mcu_cosmic | Marvel Update to Loki's Bio

Entry tags:

entry: discussion

Marvel Update to Loki's Bio

Hello, friends! Welcome to your Sunday discussion post. This week's topic:

About a month ago, Marvel updated their official character bio for Loki to include this retcon:

Arriving at the Sanctuary through a wormhole caused by the Bifrost, Loki met the Other, ruler of the ancient race of extraterrestrials the Chitauri, and Thanos. Offering the God of Mischief dominion over his brother’s favorite realm Earth, Thanos requested the Tesseract in return. Gifted with a Scepter that acted as a mind control device, Loki would be able to influence others. Unbeknownst to him, the Scepter was also influencing him, fueling his hatred over his brother Thor and the inhabitants of Earth. [my emphasis]

What's your opinion on this "official" statement? How do you interpret it? Was Loki mind-controlled or merely made crankier than usual, the way Bruce was when he was holding the scepter during the big argument scene in The Avengers?

Does this change your view on Loki's character or his behavior? Is Marvel's "official" statement different from your head canon?

And why do you think they felt the need to update his MCU bio now, seven years after The Avengers was released in theatres?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I would not interpret it as mind-control, I don't think it created emotions or dictated his actions, just making certain existing feelings stronger and maybe others weaker.

And why do you think they felt the need to update his MCU bio now, seven years after The Avengers was released in theatres?
This is to me the most interesting question. My theory is that they want the Mind Stone to be able to do/be something specific and they want to be able to say that this is not something new, or they realized that something they want the Mind Stone to do means it would have had certain effects on Loki as well.

My theory is that they want the Mind Stone to be able to do/be something specific and they want to be able to say that this is not something new, or they realized that something they want the Mind Stone to do means it would have had certain effects on Loki as well.

Ooooh, interesting. Now I'm curious to see what role (if any) the Mind Stone will play in Endgame.

It could also be connected to the newly announced Loki TV series, that would be a good reason to go through their Loki data and update it.

And why do you think they felt the need to update his MCU bio now

I'm assuming it has to do with the upcoming Loki TV series. Presumably they want to make his attempt to take over his Earth more palatable.

I love the "crankier than usual" interpretation, though. That's going to be my head canon going forward. Hee!

I love the "crankier than usual" interpretation, though.

Hahahaha, Loki is so often cranky, and yet somehow I still find him amusing as hell.

I didn't see it as a retcon. I've always thought that was the canon. There were enough subtextual and behavioral cues in his performance to interpret it that way (enough that I thought we were supposed to interpret it that way). That said, I never thought it was full on control, and the bio doesn't say it was either. But with how messed up Loki was before and after his suicide attempt via the Void, it's no wonder he was easy prey.

As for why they felt the need to update it, probably because of the TV show, whatever that will turn out to be like.

~~My ultimate opinion is some variation of VINDICATION [insert Captain Holt gif here]~~

Same. I mean, even back when I didn't like Loki, which was pretty much everything pre-Ragnarok, I still thought it wasn't extrapolation on the part of the fandom, it was actual canon, between the way he acts and the fact that he looks like absolute hell throughout the entire movie. Especially when we see the scepter having the same effect on other characters, e.g. the argument scene.

My reaction when that came out and the fandom started talking about it was just a kind of bafflement because I had no idea it was in any way controversial or questionable. I think it's pretty solidly established in canon.

At the same time, as you say, it's not actual mind control, it's just influence -- pushing his worst impulses, power-hunger and anger and that kind of thing.

Lol, and here I am hating Ragnarok and IW (which was just stupid; how many frickin times is marvel going to kill him, ugh), but loving everything else.

There were so many fights about the canonicity of the scepter's influence. So many. But I think a lot of them were motivated more by 'how dare you like a villain, stop woobifying him' type of disdain to the point they just rejected any reading that the scepter might have been influencing him, or goodness forbid, he was anything other than a perfectly willing minion. You know, despite the death and torture threats and all the other things you mentioned.

There were enough subtextual and behavioral cues in his performance to interpret it that way (enough that I thought we were supposed to interpret it that way).

That's interesting, because even though it was obvious (to me, anyway) that the scepter was influencing the Avengers, it never struck me as influencing Loki. What I took from the movie - his limp when he first arrives in the SHIELD base, the dark circles under his eyes, the threats from The Other - was that Thanos had probably beaten him up enough for Loki to realize that he couldn't defeat him. Instead, he cut a deal to give Thanos something he wanted (i.e. the Tesseract). I always thought he was acting under duress, because Thanos wouldn't be Thanos if he wasn't threatening somebody, but the influence of the scepter never occurred to me.

