New entries go on the bottom. Headscratchers for the sequel go here
open/close all folders
Magi-Tech, Science, History, Alien Biology, and related things.
One thing that kind of bugs me: Given Thor's statement "Your ancestors called it magic, you call it technology, but where I come from, they are one and the same", the movieverse seems to follow Clarkes Law. But if that's the case, how does Loki pull off his "magic" without any visible devices of any sort? Are they implanted inside of him? Is he a cyborg?
My impression; Loki has mastered abilities that do have a logical basis and explanation (science) but are too far beyond what we know for our scientists to be able to make a stab and understanding them (magic). We make a distinction; the Asgardians do not.
Note that all Asgardians, by the look of it, are superhuman. It could be that their Asgardian natural abilities can take multiple forms, depending on how they choose to develop them. One trains for greater physical ability, another learns how to shoot energy blasts and create illusions. This applies doubly if my theory that the Asgardians are descendents of a prior age of superhumanity is true; part of their Asgardian science is an understanding of how metahuman powers work.
So, by that token, Thor and Loki's powers would essentially be souped-up version of Storm and the Scarlet Witch's powers? (Weather manipulation and ability to use magic)
Yes, sort of. There are three bits I would emphasize as far as my theory goes. The first is that Asgardian "magic weapons" would probably be, at least in part, powered and controlled by Asgardian natural powers. So when an Asgardian learns and masters a weapon, they literally connect to it and fuel it with their own might. If this theory is correct, than any Asgardian device more complicated than a simple object probably can't be used properly by a mortal, because they can't interface with it. The second is that "physical might" is its own valid power, which Thor ( and most Asgardian warriors ) clearly have in excess of Loki. Not all Asgardians are equal. Third and finally, I would emphasize that to Asgardians, their powers are likely *trainable*. Thor isn't as bricky as he is, just because he is, but because he sought to make himself bricky. Loki didn't just pull illusion powers out of his ass, he *learned* how to do them.
So you're basically saying the movie Asgardians are Jack Kirby's Eternals? Because that's exactly what the Eternals do, they all have the same powers but focus on different aspects of them resulting in one of them being super-fast while another is super-strong. They even have the whole "mistaken for gods" thing.
Seeing as how Loki's powers are explicitly called magic by the Asgardians themselves I'd say they're just that. The film actually leaves enough wiggle-room for magic to still exist and the Asgardians to use a combination of it and science instead of just using science that looks like magic.
Presumably the Asgardians have developed a Grand Unified Theory that unites what mortals call science and magic - maybe what we call magic is, in Asgardian terms, bits of the universe that can be controlled directly, and science is the stuff that can only be manipulated and taken advantage of with tech and stuff rather than directly made a plaything of our thoughts?
The problem here is you equating science with technology. Science is the rational way of looking at something, guessing at how it works, and then testing it to make sure your guess is correct. If you could perform magic and get consistent effects from performing it in a certain way you would not find separate from science either. Only if its effects remained unpredictable after multiple tests or its use required interfaces beyond your understanding would you then separate science.
In the comics, which may or may not have any bearing on the films, "Magic" in the Marvel universe is simply a different kind of science, from a different aspect of reality than the one we know, with a completely different set of rules than physics as we understand them. While it does have rules, they are so frustratingly alien to us that they piss off scientists like Reed Richards and Tony Stark to no end, because they can't really understand them.
So, why does the Bifröst open in New Mexico and not in, say, Norway? It seems like the end of the bridge is "locked" in the same place of the realm, as they had to retreat to the exact same point to take the bridge back in Jotunheim and after defeating the Destroyer, and the "seal" imprinted in the ground is just one, even after some travels. It can be explained by "the realms shift position over time", but still...
Also, the deliver point for the travelers seem to be always the same, but why did the Mjölnir ended some distance away, and made a crater? I know this can be used to say "the deliver point is not always the same", but the only instance of a different deliver point is this one and the deliver procedure is different (crater, not seal), as if Odin made it on purpose to separate Thor form the hammer (If this is the case, why deliver the hammer so close to Thor's location?). It seems like Odin used a lot of power to "tweak" the aim of the Bifröst, but could only manage to miss by a few kilometers.
We saw the Bifrost open a portal to Tonsberg in the beginning of the movie so its likely that the Bifrost can indeed take you to different places in the same realm. The theory that Yggdrasil is actually a natural wormhole network has been thrown around on this page and if its true then that could tell us a few things about the Bifrost. Instead of opening its own bridges it could fire some sort of beam or matter stream into Yggdrasil itself and you come out of one of the "Roots" of the tree with these "Roots" being pre-established but closed openings in the network. This means that sure it can take you to Norway or New Mexico or a hundred other locales on the planet but it can only deposit you on one of those predetermined places. As for why the Hammer fell so far away? It looks like it emerged from the matter stream at a very high altitude (possibly even low orbit) which means that it simply drifted off course as it fell to earth.
Something I'm not entirely clear on. The Asgardians and Jotuns are both supposed to be Sufficiently Advanced Aliens wielding a mix of superscience and magitec, with Asgard and Jotunheim as their respective homeworlds and Alfheim and the other 3 realms besides Midgard not actually visited in the story. Fair enough. But were the 9 realms supposed to be different planets in the same universe, or other parallel universes that were all somehow linked to Earth?
It bears noting, I think, that the only one to mention other dimensions is Thor, who himself admits that he only understands how Bifrost works via Half TruthLies to Children. The visuals themselves suggest one universe.
I think its deliberately vague. The only theory posted was Bifrost uses different dimensions by Erik at the end in a scene where he would not be lying. Asgard is a floating landmass that somehow keeps its water, but one could argue that is something about how the Asgardians made it. Its unclear if they truly are different planets or dimensions or some combination.
Since Erik and Jane serve as the modern, scientific perspective on Asgard, his describing Asgard to Nick Fury as another dimension is probably meant to be the closest answer. It's worth noting that the Einstein-Rosen bridge Jane talks about (which turns out to be the Bifrost as seen from Earth) is a real concept: it's a hypothetical wormhole inside a black hole that leads to another universe.
I'm biased here because Human Aliens like the ones of Krytpton annoy me, but I tend to think that the "Nine Realms" are all aspects of the same planet. Humans look like Asgardians because they are in fact related some how, whether or not Odin actually created mankind here — he probably didn't, but who knows? Whatever they are, they're somehow connected in a way that Earth and wherever the Chitauri came from are not. I tend to think Asgard, Midgard, Jotunheim, etc... all occupy the same space somehow.
How is that the Asgardians seemed unable to rebuild the Bifrost? They treat its destruction with such a finality, like "well, guess we are stuck here".
Yea, you would assume that since they control it that they have also built it at some point right? And even then, some of the Asgardians like Odin, Loki, and Sif were able to transport themselves and others to the mortal realm. So this shouldn't be a huge problem if not for Rule of Drama.
Sif and Odin both used the Bifrost when they traveled to other worlds. Loki was the only one who seemed capable of finding other avenues.
I was referring to the comics, where that ability was established in canon.
(Apologizing for potential dickishness in advance) This isn't the comics.
Who says they are unable to rebuild it, fully? Thor said to Heimdall that 'Midgard was lost to us', but it was clear to all involved that the context he meant that statement was 'Jane Foster and the other humans I met are lost to me.' For that, being able to rebuild Bifrost *eventually* wouldn't mean much, if "eventually" means "years or decades later."
^ This. We're talking about immortals, and the Bifrost bridge is apparently difficult enough to make that they only bothered with one (plus the whole destroying worlds thing). Even if it only takes a hundred years to build a new one, the humans he met won't live that long.
That made sense, until I realized that it will probably take humans less than a decade to find a way into Asgard considering that the Avengers movie is coming out next year and Jane will be relevant in any Thor-related plotline. So humans can build a wormhole from scratch faster than the Asgardians can even though they built the one before and possess magical powers?
There is this guy who, if given a week, a cave, and a box of scraps...
I wouldn't bet on Jane playing a large role in The Avengers — filming is just about done, and Natalie Portman isn't listed as being in it.
I'm sure there's a trope about this. Asgardians are immortal. They're in no hurry to get it done because they've got all the time in the world. If it takes a hundred years(and for all we know maybe it did take hundreds of years to build the Bifrost the first time) that's no skin off their noses. Conversely, Humans are often noted in fiction to be able to accomplish a great deal in a short amount of time because they've got such limited lifespans that they have to squeeze everything in to a scant 60-100 years.
It's also possible that they're not just trying to rebuild Bifrost, they're trying to re-design it. Given that Loki nearly destroyed Jotunheim with it, they might be trying to ensure that when the re-build it, it'll have safety features that prevent that kind of abuse in the future.
Also, I'd imagine there's a difference between 'A Wormhole Generator' and 'Bifrost', seeing as the latter can teleport anything to anywhere in the universe, so that even for Asgardians recreating it would be non-trivial. Plus, for all their power Asgardians don't have access to a Cosmic Cube like SHIELD does. But mostly, I'd just imagine Thor was speaking figuratively and dramatically as is his want.
When Thor tries and fails to lift Mjolnir, he instantly knows this is because he is no longer worthy - even though Odin only added that spell to the hammer after tossing Thor off Bifrost...
If I recall correctly, he saw the mark on the Hammer, the same one that appeared when Odin put the spell on it. I guess Thor being Thor, immediately knew what was going on.
Yeah, I figured those symbols were Asgardian (Nordic?) writing and Thor realized what was going on that way.
That symbol's been used in the comics recently, at least, and seems to be either Odin's personal symbol or a seal that he uses.
Either way, it's not a hard deduction to make. If Odin just took his power away, and then he found he couldn't lift his hammer, assuming that Odin had flipped the magic lightning switch to 'off' isn't unreasonable.
I'm not certain that Thor realized the "not worthy" aspect. I think he thought, as Loki puts it in his visit, that Odin was being cruel- putting his hammer so close, but not allowing him to use it. When he saw the "Odin Symbol", he just knew an enchantment had been placed on it- not what the enchantment was.
Yeah. Thor definitely didn't know why he couldn't lift his hammer, which is why he fully believes Loki when he says Thor will never be able to lift it, and why he didn't say to himself later, "Hey, I just evacuated a town! That's probably gonna make me worthy, huh? Hey, Jane, can you give me another ride to the crater? Trust me this time." He just knows he has been denied the power to wield what had been established as his birthright, and as such, he must have really screwed up with his dad, and he doesn't always get what he thinks he's supposed to get but hasn't earned.
At the beginning of the film, when Odin and the army bifrost in to fight the frost giants, how did they all teleport at once like that? From what I saw, the Bifrost Bridge was not that large.
They didn't. The Asgardians are already on the ground when Odin beams in. You can see the army if you watch the scene in slow motion.
Okay, so for the Aesir, magitech is super-advanced. I can accept that. It makes bladed weapons better than projectile weapons- I can accept that, probably has to do with sharpness and weight enhancing plus logistics of mystically enhancing bullets individually. But, why horses? Judging from the shape and placement of Asgard, they have anti-gravity and air generation for a city-sized island of land floating in space, but they still rely on equestrian mobility?
Mostly I'd go with 'rule of cool' as an in-universe explanation. Just looking at Asgard, you can see that their culture places tremendous value on aesthetics and drama. And if you're in no particular hurry to get anywhere, riding a horse is just nicer. Especially horses which are presumably both enchanted and genetically enhanced. Also we never see anything of the Asgardian world beyond the city of Asgard, but it's implied (and supported in myth) that the rest of it and most of the other realms are wild. If you're going on a quest in the wild a horse makes alot more sense, since you can find feed for it most anyplace and you have no problems traveling offroad.
Also, its probable safe to assume anything in the Asgardian realm is far superior to its Earth variant. In the comics a flying horses are pretty much equal or superior to the modern aircraft. In the film, Odin had a horse with eight-legs. So for them horses being equal or superior to cars works.
I would be deeply amused if, in a future Thor movie, some mortal soldiers from Earth open fire on a mounted Asgardian, and not only do the bullets bounce of the Asgardian, but off his horse too. . .
The big headscratcher here is, isn't that horse technically Odin's grandson???
Yup. An eight-legged horse; that's got to be Sleipnir Lokisson.
MCU Sleipnir isn't necessarily the child of Loki, given that MCU Loki hasn't demonstrated any shapeshifting abilities. His origins completely aside, Sleipnir is an iconic element of Odin's myth in his own right and was probably included solely because of that, in the same way that the explanation of the loss of Odin's eye is also completely different in the MCU but was presumably included because Odin is iconically one-eyed.
