to follow that to its natural conclusions.
So in summary, Loki’s death scene was decided since two years ago and he mainly died for the following purposes:
Set the tone for the movie by showing Thanos’ cruelty
For shock value
Give place to the new “best” MCU villain Thanos
Fuel Thor’s motivation for revenge, to further Thor’s storyline and character development from where he left off in Ragnarok
Evidently,none of the above reasons has anything to do with Loki’s arc and character development.
In terms of narrative, it was mentioned in the IW commentary that here Thanos was actually punishing Loki for failing to fulfill his duty in the first Avengers film, but IMO that’s just a load of crap. Thanos was already going to leave the ship; it was Loki who suddenly popped up with his butter knife. Also, what Loki was promised in Avengers was this: “You will long for something as sweet as pain.”
But how could death be worse than pain for Loki, when he had already let himself die twice before? (Just in case anyone wishes to protest that he faked his own death in Ragnarok, please read thisfirst)
In TDW he even said this: “If I am for the axe, then for mercy’s sake, just swing it.”
Loki isn’t afraid and does not cower in the face of death, unlike what had been portrayed of his character in Ragnarok, which was just OOC af. Though I’m glad they rectified this part of his character in IW, the way he died was just too needlessly brutal and meaningless, and also stupid. If the writers truly meant for Thanos to punish Loki in the worst possible way like what was foreshadowed in A1, to be honest it would make more sense to kill Thor instead (just saying). But as it is, the directors and writers were just making excuses and don’t actually care.
I assert that this is a direct result of Thor: Ragnarok. Those who don’t follow the Ragnarokdiscussions may think this is ridiculous, but really, it’s not. This was what I wrote on 20 Apr, before IW was released:
“…when you consider the fact that Thanos arrived right after he said that, and just minutes after he had told Loki ‘Maybe you’re not so bad after all’. It only proved Thor*’s opinion about Loki right–because of course Thor* can never be wrong–that Loki was just never-ending trouble.
And what I’m worried about is that this will be taken into Infinity War and Loki will be made the scapegoat again.I don’t want Thor* to blame him again and make him feel like the only way he’ll be worthy of his brother’s love and forgiveness is to sacrifice himself to make up for his mistake of taking the Tesseract.”
I couldn’t believe this ended up being exactly what happened in IW, and I hated it so much. While the rest of the audience was laughing, my blood ran cold the moment Thor told Loki “you really are the worst brother”.
By now I think we can all agree that what Loki said—“I hereby pledge to you my undying fidelity”—was meant for Thor. If anyone’s not convinced, here:
‘Undying Fidelity’ was the title of the soundtrack that was playing from the instant Loki started saying ‘I, Loki, Prince of Asgard…’ to the moment Thor collapsed over his body.
Loki was crying when he said that. Assuming those were Loki’s tears (in character), then it was almost as if Loki had been prepared to die, as though his futile attempt at killing Thanos was deliberate. Why?!?!?! Just because Thor changed his mind about saying “maybe you’re not so bad after all” and told him he was the “worst brother”, so he wanted to prove his fidelity using his life??? It was foolish and OOC, is what I think.
But then again, if we consider his character and their relationship in Ragnarok,it might not be that out of character after all… As a case in point, I’ve seen someone say this:
If Loki couldn’t even trick Thor in Ragnarok, what makes you think he can outsmart Thanos?
InRagnarok, his character was twisted and reduced to comic relief, his sacrifice and redemption in TDW was made to seem like a sham and a joke. A previously complex, multifaceted character was simplified into a misbehaving and terrible brother who would betray his only remaining family for the sake of money(?!). When the God of Mischief was asked whether he had a better idea than “get help”, he answered “no” as though it was supposed to be obvious. The graceful, regal, composed and witty prince of Asgard was played for a fool throughout most of the film. His brother criticized him in a way that made it sound like he had always been incorrigible, even though that’s definitely not true if you watched the previous films. Only when he compromised and became “good” on Thor*’s terms after listening to Thor*’s bullshit of a speech was he deemed redeemable.
In short, Ragnarok “put him in his place”, downplayed his powers, stripped him of his purpose, wits, importance and independence as a character, never gave him the equality and respect he wanted.
The IW writers said this:
“…the first scene of this movie changed a bunch. And until we figured out that they were gonna end on a trip off of a destroyed Asgard, we didn’t know where Thanos would find Loki.”
“We did know we wanted Thanos to come to Loki. And we would find him in any… We have drafts of him in any number of places.”
But with how Ragnarokended up, it became entirely too convenient. It made him too easy to kill off—they could simply make him sacrifice himself for his brother again, since his sacrifice in TDW was retconned into a faked death anyway.
