Reviews Comments: Loki's Unnecessary Villain Decay
Loki's Unnecessary Villain Decay
Disappointment abounds in Whedon's The Avengers, with weak characterization, overuse of slapstick and character banter, and an anti-climatic finale, but the worst is the erasure of Loki's complexity as a villain. For whatever reason, Whedon decided to ignore Loki's characterization from the Thor film. There Loki is presented as a mostly very emotionally controlled individual. He is also a powerful sorcerer, able to perform impressive magic even without the aid of Gungir or the Tesseract. Additionally, he is capable of holding his own during physical combat with Thor. From his very first line, fans know that Loki is exploiting Thor's brashness, but it's hard not to sympathize as he descends into villainy. Loki had a quietly sinister but slightly tragic air, not the typical bad guy encountered in superhero movies. In Avengers, Loki appears legitimately frightened by Thor, and is often seen laughing maniacally. He is easily fooled by Natasha's ploy despite his own centuries of manipulation, but also loses his dignity as he becomes the subject of slapstick humor that would be much more at place in a campy Batman movie. Loki seems to have lost his sorcery skills, which are barely utilized without a magical aide. Also, Hawkeye manages to down Loki with a single explosive arrow. Described as a "diva", Loki has completely lost any menace he once held. In Thor, fans remained uncertain of what Loki's next step would be in his multi-faceted schemes. Here, his goal is the villainous cliche of world domination, with a generic villain motive, killing indiscriminately as he kicks all the puppies he can find along the way. Whedon removes Loki's unique Tragic Villain aspects, in favor of a character that's simpler to write: his Loki is more like a Bad Guy of the Week from Buffy The Vampire Slayer than anything similar to the previous movie incarnation. Loki's slide into Obviously Evil could be the Tesseract's influence. Banner does suggest something along those lines. However, this possibility is never vindicated or revisited; presumably, the reason why Avengers-Loki is so far off from Thor-Loki that he could be two entirely different characters is Whedon's laziness as a writer.
...Honestly, I'm a lot more interested in why you thought the characterization was weak and the slapstick out of place and the climax anti-climactic. The Loki bit could've been summed up in like two sentences.
comment #14163 Wackd 5th May 12
Dude, Loki was insane in this movie. And even if he wasn't, Whedon wasn't interested in giving us the same show twice from this character.
comment #14164 ManwiththePlan 5th May 12
I disagree and agree in parts. Loki's tragic villain status is still there, a lot due to the talent of the actor but with the help of the script too and although he doesn't use much magic he uses his guile and illusion magic to good effect, sucker punching Thor twice with it. The film also played up his plotting for the first half, with Loki very much in control. He messes with everyones minds very effectively and manipulates them through it and when the other characters begin to get into his head they do understand a lot of the motivation in Thor. Some of the remaining differences can be accounted to the time between films and character progression. Loki was on a downward spiral at the end of Thor and thats continued, whilst Thor has grown up and began to lose the edge to his brashness. At the end of Thor, Thor was already beginning to get the upper hand with Loki in fights. One or two points felt like they crossed the line though, some of his monster moments but in particular when he lost it against Black Widow instead of playing her. But I think you really had the same problem as me, the reason why we care is that Loki's actor is fantastic and makes Loki really charismatic, I wanted him to win and even when he did evil he just sounded so reasonable I wanted him to have motivation. My hope is that he can have an arc where he becomes somewhat redeemed and I'm glad that Wheedon didn't cop out and have him bend to Thor's will and becomeagoodperson at the drop of a hat. Loki should always be a bit evil, just more subtle than he was at some points here
comment #14165 Tomwithnonumbers 5th May 12
The only moment Loki looked weak to me was when Hulk threw him around like a rag doll. True, Loki is a master of manipulation but he's not so acustomed to having manipulation used on him, and his superiority complex against the humans made him lower his guard in that perspective. And Loki is a diva, it sounds more like you just didn't like the term, he's always been one of those villains that while they prepare in the shadows, they always show off for the main event. And as Manwiththeplan said, the avengers are a sequel to the other 4 movies, they already showed you his tragic aspect, why go on about it again.
