#lokimeta

[juliabohemian]

So Marvel changed their own wiki page to make sure it said that Loki was brainwashed by the Other in Avengers 1. Then they release these deleted scenes from Ragnarok that show Loki in a more sympathetic light. There's a show coming out in which Loki is the title character, and there are people who still see him as no more than a one dimensional villain.

I was watching this documentary show about people who committed murder and were doing time for it. The show spends a lot of time explaining the histories of these people, how they grew up and what sort of trauma they endured. Included, however, are interviews from law enforcement, prosecution and judges. And there was a consistent message from these people, that the backstory doesn't matter. 

One episode involved a woman who was systematically beaten and raped by her spouse over and over again. She was sent to prison back in 1984. What did the prosecutor say when he finally heard audio from the woman’s interview, in which she described the sort of abuse she suffered? Well, she should have said something at the time, because this is the first he’s hearing of it. 

I was alive in 1984. If you think we are unsympathetic to women now, imagine it being 100 times worse than that. A woman claiming that her spouse was abusive better have concrete evidence and even then, there were no guarantees that it would matter. I remember watching The Accused with Jodie Foster in 1988 and it being a groundbreaking concept that a woman didn’t deserve to be raped for wearing a short skirt. Let that sink in for a moment.

We live in a world where people need to believe that someone is either evil or good. Lawmakers and law enforcement need to believe that they are the good guys and anyone who is suspected of or convicted of a crime is surely the bad guy. Until we fully embrace the fact that people are a sum of their experiences, which have a profound effect on their thought process and behavior, we cannot truly call ourselves civilized.

[aurora-nerin]

I know we've all been worrying about how Loki TV show could be ruined by this and that but... What I've never seen a post about and what is constantly worrying me, is the possibility of

Loki being forced into random heteronomative romance for the " redemption" arc.

[juliabohemian]

Can we entertain the notion that maybe Owen Wilson’s role on the Loki show is to play Owen Wilson? Because I fully support Loki taking the form of Owen Wilson just to troll humanity. 

[juliabohemian]

Is Loki a “Bad” Guy?

It never fails. I will see a post that is celebrating Loki, or putting him in a positive light. And someone will just have to chime in.

"Yeah, but let's not forget that Loki is a bad guy! Remember when he (insert something that Loki didn't actually do)?"

I know that the person who makes such a comment truly believes what they are writing is the truth. The problem is, it's not truth. It's actually just flawed perception.

In studying human behavior I had to develop the ability to assess people's actions objectively. That means simply recording what they are doing, how often they are doing it, what event preceded the behavior, and what happened afterwards etc. I cannot assign a motive to the person I am observing because it would compromise the data. I cannot assume why they are doing what they are doing. Once all the relevant data is collected, I can look for patterns, apply theories of human behavior and development, and draw conclusions using logic and reasoning. Even after I have drawn a conclusion, I test that conclusion before I assume that it is correct.

Through this process I have learned that people...intelligent, well-educated people, constantly assign motives to those they come into contact with every day. And that this unconscious process shapes their perception of reality. A very good example would be the persistent belief that children are misbehaving, simply to annoy their teacher or parent. I encounter this mentality frequently. In reality, less than one percent of the children on the planet would fall into this category. Children do not do things just to annoy people. They are usually operating out of need...sensory needs, needs for attention, boredom, emotional need, physiological need etc. Children do everything that they do for a reason. We just can't always know what that reason is.

It goes without saying that people apply this unconscious process to their consumption of fictional media as well. Even though they are only provided with a specific amount of information, they will fill in the gaps based on their perception of a certain character. This is not necessarily bad. The human mind will always seek to fill in gaps when there is missing information. It’s how we are able to read words, even when there are letters missing. Unfortunately, the brain can only fill those gaps in with information that it has at its disposal. And that information isn’t always reliable.