In the myth, Slepnir is capable of running between the worlds without aid of bifrost, which is how Odin is able to show up unexpectedly. For that matter so can Thor and his goats. The movie weakens some of the Aesir in that it seems they all need the rainbow bridge except for Loki, who never demonstrated the ability to cross worlds without help in the myths we know of.
Relatedly, nine realms, with Yggdrasil being space as we know it? Its made clear that they have access to all of Yggdrassil, all of a galactic cluster far bigger than we can see easily from Earth, and can easily see all that space in multiple dimensions in case there's only life on any given planet in one particular one. And, with all that space, all those dimensions, all that vision, there's only nine inhabited planets they can see? What about the Kree and Skrulls and such?
First I'm not entirely sure whether the realms were meant to be other planets in the same universe or actual different dimensions associated with Earth (see my own headscratcher above). But if they were different planets, I'd say that 'The Realms' refers to the set of nine inhabited planets that share a mix of sufficiently advanced technology and magitec of a power comparable to the Asgardians, while having a long shared history of interworld commerce enabled by Bifrost. In fact, going by the Myths, you could also say that the races of The Realms share a common heritage and later diverged. Maybe these nine planets form a natural wormhole network that allowed the original expansion?
The post-credits scene mentioned "dimensions." Based on this and the lack of the use of the world planets I take it the nine "realms" are nine different dimensions that are linked by naturally occurring wormholes/gates like in the comics. Bifrost and other such devices are just safe means to access these gates. Asgard at least seems to operate by different rules of physics by being a flat Earth instead of a round planet so it is a different dimension. So the nine realms are only those worlds the wormholes naturally go to. There could easily be other planets/dimensions out there, but the Asgardians do not overly concern themselves with them. However, based on some of the items in Odin's vault its clear Odin at least takes somewhat of an interest in them.
It would beg the question of why Earth ( Midgard ) counts, given its relatively primitive tech/magic base and squishy mortal residents. However, bear in mind there are enough different realms in both Norse myth and Thor comics to easily provide for nine of them *and* Midgard.
That would probably indicate shared heritage, since Midgard does seem to be the odd world out. Although, given the kind of people we put out whenever we get an age of heroes going (it's a good bet Hercules and Ramma and such were part of an earlier generation of Metahumans) it may well be that we DO compare to the Asgardians. Or the Frost Giants at least.
If the myths about the Asgardians creating humans (or some humans) are true then they're precursors for our planet and so it's part of the realms by default. Or if the reason the giants asgardians and others look 'humanoid' is because they're the descendents of an ancestor species, and wound up on the nine worlds, then that's what defines the realms.
Asgard and the other Realms could be pocket dimensions linked to earth via a wormhole network. They might be able to see the rest of the universe but not necessarily access it which would also explain why the Jotuns tried to invade earth. We may be the only realm with easy access to the universe at large while everyone else needs to travel along Yggdrasil.
Midgard is the remains of the first giant Ymir. That is why it is counted as one of the nine worlds. That humans live on it is kind of incidental, we are just the result of Odin and his two brothers playing around on Ymir's remains and he only keeps interest in us because our souls may prove useful to him at Ragnarok.
Is Bifrost on Earth now?
It seems rather unlikely; when we last saw it it was floating off into space. It would have to take a while for it to travel to Midgard/Earth, considering the placement of each in Yggdrasil.
Then again, Loki made it back to Earth. You never know...
As per Avengers, Loki made it to some unknown corner of space where Thanos happened to be, so the Bifrost chamber-thingy (which fell first) is either there or somewhere else.
One of the issues I had with the film was Jotunheim, the world of the giants looked like the planet Hoth. Every bit of it we were shown had it covered in nothing but ice. In comics and myth it is usually shown to be more like Earth, but a much harsher land with a much harsher climate. What would the difference be between the film's version of Jotunheim and Niflheim, the Norse world of ice and fog? Or could one explain it that the giants came originally from Niflheim and Jotunheim was one of the worlds they conquered or converted with the Casket of Ancient Winters?
Bear in mind their civilization was previously powered by the Cask. Jotunheim looked like a broken down wasteland probably in part because it *was* a broken down waste, deprived of its power source.
Let's also remember that in the myth, it's a slightly harsher version of Scandinavia. You know, where it's cold and frozen most of the time.
Except it isn't really all that cold and frozen in the parts of Scandinavia that were inhabited by Vikings - certainly not most of the time (the average temperature is over zero for more than half of the year - and it was so back in the Viking era, too). And that myth, as the initial entry pointed out, already had a world for "frozen wasteland". Jotunheim is supposed to be an oversized place - harsher in the sense that its dangers are proportionate to its inhabitants, who are, lest one forget, only vaguely separated from the gods of the mythology (there are several cases of giants becoming gods by marriage and/or adoptive siblingship).
How much of Jotunheim did we actually see? We was a few square miles of it. That's kind of like showing up in Death Valley and concluding all of Earth is barren wasteland, or dropping into Antarctica and concluding the whole planet is a frozen wasteland, or dropping into NYC and concluding the whole planet is a city filled with rude cabdrivers. We saw very little of the entire realm.
We see Jotunheim from orbit when the Bifrost hits it. It looked like an ice world, or at least a Class-M world going through an ice age.
Why Hogun has an accent? He's an Asgardian, he should talk like everybody else.
Actually, in the comics at least, Hogun isn't an Asgardian. He just likes hanging out with them so much that he's more or less considered an honorary Asgardian. Dunno if that applies to the movieverse, though.
Confirmed in Thor: The Dark World. After helping bringing peace to his home realm, he decides to remain there for a while.
Now, I can't say I'm as knowledgeable about comics as others, but doesn't Jotunheim have other Giants besides the Frost Giants? I think I've heard of Mountain Giants and Storm Giants living there. Also, since Trolls do not have their own world (at least in Myth), since they are allies of them, do they live in Joutnheim, too?
In the comics Jotunheim is generally portrayed like a forest, woodland environment that just has a much harsher climate than Asgard or most of the other nine worlds. Other types of giants do live there like those you mentioned along with various other evil creatures like boar-gods, wolf-gods, hags, etc. Trolls sometime live in Jotunheim. Other times beneath the surface of various other worlds. In the comics the city of Asgard is usually just the tip of a very large landmass that has sometimes been shown to have other kingdoms. The other realms often are subdivided into different kingdoms. The Hoth version of Jotunheim as portrayed in the film is usually closer to the comics version of Nifelheim, the land of ice which is also home to frost giants, storm giants, the dead, and other monsters.
When Odin goes to rescue everyone at Jotunheim, he's on his horse. When they return to Asgard, the horse is nowhere to be seen. Where did it go? Is it even real or magic and it comes and goes when Odin says?
It has eight legs (look close when it lands, it totally does) so it probably is magical in some way.
It's all there in the myth. But yes, Sleipnir (the horse) does have eight legs, is totally magic, and probably can be summoned and dismissed like an Aeon.
Not to mention all the horses seem to just magically appear/vanish as needed. Thor & Co ride out to the Bifrost, then dismount and the horses go ...where? . Loki goes from being on foot in the palace to racing mounted across the Bifrost incredibly quickly, and the horse is definitely not hanging out on the bridge during the final battle.
How did the Frost Giants travel to Earth in the first place? They don't seem to possess any advanced technology.
Likely they lost much of it thanks to the war.
I always kind of figured that the Casket of Ancient Winters had something to do with it - like the Tesseract in Captain America - and when the giants lost the war they were sent home and the casket taken from them so they couldn't teleport anymore.
Maybe that was the original purpose of the Tesseract? It's said to belong to Asgard, so it's possible that the Tesseract was used to travel between worlds until Asgard developed the Bifrost and didn't need it anymore.
So, quick question: could Mjolnir be moved by using an excavator or something to lift some of the ground along with it?
Maybe. In The Avengers, the Helicarrier didn't stop when Thor dropped it. Depends on how it is measuring "movement." Cutting out a big slab of the earth it's sitting on would probably be fine, but I think an excavator would trigger the hammer's "Something is trying to move me, stop it," since it disturbs the earth so much.
Given the Magitek nature of technology I just assumed that the hammer has it's own A.I. and is smart enough to know when "the worthy" is about to pick it up. Also it would know the difference between being on a helicarrier and the earth and know enough not to rip a hole in either since everything in the universe is constantly moving.
The one thing that bothers me and I couldn't find anyone mentioning it before: If the storms on Earth are supposedly due to Bifrost opening, which probably happens on somewhat random schedule, how come Jane was able to predict previous 17 occurences (including the last one, which definitely wasn't planned by anyone beforehand).
Perhaps time flows at different rates in Midgard and Asgard. From Asgard's perspective the Bifrost was only open for a few moments, but from Earth's perspective it was more than 17 days of weird storms before Thor finally touched down.
It's possible to explain a lot of the discrepancies between Norse mythology and Marvel Asgard by supposing that the humans messed things up in transcription. However, in that case, how did myth-makers on Midgard realize that Loki was a Jotun and Laufey's son (even if they thought he was Loki's mother instead of his father) centuries before most of Asgard (and Loki himself) found out? Are we to suppose that the Marvelverse has a different version of the mythology that omits the detail of "Loki Laufeyjarson"?
Vikings were actually a bunch of gossiping old ladies that made up a story about Laufey being female and Loki her son and 'hey! Turns out that it was mostly true!'? For that matter, if Thor, Loki and Co. used to visit Earth, how did it take Loki around 1000 years to figure things out?
That part's a bit easier to account for, because the truth would be mixed in with all the other stuff and he wouldn't want to believe it. "Is my brother a redhead? Am I blood brothers with my father? Didn't think so."
That one's even easier to account for. Loki's still a trickster even when he's "good". (And he's obviously not that good since he was willing to let sworn enemies of his entire world into the heart of the city to humiliate his brother on his coronation day, which is a little bit more than a harmless prank.) He no doubt had quite a bit of "fun" with mortals when he visited Earth, so he and the others probably weren't exactly surprised when he wound up portrayed as more villainous than he was really supposed to be.
"Brother, why do the mortal myths keep turning me into a monster?" "Well, brother, I don't know how to tell you this, but you were kind of an asshole down there..."
What *were* those symbols that Coulson had someone from linguistics brought in to take a look at? Why did the Bifrost never create those symbols before?
Who says it didn't? Maybe it did and they were eroded away over time.
The queen isn't pregnant and suddenly there's a baby they're saying is the new prince. Wouldn't there be at least rumors on Asgard that Loki wasn't Odin and Frigga's son?
Presumably Asgard sees a lot of usage of pregnancy-disguising illusion magic.
Odin: "I declare that this boy is my son! None shall speak otherwise, on pain of death!" Or, alternately, Odin arrived home to find that his queen had just given birth to his own son, so he just claimed Thor and Loki were twins... I don't recall if there was anything to suggest an age gap between them that would make this impossible.
Having presumably been around for a while, and known to have gone on many an adventure, how did Volstagg never learn it was dangerous to leave the Bifrost open for extended periods of time until the film?
Because he's not in charge of it and has never left it open for extended periods of time, maybe? You use your car every day, do you know everything about how its engine works?
Perhaps not, but I've left the engine running while I stepped out for a couple seconds. I'd just think that kind of situation would come up at some point in his centuries of life, is all.
No reason it would have, necessarily. If they were always going to a less desolate place for more stand-up encounters, he may have just never had a reason to ask for the Bifrost to be left open.
Anyone know if there's any supplementary material or Word of God regarding whether or how Norse Mythology is different in the MCU than it is in Real Life? All we know from the films is that, in Marvel's Norse Mythology, the Tesseract does appear in some myth or other- because otherwise, how would the Red Skull know it was Odin's prized treasure? And we know that the appearance of the Gods was apparently well recorded here, since their outfits appear the same in that children's book as they do in person. So when young Bruce Banner read about Norse mythology, was he reading completely different stories than the ones we know?
Thor and Loki.
Okay, Loki was a tremendous dick, that goes without saying... but exactly how was destroying Jotunheim a bad thing?
Not all of the Frost Giants were evil. Genocide isn't very nice.
Personally I think they should have made that alot more clearer. Every frost giant we meet is either evil or at least a physical threat to the protagonists. They should have specified that these are just the frost giant warriors, and there's millions of frost giant civilians out there who don't deserve to die. Then we'd have a clear moral reason for not destroying Jotunheim.
Well, the leader of the Jotuns is introduced in the present by...giving Thor and his buddies the chance to leave peacefully, and clearly has no interest in reigniting their ancient war. That's clearly not Always Chaotic Evil, especially coming from their leader.
