mouthporn.net
#loki – @jebbifurzz on Tumblr
Avatar

Jebbifurzz

@jebbifurzz / jebbifurzz.tumblr.com

likes running, reading, writing works in a Micro lab reads lots of fanfiction not enough free time mostly posts about Loki these days, but likes other stuff too - good sci-fi/fantasy stories in general
Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
thorloptrs

It’s fascinating the change in expressions from the two gifs. In the first one he’s determined and sets out to help Thor. In the second, he realizes that his act of heroism didn’t matter: Kursed lived. Then there’s that look of resignation, bordering on despair, as he realizes what’s coming next. Loki knows he’s going to die. Just when he made the choice to fight to live (you can see when Thor saves him from that mini void explosion that he’s started hoping -even wanting- to live through this) it’s gone.

Yes. This.

It’s kind of even worse when you consider that Thor saved him from death so that he could die to save Thor. You can totally see Loki playing it that way in his head. He’s always secondary to Thor. Even when it’s his own choice, he makes it that way. Always.

stahp i am cry

Avatar
matchgirl42

And even then, even then, he makes the decision to act to not only avenge Frigga, but save Thor.  He uses Kurse’s pulling him close to activate the void grenade.  While he’s being impaled through the chest, he has the presence of mind to reach out, without Kurse noticing him doing so, and activate that bomb.

Because Loki is a BAMF.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
ripfic

I genuinely believe that all of the "every character in mcu keeps talking about Loki being a liar and a master manipulator, yet they keep falling for his lies/manipulation" situation has everything to do with the fact that they expect Loki's lies to make him look better/stronger in their eyes. They don't expect his intention to be to portray himself as someone worse than he is. As someone dumb. As someone naive. As someone who's so arrogant and filled with pointless rage and pettiness, that he is easily manipulated.

Idk, maybe it's just me, but I've noticed a pattern of Loki pretending to be "the big bad villain who's consumed by his anger and insanity", and pretending to be "too arrogant and stupid/naive to be a threat". And it worked.

Thanos didn't recognize him for the threat he was until it bit him in the ass. Same with Grandmaster. Kang. Odin. Laufey.

They all think Loki would make himself look better/smarter/stronger, because they all (including the avengers) believe he is prideful, that he would never humiliate himself.

They all think he is easily manipulated or insane.

And this mistake leads to their downfall.

Avatar
reblogged

okay i have a loki question

how the fuck did odin sneak him into asgard?

like, heimdall saw that shit right? odin comes back through the bifrost and heimdall is just “…………….”

heimdall: that’s a baby

odin: yes! he’s my son! ………..loki. i’m going to dress him in green and black, because that worked great last time

or odin comes back and is trying to figure out, how to play it, and heimdall and frigga are just waiting for him and completely deadpan

frigga: ah, husband! you have returned from war in time to meet your newborn son. who i had. after being pregnant. secretly.

odin: what

frigga:

heimdall:

loki: *baby noises*

odin: right

honestly, i just need heimdall going up to frigga like “you won’t believe what your husband just did”

Avatar
matchgirl42

odin: he’s a replacement for the child I had to lock away in the shadow realm.

heimdall:

odin: I’ll do better by this one.  I know I will.

heimdall:

heimdall: You mean Frigga will.

Odin: Please can we keep it? It’s cute and changes colours and smiles at my empty eye socket. I promise I’ll take care of it I’ll feed it every week and I’ll dress it in green and black and I’ll teach it to throw knives and it will be great!

Heimdall: Frigga, he stole a baby. Say something.

Avatar
rebelmeg

THIS IS THE BEST THING

Odin: Hey, honey. Remember when you said you wanted to try for another child? Well I just found something to make it easy for the both of us.
[Pull Loki out from under cape]
Avatar
roruna

Frigga: at least he’s not an illegitimate child you had with another woman

Avatar
jebbifurzz

Or IS he? Laufey had to get knocked up by someone; might as well be Odin. 😏

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
angsthound

Unasked Questions: The issue of Loki's body in TDW

Yesterday I properly clued into something that’s been bothering me subconsciously since I first saw TDW.

