View Poll Results: How do you feel about JIM #645 today?

Voters
22. In order to vote on this poll, you must be a registered user and/or logged in
  • I have already sent Gillen a scathing email

    0 0%
  • I have already sent Gillen a dead magpie in the mail to let him kow how I feel

    15 68.18%
  • I am never reading comic again

    2 9.09%
  • I will not be reading "Young Avengers"

    5 22.73%
  • I will never not waer my kid!Loki cosplay ever again.

    2 9.09%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 34 of 35 FirstFirst ... 24303132333435 LastLast
Results 496 to 510 of 516
  1. #496
    Senior Member Post Monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by plushbug View Post
    *My own bias is to see Older Loki as having split off kid!Loki as an alternate persona--essentially re-inventing himself as a multiple personality, the more complete original (shape-changer!) retreating into the persona of a magpie (single magpie, symbol of sorrow?) within his restored child's body, splitting off the alternate persona of a child and putting that in charge as an experiment in starting over.
    I'd say this is close. Basically Old Loki killed himself and Kid Loki and Ikol were splits from the root personality. We never even saw Loki (the whole Loki) until that last panel. Kid Loki has been conversing with Ikol and it was Ikol who set up the situation. That old ghosty old Loki was Ikol not being projected onto the bird because Leah had destroyed Kid's ability to pretend that Ikol was the bird (and not himself). I think, yes, the bird was real and physically there, and by killing it, he was accepting that Ikol was a part of himself. Notice that ghost Loki fades as the bird dies. That's because he's Ikol.

    Multiple personalities is a good description. We know Ikol wasn't active with Kid Loki until he read that question about his motives. IMO Ikol is an attempt by Loki to separate all the trauma and evil he couldn't accept at the time and try to comprehend it. He set up a good/evil paradigm to do this, which is part of the reason he kept screwing up in his schemes (because he was convinced that he was doing things for good reasons, so things would work out because Ikol over there is the evil one). Kid Loki is the core of Loki's motives and his inner child, but according to what Gillen has said he represents (primarily) Loki's innocence. That means all the cute eyed wonder is gone from him, but he still has his good side, and he now has to acknowledge that good motives alone won't save him.

    I've seen some folks try to argue this means we have evil old school Loki back, but I think they're confusing Ikol for Old Loki. There's no way the evil mustache twirling evil old persona is what we got back, because Gillen doesn't want to go there (thank god). If Loki is going to change, he's going to do it because the good that we saw in Kid Loki is *still* there. Sure he's going to have some set backs, but remember, there was enough good in old Loki that he wanted to change. I've also seen some folks disagree and say he'll change because Kid Loki challenged him, but Loki had already decided to do that back when he killed himself. So Kid Loki isn't the starting point for Loki's redemption, he actually started waaaaay back. Sure, it's selfish, but Loki *ought* to be selfish when it comes to wanting something *good* for himself; Mr. Self-loathing has to get past the self-hate if he wants to change.

    I do think Ikol saw all the goodies Kid Loki was experiencing and decided to come out and be part of the action. I also think Thor is partly to blame for Kid Loki's existence because I can see Thor raising his ideal version of Loki and not the brother he knew. But Loki is Loki and it was only a matter of time before Ikol reasserted himself to complete Kid Loki's personality. I guess dead gods really do dream....

  2. #497
    Certifiable Anomaly plushbug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfbird View Post
    The problem is that we haven't actually been told what exactly happened.
    Agreed *shrug* and until such time as we are (which could, and probably should, be never) theories will vary.

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfbird View Post
    We know:

    1. The Fear Crown is no longer a threat
    2. Ikol as an entity no longer exists
    3. Loki found the process a traumatic ordeal
    ...
    From the end of TMT 22:

    Leah: Oh Loki, stop. Enough with the pretense.
    Loki: What pretense?
    Leah: Ikol. The bird. You know he doesn't exist outside your head.
    Loki: I'm not insane. Yet he's in my head, a part of me... an idea I was carrying, a story? Yes, that sounds like it. A parasitic little story...

    Kid Loki created Ikol. Not vice versa. And Ikol is a story. At best, he can become a self-aware yet static entity like Herald Leah originally was. At worst, he is Kid Loki's imaginary frenemy. But he is not Older Loki.