comment #14174 marcellX 5th May 12
...Seriously? You thought that about it? What 'puns'? What 'Slapstick'? Hell, the closest to slapstick was Hulk punching Thor and beating up Loki. The humour was, indeed, found in character banter, but each time it was from characters who are KNOWN to be sarcastic and snarky? If you didn't want to see banter, why watch a film with five different Deadpan Snarkers already in place (though, in fairness, Banner isn't known for being Snarky, he's always had his moments). And, nameless villains? Hello, they were NAMED in the first few moments of the film! They mention their names several times! They weren't fleshed out much since it was Loki's show, but you learnt all you need from their few scenes: They're Always Chaotic Evil monsters with cybernetic implants and vast ammounts of technology not unlike that of HYDRA. Loki becoming more evil? Remember, he's been with the Chitauri since the end of Thor. He's lost his original motivation, and he blames Thor for that. He wants to take over the world in order to prove that he's better than Thor and get revenge on him, they say so in the film. God, were you paying attention?
comment #14176 ablackraptor 5th May 12
Wait, some of my points were directed at a different review. sorry, I read that and another back to back and I ended up forgetting which was which. My appologies.
comment #14177 ablackraptor 5th May 12
What I always liked about Thor was how Loki was NOT planning on attacking earth, like most generic doomsday villains. He barely wanted anything to do with earth and I found it very refreshing. So it's a bit of a shame how he in this movie wants to take over the world just to get back at Thor. Loki's original motives were actually quite complex, a sort of mix beteen Well Done Son Guy and self-loathing and I found that Loki lost some of that complexity here, which is what made his character so great in the first place... Also I agree we those who has said it before, Tom Hiddleston is amazing, you can't help but root for him a little, no matter how evil he gets and what lame motivations he has.
comment #14178 Defbye 5th May 12
My complaints about Loki were an outtake from a longer review written for other purposes, but I couldn't post all of due to the word limit, so I just posted the my strongest issue with it. All of this, IMHO: The part about the slapstick that annoyed me the most was Loki vs. Hulk, because it was simply a curb stomp battle with no tension. I felt as though it was a dethroning moment of suck for the entire movie to see Loki go from a Magnificent Bastard to some Butt Monkey villain, with no discernable reason. If he's been with Thanos/Thano's friends all this time, shouldn't he have been more dangerous, even if he was insane? Also, I disliked the part where he tries to take Tony's heart, is unable to do so, but thinks he messed up, so he tries again and fails again. That was just unnecessary. My problem with the banter wasn't its presence, but how it undermined potentially dramatic scenes. Instead of Thor coming to grips that Loki is slaughtering innocents rather than war enemies this time, he simply responds with, "He's adopted." And it felt as though every other scene was crammed with a dozen "witty" remarks where only one or two could suffice. At times it's just lame jokes, not even intelligent snark or biting sarcasm. Also, we get OOC quipping from unexpected characters, i.e. Fury, Loki, Natasha. And I say "anti-climatic" because we all know that Loki isn't going to win, after having his ass kicked by all of the Avengers already. I half-expected for Pepper Potts to saunter in to the S.H.I.E.LD. base in her bare feet and denim cutoffs and pull a Naomi Campbell, beating him senseless with her cell phone. And Thanos's friends/army never had time to establish themselves as a credible threat until the last twenty minutes. If Red Skull and H.Y.D.R.A. didn't show up until the finale, would anyone be able to take them seriously? I felt as though we never quite got to know Black Widow or Hawkeye. The former had nothing unique about her beyond her combat skills. She was very generic, just the standard female spy. Hawkeye was brainwashed most of the time, but still pretty Badass. So, good for him. I also really liked Bruce and his glasses. They did a nice job with him. But everyone else? Tony's characterization basically rested on his wisecracks. Steve's theme as a "man out of time" could have been developed more and he only seems like himself during fight scenes, Thor was oddly unconcerned that the brother he thought was dead is alive and randomly meglomaniacal, while Fury has a less than dignified moment with some akin to "Imma gonna pimp-slap yo white ass, bitch." Maria Hill was a non-entity; love her or hate her (I do) she had no personality. Coulson was lucky to die and escape his random OOC fanboy geekiness. I certainly don't want to see Whedon run the same show twice with Loki, but it seems as if he had none of Loki's previous characterization in mind. To me, it's as if he tossed Loki's entire personality out the window to suit his own style; there's nothing complex or interesting about Loki now, he's just a generic doonsday villain. Writers shouldn't just disregard previous characterization just because the writers personally don't care for it. I didn't like this random shift in Loki's motives, the "diva" aspect came out of nowhere, he was previously a Well Done Son Guy. In Thor, Loki could capture sympathy without turning it into a Rooting For The Empire thing. You wanted Thor to win, but you also felt Loki's pain at the same time. Here, Whedon's writing removed that aspect of him and didn't even allow him to have any sort of proof that there's at least a spark of his old self.
