Tom Hiddleston ‘shooting extra scenes’ for ‘Thor’, people want more Loki

In a Tom Hiddleston post last week, I updated with the latest Hiddles-tastic trailer from Thor: The Dark World, but I’m including it again. The second trailer is actually kind of funny because it’s like Marvel suddenly realized that the Hiddlestoners were in complete revolt over how little screen time Hiddles got in the first trailer. Thus, Hiddles features VERY prominently in the second one. It’s kind of like Loki: The Dark Loki in here.

Obviously, it has become increasingly obvious to Marvel that Tom Hiddleston enjoys playing Loki, that he’s a fan-favorite (that’s putting it mildly) and that many, many women are going to see this franchise because of Loki/Hiddles. There’s a comparison to made, surely – because Chris Hemsworth honestly doesn’t seem like he gives a crap about the Thor franchise these days, while Hiddles will travel anywhere and do any kind of stunt to promote the film.

So, as Marvel executives have slowly come to that realization, I think they’ve been trying to figure a way out of their predicament. You see, Thor: The Dark World was supposed to be Hiddleston’s last film. He won’t be in The Avengers: The Age of Ultron and it seemed like the Loki character might not come back from any Thor sequels too. But then at Comic-Con, Marvel people started talking about how important Loki was and is to the Marvel universe. And some people didn’t want to kill the golden goose, you know? So, magically, Hiddleston was asked back to film additional scenes for Thor: The Dark World:

Tom Hiddleston has been shooting extra scenes for Thor: The Dark World – the movie’s director has revealed. The popularity of his character Loki in The Avengers has apparently prompted Marvel Studios to write and film more scenes featuring him in the Thor sequel.

Director Alan Taylor told Collider: “We continue to, what [Marvel Studios president] Kevin Feige calls, ‘plus the movie,’ [with] new scenes being added even now. We’re doing full scenes, scenes that were not in the movie before. We’re adding scenes, creating scenes, writing scenes for the first time.

“We realized how well Loki was working in the movie, and we wanted to do more with him. So it was that kind of thing, it was like, ‘Oh, we could do this, we could jam this in here because he’s such a wonderful guy to watch do his stuff.’”

Hiddleston plays Thor’s villainous adoptive brother and arch-enemy – who he turns to for help in the new movie. Thor: The Dark World will be released on 30 October.

[From MTV]

It is incredibly late in the schedule to do these kinds of rewrites and reshoots. It makes me wonder if they decided to completely rewrite the ending of The Dark World to ensure that Loki is around for many more films.

Photos courtesy of WENN, Twitter.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

165 Responses to “Tom Hiddleston ‘shooting extra scenes’ for ‘Thor’, people want more Loki”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. mia girl says:

    I’m no Hiddles super fan, but I really like the guy and definitely prefer Loki to Thor.

    I think there may be two things going on simultaneously… what we are bring told about “plusing” the movie with fan favorite Hiddleston/Loki, and also some kind of souring of the filmmakers/Marvel’s relationship with Hemsworth. I smell something funky.

  2. Erinn says:

    I had never seen Tom Hiddleston before, and I have never seen the Avengers, or Thor.

    I find him incredibly annoying in interviews though.

  3. Andrew says:

    I’m in the minority, but I have never like Loki. He’s just not menacing to me and kind of wimpy. I like Tom, just not Loki. I’m just tired of him being the villain…it’s just bland to me

    • Linda L says:


      But, but, but, ANDREW! How can you say that? Villains are THE most COMPLEX characters in all of Christendom (and Hollywood)! Do you not appreciate the utter Shakespearean complexities of playing the God of Mischief? Peasant.

      Lol, j/k. Was channeling Tom for a moment.
      Loki is a very wimpy, bland villain. But remember, Marvel’s target audience still has their Moms walk them to the school bus every morning.

      • Andrew says:

        Lol! Yeah that’s definitely channeling Tom. Yeah I know about Marvel’s target audience, but I still think they can do better. Example:Alfred Molina in Spiderman 2 as Doc Ock

      • Linda L says:


        Think this is DC comics(?), but Heath Ledger’s Joker & Tom Hardy’s Bane actually made me catch my breath a couple of times. THEY were scary. I BELIEVED they wanted to burn down the whole world.

        Not Loki. (Yawn)

      • MonicaQ says:

        Marvel’s target audience is 18-42. New blood into the series and the old timers that read the comics but aren’t so grouchy they won’t accept it. So no, I don’t get taken to the bus stop every morning.

      • TheWendyNerd says:

        As a comic book fan, I’m kind of miffed by that comment about Marvel’s target audience.

        However, Loki’s potency as a “villain” was damaged by The Avengers, which I loved but… Yeah… The trickster spent more time getting tricked himself in that film. The bits with him being sad and Whitney worked better in Thor because he’d just found out he was secretly adopted and his planet’s version of the boogeyman, and there were actual layers to the shit he was doing. With The Avengers it was just straight up dude trying to take over the world and with that kind of thing, a villain like Loki doesn’t work, especially given his weird alliance. He just works better being his own plotter than some military lackey.

        Of course, I’ve never been all that partial to Thor or much of his section of the Marvel Universe. Give me Hulk, The X-Men, Ms. Marvel/ Captain Marvel any day ( though Sif in the comics is awesome). For me, when it comes to ancient mythology based comic book heroes, I prefer Wonder Woman’s universe. Now a villain like Ares would have worked better playing Loki’s role in The Avengers.

        Tom takes Loki too seriously in his interviews which is funny since he tends to nail actually playifor the character he’s given for the most part, but Loki is not exactly Ras Al Ghul. There are times in the comics where he has been legitimately menacing, but that’s when he’s actually been the God of mischief. Loki always was a character more into starting shit via tricks/manipulation than just balls out military conquest. So yeah, it clashes a bit with the stuff in The Avengers. That’s not Loki’s true calling, and that’s glaringly apparent in The Avengers, so yeah, it makes him seem like a Wimpy whoobie.

        Villains are great, but movie Loki isn’t a great “villain.” But heroes can be just as interesting as villains, especially anti-heroes/the ones with messed up backgrounds. Hulk, Raven, Punisher, Scarlet Witch, Catwoman. People who have flip-flopped between the hero and villiain/done a lot of insanely ambiguous things are the best. That’s one of the things that made Watchmen so great. Not all heroes are Superman and people forget that.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        No mom to walk me to school. Sorry. And you are dead on with your assessment of Loki, WendyNerd.

      • MissThing says:

        Avengers ruined Loki as a character only because Joss Whedon REALLY does not like the character. He didn’t want Loki to be the bad guy and it is obvious he really doesn’t like Thor much either. Both characters were written so very wrong in that movie. That and Avengers was trying to be more fluff and fun then dark and gritty.

        I have this fantasy of a movie where Loki actually gets to be the scary devious frightening fucker he really is. Something with an R rating would be nice…

        He is every bit as deranged as the Joker and yet Avengers conveniently ignored the majority of Loki’s powers because honestly, by himself he could fuck up half the earth.

      • CC says:

        I think Joss got seriously burned with Buffy’s Spike.

      • Crumpets & Crotchshots says:

        WendyNerd, I just want to say I really like your style.

        I’m kind of happy that CB has attracted so many people who really know their comics. You inspire me!

      • G. says:

        Agreed. Just not a fan of Loki in general.

    • Vl says:

      Actually, Loke, which is how the Swedes spell Loki was mischievous rather than menacing.

      Just cause we find the thought of watching the world burn horrifying doesn’t mean an half-asa half-giant would think it’s any worse than breaking your mothers china.

      All about perspective I guess.

  4. Trek Girl says:

    I see Rooney Mara when I look at him. They look so much alike to me.

    I’ve yet to see him in anything. I think I’ll check out his IMDb page and pick a few of his movies to watch.

  5. Maria_Spain says:

    -_- well i think the man knows how to play his cards .

    loki_for_ever_fan :p

  6. me says:

    I want that Loki poster for my bedroom….however my husband might mind lol

  7. jen says:

    No wonder middle-aged fangirls love him, he’s a total woobie. He’s one of the worst superhero “villains” ever in terms of being villainy or even a tiny bit menacing at all.

  8. Sixer says:

    Wow. Feige works this stuff like an election campaign, doesn’t he? It’s constant polls and numbers and constant fiddling with the product.

    I’m gonna say way to go to TommyAnne if he’s managing to play this game well enough to get not just more scenes but more films.

    But I’m also going to sink into my cups and wail “but where, oh where, is the ART?”

    Poor Alan Taylor. Poor any director. Who would want this? “Comic-Con got 471653 tumblr posts, 297463983 Twitter mentions and 87.14242422% positive sentiment mentions across social media as a whole. Taylor! Shoot more scenes.”

  9. Feebee says:

    If there was ever an appropriate use of “too much of a good thing” it is now.

    I can’t imagine the amount of work it must take to shoot new scenes for a movie due out in a matter of months. If he’s that important just give him his own movie…. Later.

    It’s not like he’ll fall from the public eye. With the Thor roll out, the disney dvd and you know the Hollow Crown (airing in feb?) will get Emmy noms so we’re going to be hiddled until at least sept 2014.

  10. Jag says:

    They better leave Thor alone. I need my Chris fix. I do like Loki as Hiddleston plays him, but wonder if the movie will suffer with all the “plus-ing.”

    Feebee’s idea of giving him his own movie is a good one!

    That poster is a riot. lol

  11. Anna says:

    Oi. Loki as Natalie Portman’s Jane is creeeeeeepy, but sign me up for everything else.

  12. Virgilia Coriolanus says:

    I tried to watch the thing he did at Comic Con….it was just too embarrassing. I got through the part where he tells them to quiet down the second time, and turned it off. It’s a good thing I don’t ever plan on acting, because I would just die if they asked me do something like that.

  13. T.fanty says:

    Someone on data lounge was saying that there are strong rumors starting to circulate that the film is a mess. Reshoots kind of confirm that.

    • Sixer says:

      I think the franchise has become so addicted to fulfilling the requirements of the numbers (and the numbers shift with online fads) that it’s impossible to create a coherent film.

      My kids love this stuff, so I see the films, despite thinking most are rubbish rather than enjoyable popcorn. The narrative is always dire. I quite enjoyed Thor. It had a storyline. But Avengers? It seems to me it was just a series of CGI fights, chases, and scenes with whichever character or actor the numbers demanded, cut together to approximate a narrative.

      • T.fanty says:

        Okay, I’m glad it’s not just me. Sometimes I worry because while I can follow the plot of The Faerie Queene, most action movies confuse me.

        It’s worrying for what the kids grow up understanding. It’s like the narrative version of “but it has electrolytes!” Annoying as he can be, I do give credit to TommyAnne for trying to be both populist and actively intellectual.

      • Sixer says:

        It’s not just you. It’s a recipe. But the problem is that the required ingredients change very quickly in an online world of fancies and fallens.

        Oh, and I suspect there is a change in the understanding of “the base ingredient of drama is conflict”. In this brave new world, conflict only ever means fight scene.

      • Lucrezia says:

        The films definitely work much better if you’re a comic book geek. They are a lot of scenes (particularly in Avengers) that are somewhere between fan-service and Tarantino-style homage. If you’re not familiar with the references, then part of the movie is flying over your head.

        I think that for the typical non-comic-book-geek, the pretty explosions are enough to distract you from the bits you don’t quite get.

        But you guys aren’t your average consumer, so it isn’t working.

      • Sixer says:

        @ Lucrezia. Thank you – I’m entirely sure I’m missing references so comprehensively that I didn’t realise there even were any!

    • Ncboudicca says:

      Sounds like it: if the movie is good (enough) then there’s no reason to add more Loki. This last minute “hey let’s add more Loki” sounds like a desperation move. I love me some Hiddles in a Loki suit, but I’m sort of disappointed because I have been hoping the sequel would be better than the original – which was just okay to me.

      On the bright side, at least the re-shoots aren’t to add more Jane.

    • Lucrezia says:

      I dunno. Normally I’d say yes, reshoots don’t bode well. But for Marvel, this actually is their standard process.

      In the interview, Alan Taylor gives a cute description of Feige, saying he never wants to stop “tweaking” and they basically have to pry the film out of his hands in order to ship it to the cinemas.

      Taylor seems really open and upfront about it. He does say there were a few tone issues, and questions on how to resolve relationships, but it sounds like for the most part the Loki scenes are just extra cute bridging scenes. Taylor’s either a brilliant actor or he’s simply telling the truth.

      • Ellen says:

        There are also reliable reports that Loki died at the end of the movie, and they are either already planning to magic him back later, or not kill him at all. So regardless, they need reshoots to adjust where they leave the various relationships.

        I am pretty bummed that they backed off Loki’s death. It would have made a really nice end to his story.

  14. Nanz says:

    The poster made me LOL. So funny. TH as Loki is pretty amazing.

  15. Joy says:

    I feel ridiculous for saying this, but I feel he’s more attractive in character as Loki.

  16. Crumpets & Crotchshots says:

    I’ve heard varying things: mainly, that something is going wrong behind the scenes, and there are real conflicts between Taylor and Marvel. They have been reshooting all year, the composer was fired, they don’t have a soundtrack yet, etc.

    I think it will be a better film with more Loki, but I don’t for a minute believe that they are putting in more Loki out of appreciation for Hiddleston or because they want to make a better film. Its is very, very late in the game to be going to that expense. More likely, they want to rescue this from tanking. It’s all about getting butts into the seats.

    I don’t believe that they were ever going to kill off Loki, or that “killing off” would ever be permanent in this ‘verse. Those of us who have read the comic books can tell you that Loki needs to stick around for Ragnarok. Also they ended Thor 1 with Loki’s “death” and it would be lame to do that again.

    There is a conflict with Hemsworth over money, but that affects Avengers II, and Hiddleston will be no help to them there. But I don’t believe that Hemsworth’s absence from promotion is evidence of a grudge– he’s filming a major project with Michael Mann. If Hiddleston had that gig, he too would be absent.

  17. Amy Pond says:

    I’m a 27 year old female and I love him. I LOVE Loki! I loved Avengers because of Loki (and Mark Ruffalo, and it was a fun film, but still, those two…), the only reason Thor was bearable was Loki and Kat Dennings (who’s pretty funny in everything). Thor and Natalie Portman were so boring. Marvel better keep the interesting people (Loki, Mark Ruffalo as Hulk, RDJ) around, because as good looking as Hemsworth and Chris Evans are, their characters are pretty dull.

  18. Eunice says:

    I heard his Capa film had financing problems and didn’t go into production. Maybe he actually sold his soul to Marvel this time around.

  19. Mia 4S says:

    That’s…interesting. While late reshoots on these big films aren’t unusual, it’s generally to punch up existing scenes (more people running from danger! More reactions from that character!). Ordering the director to write in whole new scenes? I can see why the director might be upset. I’m getting an Iron Man 2 vibe…ugh.

  20. Portia says:

    I hope they limit the Loki craze to just extra scenes in Dark World. That’s enough considering the size of the Loki fandom, and no, it’s not nearly as big as tumblr believes it is. 6000 in Hall H is probably the exact size of the Loki fandom. It’s a very vocal minority but a minority nonetheless. Giving Loki his own movie makes no sense in the Marvel universe or even financially.

    Female Loki fans are being a little too overboard if they think there’s enough demand for a Loki-centric movie. I don’t get the hype around the guy. Sure, Hiddleston did a good job with him and gave him good dimension but “omg he’s like the only good thing in Thor and Avengers and he’s just such a broken character and here’s a 200 page dissertation on his character analysis and omg he’s the greatest villain ever but he’s not really a villain do you know what I mean its just ’cause he’s adopted and omg its so sad and he’s so lonely and just needs some love and here’s 40,000 fanfics proving that with enough loving sex Loki would be a good guy and omg he should totally have his own movie, he’s just such a complex character you know probably the most complex in any literary or movie history ever”

    Jesus! I get Hiddleston talking up
    Loki ad nauseum and drawing Shakespearean parallels ’cause he’s gotta sell the character and pay the bills but some of these middle-aged female fans actually believing all that like the gospel and creating all this depth in a character that isn’t there? It’s worse than lusting after Ted Bundy.

    Sorry but I hate the obnoxious and obsessive lust and love for Loki. Love Tom Hiddleston, despise the mania around Loki.

    • Side-Eye says:

      GOD AND LORD BLESS EVERYTHING YOU SAID HERE(Minus the part about loving Hiddleston, because he’s fallen off and become replaced with Henry Cavill in my book.)

    • Resnictem says:

      I’ve always been puzzled as to why H’wood makes such a to-do over TommyannE. Sure, his fandom on Tumblr & his Twitter account is full throttle & obnoxiously vocal with their undying love, but have they really looked at the numbers of fans he has? Seems minuscule compared to other actors. And maybe I’m going out on a limb here, but outside of that mainly female fanbase, who else is going to pay much attention to him?

      Great suggestions for future reading material on this thread, though, thank you all for that.

