Thread: [TV] Loki

Page 47 of 51 FirstFirst ...
37
45
46
47
48
49
... LastLast
  1. #921
    Scarab Lord Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    4,704
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophenia View Post
    The problem, imo, is that the reputation has to be justified. You can't just sell Elektra as an Assassin and show her failing to kill anyone over and over again.

    Here we have followed Loki, God of Mischief throughout his adventures. And he got beaten any time he was involved in a fight, he "mischieved" absolutely no one except one guard on Lamentis-1 maybe, and behaved basically as a big crybaby all along the serie, which after viewing it, was clearly aimed at Sylvie more than "our" Loki. Even Mobius was more interesting.

    And this is where I have a problem. All that serie waiting for Loki to.. do something, and preferably something Loki-esque. Are we supposed to see Loki's self-kiss as the "awwww" moment of the serie, like that's the peak of the character to kiss himself ?
    Sorry, but Old Loki's Glorious Purpose was basically what I wanted to see. But with "our" Loki.

    Tom Hiddleston's Loki was a secondary character to (no specific order)
    - Sylvie
    - Mobius
    - Croki
    - Old Loki
    - He Who Remains
    - Renslayer
    - B-15
    - C-20

    All those characters had more compelling back-stories/mysteries that made me interested in them. Tom Hiddleston's Loki was about as important to the serie as President Loki : a comic relief side-character for the chuckles, that didn't bring a lot to the development of the story.
    All those characters you list, save maybe Sylvie are secondary characters by definition.

    Loki was the primary character, it doesn't have anything to do with how interesting a character is. Loki is primary because the main story is told through him as the vehicle for the audience. Loki is the focus of the plot and he is often what is driving the plot forward. Seriously, anyone who watched Loki and thought Loki was a secondary character didn't actually watch Loki.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  2. #922
    Scarab Lord downnola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Made in Philly, living in Akron.
    Posts
    4,286
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    All those characters you list, save maybe Sylvie are secondary characters by definition.

    Loki was the primary character, it doesn't have anything to do with how interesting a character is. Loki is primary because the main story is told through him as the vehicle for the audience. Loki is the focus of the plot and he is often what is driving the plot forward. Seriously, anyone who watched Loki and thought Loki was a secondary character didn't actually watch Loki.
    Most of the criticism of the series (and comic book critique in general) is just grasping at straws and pedantry. Taste is subjective, I get it, but I often wonder if I'm watching the same movie/show as some of the people in this thread and elsewhere.
    Populists (and "national socialists") look at the supposedly secret deals that run the world "behind the scenes". Child's play. Except that childishness is sinister in adults.
    - Christopher Hitchens

  3. #923
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophenia View Post
    The problem, imo, is that the reputation has to be justified. You can't just sell Elektra as an Assassin and show her failing to kill anyone over and over again.
    Totally. Reputation is built on the history of the character...in fact , it belongs more to the reader than the writter but the writters aren't usually not stupid enough to ignore the vibe readers have on a character and use to comply.

    Here we have followed Loki, God of Mischief throughout his adventures. And he got beaten any time he was involved in a fight, he "mischieved" absolutely no one except one guard on Lamentis-1 maybe, and behaved basically as a big crybaby all along the serie, which after viewing it, was clearly aimed at Sylvie more than "our" Loki. Even Mobius was more interesting.

    And this is where I have a problem. All that serie waiting for Loki to.. do something, and preferably something Loki-esque. Are we supposed to see Loki's self-kiss as the "awwww" moment of the serie, like that's the peak of the character to kiss himself ?
    Sorry, but Old Loki's Glorious Purpose was basically what I wanted to see. But with "our" Loki.
    .
    I think most people thought this show was the turning point for Loki: no more a secondary...now the flashpoint is on him. That "most people" includes me that the moment I saw the trailer and heard the "I'm gonna burn this place to the ground" I told a friend:"This is going to happen...all the powerful TVA is goint to turn to ashes by Loki's plan".

    It was not that.

    But the reality is that ...Loki haven't done nothing but failing for the entire MCU. Let's see his highlights:

    - Fail at making Thor lose the favor of Odin ( he is worthy again at the end of "Thor").
    - Fail at invading New York and get stomped by the hulk.
    - Get imprisoned in Asgard.
    - Fail to save Freya the only individual he explicitly loved.
    - Serve as a distraction for Thor to end Malekith.
    - Take advantage of Thor's absence to impersonate Odin and get the Throne.
    - Being kicked out of the throne the very moment Thor is back.
    - Being stomped by Hela.
    - Stay as the pet of the Grandmaster in Sakkar.
    - Being tricked by Thor and take advantage of Thor's scape to "lead" Korg & Miek group into leaving ( they totally needed leadership )
    - Not being able to solve the puzzle of how to end with Hela ( that his less smart bro found).
    - Being killed by Thanos.

    I mean his story is the history of a loser that chain fail after fail. We did not like Loki because he is the smart guy that in the end had the right plan to win...no , we like him because he is funny and provocative and refuses to comply to any rules but his.He always has been the secondary loser.

    And yeah, as I said , I admit I was in the group that thought this show was gonna change that, that he is the star now so they need to start building reputation on him , and not doing so probably diminishes the entire concept of the show but even realizing this is 2012 Loki not 2018 Loki ( Mobius put his whole life in front of him to try to evolve one into another for the spectator) the truth is the Loki there was ....is the Loki we got.