Why did he hate them so much anyhow? He is a Frost Giant by birth, and deems himself to be The Unfavourite because of his heritage. After killing Laufey, he could have assumed leadership of both Asgard and Jotunheim - and, judging by Odin's speech, that is would have made him really proud of Loki. In addition, that gambit would have been worthy of Ozymandias.
Dunno, if I was a Frost Giant, and all of sudden Loki appeared saying "GUYS I SLEW YOUR KING BUT DON'T WORRY I AM HIS SON YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF, BOW TO ME PLZ?", I wouldn't be exactly welcoming of that idea, and probably would chalk it off as Asgardian witchery. I am not even sure if Laufey himself was aware Loki was his son.
Loki was raised as an Asgardian. You don't spend thousands of years growing up in a culture that favors protection of other realms and teaches of the atrocities of a species without retaining those predelictions. Loki may have been shocked to learn he was a frost giant, but that's not going to change the education and culture he's been born to. He's still going to want to whallop frost giants, even if that does add some angst to it all when he knows he's part of that species.
They weren't terribly evil. Their king tried to do the reasonable thing and just let Thor and the warriors return to Asgard, but Thor took a random guard's bait and proceeded to massacre their troops, after which the king reacted the same way Odin and particularly Thor himself would have reacted (Thor wanted to declare war after a minor incursion in which nobody died except the Frost Giant spies themselves and a couple of Redshirt guards - imagine what he'd have done if the Frost Giants had charged up to the throne of Asgard, insulted Odin to his face and then slaughtered half the assembly because one of the guards muttered an insult). The Frost Giants did attack Asgard twice, but in both cases it was Loki who actually initiated things; without him stirring things up, they seemed to have been honoring the truce.
I never got the impression that Loki would have wanted to be King of the Frost Giants. He doesn't seem to have any desire to connect with his true heritage- quite the opposite, in fact. He wants to be honored as an Asgardian, and he intended to ensure that by saving Odin (albeit from a danger he put him in in the first place) and wiping out Jotunheim.
In response to the question, there's probably a delicate balance to Yggdrasil that destroying Jotunheim would upset. In general, this actually made me scratch my head as Loki in the comics embraces his Jotun heritage, leading them into battle, rather than trying to destroy them.
Well, now that Jotunheim is leaderless and Loki is exiled, he'd probably try to take over.
Granted, it'd be tough since Frost Giants probably wouldn't trust an 'Asgardian'. But hey, he's Loki, if he can't do it no one can. Just show off some blue skin.
Usually in Marvel once Laufey dies, doesn't the Evil Sorcerer Utgard-Loki try to become King? (No relation)
Just turning into his Frost Giant form probably wouldn't cut it- they'd likely just assume it was Odin's shapeshifting trickster son who already got their king killed trying to pull a fast one on them (and largely, they'd be right). But still, he isLoki, and I've no doubt he could at least convince some of the more mercenary giants to work for him, given time.
When Loki finds out about his Frost Giant heritage, Odin also mentions that Loki was abandoned, possibly for being "small for a Frost Giant baby." Indicating that in addition to his feelings of inferiority to Thor, he may also have abandonment issues with the Frost Giants as a whole, which could explain why he decides to wipe them all out.
I agree with the comment above about the delicate balance to Yggdrasil, with an addition: when they cut to Earth, you could see ominous clouds with rainbow flickering. Loki trying to destroy Jotunheim was screwing with everything, all of the worlds that were connected. Another way of putting it: start chopping off the roots of a tree (which Yggdrasil is in the mythology), and the tree doesn't do so well.
Even if the Jotuns were Always Chaotic Evil I think the point to not wanting their world destroyed was mostly that the heroic Asgardians are too morally upright to consider that anything but a terrible, terrible thing to do. Not just because it might upset some balance, but because as said, Genocide Is Bad. Even Thor at the height of his Jotun-hating battlelust never seems to consider that a possibility... he'll gladly fight their warriors in open combat, but wiping them all out from afar doesn't cross his mind because it's dishonorable and monstrous. The fact that Loki wants to do so pretty much shows how far he's fallen.
Considering Thor's goals were to find out what the Jotnar's motives were and them beat the fear of his hammer into them so they would not do it again while Odin's was to keep peace it could simply be that Aesir culture does not tolerate excessive murder. It is a warrior culture but one that seems content to simply defeat enemies, not annihilate them.
Spinning out of Loki's destruction of Jotunheim, what exactly does he think he'll accomplish? Assuming he genuinely wants Odin's approval, how does he plan to get it by destroying the very people Odin spends the entire movie telling his sons to leave alone?
I think, at least on a subconscious level, Loki was wanted to destroy the Frost Giants because he hated the fact that he was one. Sort of an outwardly-directed suicide. "If I get rid of the Frost Giants, then I can't really be one."
This troper supports the explanation above
Asgard and Jotun were also about to fight a war at the time. Loki wanted to make himself the savior of Asgard by destroying Jotun.
Yeah. Odin tells his sons to leave them alone because they'll start a war and war is terrible- but the war was about to be started anyway thanks to Thor. I think Loki figured that Odin would draw a distinction between 'attacking them in peacetime' and 'attacking them as supposed self defense'.
I don't think Loki saw himself as a Frost Giant, even after the revelation: he'd had a lifetime of being raised with pride in Asgard and hatred for Jotunheim, and a few days of knowing that he's an adopted Frost Giant. If anything, finding out his origin just kicked Loki's "Well Done, Son" Guy issues into even more intense overdrive and he hated the Frost Giants even more now, because he sees his own heritage as the reason Thor's always been the favored son. He thought that destroying Jotunheim would prove to everyone, especially Odin, that he's really loyal to Asgard after all.
Remember that Loki let Laufey in to kill Odin, but killed Laufey before it could be done. Odin knows whats going on around him as he sleeps, he knew that Laufey was there to kill him. The destruction of Jotunheim was going to be Loki avenging the attempted assassination of his father.
It's all an Indy Ploy by someone particularly callous... which makes perfect sense for the character, really. Loki lets the frost giants into Asgard just for "a bit of fun". He takes the opportunity to manipulate Thor into doing something stupid and dangerous. Thor's banishment is a bigger result than Loki would have hoped for. But then in the process Loki learns serendipitously that he's a frost giant himself. This Awful Truthpisses him off and makes him a Boomerang Bigot, more hateful to the frost giants than Thor himself was in the first place. Over the course of the movie Loki's Character Development changes him from just another Jerkass God, and a relatively benign one at that, to an Omnicidal Maniac.
Also, Loki probably agreed at least on some level with Thor: That Odin really wanted and maybe even should have wanted for his sons what made him a hero: An epic clash with the enemy, but Odin had grown old and weak. But if he saw that his sons could be just as tough as he was, he'd have to acknowledge their awesomeness and worthiness to be king. Particularly whichever son was the one to defeat them. And if they had attempted an assassination of Odin, then going to war with them would just be The Right Thing To Do. Think of it like how George Bush 41 went to a limited war with Saddam Hussein but stopped well short of regime change, so then when W became president, after Hussein had attempted an assassination on Bush, Sr., W launched a pre-emptive... wait, wait... OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!
Please tell me you are not so foolish as to believe that, the real life part, anyway.
Believe which part? Every real life fact I said is true. I didn't say that's why the Iraq War happened. Movies about Norse gods can take inspiration from history without following it to the letter.
Loki is a Frost Giant, albeit a small one. Do other Frost Giants have powers of shape-shifting, mirror images and cloaking? If no, why does Loki?
he learned from the Asgardians
^Exactly. In another scene one of the Warriors Three mentions that Loki is "skilled in magic". His shape-shifting, holo-clones, and cloaking are learned skills, not inborn abilities.
In the flashback, we see Loki first transform as a baby while being held by Odin - presumably, Odin either activated latent shape-shifting powers in Loki, or gave them to him right then and there. As for the other giants, might depend on whether they can do magic or not, or a similar factor.
If it was Loki doing that - and I personally think it was - it could also be construed as him instinctively taking the form most pleasing to the person holding him. Which, when you get right down to it, is the core element of Loki's personality in the film, and his relationship with Odin.
What the heck was Odin's plans for a 'permanent peace' with the Frost Giants that led him to adopt Loki? It's not like Loki was a hostage for Laufey's good behavior, since he seemed to have been abandoned (perhaps exposed?) infant that Laufey didn't care about.
Perhaps he intended to wait for Laufey to die naturally (Asgardians age, so presumably Jotuns do as well), then have Loki reveal himself and claim the throne, resulting in Jotunheim having a monarch who was, obviously, friendly to Asgard. He also probably intended to tell Loki about his true identity well before this actually happened to prepare him for it; him finding out prematurely didn't do anyone any good.
I figured he'd planned to use Loki as a sort of symbol. Along the lines of, "One of you, Laufey's own son in fact, lives among us as an equal. Ergo, our peoples can coexist peacefully."
Yeah. Sort of a big anti-racism statement.
It's possible that Odin initially took in Loki for that purpose, but quickly decided "Well, the poor kid's already been abandoned, it's probably kinder to raise him as my own instead of forcing him to be a spectacle".
This theory also explains his "You're my son, I want to protect you" line really well. Odin also said that his plans to somehow have Loki help with/be part of a peace accord "no longer matter." Clearly he doesn't have anything planned for Loki like that anymore.
Well, the impending war may have screwed that more than anything.
I read it as Odin could have been planning to marry Loki into Asgardian nobility - the way royal families have been doing for ages. Of course, that has the same issues as the hostage thing. "Hey, remember that baby you left to die forever ago? Yeah, I totally saved that baby, and brought him to Asgard, and now he's married to one of our nobles. We're cool, right?" I like the idea that Odin abandoned whatever plans he had for him a long time ago, as suggested above, a lot better.
It's clear Odin wished for Loki to bring peace between Jotunheim and Asgard. Perhaps at the time he wanted Loki to be a symbol that the two could coexist peacefully but over time came to love the child as his own son and abandoned 'spectacle' plans. He still could have wanted Loki to grow up to be Asgard's ambassador to Jotunheim; you'll notice that Loki is clearly the diplomatic one in Thor's group but Laufey made clear to Odin that Thor's rampage pushed them 'beyond diplomacy' which trashed this plan.
Odin says that Mjolnir can be used for both destruction and construction. Why didn't Thor use it to rebuild the New Mexico town before returning to Asgard to kick Loki's ass? After all, Thor's presence was the reason why the Destroyer trashed the town, and using Mjolnir's powers to restore it would have been a nice touch in his Character Development.
Why didn't he use it to rebuild Bifrost?
Loki was in the process of completing his plan right then, if Thor had waited much longer he would have destroyed Jotunheim before Thor even returned to Asgard.
I think Odin was being a bit poetical in his speech, as in, you could use Mjolnir to destroy or build empires and such, not literally use it to physically build stuff (well, you COULD use it to do some carpentry, I guess...)
Thor fully intended on coming back once he'd stopped Loki, who's to say he wouldn't have helped rebuild on his return? He knew whatever Loki was up to had to be stopped immediately, so he had to dash straight back to Asgard to stop him. He had no way of knowing he would have to destroy the Bifrost to stop Loki's plan.
How was Thor brought down so easily by a taser? I know he is Brought Down to Normal but he also showed rather quick recovery from 2 car collisions and beat up all those SHIELD agents without much problem.
The times he was hit by the car were instances of the car backing up slightly or coming to a full stop. They were never full-on hits. Also, having the skills to beat up government agents doesn't mean you can't get tazed or drugged. He was strong but he never appeared super human.
The first hit was not by a car coming to a full stop, although it was probably not head-on either (I think they swerved a bit to the side). Then after they hit him, they came to a full stop. They were driving a large vehicle and driving very quickly to chase the storm, so the impact should still have been considerable, right? I'm just bringing up this point because it does seem as if his resilience, though diminished, is still incredibly high.
It is worth noting that tasers don't work by taking off hit points, they work by issuing a status effect. In other words, they don't so much hit you as hack into your nervous system and pump it full of high-intensity gibberish, making your whole body go FAWHFJAEJKL:ASLAWRA.
Plus, he had just been Brought Down to Normal. Like, thirty seconds ago. He was having trouble standing before he got tased.
Yup, the order goes 'fall to earth, get hit by a van, get tazed'. I'm assuming the damage stacked. Also, I figured he could take out the SHIELD guys because, even when he's super-powered, he still fights some strong foes. It's a down-scaling of his skills to be fighting regular humans, but it's probably not that much different from fighting Frost Giants or other Asgardians when he's at normal capacity.