Having said that, I suppose it does make sense that if the scepter could influence everyone else, it would influence Loki even more so. He spent more time with it than anybody.

Well, knowing what we know about Loki and his usual responses to danger....I wouldn't automatically say that him cutting a deal is a sign he isn't under duress.

Often when Loki is in the most vulnerable position that's when he tries the hardest to appear in control. (Like say when he's stranded on Sakaar, but he's chatting up nobles with a winning smile and trying to pull one over on the ruler of that planet. Make no mistake, he's in deep shit. This is a savage planet which openly supports slavery and capital punishment without a trial. He has no ship, no contacts, no money, and no weapons beyond his magic. That's duress. But he doesn't show it, not even to Thor.)

Personally I've always thought it was a little bit of both. He's obviously afraid of Thanos, either just by the distant threat of him or from torture and direct harm. They've intentionally kept this vague, so there's no way to know. But we do know that before A1 he's in a position of vulnerability with very few options, and by pure dumb luck he happens to have some experience with the planet Thanos wants to invade. From Loki's perspective it's the only viable way to get in a more secure position after his fall.

So he makes a deal and he gets played. The Other is clearly watching his every move in Avengers I, and we now know it's canon that the scepter makes him act more extremely than he usually would. (Although I agree that he's very much liable for his decisions here, I'm not trying to exonerate him of all guilt.) Even if he wanted to double cross Thanos, he's in a predicament where he can't possibly do it. Even when Thor offers him a chance to switch sides, Loki knows Thanos is more powerful. Siding with Thor would guarantee his imminent death once Thanos destroys Earth.

I feel like you can very easily interpret A1 as Loki under two forms of duress. Physical danger from Thanos and his forces and mental strain from the scepter's influence.

Edited (spelling) 2019-01-28 05:15 (UTC)

This.

To me it's not a big deal. It fueled feelings and thoughts he already had. It didn't create the hatred or need to subjugate others. Simply having access to that sort of power would have influenced him a bit, even if it wasn't also casting a +1 Aura of Evil. It also makes sense that he wouldn't be immune. Even Mjolnir-worthy Thor was effected.

I don't think it makes Loki less liable for what he did.

I don't think it makes Loki less liable for what he did.

Agreed, and I say that as a Loki fan.

I thought it was already canon based on Avengers that the specter was influencing him. I don't think it was mindcontrol, though.

I agree, it wasn't mind control in the same way that Clint and Selvig were affected.

Yeah I feel like it's just Marvel cleaning house and making some of the more popular fan theories official. They've been known to change their plans based on fan response (one of the reasons the franchise is still doing so well, imo.) and I think now is just a convenient time. Hell, on the first cut Loki wasn't even IN Thor II, and I suspect he was meant to be retired like other villains after A1.

Based on how Thor II ended, I feel like they had vague plans of making him a servant of Thanos in IW, and so they held off on solidifying the sympathetic aspects of his fall. But plans clearly changed between Dark World and Ragnarok, we may never know why exactly. Maybe somebody at Marvel just noticed how determined fans were to redeem him in fic/fanart and thought it would get a better response to give him a canon redemption arc? IDK, but they pretty much threw out the Loki-is-Odin plot line as quickly as they possibly could and didn't ever provide a compelling reason why Loki did it. So I would say plans changed for him and they realized they needed to give him and Thor a chance to reconcile in Ragnarok in order to sell his "heroic death".

Not sure if that's still worthy of spoiler text, but better safe than sorry I guess. haha

Edited 2019-01-28 05:27 (UTC)

Hell, on the first cut Loki wasn't even IN Thor II, and I suspect he was meant to be retired like other villains after A1.

Really? I had heard that his part in earlier drafts of the script was smaller, but I didn't know they had drafted a version without Loki even in it. That's wild!

Yeahhhhhh, I happened to work with the makeup artist that worked on Thor 2 (on another film, not Marvel! I'm not that cool!) and according to him it was kind of a mess behind the scenes.