Thor didn’t go back for Loki’s body.

He didn’t give Loki’s remains any consideration at all in fact, despite the fact that the guy (he thought) died saving his life and that he seemed pretty broken up at the fact of Loki’s death itself (at least for ten minutes). I don’t just mean him not taking Loki’s body with when they were going after Malekith, which I can understand (it would have been cumbersome and they had like an hour to save the nine realms), but the complete lack of any thought about the matter whatsoever, ever.

In Svartalfheim itself, he could have covered Loki with his cape, or we could have had a shot of him closing Loki’s eyes, or any gesture like that really would have done. Hell, part of the reason for going to the cave when they thought they were trapped in Svartalfheim could have been Thor wanting to lay his brother’s body out of the wind - it would have been a wonderful touching moment of characterization for Thor, even a moment full of potential for him to reflect on what Loki just did and for the filmmakers to hammer in that redemption arc they were supposedly trying to slot Loki into. But no. He just walks off after this enormously emotional parting.

But ok, let’s lay that aside - grief and shock and stress make people do strange things in the moment, and Thor’s not the most freely emotional person to begin with (I sense repression like woah, thank you Odin). So ignore the lack of a gesture in Svartalfheim.

What really troubles me is the complete lack of any gesture or thought afterward, when the realms are safe and Thor has had time to reflect on the loss and has that lovely talk with ‘Odin’ in which he explicitly acknowledges Loki’s honorable death (er, ‘death’). Does Thor, newly forgiven for his treason and explaining his choices and values and defending Loki in his own misaimed but supposedly sincere way, mention even once that he’d like to acknowledge Loki’s sacrifice by treating his remains with honor? Does he ask to go retrieve them so that he might send Loki off to join his mother in Valhalla properly? Does he even have an argument with ‘Odin’ in which 'Odin’ (completely in character with both Odin and Loki) forbids him to go and Thor expresses a sliver of regret that then his brother must lie dishonored in an empty field?

No. The subject is never raised at all. Loki’s death apparently exists only in an abstract way, as something that happened but which calls for no further activity or reflection. It existed at the moment Thor apparently grieved him, it exists as a past circumstance for Thor to use in his speech, and for the audience it exists as a trick Loki has played and is playing, but it never exists for the characters within the world of the story in any way that would require them to make a material effort to (re)integrate him and his absence into social, familial, emotional reality in the way that a funeral does. Thor never has to confront, not even Loki’s body or the curious absence of one, but just so much as the fact that there IS (or should be) a body with which he has to deal. Or any lingering trace of Loki’s past existence, for those thousand years they shared together, as an independent being, as anything other than a catalyst for events in Thor’s life. Frigga is real to him, and to everyone, and so receives acknowledgement when she passes away. Loki is not, and so does not. In their minds.

And thus 'Odin’ does not even have to be shown forbidding Thor from returning for Loki’s body, or Jane asking what happened to it, or anything. It was never really a question to Thor, or Odin, or anyone, what should happen with the body, because Loki was just an abstraction or a tool to them, either unreal on a fundamental level or else not worthy of the regard.

And Loki apparently knew this. Or at least, was utterly unsurprised at Thor’s failure to mention the issue. To ask the question.

Because really, the issue of Loki’s treatment in TDW is bookended by two fundamental questions that literally every single person around him failed to ever ask:

- What happened then? (Why did you do those things? What has happened to you? Is something wrong? What ails thee - the question Parzival lost the Grail for failing to ask.)

- What happens now? (What do we do with your remains? How do we integrate you into our histories? How do we deal with the unanswered questions you pose us?)

Past. Future. Loki has neither, his having-been exists in neither, for our heroes. He exists, and the fact that he ever was exists, only in the present moment for them. When they need him, or his having-been, to. And never at any other moment.

