lynnenne (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lynnenne) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
mcu_cosmic2019-01-27 02:23 pm
lynnenne) wrote in mcu_cosmic2019-01-27 02:23 pm
Entry tags:
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?
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?
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.