    Now on a personal level , for me, the way they did the introduction-not introduction of Kang redeems the show (I'm that easy to please ) but I can see how people can feel disapointed that he "did not burn the place to the ground" and "Loki" show ended up being Silvye "The TimeKeeper" show.
    Last edited by PrimiOne; 2021-07-20 at 02:38 PM.

  4. #924
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    Loki is the focus of the plot and he is often what is driving the plot forward.
    Really ? Most of the times he is driven by the plot. He was only doing something at Episode 1. The rest was either him trying to stick his tongue in Sylvie's butt, doing nonsensical things (like the end of Lamentis episode, where they try to reach the ship without trying to reach the ship), or following X plans, doing what others actually want to do.

    ... And in the last episode, you even learn that whatever Loki did during 5.8 episodes was already "written" by HWR, so Loki didn't really have free will until the very end of Episode 6... when he got thrown back to TVA without, once again, doing anything productive.

    Quote Originally Posted by PrimiOne View Post
    I mean his story is the history of a loser that chain fail after fail. We did not like Loki because he is the smart guy that in the end had the right plan to win...no , we like him because he is funny and provocative and refuses to comply to any rules but his.He always has been the secondary loser.

    And yeah, as I said , I admit I was in the group that thought this show was gonna change that, that he is the star now so they need to start building reputation on him , and not doing so probably diminishes the entire concept of the show but even realizing this is 2012 Loki not 2018 Loki ( Mobius put his whole life in front of him to try to evolve one into another for the spectator) the truth is the Loki there was ....is the Loki we got.

    Now on a personal level , for me, the way they did the introduction-not introduction of Kang redeems the show (I'm that easy to please ) but I can see how people can feel disapointed that he "did not burn the place to the ground" and "Loki" show ended up being Silvye "The TimeKeeper" show.
    Exactly my feeling. If I want to watch a serie with the TVA doing shenanigans and happening to have Loki fooling around in the background failing whatever he tries as usual, no problem, but don't call that serie "Loki".

    I was hoping for Loki to evolve beyond that, BUT remaining Loki at his core. So okay, Loki evolved during this serie, but imo not in a good direction. He evolved toward the "now I have feelings dude" cliché where he will stop being interesting, especially with how it was portrayed here.
    I mean, we already had a 10 thousand years old Asguardian going through emotional travel, and actually quite a lot of times (at least... 3 ?). But in the end, it helped evolving Thor at a level we couldn't expect.

    Edit : all in all, I'm not saying I hate Loki as a character now. But they've somehow concluded his serie with him in a not-glorious position, where he achieved nothing. So maybe this arc will lead it somewhere, I would have preferred if we didn't have to wait for god-knows-how-many years before seeing the follow-up.
    Last edited by Ophenia; 2021-07-20 at 02:50 PM.

  5. #925
    Void Lord Aeluron Lightsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    In some Sanctuaryesque place or a Haven
    Posts
    42,446
    Fail at making Thor lose the favor of Odin ( he is worthy again at the end of "Thor").
    Yeah cause the movie is about Thor and learning to be humble and be the hero we know he can be. He did succeed in the goal, it just didn't last long cause well...people can change and not stay at a static point.


    Fail at invading New York and get stomped by the hulk.
    Considering how effective he was causing some unrest between the Avengers and only losing my a small bit. Hulk smashing him around......oh no so bad. Hulk smashes a lot of things around, so the fuck what.

    Get imprisoned in Asgard.
    A consequence of messing around with Earth and its well deserved. Sure he has the whole "Odin lied to him and such and feeling lesser compared to Thor" but I don't think this is a "failure." Seems like whiny shit.


    Fail to save Freya the only individual he explicitly loved.
    He's imprisoned, he can't do shit, you might as well argue Thor failed but no you didn't mention that but we also aren't playing the blame game with Thor.


    Serve as a distraction for Thor to end Malekith.
    Working with his brother that he really has a bad relationship with? Sheez.... if anything it shows how he can fool others quite effectively(Not all the time but its still a good skill of his)


    Take advantage of Thor's absence to impersonate Odin and get the Throne.

    It wasn't going to last forever, why is this even a failure? All lies eventually get found out in time. More whiny complaints

    - Being kicked out of the throne the very moment Thor is back.
    He can't call upon Mjollnir and the lie that Odin is live and well in Asgard is destroyed. More Loki mischief and thats his schtick making stuff up and illusions.


    - Being stomped by Hela.
    Ignoring the fact that Thor couldn't handle her either, his hammer got destroyed. Even Odin had to imprison her out of fear. This isn't really soley on Loki, once again more whines to whine.

    Stay as the pet of the Grandmaster in Sakkar.
    Oh hey he got to see his Brother get slapped around a little, he totally didn't enjoy that

    Being tricked by Thor and take advantage of Thor's scape to "lead" Korg & Miek group into leaving ( they totally needed leadership )
    Thor learnsed from the best trickster so....... thats a point for Loki

    - Not being able to solve the puzzle of how to end with Hela ( that his less smart bro found).
    Nitpicking at best, one its Thor's film but instead of mocking his brother, he compliments him on the bold move.

