#the person next to me kept spoiling and compared it to the game like dude stfu for a second | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

superman86to99 · 3 years

Photo

Superman #84 (December 1993)

Superman takes a short Paris vacation! Like, one day short. What's the worst that could happen?

Oh, man.

So, for the past few issues, we've been hearing about children being abducted in Metropolis. Now we see that they're being kept inside a giant toy house by some creepy bald man in Quasimodo clothes who seems to be obsessed with toys -- a "Man of Toys," if you will. Side note: no wonder the children haven't been found... all the articles about them are just gibberish! (See clip below.)

The kidnapper thinks that these kids' parents don't deserve them, and that they're much better off here, in an underground hideout with a man who threatens to starve them if they don't play with him. (And I do mean literally play, with action figures and stuff.) Meanwhile, as these children cry for help, Superman is having the time of his life. While helping move a stranded ship with some huge-ass chains, Superman spots a sunken galleon with a treasure chest inside and fantasizes about keeping the booty...

...before turning it over to the authorities anyway, the big boy scout. Then, he wakes up Lois at 6 AM and tells her they should go to Paris right now, which usually means your significant other is having a mental breakdown, but in this case they can actually do it. And so, after deciding that he deserves to use his powers for fun every once in a while, Superman and Lois drop everything and fly to France with super-speed for the rest of the day/issue.

Anyway: back to the child abduction! Cat Grant and her son Adam attend a Halloween party at Adam's school, but there's a disturbed weirdo in a hideous costume lurking among the crowd. Yes, I'm talking about Jimmy Olsen in his Turtle Boy suit.

Shortly after that, a guy in a dinosaur costume (see, all the creeps are dressed as reptiles) lures Adam out of the party with the promise of "superb video games." What child could resist that? Of course, that turns out to be the kidnapper and Adam ends up in his hideout along with the rest of the missing children and, worst of all, not a single "Lextendo" console.

The kidnapper gets angry at Adam when he refers to the toys at the hideout as "old-fashioned junk" (he was REALLY looking forward to those video games), and even angrier when Adam tries to free the other kids. Adam is brave and puts up a good fight, but...

And those were Adam Morgan's final words. "Uh-oh."

Next, we have a pretty harrowing scene of Detective Turpin letting Cat know Adam’s body was found, and Jimmy and Perry White taking her to the morgue to identify the body (most people probably wouldn't bring their former boss to something like that, but Perry sadly knows more than most about losing a kid). As for Lois and Clark, they were gone so long that the Daily Planet had time to print a headline about the murders. The issue ends when the lovebirds walk into the office smiling like two people who just spent the night fooling around in Paris... only to feel like jackasses when they find out what happened.

To be continued!

Character-Watch:

And that's it for little Adam Morgan who, unlike the also tragically diseased Jerry White, didn't even get any post-death appearances. Adam went from a little kid scared of Superman, to a huge brat, to a character who was approaching likeability as of last week. That's why I hate it when DC kills off young characters like Adam or Liam Harper: in long-form storytelling, children represent potential. Look at how much Wally West or Dick Grayson evolved over the years compared to their mentors! Sure, there's a huge probability that Adam would have ended up disappearing from comics for 25 years anyway, but who knows, maybe we'd now know him as Teen Gangbuster or something. GangbusTEEN.

This issue also represents a turning point for the kidnapper, who is never named or seen clearly in the story itself but I don't think I'm shocking anyone by spoiling the fact that he's Toyman (it's in the cover, for one thing). In his last two appearances before this storyline, Toyman helped Superman save some kids from Sleez and looked genuinely sad to learn about Superman's death, so this is a pretty dramatic change for the character. We'll find out why he went from big softy to child killer in Superman #85 (but don't get your hopes up).

Plotline-Watch:

The most disturbing part of the issue, all things considered, is still the part where Toyman climbs into a giant crib and hugs a huge stuffed bunny. Look at serial killer Tommy Pickles here:

Don Sparrow says: “Even with the upgrade, Toyman is still just a man in a suit, a common complaint about Superman’s rogues gallery.” Funny you should say that, because I JUST shared an old Wizard interview in our Twitter in which Dan Jurgens talks about how Doomsday came out of his frustration with the fact that most Superman villains are dudes in suits (plus other interesting tidbits from the era, like how it was actually Roger Stern’s idea to bring back Hank Henshaw, so check out that link!).