comment #14181 CasualBanshee 5th May 12
I don't think many others were left disappointed. The character banter and interactions make this movie. You're not crediting the film well enough for the character dynamics, which were not only tolerable, but in fact enjoyable. The movie would actually be interesting even without the plot or the action or anything, just putting Iron Man and Captain America and Thor in the same room. The Loki vs Thor fight wa what you'd expect from a physical confrontation between the two. It's a Break The Haughty thing and it's pretty entertaining to watch. You seem pretty offended whenever Loki suffers some indignity; the Thor world is a more serious one, but when crossed with Tony Stark and the Incredible Hulk it's inevitable that the tone wil not be the same. Seems the problem here is that it did not meet your personal expectations for the characters, not that it was a bad movie.
comment #14183 Flayer 5th May 12
Let me clarify that as the "Loki vs Hulk" beatdown, I mistyped that. Loki could have really used a Dragon in this movie. I don't have a problem with his characterization but he was just incredibly overmatched.
comment #14189 Flayer 6th May 12
I hadn't thought about that, but yeah, you're right, that would have solved quite a few things and made things which were good even better. Like the last action scene was fun but if there was another non-mook involved it would have probably made it even better, instead of the twists and turns being 'they're beating mooks, now they're tired of beating mooks and the mooks are getting the upperhand, now they're beating mooks' It could have been 'they;re beating mooks, now they're tired of beating mooks, oh sh** now the other guys wading in*' Like there's that good bit where Thor, Captain America and Widow look like they just can't go on anymore and Hawkeye has run out of arrows. If the awesome fighty second in command got involved then it would up that despair to 11
comment #14190 Tomwithnonumbers 6th May 12 (edited by: Tomwithnonumbers)
- Seems the problem here is that it did not meet your personal expectations for the characters, not that it was a bad movie.**
comment #14195 CasualBanshee 6th May 12
- I guess I don't care for Whedon's style.
comment #14196 VeryMelon 6th May 12
I'm really not a fan of Joss Whedon (his work just doesn't do much for me) but I still enjoyed this movie. I think it might be because Whedon actually toned his style down a bit.
