space viking king lear

i don’t understand where this idea of jane being rational came from

like did we watch entirely different movies

jane is a scientist who gets excluded from the scientific community and whose only applicant is a politics major who needed an internship. jane rides out into the middle of freak storms for fucking storm readings and believes before she had hard evidence that there is a fucking ancient civilization on the other end of the universe based on the fact that this dude is hot and looks like thor and why the fuck would there NOT be a wormhole over new mexico

so, fuck no - she is not special because she’s rational. if she was rational she would have thrown thor out on his ass instead of riding with him into a government facility to steal back a hammer. the primary defining descriptor of jane foster is that she is instinctual, in that she realizes the magic of science and doesn’t couch her understanding in numbers or even facts at times but her gut instinct

and if her gut instinct was to punch out the guy who committed genocide and mass enslavement and also mindwashed her mentor and killed the guy who secured her funding

then she’s going to punch that motherfucker out

so no it’s not bad character development, no one’s taking her on an 180. its that you probably have to watch the first movie again.

in which i theorize wildly about the character of loki et evolution in thor 2; based on two pictures of a dork with a toy

now that my initial silent laughter over his long flowy fabio locks have subsided, lets look at costumes and theorize wildly - as the title suggested - about what this new and only slightly altered look means for characterization, shall we?

behold:

Keep reading

reaction to thor 2: who's the real asshole here

as of writing this review, i am only just about an hour out of watching it, details blurring in my mind, in desperate need of some real rationalization for the finer parts, so these thoughts are by no means final.

let’s do this like the iron man 3 review: the good, the bad, and the ugly. needless to say, major spoilers ahead.

Keep reading

itwasforthesun asked: hi, do you ship jane/thor? and do you think they'll work, or will sif get in there? for some reason your opinion matters on this subject to me lol, you have REALLY detailed, intelligent, awesome and such tags so yeah I was wondering what you thought about their relationship romantically and where it might head in thor 2 :)

[REBLOGGABLE BY REQUEST]

first of all - thank you very much! always nice to know you enjoy the commentary.

and… yes and no? here’s the thing - the way i ship is when the two characters are integral to each other, not in character arc but in character makeup, so the two characters have to be fundamentally inseparable for me to ship them. eg. klaus/rebekah, cesare/lucrezia, cersei/jaime, thor/loki, sexual or not. they have to be fundamental to each other’s core; and jane and thor have interlocking story arcs that are the key to each other’s respective journeys, but they’re not integral to who they are, if that makes sense? so in that sense, no, i don’t ship thor/jane the same way i ship thor/loki, but their relationship is one of constant and all consuming fascination for me, in that they are the key to each other’s respective fates.

jane is an astrophysicist. it’s a primarily male dominated field, in a primarily male dominated world. and she’s a woman with her head in the stars, who ships herself and a polisci major who was the only one who applied (maybe because she’s a woman in a male field, maybe because no one was interested, either way the result’s the same) to the middle of new mexico to chase lightning. she’s putting forward a radical new theory, she’s writing about wormholes that others equate to science fiction. and then - out of nowhere - she runs into her primary piece of evidence, the absolute number one physical piece of proof that she needs for her theory. so for her, thor is beautiful and kind and he looks great with his shirt off, but thor is also the embodiment of the universe for her; for her thor is the crystallization of her artform. she literally crashes her car into her evidence, and that’s actually amazing. because thor is her key to unlocking the secrets of the universe, to prove her theory, to open the gateway into deep space, and it’s because of thor, it’s because of what he did and who he is that she succeeded in sending a light across space to shine through asgard. she sent a message to the kingdom of the gods, because of him. no matter how anyone feels about the chemistry or the romance, that is there. if you take away the romance part, thor is still the central focus of jane’s life, because jane foster is a character not focused on a man, but on an idea.