    Remember the Exiled arc? Ikol turned into a toy. The only Loki alive was very much a kid.
    Good point about Ikol turning into a toy. I would agree that the only physical Loki we've had around since the end of Siege has been the now 13-14 year old boy, who seems to have been effectively reset to his younger self, with no memories of his later evil deeds beyond the nightmares he tells Thor about as Serrure, and apparently what he's read from history, at that point when the last magpie flies in his window and explodes. The process/mechanisms/influences of either magic or psychology, by which the contents of his brain unpack into what we get for the next ~2 years realtime, remain undefined.

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfbird View Post
    To be honest, this whole thing about Gillen wanting to "save" Kid Loki from going evil under a different writer sounds suspect. Do you really think Marvel's editors would really let him do that? He's a comic book writer, he does not have the ultimate authority over the characters he writes. What if Fraction turned around and said "I don't want anyone else writing Thor differently to the way I do, so I'm going to kill him off permanently"? It wouldn't fly.

    And it's meaningless anyway because a) Kid Loki was not innocent (just ask the Disir) and Kid Loki's amnesia wasn't dealt with, so you're implying Loki was only good because he couldn't remember his past.

    So what's going on?

    I'm on the "Kid Loki got his memories back" bandwagon myself. Kid Loki was always the real Loki. Ikol was just a lie.
    And in the end it's all a mind game around the question of how the mind of an imaginary person might be constituted, and what mind games he might be playing himself, within it.

    I'm not actually as pessimistic about Gillen being allowed to 'save' his variant of the kid!Loki character, because he doesn't, in the end, deny future Marvel writers a character to go on with. He just precludes anyone taking the kid we've all been playing with for the past couple of years, who's basically run with good intentions however variable his results, and been regretful about the treacherous things he's done, in a way his predecessor had long since stopped being (comparing, say, yes, his handing over of the Disir to Mephisto, to Elder Loki's cheerfully hanging out the souls of his henchmen to be eaten by the Disir in the story where they're introduced). He precludes the character's being written into any kind of simple-minded heel turn that might take him back to being the sort of villain he undertook this whole project to escape being, by writing something more complex, himself.

    The big thing I'm hoping, at this point, will be that the character manages to hang onto the thought he expresses to Hellstrom near the end of the Manchester Gods story--"I'm Loki, yes. I can only be Loki. But as much as they're able, I want people to trust me."--so that whatever he regains access to, now, in terms of his powers and possible pre-disposition to manipulating people, he's shut down from ever simply going back to his old ways.

    Which is where I find myself fairly hopeful about the idea that he's in a position to be back re-doing growing up again, in a world that, whatever it turns out to be, exactly, will certainly be wider and more open to seeing his strengths as positive, than the Asgardian community he originally grew up with. Really hoping that both Asgard and Thor can be kept out of the picture indefinitely, here...
    Mostly moved on to fanfiction.net...

  3. #498

    Default

    Hm, this would actually be so much easier of Loki wasn't appearing in YA.

    If it wasn't for that, then I don't think so many people would care about whether Loki is which Loki.

    But YA gives us, and Loki, a chance to see where he goes. The fact is, who knows what Gillen is going to do? And it's not just Loki to worry about, it's everyone else.

    One thing...Gillen said his ending isn't ambiguous, but how do you kill someone by having them eat a magpie and it not be ambiguous?

  4. #499
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Yeah, the impression I'm getting from his comments about keeping kid!Loki from turning evil is that we're preserving the now-canon that under certain conditions, Loki had it in him to be entirely caring, well-meaning, and heroic (which now won't be ruined by an evil turn down the line). So while that Loki is overwritten, and gone, we're left with a Loki who always had a side that was that potentially-heroic Loki. This sets the bar a bit higher for him now that he's back (and I don't think what we have now is parasitic story Ikol only... otherwise, why would he have said "change for me, not for you", as though it was old!Loki speaking?), and is going to have a harder row to hoe in order to achieve something of that heroism despite the now-stronger temptation to prioritize his own amusement and ambitions over the welfare of others. But there is precedent now that he can do it in spectacular fashion, if he's motivated enough. The fact will remain that there is a component in him that, split off, could become what kid!Loki became. The question is how far circumstances and his own will are going to allow that side to be cultivated relative to the rest of his characteristics.

    So I do think it was a success in terms of making him more likely to retain complexity in the future, because Gillen took those pains to exclude the possibility of kid!Loki ever being evil. His existence, and the pure state in which he left it, should theoretically exert a more powerful influence on how the total character is written in the future than if he'd simply been good for a span of time and then gone evil eventually. He chose total oblivion, non-existence, rather than see people hurt by his actions, and that's a really strong statement to make for the character... and one wonders if that ability to take responsibility is what's echoed when Loki's first words are "Damn me." It's an interesting sign that he's potentially tuned into that side of himself, even if it is followed up by a "damn you all."
    Last edited by Aithne; 11-03-2012 at 04:57 PM.

  5. #500
    Pure Hellcatnip Lady_Alternate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Over Here
    Posts
    15,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosebunse View Post
    One thing...Gillen said his ending isn't ambiguous, but how do you kill someone by having them eat a magpie and it not be ambiguous?
    He's gone right out and said that Kid Loki is gone, utterly, and all we are left with is a Loki who will make his own fate.

    Some people are just ignoring that in order to entertain their own fantasies.
    Women are beautiful. But we're not here for your goddamn titillation.- junesdisco

  6. #501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady_Alternate View Post
    He's gone right out and said that Kid Loki is gone, utterly, and all we are left with is a Loki who will make his own fate.

    Some people are just ignoring that in order to entertain their own fantasies.
    You can't very well blame them. Gillen's JIM is probably in the top 5 of most tragic comics ever made.

    I feel bad for some kidLoki fans. For some of them, this was their first real jump into comics. I imagine some people just don't ever want to read another one again.

  7. #502
    Senior Member Post Monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aithne View Post
    His existence, and the pure state in which he left it, should theoretically exert a more powerful influence on how the total character is written in the future than if he'd simply been good for a span of time and then gone evil eventually. He chose total oblivion, non-existence, rather than see people hurt by his actions, and that's a really strong statement to make for the character... and one wonders if that ability to take responsibility is what's echoed when Loki's first words are "Damn me." It's an interesting sign that he's potentially tuned into that side of himself, even if it is followed up by a "damn you all."
    The strongest virtue with a chaotic neutral character is supposed to be their loyalty. Even when he was playing god-of-evil, Loki did help his family and kingdom, so I think this is where they'll have to start with building a more neutral Loki.

  8. #503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Post Monster View Post
    The strongest virtue with a chaotic neutral character is supposed to be their loyalty. Even when he was playing god-of-evil, Loki did help his family and kingdom, so I think this is where they'll have to start with building a more neutral Loki.
    When I reread old issues with Loki, I see someone who, while they keep their distance, does things to his family because he knows they will accept him back. He knows that if he's ever really in trouble, Thor will do almost anything to save him.

    Really, I think the House of Odin sometimes gets back flack than it deserves. Odin may be a jerk, but he's a better father than a lot of dads in the MU, particularly his fellow gods.

  9. #504
    back from the dead xerosere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aithne View Post
    Yeah, the impression I'm getting from his comments about keeping kid!Loki from turning evil is that we're preserving the now-canon that under certain conditions, Loki had it in him to be entirely caring, well-meaning, and heroic (which now won't be ruined by an evil turn down the line). So while that Loki is overwritten, and gone, we're left with a Loki who always had a side that was that potentially-heroic Loki. This sets the bar a bit higher for him now that he's back (and I don't think what we have now is parasitic story Ikol only... otherwise, why would he have said "change for me, not for you", as though it was old!Loki speaking?), and is going to have a harder row to hoe in order to achieve something of that heroism despite the now-stronger temptation to prioritize his own amusement and ambitions over the welfare of others. But there is precedent now that he can do it in spectacular fashion, if he's motivated enough. The fact will remain that there is a component in him that, split off, could become what kid!Loki became. The question is how far circumstances and his own will are going to allow that side to be cultivated relative to the rest of his characteristics.

    So I do think it was a success in terms of making him more likely to retain complexity in the future, because Gillen took those pains to exclude the possibility of kid!Loki ever being evil. His existence, and the pure state in which he left it, should theoretically exert a more powerful influence on how the total character is written in the future than if he'd simply been good for a span of time and then gone evil eventually. He chose total oblivion, non-existence, rather than see people hurt by his actions, and that's a really strong statement to make for the character... and one wonders if that ability to take responsibility is what's echoed when Loki's first words are "Damn me." It's an interesting sign that he's potentially tuned into that side of himself, even if it is followed up by a "damn you all."
    Thats pretty much what I got too. Its quite impressive really- Gillen actually found a way to both prove that Loki has the capacity to be good AND ensure it can never be written out of existence.

  10. #505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady_Alternate View Post
    He's gone right out and said that Kid Loki is gone, utterly, and all we are left with is a Loki who will make his own fate.

    Some people are just ignoring that in order to entertain their own fantasies.
    it's a Comic....It is fantasy and Death in comic is ambiguous as it gets.


    But Did it Work will it stay working? I mean did he delete young Loki or Append. I mean Evil Loki was once young and Kid Loki First time a round, Over write his mind? How ? None of Kids Loki's memories are gone, there there still there at least in the form ok Ikol Prospective witch was kid Loki's anyways since the bird was just a mental device representing old Loki. And like I said Kid Loki IS OLD LOKI always was this was who he used to be. Kid Loki was Always part of old Loki, he could not Delete Kid Loki with out deleting him self..This kid is him as a kid who he was once.

    And lets not Forget Mephisto becomes the most powerful being in creation if Kid Loki RETURNS. Dose anyone here seriously thinks Mephisto will not Figure out what happened? And with the greatest Power in creation at stake Seek to Remedy it? Dead in Marvels Never that dead. I think the Trickster might of tricked him self,But then dose not Loki always do just that?
    Last edited by dragondeathlord; 11-04-2012 at 07:07 PM.

  11. #506

    Default

    Mephisto is important!

    And with YA and all the confusing crap involving Mephisto and Wiccan and Speed, Gillen would be a jerk not to do something with it!

    But how would Mephisto bring back kidLoki? Would he use the clone bodies? Would he be able to separate kidLoki from Loki?

  12. #507
    Bored with Post Life Jason456701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Sixth Door on the Left
    Posts
    547

    Default

    I feel like an idiot for just realizing Leah was always Hela so original Leah and Leah2 were always the same person just when we are first introduced to her she was just the left hand of the complete package so Leah has was and will always be Lil Loki's best friend. Does this make sense are is my brain just making random crap up to amuse itself and annoy me.

  13. #508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason456701 View Post
    I feel like an idiot for just realizing Leah was always Hela so original Leah and Leah2 were always the same person just when we are first introduced to her she was just the left hand of the complete package so Leah has was and will always be Lil Loki's best friend. Does this make sense are is my brain just making random crap up to amuse itself and annoy me.
    No, that's about what happened.

    Hela always is involved in Loki's plans...no, seriously, this is just so sad!

    Say whatever you want about Hela doing all this just to be born, but there's a part of me that truly believes she still sorta loves Loki...

  14. #509
    back from the dead xerosere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Just going a little off topic here /totally not putting off exam revision/ but can I just say this has been one of the most interesting and civil forums I've ever posted on? Like not only has everyone had a valid opinion but they actually been nice to each other. My faith in the internet has been restored.

    Back on topic... I don't know if this has been covered or not, but I was wondering-were Leah 1.0 and Kid Loki really similar kind of creations? Like they were both independent fragments of a larger being that they resembled the childhood versions of? Arg trying to comprehend the mechanics of comic book major really ties your brain in knots...

  15. #510

    Default

    Just finished reading JiM. I have many thoughts and feelings, but sadness is most prominent emotion. I always have gotten way too attached to fictional characters. On the one hand, Kid Loki (the real Kid Loki) will never have the heel-turn that seemed inevitable. His death has preserved him forever as a tragically heroic figure. And I can understand why Gillen wanted to be the one to end Kid Loki's story. But on the other hand, it was soul-crushingly depressing.

    I do regret that I won't be able to read Young Avengers. I just can't read about Loki right now. Loki killed Kid Loki and is wearing his face, kind of like a Buffyverse vampire. Kid Loki was the big draw (character-wise, at least) for me when it came to the new YA, and he doesn't exist anymore. While I'm sure a lot of people can't wait to find out what Loki is up to by bringing together a new group of young heroes, I am not, at least not for a good long while. Whether or not this new (old?) Loki is already evil or will be ambiguous for a while until Marvel has him go full-on villain again (because that's how Marvel rolls), I'd rather not see him pretend to be the character I cared about.
    "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." George Carlin

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •