9worldstales - Tumblr blog

9worldstales · 5 months

Text

Loki S2 Review

I rewatched S2 and I liked it even more on the second watch. I'm giving it a 6 out of 10 in average(8 for the finale). Since I didn't post a review week by week like for S1, I'm just going to talk about the main things I liked/disliked

The Improvements & Things I liked:

The pace and the narrative's tone and framing have changed. While the pace drops sometimes, these moments aren't as boring as S1. Meaning you don't want to constantly check when it's going to end(like you know, S1 and especially 1x06). The narrative is neutral and doesn't villain code Loki and hero code others. It doesn't turn Loki into a clown, a punching bag or someone who deserves humiliation(I guess they've done enough of that in S1). On the contrary the characters are shown as flawed people, with Loki being the most moral, considerate, logical and heroic amongst them.

They stated bluntly in episode 1, that what TVA used to do, were atrocities. That they were killing numerous innocent people who had a right to live their lives as they chose.

The characters were three dimensional, likable or tolerable despite their actions in S1. They showed remorse for the things they had done. Although the way the narrative chose to go about it in S1 still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It shouldn't happen to you for you to realize sth is wrong. But at least it was shown that the characters weren't slaughtering people mindlessly and some of them deep down knew it was wrong. Although the fact that they still did it, because of the "greater good", and "woe is me! It's not a comfort it's a burden" attitude about it is repulsive.

OB, Casey and Timely being funny, cute nerds and fanboys :D

Loki using amazing magical stuff and DID YOU SEE THE GREEN MAGICAL GLOW IN HIS EYES?*incoherent screaming*

No Romance. It was unnecessary and rushed in S1. This time they focused more on Loki needing friends and that was definitely a better choice imo and what they should have gone for in S1 too.

Sylvie's actions and personality framed as what they were. She wasn't put on a pedestal as this amazing different FeMaLe version of Loki. She was framed as a flawed character with wrong and right actions and beliefs.

Loki and Sylvie's talk in the pie land, about change, hope, fixing what's broken and being gods. That sigh before Loki saying "We are gods" with all the weight of the world on his shoulders. Wonderful acting.

The ending and its epic soundtrack.

Topics & Things That Could Have Been Handled Better:

The Topic of New York Invasion

"Sometimes a rage builds up and you just gotta let it out. Do you remember that time I was so angry with my father and my brother, I went down to Earth and I held the whole of New York city hostage with an alien army? Tried to use the mind stone on Tony Stark? It didn't work so I threw him off the building. It wasn't tactical. I lost it"

On the surface it looks like Loki's saying that's why he attacked New York and probably most people accept this without a second thought.

But the context of the scene matters. We see during the interrogation Mobius loses his temper. He was worried about Loki getting angry, but he was the one who loses his temper and hits Brad. Loki tries to calm him down by sympathizing with him to try and see what caused his behavior. It's the same thing he did for Thor in the first movie, before coronation and after it, while Thor was nervous and angry. What he says about New York while isn't the whole truth, it also isn't untrue. He was angry with Thor and Odin but as we know his anger and thoughts were influenced by the scepter. We also know Loki doesn't like to talk about his time with Thanos or being tortured. Instead he uses a half-truth, sth that is in character for Loki.

So the scene can be rationalized by this analysis but it's still annoying that this analysis is even needed. They should have been clear about the scepter's influence especially when mcu confirmed it.

Loki thinking about Thor's change as being a weakness. While both Thor and Loki were groomed and taught to consider being soft as a weakness, that wasn't Loki's true feelings. At least I don't think someone who prefers words and magic-that are considered a weakness in Asgard-over brawn thinks like that. His goal in the first movie was to goad Thor into fighting him. So the line should have been sth like this: "Asgard taught us being soft is a weakness, so I used that against Thor to goad him into a fight. I said he's gone soft…"

Plotholes and things that weren't explained.

Why Loki and Sylvie weren't sent to their original timelines like others? And why neither of them showed any interest in seeking their family? You're telling me Loki wants to see these people he knows for 10 seconds more than Frigga or Thor? OOC.

Sylvie's sudden mastery of magic since 1x06 isn't explained. She didn't know much, but then suddenly could do everything Loki did. I mean I can headcanon that her and Loki linking their power taught her some things but these sudden developments without any explanations are annoying.

Loki's genderfluidity. No mention of it at all. Although I believe that no representation is better than bad representation. And you should leave a topic alone if you don't understand it, otherwise you're gonna mess it up. Because bad rep can be more harmful. And so maybe it was a good thing mcu let that one go. But they could still fix it with some shapeshifiting, explaining its difference with illusions and Loki confirming that he is comfortable in her female form.

Loki's clothes. It's probably not that important in comparison with other issues but I really hate that beige suit. Why Sylvie who doesn't even want to be Loki and wasn't in Asgard since childhood changes into an Asgardian outfit for a fight and not Loki? Yeah I get it. It was because of the last reveal and transformation and finding his identity blah blah blah but at least they could have gave him his old Asgardian clothes or he could change the suit's color ugh

Criticism & Things I didn't like:

The ooc moments for Loki in some comedic scenes. Especially in episode 5. While the character has a comedic potential, it's not based on clownery or clumsiness. The best humorous moments for Loki are the ones where he outwits others, use sarcastic language or he is being outwitted despite his careful plans.

Certain emotional stakes aren't clear from the start. The audience know that saving TVA is the right thing because it protects all the freed timelines but they don't know why they should care? Or more accurately why Loki is so emotionally invested in this goal. That gets answered in episode 5 and while Loki's talk with Sylvie is a good emotional scene, the fact that it's stated so late in the story, makes the first few episodes boring when it comes to saving TVA.

The main reason the emotional stakes aren't clear(at least for me), I believe is because most of the people Loki call them his "friends", haven't done anything to either deserve his friendship or aren't close enough to be considered a friend. Let alone someone Loki tries to move heaven and hell to be with them, instead of for example trying to find his brother and family. It is an issue which again is rooted in S1 and carried to S2. What happened in S1 wasn't therapy or a healthy friendship.

However, Loki being loyal to anyone who show him an ounce of affection or him being moral enough to try to save people are in character for him and that's sth good about it.

The torture scene.

The trick Mobius and Loki pulled was predictable as hell. I didn't even doubted Loki in TDW, let alone here. And even though I didn't believe for one second that Loki's actually going to hurt the guy, and he wasn't shown enjoying it, I still hated that he went along with the torture idea Mobius had come up with. Especially considering the fact that he was a victim of torture himself and never shown any sign in canon that he would torture someone. So yeah I hated that scene.

And why that scene was even necessary? Loki could get into X-5's mind when they weren't in TVA. We know he is capable of it. He did it both through mind stone in Avengers and in TR. how else they were going to delve into Mobius' problem though smh

But alright let's say they needed a scene like that. Still the whole Brad believing Mobius is against torture, and Loki's the one who would be in favor of it, is so fucking ridiculous. Any way you look at it, it has always been TVA and Mobius who did any torture we've seen during the two seasons. The tortures that Loki endured might I add. Even in the previous scene, it was Loki who didn't hit Brad and only tried to intimidate him non-physically by acting as a villain. It was Mobius who hit him, who was shown more affected by Brad's insults. So logically the scene they had planned to fool Brad, should have been played completely the opposite way. By having Mobius do the torture. At least it was recognized that the torture idea was from Mobius and both he and Loki gave the credits for it to Mobius.

Verity Willis. Hunter B15 unlike the Verity in comics, doesn't have a close friendship with Loki or truth detector powers. Not having a good friend like comics Verity for Loki, was such a wasted opportunity in the series.

Mobius saying to Loki "You're a man of action...". That was such a stupid, unnecessary line. As if the main difference between Loki and Thor wasn't Thor acting before thinking, and Loki thinking and planning before acting. While Loki is also a man of action, he is first and foremost a man of strategy. The only plausible explanation imo is that Mobius said it to not feel useless in comparison with Loki and his skills.

"Thor's not that tall". Yeah, no. I don't think Loki's reaction to seeing Thor and Odin's statues would be that. Knowing his brother and family were murdered by the very same people he's working with now. Remind me again why he's considering them "FrIeNdS"? Someone really needs to explain the concept of friendship to Loki. Or rather the writers of this show.

And while we are at it. Let's talk about how Loki's past and identity issues were completely swapped under the rug as if they were all magically fixed and didn't matter anymore. As if those weren't the most important part of his journey. Another issue rooted in S1.

Final Thoughts(for now :D)

Season 2 was definitely better than season 1. Not perfect, and not for those who care about OG Loki's issues. They set him on a completely different path in S1 and they messed up any chance to actually delve into his problems. So in S2 we're having a character that we're supposed to accept has moved on from certain issues, and now tries to find what he wants and where he belongs. Still, I think that they listened to the criticism for once as they tried to fix some of the problems of S1. After many years it didn't feel like that the creators hate the character, or using him as a prop, or a plot device. It was a story about Loki. A bittersweet story for the god of stories.