    - Being killed by Thanos.
    So fucking what?


    Honestly I think you downplay a lot of what Loki is.
    #TeamLegion #UnderEarthofAzerothexpansion plz #Arathor4Alliance

    Warrior-Magi

  6. #926
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophenia View Post
    Really ? Most of the times he is driven by the plot. He was only doing something at Episode 1. The rest was either him trying to stick his tongue in Sylvie's butt, doing nonsensical things (like the end of Lamentis episode, where they try to reach the ship without trying to reach the ship), or following X plans, doing what others actually want to do.

    ... And in the last episode, you even learn that whatever Loki did during 5.8 episodes was already "written" by HWR, so Loki didn't really have free will until the very end of Episode 6... when he got thrown back to TVA without, once again, doing anything productive.
    The closest Loki's actions get to being controlled is when he's pretending to work with the TVA. Once he's through the time door in Roxxcart after Sylvie, he's driving the action. And even up to that point, he's still driving it, he's just more constrained in his options. He isn't "being driven by the plot", he's the one driving it.

    Same with your comment on "free will"; HWR isn't writing out the plot of the universe, he's cutting away all plots that come to be except the one he wants to exist. "Free will" is what makes variants, and he hasn't done anything to stop variants from existing. He just cuts them off when they become a problem. Loki has free will the whole show. That is, in fact, how he and Sylvie end up at HWR's fortress; they're both variants and exist outside his planned timeline, but he wasn't able to eliminate either.

    Being a protagonist does not mean you're the most powerful in the show.
    Being a protagonist does not mean you're the most important person in the show.
    Being a protagonist does not even mean you're the center around which everything turns.
    You could be. But it isn't expected or required, by being in that role. It just means you're the viewpoint character the audience follows.

    Especially when the entire point of the show is Loki's emotional development. He's the most self-secure Loki in the entire show, the one Loki who's started to actually have some self-esteem and to look beyond himself for purpose. And he didn't start out that way, he started out as broken as every other version of himself. That Lokis trying to "fix" themselves breaks them is not just a theme, it's explicitly stated, outright, by multiple Lokis. Our protagonist succeeds, where literally every other Loki, including Sylvie, has failed.


  7. #927
    Scarab Lord Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    4,704
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophenia View Post
    Really ? Most of the times he is driven by the plot. He was only doing something at Episode 1. The rest was either him trying to stick his tongue in Sylvie's butt, doing nonsensical things (like the end of Lamentis episode, where they try to reach the ship without trying to reach the ship), or following X plans, doing what others actually want to do.

    ... And in the last episode, you even learn that whatever Loki did during 5.8 episodes was already "written" by HWR, so Loki didn't really have free will until the very end of Episode 6... when he got thrown back to TVA without, once again, doing anything productive.
    The events of episode 1, 2, 3, and 4 all do not happen without Loki's actions.
    Episodes 5 and 6 actually have the least involvement with Loki in the plot and that is because the plot is coming to a end for the current season. There isn't really much as everyone's actions are coming to a head.

    Loki is objectively the primary character.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  8. #928
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    23,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophenia View Post
    The problem, imo, is that the reputation has to be justified. You can't just sell Elektra as an Assassin and show her failing to kill anyone over and over again.

    Here we have followed Loki, God of Mischief throughout his adventures. And he got beaten any time he was involved in a fight, he "mischieved" absolutely no one except one guard on Lamentis-1 maybe, and behaved basically as a big crybaby all along the serie, which after viewing it, was clearly aimed at Sylvie more than "our" Loki. Even Mobius was more interesting.

    And this is where I have a problem. All that serie waiting for Loki to.. do something, and preferably something Loki-esque. Are we supposed to see Loki's self-kiss as the "awwww" moment of the serie, like that's the peak of the character to kiss himself ?
    Sorry, but Old Loki's Glorious Purpose was basically what I wanted to see. But with "our" Loki.

    Tom Hiddleston's Loki was a secondary character to (no specific order)
    - Sylvie
    - Mobius
    - Croki
    - Old Loki
    - He Who Remains
    - Renslayer
    - B-15
    - C-20

    All those characters had more compelling back-stories/mysteries that made me interested in them. Tom Hiddleston's Loki was about as important to the serie as President Loki : a comic relief side-character for the chuckles, that didn't bring a lot to the development of the story.
    You mean they spent more time defining new characters than one we've been with for years?????

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  9. #929
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeluron Lightsong View Post
    Honestly I think you downplay a lot of what Loki is.
    I'm perplexed by the use of the term "complaint" because I can not fit it in in this context no matter how much I stretch it. I think you are used so much to the WoW discussions that you are missusing it like if I'm saying "No one picks me for the M15+" lol.

    Well, apart from that funny issue I'm afraid I'm not downplaying Loki...I'm presenting him exactly the same way the show does.

    There's a whole scene where Mobius shows him his whole life. He want this Loki to evolve and he basically puts everything that would happen without the branch.
    He shows him all this failings , talks him about where his "glorious purpose" would put him and ask him "What's next?". His life has been a fail after fail after fail and Mobius want Loki to change his ways because the current course leads to that. Loki shut up the whole time and the only thing he can do is accept the truth ( Mobius point out how Loki , that likes to talk so much, is not talking anymore). Loki himself accepts his failures.