It's evident when he's fighting the big Scary Black Man; strong as he is being mortal, this particular Giant Mook gives him a good run.
I've no experience with falling to Earth from Asgard, but I have been hit by a decelerating car and tazed, so I can tell you that the latter is far more difficult to resist. The main danger in the former (since the car is slowing to a stop'') is hitting your head when you fall down, which would not be a problem with desert sands. I've never yet met anyone who can resist electricity being blasted through their body. With regards to the SHIELD agents: even without powers, Thor is still a very large man with plenty of combat experience. He may very well have been fighting hand-to-hand even before said agents were born, so why shouldn't he be able to blow through them?
Or more simply- "Where did you get your training? Afghanistan? Iraq" "ASGARD, MOTHER-LOVER!"
A taser works by pumping electricity into you causing your muscles to spasm out due to the high voltage. Muscles move because your brain sends an electrical current to them. Tasers override that current with a much more powerful and random one. It doesn't matter how strong you are.
I'm not sure if this borders on Plot Hole or not. But the whole impetus for Loki seizing power is Odin entering the Odinsleep. For those who don't know, in the comics The Odinsleep is a state of deep sleep where Odin essentially recharges his batteries, it's said explicitly by Loki when he and his mother speak at Odin's bedside that that's what he is doing. Okay. This wasn't the first Odinsleep by any stretch, nor the first one experienced by Loki or Asgard. Okay. So certainly there are plans in place for just who should command Asgard while Odin takes the Odinsleep, and given what he says to Thor about not being ready to be king, it seems to be that the task didn't simply fall to Odin's sons. Odin didn't think either of them were ready to rule. So logic tells us there must have been someone else watching over Asgard while Odin sleeps. If nothing else, Asgardian Law should provide for this while Odin takes a simple nap. So how come Loki becomes king at all? The Odinsleep was nothing new, it had been done before, and Odin didn't want his sons having that power...so why does he become king when Odin is not sick, not wounded, and actually not in danger of dying...or in fact is not doing anything out of the ordinary?
Odin was sick and they were unsure if he was going to wake up. I think that is the difference. Several scenes from the trailers detailing Loki's ascension to power were cut from the actual film. A more detailed description of the Odinsleep was also lacking such as normal length. My guess would be normally the Odinsleep is so short (maybe a day or so like in the comics) that Frigga or the normal Asgardian bureaucracy could take care of things while Odin slept. This time around Odin was in a coma and they were unsure when or if he would ever wake up. Asgard was on the brink of war and their greatest warrior was banished. Morale would be pretty low. Since the role of king is highly symbolic as well a new king had to be crowned to deal with everything. Its saying: "Look, don't worry. We have a son of Odin leading us in this time of crisis" rather than just a regent or some bureaucrat who does not know how to truly rule.
The movie begins with Odin telling juvenile Thor and Loki the history of Asgard, including the withdrawal of the Asgardians from Earth. So, if Thor and Loki were just kids long after that withdrawal, how does Earth have legends of Mighty Warrior Thor and Evil Scheming Loki? Loki doesn't even turn into a bad seed until half way through the film! The ancient Norse were psychic!
Well, note that Loki wasn't really evil and scheming (mostly just a bit of a practical joker) until the monks copying down the legends decided to turn him into Lucifer. He was more of a Karmic Trickster and paired up with Thor for a Brains and Brawn deal.
Which is basically what he is thought of in Asgard (note how everybody talks about his "silver tongue" and his "tricks"), until Thor is banished and Loki goes full-on heel. Fridge Brilliance?
This may be, as noted elsewhere, Foreshadowing of the fact that the gods are trapped in an endless cycle of death and rebirth by Ragnarok, with the myths referring to the previous cycle, in which case the characters will notice the discrepancy in one of the later Thor movies and it'll be a major plot point.
Alternatively, also as noted elsewhere, the kids were named after a great warrior and a great trickster, whose identities were confused in the myths with the newborn heirs, and who the heirs tried to live up to.
Didn't Fandral mention Thor and the others visiting Earth occasionally to show off their power.
We don't know how much time passed between the war with the Frost Giants and the present-day events the movie. It's entirely possible it's been thousands upon thousands of years and the Asgardians/Jotun just age really slowly compared to humans. As the above troper said, one of the Warriors Three mentions something about dropping in on Earth and being worshiped as a god. Maybe that's what Thor and the other Asgardians did during the intervening millenia.
It was more than 1000 years since the Asgardians defeated the Frost Giants if Odin's eye is any indication. The opening fight is set around 900 A.D., during which Laufey shoots Odin in the eye with that spiky ice ball. The fight ends in Jotunheim with Odin standing over the defeated Laufey with a bloody hole where his eye used to be. Unless Odin left that wound to fester for years, the war must have lasted hours at best. Odin found baby Loki around the same time, meaning that both he and Thor are more than 1000 years old because Thor is the older brother.
Minor headscratcher: Loki wearing a suit on earth. Yes he looks gorgeous. And yes I fully approve. I just don't get why though. Nobody in the entire base can see him unless he wants them too! I mean, he managed to walk all the way up the hammer and grab it without a single SHIELD personnel questioning him. He could have just been in his normal horned armour and it would have been fine.
Maybe he just likes a good suit. Lots of people do. Impractical for warfare and inappropriate for the King of Asgard, but when in Rome...
The dude's desperate to fit in and look good no matter where he is.
The Real Life reason is probably because he might look a little silly in full Asgardian regalia on Earth. The in-story reason could be just in case he needed to make himself visible or if the invisible spell wore off somehow.
It might also be something like the "Somebody Else's Problem" field in Life, the Universe and Everything. Loki isn't fully invisible so much as his magic's keeping people from noticing him, and the modern suit's part of the effect. If he'd shown up looking like a Norse god, it may have broken the spell.
Although that is exactly how the SEP field works: The more ridiculous and out of place something looks, the more people will ignore it.
No, that's how one specific SEP field works. The concept of "Somebody Else's Problem", which has been used in numerous other places, makes no such distinction. Loki may be using a version that basically says "Don't mind me, just another guy in a nice suit."
He is a shapeshifter maybe he's able to change his clothes like he can with the rest of him
When he appeared in Thor's room he essentially took the place of Coulson; perhaps the spell that allowed him to appear so unobtrusively also attempts to match his outfit to the previous occupant of the space.
It may have been a subtle nod to the audience that Loki has visited Earth before, which ties in well with The Stinger. It could also be Loki's method of shielding himself from Heimdall involves blending in with his environment, which he would probably need to do in order to visit Thor on Earth.
Simple. Loki isn't invisible, he's just encouraging people not to notice him. The clothes are possibly a crutch for himself, not others; as with any lie, if you're too conscious of its falsity, you can't convince anyone else of it, either. (And considering that he now questions his belonging anywhere at all, he may need the crutch.)
Why didn't Loki use the Casket on Thor during their final fight? It had to be powerful enough to freeze Hemidall, so why not use its power on Thor?
Because he was using it to keep Bifrost frozen.
Yep. You can see the glowing blue outline of the Casket sitting where Heimdall's sword would normally be after the energy beam hits Jotunheim. Loki waves his hand, activating the Casket, then the Bifrost energy matrix starts freezing.
Loki picking up the Casket the first time : is the big deal is that only a Frost Giant can pick up the box? If so, who picked it up at the temple? In the flashback/backstory scene, it sure looks like someone is already wearing Loki's fabulous helmet. Is this Previous Incarnation!Loki?
I'm pretty sure anyone can pick up the Casket. The big deal was the cold from the Casket (or maybe just touching such a powerful piece of Frost Giant magic, or maybe both), caused Loki's true Frost Giant form to be revealed.
Yeah, they could have made it a little more obvious but when Loki touches the Casket you can see his skin starting to turn back to its natural blue.
So, Loki is a Frost Giant, right? Naturally blue and all that? Odin "glamoured" him as a baby, presumably so that he'd fit in with the other Asgardians, not feel isolated, etc. So why is it that he gave the poor kid black hair? His brother, and pretty much all of Asgard are total blondies. Kinda mean, Odin...
Sif is a brunette, so obviously not all Asgardians are naturally blonde.
Sif was born blonde. It was kind of her thing, actually. Loki cut it all off and replaced if with black hair as a prank.
First, this isn't confirmed as canon in the Marvel-verse so it means nothing. Second, that is completely incorrect; In the myth, after Loki cuts off Sif's hair, he is forced by Thor to fix it. The wig he obtains for Sif is described as woven gold. She was never a brunette in the myths, real hair or not.
...Which is irrelevant since we don't even know if that incident occurred in the movieverse. The fact is there are examples of non-blonde Asgardians. Sif is one, Volstagg is another. Technically Heimdall would also count. Asgard is not the Aryan wasteland you imagine it to be.
OP has a point, but in a different way. Odin, Frigga, and Thor are blonds. Loki has black hair. Surely, the Asgardians would have noticed that the younger prince didn't really resemble his relatives.
To be fair, although Thor seems to be Odin and Frigga's child, in the original myths, it was Odin and a giantess named Fjorgyn who were his parents. He might not have been in Zeus' league, but Odin got around.
There's a shooting script floating around on the internet, where Loki addresses Laufey as "father", and Laufey recalls him as "the bastard". So Loki is probably only half-Jotun, or half-giant, and with his magical talent, he might have changed his appearance subconsciously.
In the mythology Loki is half-giant, half-alfa (elf). Whether it's the same in the movies or not idk.
I assumed that Loki's unusual coloring was just because a glamor can only go so far. Loci looked frost-giantish when he came into contact with the casket or another frost giant, which implies that whatever spell Odin put on him isn't perfect. Odin was able to make Loki look (for lack of a better word) human, but was unable to make him look truly Asgardian. And as for the lack of family resemblance, Odin is the king. You don't question what the king says.
The glamour may not be Odin's doing anyway. Loki might be a natural shapeshifter, and his Asgardian form is equally 'true'.
Mythologically speaking, at least, there's no 'might.' Loki IS a shapeshifter. He can even do horses.
Loki tells Thor that he, Loki, was never Thor's brother. Thor doesn't seem at all confused by this comment. Does that mean that Thor knew that Loki was adopted? Does Thor know that Loki is a Frost Giant?
Thor may have taken it more like Loki was saying he hated Thor so much that he wanted no relation to him (a fairly common thing to say in the heat of an argument among family), rather than the literal meaning of the statement.
He does reply with "Loki, this is madness!", so he may have simply counted the "not your brother" statement along with the "I'm going to wipe out Jotunheim and fight you at the same time" stuff. It's easy to think he was simply overwhelmed at how quickly things have changed.
Total theorizing, but people like Loki are sometimes prone to being massive drama llamas, and they'll flip their spit and go completely wacko, saying and doing things they ordinarily wouldn't because they're riding the Rage Train and it doesn't have any stops between Sane and OMG EVERYONE JUST DIE IN A FIRE. If this is true of Loki, Thor's probably used to hearing Loki say all kinds of crazy things.
When Thor is shot through the wall by Loki, he obviously manages to change his fall into flight with his hammer and makes his way to the Bifrost. Yet somehow Loki still arrives there before Thor, with enough time to open the Bifrost and freeze it... while travelling on horseback? And no, he wasn't even riding Sleipnir - he's just riding a normal, four legged horse.
One explanation could be that Thor was knocked unconscious (by Gungnir or by the fall) and it took Thor awhile to wake up and catch up to his brother.
Or he went back to make sure Loki didn't hurt Odin and Frigga.
How did Thor escape from his restraints at the hospital? He didn't muscle out of the first one, he just sort of slithered his wrist through it. Do Asgardians have deflatable bones or something?
Rule # 1 of SERE training (Survive Evade Resist Escape; essentially military training to evade and escape capture) is that all restraints can be broken or escaped given time and effort. Thor simply worked the restraints until he could get one hand free.
Basically, the restraints were meant to hold someone who was thrashing around all crazy-like, which Thor had been up to that point. Those sort of restraints on hospital beds are to keep an irrational patient from harming themselves or others, not to actually keep someone bolted securely to the bed... if they'd wanted to do that, they'd have handcuffed him. Once Thor calmed down and used his brain, he was able to get out of them, because they weren't made to hold someone who was calm and thinking clearly.
I don't quite understand Loki's sudden evilness. Everything he did, including his visiting Thor on Midgard, made perfect sense to me and while it wasn't all "nice", it definitely wasn't "evil" either. Then all of a sudden he wants to kill Thor. WTF?!
