So we all know by now that Loki was originally meant to die in Thor 2.
In fact, I think it was Alan Taylor who said originally the effect on Loki would have been a lot more CG effect, and as he said, the death would be a lot more ‘permanent.’
And it got me to wondering if this was something left over in regards to why Thor wasn’t carrying a body at the end.
Like what if instead of the effect we got, Loki actually further ‘blackened and cracked’ until he turned to dust when Thor tried to hold him?
Like an extreme version of what happened to these guys
It was obvious from scenes like the death of Frigga, which was cobbled together from the scene were Odin was originally there (which maybe explains why it feels like the cuts are so abrupt, and why Kurse switches grips between cuts), that TTDW was doing as few reshoots as they could possibly manage. They couldn’t even get Hemworth and Portman in at the same time to do the kiss at the end (Elsa Pataky had to tackle that scene in the wig), so if the editors thought that they could get away with not explaining what Thor did the body, they’d probably just have Thor leave it.
Especially since the people trying to make the cuts make sense needed Thor to leave it, so they could get Loki to wake up and take the throne at the end.
Anonymous asked: the asgardians are immortal right? like they will live on forever unless someone murders them? or do they just live for a long time like the movies say
They’re basically immortal, though Old Godking Thor does show that they can age and get old.
For Thor and Loki it seems that ragnarok cycles of rebirth generally happen first.
Anonymous asked: which recent x men comic does hela show up in?
New Mutants. Dani Moonstar is her Valkyrie, and she showed up in the Journey Into Mystery crossover with Kid Loki. (I’m pretty sure there’s been some comics since then too)
During the events of Siege, Hela called Dani to collect the spirits of the Asgardian dead, and protect them from the Dhisir.
Anonymous asked: If you don't mind I'd like to hear your thoughts on the marvel civil war crossover event? and what do you think about the siege event too?
My thoughts are essentially that from what I saw, Civil War was an editorial mess.
Anonymous asked: Why is Hela obsessed with getting Thor's soul? I think in recent comics she stopped caring about Thor soul, but older comics (and some in the early 2000's) we still see hela wanting Thor souls more than anything, why is that?
(There might be a panel or two where Hela specificially says something, but this is me going off my memory)
Both Thor and Odin are had like ridiculously high plot armor, and Hela wants what she can’t have. She knows that Thor is not going to die easy, so that just makes her want him more. And Odin is like a prize I don’t think she even DREAMS she gets to have, but she is ALL OVER IT when the opportunity presents itself.
She’s still got her rules that she tends to hold by, or bend, in order to get her ‘hands’ on him (Hela’s touch can kill), but even when Thor ends up pissing her off enough that they got into a scrum during Simonson’s era Thor, she still ended up being unable to seal the deal with Thor.
As for why she recently stopped caring? Well, ever since she came back after JMS’s run, she’s had some bigger things to deal with - not having a Hel to rule over, then there was the situation with the Dhisir, and then she had the whole ‘lacking a hand and needing a handmaiden’ thing… And I think over all she’s just been more focused on her job of taking care of the dead recently. Once she was offered a Hel again, a lot of her focus has been on guiding the dead and protecting them (Now, I haven’t seen much of the writing of her in new mutants, but eve her appearances there seems to paint her in a sympathetic antagonistic way, as she is the mistress of the Valkyrie that is on that team. They don’t trust her, but some of the characters have come to acknowledge that she does good.)
Why does Thor automatically assume that Loki’s going for the kill? Nevermind, I know why.
The better question is, why are we as the audience supposed to believe it too? He could just as easily have been aiming for the guard’s knee or someplace else equally non-lethal.
The best question, however, is: if this was in store, and Thor knew it, then why the hell did he cuff Loki with the magic-restraining cuffs, thus leaving him for all intents and purposes defenseless?
Oh he is going for a kill, more likely than not. AND WELL HE FUCKING SHOULD. To reiterate: Thor is breaking a traitor out of a maximum-security prison in direct defiance of his father’s orders. The guards have been ordered to stop him at any cost, so they are prepared to kill Thor and/or Loki, or die trying. To pick THIS of all fucking times to hold back from lethal force is not morality. It’s head-desking stupidity.
And the message couldn’t be more clear, holding Loki back: “No, we’re not going to do it the smart way, because that’s YOUR WAY and mine is better. Just for a minute here, I’m going to be stupidly noble, purely to show you up.” With of course a healthy side of “Ah-ah, Loki, no defending yourself; you’re under my protection (= control) now, that’s why I put you in cuffs. You get to watch and hope I can get us out of this despite having the stupidest plan possible. You have no agency here, don’t forget it.” It’s not even subtext. There’s nothing subtle about it.
Basically, Thor wants to disobey Daddy, but isn’t willing to jump off his high horse to get it done. In any remotely realistic narrative (hell, in Game of Thrones, for an example) it would backfire drastically, but Thor has Protagonist Immunity this film, so it all goes swimmingly and Loki is painted as worrying for no reason. Instead of for very good reasons.
"No killing." What kind of pussy-ass treason are you committing then, Thor? Your brother’s right, you’re an idiot. Pity you keep getting away with it.