Because then he would pose questions to them. Questions they do not want to answer.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
ripfic

It's kinda sad that the topic that T1 tried to poke went over so many people's heads, because so many fans reduce Odin and Loki's conflict to "you lied to me"/"I'm sad I'm not actually your son/heir to the throne", when it's pretty obvious that it goes way deeper than that: Loki mentions how it finally "makes sense" why Odin "favored" Thor and that Loki could never be good enough no matter how much he tried, because Odin wouldn't allow the frost giant to sit on the throne.

He wasn't upset because he wouldn't get the throne, he admits he never wanted it in the first place, and it's not "oh no I'm adopted", it's more of "You took me as a political prisoner, taught me to hate my own kind, all these years I've been trying to figure out why you would always forgive Thor but you are so harsh and cold when it comes to me, and I've tried to be better because I thought I'm doing something wrong, but the reality is that no matter what I do it'll never be enough for you because I was born on the wrong planet with a wrong skin color that you and your people despise so much that you stripped me off it, and no matter how many times you claim to love me, you couldn't show me kindness unless you needed something from me, and it was never about what I do, just who I am".

No, really, this conflict is so much deeper than what fandom makes it seem to be, and the more I think about it the more messed up it gets.

THIS.

Avatar
delyth88

Excellent point OP!

(I feel this more than I might have previously since I just got out of an employment relationship where I thought I wasn't doing well enough, but after years of trying, it turned out that my manager is just missing some key skills as a manager and a human. 🙄 It's not me, it's you. And I'm kinda angry about the wasted time and effort now.

I can't imagine how pissed I'd feel if this had been going on my whole life and was about my very identity!)

Avatar
reblogged

i don’t know if anyone else really relates to this but, whenever i wear some of my loki merch out, sometimes people will come up to me and compliment me, or ask where i got my merch from. and obviously i’m more than happy to tell them where i got it from and even discuss loki with them.

but sometimes… people will bring up things about the series or say that they loved the series. which whenever they do, i often say things along the lines of “oh i actually don’t like the series.” and they always seem so surprised by that. i’ve recently had someone compliment me and say something along the lines of “i didn’t watch season 2 yet” so when i told them i don’t actually like the series, they were like “oh so you’re just a fan of the merch?” like ??? 😭😭😭 my response to that was just “… no, i just prefer his character in the movies.” and honestly i don’t get why people don’t really… understand that. like it’s so shocking that someone who is evidently a huge fan of a character, would be “hyper critical” and protective of how that character is treated in future works.

but the loki in the series is quite LITERALLY a different person who went a different path than our loki, even if he had the same past as our loki. that’s literally the whole point. these are canonically two different characters, and i wish that mcu normies as well as loki series enjoyers would understand that. even if you’re not a HUGE fan of loki, it is literally explained in the series that they’re not the same person. just because they’re both played by tom hiddleston, and have the same past, name, etc… it does not mean they are the same person.

why is it so shocking that i and many others, prefer the actual loki? it is canon that the loki we all know and love, is the actual loki. that’s like… the whole plot of the series.

although there have been some occasions where people agreed with me 😭 i’ve heard “yeah he was kind of out of character. i miss villain loki.” and stuff like “yeah i didn’t like it either.” so there is still some hope out in the world.

Avatar
jebbifurzz

Yeah, normal people just see it as you have to like all or nothing. When I try to explain that I liked Loki's characterization 2011-2013, but disliked it 2017-2023, people just do not understand at all.

Then I often get people asking if I like the comics (which I do, but only certain authors and runs, similar to my situation with the MCU), and they conclude that I don't like current MCU because it doesn't follow the comics. Which is nowhere near the truth, but that's the only explanation they can accept in their minds why I could like a character and dislike current films/series.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
ripfic

What I find interesting about Loki's character is that all of the wrong things he has ever done weren't caused by desire for power or revenge or some extreme level of egoism, but by a desire to be loved. To be accepted. To live up to the expectations of society he was raised in. To be good enough for somebody to love him.

