History Headscratchers / Thor

** 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 HalfTruth LiesToChildren. The visuals themselves suggest one universe.

** [[http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2011/05/06/thor/ Here]] is an explanation of the whole SHIELD taking Jane Foster's stuff thing. Also, for the record, ''Series/TwentyFour'' is a ''terrible'' standard by which to judge law enforcement agencies, [[GovernmentAgencyOfFiction fictitious]] [[RealLife or not]], LawfulGood or [[CharacterAlignment otherwise]].

* * Thor Ragnarok mentioned the Valkyries, an all-female force of soldiers, who were completely annihilated by Hela. It may be the fallout of that incident that discouraged more female fighters.

** Basically the real answer to this is that China forbids depictions of actual magic in modern movies so to make sure they don't lose all those glorious Chinese dollars, Marvel was required to slap a quick "Haha there's no actual magic in these movies just super ultra omni science that ''looks'' like magic!" explanation on the setting. That's the only reason that line and its reasoning exists and they probably didn't put much other thought into it.

** This troper could be mistaken, but I believe the idea of shield maidens was in part due to a particular case in a Scandinavian coastal village (can't remember the details off the top of my head) where all of them men had left to fight, and the town was attacked. The women let their enemies in, offered them their hospitality, got them completely drunk and proceeded to slaughter them with anything they could find- which, incidentally, impressed their ruler of his realm equal rights in inheriting property and the like. So maybe an Asgardian woman would be trained to fight well enough to defend herself in the case of invasion while all the warriors are on the front lines (though perhaps it had fallen mostly out of fashion, considering how militarily superior Asgard seems to consider itself) but not to fight a war itself.

** 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 millennia.

[[folder:Why is Loki seen as a woobie?]]
* 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 AllGirlsWantBadBoys 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!
** DracoInLeatherPants 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 UnFavorite 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 UnFavorite 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.
** That's a masterwork of AlternateCharacterInterpretation right there.
** 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 you're in love with." For no other reason than to crush him. And his attempt to destroy Jotunheim is motivated to please Odin, 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...
** So, in brief: DracoInLeatherPants + AudienceSurrogate + audience rejection of perceived BrainsEvilBrawnGood = "Murder, attempted genocide, and the destruction of your family is totally forgivable because you weren't praised enough as a child/your brother's friends never wanted to hang out with you. Despite the fact that your family, including your dad, loved you already, he should totally have been cool with all the lives you were going to destroy, and [[SarcasmMode his disappointment was totally uncalled-for.]] LET ME HUG YOU."
** 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 MeasuringTheMarigolds: 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 [[http://www.socialjusticeleague.net/2011/12/loki-an-allegory-about-internalised-racism/ this article]]. He's been brought up to hate the Jotuns; 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 MrFanservice?
** 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 relatable, 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.
** Good lord. [[VideoGame/FinalFantasyVII Loki is the genetically reconstructed child of Sephiroth and Cloud!]]
** But being the ''re''constructed child implies there was an original... Damn you, the GogglesDoNothing! inb4 someone explains his black hair by saying Zack's genes were in the mix.
** The simplest explanation for the widespread DracoInLeatherPants for Loki is pretty much that he's played by Creator/TomHiddleston. 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 DracoInLeatherPants. 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. [[WouldBeRudeToSayGenocide (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 favorite 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.)
[[/folder]]

** While all Norse gods have their warrior aspect, they have many others besides. This troper submits into evidence the story of Loki murdering Baldur. After arranging Baldur's death (involving magically forging a sprig of mistletoe, the only thing that hadn't sworn to never harm Baldur, into a spear, and getting a blind god to throw it at him), Loki is brought before Odin for judgement. Odin decides that Loki will go free, with ''no'' punishment, if he can but shed one sincere tear of remorse for Baldur's death. Now, Baldur was ''the'' most beloved of all Aesir (which is why everything in creation agreed to do him no harm), and according to some tellings his death kickstarts Ragnarok. Despite Loki having murdered the most beautiful and beloved god of all (and possibly bringing about the end of the world), Odin was still prepared to let him go scot-free if he just felt really bad about it! Compare to, say, what Zeus did to Prometheus for handing a dumb ape a burning stick. . . Odin is primarily a god of wisdom and knowledge. His emphasis on warfare is largely due to his knowledge that Ragnarok is coming, and he can't stop it, but he'll try anyway. Point of fact: dying in battle wasn't the "only" way to a good afterlife. Half the slain of a battle go to Valhalla (Odin's Boot Camp for Ragnarok Soldiers), the other half go to Folkvang (Freya's hall, where they're reunited with their lovers after death.) Everyone else goes to Hel/Hela's domain, which is just an afterlife, not a particularly unpleasant one, despite what Christian missionaries will tell you. Sure, Hela had a little corner of her domain set aside for people who needed some extra punishment, but by and large, Hel was just a place you went so you didn't mess things up by being a dead person in the land of the living. Under his aspect as a god of wisdom and knowledge, war for war's sake is about the least wise thing a person can do. Hence, him being very disappointed and angry with Thor for doing exactly that.

** 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 Heimdall let the group through he Bifrost to investigate, not start a war. Even if the Jotun [[CycleOfRevenge "struck first"]], Thor was over-escalating, making him both greedy for glory/fame, vain in his callous treatment of [[WhatMeasureIsANonhuman life]], and cruel in his overwhelming desire for war.

** 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.

** The simplest explanation for the widespread DracoInLeatherPants for Loki is pretty much that he's played by Creator/TomHiddleston. Not just that he's good-looking, but that he's a major case of MeanCharacterNiceActor. 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.

** As per Avengers, Loki made it to some unknown corner of space [[spoiler:where Thanos happened to be]], so the Bifrost chamber-thingy (which fell first) is either there or somewhere else.

** 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 [[spoiler: 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.

** But being the ''re''constructed child implies there was an original... Damn you, the GogglesDoNothing! [[spoiler:inb4 someone explains his black hair by saying Zack's genes were in the mix.]]

* 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 traveling on horseback? And no, he wasn't even riding Sleipnir - he's just riding a normal, four legged horse.

** Loki’s plans change at different points throughout the movie. Initially his intentions seem to be more mischievous than malicious: he is concerned that Thor is not fit to be king (a legitimate concern), so he hatches a plan that, depending on whether or not Loki expected a sentence of banishment, would result in either Thor learning a lesson or the coronation being delayed so that Loki can continue to try to convince Odin that Thor is not worthy. Dick move? Yeah, but not necessarily malicious. The turning point comes when Loki discovers that he’s a Frost Giant and that Odin had been lying to him his entire life. All sorts of deep-seated issues from his sibling rivalry to racial self-loathing start bubbling up and he has a bit of a break. Loki’s outlook on his situation takes a 180: the problem is no longer that Asgard needs a proper king, the problem is that Odin thinks Loki is not worthy! Phase 2 v 2.0 of Loki’s “Plan”: He needs to prove that he is A. Not a monster and B. He is more worthy than Thor. From there it really spirals out of control, on account of Loki’s inability to communicate or do anything without the use of trickery like a normal person (as exhibited in Phase 1 v 1 of the “Plan.”)

** Loki’s plans change at different points throughout the movie. Initially his intentions seem to be more mischievous than malicious: he is concerned that Thor is not fit to be king (a legitimate concern), so he hatches a plan that, depending on whether or not Loki expected a sentence of banishment, would result in either Thor learning a lesson or the coronation being delayed so that Loki can continue to try to convince Odin that Thor is not worthy. Dick move? Yeah, but not necessarily malicious. The turning point comes when Loki discovers that he’s a Frost Giant and that Odin had been lying to him his entire life. All sorts of deep-seated issues from his sibling rivalry to racial self-loathing start bubbling up and he has a bit if a break. Loki’s outlook on his situation takes a 180: the problem is no longer that Asgard needs a proper king, the problem is that Odin thinks Loki is not worthy! Phase 2 v 2.0 of Loki’s “Plan”: He needs to prove that he is A. Not a monster and B. He is more worthy than Thor. From there it really spirals out of control, on account of Loki’s inability to communicate or do anything without the use of trickery like a normal person (as exhibited in Phase 1 v 1 of the “Plan.”)

** Possibly Mjolnir was originally enchanted to be too heavy for ‘’mortals’’, or the ability to lift it was reserved for Thor alone. The requirement that he actually be worthy was added later.

** Using 900 A.D. as reference[[note]]The battle between the Jotuns and Asgardians is shown at the beginning 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.[[/note]], 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 Hiddleston was 31 when filming. Dakota Goyo (young Thor) and Ted Allpress (young Loki) were both almost 12.[[/note]]

** [[VoodooShark 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.

** ''Thor:Ragnarok'' shows that it is back in Asgard. Or was...

[[folder:Why is Loki een as a woobie?]]

[[folder:Why Heimdall is supposed to be the most powerful Asgardian?]]

[[folder:Odin calling Thor vain etc.]]

** 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 [[FunWithAcronynms SHIELD]] does. But mostly, I'd just imagine Thor was speaking figuratively and dramatically [[LargeHam as is his want]].

* 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 PreviousIncarnation!Loki?

** Plus, look at the family. Thor, Loki, and Odin, are all LargeHams. 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.

New entries go on the bottom. Headscratchers for the sequel go [[Headscratchers/ThorTheDarkWorld here]]

[[folder: Magi-Tech, Science, History, Alien Biology, and related things.]]

** 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.

** 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?

** 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.

** 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.

** 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 RuleOfDrama.

** 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."

** 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.

* 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...

** 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.

* 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.

* 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?

** 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. . .

** In the myth, Sleipnir 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.

** 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 inter-world 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.

* Is Bifrost on Earth now?

** As per Avengers, Loki made it to some unknown corner of space [[spoiler: where Thanos happened to be]], so the Bifrost chamber-thingy (which fell first) is either there or somewhere else.

** 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.

** 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).

* Why Hogun has an accent? He's an Asgardian, he should talk like everybody else.

** 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.

** 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.

* 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?

* Anyone know if there's any supplementary material or WordOfGod regarding whether or how Norse Mythology is different in the MCU than it is in RealLife? 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?

[[folder: Thor and Loki.]]

** Personally I think they should have made that a lot 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.

** 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'.

** he learned from the Asgardians

** 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.

** 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.

** Or more simply- "Where did you get your training? Afghanistan? Iraq" "ASGARD, MOTHER-LOVER!"

* I'm not sure if this borders on PlotHole 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.
** Odinsleep in general is no big deal, this particular one was unplanned, and much more severe, as evidenced by dialogue. It seems likely that Odin knows when he'll need to Odinsleep soon, and so makes preparations to be away for a little bit. This time, the stress of banishing Thor and having Loki learn his heritage, and throw it in Odin's face rather aggressively, triggered a premature and far deeper Odinsleep than usual, leaving Asgard in crisis. Add to that the potential impending war with Jotunheim, and it's no surprise the Asgardians would fall in line behind the only prince they had.

* 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 armor and it would have been fine.

* 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 PreviousIncarnation!Loki?

** 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.

** Loki was just doing what he does best; making mischief, i.e., [[ManipulativeBastard 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.

* Why did Odin favour Thor over Loki for the throne at the start? Loki takes after his father more than Thor does - he's smart, cunning, far-sighted, and capable of diplomacy. Thor's popular with the Asgardians and fits well into their BoisterousBruiser culture, but a king needs to be more than that, and based on what we see, Loki at the start of the film is much closer to what you need in a ruler than Thor. Was it just that Thor was his biological child?

[[folder:Out-of-universe issues with the film]]

* 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?

** Not likely. He is Hawkeye. Coulson refers to him as "Agent Barton", as in Clint Barton, as in Hawkeye. Just no silly purple getup.

* FridgeHorror: [[spoiler: 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 [[spoiler: The Destroyer]] are on earth, so anyone (most likely SHIELD) can just research it.
** Though being fair, [[spoiler: its not likely SHIELD will be able to do much with the pieces, any more than they did with Mjolnir.]]
** As of ''Film/{{The Avengers|2012}}'', SHIELD researching the remains of the Destroyer, at least, is [[spoiler: 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.]]

[[folder: SHIELD]]

[[folder: Other questions]]

** Even the best LARP/Cosplay outfits are generally identifiable as such, if nothing else then by a weapon that is obviously safe to comply with local laws. Sif and Warriors Three are carrying very obviously NOT safe weapons. And as mentioned above, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is a pattern. For scientists like Jane and Selvig, even a political scientist like Darcy, five is more or less irrefutable proof. Now, granted, all this might take talking to Sif and WT for a bit, but for their initial reaction. . . well, if four dudes in Viking armor knocked on ''your'' kitchen window at breakfast, you'd be a tad out-of-sorts for a moment, too. And if you were playing host to someone claiming to be a Norse god at the time. . .

* 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?

** 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 Odin, 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.

** The best theory I've seen for explaining (note: NOT justifying) Loki's actions was explained in [[http://www.socialjusticeleague.net/2011/12/loki-an-allegory-about-internalised-racism/ 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'''".

** 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 relatable, 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 ''re''constructed child implies there was an original. ... Damn you, the GogglesDoNothing! [[spoiler: inb4 someone explains his black hair by saying Zack's genes were in the mix.]]

** 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. [[WouldBeRudeToSayGenocide (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...

** 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 favorite 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.)

** One could consider that trying to wage war on the Jotuns--basically waltzing over there to murder them without provocation--is pretty cruel.

** 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.

** 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."

[[folder:Why are the Frost Giants Considered a Threat to Asgard?]]

** Yeah, I just chalked it up to GenreSavvy.

** In the myths Loki is half-giant, half-alfa (elf).

* 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 ClarkesLaw. 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?

** 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... [[FridgeBrilliance 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.