and thor - thor’s arc is the most understated and quietest and most well written arcs in the entire franchise, despite the obvious learning curve being loki’s madness and hiddleston somewhat stealing the scenes. thor’s arc isn’t about thor becoming worthy of the throne. thor’s arc isnt’ about heroism and it isn’t about being braver and stronger and more courageous; thor’s arc is about being worthy in and of himself. about being kinder and about being human and about being humbled. loki believes that when the allfather said ‘worthy’ he means ‘worthy’ with the throne as the indicator of worth, when really, it means learning humanity. thor went to earth and he was an arrogant warmongering princeling, and he met a woman who has next to nothing, who has a run down flat who builds her own machinery, who has her head in the skies and who believes that the world is too small, that the universe needs to be opened. i see a lot of jane bashing on the grounds that thor doesn’t know her, but the point is that he does, he does and we can too, if we learn to look. jane is not objectified. she is not sexualized - instead, she is ambitious, she wants, she wants to touch wants to see wants to have the universe in her lab. she wants to dissect the stars, and thor understands and thor knows that kind of hunger. but what thor also saw was her kindness towards a stranger, her resourcefulness and her determination and her courage. ‘you’re brave to do it,’ he says to her, and she is brave. she is a small woman with no powers and only her brain, and she’s coming with him to break into a government agency to retrieve her research. she is brave and she is kind and she wants, and she teaches him to be brave when he is weak, to be kind as default, and to want what is best for all instead of to want impulsively. thor learns humanity in order to learn kingship. thor learns humility and kindness as a default to counter his inner war and carnage, and so reaches serenity. thor had to shed his godhood and be a man first, in order to be a king, and it’s jane - not loki, not odin, not sif, not anyone, who teaches him how.

so thor and jane are integral to each other’s arcs; jane as the architect of the universe, thor as the last king of asgard. so where to from now? ‘we come from different worlds. maybe there’s a reason why they’re separate.’ jane is not going to be queen of asgard. we know that. she isn’t going to give up her world and her science to be thor’s wife, no matter what she gets to see, because the beauty of space, the grandeur of the universe, is contingent on what we don’t know, instead of what we do know. it’s about all the things left unsaid, all the things left undone, all the things left unexplored - space is the final frontier, but oh, there are so many more frontiers behind it. asgard, once the novelty is over and once the magic has been translated into science, is an antique. it’s a bygone world hinging on decadence and stagnation, and jane has new worlds to find and new sciences to muster. asgard is a cage, and there is almost no way jane is going to confine herself to a world about to end, when she can be a part of a world that will move forward, that will swallow entire galaxies in their hubris and want and hunger.

humanity. i’m talking about humanity.

born to be king: an overwrought reflection on loki's arc in the aftermath of thor 2

okay so i had the night to think it over and i’m gonna post my reaction in a bit but i would just like to state for the record that i really really really liked loki’s arc.

Keep reading

thewritersramblings  asked:

I don't know if you've addressed it before (most likely) but comments on the aesthetics of the wardrobe/costume choices/designs in Thor + Thor 2? (basically how they chose to outfit Norse gods+goddesses).

man i love it when people give me opportunities to ramble at length about this franchise i love with all my black heart