Don again: “The entire Superman storyline of this issue feels like filler. Diving for buried treasure and soaring off to Paris -- it all feels like wasted time next to the Adam storyline.” I have a theory that the entire ship sequence is there as an excuse to put Superman in those big chains and make that Spawn joke (which I didn’t get until now, since I’ve always read this issue in Spanish).

Superman says that pulling that big ship was "a little easier than expected" -- that's either another hint that there's something going on with Superman's powers since he came back, or a subtle dig at the state of American ship manufacturing.

Another adorable "window tap" scene for the books, and this is the sexiest one so far. Is it me or has Jurgens started copying more than just Teri Hatcher's hairdo from Lois & Clark? (For anyone who thinks Lois has gotten implants, I refer you to this clip.)

While in Paris, Lois asks Clark if he's ever wondered what would happen if his rocket had landed in other countries. Don: “Clark’s conversation with Lois sounds like a bunch of concepts for Elseworlds stories. We eventually would see a Russian Superman, and a British Superman, but not yet the French Superman. (Hire us, DC!)” Yep, got my French Superman pitch ready, Jim Lee. Or just let us do Russian Superman again, since Red Son wasn’t even the first time you published that idea.

Don once more: “Another thing that makes no sense about the ‘new’ Toyman is his resentment of technological toys—when in previous appearances he himself had deadly high-tech toys to vex Superman over the years.” I especially resent his hatred of video game consoles. Incidentally, I wonder what types of games are available for Adam’s beloved Lextendo. Star Lex 64? Mega Man Lex? Sonic the Hedgehog 3 & Knuckles & Lex?

No one is more upset at Lois and Clark for going AWOL than Whit. NO ONE. He's so furious that his usually grey mustache turned black.

Patreon-Watch:

As always, shout out to our patrons, Aaron, Murray Qualie, Chris “Ace” Hendrix, britneyspearsatemyshorts, Patrick D. Ryall, Samuel Doran, Bheki Latha, Mark Syp, Ryan Bush and Raphael Fischer! Last month’s exclusive Patreon article was about the recently unearthed sequel to Superman 64 for the PlayStation, featuring Metallo, Parasite, and Lois looking even hotter than in this issue:

Hot damn. Find out more at https://www.patreon.com/superman86to99!

And believe it or not, Don Sparrow has even more to say about this issue. Read his section after the jump:

Art-Watch (by @donsparrow):

I should start off my section with a big caveat: I flat out hate this issue. There were several weird decisions made in the post-Death-and-Return era (most of them along the same lines of making the Superman titles more grim-and-gritty), and this story was one of the worst of them. My theory is that, despite the praise and record-breaking sales of the Death and Return storyline, the Superman creative team felt pressure to have more extreme storylines, perhaps in response to the wildly successful Image books coming out at the time. Between this story, and the upcoming “Spilled Blood” storyline, the Super books take a hard—but temporary--turn into more violent and upsetting storytelling—even though these stories are by the same writers as the previous few years. While death has always been a part of comics, and Superman comics was no exception, there is a jarring glibness and unfeeling toward the way violence is handled in these pages that is quite different from the stories that preceded it. It’s made all the more jarring by the fact that well-established personalities suddenly veer wildly out of character, Toyman chief among them.

We start with the cover, and while it is technically well-drawn (by the familiar team of Jurgens and Breeding) it’s also a very upsetting visual. I think they should have gone with the pieta type pose with Adam and Superman, OR the scary badass bowie-knife Toyman (who apparently has a Cheshire cat smile now) but not both. But the cover is a good hint at the tonal dissonance of the comic within.

We open with a splash of the now-extreme 90s looking Toyman, with his serial killer shaved head and spooky cloak, ignoring the pleas of hungry kids he has locked up in a tiny jail cell for days at a time (if that sentence doesn’t ring alarm bells for how wrong this is for a Superman story, I don’t know what will). For much of the issue Toyman’s eyes are obscured by glare on his lenses, further de-humanizing a character who was once one of Superman’s more empathetic bad guys.

We cut to Superman tugboating a huge tanker with giant chains and it’s a cool visual (one repeated in the Batman V Superman film). It feels especially out of place to focus on, given how upsetting this issue is otherwise, but throughout the whole comic, Lois is drawn smoking hot, especially on the two page spread on pages 9-10.

The scenes depicting the actual murder, while still wildly out of place in a Superman comic, are well done, and give a real sense of darkness and menace, which I suppose is the intent. Perhaps my least favourite visual is the Big Bird stuffie, silently bearing witness to what’s about to occur.