    So again, I'm afraid is not my perpective but the very one presented in the show: Loki NEEDS to evolve, needs to become another person or he will fail like he has been doing for the full story.

  10. #930
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,846
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimiOne View Post
    So again, I'm afraid is not my perpective but the very one presented in the show: Loki NEEDS to evolve, needs to become another person or he will fail like he has been doing for the full story.
    And again; this is blatantly and explicitly reinforced by falling onto the Island of Misfit Lokis, where they confirm that, yes, EVERY Loki fails. Fails and fails and fails. Worse, when they try and fix themselves, they get cut and end up there. The whole show is really blunt that it's an exploration of Loki's inherent failure as an individual, and his need to evolve beyond what he's always been, because it's Loki who keeps ruining Loki's dreams, no one else.

    That's the final tragedy of Sylvie and the entire point of the finale; Loki (our Loki) has figured this out, and thinks Sylvie is ready to hear it, and it turns out, she isn't. She rejects it, and him, and goes about her revenge, and finds that is is just another failure. Even after He Who Remains explains it will only be a failure, she can't help herself. She hadn't quite broken with the vision of her "glorious purpose", which is the central flaw Lokis suffer from.


  11. #931
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    13,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophenia View Post

    Tom Hiddleston's Loki was a secondary character to (no specific order)
    - Sylvie
    - Mobius
    - Croki
    - Old Loki
    - He Who Remains
    - Renslayer
    - B-15
    - C-20

    All those characters had more compelling back-stories/mysteries that made me interested in them. Tom Hiddleston's Loki was about as important to the serie as President Loki : a comic relief side-character for the chuckles, that didn't bring a lot to the development of the story.
    100% agree, i was expecting then to explore some more about his powers and his sorcery as the god of mischief, with him doing something, but after the first two episodes he was just "there", which was exactly when Silvye and other lokis came into play

    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    If inconsistent powerlevels between different stories about the same character bother you, then you probably shouldn't bother with comics or any works derived off comics at all.
    what bothers me is my concern, but there is different levels of inconsistency, some are bullshit others are less awful that you can just "ok sure"

    I can see captain america being beaten by a human, despite him being a super soldier, because he didn't became a god or a monster, but when a frost giant a asgardian, or other super aliens get beaten and bested by humans it is shitty

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Aeluron Lightsong View Post
    Honestly I think you downplay a lot of what Loki is.
    people do that a lot here, "dude loki fails everytime so its fine if he is a useless and weak in his own series because he always was"

    But they ignore how, despite "him losing in the end" he cause massive fuckeries for others before he is found out.

    - Dude ruined Thor ascension by sneaking frost giants in asgard that not even fucking heimdall saw
    - In the same movie he tricked Thor into going to Jotuheim as his idea so he got all the blame.
    - Seize the throne and almost killed thor with that armor.

    That is one hell of a mischief god to me. Sure he lost in the end, cause its thor movie and he have plot on his side, but a loser? nope.

    He also almost fucked up the "avengers" by bringing the army to new york, that was a pretty big thing imo, he was able to beak everyone and the shield "fortress", but again, he is the villain, he is bound to lose, but that didn't mean he didn't delivered a fight, If it was not for Fury using Agent coulson(?) death he would have won probably.

    And later dude got control of asgard by impersonating Odin for who know how many time, and if it was not by being being "a hedonist" he would sure get away with it.

  12. #932
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophenia View Post
    The problem, imo, is that the reputation has to be justified. You can't just sell Elektra as an Assassin and show her failing to kill anyone over and over again.

    Here we have followed Loki, God of Mischief throughout his adventures. And he got beaten any time he was involved in a fight, he "mischieved" absolutely no one except one guard on Lamentis-1 maybe, and behaved basically as a big crybaby all along the serie, which after viewing it, was clearly aimed at Sylvie more than "our" Loki. Even Mobius was more interesting.

    And this is where I have a problem. All that serie waiting for Loki to.. do something, and preferably something Loki-esque. Are we supposed to see Loki's self-kiss as the "awwww" moment of the serie, like that's the peak of the character to kiss himself ?
    Sorry, but Old Loki's Glorious Purpose was basically what I wanted to see. But with "our" Loki.

    Tom Hiddleston's Loki was a secondary character to (no specific order)
    - Sylvie
    - Mobius
    - Croki
    - Old Loki
    - He Who Remains
    - Renslayer
    - B-15
    - C-20

    All those characters had more compelling back-stories/mysteries that made me interested in them. Tom Hiddleston's Loki was about as important to the serie as President Loki : a comic relief side-character for the chuckles, that didn't bring a lot to the development of the story.
    Imagine watching this series and thinking Loki came out of it looking weak. He's the one who grew the most, developed the most, and in the end, was right the most. He was right about his criticisms of Mobius, the TVA, Sylvie, He Who Remains, etc.

    Strength isn't just about beating people up. Classic Loki said "the daggers are too showy" but that can just apply to powers in general. Strength of character is what makes the character. It's what's true for Cap, now it's true for Loki. Loki was much weaker in every incarnation we saw before this series. Yeah, maybe he had a scepter with the mind stone and commanded an army in one movie. Maybe he impersonated Odin and put on plays about how his supposedly-dead self was really awesome. Maybe he did a lot of deception. But he wasn't strong. That's what made him a villain: he was weak.