comment #14197 PurpleDalek 6th May 12 (edited by: PurpleDalek)
Though even there, you appear to be underestimating Loki's abilities in the film and overstating his bad qualities. He does pull off some impressive gambits going in, like one that most people don't seem to notice was the incident with Natasha: Sure, she got info from him, but because of that, it lead to the Avengers arguing which distracted them while brainwashed Hawkeye took out an engine and Loki's human army attacked the carrier, allowing him to escape with the Avengers now seperated. The part with him destined to lose wasn't so much from any failings for the film, but more of the fact that, as a villain, you know he's going to lose. The whole film wasn't really all that anti-clamatic, it was just as clamatic as any other action film. Then, getting his ass kicked? He gets punched a few times during the close quarter combat scenes, but that's down to Loki being a mind based villain. He's never been known to be a competant fighter, but relies on his mental skills. The fact he engages in battle at all in this film is a sign of developing a few badass points. And then, the only Avengers who really kick his ass are Hulk and Thor: Natasha and Hawkeye don't engage him (Hawkeye does fire an arrow which explodes, but doesn't beat him up or anything), Iron Man and Cap do attack him, but other then a few hits don't exactly win. Thor is able to beat him on the grounds that he's always been stronger than Loki, and Hulk wins on the grounds that his powers are litterally 'as strong as he needs to be'. And, the quipping being out of character? Both Fury and Loki are sometimes awesome at quipping. Fury's been sarcastic in the past, and Loki was pretty snarky in Thor and a few comics. They're not always portrayed that way, but its a character trait they've had in the past. Natasha too was pretty snarky in Iron Man 2 when she was being herself, and in this film she doesn't act that sarcastic. Hell, I can only remember one moment of sarcasm ('you really think I'm pretty?'), which was more of a badass one liner when in danger moment. Seriously though, you seem to be Acentuating The Negatives in the film and over exagurating them.
comment #14198 ablackraptor 6th May 12
^ Actually, the whole Loki is always going to lose is nothing new, it was even the whole basis of his brakedown in Thor & Loki: blood brothers.
comment #14199 marcellX 6th May 12
The movie is awesome and I disagree with most of the criticism. That said, adding a dragon COULD have made the awesome final fight scenes even better. He's how I'd have donne it: After Loki scapes the Helicarrier he realizes that he is hopelessly outmatched. So he uses his Tesseract-enhanced powers to create the Wrecking Crew (for those of you who never read the comics, basically four elite mooks with super-strenght). They would then make the perfect dragons for Loki because A- their origins would've taken no more than 3 minutes of creen time to stablish without much loss from their actual comic book origin; B- being famous Marvel villains, but not important enough for a whole movie, they would fit very well portraied here; C- The budget for them would not be very high... since they would have very few lines... any muscular not-very-famous stunt actor who can read 2-3 lines would do the trick nicely; D- And most importantly, they would make the final battle even more awesome, balancing things a bit by providing more interesting fight scenes and rescuing Loki from being just curb stomped.
comment #14203 Sligh 6th May 12
@Very Melon: I should clarify. I like Whedon's formula, especially his humor, better in comic books than cinema. Same thing with Buffy: I thought the show was great, but I found that I enjoyed it more as a comic book than a television show, despite the show being its origin.
comment #14238 CasualBanshee 8th May 12
@Casual Banshee My opinion on your IMHO rant: Loki vs. Hulk: Not only a great comedic scene but, in my opinion, a very good insight into both characters. Loki was talking down to Hulk, like he talked down to every other character in the movie. He thought that he could use his words to bend Hulk into his own slave, as he'd done with many other characters. Meanwhile, it was an establishing moment for Hulk because it shows that, in green form, the man really doesn't give a damn about anything and just wants to tear crap up. Taking Tony's heart: I agree with you there that he shouldn't have tried more than once. He should have done it the one time, then just looked shocked or something. Continuously tapping Tony, while stronger comically, implies that Loki truly believes he could screw that up the first time. I don't see Loki as even considering a mess-up on his own end as a possibility. On that note, I also agree that Loki's guile should have been used more to get him out of situations. He should have been able to manipulate at least one character this film without the use of magic (even the helicarrier scene was magic, since Banner somehow picked the staff up without noticing). On Natasha and Hawkeye - they got characterized as much as they needed to. I would've been pissed off personally if they had gotten too much screen time and the main superheroes suffered as a result.