Maybe the screenwriters thought that if Thor declared suicidally noble intentions here - refusing to kill guards bent on killing him during a jailbreak - we would magically forget that about two minutes ago, Thor was telling his own brother that he intended to kill him, or maybe, if he was obedient and saved the universe and everyone in it, maybe he would be allowed to live - alone in an empty box with no furniture, books or visitors for 4000 years.
The writers of this movie think that we’re even stupider than they are.
Just a reminder that Moselle Green has not seen Thor 2, and so it should be no surprise that she missed that the entire point of Thor’s plan was to both save Jane from the effects of the Aether, as well as save Asgardian lives by ensuring that another attack did not happen on Asgard.
So yeah, Thor and all the warriors in on his plan were using non lethal methods of combat and holding the lines. Thor was subduing guards that in all likelihood would also not be using lethal force to stop the crown prince of Asgard.
Loki however, has shown in the past that he is willing to kill Asgardian guards to further his plans (Thor 1, both during the coronation, and one assumes during the double cross where he allowed them into Asgard to attack Odin.)
Considering having friends hold off guards, and having distractions take guards off their scent was built into the plan, it seems pretty shortsighted to say that Thor’s plan is dumb, when in the end, his plan to get them out of Asgard SUCCEEDED.
Let me repeat. Thor did not want to have people kill guards for his escape because a big part of his plan was to avoid getting guards killed in another attack. Killing guards and Asgardian citizens is the exact opposite of his intent.
Anonymous asked: i'm reading Gillen's ultimate collection on Thor and in the first arc Loki pulled so much shit and everyone is like "ok fine." Just rolling their eyes and he gets away with it. I get him getting away with a LOT in the Simonson run because that was the 80's... but COME ON! Why did it take Siege for them to FINALLY hold him accountable to his actions and be done. And he gets away with it because the kid is the one paying.
Except I don’t think ‘its the 80’s’ is a good excuse either? Basically Loki’s been pulling shit for as long as ever, and there’s plenty of people that look at him and ask the ‘batman vs. the joker’ problem - ‘Why doesn’t batman just kill him?’ AKA. Why doesn’t Loki suffer any real-actually effective repercussions.
And the biggest reason is the same reason for any villain keeps on villain’ing - from Loki to Norman Osborn to Sabertooth: Because the writers like to have them on hand as foils with histories.
You can make some big meta about how in in earlier comics you had Odin around, and since Odin was the one who adopted Loki, and Odin is known for being unable to break his word/decrees once he has made him, he was stuck with Loki for better or worse from the moment he adopted him. And you can say that Loki and Thor were brothers, so its not the same sort of dynamic as ‘Joker and the Batman’ where it is JUST moral principle that justified him leaving an unrepentant mass murderer to mass murder again.
But in the end its all just window dressing for why writers keep around their favorite toys.
Which is always interesting when Loki gets metatextual about it - Sure he likes to talk about how he’s the dark shadow that makes Thor shine brighter… but without Thor for him to antagonize, there’d pretty much be no reason for him not to be dealt with more permanently, or for writers to need asgard to tolerate his presence.
That is one of the interesting things about having both Siege and AoA Loki running around. It allows for a bit of ‘have cake and eat it too’ - you get to keep Loki as a foil and a Loki that fits that traditional role of ‘Making the hero look good while also questioning the essentialism of his role as the bad guy and how inescapable it may or may not be’, while also telling the story of Loki escaping essentialism, for as long as the writers and readers have an interest in putting those stories on the market.
So yeah. Loki is a shit. He always has been, and various writers go to various lengths to justify why he’s still welcomed back into the fold afterwards to varying levels of reader disbelief. BUT, that is pretty much true for all comic book villains. How anyone could have ever thought that Norman Osborn’s Thunderbolts was a good sell for the marvel public, I’ll never know. Best you can figure people in Marvel 616 have the memory span of 20 minutes and public opinion swayability of a puppy being offered bacon.
((Oh no, I’ve started thinking about Thunterbolts, and my raging hateboner for the Civilwar event is rising again. Long story short, never let anyone convince you civilwar is worth your money to read. Unless you love seeing villainous bureaucracies sold to you as the good guys who win. Because who honestly thinks that collecting a team of ‘reformed’ supervillians to bounty hunt down heroes is a good idea? Apparently Tony Stark’s Pro-Reg side.))
godofturmoil asked: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe the fic the anon was looking for is this one archiveofourown(.)org/works/410747/chapters/681409 :)
Thanks for the suggestion, I’ll link it to the original ask!
forgivingtoafault replied to your post “Hello! Do you remember reading a fic where young loki and thor somehow travel back in time and meet their older selves, and older thor and frigga and odin just try so hard to not let this young loki fall the same way and then old loki somehow gets to young thor first and there’s a magpie in it I can’t find it and it drives me crazy it was so good.”
Thunderfrost? I thought it was thorki? But I like thunder frost too.
Thorki is pretty much the ship name, but I hate it, so I’m stubbornly holding on to thunderfrost for my own tags.
#Thorkiedit however is the tag people have agree to place thunderfrost fanworks. It helps keep the tag free of people spamming the tag with reposts, or complains about the ship,unimportant stuff.
Thorki has pretty much won the war, but I remain one of those old warriors, on my island continuing my own war that was lost decades ago.