Watched "Thor" again, confused about Lore.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ok, correct me if I am wrong, but in the Marvel universe their Norse Mythos is based on the Asgardians coming to Earth in ancient times and battling the "Frost Giants".
So, all of the Norse Mythos, Odin, Byfrost, the rainbow bridge, etc, is based upon that war and what they saw.

Well........

At that time, "Thor" as we know him, was just a baby, and Loki had not yet been adopted yet. So at the time of Ancient Norse mythos these two key figures didn't really exist yet. This vexes me since in "Our" Norse mythos Loki and Thor are of course together. "WE" all know Loki is a badguy and a trickster, because that is how he was in the original Myths.

But in Marvel, he was just a baby at the time...

So....
Is this like chicken and the egg? Or is there an In-universe explanation for this?

[Lord Revan]

they visited later too it's implied when one of the warriors three (can't remember which one) says that Jotumheim isn't like Midgard(aka earth) where you can show up cast some lightning and be done.

[Ted C]

they visited later too it's implied when one of the warriors three (can't remember which one) says that Jotumheim isn't like Midgard(aka earth) where you can show up cast some lightning and be done.

That would be Fandral, who commented that if you showed up on Earth and summoned some lightning, they'd treat you as a god. Probably a few centuries since they've paid a visit, I suppose.

[Broomstick]

This vexes me since in "Our" Norse mythos Loki and Thor are of course together. "WE" all know Loki is a badguy and a trickster, because that is how he was in the original Myths.

Er.... in the original mythos Loki and Odin are blood brothers and Loki is uncle to the much younger Thor, who came along later.

Also, which our-Loki was undeniably a trickster he wasn't a "bad guy" in the sense usually meant - in quite a few myths he is actually the hero who saves the Aesir's bacon, particularly in adventures were he and Thor pal around. Saying he's the "bad guy" is a very superficial understanding of the character.

[Manus Celer Dei]

So....
Is this like chicken and the egg? Or is there an In-universe explanation for this?

In many cases myths and legends are based on misunderstood or distorted accounts of the events that inspired them

[Ted C]

So....
Is this like chicken and the egg? Or is there an In-universe explanation for this?

In many cases myths and legends are based on misunderstood or distorted accounts of the events that inspired them

Or, it could be that a lot of the mythology is made up, using what little was remembered about the Asgardians as a starting point.

[dworkin]

Reason 1: The kid Thor / Loki scene, happened a really, really long time ago. Thor and co. slapped around giants on Earth when they were teenagers.

Reason 2: Time travel / time dialation / wibbly-wobbly thing. Thor and co. slap around giants in Thor's future / our past.

Reason 3: Cor! Look at those abs. Isn't that lady scientist type cute eh! That guy with the bow looks a bit of alright too! Um, what was the question again?

And yes, Loki often suffers from Confused with Satan Syndrome. However I thought Loki's plot was something more typical of Mr Liesmith. I was confused why the other Asgardians were so against it. Instead of 'Dick move Loki, but you did get rid of our ancestral enemies. Why didn't we think of using the Bifrost as a big laser cannon?' we get 'Loki, you're clearly the designated villain so we'll oppose you because, um, hey, look at my abs!'

Loki in The Avengers is practically another character and has been confused with Satan.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

The other asgardians were against it because it was genocide. The jotuns have been stuck on their planet since Odin defeated them and without the magic ice machine the best they can do is send out small raiding parties, and even that is implied to work only because Loki helped them out. Sure, at the start of the plot Thor wouldn't have balked at the prospect of killing all the jotuns himself in combat, but that was because he was like Loki, letting his pride rule his judgement. Odin seems a pretty popular king and his stated policy was that as long as the jotuns can't do any harm, let's just leave them be.

I think you really misread that film, too, because no one treated Loki as a villain at all. His family loves him even to the end and everyone else just wants to stop his plot.

[LadyTevar]

In Thor, Loki's story was a classic Tragedy. The second son, jealous of his brother, his rise to power over his brother, and his fall. In Avengers, we see this again when Thor grabs Loki. Thor wants his brother home, Loki never wants to be in Thor's shadow again. Thus the Faustian bargain with Thanos and the Chitaurians.

Loki in the Norse Mythos, however, is the "smart" one. Odin is the Father and Rune-master, but Loki is the one who comes up with brilliant (if dishonorable) schemes to get the AEsir out of trouble.

[Ralin]

Also, which our-Loki was undeniably a trickster he wasn't a "bad guy" in the sense usually meant - in quite a few myths he is actually the hero who saves the Aesir's bacon, particularly in adventures were he and Thor pal around. Saying he's the "bad guy" is a very superficial understanding of the character.

I haven't read Norse mythology since I was a kid, but the way I understand it that's only half true. In the earlier stories Loki is the way you describe him. Then you get later stories that were probably Christian-influenced where he turns into more of an outright evil figure.

[Ted C]

Also, which our-Loki was undeniably a trickster he wasn't a "bad guy" in the sense usually meant - in quite a few myths he is actually the hero who saves the Aesir's bacon, particularly in adventures were he and Thor pal around. Saying he's the "bad guy" is a very superficial understanding of the character.

I haven't read Norse mythology since I was a kid, but the way I understand it that's only half true. In the earlier stories Loki is the way you describe him. Then you get later stories that were probably Christian-influenced where he turns into more of an outright evil figure.

Loki pretty much was just a self-centered trickster until he got so jealous of Balder that he arranged his death. That was what TVTropes would call his "moral event horizon", where he went from being a lovable troublemaker to an outright villain. His punishment for that was quite severe: more than sufficient to drive him mad and make him help the giants invade Asgard at Ragnarok.

[Purple]

I thought Baldrs death was an accident. As in, that he newer thought that a blind god would hit anywhere serious. The whole story always sounded to me like a prank gone horribly wrong.

[Bedlam]

I thought Baldrs death was an accident. As in, that he newer thought that a blind god would hit anywhere serious. The whole story always sounded to me like a prank gone horribly wrong.

Maybe the version I've read makes it quite malicious, he did arange for the dart to be made of the one matterial that would actually be able to hurt Baldar and again going by the version I read Loki helped to guide the throwers arm.

[Broomstick]

Bedlam has it correctly - Loki sought out the one thing that could hurt Baldur and tricked Hodur into using it.

[Purple]

I am not contesting that it was intentional. I am just contesting that he had the intention of killing Baldr. The way I got it, the thing was a prank with serious potential to go wrong. As in, he saw the gods having fun throwing stuff at Baldr. And thought it would be a fun prank to make them hurt him to mess them up. So he sought out the blind god (the one guy he knew had no chance in hell of hitting anything vital) and handed him an arrow that could hurt Baldr. Probably in the hope that with his guidance the blind god would sort of hit Baldr. Maybe wound him. But generally just draw blood and make everyone shout and scream and stuff. You know: OMG! What happened! Turns out the blind god is a good shot...

It just seems out of character for him to be that strait up evil. And besides. If he really wanted to kill Baldr why not just slip the arrow to some of the better gods and skip town? I always figured the whole "Loki is evil and jealous so he plans murder" was a product of later christianisation.

[Spoonist]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/poe/index.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/pre/index.htm

story is this, that Baldr the Good dreamed great and perilous dreams touching his life. When he told these dreams to the Æsir, then they took counsel together: and this was their decision: to ask safety for Baldr from all kinds of dangers. And Frigg took oaths to this purport, that fire and water should spare Baldr, likewise iron and metal of all kinds, stones, earth, trees, sicknesses, beasts, birds, venom, serpents. And when that was done and made known, then it was a diversion of Baldr's and the Æsir, that he should stand up in the Thing,[1] and all the others should some shoot at him, some hew at him, some beat him with stones; but whatsoever was done hurt him not at all, and that seemed to them all a very worshipful thing.

"But when Loki Laufeyarson saw this, it pleased him ill that Baldr took no hurt. He went to Fensalir to Frigg, and made himself into the likeness of a woman. Then Frigg asked if that woman knew what the Æsir did at the Thing. She said that all were shooting at Baldr, and moreover, that he took no hurt. Then said Frigg: 'Neither weapons nor trees may hurt Baldr: I have taken oaths of them all.' Then the woman asked: 'Have all things taken oaths to spare Baldr?' and Frigg answered: 'There grows a tree-sprout alone westward of Valhall: it is called Mistletoe; I thought it too young to ask the oath of.' Then straightway the woman turned away; but Loki took Mistletoe and pulled it up and went to the Thing.

"Hödr stood outside the ring of men, because he was blind. Then spake Loki to him: 'Why dost thou not shoot at Baldr?' He answered: 'Because I see not where Baldr

[1. The Thing was the legislative assembly of Iceland; less specifically, a formal assembly held for judicial purposes or to settle questions of moment; an assembly of men.]

{p. 72}

is; and for this also, that I am weaponless.' Then said Loki: 'Do thou also after the manner of other men, and show Baldr honor as the other men do. I will direct thee where he stands; shoot at him with this wand.' Hödr took Mistletoe and shot at Baldr, being guided by Loki: the shaft flew through Baldr, and he fell dead to the earth; and that was the greatest mischance that has ever befallen among gods and men.

"Then, when Baldr was fallen, words failed all the, Æsir, and their hands likewise to lay hold of him; each looked at the other, and all were of one mind as to him who had. wrought the work, but none might take vengeance, so great a sanctuary was in that place. But when the Æsir tried to speak, then it befell first that weeping broke out, so that none might speak to the others with words concerning his grief. But Odin bore that misfortune by so much the worst, as he had most perception of how great harm and loss for the Æsir were in the death of Baldr.

[Simon_Jester]

I am not contesting that it was intentional. I am just contesting that he had the intention of killing Baldr. The way I got it, the thing was a prank with serious potential to go wrong. As in, he saw the gods having fun throwing stuff at Baldr. And thought it would be a fun prank to make them hurt him to mess them up. So he sought out the blind god (the one guy he knew had no chance in hell of hitting anything vital) and handed him an arrow that could hurt Baldr. Probably in the hope that with his guidance the blind god would sort of hit Baldr. Maybe wound him. But generally just draw blood and make everyone shout and scream and stuff. You know: OMG! What happened! Turns out the blind god is a good shot...

You know what my advice is?

If you don't want someone to get killed, don't hurl spears at them.

It just seems out of character for him to be that strait up evil. And besides. If he really wanted to kill Baldr why not just slip the arrow to some of the better gods and skip town? I always figured the whole "Loki is evil and jealous so he plans murder" was a product of later christianisation.

One of Loki's basic character flaws is that while he is clever, he lacks foresight. If he's in the middle of some plan for making everyone else look stupid, he doesn't think about the long-term consequences of his actions.

So petty emotions (like jealousy) can motivate him to come up with ridiculously dangerous pranks (like "hurl a spear at Baldur") with terrible, unforeseen consequences (like Baldur getting stabbed to death with a spear) which get him in trouble (like the entire Norse pantheon being after him for murder).

Loki's pranks can be viewed have an almost child-like combination of cleverness and irresponsibility. And we all know children who shouldn't be trusted to do things like handle weapons because they might decide it was hilarious to take that pistol and start firing it "past people's ears, to scare them," at which point you're about one minute from a horrible deadly accident.

If there were a Norse equivalent of Hesiod, who could weave all the narratives of mythology together without biasing them because he was doing it from within their culture... I think the sequence of Loki's life would go like this. Loki is clever, he is valued for his cleverness at foiling the enemies of Asgard. But he also stages these 'pranks,' some of them basically harmless, others actually rather harmful. And perhaps you'd have some kind of "chronological order." In the early days of Asgard, when the giants were powerful and Asgard still needed its walls built and so on, Loki's trickery is valued and needed to keep Asgard alive. But in later days, Asgard is secure, there is little need for Loki to constantly outwit their enemies, and Loki's own actions have become the main source of trouble in Asgard.

So he gets less and less popular. Which also means he feels more isolated, he goes off into the wilds more often and meets more with people who are themselves rivals or enemies of Asgard (this may be the period during which his dangerous children, Jormungand and Fenrir, are born). And his "pranks" get nastier, harder-edged, with the sort of 'humor' that places a land mine under your seat cushion because of the funny kaboom. Finally you have the Baldur incident and Loki places himself totally beyond the pale as far as Asgard is concerned.

