Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Loki


CRA
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Panthercougar68 said:

Here comes Kang!

(alligator Loki ftw)

I have my doubts that a TV show will be his debut in the MCU.   Nothing to date from the other shows says the TV shows are going that far.  We will have to see I guess. 

Loved the Throg easter egg too lol.  But yeah, alligator Loki is pretty awesome. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SPOILERS

I personally have my eye on old man kermit the frog looking Loki.....still factoring next episode. 

We didn't get the big payoff in WandaVision.  I'm thinking they maintain that here too.  We get the Kang debut later in an actual movie. 

I'm thinking Loki largely just lays out how the the Spider-Man variants will work and are understood and aspects of the multiverse.   Plus, it sets up how Loki stays involved with the timeline our MCU based on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CRA said:

SPOILERS

I personally have my eye on old man kermit the frog looking Loki.....still factoring next episode. 

We didn't get the big payoff in WandaVision.  I'm thinking they maintain that here too.  We get the Kang debut later in an actual movie. 

I'm thinking Loki largely just lays out how the the Spider-Man variants will work and are understood and aspects of the multiverse.   Plus, it sets up how Loki stays involved with the timeline our MCU based on. 

Ya, unless they tease him Kang isn’t suppose to show up until the next ant-man and wasp. So I have a hard to believing he’s the ultimate villain here. My moneys still on a Loki variant. 
 

Kinda disappointed with last nights episode beside all the Loki’s. Really just 99% annoying filler that really didn’t accomplish anything and the little bit of character building they tried to do fell flat to me. This is why I tend to not watch shows until the whole season is out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

Ya, unless they tease him Kang isn’t suppose to show up until the next ant-man and wasp. So I have a hard to believing he’s the ultimate villain here. My moneys still on a Loki variant. 
 

Kinda disappointed with last nights episode beside all the Loki’s. Really just 99% annoying filler that really didn’t accomplish anything and the little bit of character building they tried to do fell flat to me. This is why I tend to not watch shows until the whole season is out. 

the old man Loki just stood out to me.  The whole line about his illusion being so great and grand that it fooled Thanos into thinking he killed him.  At first, I was like......is that what happened with our Loki.  Was that what they were going for? To have us think about that.   

But then later on he had a line about not wanting to leave despite the option.  And then pulled off another super grand illusion where we are to believe he died. 

So I think Kang could be loosely alluded to.   But I think old man Loki will be the guy in the castle/house.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having it be Kang would suck, as the whole season whould be a pointless waste just to set him up as the baddie for a movie. Having it not be Kang also sucks, as this short AF season would be over with next to no build up or deep character dive for the man behind the curtain. Oh, it's Old Man Loki? Cool ... he was great ... in his one episode. Neat, he's behind it. Now they are going to beat him. Series over!

Meh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Lady Loki is Enchantress and she has in fact enchanted Loki into falling in love with her. What better way to get a narcissist like Loki to finally fall in love with someone than to offer up a female version of himself? I think the motivations they've given her in this series are what ultimately drive her to choose revenge/chaos over love with Loki. Remember how she only had a short pause when he was 'pruned' last episode and was composed enough not to kill Ravonna, instead sparing her for interrogation? You don't react that way if the one person you love most in the universe has just been murdered. I think they finally destroy/overtake whoever(not Kang) is in the castle, and she's successful in creating the multiverse, which will set up the Dr. Strange and Spiderman movies coming out in the next 12 months. 

When I was a kid, I always thought it would be great for my favorite comic book characters to be in good movies and have lots of great crossovers like they do in the actual comic books, but this Disney brand corporate synergy is fuging exhausting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Panther'sBigD said:

I think Lady Loki is Enchantress and she has in fact enchanted Loki into falling in love with her. What better way to get a narcissist like Loki to finally fall in love with someone than to offer up a female version of himself? I think the motivations they've given her in this series are what ultimately drive her to choose revenge/chaos over love with Loki. Remember how she only had a short pause when he was 'pruned' last episode and was composed enough not to kill Ravonna, instead sparing her for interrogation? You don't react that way if the one person you love most in the universe has just been murdered. I think they finally destroy/overtake whoever(not Kang) is in the castle, and she's successful in creating the multiverse, which will set up the Dr. Strange and Spiderman movies coming out in the next 12 months. 

When I was a kid, I always thought it would be great for my favorite comic book characters to be in good movies and have lots of great crossovers like they do in the actual comic books, but this Disney brand corporate synergy is fuging exhausting. 

SPOILERS/MY BAD GUESS

I think Lady Loki is the MCU's unique version of Enchantress.  I am not buying the romance though. 

and I think she will betray our Loki once they get to the castle and reach some sort final decision moment after they meet old man/classic Loki at the end.  Our Loki has been enchanted ever since that scene he claimed it wouldn't work...and then started to "fall" for her.  She needed help to get to the end.   And they make sure you are pondering the betrayal angle potentially coming from Loki....instead of Sylvie as we enter the finale episode.  

Our Loki in the end loses.   That's what Loki's do.  A steady theme they have repeated.  He gets betrayed.   He takes an L.  But the other theme is Loki's survive.  So he will find a different way out of there than the route Sylvie takes.   His route out will keep him in play with our MCU. 

I think the TV shows largely are just bonus material and fleshing out characters that don't get it in the movies.   They will give us additional insight and some bonus knowledge when the movies hit the multiverse/variants and other plots.....but Marvel isn't going to want the TV shows to be required info for the actual story.  I do think who they meet at the end will hint at a lot of what is coming....but we don't get the real payoff. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CRA said:

SPOILERS/MY BAD GUESS

I think Lady Loki is the MCU's unique version of Enchantress.  I am not buying the romance though. 

and I think she will betray our Loki once they get to the castle and reach some sort final decision moment after they meet old man/classic Loki at the end.  Our Loki has been enchanted ever since that scene he claimed it wouldn't work...and then started to "fall" for her.  She needed help to get to the end.   And they make sure you are pondering the betrayal angle potentially coming from Loki....instead of Sylvie as we enter the finale episode.  

Our Loki in the end loses.   That's what Loki's do.  A steady theme they have repeated.  He gets betrayed.   He takes an L.  But the other theme is Loki's survive.  So he will find a different way out of there than the route Sylvie takes.   His route out will keep him in play with our MCU. 

I think the TV shows largely are just bonus material and fleshing out characters that don't get it in the movies.   They will give us additional insight and some bonus knowledge when the movies hit the multiverse/variants and other plots.....but Marvel isn't going to want the TV shows to be required info for the actual story.  I do think who they meet at the end will hint at a lot of what is coming....but we don't get the real payoff. 

 

Don’t forget too Loki is suppose to have a second season according to the rumor mill and hints MCU execs have dropped. Honestly, it’d be dumb not to do a second season with the viewership it’s pulling in. We know Loki is suppose to be in doctor strange. I wouldn’t be surprised though if a second series of the show doesn’t follow Sylvia more though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Give me Mitchell Evans over T Sanders in this run heavy offense any day of the week. 
    • What's up gents, the OGs remember me, the guy who single-handedly gave the Panthers the greatest uniform in history moniker. Not too long after that I got involved with Pro Football Focus (pre-Collinsworth acquisition) and ended up taking backseat here to preserve some objectivity. But from a distance I noticed a lot. After the end of the Cam era this place devolved into the most un-fun, petty, negative cesspool of whining and bitching that has ever graced the internet. The worst part of it all is that the level of discussion turned into the most ill-informed, hot-take, unnuanced crap, rife with people talking out of their posteriors as if they have any clue about what they are watching. Once you get into the professional side of the sport and actual film rooms, you start to understand there's an absurd number of moving parts to pretty much every snap and the details you are privy to are truly only half the picture. The absolute most important thing I learned from being part of professional level football analysis is that quarterbacking is literally the most intricate and difficult position in all of professional sports, and that the NFL itself is struggling to develop any workable model that allows them to understand what makes one succeed vs what makes one fail. Because of this paradox it has also made the quarterback position itself grossly overvalued from a fan and media standpoint, creating an absurd fixation on the results delivered by a single player who has to rely on the contributions of everyone around them. This also drives the dreaded inflation of QB salaries that inevitably cause even elite teams to lose key talent all to pour cash into the one player supposed to be able to single-handedly elevate the entire team (and defense and special teams and coaching and ownership by some mysterious proxy), yet without those same players even talented teams can wander the wilderness searching for the right guy to take advantage of their talent window. The discussions the last few years around Bryce has personified this insanity, as this board has devolved into some sort of electronic civil war between the hyperbolic Young supporters and the vitriolic Bryce haters. The reality, like practically everything in this world, is somewhere in the middle. He has traits that can absolutely elevate a team with creativity, play recognition, off-arm angle throws, mental toughness, etc. He's also physically limited, with mostly "good-enough" qualities for most situations that a professional quarterback is asked to do, and will never be an overpowering physical force like pre-injury Cam. But "good-enough" physicality represents a large majority of championship-winning quarterbacks, even in the modern era. There's a reason the corpse of Peyton Manning took the chip from elite physical specimen Cam, because the team surrounding him was talented enough to get him there, while we all know Cam was the driving force of that 2015 team. That's no knock on him, that's just how the game of football tends to work: the more complete team usually wins. The summary is this: if this team lives or dies solely on the performance of its quarterback, then it is absolutely a paper tiger even if he plays brilliantly week in and out. There are no superheroes in this sport, there are only conduits that proxy the collective efforts of much of the team around them. And no one alive can tell you how the position is played perfectly, it's all a confluence of circumstance and what unique collection of traits each player brings to the position, which can never be truly recreated season after season, even for the same player on the same team. If this place remains a raging hellscape of idiotic hot takes I will happily remove myself again and do something more productive for yet another decade, but maybe's there hope that we can all get back to the old adage, and keep pounding.
    • Really impressed how the bottom six have looked the past couple games
×
×
  • Create New...