    Ultimately, villains fail because of their weakness of character. If you think Kang is going to be defeated by someone physically defeating him in every timeline - IDK what to tell you.

  13. #933
    I enjoyed it a lot. It leaves a lot to explore moving forward, which is only a good thing. I'm not overly bothered about nitpicking 'plot holes' etc, because up until now nothing has reached fridge logic levels of questioning for me, which is enough. Everything requires suspension of disbelief.

  14. #934
    Old God Al Gorefiend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    A state of madness
    Posts
    10,408
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    Imagine watching this series and thinking Loki came out of it looking weak. He's the one who grew the most, developed the most, and in the end, was right the most. He was right about his criticisms of Mobius, the TVA, Sylvie, He Who Remains, etc.

    Strength isn't just about beating people up. Classic Loki said "the daggers are too showy" but that can just apply to powers in general. Strength of character is what makes the character. It's what's true for Cap, now it's true for Loki. Loki was much weaker in every incarnation we saw before this series. Yeah, maybe he had a scepter with the mind stone and commanded an army in one movie. Maybe he impersonated Odin and put on plays about how his supposedly-dead self was really awesome. Maybe he did a lot of deception. But he wasn't strong. That's what made him a villain: he was weak.

    Ultimately, villains fail because of their weakness of character. If you think Kang is going to be defeated by someone physically defeating him in every timeline - IDK what to tell you.
    But nobody watched Endgame and thought Thor was weak. Thor wasn't beaten because he was physically overpowered, he was emotionally drained, defeated, depressed. That is how you make a Godlike character with Superman powers go through a character arc - make them victims of their own humanity. This was the case with Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen as well - his greatest flaw was within himself instead of a big bad guy.

    A few moments of Loki made me think the show was steering toward the direction of Loki showing humanity and perhaps self-reflection (such as reading the dossier of the destruction of Asgard set to sad music) but it turns into his Sherlock Holmes moment and the show returns to Loki in a sidekick role to the TVA. What was his big revelation? What did he discover about himself? Well entirely through interactions with another character we're supposed to think Loki's moment of change is from learning to love himself? This wasn't a flaw of Loki's character from the MCU. If anything his intense amount of narcissism led him to do the things he did. Why wasn't overcoming narcissism the plot they explored more? If anything literally kissing himself just shows his narcissistic tendencies materialized.

    If I were a bit more optimistic I'd hold out hope season 2 of Loki isn't going to be Loki's quest to reunite with Sylvie but I already know it will be.

  15. #935
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Al Gorefiend View Post
    But nobody watched Endgame and thought Thor was weak. Thor wasn't beaten because he was physically overpowered, he was emotionally drained, defeated, depressed. That is how you make a Godlike character with Superman powers go through a character arc - make them victims of their own humanity. This was the case with Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen as well - his greatest flaw was within himself instead of a big bad guy.

    A few moments of Loki made me think the show was steering toward the direction of Loki showing humanity and perhaps self-reflection (such as reading the dossier of the destruction of Asgard set to sad music) but it turns into his Sherlock Holmes moment and the show returns to Loki in a sidekick role to the TVA. What was his big revelation? What did he discover about himself? Well entirely through interactions with another character we're supposed to think Loki's moment of change is from learning to love himself? This wasn't a flaw of Loki's character from the MCU. If anything his intense amount of narcissism led him to do the things he did. Why wasn't overcoming narcissism the plot they explored more? If anything literally kissing himself just shows his narcissistic tendencies materialized.

    If I were a bit more optimistic I'd hold out hope season 2 of Loki isn't going to be Loki's quest to reunite with Sylvie but I already know it will be.
    Loki's narcissism stems almost entirely from his internalized hatred for himself. It's why he feels he's the unwanted secondary son, always second fiddle to Thor. It's why he desperately seeks to rule, because he knows he can't earn it rightfully. And because he confuses power over others and their fear of him for respect, which is what he actually wants.

    That's why Thor's comments in the original pre-Endgame films get through to Loki; he starts breaking through this shell of loathing that Loki's built, where he assumes everyone hates himself as much as he hates himself.

    That's always been Loki's tragedy. That he hates himself so deeply that he cannot fathom that others might actually love him. It's why it hurts him so badly to love others, particularly his brother, because he assumes they can't feel the same way in return. Which is why Thor's demonstration of just that breaks through to Loki, multiple times, though self-hatred is a hard habit to break.

    That's the point. Loki does not, and has never, though he was the most awesome dude around. He knows he's a ratty little traitorous shit that everyone hates. His grandstanding is a defiance of that, rebelling against what he sees as others' perceptions. Because he can't accept that they might love him just as he is.

    Which is why his arc, in the show, comes around to actually justifying a change in that regard. And the Loki we're following is the only one who does change, really; Sylvie hungers for it, but in the end, she can't trust Loki even though Loki, fundamentally, is herself. She's still caught in that self-loathing, and rejects him accordingly.

    Loki was never a true narcissist. Not ever. That's the facade he puts on to conceal the pain inside. Nothing more.