There wasn’t a need to think of an intricate plot for a character who no longer seemed important—they only needed to put the final nail in the coffin. Since it would serve all their purposes anyway, why not?
Loki was crying when he said that. Assuming those were Loki’s tears (in character), then it was almost as if Loki had been prepared to die, as though his futile attempt at killing Thanos was deliberate. Why?!?!?! Just because Thor changed his mind about saying “maybe you’re not so bad after all” and told him he was the “worst brother”, so he wanted to prove his fidelity using his life???
That suggestion about why Loki apparently deliberately sacrifices himself (to no useful purpose, btw – he knew he couldn’t actually hurt Thanos, and his death did nothing to help Thor’s situation) matches up exactly with @illwynd‘s analysis in this post: that what Ragnarokdid to Thor and Loki’s relationship made Loki’s self-immolation the only place left for them to go.
Telling someone who has known trauma around identity and belonging “who you are is as a person is inadequate and I will disown you unless you change to suit my standards” is…
… What Loki needed was to be able to trust in Thor’s love for him: that it wasn’t just circumstantial. That he, as a person, mattered to Thor, and that Thor would be able to re-accept him after his transgressions and would continue to value him. … But the above scene from Ragnarok, Thor’s ultimatum, would utterly shatter Loki’s trust in all of those things. …
And to me it is fitting, under those circumstances, that Loki would go and get himself killed kinda-sorta on purpose at the first opportunity as well. I mean, last time he was in a similar situation of having been rejected by those he cared about, he threw himself into an abyss. And this time he even got to continue to try to prove himself to Thor while doing it, just like one might feel compelled to do after such an ultimatum.
And the thing is… even if Ragnarokhadn’t done away with Loki’s cleverness and planning ability, it might not be completely OOC for Loki to basically commit suicide in order to prove to Thor that he was good now. After all, Thor* told him that his identity as “the god of mischief” wasn’t valuable; he needed to become someone different, someone straightforwardly heroic. Loki couldn’t trust Thor to trust him, so if he had made a serious effort to do what I think he should have done (and what I think he would have done if Joss Whedon had still been writing…) – namely, insinuate himself into Thanos’s team to “make amends” for his previous failure – he would have feared, rightly, that Thor just thought he was turning wickedly self-interested again, changing his colors to suit whichever way the wind was blowing. Ragnarokwould have actually needed to reestablish their mutual trust in order for that gambit to work (as I touched on in this post). As it is… well, as illwynd pointed out, we saw Loki’s response to rejection in Thor 1,when his planning abilities were perfectly intact. (And as usual, anyone who says that was not a suicide attempt, just an attempt to escape punishment, can piss up a rope).
@philosopherking1887 Unless his death was part of some elaborate plan (which I think is highly unlikely), this would be the only logical explanation. And like you said, it was only made possible precisely because of what happened in Ragnarok. Because Ragnarokresolvednothing, or should I say, none of the conflict between them from the previous movies.
WhatRagnarokdid was ignore what happened before, frame Loki as an incorrigible, terrible brother who needed to be taught a lesson by Thor, and the “resolution” was him compromising with Thor’s standards–in other words, acknowledging that Thor has always been the better one, that from start he was never good enough and his merits had no value. And the only way he could prove himself worthy and deserving of Thor’s love was to become “heroic” on Thor’s terms. Unlike what so many people believe, they did notreach a mutual understanding–because Loki never got the equality he always wanted. Everything that Thor learned in TDW, the positive affirmation he gave of Loki at the end, Loki’s sacrifice–all of those were thrown out the window in Ragnarok.
And the result of this was what happened in IW–Loki dying to prove himself… again.
Tom has mentioned during the ACE comic con panel that he has known about the scene for two years.
This was what Thanos said in this test footage: “I got the information that I need, and now I have to break your neck. It’s just the way it is.”
For reference, here’s some stuff from the Avengers: Infinity War director’s audio commentary during the opening scene:
McFeely: We’re starting the script in December, say January of 2016. There’s no Ragnarok script. They’re in in various stages of development, and so the first scene of this movie changed a bunch. And until we figured out that they were gonna end on a trip off of a destroyed Asgard, we didn’t know where Thanos would find Loki.
Markus: We did know we wanted Thanos to come to Loki. And we would find him in any… We have drafts of him in any number of places.
McFeely: It establishes a vengeance story for Thor by taking out his brother and arguably, his best friend.
Joe Russo: Part of what we wanted to do out of the gate was to unsettle you as you’re watching the film. You’re sitting in the theatre thinking, “Most characters in the Marvel Universe have been safe for a decade.” And we wanted to knock you off-kilterandmake theaudience understand that the stakes were going to be significant and the cost was going to be very high in the movie.