He only sends the Destroyer after him, if I recall correctly, after the Warriors Three and Sif go to find him, and they're going to find him explicitly so he'll help them depose Loki. Of them all, Thor is the only one who's truly a threat to his plans, particularly if and when they expose as a lie Loki's insistence that Odin was dead. That, and jealousy probably had a hand in it.
But becoming king wasn't really on Loki's agenda, or was it?
I don't believe so. But I also think that once he'd tasted power, Loki found himself unwilling to give it up. He also already had his plans in motion for winning Odin's blessing by destroying the Jotuns and he sure as Hel wasn't going to let anyone mess that up.
Well, Loki would have given power back to Odin, once he woke up, otherwise his "rescue plan" would have been pretty pointless. Also, if Thor returned without his powers, I doubt the Asgardians would just have made him king.
Loki wasn't going to just sit back and trust his lucky stars that Thor would never get his powers back.
Also, from Loki's perspective, if he successfully carries out his plan and destroys the Jotuns, then he's cemented himself as Odin's heir. He doesn't need to give up his throne forever- after all, Odin was ready to crown Thor, which says that he's ready or almost ready to step down himself. If Thor comes back, it screws everything up.
But even if Thor got his powers back without Loki's interaction - Loki was already in control of the Bifröst. Thor had no way coming back to Asgard unless Loki wanted him to.
Or if Heimdall turned on him- which Loki obviously believed was a possibility, since he went out of his way to freeze the guy solid! Besides, smart as he is, is Loki really operating rationally on the subject of his family? I don't really think so...
Loki was just doing what he does best; making mischief, i.e., manipulating everyone around him. He deliberately gave the Frost Giants a way into Asgard, which he knew would end up screwing both them and Thor, he planted the idea of blowing off Odin's orders into Thor's head, before informing on their effort to some guard anyway. The whole Thor getting banished thing was just an unexpected consequence- even Loki seems a bit shocked when it happens. That, and the whole "You're a Frost Giant" bomb which Odin drops later probably compelled him to go with the whole "I'll wipe them out!!!11!" idea. And for the record, Loki only visited Thor so that he could screw with him, which is why he lied about Odin being dead.
Being a king always seemed to be on Loki's agenda. So, as the previous poster said, he interrupted Thor's coronation with the Frost Giant attack, then convinced Thor to defy Odin and attack the giants, then after Thor was exiled he visited Thor and lied to him in hopes it'd keep Thor from ever returning.
If Asgardians can't touch Jotuns without being burned, why was Odin able to pick up baby Loki without any ill effects?
As the most powerful of the Asgardians Odin may be more resistant to the Jotun freezer-burn effect. And baby Jotuns are surely far less powerful than full-grown ones. Perhaps their freezer-burn powers take time to mature.
It may also be a voluntary effect. Note that Laufey opens the comatose Odin's eyes without adverse effects.
In Thor, there is a flashback of Odin finding baby Loki, and the kid changes appearance from a squalling blue infant to a calmer pink infant. Was this an early manifestation of Loki's sorcerous abilities, a subconscious self-defense mechanism to help him stay safe, or just something that the Jotun all know how to do? And was it an actual change or an illusion?
Most people I've talked to assume Odin was the one who changed him, to help disguise him.
How old exactly is Thor? He does not seem to act his age at all. Loki says in The Avengers that humans think the Asgardians are immortal; but he then asks to test it (Implying it's either not true or maybe they honestly don't know if they're immortal or not). Odin speaks of his "father before him," implying that there have been previous generations of Asgardians that have come and gone; hence not immortal. Are they super long-lived (so much so Thor was old enough to fight during Viking times)? Does time pass differently in Asgard then it does in Midgard? Are there many generations of Odins and Thors and Lokis?
I had assumed that time passes in Asgard the same as it does in Midgard and Thor is approx. a thousand years old, with Loki slightly younger- but that both are still considered young man-equivalents by Asgardian standards (Odin, who looked middle-aged even during the Asgard-Jotunheim war, is probably several milennia old). Going by Norse mythology, the gods were incredibly long-lived (though they maintained their youth by eating magical golden apples) and hard to kill, but were not immortal, and I got the impression that this would also hold true for the movie's versions. So Thor is the equivalent of an impetuous young twenty-something, but because he comes from a very long lived race he's chronologically a lot older than that.
Using 900 A.D. as referencenote The battle between the Jotuns and Asgardians is shown at the begining of the film, with "900 A.D" onscreen. Odin lost his eye in the battle and it's still bleeding when he finds baby Loki., in 2013 Loki would be at least 1113 years old. Thor is presumably not much older than Loki, as their actors are nearly the same age.note Chris Hemsworth was 28 and Tom Hiddlestion was 31 when filming. Dakota Goyo (young Thor) and Ted Allpress (young Loki) were both almost 12.
That Just Raises Further Questions because references to Thor, Loki and Odin are much older than 900 AD. Unless Odin visited Earth before and was actually inspired by the myths, and named his kids after them. Or Norse Mythology is very different in the movie universe.
Most of what we know about the Norse gods comes from after the Viking Age. Containing the Poetic Edda, the Codex Regius is thought to have been written in 1270. The Prose Edda was thought to have been written around 1220. That leaves at least a good 320 years between the Jotun-Asgardian war on Earth and the writing of the best known sources of the Norse myths. It's also worth noting that the Prose Edda is Icelandic, and the Jotun-Asgardian war is shown to take place in Iceland. And for what it's worth, Loki shows that there are definitely more incarnations of the gods.note I don't think it's canon to the main comics, but I could be wrong. Either way, it's definitely worth the read. A movie was made out of it, Thor & Loki: Blood Brothers which is also very good. Whether or not this is true for the films...
Yes, the Eddas are the primary sources of information on the Norse Myths, but far from the only ones. The poem Haustlöng, which is the first confirmed mention of Loki (references to Thor are much older), was actually written circa 900AD... Finding this out, I think this could be possible Fridge Brilliance, since the filmmakers must have done some research and might have deliberately set the discovery of Loki at the exact time the first story about him was written... since that story is about Odin and Loki going on an adventure together, My Wild Mass Guessing would then be that Odin made the story up as a bedtime story for his brand new son about the adventures he would have, and some Norse poets overheard it. By the way my source on this is the Norse Mythology Blog who also have an interesting article about Stan Lee and Jack Kirby having Shown Their Work in the comics a lot more than people, even scholars give them credit for. Read it here.
I guess this could be just Loki making a huge misstep, but why in the world does he use the Bifröst to visit Laufey? He's currently the king and only remaining heir of Asgard, visiting a highly dangerous location, so Heimdall has good reason to watch him like a hawk. Loki must have known that cloaking would make Heimdall very suspicious. Yet, we know he has other ways of communicating with the Frost Giants, because there's no way Heimdall would have let him to that strictly forbidden location before the first attack (that Loki orchestrated). He even talks about there being other pathways. So why didn't he use those? His plan became very compressed as soon as Heimdall mistrusted him, because that led to Heimdall letting Thor's friends through against the kings' orders. There was no way for Thor to get back (even if he did have his powers) without help from the Asgard side, so would it not be wise for Loki to ingratiate himself to the sole gatekeeper of that passageway, instead of making him suspicious and then insulting him afterwards? It seems a large contrast from the subtlety of Loki's influence up to that point.
Loki was declared king and I assume that most Asgardians don't question the decisions of their king. Besides, he is a talented liar. He could have said that he needed to go to Jotunheim for peace negotiations, because of the trouble that Thor had caused. On the other hand, I doubt that Heimdall would have bought that, as he never really fell for Loki's lies and that he always was suspicious of him. Also, showing up with a dozen of guards by Loki's side could've ticked Laufey off, thinking that Loki was launching an attack. He probably upped his defences ever since Thor wrecked his kingdom. I think that Loki wanted to show that he wasn't a threat by coming alone. And about those secret passages: I think it would've been even more suspicious if he did use those to get to Jotunheim at the time and if he didn't tell anybody where he was. Like I said, Loki was the friggin' king. He was being watched all the time by his guards and had to run a kingdom. If he suddenly disappeared, everybody would freak out and that is the last thing that Loki wants. Maybe Heimdall wouldn't have bought it, but I think that his guards would've believed him when he would tell them that he needed to go to Jotunheim alone to negotiate with Laufey about a truce between the two realms.
So is Loki even fully Jotun? Even in his blue form, he looks less like a big inhuman thing and more like... well, a blue version of his normal self with a couple face markings. (Or Data.) Apparently in the deleted scene Laufey dismissively calls Loki his bastard son and indicates that he left him to die on purpose, so is his real mom an Asgardian or something?
Could be, but there are six other realms as well for his mother to come from.
Loki's comics backstory has him as a "runt" Frost Giant, and in the movieverse, Odin says that Loki as baby was small for even a foundling Frost Giant. That and his innate, perhaps subconsciously activated shape-shifting powers might explain why he doesn't look like a slightly icier version of a Na'vi
In the myths Loki is half-giant, half-alfa (elf).
Out-of-universe issues with the film
Why the heck was Balder not in this movie? He's kind of a major character, and now it's going to be hard to justify having him in a sequel. Think about it: where is he in the first movie if he shows up in a sequel? What's he doing?
Asgard is a big place. There's plenty of room for a god who lives off on his own, or is off adventuring in one of the other realms. Particularly if you assume Baldur is part of the older generation of gods, of like age to Heimdall.
In the comics, Balder is Thor's half-brother and current King of Asgard. Which is why his absence in the movie is strange, giving his recent raise in importance. Then again, this is something recent, he was not know by anyone but Odin to be prince until a few years ago (in Real Life time, not Comic Book Time). He can appear in a future movie without and still be faithful to the comic without much of a hassle. He shouldn't be a old generation god, though.
Worth noting that just a few weeks before the movie was released, Balder was shuffled off to comic-book limbo in the monthly series. Additionally, rumor had it that the initial script treatment for the film had Balder getting killed in the pre-credits sequence. I suspect Balder won't be showing up in the Thor movie franchise. Between Thor, Sif, Heimdall, and Fandral he'd be somewhat redundant, and all of the sudden Thor having this other "best friend" that just sorta skipped all the drama of the last film would seem a bit jarring. I could be wrong though. It did seem to me that they sort of divided his character between Heimdall and Fandral.
I just assumed Balder was left out to make the "Father-Son-Brother" thing, a major part of the plot, a little simpler and neater.
Tyr was also left out, probably as he is also a son of Odin. That said most of Odin's boys were to different mothers. So they could be still out there in the court, not knowing they're royal bastards.
If you pause while Erik is flipping his Mythology book and peer closely at Loki's page, it says Loki already killed Balder, after being disgraced for his trickery and winning his way back in with his silver tongue. Which I'm unfond of because it makes Loki into a repeat offender instead of a man who had a psycotic break.
Either the myths are wrong or they're using the comics' explanation that Ragnarok is a cyclical event and the gods are reborn after their destruction. Therefore, a previous Loki killed Balder, and that's who the myths were about.
The myths could be both right and wrong; Balder's death could have been an accident in 'reality' in the MCU. The part about Loki's trickery could have been an attempt to hide his guilt even though Balder's death wasn't intentional.
Minor 'scratcher, really, but why was there such an emphasis on the random crossbow guy during the rainy fight scene? For some reason I was getting the impression he was supposed to be important and then he just...wasn't (he didn't even get to shoot anyone!). Was he only for building suspense?
He was using a compound bow, not a crossbow, and he is referred to as 'eye' by the SHIELD agent he's talking to on the radio. He's likely another marvel character, Hawkeye, in a cameo role.
Not likely. He is Hawkeye. Coulson refers to him as "Agent Barton", as in Clint Barton, as in Hawkeye. Just no silly purple getup.
It seems likely the entire sequence of Coulson (Son of Coul) and Barton was probably not in the original script, but was written and filmed later, after "Avengers" plans firmed up. Thus, it couldn't really affect the storyline.
It was also to show that Coulson had the situation under control and, Giant Mook or no, Thor was only going to get as far as Coulson wanted him to go (same as when Erik "rescued" Thor later).
You sir just made me like that scene a whole lot more.
Erik had some lines which was a shoutout to Hulk. He also mentioned that he had another scientist friend which he can call to ask for help when dealing with SHIELD. I just can't figure out who in the heavens this guy is.
Word of God says it's Hank Pym, but they took the name out because they thought they might be overloading people with references to other Marvel characters.
Aw man, that's a pity. It would have been an awesome reference.
About the post-credits scene: What is Loki's presence here supposed to imply? Is he possessing Selvig's body? Has he killed and replaced Selvig? Or was Selvig really Loki all along?