LET’S GET DOWN TO BUSINESS

  • first things first - asgardian armor is not functional. it is not realistic, and in a lot of ways it isn’t even practical. these are the outfits that we see thor, loki, the royal family in particular, and the inner circle in most frequently - sif and her metal armor even indoors, thor’s chainmail, loki in his. what this serves, then, is ceremony. their armor is ceremonial but it ties into their status and their power. thor’s armor is the first thing that odin strips when he takes away thor’s powers - which gives the sense that not only is the most functional part of the armor mostly ceremonial - since he favors bare arms when he isn’t being presented in court, or like, cold - but it is also somehow tied into his godhood. so therefore, we have a case where aesthetics literally ties into the metaphysical status of the wearer. a+ branagh.
  • now on to loki (i’ll talk about thor 2 later) as you may have guessed, loki is my favorite dude to talk about in terms of costuming, because he is a vain motherfucker who knows how to apparate clothing in and out of the ether, which means that how he looks in any given situation is exactly what he wants you to see. on earth he is a sharp dressed man - favors dolce&gabbana and very, very sharp tailoring, also scarfs for accent - but most interestingly: loki’s armor, especially, is not functional. in the avengers, he’s obviously gone a very very far route from where he’s come; fully rocking the nirvana emo god look, battleworn metal and a much more aggressive silhouette. but: his throat is exposed, he wears a spaulder over one shoulder despite him never handling close range weapons, woven leather for flexibility, vambraces obviously for decoration rather than protection, no back protection and a thin ring of gold in place of a real chestplate. his horns are much more menaching and bigger, but most of all - how he looks: namely, alien, fey, aggressive and incredibly physical in that he is literally eating up your space as he advances towards you completely sells him, despite the ridiculous cartoony look, as a god-king come down to tyrannize for your own good. everything is wider, taller, broader than in thor, where he was designed to be as tapering and small as possible next to hemsworth - not easy, considering that he’s actually older and around the same height - whereas this one, he’s trying to impose the sheer might of his personality on you, in trying to emulate the warrior ideal.
  • one of the great things in alan taylor helming thor 2 and trying to bring that game of thrones grittiness to asgard (apart from the gold corroding and then RAGNAROK) is the aesthetic changes in costuming. game of thrones, despite its huge plot failures recently, is great in terms of worldbuilding because of its attention to detail - the lannisters favor gold and red (cersei, in particular, had dresses in the early two seasons that looked quite byzantine) the tyrells blue in materials that look like silk and brocade which ties well into its eastern region, the starks in heavy furs because winter is coming, and dany across the narrow sea has dresses that look in turn persian and greco-roman. a lot of that organic aesthetic you can see from the trailer already - the drapery of thor’s blue cloak (HAVE I TALKED ABOUT HOW MUCH I LOVE THE THOR CAPE DEPARTMENT) the tarnishing of the silver disks into bronze on thor’s armor (now a lot more functional thanks to the crotch flap. but the throat is still exposed.) sif’s furs where she glares at hopefully loki, jane’s dark blue draped cloak which looks quite sage-like. most of all - frigga’s dress in her one shot, which has cersei lannister-esque armor layered over it. the thing that they are getting is that you need to peel back the gold from asgard, in realizing that it’s not the realm of the gods, only of men who fancy themselves god. underneath that there is still dirt.
  • complaints i do have: sif’s boob armor. NO. NO NO NO. WE DON’T NEED THAT SHIZ I FUCKING HATE BOOB ARMOR SO MUCH SHOOT ME KILL ME WITH A SPORK. also her hair being let down; one of the best things about the first film was that she, out of almost all the rest, has functional armor and hair that is up and out of her face (still grabbed easily, but meh) and now she has boob armor and loose hair? thank god there’s no cleavage but.
  • lastly but not least - the braid. odin has one, sif has one, thor has one, loki in that one picture has one. i’ve read here that braids can mark the person as being a warrior - ‘you’ve no right to a braid, you’ve won no victories yet.’ - and can mark the passing of a loved one. i trust the production team on this, mostly because wow can you imagine the heartbreak if they wore these braids to remember frigga? but also because the costuming department clearly worked in thor’s vambraces in the avengers to remember loki. so i trust them with this.
  • in summary: ORGANIC LOOKS. YES. CEREMONIAL ARMOR. YES. HELMETS AS CROWNS. YES. BRINGING THE GRIT TO ASGARD? MOTHERFUCKING YES.

anonymous asked:

this is probably a bit of a loaded question - but what are the main changes that you would have made to loki's character in thor 2? in what ways did the director screw up loki's character/story and what would you have done instead?

i never got the impression that loki suffered that much out of thor 2 at all?