59 notes · View notes

9worldstales · 6 months

Photo

I agree. Even when they're trying to keep things tame, the comics like to remark on how bad of a father Odin is to Thor.

Thor #10 Writer: Jason Aaron

649 notes · View notes

9worldstales · 6 months

Note

Did u see the article saying the plan is to reunite thor and loki. Ehat idiots

Link to the article.

This seems no more than an attempt to promote season 2 of the Loki series in order to try and lure as many viewers as possible for the show and the rest of the MCU.

I love the fact that Marvel needs to hype up their universe by talking about "old" characters. What is it, the new ones weren't written interestingly enough to get people to watch, Feige? 😂😂

But I want to share one quote from Wright that is included in the article I linked:

"I always kind of think of the TVA as our time-based multiverse version of SHIELD that it's like we can use them in so many places and tell so many cool stories."

The TVA is a version of Shield? Oh honey, no. The TVA is Hydra. And I'm saying this knowing full well that Shield weren't good and there's a reason those nazis infiltrated them so easily, but... to hear someone from Marvel claim the TVA is a version of Shield is absolutely NUTS.

30 notes · View notes

9worldstales · 6 months

Text

Oh. THIS:

Exactly.

418 notes · View notes

9worldstales · 6 months

Text

youtube

#Youtube

3 notes · View notes

9worldstales · 6 months

Text

youtube

#Youtube

2 notes · View notes

9worldstales · 6 months

Text

Give this person an award!

642 notes · View notes

9worldstales · 7 months

Note

When Sylvie asked Loki: "Why aren't we seeing this the same way?" There's nothing inherently "childish" about that question, and it doesn't imply that she is unwilling to compromise. Understanding why we see things differently is part of compromising. To automatically perceive that question as a signal of bigotry only proves your own social ineptitude and discourages people from asking for clarity; how are we supposed to discuss our different perspectives if I'm not allowed to ask why you see things the way you do?

I'd rather just blindly follow the other person's will than be misunderstood so harshly. Your misinterpretation has given me a whole new social anxiety: "What if just asking for clarification makes me look bad?" Now I need to discuss this specific phrase with anyone I intend to have any kind of relationship with. Thanks a lot.

Besides, nobody ever criticizes "heroes" who blatantly refuse entertain the "villain's" ideology; it's okay to be uncompromising when you already have enough information to know that your way is correct/their way is wrong.

Lastly, being a couple isn't "all about" finding compromises; that is just a circumstantial facet of most relationships. Being a couple is all about sharing all of life together, which shouldn't be conditional upon anything, not even the ability or willingness to compromise. If we couldn't agree or reconcile on anything else, our relationship is still complete and successful if we agree on that.

So dear anon who's not an anon because you didn't content yourself with sending me an an ask, no, you actually also messaged me the same thing so I do know actually who you are, we've a lot to unpack.

Let's start with the Marvel bit and not with the personal bit.

If you had read carefully what I wrote, you would have realized I didn't plan to say that asking people why they see something in a certain way is wrong, quite the contrary, what I implied is that I interpret Sylvie's question as rethorical, not a genuine effort to know why Loki is thinking differently, but a complain he's just not blindly agreeing with her.

The context of that sentence isn't one that say that Sylvie wants to understand Loki. She has just accused him of wanting the throne, she said she doesn't believe him and that she was wrong in trusting him. The context doesn't imply she wants clarification, it implies she doesn't like he thinks differently from her.

By the way, before she said so, he had already told her WHY he thought differently from her, so she knew his own reasons for thinking differently.

Honestly, it was such a long, detailed meta the one from which you're decontestualizing that quote, I'm surprised you managed to misinterpret so badly what I said but whatever.

English is not my mother language, maybe I used poor sentences.

Long story short, I interpret the scene this way, you're welcome to interpret the scene whatever way you want.

"Loki" is a series, it exists for us to enjoy, analyze and whatever and we're all free to have different opinions about it.

It's opinions, not absolute truth and I'm always open to discuss mine.

Now, the personal attack.

While I think asking for clarifications is a great thing, that's not what you're doing.

What you're doing and aren't welcome to do is to read a post in MY BLOG, where I'm goddamn free to write what I want, HUGELY MISINTERPRED what I said, decide you disagree on what you misinterpreted and then barge in MY MESSAGE BOARD and also in MY ASK to be rude with me and impose on me your worldview.

I find amusing how you try to imply I try to discourage asking people for clarification when you clearly aren't interested in asking me for clarifications, even though you don't know the single thing about me, about my life, about my psychological status.

You just decided from a sentence I wrote and that you misinterpreted that I must be socially inept and felt obliged to write me TWICE to let me know about it and accusing me of things that are merely the result of you failing to correctly understand what I said.

If this isn't a deliberate attempt aiming at trying to discourage people from voicing their thoughts on something ON THEIR OWN BLOG, I don't know what it is.

And now news flesh. You prefer to 'blindly follow the other person's will than be misunderstood so harshly'? That's you.

We don't have to be the same. We clearly aren't. If you think I will now follow your ideas so as not to be misunderstood by you, a complete stranger that thinks he can barge here and tell me what I am, think twice.

Also I find highly ironic you say "Lastly, being a couple isn't "all about" finding compromises;" and that, to prove your point you say "If we couldn't agree or reconcile on anything else, our relationship is still complete and successful if we agree on that."

Sweetheart, agreeing to disagree is a compromise.

In case you don't know a compromise is a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute.

Dictionary's words, not mine.

Agreeing to disagree means we give up on changing the other person's opinion in order to end the discussion. It's often judged not the best compromise, in some cases it's even judged a terrible compromise, but it's still a compromise.

So let's compromise and agree we'll never be on the same page.

And please, don't feel obliged trying answering, I automatically ban rude people who assume rude things on me, so this is the end of this discussion.

2 notes · View notes

9worldstales · 7 months

Text

Why Thor: Ragnarok is remake and doesn't fit to other movies of Thor

I will talking only about chronology in this post. Hela shows ''true history'' of Asgard. Well, but we have one problem. We watched Thor and Thor: Dark World. This both movies are the denial of Hela's words.

The frescoes show the winning couple. Odin and his daughter conquering the world. Look at Odin. A white, senile beard… interesting… because we saw what Odin looked like over a thousand years earlier at the time of Loki's birth.

Here later with both sons.

And here as King of Asgard when Thor and Loki are grown men.

The war with Jotunheim was in 965 AD.

And Odin looked completely different at that time than he did in 2011-2013.

Next thing… is the case of Borr and the war with Malekith.

5,000 thousand years ago, Borr was still the king of Asgard and fought against the Dark Elves. Interesting thing, his heir is not with him. Odin is not present during this key battle. He seems to truly believe that his father defeated Malekith.

Why isn't Odin present during this battle? We have two options… and they are related to age. Either Odin was too young to fight battles (Asgardians do not have children during battle, Mr. Taika Waititi! If Loki saw that scene with his mother, he would tear your head off!) or he was a very young man who was just old enough to be regent during his father's absence… which would make him roughly the age of Thor and Loki in Thor (2011).

However, both situations quite exclude the possibility of Odin being an old man with an unstoppable desire for power and an adult daughter.

Even assuming that Borr died quickly after this battle and Odin already had a teenage/adolescent daughter… that still doesn't fill the gaps. Because Odin was not the old man shown in the frescoes. And if he had access to the fountain of youth, he would use it again rather than allow Hela to be released?

Failure to solve the problem of Hela also puts the events in Thor 1 in a strange twist. Odin actually believes that it's time for Thor to be king. Why? He put off Odinsleep, Frigga really thought he might not wake up from this. He probably also realized that his strength was weakening. And… he didn't tell any of his sons… when I die, your bloodthirsty half-sister will suddenly appear and want to kill you? What kind of ruler does this?

My conclusion : Thor Ragnarok is remake.

We see the actual history of Asgard… up to 2015… where Age of Ultron still honors this timeline.

Overall timeline of Thor 1, Avengers, Thor Dark World, (in the meantime movies related to Avengers like Winter Soldier or Iron Man 3) and Avengers: Age of Ultron. After that, we never see any further events. I would also like to point out that Thanos in Guardians of Galaxy and Thanos from Infinity War are two different characters. The last time we see Thanos from Guardians of Galaxy is in the scene with the gauntlet at the end of Age of Ultron. Thanos in Infinity War is nothing like the previous Thanos.

Well, Thor is probably still looking for those stones, and Loki is preparing a surprise for Thanos in their universe.

The further timeline, starting with Ragnarok, has completely different events and one could even say a different universe.

168 notes · View notes