He didn't try to destroy Jotunheim because it would give him throne or something like this, he did it to prove to his father that he's on Asgard's side, that he wants nothing to do with people Asgard actively hates and that he can kill for Odin. He, the one who hates fighting and prefers diplomacy, can do this if this is what their society wants him to do. This action is also has a lot to do with an extreme level of internalized racism, which I find tragic.

He didn't want Thor to get banished, he simply: a. Knew Thor wasn't ready to be king (and it is mentioned that he wanted to delay coronation, not take Thor's place), and b. Wanted to show Odin that Thor isn't perfect, which I think is a normal thing for a scapegoat child to want, there's nothing evil about it. From what we were shown, Thor wasn't a good brother at that point: "know your place, brother", invalidating Loki saving people simply because he used magic, siding with his bullies. To be frank, I fell like I would be way more bitter than Loki if I was treated this way.

He lies to Thor about Odin so Thor would stay on Earth until Loki proves he's not one of the jotuns, he was scared of Thor, of his brother, it's obvious from the scene in which Thor gets banished, because Thor hates jotuns and if Loki is one, would his brother kill him? Loki doesn't know, but he's not willing to find out.

Loki's motivation was to get some love and acceptance from people he cared about, he didn't even expect to become regent, but when he does, people who were supposed to be his and his brother's friends betray him before he gets a chance to do anything. The closest friend of their family betrays and tries to decapitate him because he's suspicious. And then Loki does what he was opposed to in the beginning of the movie in order to prove them he can be one of them, literally betrays himself, and he still gets rejected.

Was Loki's actions in T1 justified? Some of them were (for example, sending destroyer after w4 committed treason), some of them weren't (Jotunheim). But his motivations were always so complex and he was trying to hold his sh#t together as long as he was able to.

NYC wasn't even his fault, and I don't think he did anything wrong in TDW (unless you think kicking Thor in the face wasn't part of the plan, then I guess there is one thing) or in TR (even if I think he's ooc for most part of the movie, even his "betrayal" doesn't seem as something unreasonable, not after the elevator speech).

And it seems like current MCU cannot realize how much of a gray and complex character he is, so they decided to make him into a stereotypical "self-centered power-hungry petty later redeemed by power of love and friendship and being beaten and humiliated repeatedly" character.

And I don't like it.

(Also, how many times he has to sacrifice himself/save the world in order for them to recognize him as a hero? He's no worse than Gamora, Thor or Clint, and don't get me started on Wanda)

Avatar

Loki Series season 2... (this is spoiler free aside from mentioning character names)

I hated season 1. I wasn't gonna watch season 2. Period... But I saw some posts on tumblr this morning, got morbidly curious and slightly hopeful, and long story short... I ended up watching the whole thing in one sitting. It's my day off, don't judge me! You're not, probably, but I'm judging myself and projecting.

Was it a cinematic masterpiece? No. Good writing? Meh. Good acting? Hmm...

I'm not here to praise the show, but I am here to say that I was pleasantly surprised. This season, in my opinion, was a LOT better than season 1, in every way. BUT that is a very low bar, because I have an undying anger in the pit of my soul for season 1.

What was better?

1. Less Sylvie. Yes, she was still a character, but the narrative and universe didn't revolve around her, and we didn't have all the characters singing about how the sun shone out of her butt. And she wasn't stomping around lording her will over everyone else.

2. Endearing Characters. OB and Casey were wonderful and adorable. Mobius actually seemed better, less horrible. Victor Timely was startlingly sweet in spite of how put off I was by HWR.

3. Loki did things. Very low bar when you're happy the main character actually did things, but here we are. Loki did things, and they mattered.

4. Loki talked about morality, choices, etc. Very surface level. Wasn't impressive or revelatory, but they at least talked about it and acknowledged that things were messed up.

5. Sylki was significantly downplayed. No hate for shippers, you do you, but the Sylki really detracted from the story for me in season 1. Here it was kind of treated like the Bruce/Nat thing after AoU. As in, it was mentioned, but didn't really go further. Thank you.

6. Loki wasn't a bumbling, flailing idiot. He was capable of thinking, introspection, problem-solving, magic he's been doing his whole life, etc.

I was still mad about a lot of things. They still tried to retcon a lot of MCU canon. There was still a LOT of problematic stuff all over. And they got really annoying and spent way too much time on some of the dumber plot beats. Loki was still quite often OOC. Not as terribly as in season 1, but still.

But. Somehow, with that ending, I feel okay...? Content. Like, I was filled with so much anger over season 1, but the season 2 ending helped me to feel like a wrong had been righted...

Maybe I'm riding a manufactured finale euphoria. I'll have to revisit this later and see how I feel. But yeah.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
ripfic

You know what makes me sad?

When Loki's in prison, Frigga tells him: "You know full well it was your actions that brought you here"

I know that she didn't know, but imagine being tortured, mind controlled, told by the person you used to call father that your birthright was to die, being imprisoned and then being told by the person you trust the most that it is your fault.

I also think that her defending the fact that Odin lied to and emotionally abused Loki (and we should remember that Odin was totally fine with his own son being extremely racist towards jotuns knowing his other son is a jotun-) was not nice tbh.

also gotta love the hypocrisy of telling loki "a true king admits his faults" while consistently defending odin's horrible choices. like... you know... kidnapping a jotun infant, literally whitewashing him to look asgardian and then raising him to hate his own race, all with the intention of using him as a future political pawn, and then dropping him like a hot potato the second he's no longer of any use. 🙃

Avatar

Okay, with the release of the Hamlet sequel, Hamlet 2: Electric Boogaloo,

I appreciate that it has brought new fans to become interested in Hamlet. But I also feel like Hamlet 2 forgot everything that happened in the original Hamlet, and why we liked it in the first place.

Like, first off, Hamlet 2 shows Queen Gertrude dying from drinking poison that Claudius put there, and says Hamlet killed his mother. Like, what?

And then they say Hamlet betrayed Claudius. Like guys, I don't know how to tell you this, but Claudius was Hamlet's enemy...? Claudius literally killed Hamlet's father, and then tried to get Hamlet killed like a billion different ways when he was onto him.

The sequel is also presenting Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as Hamlet's true and noble friends. My dude, they were literally spying on him on Claudius's orders, and Hamlet knew it! But Hamlet 2 presents their spying on Hamlet as friendly support and therapy? What?

Then they say Hamlet is weak and can't fight, because he's a privileged prince. Like, did you all forget that duel with Laertes, or...? Hamlet was fucking smart and could kick ass.

And that's another thing; what's with this new Hamlet who can't act or obfuscate at all? That was Hamlet's whole thing! No one knew what was going on with him, because he couldn't trust any of them, so he put on an act to manipulate them! Who is this new Hamlet who telegraphs his every intention?

And suddenly it's a bad thing to sympathize with Hamlet because he's a prince, and he killed people? It's a tragedy, guys. Everybody kills people in tragedies, and often for terrifyingly understandable reasons. And being a prince does not make his experiences invalid. His uncle killed his father, married his mother, and then tried to kill him, and ended up killing his mother. His friends proved they were never his friends at all and betrayed him. He killed Polonius thinking he was Claudius, and then Laertes was used against him; and Hamlet was forced to kill this perfectly good man. Just because Hamlet's a prince does not mean we can't feel moved by this tragedy!

Oh, and now the trailer for Hamlet 3: Here We Go Again has come out, we see Hamlet being called a man of action, as opposed to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who are more cerebral? Are you kidding me?!? That was Hamlet's whole deal, that he was more cerebral than action-oriented. Do you know how long it took him to come around to killing Claudius, and how much agonizing and investigating and manipulating he did beforehand? Do you think Othello took that long to kill his beloved wife? Did it take Macbeth that long to kill the king? Hamlet's almost entirely cerebral, and mostly takes action in a reaction to other attacks on himself. Where are they coming up with this slander? Ugh.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net