Though it's never explained, I was under the impression that he was "influencing" Selvig in some manner. Perhaps some sort of mind control or suggestive power?
He already demonstrated what amounts to telepathic tricks earlier, with his "none of you can see me" trip through the SHIELD outpost. Is it really all that shocking that he can also control minds. Why does he not use this in battle elsewhere? Probably because Asgardians and other magical/advanced beings are more tolerant of, and/or more perceptive of, telepathic influence.
Asgardian helmets might block telepathy, similar to how Sebastian Shaw's helmet blocked telepathy in X-Men: First Class.
Fridge Horror: Loki may still have the Casket of Ancient Winters with him, if he and the end of the Bïfrost both ended up on Earth. If not, where did the Casket end up?
Also, the remains of The Destroyer are on earth, so anyone (most likely SHIELD) can just research it.
Though being fair, its not likely SHIELD will be able to do much with the pieces, any more than they did with Mjolnir.
As of The Avengers, SHIELD researching the remains of the Destroyer, at least, is confirmed. Furthermore, they've built a BFG using the tech and it's complete enough for Coulson to use it against Loki, though he claims not to know what it does.
I'm a bit confused according to SHIELD's files Thor looks exactly like Dr. Donald Blake. Did Jane not mention he could be a twin of her ex, or do we just assume it was some spell of his banishment.
The ID was faked using Darcy's picture of Thor; SHIELD's computer notes this, but Coulson let's Thor go anyway so he can have him followed and potentially find out more about him (since he obviously wasn't talking in the interrogation).
SHIELD steals Jane's stuff and beats up Thor. Then they let him go (but keep watching him). Then Thor kills the Destroyer. And then Thor declares that SHIELD is a good organization, and he's happy to be allies with them (provided that they give Jane's stuff back). When exactly did Thor decide that SHIELD is one of the good guys? What did SHIELD do to earn his trust?
I think that Thor had it in his mind that they weren't really bad to start with; note how he doesn't do anything lethal when he first goes to retrieve Mjolnir. He'd have known from talking to Jane and from interacting with them directly that they were the government, and if he stopped to think about it, he'd realize SHIELD was doing the exact same thing his father did when the giants tried to take the Casket. Given Asgardian society, the idea of a government agency being truly bad and wrong is probably less likely to get into Thor's head than it would be for an Earthling.
I think at some point during his captivity with them, probably while Coulson was talking to him, he realized that SHIELD was a government agency trying to protect people. Plus, you know, they're named SHIELD; Thor, who's probably not used to governmental acronyms, would be more likely to take that name at face value as indicative of what they do.
There is also the possibility that Thor simply made his vow so that Jane could get her stuff back. It was a barter more than a straight alliance.
SHIELD also pretty much did nothing to show they might be the bad guys — they didn't torture Thor when he was captured (Whether they could is another issue altogether). They let him and his friends off without much issue.
Not to mention that the only reason they were holding him in the first place is because he broke into their base and started beating up their men. HE attacked THEM, and that probably weighed in heavily in his opinion of their response. Compared to Asgard's response to the Frost Giant intrusion, they were actually very merciful to Thor.
This, pretty much. Note that at several points in Thor's assault on the SHIELD facility, their soldiers were clearly carrying what were obviously weapons, but they continued trying to use nonlethal techniques against Thor, even when he was beating them senseless. When he reached Mjolnir and was paralyzed with despair after being unable to lift it, they captured him instead of killing him where he stood. And when Coulson was questioning Thor, he made it clear - in his own way - that he respected Thor's skills at besting his own men. That sense of honor, mercy, and restraint clearly left an impression on him.
What's up with the Habitrail™ that SHIELD builds around Mjolnir? What possible purpose do all those rings of tunnels serve? And why leave Mjolnir open to the air? Why not just build a big dome, or erect a tent over the area?
I figured it was just so nobody trying to break in and steal Mjolnir couldn't get straight to it- they'd practically have to go through a maze, leaving plenty of time for the guards to catch & subdue them.
Pretty much this. It controls access to the room containing the hammer, forcing anyone who wants to reach it to go through the tunnels, where guards can check and stop them.
As for the lack of a roof: a certain guy with a bow probably wanted to be able to see his target...
Agent Coulson's respectful attitude after Thor destroys the Destroyer. Earlier he was pure "Respect Mah Authoritah", snatching just about everything Jane owns right out of her hands without compensation then decides NOT to brutalize Thor after watching him make "some of the most highly trained professionals in the world look like a bunch of minimum wage mall cops", then finally doing everything Thor asks(that part I could understand as pure intimidation - this-guy-just-walloped-some-Stark-level-superweapon-oh-I-don't-have-one-of-those-I'll-be-nice), and following through with it. What's his angle? Does SHIELD have some knowledge of Asgardians?
SHIELD is likely an offshoot or descendant of SSR, the organization taking its place during WWII. And when one considers that Red Skull had a hard-on for Norse mythology, and that Cap found an insanely powerful energy source in one of Red Skull's factories? When one eliminates the impossible...
Point of fact, Coulson does offer Jane a sizable check, even as they're taking her stuff. He says the amount should be fair compensation. As for not brutalizing Thor, well, why should he? He's one of the good guys, you expect him to just start torturing him? I'm guessing SHIELD probably doesn't know much about Asgardians in particular, but it's very, very clear that they know something is up with the hammer.
His "angle", is that SHIELD recognizes that Thor, who they've kept under surveillance since they let him go with Erik, is one of the good guys, and SHIELD is, you know, also one of the good guys. You seem to be under the impression that SHIELD is some sort of oppressive, evil government operation when that's exactly the opposite of what's being presented in the films.
They seem to be the kind of people who authorize their agents to "tase someone and watch Supernanny while they drool into the carpet." I'm thinking CTU from 24 at best and Section One from La Femme Nikita when they're sufficiently pissed off; protecting people through fear.
I really don't think one offhand, comical threat to Tony Stark, who is, let's face it, a jerkass is really the best thing to judge the whole organization by.
This basically. Thor is (when he's not kicking around their agents) extremely polite and respectful to them, unlike Tony Stark. Shield tends to be much nicer when dealing with polite characters like Thor or Captain America than wise-asses like Stark or Spider-Man. They only throw their weight around and act rude to Stark because he's very difficult to get to cooperate otherwise.
^^ They seem like those kind of people? Based on what exactly? Did you even watch the movie?
Here is an explanation of the whole SHIELD taking Jane Foster's stuff thing. Also, for the record, 24 is a terrible standard by which to judge law enforcement agencies, fictitiousor not, Lawful Good or otherwise.
Coulson threatening to tase Stark was just part of his gambit to get Tony to go to work, thinking that Big Brother was acting big, tough, and clueless. Recall if you will how Phil uses the tough-guy act and then... Just lets Stark go out for a spin in the sportscar for fun? There's a good entry somewhere on the site that gives a good roundup on Coulson's personality as a manipulator on par with Loki.
Why is it that Jane, Eric and Darcy took one look at Thor's crew and were instantly wide-eyed, gob-smacked, "This is impossible" amazed? Yeah, I understand that since they were gods not brought down to normal that they were living proof of everything Thor had been saying, but the others didn't know that right away! What, does actually wearing Nordic suits mean that they're the real McCoys and not just nutjobs that wandered off the set of a LARP? The evidence wasn't exactly watertight until the Destroyer showed up.
Because Jackie Chan, Robin Hood, Gimli, and Xena just showed up in Nordic armor and said, "Hey Thor! We found you!". That's either Thor telling the truth or four people with a shared delusion. They could also have some kind of power aura that Thor wouldn't have due to being brought down to normal.
Well, the power aura is possible. Otherwise, a shared delusion about being norse gods isn't that far fetched.
It probably didn't hurt that they were sort of leaning towards believing him by then anyway, too. Dude literally fell from the heavens on their watch.
They were pretty much the tipping point. Here is a guy who was in a crazy ass cloud, appeared on a crazy symbol laden engraving in the desert, has the body of a God, proclaims himself to be a God, is determined to reach a hammer that fell down from space (which is being investigated by SHIELD no less), is sufficient in kicking all sorts of ass, draws out a map of the cosmos (based on your own notes) and now he is joined by four people wearing leather, chainmail and plate armour have come knocking even though you're out in the middle of nowhere. One is hard to buy, but when you now have five people claiming to be Gods and a mountain of evidence backing them up its time to start believing.
So Thor's foolish attack brings us to "the brink of war". And then we spend the entire movie "on the brink". Now granted, the entire movie is like 3 days long, but why were there no actual battles during this time? Why didn't we at least see the Asgardian or frost giant armies preparing for war?
As you said, the whole movie takes place over 3 days. The Frost Giants were probably still planning on what they would actually do. Plus, it seems that the only way the Frost Giants would get to Asgard is through Bifrost, which only seems to open from Heimdall's end, so they'd have to figure out just how to get there.
It could be Laufey's hesitation that delayed the start of the war, seeing as he knew the horrors of going to war with the Asgardians first hand. Watching Thor decimate dozens of Frost Giants and that giant ice monster probably didn't motivate him much either, especially since he'd be going to war without the Casket.
Yeah, with Thor killing frost giants by the hundreds, Odin ready to defend his realm, and the fact that they don't seem to have easy access to Asgard, it's likely that Laufey was bidding his time and trying to come up with the best means of attack. He was evil, not stupid.
Having an omniscient character like Heimdall makes for some difficult questions. How would Heimdall not have known that Loki was a frost giant? Or at least, not an Asgardian? He should have noticed when the King came back from war with a baby not his own. How then could he have been surprised by Loki's ice blast? After the ice blast, Loki must have intended to kill him as Heimdall could have spoiled his plan by revealing the truth once freed. But how would Loki explain Heimdall being overcome by a handful of frost giants when even Odin appears slightly intimidated by him?
Is there anything to indicate that he didn't know? What surprised him was that Loki had the Casket, which Heimdall wouldn't have seen him get since his gaze is always turned towards outside threats. I'm sure, though, that Loki had a story to explain what happened to him; he just never got a chance to use it.
Heimdall isn't omniscient in the sense that he sees everything. He's omniscient in the sense that he can see everything, but he has to be looking at it. Note when he summons the Warriors Three and Sif; they say that Heimdall might be watching them right now. He has to watch something in order to see it.
As for him not knowing? Again, says who? Odin is his king, he wouldn't have needed to hide something like that from Heimdall. And yeah, Frost Giants' powers include freezing things on contact, over an extended period of time. Freezing things instantly from a distance requires the Casket, and Loki had already demonstrated an ability to hide himself from Heimdall's gaze.
Did Loki have the casket at the time? I thought Loki just used a "spell" to freeze Heimdall? Loki seemed to have other powers besides the ability to create illusions.
Pretty sure he was holding it. In any case, long-distance freezing is, as mentioned, not part of a Frost Giant's standard repertoire of powers, so whether or not Heimdall knew what he was, it wouldn't have helped him here.
Yes, he was holding it. We watched Loki enter the Vault and fetch the Casket just before his confrontation with Heimdall.
No we didn't; we watched him enter the Vault to loose the Destroyer on Thor. That said, he does whip out the Casket right quick, then make it disappear just as fast.
What's with such a large/vocal part of the fandom believing that Loki got a bum deal? The guy was half Frost Giant, it was a bit of a shock, but it's not as if he was a pariah. He attempted genocide on an entire world, breaking the terms of a treaty he'd tried himself to keep, risked the safety of Asgard to play hero twice, usurped his father's throne, put his mother in harm's way, and exiled his brother, leaving Thor to believe that his family hates him. And Loki did this with no reason that anyone could possibly consider justifiable. I understand that All Girls Want Bad Boys and he's kind of a sympathetic villain, but after everything he did he deserved worse than he got... especially when you consider that his 'death' was cover for his future schemes. Yet many fanfics portrays him as this kicked puppy, scorned by his jerkass dad, who only needs a hug (or an original female character) to heal his shattered heart. If this were comic-Loki then sure, there'd be grounds, especially since Odin is a dick more often than not. But movie-verse? Edit: While some of the replies are helpful, many responses aren't addressing the question, but are responding as if it were a challenge to justify being a Loki fan/Loki's actions. Is it possible to declare this question answered/closed? You've been a wonderful audience... er, bunch of tropers! Goodnight!
Draco in Leather Pants and the need of fans to have a scapegoat to blame for any evil deed Loki did. And apparently his fans do think that being the Un Favorite is a justifiable reason for at least murder and treason since they all gloss over the fact the his letting the Frost Giants in led to the murder of the treasure room guards. But there's actually far LESS ground for that type of thing for comic-Loki considering the amount of shit he's pulled and how much of his past we've seen.