So there's a tragic element there: Loki's cleverness is valued when the community is weak, but because he can't work within the social order, he becomes an enemy of the community when it grows strong and safe.

[Purple]

Exactly what I am saying. I newer said that he was not acting like a complete irresponsible idiot jerk. And I am not saying that it's not his fault. It's totally his fault. The whole land mine under a seat cushion analogy is spot on. All I said was that it sounded to me like he did not really intend the whole thing to play out as it did. It just sort of happened because he was an idiot who did not think the horribly dangerous prank through. So it's not so much murder 1 as it is murder 2 or maybe negligent homicide. It's like you Americans say all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

[Simon_Jester]

Arguably so.

And from what limited things I know, Norse custom didn't really distinguish; you could become an outcast or be terribly punished for "accidentally" killing someone by doing something malicious and dangerous to them.

Personally, I'm not sure that's wrong- it's more informal than our approach to justice, but it's also more personal, more... human, if you will.

[Ted C]

The Aesir are hardly perfect, anyway. Their punishment for Loki is so extreme, that it's no wonder he goes from "reckless prankster" to "sworn enemy of Asgard", whether his actual intent was to kill Balder or not.

[Spoonist]

Arguably so.

And from what limited things I know, Norse custom didn't really distinguish; you could become an outcast or be terribly punished for "accidentally" killing someone by doing something malicious and dangerous to them.

Personally, I'm not sure that's wrong- it's more informal than our approach to justice, but it's also more personal, more... human, if you will.

This differed greatly among different regions of norse and shifted during the ages.

Swedes and Goethar was similar to anglo-saxon laws.
Danish more as evidenced by danelaw before the normans.
Norwegian laws are less known but when refered to it seems it was more arbitrary and authorative but that could be a bias of foreigners.

What you are probably thinking about is Icelandic law which was an evolved form from their norwegian roots.
Its much more "democratic" with the allting etc, however most "cases" could be similar to a civilian court with a wronged party seeking repayment for the loss.
As such the "how" was not as important as the "how much" ie the loss. So whether it was intentional or not was almost a seperate trial. First a settlement was reached and only if the wronged party still wanted punishment, then would one argue the how.
So whether I killed your slave by accident or by wroth didn't matter if you accepted the recompensation meeted out. Only if you wanted me not only to pay recompensation but also be punished would that be taken into account.

[Purple]

The Aesir are hardly perfect, anyway. Their punishment for Loki is so extreme, that it's no wonder he goes from "reckless prankster" to "sworn enemy of Asgard", whether his actual intent was to kill Balder or not.

So in other words. One could say that the real moral of the story is that when you try and be "tough on crime" you end up causing the end of the world.

[Metahive]

The Aesir are hardly perfect, anyway. Their punishment for Loki is so extreme, that it's no wonder he goes from "reckless prankster" to "sworn enemy of Asgard", whether his actual intent was to kill Balder or not.

There is more to the story, not only did Loki cause the deaths of both Baldr and Hödr (his unknowing asset in the murder plot), he also pettily ensured that Baldr couldn't be brought back from Hel's realm by being the single person in all the universe to not mourn his death (Hel had promised to release Baldr if everything in the universe would do so). Even then, the gods only finally bound him when he threw insults at them non-stop during a feast despite repeated warnings to cut it out. Loki had it coming for a long time and the Aesir were actually quite patient with him all things considered.

[jollyreaper]

The conflicting versions of events make it feel more real because we can assume one version comes from Loki and the other from his opponents.

I like how misperception and miscommunication can leave both sides in a conflict feeling like victims and their opponents as unsympathetic bastards. If the audience can truly appreciate the differences between the true facts and the facts as interpreted by each side, feel their pain and understanding the senseless tragedy of the conflict, that is good writing. I find it more boring when the villain is a pure monster just like his detractors claim.

[madd0ct0r]

in the comics - are there anypoints where thor and loki pal up as a double act?

I'd love to see Loki as a 'consultant avenger'