  16. #936
    Scarab Lord downnola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Made in Philly, living in Akron.
    Posts
    4,286
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The closest Loki's actions get to being controlled is when he's pretending to work with the TVA. Once he's through the time door in Roxxcart after Sylvie, he's driving the action. And even up to that point, he's still driving it, he's just more constrained in his options. He isn't "being driven by the plot", he's the one driving it.

    Same with your comment on "free will"; HWR isn't writing out the plot of the universe, he's cutting away all plots that come to be except the one he wants to exist. "Free will" is what makes variants, and he hasn't done anything to stop variants from existing. He just cuts them off when they become a problem. Loki has free will the whole show. That is, in fact, how he and Sylvie end up at HWR's fortress; they're both variants and exist outside his planned timeline, but he wasn't able to eliminate either.

    Being a protagonist does not mean you're the most powerful in the show.
    Being a protagonist does not mean you're the most important person in the show.
    Being a protagonist does not even mean you're the center around which everything turns.
    You could be. But it isn't expected or required, by being in that role. It just means you're the viewpoint character the audience follows.

    Especially when the entire point of the show is Loki's emotional development. He's the most self-secure Loki in the entire show, the one Loki who's started to actually have some self-esteem and to look beyond himself for purpose. And he didn't start out that way, he started out as broken as every other version of himself. That Lokis trying to "fix" themselves breaks them is not just a theme, it's explicitly stated, outright, by multiple Lokis. Our protagonist succeeds, where literally every other Loki, including Sylvie, has failed.
    This is the coolest part of the show, imo. Not only does this show open up the multiverse but it also presents an opportunity for Loki to fully develop as a character with real impact beyond just being a zany villain.

    It's stated early in the series that he's only been a vessel for other characters to realize their potential and that's all he'll ever be. Well, this Loki has broken that cycle and has an open multiverse to navigate and realize his potential for a change. Thor and Frigga have hinted to prime Loki that he could be much more than just the god mischief, hopefully this series and future movies build on that idea.
    Populists (and "national socialists") look at the supposedly secret deals that run the world "behind the scenes". Child's play. Except that childishness is sinister in adults.
    - Christopher Hitchens

  17. #937
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    I mean, this is why I can't consider myself a comic fan. The arguments are ridiculous.

    Powerlevels solely exist for spectacle, in comics. But they go away when the character needs to struggle, and actually go through a character arc. This has been the tale of comic book storytelling for like, 80 years, guys.

    Like, holy shit this shit is pedantic.
    I am a comic fan, but the power level argument is both ridiculous and pedantic.

    #NotAllComicFans

    Though apparently it's not the only ridiculous argument at play here...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophenia View Post
    Really ? Most of the times he is driven by the plot. He was only doing something at Episode 1. The rest was either him trying to stick his tongue in Sylvie's butt, doing nonsensical things (like the end of Lamentis episode, where they try to reach the ship without trying to reach the ship), or following X plans, doing what others actually want to do.

    ... And in the last episode, you even learn that whatever Loki did during 5.8 episodes was already "written" by HWR, so Loki didn't really have free will until the very end of Episode 6... when he got thrown back to TVA without, once again, doing anything productive.



    Exactly my feeling. If I want to watch a serie with the TVA doing shenanigans and happening to have Loki fooling around in the background failing whatever he tries as usual, no problem, but don't call that serie "Loki".

    I was hoping for Loki to evolve beyond that, BUT remaining Loki at his core. So okay, Loki evolved during this serie, but imo not in a good direction. He evolved toward the "now I have feelings dude" cliché where he will stop being interesting, especially with how it was portrayed here.
    I mean, we already had a 10 thousand years old Asguardian going through emotional travel, and actually quite a lot of times (at least... 3 ?). But in the end, it helped evolving Thor at a level we couldn't expect.

    Edit : all in all, I'm not saying I hate Loki as a character now. But they've somehow concluded his serie with him in a not-glorious position, where he achieved nothing. So maybe this arc will lead it somewhere, I would have preferred if we didn't have to wait for god-knows-how-many years before seeing the follow-up.
    Wow this post... I really don't understand why people are trying to debate anything with you. I'm not sure what you watched, but it was not Season 1 of Loki.

    Quote Originally Posted by downnola View Post
    This is the coolest part of the show, imo. Not only does this show open up the multiverse but it also presents an opportunity for Loki to fully develop as a character with real impact beyond just being a zany villain.

    It's stated early in the series that he's only been a vessel for other characters to realize their potential and that's all he'll ever be. Well, this Loki has broken that cycle and has an open multiverse to navigate and realize his potential for a change. Thor and Frigga have hinted to prime Loki that he could be much more than just the god mischief, hopefully this series and future movies build on that idea.
    1000%

  18. #938
    Quote Originally Posted by Al Gorefiend View Post
    But nobody watched Endgame and thought Thor was weak. Thor wasn't beaten because he was physically overpowered, he was emotionally drained, defeated, depressed. That is how you make a Godlike character with Superman powers go through a character arc - make them victims of their own humanity. This was the case with Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen as well - his greatest flaw was within himself instead of a big bad guy.

    A few moments of Loki made me think the show was steering toward the direction of Loki showing humanity and perhaps self-reflection (such as reading the dossier of the destruction of Asgard set to sad music) but it turns into his Sherlock Holmes moment and the show returns to Loki in a sidekick role to the TVA. What was his big revelation? What did he discover about himself? Well entirely through interactions with another character we're supposed to think Loki's moment of change is from learning to love himself? This wasn't a flaw of Loki's character from the MCU. If anything his intense amount of narcissism led him to do the things he did. Why wasn't overcoming narcissism the plot they explored more? If anything literally kissing himself just shows his narcissistic tendencies materialized.

    If I were a bit more optimistic I'd hold out hope season 2 of Loki isn't going to be Loki's quest to reunite with Sylvie but I already know it will be.
    Your Thor analogy is pretty flawed. His depression and grief are a sign of his strength. Because he cared for those he lost, and bore the burden of their loss on his own failed actions (IE not stopping Thanos on the Asgardian ship, and not going for the head once he had Stormbreaker).

    Thor is actually at his weakest in the original movie. He is at the peak of his physical power., fresh off a massive victory....but isn't worthy. He's literally sent to Midgard (Earth) to learn how to be more worthy, without his hammer.

    Like, this is literally the whole point of the Thor arc - a God who has to learn emotional and mental maturity before he's truly strong.

  19. #939
    Catching up on a whole bunch of pages of this thread just shows me that some of you clearly watched an entirely different show, or are honestly not intelligent enough to think beyond an incredibly basic/surface level.

    The entire power level "discussion" is some of the most mind-numbing nonsense I've read on this forum because some people are too dense to understand things beyond "he strong, he should smash". It might actually be worse than the sex/gender/horse discussion. I didn't realise it was so difficult to understand something as basic as a powerful character ignoring things that may be attacking them, but are nothing to them, because he has an actual goal he's trying to achieve. He wasn't nerfed/depowered/weakened or any other word you want to throw in there. He showed power when/where needed, as Loki does. He's not a "smash first, ask questions later" type of character.

    This series also had some of the most character progression I've seen in a Marvel series/movie. Probably the most, in the time frame. Sylvie was entirely crucial to that happening. She's basically a mirror being held up to him. That alone makes it one of the best things Marvel have put out recently. Because it was done well.

    The main issues people seem to have are that there either wasn't enough action (why you'd expect this from a Loki-centred show, I have no idea), or there was simply too much talking (which entirely fits a Loki-centred show).

    I'd honestly ban some of you from watching such shows in the future, just so we can avoid the garbage that litters this thread. Please don't watch S2.

  20. #940
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    Catching up on a whole bunch of pages of this thread just shows me that some of you clearly watched an entirely different show, or are honestly not intelligent enough to think beyond an incredibly basic/surface level.

    The entire power level "discussion" is some of the most mind-numbing nonsense I've read on this forum because some people are too dense to understand things beyond "he strong, he should smash". It might actually be worse than the sex/gender/horse discussion. I didn't realise it was so difficult to understand something as basic as a powerful character ignoring things that may be attacking them, but are nothing to them, because he has an actual goal he's trying to achieve. He wasn't nerfed/depowered/weakened or any other word you want to throw in there. He showed power when/where needed, as Loki does. He's not a "smash first, ask questions later" type of character.

    This series also had some of the most character progression I've seen in a Marvel series/movie. Probably the most, in the time frame. Sylvie was entirely crucial to that happening. She's basically a mirror being held up to him. That alone makes it one of the best things Marvel have put out recently. Because it was done well.

    The main issues people seem to have are that there either wasn't enough action (why you'd expect this from a Loki-centred show, I have no idea), or there was simply too much talking (which entirely fits a Loki-centred show).

    I'd honestly ban some of you from watching such shows in the future, just so we can avoid the garbage that litters this thread. Please don't watch S2.
    Well, I'll start with the simple one: too much talking isn't a jab at people having a discussion, it's at the writers not being able to show concepts/ideas/developments through the actions of the characters... and just do exposition dumps or only talk. As the saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words," and this show heavily relies on sitting around and talking and doesn't use its best tool: being able to visually show something. For example, most of the relationship between Loki and Sylvie is completely done through dialogue, with very little actions or events happening between the two to support the outcome of their relationship (more on this later). Also, a much better execution of the last episode with He Who Remains would have been to build up the concepts discussed and actually showed events versus being almost an entire exposition dump episode. Here's a general rule: the more exposition dumps a show needs to make, the worse the writing is.

    Now, with respect to the power levels and actions and all that jazz... you have to go back to where this show actually starts from the Loki perspective: 2012 Avengers movie. He's causing massive casualties, he's being cunning and thinking ahead, he's ruthless to where he gets pleasure out of ripping someone's eye out for his own needs, he's strong enough to stand toe-to-toe with most Avengers and survive a Hulk thrashing that would insta-kill a normal human.

    The short version is that the Loki show wipes out all the character progression that was established over several movies and a long period of time, and the writers are almost writing him like he's at the point in his character progression when he dies to Thanos. But it's even worse than that in reality. In less than one episode (and maybe a couple hours in-show? It's not specified, but it's implied to be very short), we're expected to believe that 2012 Loki experienced and completed his entire character arc again... just because some random people who captured him and show him all the naughty things he's done? Hell no, that makes zero sense according to his character. If anything, he would almost guaranteed either vehemently deny what he's show as trickery (like he does in the last episode when He Who Remains shows him the exact same sort of evidence he was shown at the start of the series). There's a slight chance that Loki would become even more entrenched in his ways to make sure he wins if shown that he loses, on the slim chance that he believes it... aka, this wouldn't reform him in the slightest. One thing's for certain: the Loki that came out of 2012 would not be one to openly cry and get sentimental, even with what he was given.

    Any person could tell you that just being told or shown something does not have nearly the same effect or impact as living and experiencing events. It's quite a common occurrence when raising kids: you can tell them all day something bad will happen if you do something, but they generally do not learn until they make the mistake and live through the consequences. You may get some exceptions, but the character of Loki that is coming from 2012 would not be someone who could make that rare leap and evolve his character in the super short amount of time that was given.

    However, this extends beyond just the initial characterization of Loki, extending to the relationship between Loki and Sylvie. Without devolving into listing every scene and breaking it down (as it would take way too long for a forum post), the short version is that their relationship is equally rushed and nonsensical. First of all, it assumes that the previous character changes mentioned above could even feasibly happen, because the relationship with Sylvie just doesn't work unless you get the "softer side of Sears" Loki versus the cunning and ruthless Loki we start out with from the Avengers movie. In terms of literal time elapsed in the show, Loki is... for a lack of a better word... simping over Sylvie in a couple hours after meeting her. There is no basis for the relationship given the amount of time and interactions they have experienced. The Loki we know would always be watching their back, expecting to be betrayed and backstabbed, and would not expect anything less from another Loki (which, again, is actually characterized by the other Loki variants in the 2nd to last episode, where the variants are all trying to kill each other exactly because of who they are). Furthermore, Loki is written and visually portrayed in this series as submissive to every woman in this show, especially Sylvie... which again makes zero sense with his character, as he enjoys being the center of attention and domineering. On several occasions, he hides behind the fearless Sylvie, is show via camera angles below or at unflattering angles compared to the other females (it's done to Morbius a few times, too), as well as always being inferior to Sylvie. Again, the entire power dynamic in conjunction with the super rushed and nonsensical changes in character just makes Loki a weak simp the entire time.

    I already touched on power levels, but again, the short version is that Loki should be at the level of being able to take on Avengers (even with limited or no use of his powers)... but in this show he's weaker than your average man. He rarely uses his powers for anything useful when he's has the opportunity to do so, and he gets his butt kicked by average humans. You know, the ones he easily murders and bullies in Avengers? While they have their zappy sticks, they're used in the most nonsensical way (honestly, they should use the pointy end of the stick instead of the melty side all the time, it's a more guaranteed result) and might as well not have the pruning ability since it's mostly used when the plot needs the characters to live. Even if you leave Loki out of this, I propose this hypothetical: what would happen if the TVA had to bring back another Avenger, like Thor or Hulk or Dr. Strange? Heck, they have to bring in Thanos or some god-like entity: how in the bloody hell would they managed to do that, even if magic is disabled in the TVA, if they're basically just humans? This is where you can easily start making a case that the power level issue was not thought through at all (as well as the whole bureaucracy system) , and it just changes based upon what has to happen for the plot to move on. Well, I guess a young child can escape the TVA so we get our story, so I guess that makes Loki weaker and dumber than a child? When you think about it, this entire story cannot happen unless the TVA is really dumb/incompetent, and we ignore power levels.

    There is one point in the show where Loki and Sylvie actually act like they should to some degree, and it's when they're with He Who Remains. I say 'to some degree' as it's still toned down and has issues with the aforementioned character development, but there are moments. When presented with knowledge that everything is predetermined and He Who Remains knows it all, he denies it and calls it trickery (it runs counter to most of the show, but I submit that the rest of the show is the problem and the premise upon which this counter originates is flawed). Loki and Sylvie don't trust each other... which they shouldn't, they're friggin' Loki's, and we just got done with an episode where Loki variants were slaughtering each other because they don't trust each other. Sylvie also getting rid of Loki because he's in her way also makes sense. Honestly, that's about it, the rest is Loki emminating "Sylvie is sooooo amazing!" dribble.

    If you want to get into the only characterization that makes sense in this entire show, it would be Richard Grant's Loki. Not only does he have a background that makes sense, what occurs logically leads to where he is when we see him in the second to last episode. He even experiences a sort of character arc and actually demonstrates behaviors that would be in-line with a Loki conjoined with the life experiences he had. He uses his powers in a smart way; instead of cowering behind someone in the face of death, he faces death head-on while laughing. He is probably the most likeable character in the entire show, which is rather sad considering the show isn't about him at all. I'm not surprised that he's getting his own show at all, I just fear what butchery will be done.

    I've barely scratched the surface with the issues concerning this topic alone, and I'm not even getting into timeline stuff, the specific events, the TVA structure and operation itself, and so on. Even with all this, I'm not saying you can't enjoy this show (if you do, great!), however there's no way a case can be made that where the show isn't objectively horrible. I got my vices of enjoying some really bad movies and shows, Loki just isn't one of them considering how much the show destroys about the franchise in which I've invested. However, if I had my way, I'd would've gotten different writers who would take their time to develop the story into something that makes sense. What occurred in this series should've happened oven several seasons if done well, not 6 episodes.
    “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all.”
    “It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville

Posting Permissions

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