comment #14280 darrenw1 11th May 12
Obviously, someone wasn't paying attention. Loki's plan wasn't 'world domination', or for the evulz. It was hurting Thor, and proving himself Thor's better. Everything Loki did was just a means to that end. He didn't even care about Earth, except as it related to his brother. He did what he did because Earth was important to Thor, so attacking the planet, killing it's people, hurt Thor. Which is the reason Loki did what he did. Revenge for imaginary slights.
comment #14306 Obsidian 13th May 12 (edited by: Obsidian)
THANK YOU! Why can't anyone get that?
comment #14322 qtjinla15 15th May 12
I'm a big Loki fan, and, in fact, I thought Loki was the only bearable thing about the movie Thor. (Well besides Darcy, but that's another point) I thought his characterization in this movie was fine and retained the things I originally liked about him.
comment #14357 chaosakita 18th May 12
@chaosakita Thank you for presenting your differing viewpoint in a respectful and calm manner. It's much appreciated; I often have trouble with it myself. :) I personally thought that Thor was a great movie, if not for the plot, then for its acting and characterization. While Loki was the villain, I couldn't help but sympathize with him even as I was rooting for Thor. I thought that The Avengers removed Loki's subtlety and just made him Obviously Evil. "See this guy? He's the bad guy! Don't worry, we'll remind of that every chance we have!" Personally, I think it have been better to have him be coldly menacing rather than out-and-out evil and a Smug Snake, but Joss Whedon and the rest of Marvel don't really care about a single fan's opinions, and I'm not saying they should have to.
comment #14463 CasualBanshee 27th May 12
Oh well, I think that Loki (of the Thor and Avengers movie) is far off from the original comic book Loki. As far as I can tell he is the only hero so far in this whole Marvel movie compendium. Let me please explain from the beginning of the Thor movie:
- Odin: Odin sees all. Odin knew it all. Odin plays ignorant.
- Thor: A bully. The heir. Life granted. He plays for valor. He has no friends but a clique.
- Loki: Knew his place in the asgardian court and saw his brother as "unfit to rule" (He was totally right with it too). He arranged a minor scheme to Jottünheim - planning to get his brother banished and taking his place to rule (because that buffoon can't do anything just hit things with his hammer) - where he gained knowledge of his origins. So far it was almost identical to typical villain behavior but the differences are starting here. He realized that as a frost giant he won't inherit the throne. And so he gave up the throne. The new grand scheme was to manipulate Thor into becoming more acceptable as ruler. He knew that he's gonna get banished as the minor scheme at the frost giants was perfectly completed. What happened? Odin banished Thor. Good. But the banishment alone wouldn't make the bully think, because that blond archetype was plain arrogant and angry. The fact that he couldn't get the hammer made him only depressed and passive. LOKI kicked off the change. Yes, he lied about Odin's death (He still is the god of lies). But Thor would've never changed (because of his regret) without thinking his father dead. After this Loki just played a disoriented villain. Knowing his plan couldn't be exposed - or else his brother's standing as hero would be ruined (not to mention that he would somewhat revert from the "worthy" mindset) - he left Asgard, letting go of Gungnir (Odin's spear), and drifting into the interdimensional space.
comment #14725 CarmaJinn 8th Jun 12
While I wouldn't say that Loki is a hero in any sense of the word, he was right to believe that Thor was not yet ready to be king. And he didn't know that Odin would fall into the Odinsleep and he himself would have to take the throne. But the destruction of Jotunheim? That's where he crossed the line straight into villainy. Up until that point, he could've even excused the Destroyer's attack on Thor as eliminating a threat to the peace between Jotunheim and Asgard. But genocide? That's the opposite of heroic. But you propose an interesting theory about Loki's actions in The Avengers.
comment #14748 CasualBanshee 8th Jun 12
Grrr. I meant Jerkass Has A Point. I hate this "no edit" thing on the comments!
comment #14749 CasualBanshee 8th Jun 12
Jotunheim is a threat. A constant one. The so called peace was nothing if not a simple "wait until someone gets our precious [[Phlebotinum]] back". Loki gave them a chance to attack which they used (Laufey, the leader of the frost giants, the wisest of them all fell for it). Jotunheim is  (or ). .
comment #14805 CarmaJinn 11th Jun 12
i have to learn how to use these links, huh?
comment #14806 CarmaJinn 11th Jun 12
As I've replied on another review, there's an All There In The Manual reason for why Loki went from slightly sympathic to his current version: during his trip through the wormhole after Thor, he'd seen many things, and it had changed him... it's a bit vague, yes, but it came straight from Loki's actor, so it has some credence. Of course, other than that, there's little to say what actually happend to him.
comment #14817 omegafire17 11th Jun 12
I can believe that happened, but when you're just watching the film it's a concept which would need a little more attention to flow
comment #14822 Tomwithnonumbers 12th Jun 12
@ Carma Jinn Jotunheim was a threat, but Loki had already killed its king. I suppose his death at Loki’s hands could be justified as protecting the kingdom. But genocide? Asgard had already conquered Jotunheim years before. Maybe a total of ten Frost Giants tried to attack Asgard, about four at Thor's coronation and six later at the palace. Killing the entire realm was unnecessary; if it was honestly that much of a threat, wouldn't the Asgardian army have already invaded? @ Omegafire 17 The issue is that there was no consistency in Loki's characterization from movie to movie. In The Avengers, there was maybe one throwaway line about his sudden change, and he didn't seem crazed as in mentally unstable but crazed in the way of megalomania. @Tomwithnonumbers Thank you for pointing that out.
comment #14827 CasualBanshee 12th Jun 12
To "help my theory" along I'll say that Loki just escaped from Thor and expected himself to be caught. He started the destruction of Jotunheim. From the Bifrost. The frost giants around the Jotunheim-Bifrost way-point were most likely the prepared reinforcement/invading army of Laufey. Loki did not finish the destruction of Jotunheim as he was (or better let himself be) stopped. He pointed out that Thor must destroy/stop the Bifrost by simply saying that he can't (Loki seems to control an awful lot of "enemies" by mentioning "what they can't do"). He even mentions to Thor that He won't see the woman again (pointing out that "Yes, you are doing the heroic sacrifice thing"). If we assume that he aimed at a prepared frost giant army and that he knew that he'll be stopped then attacking Jotunheim was simply not bad. I'm starting to believe that my "Good Guy Loki" theory is standing on ever stronger grounds.
comment #14841 CarmaJinn 14th Jun 12
Well, I call your ideas about Loki the Hero a "theory" not to be insulting, but because those ideas have not been validated by canon thus far. It's an interesting line of thought, don't get me wrong, but as of now, Loki as a "Good Guy" is really more your personal headcanon than anything else.
comment #15077 CasualBanshee 25th Jun 12
I kind of know what you mean . . . that part with Loki being knocked out of the aky by Hawkeye's single arrow was a very "WTF?" moment for me.
comment #15524 Gemini13 25th Jul 12
One important thing you're not really grasping though, Loki's initial plan in the Thor is, from a subjective point of view, just as sinister as in Avengers. Loki wanted to commit mass genocide in both films, the difference being that the second time, it was us he was after. Even in Thor, he didn't view earth as much (he sent a WMD to earth that destroyed a town just to kill one being, and had no problem with it killing others first, in fact it appeared he had it attack others for the sake of it). Remember, Loki isn't human, he's a Jotun adopted by and raised in Asgard. He's the smartest of both those races and it made him resent his smite first/ask questions later brother in the same way a math geek would resent their athletic Jerk Jock brother. He has an Inferiority Complex that causes him to lash out and strive for dominance (such as, when given power, ordering his former friends to kneel before him, and wish to earn everyone's respect by destroying Jotunheim) and sees other races as bellow him. Loki, while he has a very sympathetic Fruedian Excuse, is still at heart an overcompensating being who has serious trouble with dealing with his Fantastic Racism. He hates the Jotuns, and sees humanity as inferior to him (which, lets be honest, we kinda are). The first time around, he wanted to destroy Jotunheim to kill the Jotuns, the second time around he wanted to get revenge on Thor by helping another race, who were threatening him in the film, and just didn't care about humanity. If there's someone who you believe has hurt you, and you want revenge, you'd hurt them back. The level of hatred Loki has for Thor would mean he'd willingly kill Thor's 'pets' just to spite him, which really fits the way Asgard acts. To act like in this film he's any more villainous than previous would be to act as if Jotunhiem someone deserved genocide, which it didn't. Yes, it was an uncivilized barbarian culture, but how is that any different than many of earth's cultures? Right now, there's conflict in the east against a group of people who many could argue are 'uncivilized' in comparison to the west, but does that mean it would be OK to just wipe them all out? No. Earth is the same, in comparison, we are indeed insects to them. We're fragile, technologically impaired, and usually quite stupid and uncivilized. Physically, the Jotuns are superior to us. When Loki called us ants, he was completely right. Just, you know, very harsh way of putting it. What really, in comparison to Asgard, separates Jotuns and Humans? Then, that raises another point. Jotuns were shown to be savage, beastial, and sadistic. They were Always Chaotic Evil, and that was apparently the justification for killing them. While Loki was raised by Odin and Asgard, he is at heart a Jotun, (and from his conversations with Odin and Thor, he was apparently treated like one at times), and if they're really so evil, wouldn't that make him just as bad? Nature Verses Nurture, and Loki was sadly lacking in nurture. Think of it this way: Loki has the natural sadism of Jotunhiem's people, but is raised by the more intellectual, but still violent and war filled, Asgardians, where he spends his childhood being told war stories that caused his brother to become mildly obsessed with Warfare, all the while being treated as inferior to his brother, leading him to develop crippling low self esteem. Loki was, from the start, guarenteed to at the very least be a jerkass. He may have lots of reasons to become a violent manipulator, but that doesn't excuse the fact he's now a violent manipulator. Then, the Hitler comparisons actually do make some sense when you look at it. Hitler, as monstrous as he is, was basically like Loki: He was a loser who hated other races, so when he got in charge of what he saw as the superior race (of which he himself was not a part of) he tried to use it to wipe out the groups he detested with little care. That was Loki in Thor, where he was supposedly super sympathetic, and this is coming from a guy who was indeed disapointed that Loki acted unneededly menacing in Avengers. I like Loki better as a three dimensional character, which he completely was in Avengers. The only difference being who his target was, making him appear more menacing to the viewers. I'm sure Jotuns watching Thor would have the same opinion that humans do when watching Avengers.
comment #15595 ablackraptor 30th Jul 12
And if I may, this article about how Loki may have actually won is worth a look: http://maskofreason.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/very-good-writing-why-loki-won-in-the-avengers/ The point I'm trying to make with this is: Loki's 'unnecessary Villian Decay' may not be decay at all, more like 'all part of the plan'. Yes it's not been proven, but it's a good theory, worth a look imo.
comment #15876 omegafire17 21st Aug 12
I'm not certain how serious that article was, it would be a bit of a hat pull, but then, it would fix almost every problem I had with Avengers. Still I kinda feel any film that let the Tesseract be Mac Guffiny to that extent isn't really looking at the plot in that long term a way. It'd be a very nice surprise if this does happen tho
comment #15877 Tomwithnonumbers 21st Aug 12
Well to be fair, I did say it hasn't been proven. We won't know until much later (Thor 2, Avengers 2, etc), what the overarching plot will do/say about Loki's development. For all we know, Loki could have just turned Obviously Evil for no reason, even with the minor explanation that his trip through the dimensions changed him. We just don't know yet.
comment #15880 omegafire17 22nd Aug 12
Okay, I'll be more optimistic :D
comment #15887 Tomwithnonumbers 22nd Aug 12
@ ablackraptor Then, that raises another point. Jotuns were shown to be savage, beastial, and sadistic. They were Always Chaotic Evil, and that was apparently the justification for killing them. While Loki was raised by Odin and Asgard, he is at heart a Jotun, (and from his conversations with Odin and Thor, he was apparently treated like one at times), and if they're really so evil, wouldn't that make him just as bad? Nature Verses Nurture, and Loki was sadly lacking in nurture. Think of it this way: Loki has the natural sadism of Jotunhiem's people, but is raised by the more intellectual, Were the Jotuns honestly so bad? (Beyond the "leaving-an-infant-to-die" thing.) They were from a world irreversibly damaged by the war, and they wanted revenge on the realm that conquered them and stole their power source. Sounds like normal politics to me. Your argument that genetics will naturally cause Loki to be bloodthirsty is odd. If he was raised in Asgard, how can he be a Jotun at heart? True, he may share similar qualities to the people, but that doesn't mean his genetics erase the manner in which he was raised. Thor may enjoy coffee, but that doesn't change the fact that he was raised in Asgard and not on Midgard; he's not a human "at heart", he's just closer to humans than most Asgardians. Furthermore, Loki did not have genocide planned for earth. Sure, it was a violent invasion and battle, but presumably if he wants to rule the earth, he's going to want some followers. And he didn't initially plan to have Thor banished (that was unexpected for him) and he wasn't plotting to destroy Jotunheim from the beginning. His realization was a shock to him that threw him off the deep end. That certainly doesn't absolve him of what he did, but unlike Hitler, Loki wasn't planning genocide for years because he felt that Jotuns were inferior. He did it because of his daddy issues and because he was having some sort of meltdown. And he wanted to rule humans and be worshipped by them, not kill them.
comment #15889 CasualBanshee 23rd Aug 12
Loki played Natasha, and, apparently, 99%+ of viewers, into thinking Natasha played him. Sequence of events: Loki boasts the Avengers brought "the monster"; Natasha realizes Loki means to use the monster, viz, Hulk, to take down ship; Loki appears gobsmacked; Natasha rushes to gather the Avengers; they stress Banner into becoming Hulk; Hulk takes down ship. And Loki's smart enough not to tip his hand even when he's won the round; should the need arise again, he can again accidentally on purpose let slip a secret. Natasha, by contrast, makes it quite clear to everyone she's manipulated, or thinks she's manipulated, what she did and how: good luck plucking the same pigeon twice, Natasha. Not that I think Loki was anything but mind-controlled by Thanos for nearly the whole movie, that being the only explanation for anything Loki does: Loki never before showed an interest in earth, a poor planet whose crown wouldn't impress Odin or anyone else whose opinion Loki values, and couldn't figure why Thor would care about humans; Loki looks like he's had all sh*t tortured out of him when he first appears; during Thor's last ditch effort to talk him out of the attack, Loki doesn't even pretend he wants to attack, he just says "it's too late"; instead of aiming for a kill spot, Loki gives his brother a nuisance wound with an itsy, teeny dagger. Finally, Hulk knocks Loki out, a good konking out having proven the antidote for everyone else's case of mind control, and when he wakes, Loki's demeanor is his own again. Q: But wait, why not plead mind control to the Avengers, to big bro Thor, or, in the next movie, to the nine worlds' greatest dad? A: Because Loki would rather be despised than pitied; he spent most of his life feeling second best, only to discover he wasn't even that; he can't very well tell his father he's even more helpless now than he was as a squalling, forsaken blue infant.
comment #23723 tikidog3 7th Apr 14
Nope, I think Natasha played him, the information was just a little bit too late. But it makes sense that she won that round, because Loki's downfall is (and always was) his arrogance. And I think Loki was less interested in ruling the earth and more interested in getting Thanos of his back. It was a Xanathos Gambit...if he won, he would have a position of power, should he loose, he would end up back in Asgard. That he was mind controlled is naturally still a possibility...but even if he wasn't, being in Thanos realm he had to play his game to escape.
comment #26021 Swanpride 2nd Sep 14
In order to post comments, you need to