like, my main beef with the film was the fact that it managed to undercut every. single. arc. APART from loki’s. loki came out FINE. loki got exactly what he wanted and he got his full emotional range and he got his conclusive chapter of his fully formed arc; he was born to be a king and he got the kingdom he always wanted. the only thing you can say that he was denied out of thor 2 was that they undercut the emotional resonance of frigga’s death to him by having him go after the throne instead of malekith but then again, that’s more about fridging frigga for an emotional response that got cut than it is about being ~unfair~ to loki.

so my problem with the film is that instead of focusing on thor - i am still! annoyed! about the fact that they pretty much ended thor 2 at the same point as they did thor 1; thor thinks loki is dead! thor goes to earth and will definitely at some unspecified point find out that his brother is still alive leading to more angst! ugh boring - it… was pretty much Loki: The Sequel to Tom Hiddleston’s SDCC Appearance. which is just so BORING it’s so BORING and there’s a reason why thor 2 is the lowest rated phase 2 film. tony stark can pull the ‘im a new man’ move in every movie and get away with it (see: he makes this speech at the end of EVERY iron man film) bc rdj is the 'godfather’ of the marvel movies, and he’s got tremendous star power and the iron man films are still consistently marvel’s highest earning standalones. thor doesn’t have as much mainstream appeal as tony stark, doesn’t have cap’s modern relevancy, doesn’t have the pure weird of guardians of the galaxy, but the conclusion you draw is not 'the only thing good about thor is loki’. that is the absolute wrong way to go about it. 

see, the reason why the winter soldier worked out so well is because the russos took a character who didn’t have tony stark’s mainstream appeal - i mean, it was pretty obvious pre cap 2 that evans is probably the least liked avenger for casual viewers, i mean come on - and decided to invest in him. they wrote him in a way that was interesting and appealing without diminishing his inner goodness, they made him snarky! but not at the cost of his kindness. they made him relevant! but not at the cost of the character that was set up in the first avenger. granted, neither cap or iron man has a popular villain like loki, but jesus, jesus, JESUS, that only means you had to step up your hero, not give the bigger arc or the most emotionally resonant part to your villain.

also, it doesn’t help that thor 2 felt really incomplete and was tonally all over the place and also fridged one woman, made another woman eye up another woman in a hostile way despite romantic interest never being implied in the first film, and had jane foster passed out for like ¼ of her otherwise admittedly awesome role.

I JUST

WANT THIS ON MY BLOG

FOREVER

anonymous asked:

This may seem like a really, really stupid question, but I just saw the second Thor movie and *sigh*. Do you believe that Loki has the ability deep (and I mean *deeeep*), down to be good? I understand that he will never be "good" in the way that Thor and Jane and everyone else is, but, do you believe that he has the potential to be "less evil?" (I'm sorry if this is a jumbled mess, but do you see what I'm trying to say here?)

honestly, i doubt it?

the great thing about the entire thor franchise for me isn’t so much about good or bad - because the movies do an amazing job of showing the fact that someone can be good AND bad; thor is kind and generous AND he is brutal and bloodthirsty, jane is incredibly intelligent and ambitious AND her ambition often leads her to be insensitive and dismissive, odin tries to be a good king and a good father AND he is blinded by his pride, frigga is loving and brave and intelligent AND she often overlooks the crimes of her children and husband.

and loki exemplifies this more than anyone else - he’s ambitious and driven and intelligent and strategic and he loves his brother and his mother and his father and he is capable of diplomacy and he’s talented and witty and charming AND he’s petty and violent and bloodthirsty and narcissistic and childish and cruel. he’s all of these things and none of them. it’s not about evil. it’s about the fact that loki has his own ends - as does anyone else - and his ends are human and his ends are understandable, it’s rather method, i think, that people take issue with. (obviously. i hope everyone takes issue with genocide.) the great thing about him is that he never compromises what he does by what he SHOULD do, if that makes any sense. there’s really no way to put a moral compass on him, there’s no way to say that what he’s doing at any point is evil or not because he will always follow his own code, and sometimes that leads him to assist thor, sometimes it leads him to pull some of the shit he does in the movie. he’s always, always, beautifully narcissistically consistent. he’s always himself. i don’t think he can be any less capricious without compromising his character.

so what i’m really trying to say, is ‘fuck less evil’, enjoy the ride.

anonymous asked:

what do you think are the ten most important tropes of thor and the ten most important of loki?

LITERALLY THE FACE I JUST MADE

okay i’m going to do this in bunch otherwise it’s going to end up a ‘why thor and loki are the most heartbreaking douchesticks on this side of the nine realms’ manifesto but

  1. thor and loki as opposing forces that are fundamentally the same: a lot of the fanon surrounding these two cast thor as either this awful despotic knowingly abusive asshole, or a dumb puppy. i prefer the first over the second - because honestly, fandom’s tendency towards detoothing a fucking norse god of frat parties and brutality is astounding, and it erases his own agency from his own narrative. thor isn’t nice. thor isn’t dumb - in his own way, he is as vicious and as cunning as loki; the only difference is that he is brutally honest about being brutal and about being himself, he doesn’t coat his intention in rhetoric or in fancy flattery; thor is always himself. thor isn’t a nice puppy golden retriever; thor is kind, he is active, and he is elemental. loki is cunning and loki is intelligent and vicious and brutal and he is as intensely physical and visceral as thor; kingship and leadership had been bred into their bones. there is nothing soft about these two; even their kindnesses are brutally open and brutally raw - thor’s kindness towards jane is governed by respect and by the realization that she has the same kind of intense intelligence that his brother has, only she doesn’t use it to like, commit genocide. everything about these two are equal which is why the great tragedy of the two of them is that loki had been told from birth that they are not equal, and so dominance and power over another is what they’ll spend the rest of their lives trying to achieve, when they had been equals from the start; in and of themselves.
  2. king/kingmaker, god/mythmaker: JUST!!! the deleted scene from the script says that odin’s plan was always to have thor as king and loki by his side to give him counsel. which of course, is kind of sad for loki since asgard places so much weight on individual glory and he’d have to serve thor from the throne’s shadow for the rest of his life - his rebellion from that is probably to be expected; you can’t really shroud someone in shadow in a realm of light and expect them to be grateful. but the real point here is that neither brother is complete without the other. not as people, and certainly not as kings - in the kind of monarchy that asgard is, the king has to be bigger and better than the commons. kingship, traditionally, is based in myth; that’s why the ancient kings linked themselves to gods, that’s why hatshepsut’s temple depicted amun conceiving her, that’s why alexander the great and caesar and augustus claimed descent from the gods. in a nation that is literally, the realm of the gods, the king has to be bigger and brighter; thor has that by nature of himself, but even the most godlike kings need to be gilded, and that kind of myth can only be spread by words, not might. thus: mythmaker. now, on the technical side of things: thor has no gift for words. i don’t doubt that if it was loki in his position then he would have been able to talk his way out of banishment - but thor, his greatest strength and power is his honesty, but it’s that honesty that dooms him in matters of diplomacy. he means well, he knows emotions and he knows people, but somehow the words get lost between his heart and his mouth and when dealing with loki words are very important, and thor almost always says the wrong thing. “you give up the tesseract, you give up this poisonous dream, you come home.” you know what he means and hemsworth delivers, but then to loki, it could easily have meant that he only came looking for the tesseract and didn’t give two shits about him. thor deals in absolutes, loki deals in the silences between words, and loki can twist words to his advantage: ‘you threw me into the abyss, etc.’ to the point where thor doesn’t even rebut it but accepts it. loki deals in the implications of words and the unspoken power, thor can’t get past his own honesty, and so his greatest advantage at this point is to rely on his mythic image and learn how to make deals. he’s trying to kingmake himself, but it won’t get far. and loki, by this point, isn’t coming back.
  3. messiah king/dog of war: ‘like an earthquake, i will come’ motherfucker. thor is the very core of what asgard is fundamentally about, about peace, about might, about protection and about being the watchdog of the universe; under odin, it’s fallen into stasis and arrogance, but thor has learnt to overcome that through his love of the humans and their striving for the stars. he’s warmed his innate humanity to the point where he understands the worth of even a tiny planet like earth or even a planet of traditional enemies like jotunheim; in aiding the humans he is stripping away his father’s thesis and his father’s rotting kingdom, understanding that progress is key. so thor marks a return to the basis that asgard is built on instead of the pax asgardia it’s become; not perfect, but perfectible. loki, on the other hand, is actively unsuited to be king. inside him are opposing desires for control and for chaos. and chaos always wins out - that’s why earth was a failure, that’s why he’s going to revert; because he doesn’t want a kingdom, he had never wanted a kingdom - he wanted an assertion of his own worth, and then a whipping post so he could play out his inner turmoil on a cosmic scale. and loki enjoys power, he enjoys chaos. he enjoys violence; as ari had said, and he enjoys blood. it’s not so much in the act as the reaction (btw, hiddleston played the eye-gouging scene in a way that can only be described as post-coital. that is basically the summation of this character: he is having sexual tension with chaos.) and if he complies with thor’s offer - which he probably does, as seen in the trailer - then it is a return to pure menace, to pure unthinking violent chaos. and then soon he’s going to betray thor, he’s going to take the chaos into his own hands, which is why the ragnarok’s such a simple yet brilliant endgame for him; he’s not king of a kingdom, but he is the king of chaos. it’s the perfect amalgamation of the two things that he most enjoys: control and chaos.
  4. the two gods on the shoulder of jane foster: anyone who’s followed me for any amount of time knows i want foster theory leading to the decimation of the gods. so leading in from that - i’d like to see loki become somehow the champion of humanism, pushing the humans forward to burn asgard down and salt the earth, not because he has any genuine love for them but because he sees progress in them, he sees them as a way to cleanse the realms, asgard be damned. on jane’s other shoulder is thor and his futile attempts to burn asgard clean in time before the humans come, yet ironically he is the one who invites the doom to asgard simply because of how much he loves jane (progress), and how much he loves loki (chaos). 
  5. i don’t know if this counts as a trope but BUT thor and loki as each other’s fall and rise: i read this one line in a fic that says thor always falls for loki’s lies because he’s afraid that the one day he stops listening is the day that his brother’s telling the truth. the eternal push and shove, the eternal dance on the line where neither brother can push themselves to dig the final hole or drive in the final knife is what i fucking live for. so the two of them, one rises and one falls and they are never on the same playing ground, on a level of amiable equality simply because it’s been fated - be still my heart.

i’m pretty sure that’s not ten but MEH. this got super long either way.

thoughts on thor 2 part ii: shower edition
  • i am still getting my head around the fact that if the spoilers are true then HEY BASICALLY WE ARE GETTING A THOR/LOKI/JANE THREESOME ROADTRIP THROUGH MOUNTAINS AND FORESTS????
  • WHERE LOKI IS STILL BITTER AND AN ASSHOLE AND MAKES ASSHOLE REMARKS TOWARDS JANE BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY BRINGS UP REALLY GOOD POINTS RE: THOR’S IMMORTALITY JANE’S MORTALITY
  • BROWNIE POINTS IF THEY SOMEHOW SNEAK A HAMMER/PEEN JOKE IN THERE
  • and thor yells at loki for disrespecting jane and jane doesn’t really care that much because she’s getting real good data and intergalactic viking anthropology details that she can trade with the humanities department researchers for their deserts or whatever. also the dudes are working shirtless gathering firewood and shame they don’t have internet access in asgard because darcy would really appreciate the pics
  • maybe for shits and gigs she’ll send it to erik too
  • scratch that, she’ll definitely send them to erik
  • can you just imagine the response tho: ‘what is wrong with you one of them brainwashed me
  • and loki makes a few off handed asshole remarks that sound creepily possessive of thor and jane makes a note regarding homosociality in asgard and too intimate sibling relationships
  • and when loki inevitably betrays them maybe she feels a bit sad because yes loki was an asshole yes loki was a raging misogynist with a weird attachment to his brother but loki also smiled when he told stories and pointed out constellations in the stars that one night when thor pulled out the mead and loki seems to almost get that humans aren’t as great as thor thinks they are now that he’s partly sane again
  • so when loki escapes and when loki stabs thor and steals a few artefacts before evaporating into the darker parts of space and thor becomes king and is missing a mother and a father and a brother on his right hand side
  • jane
  • almost
  • feels
  • bad

i want to beat it with a stick until it falls off

but that being said, the anti-woobifying brigade is like 100x more annoying. loki is hands down my favourite character in mcu, i’m not denying it. and i don’t think that i cut him any slack in acknowledging what a giant asshole failure he is pretty much 99% of the time. that dude is a dickwad and if i met him in real life i would probably want to kill him but refrain cos he’s a god and i would die. but that being said, i think it’s important to acknowledge how deeply scarred his character is, how complex he is as a narrative creation, without losing focus of what he actually is.

  • i don’t think you can really love loki for what he is - the motherfucking god of mischief, the god of chaos, the agent of destruction, the god who kills god in the final dusk - without acknowledging and even embracing what is fundamentally his core: the chaos of him. the uncontrollable desire to destroy and to kill, to play out his inner turmoils on a grand cosmic scale. it’s a choice that the mcu has very very decidedly made, not only in how they frame his actions, but in hiddleston’s tiniest performance choices - think about his tiny almost post-coital exhale of breath after he stabs someone’s eye out. he is actually having sexual tension with chaos. why would anyone in their right mind want to reduce that to ‘he’s just acting out cos he has daddy issues’????
  • but that said: daddy issues. i honestly think that loki is really really bad with internalizing and processing his emotions. he’s not like thor: thor flips over a table and comes up with a stupid plan, but at least he doesn’t bottle up anything he feels inside. he is so brashly, honestly open all the time; there’s not a hint of corners or caprice in him. and no matter what his actions end up accomplishing, the end result is that he is fundamentally healthy as an adult. emotionally. whereas loki forces himself into control, he chooses his words down to the syllable and the rhythm, he schools his face into the minuscule movements, he is completely and absolutely not in control, but reined back into suppression, because lest we forget he is also the god of chaos. he has two warring instincts inside him: the urge to win and the urge to destroy, both of which can’t be reconciled with each other. and so his daddy issues, with all these stigmas in asgardian society reflected onto himself, coupled with the knowledge that thor is always going to be faster and braver and stronger and the first heir, and the first choice, is internalized inside him and bottled up for centuries.
  • and because he doesn’t have an outlet - he resorts to his natural state. it’s inevitable. his bad childhood isn’t even so much a cause for his mania but almost… that his mania is the cause of his childhood. his fall is inevitable. it’s cosmically fated; there was no way it could have happened any other way. the notion that he needs a hug to rein him back from his innate universally assigned dark to thor’s light, chaos to thor’s order is flawed at best and honestly makes no goddamned sense at worst.
  • why the hell would you stan loki without the mania?
  • so in conclusion: i hate that sentiment so much. but at the same time, loki’s past is completely and deeply rooted in loki’s present, which is rooted in his future which is rooted in his past. everything comes back to him; his life is a walking ouroboros, he’s cyclical. he’s a musing on time (which is what he brings to asgard!) and he’s a musing on the inevitability of fate. loki does because loki because loki because loki.