When people watch movies, they follow cues that are put in place by content creators: music, framing, what other characters have to say etc. They will see that the narrative is suggesting that character X dislikes character Y and draw the conclusion that character Y must be unlikable. Otherwise why would character X dislike them? This probably seems reasonable on the surface. But it's actually a rather dangerous way to go through life. Because character X's perception of character Y is a product of their own inherent personality and experiences. It is not an absolute truth.

Is Loki a bad guy? That is a good question. In order to answer it, we would first have to establish what it means to be bad. Is lying bad? Most people think so. Loki has lied. But then, so has Odin. And so has Thor. Therefore, if you use lying as your criteria for badness, you will have to label any other character that has lied as being bad as well. Loki has been responsible for death, both directly and indirectly. But then, so has almost every other major character in the MCU. So, if you are using that as a criteria for badness, you will have to label everyone as bad. See where I'm going with this? In order to determine whether Loki is truly good or bad, you would have to develop an objective measurement that you would apply to every other character in his universe. Notice I said objective, not subjective. That means you would not be able to say “well, Cap only killed those people because...” It doesn’t matter why he did it. It only matters that he did.

Blank Panther did a much better job with its objective portrayal of the antagonist, Erik Kilmonger. It is clear that the narrative wants us to know that Erik believes that he is doing what is right and just, even though he is causing harm to others. It helps, however, that T'Challa is a very objective person. Loki, on the other hand, is surrounded by people who are not objective at all, who are quick to judge him and assign motives to his every word and action. And the narrative fails to address the fact that their perception of Loki could be flawed. Thus giving the audience the impression that their perception of Loki is accurate, and that it represents an absolute truth.

Try to remember the worst things you have done in your life. Now, imagine everyone who you know right now becoming aware of those things. Imagine everyone coming to the conclusion that you are bad. You would probably launch into an explanation of why you did what you did, or remind everyone that you were a different person back then. And you would be right to do so. Real people are not static. They exist in flux. They are constantly changing.

The reason so many people gravitate towards Loki is not because he is bad. Dispense with the notion that people’s love for Loki is about an affinity for villains. It is not. Loki is like so many children I have encountered, whose behavior is labeled by parents and teachers a deliberate attempt to cause misery and suffering. When it is merely an attempt to survive and make sense of an environment that seems ill suited to their temperament and needs.

[juliabohemian]

A conversation with a coworker began with an inquiry about whether I'm excited for Endgame. I tried to be vague. Because I'm not realy excited at all. But I love Loki, so it was hard not to express some lament about how he's been treated by the MCU.

"Ew," she said. "Why do people like him (Loki) so much? Especially when they have Thor to look at!"

Oh boy.

Now, this coworker and I get along as coworkers, mostly. But our political and religious views are fairly polarized. I'm an atheist and I am all about scientific research. Anything scientific she disagrees with, she labels as an opinion. Strange way to go through life...but I digress.

Our conversation escalated to me explaining how many superhero movies send a negative message to viewers by suggesting that it is acceptable for someone like Thor to bully others, be pompous, kill people etc. But if Loki does those things, he is evil and can only be redeemed through death. I pointed out that such tropes reinforce the concept that strange is bad, unattractive is bad, physical weakness is bad, emotional weakness is bad etc. And if you are bad, your feelings don't matter. They apparently don't even qualify as feelings.

When I dug deeper and asked her to explain her reasoning for disliking Loki she could not come up with a concrete answer. She suggested that anything Thor does is excusable because he's a god! I pointed out that Loki is also a god, to which she became flustered. "But he's a bad guy!" She would always return to "it just is" as her default explanation. Thus proving my point that people form unconscious biases as a result of problematic narratives. Further evidence that we need to promote critical thinking skills in school.

In the end, her default position was that "it's just a movie."

But she is not unique. She is very average. And she represents the average moviegoer.

Ugh.

[juliabohemian]

I find that I am avoiding anything Avengers related because I don’t want to think about “heroes” until I know for sure that Loki is finally going to be considered to be among them.

I don’t think I can take another movie where someone is either hyperbolically or hypocritically describing Loki as dangerous, murderous, insane, etc.

I feel like he’s suffered enough and done his time and deserves not to have anyone look down upon him anymore, mistakenly or otherwise.

He deserves to feel admiration and to experience praise. And I don’t mean backhanded compliments that are really thinly veiled insults. I mean genuine acknowledgment that he is more than a villain and more than a trickster, that he has value of his own.

[juliabohemian]

HOT TAKE

Loki is a person who is a product of his experiences and who has feelings and legitimate reasons for doing things.

[juliabohemian]

2011

MCU: “Loki is dead!”

ME: “Oh no! It’s so tragic and sad. He found out he was adopted and had a psychotic break. Why did he have to die on top of all that?”

MCU: “Just kidding! He’s alive.”

ME: “Oh, what a relief! He was the most interesting character in the movie. Does this mean he’ll be in more movies?”

MCU: “Of course! Tom signed a contract.”

2012

ME: “Uh...okay. Loki is alive and that’s great, I guess. But his life has gone from bad to worse."

MCU: “Yeah, but it’s a great plot device though. isn’t it?”

ME: “No...it’s like watching a loved one suffer needlessly, but with CGI and background music.”

MCU: “Can we appease you with a Thor sequel that has lots more Loki footage?”

ME: “You definitely can.”

MCU: “Alright. Just wait until next year.”

2013

ME: “Wow. Could you guys fuck up Loki’s life any more than you already have?”

MCU: “Yes, actually. We could. And we will. Because he’s dead. Again.”

ME: “Assholes. I mean, it was very moving. So, I guess there’s that. I guess if he has to die, this isn’t such a bad way to do it. It’s a nice ending to his arc. But still...you’re assholes.”

MCU: “Just kidding...Loki’s alive.”

ME: “Is he, though? Is he really?”

MCU: “Yes, really. We swear. Just wait until Thor 3.”

2017

ME: “Okay...this is definitely Tom Hiddleston. But what happened to Loki? Was he resurrected into a cartoon character? What is this, some kind of parody?”

MCU: “It’s comedy! Don’t you have a sense of humor? It worked for Guardians!”

ME: “Yes, it did work. For Guardians.”

MCU: “You are so ungrateful.”

ME: “Well, at least he’ll be in Infinity War. Right?”

MCU: “He will definitely be in it, yes.”

2018

MCU: “Loki’s dead again."

ME: “Wow, you guys didn’t even wait until the opening credits this time."

MCU: “Yeah, and he’s really, really dead for sure.”

ME: “Uh huh. I saw leaked images of Tom filming scenes for Endgame.”

MCU: “It’s a flashback.”

ME: “And there’s a Loki TV show in the works.”

MCU: “Flashback?”

ME: “Are you asking me or telling me?”

MCU: “Yes.”

[juliabohemian]

Failing to hold heroes responsible for their actions constitutes an error in reasoning. It is based on the belief that the quality of an action is dictated by the role of the person who committed it. If a person is a hero, then their actions must automatically be considered good. If they do something, they were either motivated by goodness or had a good reason for doing it. A hero can even do something that would be regarded as “bad” if were it committed by a villain and still be considered good. They are protected by their hero status.

[juliabohemian]

Trying to put a finger on what it is about CH's disparaging remarks about Tom and Loki that are causing Loki fans so much distress. Because CH is certainly entitled to his opinion. He does not have to like Loki, or even think Loki should come back. But to learn that CH wasn't nearly as enthusiastic about the franchise or his costar as he once seemed is still difficult to accept.

It is akin to when two people break up and one reveals to the other that not only have they fallen out of love, but the entire relationship was a lie. Whether it is actually true or not (which it usually isn't) such a tactic effectively undermines any solace the other party might have found in the good memories of that relationship. I can only speculate as to CH's true motives. But I do not plan to let his remarks affect my appreciation of the franchise or the character of Loki. I seriously doubt that Loki's popularity is going to wane either, especially since it appears to be as strong as ever.

And of course, it goes without saying that I have no interest in arguing about this with anyone. This post is for people who want to express and discuss their feelings about what has been said about Loki by CH. Not a place to question the validity of those feelings.

[juliabohemian]

I have something I need to say.

If any portion of our perception of a fictional character is not consistent with canon, it is a headcanon.

Headcanon is a fantasy. It's what exists in our minds. It is wishful thinking. It is not a something that other people are obligated to validate. If someone needs for other people to agree with their headcanon in order for them to enjoy it, they have a serious problem.

Have headcanons. Have lots of them. Have various headcanons for the same character, even. Share your headcanons and if you're very lucky, you might come across some other people who have similar headcanons.

I write fanfiction. Some of it is based on canon and some is not. I do not mistake the world that exists within my stories for the world that exists in the source material. I do not expect other people to validate that fantasy.

Do not assert your headcanons as canon. 

Do not whine when someone points out that your headcanon is a headcanon and not canon. 

Do not verbally abuse people who refuse to acknowledge your headcanon as canon. 

This makes you an obnoxious asshole. 

Thank you.

[juliabohemian]

Endgame Thor is the most relatable Thor we’ve seen so far

As I’ve discussed in previous meta, Thor was the golden child in a narcissist family dynamic. Odin, in case it wasn’t obvious, was the narcissist parent. Frigga was the enabling parent and Loki was the scapegoat child. This is actually a fairly common dynamic with predictable outcomes.

That being said, by the end of Infinity War Thor has lost a lot of things. He lost both parents, his brother, his planet, his hammer, his hair and even one of his eyes. In real life, when the golden child of a narc parent loses their narc parent, they usually have some degree of an identity crisis. Because the person who granted them their identity is no longer around to reinforce it. 

As I know I’ve stated before, it’s important to note that while the golden child appears to benefit from the narc parent’s abuse, they are still a victim of it. The golden child often lacks a sense of self that exists separately from that which has been bestowed upon them by the narc parent.

In Thor’s case, he not only lost the narc parent, but the enabler parent, the scapegoat sibling and the environment in which he had developed his golden child identity. He was removed from that environment and placed into a completely foreign one. That, in and of itself, is unsettling enough to trigger a crisis. Add to that Thor’s inability to defeat Thanos, and you have a recipe for a complete and total breakdown.

Thor was taught to believe that he was chosen, that he was worthy and all powerful. He wasn’t used to losing or failing. Even his temporary setback during his banishment was but a mere scratch on the surface of his ego compared to the events that came before Endgame. The fact that he failed to defeat Thanos was upsetting enough. When he finally was able to kill Thanos, his death brought Thor no relief, because it didn’t really change anything. Everything he cared about was still gone.

A nervous breakdown often results in a loss of executive function. Endgame Thor no longer has the willingness, or even the ability, to moderate his alcohol or food consumption. He no longer has the ability to make himself do anything he doesn’t want to do. He sleeps a lot and is sedentary. He has no interest in reality. He seeks distraction in fantasy -hence the video games. He directs his anger at anonymous strangers on the internet who he knows cannot fight back. It is clear by observing him that he feels helpless, useless and unworthy.

And while the MCU shamelessly exploited this version of Thor for comedic purposes, which is all kinds of disgusting, I cannot help but like him. Because it was the realest Thor we’ve seen so far. Thor has been flawed since the moment he first appeared on screen. But this is the first time he was aware that he was flawed. This is the first time he was plagued with self-doubt. This is the first Thor that had to truly cope with failure. And this was the first time that Thor was actually relatable.

Is Endgame Thor out of character? Well, from a writing perspective, yes. Because canon Thor lacks the emotional depth to be affected by anything deeply enough that it would alter his life beyond a few scenes. But this version of Thor is far more realistic.

[juliabohemian]

Two Things

Okay, technically 3.

First, I’m not watching the new trailer. I don’t want to see it.