Natalie Portman didn't like the script, she thought that Jane was turned into a plot device (she wasn't wrong). Plus Avengers came out after the script had already been locked and they realized Loki was more popular than Thor. There were lots of discussions about how the movie ought to handle that, a lot of disagreements. A draft was written where Loki didn't appear because they worried that Hiddleston would outshine Hemsworth in his own movie. (which in my opinion he kind of did, honestly)

Then Loki-mania happened. Hiddle's speech at Comic Con happened. By this point they were supposed to start shooting soon and they still didn't have a script everyone liked. They started shooting the original script and Faige realized the film really lacked depth and character interaction. It was basically just a sequence of characters playing musical chairs around Thor while he defeated a lackluster villain.

So he famously called in Whedon to do a patch job and the old Jossmeister gave us all the Loki scenes.(Loki in chains talking to Odin, Loki imitating Cap, Loki talking to Thor on the ship about Frigga/Jane/their relationship) Basically before the rewrites Loki was either not appearing in that film or was a plot device that existed to get Thor from Asgard to Svartelfhind, save Jane, and then fake his death for the end credit cliffhanger.

Loki in chains was added because the original beginning didn't really connect to A1 and it was kind of awkward and confusing to not have the story connect. Loki imitating Cap was put in because they realized he'd never shapeshifted in the films and so him becoming Odin felt like a deus ex machina with no set up. (I mean, it still is, but at least it's established now) and the conversation on the ship was a request from Whedon and Hiddles who thought it was weird for Thor and Loki to go adventuring together after A1 without any real resolution of their differences.

It's pretty wild to imagine that movie without those scenes huh? I mean, I'm not a huge fan of TDW anyway, but without those scenes...few. That would have been a real snoozefest.

Edited 2019-01-29 20:29 (UTC)

That is so interesting! I love hearing behind-the-scenes stories.

Natalie Portman didn't like the script, she thought that Jane was turned into a plot device (she wasn't wrong).

Not at all. I can totally see why she didn't want to come back for the next installment.

A draft was written where Loki didn't appear because they worried that Hiddleston would outshine Hemsworth in his own movie. (which in my opinion he kind of did, honestly)

He absolutely did, but I don't really see that as Hemsworth's fault. They just didn't give Thor any interesting character growth in TDW. His story was so much better in Ragnarok.

I knew that Whedon had script-doctored the scene with Loki in chains, but I didn't realize he wrote the scene of Loki imitating Cap. In retrospect, I should have known, because it was the funniest scene in the whole movie. I'm not the Whedon fan I used to be but he can still make me laugh.

I'm not a huge fan of TDW anyway, but without those scenes...few. That would have been a real snoozefest.

As cheesy as it is, I still love Loki's fake-death scene in TDW. Not only is it well acted, it was the first time I really bought into the idea that these two brothers loved each other. All the tender moments between them in the original Thor were cut from the theater release, and only ever showed up as "deleted scenes" extras, which I didn't see until years later.

Completely agree! Thor's character development in Ragnarok was excellent. It was honestly the first time I really could related to him as a character.

Yeah, Whedon isn't as easy to love has he used to be but I will always respect his script sense. He knows how to write a good story and give characters moments of depth to shine. :)

I also really love his fake death! But I do think the added scenes really help you understand why he does it. The scene with Odin especially, since it lets us know that Loki has absolutely zero chance of getting mercy from Odin. It makes his decision understandable, even if it is a crazy idea.

However it happened, I'm just glad we got so much great Loki development in 2! Those are all among my favorite Loki scenes.

Yeah, I'm another one who figured that was what was going on all along, or at least a strong possibility for it, so I wouldn't necessarily call it a retcon. The scepter influenced the Avengers just through proximity -- implied to include Thor, so it's not just the humans -- and Loki was out there carrying it around and so on, and canon neither says nor implies that he's immune to its effect.

I also figured that he was very possibly messed up by an unknown amount of time plummeting through the void of space, by some kind of torture/solitary confinement/etc from Thanos, or a combination, what with the dark circles under his eyes and the brittleness and all that. So I didn't think it was necessarily just the Scepter. And this bio doesn't actually rule that out, though it does strongly imply that the Scepter was the main thing messing with his head. I still like it being a combination of things, but I don't actually object to this.

The bigger question, I agree, is about the timing of updating his MCU bio with this now, and not having had it part of that before. I suspect that it's a combination of 1) the upcoming tv show, and 2) Thor: Ragnarok, in that they have newly strengthened reason to want to officially distance Loki from the more murderously authoritarian HUMANS CRAVE SUBJUGATION version of him we got in Avengers to make him as sympathetic as possible. While I think anything that has him be on Earth for any length of time is going to have to address those actions (and that body count) to some degree, and I hope they don't go the route of "so he's definitely innocent and it doesn't matter, ha ha let us never speak of this again" -- he's not innocent, and it does matter -- I'm all in favor of that distancing, rather than "oh that was Loki in his right mind, but anyway he and Thor are friends now so it's fine!"

Edited 2019-01-28 07:07 (UTC)

I also figured that he was very possibly messed up by an unknown amount of time plummeting through the void of space

This is one of my favorite head canons - mainly because it gives him something else in common with Tony, and the more parallels there are between them, the harder I ship them. :D

Imagine if Marvel retconned Black Panther to say that Killmonger was being mind-controlled all along.

Because moral complexity and the struggle between impact and intent, the many possible creative variations on the "cool story, still murder" trope, the uncomfortable examination of feeling genuine sympathy for villains without glossing over the harmful consequences of their actions, are all for chumps, I guess. The pretty white man can't possibly have done anything bad in his life. He and Kylo Ren should go drinking together.

And I like Loki and Tom Hiddleston's portrayal of him. Very much. Both he and Chris Hemsworth have made valiant and enjoyable efforts to inject emotional continuity into characters that have undergone unusually high amounts of narrative nonsense even by comic book movie standards. And I liked his character evolution in Ragnarok. But this retcon is just creative cowardice. It's simply not necessary.

Agreed that the Loki TV show and fan popularity are big factors in this change (he wasn't the first and won't be the last bad boy who gets Flanderized into the slightly edgy but significantly cuddlier member of the good boy's treehouse club) but I'd also venture to guess that Marvel is trying to distance itself from Joss Whedon and anything he had to do with the story. It does feel sometimes like every MCU film after Ultron has been indirectly trying to apologize for/repudiate Ultron, and in most things I'd agree with that direction. Just not this one.

He and Kylo Ren should go drinking together.

Hahahahaha, ZING. I actaully saw a fan animation along those lines, once! It was hilarious. Damned if I can find it now, though.

I agree it's unnecessary. I would have preferred if they had left it open to interpretation.

Right? It’s just too convenient, too neat. Ryan Coogler needs to have a long talk with whoever’s on the MCU architect team about how to write complex, simultaneously sympathetic and morally culpable villain/anti-hero/deuteragonist combos.

I wonder if the difference between Killmonger and Loki really could be as simple as the difference between a black screenwriter and a white screenwriter. Luke Cage is also known for well-balanced portrayals of sympathetic yet horrible antagonists. It would make sense that black writers would tend to have a far better grasp on moral complexity, on actual real-life examples of trauma driving people to do bad things, on the conflicting, Catch-22 pressures of being marginalized in kyriarchal societies, and on the agony of loving and hating people and societies who have wronged you. Taika Waititi did his best, but he was constrained by the many white male chefs who had their spoons in the pot before him, while Coogler and Cheo-Hodari Coker got to make their dishes from (mostly) scratch.

That’s kind of the other factor, too. I finally got around to reading the other comments in the thread and it demonstrates the thing I love best about fandom: putting massive amounts of brainpower and imagination into creating Watsonian explanations for inconsistencies that always boil down to the Doylist reality that having multiple different writers for the same characters will produce uneven character development.

Edited 2019-01-29 02:50 (UTC)

I saw it as a weak retcon to sort of nullify the general characterization of Loki as a villain that most people (both in and outside of the fandom) have. Mostly because I saw a flurry of Loki's uber fans saying "See? He was a victim!!!!!1111!!" which made me eyeroll. FTR, I don't mind a Loki whose loyalties and ability to be "good" are mutable.

Thankfully, I often see canon as a suggestion so this 'explanation' to Loki's role in the first Avengers movie doesn't handwave my own headcanon. Which, again, it's more of a Loki who is morally grey (though probably good if it's really beneficial to him.)

No idea why they opted to ~~retcon the F out of him~~ update his bio. Maybe to pave the way for the upcoming Loki miniseries in the Disney+? No idea if it has anything to do with Endgame (I'm trying to steer clear of most spoilers/spoiler-y discussions about that movie). But, in the end, it felt like an unnecessary movie from Marvel (imo, at least)

FTR, I don't mind a Loki whose loyalties and ability to be "good" are mutable.

Same, I prefer him that way. I like my antagonists the way I like my protagonists: conflicted.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Marvel Update to Loki's Bio

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject