just something that's been bugging me ever since Thor's movie

[tigriswolf]

.

Why is that no fics I've read have ever mentioned that the Warriors 3 + Sif committed treason? And Heimdallr?

Fact: Odin (the king, even if he is a douchebag, and a dude all of the aforementioned jerkasses are supposedly loyal to) banished Thor for being a war-mongering, easily-angered, going-to-get-everyone-killed idiot. Yes? King banishes prince, takes his magic (mostly), and tosses him down to Earth to prove himself.

Fact: Odin then falls into the most helpfully timed healing sleep ever and for some reason his wife doesn't take over for a few days. Okay.

Fact: Odin has a second son and he takes over. Makes sense because there’s an heir and a spare, right? Heir’s out of town so spare steps up.

Fact: So now we have an Acting King, who, while he may not want to be king, he is not, at least, easily angered. Like, he didn't actually want to go to Jotunheimr, and he almost got them out of there without fighting - except, oh, right. Thor decided to start a war. Which he got banished for.

Fact: Warriors 3 + Sif don't like Loki. For some reason, neither does Heimdallr. So what do they do? They decide to ignore not only Loki's commandments, but also Odin's - that dude they all claim to be loyal to. You know why the Destroyer showed up in New Mexico? Because the king had traitors he needed to deal with, and they happened to be on a planet that didn't have a treaty with Asgard. And if all the humans would’ve stayed out of the way, a few buildings might have gotten singed, but we’re a hardy people. We can deal with that.

So. No fic I've seen has mentioned the treachery, and how that might have added to everything else Loki was dealing with. Why? Because he’s “the villain”? He was following the king’s rules and keeping the banished guy banished because – as evidenced by Thor on Jotunheimr, he wasn’t ready to be king.

Yes, Loki’s my favorite. Yes, I mentioned the above in one of my fics, and a prompt I left in the kinkmeme. But I can’t recall any other fic about it.

It just makes me mad. *sigh*

Comments

[ericadawn16.livejournal.com]

I think it does get sort of side-lined with everything else but then, the movie doesn't really help things. It's edited like Loki sends the Destroyer to kill Thor in human form. Then, between Thor coming back and bridge destruction and the falling and "mourning" celebration, everyone just sort of seems to forget about it.

Even the official stuff always says the Destroyer was sent after Thor.

What would you want in a fic about it?

If it's at the time, they would either be killed or banished. After the fact...discussion where Loki points this out?

[tigriswolf]

I'll have to rewatch the end, but the way I remember it, Loki hears the Bifrost going off and that causes the final tailspin - he sends the destroyer, freezes Heimdallr, and then brings Laufey to the healing room. By that time, he's totally having a psychotic break.

And I don’t even know what I want. Just some sort of acknowledgement, I guess. They don’t even give him a chance – just automatically going off because ‘there’s a traitor in the house of Odin.’ And they trust Laufey why, exactly?

It just seems to me that Loki was meant to fall, and it’s such sloppy writing.

(Also, I totally don't mind them being executed as traitors, or killed by the Destroyer, or anything.)

[marbleglove.livejournal.com]

Huh. Yeah, I think their treason just got completely ignored. Now, the thing for Odin to do is either punish them for treason (correct answer) or pardon them (setting a dangerous precedent). Ignoring it pretty much says that crimes against Loki aren't crimes, even if they're also crimes against Asgard. Hurting Loki is more important than saving anything else.

Alis Dee pointed out that Thor sacrificing himself for his friends when attacked by the Destroyer wasn't much of a sacrifice either since they were only in danger because of him anyway. Less sacrifice and more refraining from using a meat shield.

Odin makes me so mad. Thor is jovial and violent and lacks subtlety. Not necessarily a good guy but not a bad guy. Loki is subtle and tricky and vicious but not necessarily a bad guy, and certainly a victim. Odin is subtle and vicious and cruel. He's more definitely a bad guy.

[tigriswolf]

I have no idea how much of the mythology is present in the comics/movieverse, but even just based on the movie, it does seem like Loki gets sidelined.

Yeah, I saw that about meatshields vs true sacrifice. It's what got me thinking about this whole issue again.

Whatever good intentions Odin had, it's all lost because he willfully raised Loki&Thor to think jotnar are monsters. The movie begins with him telling a story about how Asgard saved Midgard from some horrible invasion, and then when Thor looks at Loki and promises to wipe out the monsters... Odin doesn't say a thing.

*so much headdesk*

If there is one person who should get most of the blame for everything that happened? Odin, full-stop, end of story.

[evening-bat.livejournal.com]

YES. THIS. ALL OF IT.

Loki's my favourite too - shocked the hell out of me as I am not normally one for the villains - and I admit to some bias but Jesus, did they fail with how they handled his tumble down the slippery slope. I wondered at the lack of attention fandom paid to the points you're bringing up as well. I spent the latter part of the movie rather glumly (and correctly, as it turned out) convinced that the various acts of treason committed against the then-rightful King would be ignored, since Loki is the Unfavourite and all.

The two things that really irked me about the movie were Thor's overly-rapid turnaround (seriously! He's on Earth, what? Maybe 72 hours? And matures from hotheaded violent brat to compassionate ruler in the making? HA!) and the endless stream of crap that gets dumped on Loki because he is the Designated Villain. I mean, I adored the fact that they made him less of a caricature than he often was in the comics but really! When we first saw the two princes in Asgard, I can't have been the only one looking at them and wondering which one was supposed to be the hero of this movie. Honestly, Loki's abrupt sanity slippage struck me as juuuuust shy of deliberately provoked. As in, he seems less naturally inclined to it than forced into it by circumstance.

And there is a not-miniscule part of me that remains convinced that Odin engineered it all, arranging for Loki to be broken in such a way that ensured Thor would get to play the hero and deliver him a worthy opponent all at once. Adopt one foundling son to develop the other's promise or something.

(Please note: I haven't seen Avengers yet. Yeah, I know. I was trying to make sure I finished my Trek Big Bang. Then I got ambushed by Chuck. Oops. Please don't spoil me more than I've spoiled myself? Granted, I've spoiled myself pretty damn thoroughly so I'm not too skittish about movie details.)

[tigriswolf]

Don't worry, Thor's 'redemption / turning point' are ignored in The Avengers. Spoilers!

I don't even really see Loki as a villain, really. There were so many opportunities to 'save him' and whatnot. Hell, just telling the truth and leading by example to show an entire species weren’t mindless monsters would’ve been a nice start.

A lot of fics I’ve seen do point out that Loki is sorta like a computer nerd who lives amongst a lot of jocks who don’t understand him. For a thousand years. Also, that magic is meant to be for women while men hit things with their fists. I assume you’ve read those as well?

So, yeah. And while I do prefer Odin as the father-who-did-his-best-and-fucked-it-up-to-hell-on-accident - a part of me does think it was all arranged. Because every hero needs a villain. Doesn’t matter if the hero would prefer the brother he loves stay on his side.

And The Avengers will only make you love Loki even more. It did for me, at least. And pretty much assured me he’s definitely not a villain by choice.

Anyway. It should be on DVD next month, so I order you to watch it and write a lot of Loki fics.

[evening-bat.livejournal.com]

GOOD. I did not like how that was handled.

Yes! That was what I kept saying after I saw Thor. Loki really did not come off as a dyed-in-the-wool villain, seeing as how everything we saw of him early in the movie suggested that he could easily be redeemed. Hell, at the beginning there is no arguing that he's the better of the two brothers in terms of, oh say, not starting an interspecies war for kicks. Not to mention my continued belief that the poor guy just needed someone to actually tell him they loved him. (I spent a lot of that movie mentally shouting DAMN IT THOR, HUG YOUR BROTHER - to no avail, sadly.) But yeah. That all Odin would have had to do was tell the goddamn truth... ARGH.

Yup! Read a fair number of those. I appreciate that take on Loki, actually. It's one with which I can sympathize, as well as making what happens a bit less unbelievable. A person can only take so much dismissal of their strengths before some sort of drastic overreaction.

My preference depends on my mood but there's certainly plenty of potential for either interpretation. I totally buy Odin as a father who tried (and does love his adopted son) but failed miserably in taking care of him. But sometimes you really have to wonder at some of his choices and how they seem designed to make things worse. That little "no" at the Bifrost comes to mind. *twitches* And as much as I do like to explore the idea that Odin really did try, there is something compelling about the idea that he did manipulate his sons to bring about the schism between them. (And if I were a) good at finishing epics and b) not working on a whole bunch of other stuff, I would totally burble about how he could absolutely have been setting them against each other so that they would drive each other to become more powerful...so that they'd be ready to fight some otherworldly menace together when it arrived.)

THIS PLEASES ME. Thanks for passing that on! I was rather concerned with what the movie would do with him. I look forward to seeing it now! :D

I think it's out September 6? BB rough draft goes in on Sept 1 so I should be free to watch Avengers. And since I was useless for anything else for months after seeing Thor, I imagine that there will be Loki fic forthcoming after Avengers. (Hell, maybe I'll get around to actually finishing the ones I started after Thor that are still languishing in my G-docs...)

[tigriswolf]

Oh, dude, you'll be wanting to smack Thor during the majority of The Avengers, then.

I figure, Loki suffered through at least a thousand years of being an unappreciated outcast who could never live up to his brother, no matter what he did. And there is not a single human who would've lasted nearly as long as he did before having a breakdown.

(I am 100% on Loki's side, at all times. And I do not apologize for it. *shrugs*)

As to Odin... I've only written him as a guy who did his best and fucked up. I think that's the canon interpretation, too. But having him trying to make sure his son had a worthy nemesis, or even a puppet king to put on Jötunheimr’s throne is appealing, too. And preparing them for a greater enemy on the horizon… actually slots neatly into canon.

September 6? That soon? I thought it’d be towards the end of the month. *squee*

[evening-bat.livejournal.com]

*sighs* Yeah. I kind of figured that but thanks for the heads up.

Precisely! Loki experienced upwards of a thousand years of intolerable disdain and unfair treatment. Even those who loved him best weren't exactly kind in their attitude towards him. (Which is kind of the worst part of it, for me. Loki is failed by those few people he actually cares about and Thor genuinely loves Loki and watching them at odds is just painful.) And you're absolutely right that no human would have been able to endure it for even a fraction of that time without snapping.

(I see no need for any kind of apologies for that. I tend to fall into the same category. And I'm sure I'll have lots more to say when I get a chance to watch the movie.)

Far as I know, the canon for Odin is as you say. (A bit less so in the comics, I think. Odin is much harsher and handles Loki with far less care. Granted, comic!Loki is...rather a different story than movie!Loki. ANYHOW.) I do concede that Odin's heart being in the right place despite his failure at parenting is likely what we're intended to take away from it. And most of the time I agree with it. But you might have noticed my fondness for AU speculation? :) And the idea of Odin laying plots by way of manipulation of his sons is interesting to me. (Thor needs humbling and to be faced with an enemy who will force him to the edge of his abilities and beyond. Oh, look! A beloved little brother with oh-so-convenient cracks in his character...) And I admit, I kind of love the notion that he might have triggered their enmity in order to push them into developing their powers & abilities so that they'll be ready to defeat something that would have otherwise overwhelmed them.

Also? Loki and Thor are gods. Not only are they more powerful than we're generally permitted to see, they don't have the same societal customs as humans and they will live for millennia. And that's assuming you don't touch the cyclical aspect of their existence. So whatever conflict they're going through at the moment? They may well resolve throughout the course of their very long lives. I have always kind of loved the stories that address the Avengers' confusion over the fact that Thor's attitude towards Loki has far less condemnation than they'd expect.

Actually, you were right. Amazon lists the release date as September 25 (in Canada anyhow). Sorry for getting your hopes up!

[tigriswolf]

Yes! Exactly! The whole Thor movie takes place over, at the most, a week. A week. Aesir live for thousands of years, and so do jotnar, and humans live maybe a century.

Whatever argument they're having today, it'll be done tomorrow.

[evening-bat.livejournal.com]

Right! Because ha, ha, ha, Loki will get over this little tantrum he's having in due course. Shouldn't take more than a couple of decades. Well, okay. Maybe a few decades - Thor knew maybe he shouldn't have laughed quite that hard over that incident with the dye. (Even if it was funny.) But while mortal heroes come and go, temperamental siblings are forever. Meanwhile the Avengers are all going WTF? and Loki is busy tearing down city blocks and pitching hissy fits.

(And clearly I should not have attempted to respond to this comment this late at night. :D)

[ymfaery]

I remember seeing a long-ish fic that did address the treason bit, but I don't think I bookmarked it, dang it. It was on AO3, and I think I found it browsing rec lists. Loki POV, and rather a stunning story.

[tigriswolf]

Do you remember the title or author?

[ymfaery]

Nope, drawing a complete blank. I don't think I was fully awake at the time.

I do remember some story details, but I wasn't sure if you wanted to be spoiled or not.

[tigriswolf]

I don't mind being spoiled, especially if it's about character death or a completely heartrending ending.

wow, took me a while

[ymfaery]

It has a pretty heartrending ending if you like Loki. Heroic, but heartrending.

But in slightly better news, I actually found the fic by going through someone's rec list. It's Silvertongue by Epiphanyx7.

Re: wow, took me a while

[tigriswolf]

Oh, yeah. I read the first few thousand words of that awhile back, got a bad feeling, skipped to the end, just to see - and could never bring myself to read the whole thing.

Re: wow, took me a while

[ymfaery]

I don't remember how far in the fic the treason bit was addressed, but I do recall it was addressed twice. Did your initial reading include the scene between Hogun and Loki when Loki was in his prison?

Re: wow, took me a while

[tigriswolf]

Yeah. I think it might've been that fic lingering in the back of my mind that led to this post, actually.

Re: wow, took me a while

[ymfaery]

Big surprise. ;)

The second time it was addressed was more like a summary of what Loki planned, and it was later in the fic. Maybe a chapter or two near the end? Assuming you want to look for it.

Re: wow, took me a while

[tigriswolf]

I don't think I will. Just rereading the parts around his talk with Hogun made me want to cry angry tears. *sigh* I have entirely too many feelings about Loki.

Thank you for finding the fic, though!

[ymfaery]

Huh. Did LJ mark my comment as spam because of the html link?

[tigriswolf]

Yup. It's unscreened now.

[enochia.livejournal.com]

And now, I'm going to express an unpopular opinion.

Okay, first, it does make sense that Sif and warriors three would be punished. After all, Thor didn't evade punishment.

I choose to believe it happens off-screen. From the moviemakers' point of view, it makes no sense to end the movie with punishment of people that helped protagonist. Most of the moviegoers would be like "WTF"?

Regarding Loki, however...
Yes, mythology!Loki is adversary because there has to be an adversary. Comic!Loki caused enough problems to be disliked. So let's talk about movie!Loki.

Okay, first, I cannot remember why, but when I first saw the movie I had the impression Loki was goading Thor into going into Jottunheim through reverse psychology - while managing to sound like he opposes it. The cut-out-scene with serpents enforces this. He was bitter of being overlooked by sole virtue of being (as far as he knew back then) a secondborn, and for being cunning as opposed by strong and straightforward. A cliche plot, but it works. I do believe he still loved Thor in a way and so was struggling with himself.

Then the revelation came. It's possible that it made it easier to snap and give into the urge to kill Thor. The distance probably helped too. It's possible he might have regretted it later.

Re: Avengers, I actually didn't like the portrayal of Loki or his and Thor's relationship there and thought it didn't fit one in Thor. First, there was that awful "he was adopted" comment. Say what you will, one of defining traits of Thor's character is that he loves Loki. Yes, he hurt him, but it wasn't on purpose. No, that doesn't excuse him any more than being dealt a shitty hand in life excuses Loki for being a villain. One could swear you can almost feel actors trying to recreate that (completely platonic) chemistry in few scenes they have together, but screenwriting doesn't let them.

Next, he lost depth - and there was an interview somewhere that says Whedon said to make it so. I like the way he was handled in the end even less - he was in top ten Marvel Villains, he deserves a bit more respect than being reduced to another stereotypical Whedon's cheesy villain-of-the-week.

Freudian Excuse does not really excuse fully. It's simply a reason that villain turned that way. He still didn't have to choose that path. Also, why didn't he take out his wrath on Asgard, then? If we go by that logic, Harry Potter would be fully justified in establishing himself as Dark Lord and torturing Muggles too, right? He has more reason to hate them than Loki has to hate Midgardians he barely even came in contact with. (And good grief, don't get me started on shitty "he didn't want to hurt Asgardians because he still likes them so he turned Chitauri onto Midgard". Even if we ignore that canonically, Chitauri wanted to destroy Midgard from before, it's still billions of people and Asgard would stand a better chance of defending itself.)

Also, his descent into mania is handwaved by him seeing things while falling/impied mind control. While I understand why this couldn't have been fit into the movie, it still feels like we have two completely different characters.

That said, I like Loki as a character. I have no problem with not-really-redeemable villains. I don't need to excuse them. I don't need to demonise their opponents - what's wrong with grey vs gray? And this was the essence of Branagh's Thor - why it was hailed as "Shakespearian". It's a conflict of two sides, both flawed, both with their own reasons. The tragedy is in the misunderstandings and inability to understand how the other side feels. Once upon a time, "hero" and "antagonist" were more-or-less defined not by how good or evil they are, but who is to grow and triumph in the end. And that triumph is not necessarily fortunate - Thor does get back, but at what a price? And that's why I love that movie.

Heck, I liked even worse villains. Even though I wouldn't want to meet them in a dark alley, I can still appreciate a complex character (from a distance).

[tigriswolf]

Oh, Loki was totally goading Thor into going, to prove he made an unfit king. He didn't intend to actually get there, though, and he almost got them home without incident.

And I don't think Loki was taking anything out on Midgard. Earth just happened to have the tesseract.

Whedon wanted to take away Thor's depth? Why? I was already on the fence about liking him as a character, and The Avengers pushed into totally not-liking territory.

[enochia.livejournal.com]

A lot of Loki apologists seem to go "he's doing it to protect Asgard", ignoring the Tesseract, I guess.

I meant he was taking Loki's depth. Can't remember exact thing and don't have access to the tumblr post right now, but something about how "none of that conflicted thing, we need complete power-hungry maniac". But yeah, he totally undermined Thor too. Why? Because he wanted to dumb it down, I guess. It worked for the most of the audience. It's Whedon thing. For all that he tries to make original characters, it's still "our protagonists (even when antihero) are right, and opponents are always bad". (And when antagonist joins protagonists, all their sins are completely ignored except for angst purposes.) And he has to have his cracky one-liners, even when they basically deny the entire prequel movie of character development. (Sorry. Really can't get over "he was adopted". Even Hemsworth said it wasn't funny. But seriously, the main characteristic of these two in Marvel universe in general is that they still love each other (in brotherly way) deep down, even though they simply can't coexist in peace. Thor loves his brother despite anything, eventually even defying Odin to save him. And Loki still likes Thor, even though he's trying his best not to most of the time. But nooo, Mr Whedon must fulfill his one-liner quota.)

And now I heard he signed for Avengers 2 and I want to scream. Don't get me wrong, I still like his works, but they are flawed and he has his style he sticks to too closely. I already saw million of problems with Avengers, but majority of the audience was distracted by Hulk and Chitauri, so I guess it worked. On the other hand, a very bitter part of me (Inner Loki?) wants it to backfire completely so the stupid oblivious fans would shut up already about how he is genius.

(Sorry for venting about slightly off-topic thing.)

Then again, I actually liked Thor. Yes, it's possible to like both, with all their flaws, even though reconciliation seems hopeless. I'm just ignoring Avengers characterisation.

[tigriswolf]

I'm pretty sure Loki doesn't really care about Asgard anymore. Well, except to want it burnt. *shrugs*


none of that conflicted thing, we need complete power-hungry maniac".

... but Loki's not a power-hungry maniac. *facepalm*

I like Thor himself if I just focus on the brothers-angle. But it seemed like he started the Avengers movie having already written Loki off completely, which annoyed me.

[enochia.livejournal.com]

I think we still have memories of "Thor" remaining, so we know he's not power-hungry maniac. But what would a person seeing "Avengers" only with no previous knowledge think? There pops up this guy, gets compared to Hitler, gets aliens to wreak havoc on Earth, gets pummeled by Hulk for lulz so he's basically incompetent smug snake, and then gets muzzled and shipped away. Obvious stupid over-the-top villain, right?

But it seemed like he started the Avengers movie having already written Loki off completely, which annoyed me.
And that's exactly what irks me about Avengers. Sure, it doesn't stick to comic canon. But those movies for every character exist so we could learn about them without having to stuff character arcs of all Avengers and villain into feature-length cut. But it ignores the whole Thor movie in terms of characterisation.

So it's understandable if you dislike Thor because of Avengers. I simply decided to ignore it as OOCness and writing failure and stick to "Thor" the movie characters as headcanon.

[tigriswolf]

Oh, you're right about that. He was totally set up as a disposable villain. That’s so frustrating because there’s so much potential.

I think I’ll also disregard Avengers canon for Thor’s characterization.

[pprfaith.livejournal.com]

Weeeell, I'm late to the party, but.

Thor's banishment gets sort of solved when he proves himself worthy and reclaims the hammer, right? That was the point of teh whole exercise. He learns and he gets to go home.

But. The problem I have with the whole movie is this: Loki is painted as the villain from almost the beginning. Everyone treats like like he's going to sell their bodyparts for profit at the earliest chance. But his character doesn't show that. His character is a bullied, introverted, very intelligent younger brother who tries desperately to get out of his brother's shadow and be seen.

I think the general issue, that Loki is too different to fit into a warrior society, is addressed a lot in fanfiction. That that one instance of asshattery isn't speficially mentioned isn't all that remarkable, imo. And by Asgardian logic Loki did a Bad Thing by attacking Jotunheim, nevermind that he was probably having a severe identity crisis at the time. That Bad Thing negated whatever laws the Warriors 3 and Sif and Heimdall broke when they went against him. Screwy logic is screwy, but hey. There's no reason to throw Loki in jail after he attacks Earth - with which Asgard still has no treaty - either, so. Hello plotholes.

We all know that Loki is our favourite and that he needs to be taken home and fed cookies and hugged a lot. Isn't that enough? *sniffles dramatically*

[tigriswolf]

Trufax, all of that.

And why I'm always on Loki's side.



What do you want for your birthday?