Markus: And in that regard, this scene does away with a lot of things from the ongoing MCU. That was… The first MacGuffin from the first Captain America movie just got crushed and stuck into a glove.
Anthony: Bye bye, Tesseract.
Markus: And shortly, the villain from the first Avengers movie…
McFeely: Right. Arguably the best villain in the MCU…
Markus: …will achieve a similar end.
Anthony: Aside from establishing… introducing Thanos as our lead and POV in the movie, this scene also heavily kicks off Thor’s arc in the film.
Anthony: The one thing that’s wonderful, one thing we all really responded to about Thor is where he’s left at the end of Ragnarok with the destruction of Asgard… And there’s something fascinating about exporing these people as you strip away who they are and their built-out identities, and find out what’s left. I think we’re going through a very similar process with Thor in this film, especially with this scene, we’re sort of completing the experience that Ragnarok brought to Thor in the sense that we’re taking away the rest of everything away from him.
McFeely: And remember, he (Thanos) had a relationship with Loki even if it was off-screen where he entrusted him with a duty in Avengers 1 and Loki failed, so...
Joe: He’s making him pay.
McFeely: Yeah. Thanos has a long memory.
Anthony: Yep. Fair enough.
Part of an interview with the IW screenwriters:
Stephen McFeely: Hemsworth came to set, and went, “You guys really need to understand that we are doing something different with Ragnarok.” And we knew they were changing it some, but it was so early in the process, so we flew [Ragnarok screenwriter] Eric Pearson and [director] Taika Waititi in and we had long conversations with them. There are at least a couple of jokes in there Taika himself said in passing that we thought were gold. They showed us a few scenes, so we knew that Thor was being re-toned. And we needed to embrace that.
Christopher Markus: But it was also the realization that even in the “funny” one [Ragnarok], his father and his sister die, and that he’s almost becoming comically unlucky at this point, and to follow that to its natural conclusions.
So in summary, Loki’s death scene was decided since two years ago and he mainly died for the following purposes:
Set the tone for the movie by showing Thanos’ cruelty
For shock value
Give place to the new “best” MCU villain Thanos
Fuel Thor’s motivation for revenge, to further Thor’s storyline and character development from where he left off in Ragnarok
Evidently,none of the above reasons has anything to do with Loki’s arc and character development.
In terms of narrative, it was mentioned in the IW commentary that here Thanos was actually punishing Loki for failing to fulfill his duty in the first Avengers film, but IMO that’s just a load of crap. Thanos was already going to leave the ship; it was Loki who suddenly popped up with his butter knife. Also, what Loki was promised in Avengers was this: “You will long for something as sweet as pain.”
But how could death be worse than pain for Loki, when he had already let himself die twice before? (Just in case anyone wishes to protest that he faked his own death in Ragnarok, please read thisfirst)
In TDW he even said this: “If I am for the axe, then for mercy’s sake, just swing it.”
Loki isn’t afraid and does not cower in the face of death, unlike what had been portrayed of his character in Ragnarok, which was just OOC af. Though I’m glad they rectified this part of his character in IW, the way he died was just too needlessly brutal and meaningless, and also stupid. If the writers truly meant for Thanos to punish Loki in the worst possible way like what was foreshadowed in A1, to be honest it would make more sense to kill Thor instead (just saying). But as it is, the directors and writers were just making excuses and don’t actually care.
I assert that this is a direct result of Thor: Ragnarok. Those who don’t follow the Ragnarokdiscussions may think this is ridiculous, but really, it’s not. This was what I wrote on 20 Apr, before IW was released:
“…when you consider the fact that Thanos arrived right after he said that, and just minutes after he had told Loki ‘Maybe you’re not so bad after all’. It only proved Thor*’s opinion about Loki right–because of course Thor* can never be wrong–that Loki was just never-ending trouble.
And what I’m worried about is that this will be taken into Infinity War and Loki will be made the scapegoat again.I don’t want Thor* to blame him again and make him feel like the only way he’ll be worthy of his brother’s love and forgiveness is to sacrifice himself to make up for his mistake of taking the Tesseract.”
I couldn’t believe this ended up being exactly what happened in IW, and I hated it so much. While the rest of the audience was laughing, my blood ran cold the moment Thor told Loki “you really are the worst brother”.
By now I think we can all agree that what Loki said—“I hereby pledge to you my undying fidelity”—was meant for Thor. If anyone’s not convinced, here:
‘Undying Fidelity’ was the title of the soundtrack that was playing from the instant Loki started saying ‘I, Loki, Prince of Asgard…’ to the moment Thor collapsed over his body.
Loki was crying when he said that. Assuming those were Loki’s tears (in character), then it was almost as if Loki had been prepared to die, as though his futile attempt at killing Thanos was deliberate. Why?!?!?! Just because Thor changed his mind about saying “maybe you’re not so bad after all” and told him he was the “worst brother”, so he wanted to prove his fidelity using his life??? It was foolish and OOC, is what I think.
But then again, if we consider his character and their relationship in Ragnarok,it might not be that out of character after all… As a case in point, I’ve seen someone say this:
If Loki couldn’t even trick Thor in Ragnarok, what makes you think he can outsmart Thanos?
InRagnarok, his character was twisted and reduced to comic relief, his sacrifice and redemption in TDW was made to seem like a sham and a joke. A previously complex, multifaceted character was simplified into a misbehaving and terrible brother who would betray his only remaining family for the sake of money(?!). When the God of Mischief was asked whether he had a better idea than “get help”, he answered “no” as though it was supposed to be obvious. The graceful, regal, composed and witty prince of Asgard was played for a fool throughout most of the film. His brother criticized him in a way that made it sound like he had always been incorrigible, even though that’s definitely not true if you watched the previous films. Only when he compromised and became “good” on Thor*’s terms after listening to Thor*’s bullshit of a speech was he deemed redeemable.
In short, Ragnarok “put him in his place”, downplayed his powers, stripped him of his purpose, wits, importance and independence as a character, never gave him the equality and respect he wanted.
The IW writers said this:
“…the first scene of this movie changed a bunch. And until we figured out that they were gonna end on a trip off of a destroyed Asgard, we didn’t know where Thanos would find Loki.”
“We did know we wanted Thanos to come to Loki. And we would find him in any… We have drafts of him in any number of places.”
But with how Ragnarokended up, it became entirely too convenient. It made him too easy to kill off—they could simply make him sacrifice himself for his brother again, since his sacrifice in TDW was retconned into a faked death anyway.
There wasn’t a need to think of an intricate plot for a character who no longer seemed important—they only needed to put the final nail in the coffin. Since it would serve all their purposes anyway, why not?
someone explain to me what the loki fandom was like here in 2012-2013 because in 2013 i thought i was too good for marvel and hated the avengers (i was dumb). also at the time i was a kid, and therefore wasn’t on tumblr. so. i’d like to know, if anyone would spare me the fandom history!
That’s exactly what it was like. So much positivity and excitement for the future. Post-IW and Endgame I have a lot more mistrust re: Marvel and am less optimistic that they know what they’re doing. They don’t listen to non cishet white male fans.
@darthxerik it’s sad…you’d expect things to progress in a better direction, not worse:/ but you’re right. we are seeing things change though with tfatws though so i’m hopeful with that, for better or for worse XD
also HI i didnt know you were still active on tumblr i thought you were only active on tiktok but hello again its me jotun.loki
Hiiiiii I’m hardly ever on here but I check things from time to time, esp when there’s meta to discuss. XD
the funniest part about loki meta is that more often than not the implications are monumental and have dire universal effects that canon simply fails to explicitly address
Loki is unpredictable, morally ambiguous and chaotic. He is a survivor and most of the time he doesn’t do anything unless it has some benefit to him. But there are three constants about his character that come before all of this:
1. Loki loves Thor and his family.
Loki loves Thor to the point that he protected his girlfriend twice and one of those times almost cost him his life. He loves Thor to the point that he doesn’t hesitate to protect him and sacrifice his life for him. He loved Frigga and her death completely devastated him. Even his anger and bitterness toward Odin, partially was because he loved his father and wanted to be a worthy son to him.
2. Loki is loyal to Asgard.
Loki’s plan through Thor 1 was finding a way to destroy Jotunheim and win the war without any cost to Asgard. In TDW he mainly helped Thor to avenge his mother but in doing so he also protected Asgard and the nine realms.
3. Loki values it when people put their trust in him.
He was deeply moved by his mother’s trust in him in Thor 1 when she gave the throne to him. He thought the reason Odin didn’t want him on the throne was because he was a Jotun, so it mattered to him a lot that despite his race, Frigga trusted him with the throne. Also in TDW it was two times when Thor could actually affect Loki with his words:
“I don’t. Mother did[trust you].”
“I wish I could trust you.”
Loki regrets that he has lost that trust. His brother was one of the few people who actually trusted him. Remember in Thor 1 how no one trusted Loki when he was the king. So it’s really important to him when someone trusts him. And he longs to have Thor’s trust again and when Thor trusted him in TDW, he didn’t betray that trust(no, he didn’t fake his death intentionallyandnot telling it to people was actually his best option and Thor refused the throne when Loki offered it to him). And that trust means so much to Loki because Thor trusts him after everything that happened between them. And specially because if Loki was in Thor’s place he wouldn’t trust himself.
“Still don’t trust me brother?”
“Would you?”
“No, I wouldn’t.”
So I think it would be more in character for Loki to want to help Thor defeat Hela on his own decision and protect Asgard. Because he loves Thor. Thor is Loki’s only family now. In fact, if he had any reason to betray Thor it would be to protect Thor from getting himself killed by Hela not beacuse he is a trickster and betrayal is in his nature! Loki just like Thor wants to mend their relationship. It was obvious from his constant “I’m sorry” in TDW. So I really doubt that he would want to betray that trust. He also feels responsible for Asgardians. He was their prince his whole life and their king for the last few years. So imo one of the reasons that Loki’s betrayal was illogical and ooc is because it ignores these important traits of Loki’s character and it would be more in character for Loki to act like he did in Ragnarok novel:
Thor: “You’ll help us free Asgard from Hela’s grip when we arrive? I can count on you?”
Loki: “Of course. After all, I’m sure you blame me for her resurgence. It’s the least I can do.”
The Loki variants that we have seen throughout the show weren’t chosen at random, though. I think it’s pretty clear for anyone with some understanding of narrative tools that the relationships Loki is forging with his variants are a metaphor for self-acceptance and for coming to terms with who he is.
Loki is genderfluid in the show, and although it has never been actually said out loud, giving that he canonically comes from a sexist society with very outdated views on sexuality and gender norms, it’s safe to say that Loki has problems accepting that part of himsel. Whatever their relationship is textually, in a subtextual level his friendship/love for Sylvie is meant to represent Loki’s acceptance of his feminine side.
Kid Loki is supposed to be Loki’s inner child. He is Loki’s mischievousness and curiosity, his innocence and sense of wonder, and I love the fact that they decided to make him the King of the Void and one of the strongest variants because they are essentially saying that these are Loki’s strongest, most important personality traits and that just breaks me
President Loki is his cruelty, ruthlessness and lust for power, and the despise/embarrasment he inspires in Loki represents the rejection of those parts of himself. That’s also why President Loki wants to overthrow Kid Loki. Because those two parts of himself (his innocence and his cruelty) are forever at war with each other.
Old Loki is a future in which Loki lives out the rest of his days alone and forgotten. He is a living representation of his greatest fears coming true and that’s why Loki refuses to make a toast about them being the Gods of Outcasts. Because he is choosing to reject that future and work on himself to become better and finally find happiness. That is also why in order to help Sylvie and Loki fulfill their destinies, Old Loki had to die.
The series really has so many layers and hidden meanings while at the same time being entertaining and funny. This is really the most well written, complex, character driven production of the marvel universe, and honestly fuck everyone who is saying that that the show is bad just because they aren’t showing Loki as the coolest bitch in town and kicking everyone’s asses.
Get it bc the TVA turned him into a “good guy” and then he kissed Sylvie. Y’all get it? Because normal Loki wouldn’t ever, and normal Loki is considered to be “Evil” in the MCU so then the opposite would be good even though he was never rly ev- nvm…U wouldn’t get it.
It just occurred to me that a lot of people who dislike Loki, including toxic Loki show stans, genuinely think that Loki’s a coward. Someone who runs instead of fights, because he’s not openly belligerent like Thor and only fights when necessary. The true meaning of bravery seems to be missed by so, so many people.
In Thor the Dark world he throws himself at Jane and risks getting sucked into a wormhole. He does this in spite of the fact that he knows he might die, but ptsd aside he does it anyway. The fear is evident on his face.
and there are SO many other instances of LOKI facing apprehension, misgiving, worry, fear, terror, horror… and meeting it head on. usually, completely alone. anyone who thinks that’s cowardice can take a flying fuck.
Lol, in *that* scene in IW he could have teleported away with the Tesseract. Thanos blew up the Statesman, anyway. The only one who might have died additionally would have been Thor. And arguably Thanos intended to kill Thor anyway, since blowing up a ship with someone on board had normally that effect. If Loki had been a coward he would have been gone two seconds after spotting Thanos ship. But he stayed. Out of loyalty.
This is…this is SO CLOSE to a drabble fic I had written a few years ago - Dead Letters,it’s blowing my mind! The major difference was that he was addressing Frigga in it, trying to reach her desperately.
This like 10x better tho. I love this so much! I’m legit crying. This artist is a genius!