Second, I can't stress how damaging it is to have someone like Odin consistently modeling toxic and abusive behaviors and then having a hero coded character openly praise him. Thor has said Odin is stronger than he is, called Odin wise, a good father and a good king. 

He's not. And the narrative needs to acknowledge that.

Third, imagine your character's worst fear being that their life lacked purpose, that their family would forget them, that they wouldn't be mourned if they died...and then finding out that it's all true. Their only surviving family member is obsessing over their dead father, who treated them horribly.

[juliabohemian]

Am I the only one who is planning to pay how ever many dollars to see Endgame in the off chance that there will be a few minutes of Loki?

[juliabohemian]

The Ephemerality of Media Consumption

Something lovely about movies and television is that they can be enjoyed over and over again. I love that I was able to share with my children the films and TV shows that I enjoyed as a child, in the hope that they would develop a similar appreciation for them. And they very often did.

My children have probably watched Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan almost as many times as I have. They can quote just about every line. But neither of them will ever know what it was like to sit in the theater in 1982, and to stare up at the screen with wonder while viewing what was, at the time, absolutely breathtaking special effects (effects that still hold up when placed beside the computer based images of contemporary blockbusters), or the awe of being surrounded by speakers that were blasting what was, in my opinion, one of James Horner's best scores of all time. More importantly, they will never know the anguish of truly believing that Spock was gone forever, without the benefit of knowing that he would simply reappear in the next movie. 

Experiencing media in real time has a profound effect on our perception of it, our appreciation of it, our interpretation of its significance and relevance to the society in which it exists.

I recall watching the series House MD (2004-2012) in real time, waiting for each new episode to air, speculating about every single teaser and cast member interview. I was so caught up in the experience that it motivated me to write what equated to volumes of emotionally inspired fan-fiction over about a 5 year period, with the express intention of repairing the mistakes I’d felt had been made by the creators of the show.

Several years after the series had come to a close, I re-watched it all in its entirety, one episode immediately after the other. And I found that while I was immensely entertained, it did not spawn the same depth of sadness, nor frustration as it had during my initial viewing. I was able to laugh more freely at the dialogue and feel less bothered by the title character’s lack of growth or self-awareness.

I cannot decide, however, which experience I prefer. 

I have invested myself in countless fictional characters during my lifetime. Most recently, MCU Loki. I have tracked Loki’s story from his first appearance in Thor (2011) up to his most recent appearance in Avengers: Endgame (2019). And what I have learned is that while the real time experience is certainly more potent and more rich, it can also be substantially more upsetting. 

I was among the many Harry Potter fans who experienced post-Deathly Hallows depression. I was among the Fringe fans who spent a year after the end of the series mourning the fact that Walter Bishop and his son would never be reunited onscreen.

Which begs the question...is it all worth it? Is all that suffering worth it? 

This tendency to cleave to that which we cannot have, to invest ourselves in the fantastic, with absolutely no guarantee of reciprocation or reward...it is in our very nature. As we are enticed by the beauty and excitement of fire, we willingly go dancing into it, all the while knowing that we will get burned. Would we be less human, were we not to allow ourselves to experience that pain? Perhaps. Perhaps, given the choice, we will always reach for anguish, all the while knowing it is necessary that we suffer loss, however abstract, because without it we would never experience joy.

[juliabohemian]

So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Disney is basically saying “remember that cute Comedy Central promo Loki did for The Dark World back in 2013? People really liked that, didn’t they? Let’s just make a whole show that is basically that.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. Loki doing ANYTHING at all is probably worth watching, simply because Tom Hiddleston. I would watch the “Loki does his laundry” show, probably. Okay, maybe not. But it’s really hard for me to wrap my head around creating a character with a tragic backstory, resolving absolutely NONE of said backstory, and then trying to build a children’s comedy show around that character.

Loki was a huge draw because of the tragic backstory. Because of his ability to get an emotional reaction from the audience. And I’m sure that Tom will be good any ANYTHING he does. But this just sounds more and more like a bad idea, the more I hear about it.