The edges of the panels on get more slashy and off-kilter (to me, looking very much like the layouts more typically seen in Image comics of the day) and I suppose I appreciate the restraint of how little Dan Jurgens shows of the death of a child, showing only a bloody slash on a black background. This is still a pretty baroque image for a Superman comic, but certainly less violent than it could be, given what is happening.

Cat Grant’s silent horror is well staged, and powerful in its way. Lastly, Clark Kent bending in sorrow and regret is a powerful image.

While this issue is handled marginally better, and more maturely than other comics on the shelf at this time, I still believe it is one of the biggest mistakes of the era. Giving a long-established character an unceremonious death for shock value is gross on its own, but making it a child definitely crosses a line for me. Making it worse is that, while the Toyman is a criminal and a killer, he has shown in past issues (a similar kidnapping storyline involving Sleez) that he genuinely cares for the well-being of children. So for a long-time reader, this also felt like a betrayal of a long-established, fully developed character. Adding to the ugliness of this is that Adam dies heroically, trying to free the children who have been caged, unfed, for days, but even in that regard, he fails. The headline at the end of the issue confirms all the children are dead. Adam’s death did not buy the other kids enough time to get away. It was all for nothing. Had Adam died, but the other children lived, maybe this issue wouldn’t leave quite as bad a taste. [Max: It’s weird because it’s all told in a way where it’s told in a way where it would make sense, narratively and within the story universe, that the other kids survived, but then it’s almost casually revealed that nope, they died too. A scene of one of the kids relaying Adam’s heroism to Cat in a future issue would have gone a long way.]

Superman doesn’t come off well in these pages, either. It’s honestly the type of story they should just stay away from, because the more you think about all the calamity that is going on around the clock, the less defensible the whole Clark Kent persona becomes. Superman carving out time to romance his fiancée directly led to the preventable deaths of innocent children—how do you come back from that?

STRAY OBSERVATIONS:

I’m always looking for hints that perhaps Jimmy or Perry know Superman’s secret identity deep down, and Jimmy’s anger at Lois and Clark on their return to the Daily Planet offices would seem to give that theory some credence, as he’s as angry at them as if he knew Clark really were Superman. Either that, or he’s ticked that it fell to him, and none of them to escort Cat into the morgue. [Max: Has this issue finally converted you to the “Jimmy is terrible” side now, Don?]

I don’t think I’m the only one who disliked the new Toyman—SPOILERS BE HERE: years later, in Action Comics #865, Geoff Johns retconned this whole story, reverting Schott into the criminal who over-relates to kids, rather than the child-killer of this story. Apparently the infantile Schott, who speaks to “Mother” a la Norman Bates, is a robot so lifelike it fools even Superman, and the “Mother” he’s constantly replying to was the real Winslow Schott trying to recall the malfunctioning robot. [Max: That’s one Geoff Johns retcon I really didn’t mind, even if it felt kind of derivative of his similar “all the Brainiacs are robots made by the real Brainiac” reveal.]

#superman #dan jurgens #josef rubinstein #toyman #cat grant #adam morgan #dan turpin #whit #gangbusteen #super luthor fighter ii turbo championship edition

32 notes · View notes

larissaloki · 5 years

Text

Urgh I hate speaking to people at times. This post is a massive rant about a guy I know and as I'm on mobile I can't put a read more line sorry!

Yesterday I invited a friend over as haven't seen him in a while, cool awesome, we chatted and captain marvel came up. I said from the get go not to spoil it as I haven't seen the movie yet and really want to watch it.

He was determined to spoil it, kept saying how what he had to say wouldn't spoil such a boring movie, despite my insistent no to him telling me anything. This pissed me off as you could probably predict, I was adement I wanted to see the movie for myself as I have seen some good reviews for this movie and its captain marvel! She's awesome!

His complainta were that she didn't apparentljy show much emotion compared to other fun and lighthearted marvel movies.... When I brought up the the movies were progressively getting more series since the winter soldier movie, and that I can count the amount of scenes were most characters didnt show much emotion other than resting face. His response? "well we know more about those characters and it fit the scenes"

now I haven't seen the movie captain marvel, but I'd assume she wouldn't be all sunshine and rainbow in a serious movie which I think is about discovering her past?? (this is what asshat told me it's about) Literally, her not smiling and acting in the same manner as Chris evens in some of his movies was apparently lack of acting. Because we know more about him, this is captain marvels first movie thats come in late to the game! Of course we know little about her but that shouldn't affect your view on the acting!

Then we had the typical, "well wonder women was good but this one just wasn't, I'm all for women lead films but this was just terrible, I read she wasn't even meant to come into the story line yet" and he made a few other claims that were just utter bullshit, I go through a fuck ton of marvel news blogs. I think I would know the plans movie wise and shit before him,someone that's more into dc.

Theast bit that got me was, him claiming that apparently Brie Larson was going to be taken out of the next film that has captain marvel in due to how she's been in her interviews towards straight white guys.

You've guessed it, my friend is a straight, white dude. And because she bit back at all those early guys criticising her not smiling in her trailer, she was immediately demonised and targeted repeatedly. Asshat was defending the guys by saying that she shouldn't have said the movie wasn't for guys, that she was doing a career suicide by insulting a nearly an entire fanbase. As if women don't make up a massive chuck of fanbases. No amount of me saying that most guys were purposely trying to hurt her sales, before the movie even came out and they were after her from the get go, would make him believe that Brie wasn't the one entirely at fault.

In the end I told him repeatedly that I was going to reserve all final judgement until I've actually seen the movie as, when Venom came out, people said it was terrible yet I loved it.

Guys, you don't make up the entire fanbase, stop trying to ruin movies for others just because you personally didn't like them.

#larissaloki #captain marvel #Rant #Fanboys make me mad at times

13 notes · View notes

lightsandlostbells · 6 years

Text

Skam France 2.5 reaction

I got really heated about that auction, apologies

Episode 5

Clip 1 - Giving away Manon’s clothes

Ohhh my God. Even though this is one of the crappier things Eskild/Mickael does in the series, he is hilarious here. This actor is killing it.

“What did you say?” “That you look great sweetie.” A+ timing and delivery.

He’s even more dickish and terrible than Eskild was in this situation, but not gonna lie, I’m enjoying every second of his screen time

So Manon is organizing the collection herself? I feel like that provides a somewhat different context. Noora was very much motivated by Eskild’s words to her to start caring about refugees, not that she didn’t care about them at all but she felt guilty about not doing enough. Noora also had some ignorant spots, she thought Lito must be a Syrian refugee when he’s the son of a Turkish ambassador. Of course Eskild was in the wrong in the way he went about taking her clothes, especially since it was motivated by getting laid, but Noora had her own hypocrisy. Manon seems quite genuine about helping the migrants.

Clip 2 - Fuckweasel auction imminent

It would be nice if we had heard about Manon’s involvement with the clothes drive earlier, but that’s good of her and that’s a very different take because I think Noora wasn’t as proactive.

The amount of sympathy I have for a bunch of spoiled dudes trashing a hotel room and having to pay for it … zero.

Wait, so not only are they having a fundraiser to cover for their destruction, they’ve put it on the same night as an already scheduled event for migrants? Man, fuck them. How did they manage to be worse than the original?

I mean depending on the school, it’s common for multiple events to happen at that same time, that’s not unusual. But lol, some dudes holding a fundraiser to cover for their terrible behavior at the same time other people have arranged a fundraiser for people in genuine need … not a good look.

The Norwegian version of this scene was way more personal, which makes sense since it was a bedroom scene and it was less hurried.

Clip 3 - Manon is mad

I don’t have much to say about this scene except Manon is completely justified in being pissed. The guy who professes to have feelings for her and wants a relationship with her scheduled a fundraiser to cover his and his friends’ property damage on the same night she is working an event for people in need. Like I guess he could just not know about the other fundraiser, but he’s doing something that’s going to actively take away from her charity event.

The saving grace is that Charles doesn’t try to justify this and he looks somewhat humbled/upset by her telling him off.

Clip 4 - Daphne please get a grip

“We were talking about what happened with Charles and his crew and it’s really horrible what happened” yeah it’s really horrible that some teenage assholes destroyed a hotel room. Daphne is talking about it like a rival team paid to have their kneecaps broken and now they can’t play basketball anymore.

Call me humorless but Manon is completely right and even more justified in being angry than Noora was, like Vilde was suggesting they give up some of their bus money - unfair and it was their own earned funds, but at least it was going to something that’s fun/frivolous, not a necessity. Why the fuck would you give time you meant for a charity event to some shitheads who wrecked property?!?!?!

I mean it’s not even like “their bus broke down and they can’t get to games and they’re having a fundraiser to buy a new one” or “there was a fire in the gym and now they can’t practice so they’re raising money to rent a new space.” Buying new uniforms or equipment for their team or something. They CAUSED their own problem.

“Since it’s so important to you I’ll give 10% of the night’s benefits to migrants.”

Hey, you know what would be a really impressive thing for Charles to do? Call off the fundraiser to cover the asses of his crew and direct everyone’s attention to the clothing distribution event for migrants. That would be a humble, selfless action where he actually makes a sacrifice.

Does that sound too extreme? Am I being too hard on him? Maybe, but why is Charles/William consistently doing the minimum decent thing, often for self-serving reasons, and yet we’re supposed to buy into his character development and think he’s a great guy?

What if Charles got his guys to give everything to the migrants regardless of whether Manon attended? What if Charles went to help Manon out instead of going to his own fundraiser? Doesn’t that seem like an obvious storytelling decision in terms of showing us he’s a good guy? Wouldn’t that be something Manon could respect and we could see why she starts to like him as a person and had to reconsider her opinion of him?

This is just such a deeply strange storyline to me! Charles and his friends act like assholes. They try to raise money to recoup the losses from when they were assholes inconveniencing other people. There is another event for a much better cause, for people genuinely in need. Charles offers a smallish percentage of the profits from his fundraiser to the people in need, but only if the girl he likes comes to the event. How … in the world … why am I supposed to like this character?

This is annoying me even more than the original, maybe because the Penetrators were not directly competing against a charity event.

Imane has a nice line about showing solidarity to human beings, not a religion (because not all the migrants are Muslim).

Clip 5 - Help the spoiled brats and some other people, IDK

Wow they really underplayed this Emma/Yann storyline. I’m not sure they built up to Emma’s drunken meltdown enough.

Daphne is so embarrassing about Charles, please put this one-sided relationship out of its misery.

Soooo is Lucas already flirting with guys, kind of? At least they got in a nice shocked moment for Lucas when Emma says he likes boys.

Drunk Emma interrupts Alex talking to a guy … poor form, Emma, poor form.

I did laugh at how Daphne being like “I’ve known you for a while and we have this special relationship” meant boy Alex started to close in. Yeah, that’s more or less what I expect of him.

Emma telling boy Alex “I like you, you’re my friend, but Daphne, I love you so much” - when will one of these goddamn adaptations take this further than some drunken makeouts?? When?? I don’t even ship them as much as the Noora/Eva combination but this is ridiculous.

This is a not as bad as a situation than the date, because she had less pressure to come to this party than to go on the date for Daphne’s sake, but like … he did tell her he’d only donate the money if she came. Why does he act like it was a given that he would donate the money.

Daphne looks less into kissing Emma than Vilde did kissing Eva. Vilde was having the time of her life, Daphne’s like ... tolerating it. Or maybe I can’t tell because the lighting isn’t as bright.

They did the same tune-out music effect when Manon tells Charles she doesn’t like him as in the original.

Kinda think we should have seen Manon reconsider more before running after him since it’s a big turning point for her character.

I wasn’t totally impressed with her last season, but Manon’s actress has been doing much better. She did a good job in the last scene.

“The only thing that interests you is getting what you want.” I mean, yeah, that’s true.

I saw some people didn’t like this scene compared to the original, but I think their first kiss was pretty good, I liked it just as much. Lots of passion, very cinematic. Since I’m not a big Noorhelm fan their first kiss isn’t sacred to me or anything, but I also think it’s because of Coldplay being the song selection. (I don’t hate Coldplay, tbh, but my dad has very very limited taste in music and for a long time literally the only thing he would listen to was Coldplay. For months, he would listen to Viva la Vida in the car. Just that song. On repeat. Like the middle-aged man version of John Mulaney’s Salt and Pepper Diner bit. So I have, ehhh, complicated feelings about Coldplay, and “Paradise” is one of my least favorite songs from them.)

I was super afraid Emma would fall in the water as she puked but at least Daphne kept a hand on her even after she saw Manon and Charles kissing.

General Comments:

Sorry that 90% of this reaction was me being grumpy about the Raptors’ auction. That was the main focus of this episode, not a lot else to talk about. The next few episodes have more subplots and varied scenes to discuss.

I’m a Daphne fan but damn did I hit my limit with her Charles obsession in this episode, even more than with Vilde.

I don’t speak French so if I misunderstood something or missed context, feel free to correct me.

If you got through all this cranky ranting, thank you for reading! ❤️ Here’s a video of a golden conure dancing to the Beach Boys.

#skamfr reactions

18 notes · View notes

prevariicator-archive · 6 years

Text

The problem with saying Loki ruled Asgard longer, and was a better ruler of Asgard than Thor, is VAST.

First off, Thor didn't have a fucking chance. He ruled for only a few hours if even before Thanos came and slaughtered the Asgardians because of LOKI stealing the tesseract in Ragnarok. You can not compare their ruling based on time. Thor needed the time to be away from Asgard to learn to be a good man, and to know his limits and when not to be a spoiled brat chasing war for no reason, and to learn what was important about ruling people/learning more about what it meant to truly protect people and the things/places he loved. He has major character development through the series that makes him a good king because he recognizes that the title requires more than sitting on your ass eating grapes watching bad theater.

The way they rule... Originally if he had been king in the first movie, Thor would have had Asgard at war at every turn. It would have been chaos. But after everything he's been through, going from God/Prince/Future King to Mortal/Weak to Slave/Possession (for someone's violent amusement )the character development changes how he would have ruled. He thought only for the best of his people, got half of them to safety with Valkyrie, and fought -most likely with the intent of dying for his people- until he had nothing and was completely broken. Thor's actions in Infinity War are flat out suicidal and fueled by rage and depression. He's lost everything - and it all started with Loki allowing Jotuns into Asgard to prevent his intended rule. But at the same time, Loki helped him be a better fit for a king by doing so. But Thor didn't have a chance to prove himself a worthy and good king before Thanos came and fucked shit up because Loki couldn't keep his hands off of the Tesseract. But, that brings the question of if Thanos would have come either way. Loki owed him the debt from his failure after all. But in both scenarios- he came because of Loki. Loki has ruled twice. Let's talk about instance number one- to get the title of king he a)let enemies into Asgard b)caused 4 deaths and showed zero remorse for what he'd done c)Had Thor banished (you can argue if this was intentional or not based on the movie and one of the Thor guidebook which says he intentionally goaded Thor into going to Jotunheim to get him in trouble with Odin) d) Only got it because Odin went into Odinsleep (you guys joke but this dude was already in poor health-poor enough for his enemy to take notice of his weakness- add the stress of his 1st son being banished because 'well fuck he's just like the banished child and needs to learn not to be' and the stress of Loki finding out who he really is/that originally he planned to use him and Loki refused to let him explain further and instead went full out pissed and yelling at a weak old man)

Now there is that deleted scene where Frigga gives him the title BUT IT DOES NOT FIT INTO THE MOVIE. Rewatch it, try to place that scene. It doesn't fit. Loki is playing King before he speaks with Frigga in that deleted scene- which was shortened and edited in after he's already playing king. It does not fully apply to the canon of the movie because of this technicality. So for all we know- he took the title without Frigga's knowledge. So during that first rule, what did Loki do? A)closed off the Bifrost to prevent Thor's return B)Sent the Destroyer to kill Thor, and even told it to destroy everything in the little town Thor was in -with no regard for the lives which could be lost because of his actions. C)Allowed Laufey into Jotunheim, and let's be real Laufey could have easily turned around, stabbed Loki, and then gone off to kill Frigga and Odin. D)Let Laufey hit Frigga, played perfect hero son only after Laufey was already on top of Odin about to stab him, and pretended not to know a thing, like 'Lol how'd he get here idk mother but I'll protect you even though he already flung you across the room'

Loki's rule should technically end when Thor returns. But even then, Loki has Gungnir, which is basically saying he's still in some way in charge and what does he do with this power? He takes the kings staff to the Bifrost with the intent of destroying an entire planet after already murdering his biological father/a king, putting Asgard in danger, and his own king and queen-his adoptive parents, in a very dangerous position. -Frigga may be good with small knives but she was struggling with that sword.

Let's move to rule 2.

Take into consideration everything he did in Midgard- bringing an alien army to attack the planet, killing over 80 people in like 2 days, causing destruction and chaos in New York which would later lead to the problems in later MCU movies that take place in Midgard (Spiderman Homecoming is a good example) and let' not forget having mind slaves he completely damaged. All of this was in his conquest to gain enough power to be king. But we know Midgard was never the end game for Loki- it was always Asgard. And remorse? Yeah, not really there. He has a brief moment of 'It's too late', but he uses that to stab Thor- meaning he was likely playing on Thor's emotions knowing Thor would fall for his puppy eyes.

So Loki's imprisoned (for showing no remorse and acting like everything is just a silly children's game-and Odin knows where it is headed because of Hela), he's not in any way a king or ruler of anything, but even in his cell he inadvertently causes Frigga's death in hoping to send Algrim/Kurse to Odin and Thor. 'I don't think the people of Asgard would take kindly to a king who murdered their predecessor' -So I'll send someone else to do it for me. (Because who is next in line if Thor and Odin die? Loki, you know if they hadn't decided to do that fuck up of 'lol Hela is their older sister now', but I digress.) The fact is Loki never shows real guilt or remorse until he realizes he is the reason that Frigga, the only person still giving him any chance and sneaking around to speak with him, died. So the story goes -he sets off, helps Thor, even protects Jane, and then fakes his death. Again. Both times were different though- I believe he truly believed he'd die if he let go of Mjolnir's handle based off the tie in Avengers comic-they believed Loki would be torn to shreds by the world tree. But in this fake death, it's all Loki. He gets up, brushes off, returns to Asgard.

So how does he get to be king the second time? He curses Odin, banishes him in Midgard in a retirement home -and never checks up to be like 'oh yeah whatever happened to dad?'- which leads to Odin being a homeless vagabond just chilling in Norway waiting to see his sons one last time. In the meantime, Loki gives Thor what he wants and sends him to Midgard. Of course, Thor says he returned to Asgard once in AOU- but did he really? He would have caught on that Odin wasn't Odin if he really had. (Really it's a shame they wouldn't let Joss focus on Thor like he wanted) - So that mention of going to Asgard in AOU-let's assume Loki was off doing Loki things and avoiding Thor. Which leads to Thor traveling the universe for YEARS trying to find answers about the Infinity Stones. -A mess Loki helped make worse, but that began in Captain America. (Thanks, Red Skull.)

So what's Loki doing while Thor's off trying to save the universe? He's ignoring Asgards duties, which leads to the Dwarves slaughter and the gauntlet being made (of course he may have thought he had the real and only gauntlet in the vault). Loki gathers up some bad actors, writes his own little play, erects a giant statue of himself, MOCKS FRIGGA'S DEATH by making his 'sacrifice' in avenging her a total joke in the play and by laughing at it, and maybe even hoes around with the servant ladies that surround him while he watches the play. Which if he did- further mocks Frigga and Odin.

Thor arrives and calls him out on his shit, his reign is pretty much done for. But Thor doesn't get the chance to rule, he has to clean Loki's mess and get Odin, and then he has to clean Odin's mess with Hela. Thor tries to prevent Hela from reaching Asgard, but Loki shouts for the gate to be open-if Heimdall was in charge of the gate and saw this shit he would have kept it closed. Just saying. So Loki gives Hela an opening to put Asgard and its people in danger- which if she had won in the end, would have led to death and chaos across the universe. But that's not how the story goes. Thor and Loki get thrown into Sakaar. Loki's been there for weeks and is just mingling and partying, making jokes about his first death, and while he's stolen ship passcodes-is making no real effort to leave and go fight for his people. But that is all Thor is worried about and wants to do. Even when Thor is a slave, locked up and unable to do much but fight to get his freedom, he only thinks of returning to Asgard to save the people. Loki even tries to prevent Thor from doing so for money.-and possibly being petty that Thor would not go with his plan to escape together and ignore Asgard, let it burn. Thor escapes, he fights for his people- and Loki turns up afterwards, only to ham it up and be a big diva like 'LOOK I AM BRINGING A BIG SHIP AND I AM SAVING YOU ALL WITH IT' -yes, he fights, yes, in the end, he pledges allegiance to Asgard, but his actions prior to his Infinity War death are not the actions of a good king, only a selfish man. He and Thor both understand ruling well, but they both understand different aspects, and Loki's is the toxic form, while Thor's is the good-natured and humble form. Combining them together=great king.

If Thanos hadn't of come, Thor would still have people to care for and rule over, but he doesn't. He has nothing. He's a space hobo now. His rule would have been much longer than Loki's, and, in an ideal world, they could have learned to work together to combine their understanding of what it means to be king. But that world doesn't exist.

#just my two cents #ignore me #i agree loki got to rule longer- but someone said loki did it better and uhhh hahaha no

4 notes · View notes