I do agree that comic-Loki has pulled a lot more over the decades compared to movie-Loki's film and some tie-in comics, but I was referring specifically to the return of the Asgardians and post-rebirth Loki, when Odin was pretty much a dick to everyone. That said, the Leather Pants effect is relatively rare in the comic fandom (from what I've seen) while it's predominant in the movie fandom. It irritates me that so many movie-verse fics start off with "This is what would have happened if Odin had been a GOOD FATHER to Loki, who obviously needed support and understanding and didn't get it." What? There's not even evidence that Loki was the Un Favorite beyond his not being appointed King, which doesn't even seem personal: Most monarchies award the throne to the eldest child so long as they're not seriously incapable (mentally, physically, ect) and Thor is the older brother.
I agree it is annoying and they're making up facts that aren't in the movie so they can blame everybody but Loki for what Loki did. But that's pretty much textbook Leather Pants.
I'll take a shot at this. I think many of Loki's decisions were valid from the standpoint of political security in a monarchy. While he does have his emotional hangups and they are components of his motivation, he doesn't do much that's straight-up evil and I don't think he's even a bad king. He's really only guilty of not knowing that Thor was going to experience his hero epiphany and suddenly become a selfless, wise person. First, Thor's apparently about to step up to the throne, but Odin doesn't see that he's not ready for it. Odin says as much later, when Thor just has to get a vague notion from Loki to go to Jotunheim and start a friggin' war. So Loki sets up an interruption that'll highlight Thor's huge attitude problems. Good choice for Asgard. After Thor's banished to Midgard, Loki steps up to clean up the mess with Jotunheim. his first step as king in dealing with them is to draw their king out of his defenses with an offer he can't refuse: the chance to kill Odin. Loki instead kills their king, which in a monarchy is likely to set rival factions in Jotunheim against one another for the crown. Speaking of that particular problem, what transpires but several of Asgard's own warriors turn traitor to the realm in order to make an attempt to bring an exiled heir back to Asgard. What happens then? Either Loki hands control of the realm to Thor, who as far as he knows will send Asgard into a bloody melee with Jotunheim, or make a fight of it, trying to consolidate his power base and pit it against Thor's. He instead takes a third option and tries to take out Sif and the Warriors Three before they can get Thor back into Asgard to start a civil war. Like it or not, that's a good choice for Asgard too. When Thor interposes himself between the Destroyer and the insurgents, he has the option to just kill Thor and eliminate the threat entirely. Loki does not do this. Instead, Loki just slaps him hard enough to put him down for a while. Why not just toast the guy if Loki's such an evil bastard? Maybe he would risk too much public favor by assassinating his brother or maybe he actually cares about Thor. Either way, his plan is probably to get Thor out and down long enough to take out the insurgents. That's when everything goes to crap for that plan, since Thor had suddenly become worthy to be a god again. So now Loki has to choose between Thor's version of a war with Jotunheim (costly melee without any support from Odin) or the bifrost orbital beam cannon (zero Asgardian casualties). Then Thor shows up to screw that plan, so Loki just tries to keep him angry and busy until the space laser does its thing. Thor screws that plan too and Odin tells Loki he sucks. I don't know, but I think that's sort of a raw deal.
No, it's not at all. Loki is sympathetic, that's for sure. But nowhere in his motives or plan does it justify how far he took it. Loki is responsible for the murder of at least two innocent people, willing led assassin's to his defenseless father, then betrayed them too simply to look like a hero, nearly killing his mother in the process. Then, he visits Thor to basically say "Lulz, you killed dad. By the way, I'm totally gonna screw with that chick your in love with." For no other reason than to crush him. And his attempt to destroy Jotunheim is motivated to please Odn, and his own rejection of his heritage, not because he actually cared about Asgard. Hell, he's willing to commit genocide to please a father who ALREADY LOVES HIM. Loki actually got off fairly easy.
Loki does lie and say that Odin is dead because of Thor and his mother won't have anything to do with him but he didn't say anything about screwing with someone Thor was in love with. Partly this is because at this point Thor is not in love with anyone and partly because Loki isn't trying to make Thor think he's evil. He's trying to convince Thor to stay on Midgard forever.
Another part of the reason is because he's very easy to sympathize with right off the bat, where as Thor is a little too arrogant and, well, smashy in the beginning. While you're waiting for Thor to reach his full heroic potential so you can root for him, you slowly watch Loki's descent into evil (based mainly on mistakes and acts that were most likely better for Asgard as a whole) and it's near painful. Here's a guy that mainly wanted to be seen as an equal to his brother and gain his father's acceptance, when he learns that he's the type of "monster" he's always heard stories about. Now on top of the jealousy he gets a whole new heap of self loathing added to that. This all comes to a head at the end where it's hinted that had Odin shown just a bit of pride for him he wouldn't have let go. Does this make his earlier, obviously devious actions okay? No, not really, but it's easy to see why people would find a connection with him, just as people do with any character with a tragic back story. For example, no one would call Jonathan Crane a good person either, but many people connect with his history of getting bullied and abused, though they in no way excuse his villainous actions. So not only did you find a connection with their story at some point, you then see them falling into the role of the villain and it's even worse because there's always that thought that they could have been so much better. It's less that they ignore or excuse Loki's actions, but more the fact they can find common ground with such a flawed character because or in-spite of his actions.
I'll take a shot at it, too. Loki has spent his entire life in the shadow of this golden giant "brother" of his. He's genuinely gifted in many ways, but they're not the ways that are really valued; Asgardians seem to put a premium on good old-fashioned buttkickery rather than cleverness. The only people he gets to "play" with are his brother's friends, who treat him with thinly-veiled contempt and are too eager to accuse him of treason and other evil. No matter what he does, he never meets with untarnished approval (compared to Thor, who almost never meets with reproach). Because he's too aware of the stupidity of rash actions and going it alone, Loki doesn't have the same opportunities to get glory as others; when he goes out "adventuring" with Thor, people assign the glory to Thor. It's probable that a good chunk of what Thor gets credited is ninety percent due to Loki talking their way out of fatal levels of trouble. Now combine this with abandonment issues, having your identity shattered, and the desperate need to be approved, this becomes very sympathetic. People who've experienced even only part of this can understand the fall into despair...
Not so much. I said "understand", not "justify". Evil's still evil. Loki needed to put on his big-boy pants and stop feeling sorry for himself.
We are fangirls, we don't need a logical reason!
What's this "we" you mention?
Yes, please don't say "we", not all Loki fans are without "logical reason" and don't try to justify shitty actions. When you start saying "we fangirls" you've grouped a whole lot of people who aren't idiots to look like idiots.
I feel as though looking for a logical reason is akin to Measuring the Marigolds: Worthy to attempt, but likely to attract accusations of "hating."
The best theory I've seen for explaining (note: NOT justifying) Loki's actions was explained in this article. He's been brought up to hate the jotun; now he's discovered he IS one. All the negative messages he's been given are still present; he now considers himself a monster, and hates himself for his heritage. And, now, he has to prove that he's NOT a monster like them, and what better way than to destroy all the jotun? From the article linked, "he has to do something that will prove beyond doubt that he is Aesir at least at heart".
No, that makes perfect sense and jives with what we see in the movie. The original question wasn't about Loki's motives so much as it was about the fandom tendency to either exaggerate those motives by demonizing the rest of Asgard or to claim that Loki did absolutely nothing wrong to begin with, i.e. portraying him as a total Woobie who did nothing to deserve whatever karmic justice resulted. It's a bit bewildering since there were Loki fans before the movie, but the comicverse produced far less blatant examples of the above Leather Pants Effect. I'm going to blame the actor, who apparently is Mr. Fanservice?
Yeah, Tom Hiddleston is mad sexy as Loki. But also, just like in real life, it takes a certain amount of maturity to love, or have sympathy for a person/character and still be able to acknowledge their faults. Loki is very sympathetic, very realateble, very much in need of a hug, but still very often in the wrong. This kind of denial happens all the time in real life - it shouldn't be terribly surprising when it crops up in fandom. Especially when the most vocal and aggressive segments of any fandom are rarely the most reasonable.
But being the reconstructed child implies there was an original. ... Damn you, the Goggles Do Nothing! inb4 someone explains his black hair by saying Zack's genes were in the mix.
The simplest explanation for the widespread Draco in Leather Pants for Loki is pretty much that he's played by Tom Hiddleston. Not just that he's good-looking, but that he's a major case of Mean Character, Nice Actor. If the main DILP page teaches us anything, it's that some fangirls have a hard time distinguishing between actors and their characters, so the cuddlier the actor, the more leeway the character gets. It doesn't help that Hiddleston strongly holds that the character is redeemable, which to fangirls usually means "already justified," even if that's not at all what he means.
There's a difference between 'being kinder to a villain just because they're hot' and simply admiring their looks, but both behaviors seem to be lumped together with Draco in Leather Pants. The Loki fandom consists of both, and many of his fans would never dare underestimate how dangerous he is. It also goes the other way - knowing a character is evil might not stop one from pitying them. Not everyone thinks characters in media live black and white lives. It's not about whether his pain justifies his actions, Loki's life sucks hard and he's just making it worse for himself. To some fans, it's important, if not necessary, to focus on Loki's angst. He wouldn't be a villain otherwise.
For this troper, at least, there's also a healthy dose of sympathy that carries over him from other adaptations of Loki, including the original mythology. The original Loki wasn't really evil; later versions of the mythology rewrote him as a stand-in for the Devil. Loki always ended up as Asgard's fall guy, conveniently called in any time the other gods wanted to avoid responsibility for something (the fact that Loki did do any number of nasty things made this easy.) That said, ultimately nothing Loki did in this movie was really evil by the standards of his own people. (Obviously, our moral standards differ.)His goals — defeating his enemies, ruling his people, bringing pride to his father — are all pretty standard for his culture; he just has very twisty, indirect, unpleasant ways of achieving those goals. Now, his actions in Avengers are another story...
Whoa, that was a long discussion. I feel I'm arriving a little bit late but I had to say this. Loki didn't seem to usurp the throne. In a deleted scene it's shown that her mother gave it to him since his father was sleeping and his brother exiled.
Agree with the above. I seem to be coming in a little late...but I'll take a shot at it anyway. The way I see it, the fangirls who worship Loki are wrong in saying he's done nothing wrong, and I also hate it when other characters are portrayed as bastards in order to make the favourite character look good. But on the other hand, calling Loki outright evil is wrong too. At the beginning of the film, he's basically what one of the warriors described him as; one for harmless mischief and tricks, and a deleted scene showing the brotherly bond between Thor and Loki highlights this even more. And when Thor was about to become king, Loki rightly noticed that his brother wasn't ready, and letting the Frost Giants in proved this to Odin, thus sparing Asgard a massive headache - and possibly, also helping his brother out as well, giving him more time to mature and become a better king. Of course, things got out of hand; he looked genuinely shocked when Odin banished Thor. But what really drove him over the edge was finding out that he was a Frost Giant. In his eyes, he'd just discovered that he was the monster that children looked for under their beds. So of course he's going to have a breakdown, which leads him to take his father's words the wrong way; but when he shouts at his father, who promptly collapses, Loki instantly panics and calls for help. What follows is him trying to prove to his father - and to himself - that he's a worthy son, Thor's equal, and an Asgardian through and through. This includes killing Laufey and the Frost Giants, thus disconnecting himself from his origins, and even though he puts both his parents in danger, he obviously had it all under control. He just goes the wrong way in doing this without realizing the full extent and consequences of his actions, and when everything begins to fall apart, he panics and does things he probably would never have done before. His actions and the reasons for his actions puts him between what fangirls think and what haters think; a sympathetic villain, but his actions can't be justified by his reasons (but they can be understood). Of course, this doesn't mean that he can't be redeemed; in this Troper's opinion, almost anything can be forgiven, so long as the person tries to genuinely and selflessly make up for it. If Loki does that, then there should be no problems.
Jumping in on this long winded conversation, but I noticed that most people who watch the Marvel movies involving Loki are sympathetic towards the guy. This is to be noted that all of them are separate from the woobifying fangirls. I think that these fangirls of his that excuse his every action and try to pin them on someone else can't comprehend the idea that you can like a villainous character for the simple fact that it's a well written, interesting character, without excusing psychotic genocide and murder. This isn't just a Loki fangirl thing, it happens in so many fandoms- girls refuse to like a villainous character because he's interesting- they have to woobify and justify his shitty actions. Which is stupid, because I love Loki but I don't excuse a single thing he does. (And on that note, I was talking to a friend about Loki recently and she said "Well, I think Odin is worse than Loki" and I said "Hang on! Odin didn't try to commit genocide." and she goes, "Well, yeah, he did." I disagree, but jump on that as you will.)
So is nobody bothered that Odin, the head honcho of all Nordic gods is against war? We're talking about gods coming from a belief system in which you have to die in battle to have a decent afterlife (that is go to Valhalla). How come Thor's bloodthirsty attitude is looked down upon in a society which apparently gave rise to the Viking culture?
This isn't Norse mythology. Besides, even there Odin didn't exactly go around saying "Kill everything for the lulz." Thor's problem wasn't his bloodlust, it was that he was basically calling for genocide — the extermination of everything in Jotunheim. Odin didn't shrink from warfare and battle when he had to, and when he did he was no pushover, but being the wisest being in Asgard, he just didn't see the need for killing.
Fridge Brilliance:For all we know Odin could have been like Thor. In his younger days but the war with the Frost Giants could have shown him the horrors of war. This is also why Ordin was so furious at Thor. It reminded him of how he was like.
Thor never called for genocide. He wanted to teach the giants a lesson so they would know not to come back. That alone means that he wasn't planning on killing them all.
So the Asgardians are supposed to have inspired the Vikings, however: a) the Vikings were not really as barbaric as pop culture would have you believe (occasionally very violent, yes, but so were most other cultures), b) who says the Vikings didn't come up with most of the 'warrior' aspects of Odin themselves? He probably didn't encourage worship, but they saw him acting the badass and assumed (not totally incorrectly) he was an all-powerful war god. Also, c) I do also like the idea that Odin was more ruthless back in his younger days.
Okay, this has more to do with the fandom than with the movie, but WHY does everyone seem to assume that Heimdall is the most powerful Asgardian? In terms of power, he's above average sure, but the only reason he's the guard is because he can SEE the attack coming before it reaches Asgard, not because he can actually FIGHT it.
He is a pretty tough bastard, and it certainly helps that almost nothing escapes him. Maybe not the most powerful Asgardian, but definitely the most ready for a fight.
The dialogue from other Asgardians makes Heimdall out to be a very intimidating fellow. Loki asks him if Odin feared him, and Volstagg's response to "Heimdall demands your presence" is "We're doomed." This isn't a conclusive indication of how powerful he is in combat, but it's almost certainly helped to inform the perception of him as very powerful.
Note that Loki's plan for putting Heimdall out of commission was "Use the Jotun's old planetary scale WMD on him personally." And this didn't kill Heimdall, it just incapacitated him for a while. I think that is a decent indication of power.
"YOU ARE A VAIN, GREEDY, CRUEL BOY!" Vain, yes, but I don't see Thor displaying greed or cruelty at any point in the film. I could think of several more fitting words for Odin to throw at Thor: savage, self-righteous, brainless, arrogant, reckless, self-centered and short-tempered.
One could consider that trying to wage war on the Jotuns—basically waltzing over there to murder them without provocation—is pretty cruel.
You could also say that trying to wage war solely because he likes to fight and not caring about how this war would affect both Asgard and Jotunheim is pretty greedy too.
I doubt Thor's actions could be described as "without provocation". A group of Jotuns broke into their Vault, killed the guards and tried to make off with the very artifact that allowed them to threaten other worlds in the first place. Don't forget that the Jotuns struck first, again.
For all Thor and the other Asgardians know, the three Jotun that snuck into Asgard are a splinter group of rebels, acting on their own without any approval from any legitimate government of Jotunheim. Before committing all of Asgard to a what was either a thawing of the Asgard/Jotunheim Cold War or the Second World War equivalent, it might have been a good idea for Thor and Co. to, you know, ask questions (politely) or search in Asgard for how the Jotun entered in the first place. This troper was under the impression that Heimdal let the group through he Bifrost to investigate, not start a war. Even if the Jotun "struck first", Thor was over-escalating, making him both greedy for glory/fame, vain in his callous treatment of life, and cruel in his overwhelming desire for war.
I think that's going a little too far. The fact of the matter is, Thor was overreacting to the incursion... but Odin was severely underreacting. Odin could have at least demanded an explanation from Laufey. Thor does suggest going to Jotunheim and kicking some ass rather than all that other stuff... but wise old Odin, the one that calls him all those names later, didn't suggest any of that other stuff either, he was just "Nope, they're dead, clearly nothing to worry about, let's pretend it never happened." which is, arguably, an even worse approach. (One wonders what, if anything, he said to the families of the guards? "Well, we killed those specific frost giants that killed them, so you're ordered not to feel bad about it.") So, again, the best explanation is that Thor and Odin are being extremely like each other throughout these scenes... in this scene they're both going too far to opposite extremes, in the later argument scene they're just snapping hurtful insults at each other.
And he was pretty hungry for the throne of Asgard (and all the power that comes with it). That equals greed.
He was angry and looking for words. Not everyone can whip up a "The Reason You Suck" Speech out of nothing, especially when rattled (putting it lightly).
This makes sense, especially as he shows Angrish not long afterward.
Upon waking, how was Odin able to get from his bed chambers all the way to the end of the bifröst in time to catch Thor and Loki? Does he have flight or teleportation powers? The mental image of the old man madly sprinting down the rainbow bridge had me chuckling.
Odin's the strongest of all the gods on Asgard. He can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants.
Why doesn't Odin punish Heimdall when he let Thor, Loki and the others go to Joutenheim the first time around? It's pretty heavily implied that he doesn't have to take orders from anyone except Odin, and Heimdalls actions almost resulted in war. I can see Thor being punished for draggin the others along, but this has always baffled me. Someone, please explain?
I don't think the implication is that he only takes orders from Odin. Technically speaking, Heimdall is just a "gatekeeper." It's more like Heimdall is considered a wise and powerful badass and everyone greatly respects him. He has a reputation for being awesome. You could say he's not a gatekeeper, he's THE GATEKEEPER. I'd wager that if Heimdall gives you advice, you take it. Except for Thor and Loki, who kind of do what ever the heck they want once they set their minds to it. Even if Thor and Loki are doing something incredibly stupid, they're both still Asgardian Prince's and he has to follow their orders unless Odin has stated otherwise.
Why does Odin even need to enter the Odinsleep? No mention was made of the Odin Force in the movie, and he didn't appear to be all that powerful. The only things he did that seemed like they might have required use of the Odin Force were depowering Thor, making Loki look like an Asgardian, and possibly summoning dark energy some time during The Avengers.
Clearly he was Odintired.
My question is: why the Odinsleep only about two days long? It was treated like a huge emergency and yet it was extremely short. If he only needs two days to regain his powers, it shouldn't be a disaster requiring a new king.
They had no idea how long it was going to last. Frigga said they weren't sure he would ever wake up. That's why it was an emergency—they were on the brink of war and they had no idea if their ruler was ever gonna be conscious again.
Thor needing to destroy the Bifrost is all dramatic and everything, but why not smash the much weaker ice channeling the energy? It would have taken only one hit and done the same job.
What makes you think that ice powered by what's treated as a doomsday weapon in its own right is "much weaker"?
Also, he couldn't get near the Brifost.
Heimdall broke free by himself, and while he is damn powerful, he's fighting from the inside. It's a lot weaker when you have room to swing and the hammer is said to be the strongest force of destruction period. As for not being able to reach the Bifrost, he had ample time to do it while he was pounding away at the bridge. Hell, he could have just thrown the hammer from where he was standing.
My guess is that Thor was smart enough to assume (whether he was correct or not) that hitting the ice-WMD with a giant magic hammer wasn't the best idea. If anything, it would have made everything go to pieces, and a whole lot faster too.
If the Asgardians have the healing room, why does Odin still only have one eye?
Healing room =/= it can heal everything.
In the Old Norse myths, Odin sacrificed his eye at Mimir's spring to gain the Wisdom of the Ages. It makes comic book sense that healing his eye would take that Wisdom away.
Even if that's not the case here, like the second troper said the healing rooms can't heal everything, and Odin could have left it as a reminder of the horrors of war.
Really, really inconsequential, but when Loki is talking to Odin in the scene where the latter falls into his sleep mid-argument, Loki is....Rather loud as he talks to his father ("TELL ME!" being one example). What's strange to me is then, after Odin falls into sleep, Loki shouts for the guards.....Who almost immediately run into the room. How is it that they heard this summons, but not Loki yelling at his adoptive Dad? ........Magic, I guess?
Their unswerving obedience to their king meant they trusted whatever the heck he did and that he had control over the situation however bad it sounded (remember, the Destroyer was in the same room). When Loki called for the guards to help him, the situation changed. Basically, there's a difference between rushing to help your neighbors every time they have a domestic squabble and rushing in when one of them has a heart attack.
There's also the fact that "TELL ME!" is a different animal from "GUARDS! SOMEONE! HELLLLP!"
Plus, look at the family. Thor, Loki, and Odin, are all Large Hams. The royal guards are definitely used to them yelling at each other, and have probably learned a long time ago to just turn their head and try not to listen in on the family drama, but they'll still come when summoned.
Just what were those circular objects Odin took from Thor's shoulders when banishing him?. I'd assume they'd hold up his cape,but including them in the removal makes it seem like they're a badge of office or something.
I assumed they were minor magic items he had earned throughout his life.
Most probably it was just meant to be a symbolic act - like ripping the badges off a dismissed officer's uniform.
Kenneth Branagh said, that he stole that scene from a film about the Dreyfus Affair.
From what Odin says when he's ripping them away, I assumed that they and the other circles on his armor that fall off at the same time were symbolic of the Nine Realms... IE, that as a Prince of Asgard, it's Thor's privilege and duty to look after all of them to some extent, and he's proven himself unworthy or incapable of doing so.
I have read every reference to the Bifrost Bridge on this page, and I still don't understand: Why did Thor decide to destroy the bridge at the end, why did that save Jotunheim, and why did it result in cutting Asgard off from Earth? From what I see, Loki opened the bridge to Jotunheim so that he could destroy that world by letting the bridge "rip Jotunheim apart." Thor traps Loki with the hammer but realizes he can't get close enough to the hub where the bridge generates to shut it down, so he just destroys the bridge to stop it from destroying Jotunheim. Now, since Loki had opened the bridge to Jotunheim, it seems to me that destroying the bridge when it's in that position should either: close only the road to Jotunheim from now on, or close the road to all the other realms from now on. Loki tries to stop Thor by telling him that destroying the bridge means he'll never see Jane again — okay, so destroying the bridge when it's open closes the road to all other realms. But at the very end, Thor says, "So, Earth is lost to us," as if destroying the bridge when it led only to Jotunheim closed only the road to Earth — huh? How did that happen? I'm not up-to-date on either my Marvel comics mythology or Norse mythology, so, any experts out there, care to share what I'm missing about the magical rules behind this bridge that makes the ending make sense?
You're misunderstanding something. The Bifrost isn't the pathway between the worlds. The Bifrost is the machine that creates the pathway. Thor destroyed the machine that Asgard used to travel to different worlds. Asgard lost its method of creating pathways, so any place that requires such a pathway to get to is lost to them. By saying, "Earth is lost to us," there's no reason to assume he means only Earth. Thor is only mentioning Earth because that's the one he cares about.
Why did the Asgardians cut off contact with humans for so many centuries?
Probable due to a combination of not wanting to lord over the nine realms, avoiding conflict, letting humans grow on their own, and drawing the other worlds away. Odin did not want to rule the nine realms. At the time the Aesir were on earth they were mistaken as gods. Humans would either curry their favor or fight them out of fear/jealousy. The other worlds would have justification of coming to Earth by claiming the Asgardians were there. I think the largest part of it is humans just were not ready.
It could be that being so long-lived and watching over the rest of the Nine Realms just took their attention away from Earth while they were busy defending the other realms. A few centuries would mean little to them.
How could Loki not know he's half-giant? Norse Mythology states this right out, and in this film, Earth got its mythology from Asgard. How could something that was common knowledge on Earth be a secret in Asgard?
There are many details that don't line up between Norse Mythology and Marvel's Asgardians, the most immediate being Loki as Odin's son and Thor's brother. Loki probably had heard it and simply assumed the humans got it wrong, as usual, when really they were on to something in this case.
Loki probably brought the mythology book he found it in to Thor. "Look, brother. See what ridiculous stories Midgard has thought up." "What will they think of next, Loki? That I am Freya?" "Actually...look here."
And Sif is Thor's wife in the real myths. We can probably assume the myths are a bit different in the Marvel Universe and don't contain these "spoilers".