      • MissThing says:

        Marvel is all about numbers. I daresay there are more Loki fans than just the 6000 that made it into Hall H…

        You can bet your ass that Marvel is counting numbers somehow some way and has a better grasp (than we do) on who is going to fork over cash and who isn’t. Mock them all you want, but those rabid female fans have money to burn and will go to repeat viewings, buy merchandise and then get their friends into it too. Which is exactly what any smart corporation selling a product wants.

        May I point out that the previous big names that used to be guaranteed moneymakers (Johnny Depp, Will Smith and Brad Pitt) have all had movies that basically tanked this year?

        Fans are capricious. Marvel is wise to jump on the boat now for Loki because yes the desire will wane and better for now to collect those golden eggs while they are still being laid.

      • Portia says:


        My argument is against the all Loki movie that everyone seems to be predicting and not the added Loki footage to the Dark World itself. The new Loki footage is definitely due to Fiege realizing he can stretch his supervillain in the cinematic universe for a couple of more bucks. But stretch so much that Loki will get his own movie? Not likely.

        I’m not saying Loki is useless but he’s not exactly this greater than the Avengers force his fangirls are making him out to be. The ratio of Loki fangirls to Marvel fanboys is pretty much the 6000 in Hall H to well, the rest of the world who made The Avengers the highest grossing film worldwide. These fangirls buying a Loki reindeer keychain or an action figure here or there or getting Loki inspired nails is nothing compared to the steady massive force of Marvel fanboys who shell out money every Wednesday faithfully for the latest edition or buy all the other Avengers paraphernalia. Loki fangirls are just a small demographic that will definitely be exploited for cash when it’s box office time but it’s not such a big demographic that it will warrant a Loki movie. Cut out the fickle teen girls and the fanbase becomes even smaller. Marvel will invest in Loki as long as it’s contingent on the bigger storyline but never on his own. At most, probably a small short that furthers the main Thor/ Avengers storyline but never a full length feature concentrating solely on Loki like his fangirls/ fanfraus want.

        As for people saying that they kill Loki in the comics but they always bring him back, and so the same logic applies to the movie, that’s not because his fans go ballistic or anything. That’s because Marvel loses trademark on Loki in two years if they don’t bring him back. That applies to all their characters. That’s why Prof X may get charred by Cyclops in one of the comics but he’ll somehow survive and be back after a two-years-or-less-haitus of “oh everyone thought I was dead but jk lol not really.”

        So enjoy the extra footage Loki lovers but don’t hold your breath for a two hour movie about him. Neither Hiddleston nor Marvel will commit to that kind of gamble.

      • Lucrezia says:

        @ Portia: there are film-rights issues, but you’ve got it the wrong way around.

        Marvel introduced many famous characters. They kept the comic-book rights for any character they came up with. They sold off the film rights for certain characters/franchises (X-Men, Blade, Spiderman, Punisher etc.) Most of those contracts include clauses that say if the non-Marvel studio doesn’t produce a film every X years, then the rights revert to Marvel.

        This is why Sony re-booted Spidey so quickly, and why Marvel just regained the rights to Punisher, Daredevil and Blade (those studios hadn’t released any further movies).

        But it doesn’t work the other way. If Marvel don’t use a character, the rights aren’t going to go to another studio. They could kill off Loki and keep him dead for 50 years … they wouldn’t lose the rights to the character.

        X-men film rights were sold off, but Century Fox is releasing movies, so Marvel isn’t getting them back any time soon. However, the X-Men comics are still completely Marvel’s property. They can do whatever they like to the characters within the comic, they just can’t film it.

      • MissThing says:

        I will also argue that most of the “repeat” viewings of Avenger were female and a large chunk of them were there for either RDJ or Tom. I refuse to admit just how many times I personally went to see that movie and took my friends who would otherwise have never gone.

        Only the box office take of the new Thor movie though will tell if Tommy has the pull they think he does. If he does, they won’t let him go for a long long time.

      • Portia says:

        Yeah, you’re completely right about the film rights, Lucrezia. That’s why I said in comic books when a character is killed, they must be brought back with two years to keep the trademark on it. But like you pointed out, it’s not the same for movies. Which proves that the movies don’t need to keep Loki alive simply because that’s how it’s been in the comics which is what some other posters and Loki fans are arguing as some of the reasons for the new Loki scenes in Dark World.

        The logic of comic books keeping Loki alive is for trademark purposes and not so much for Loki fans. So that’s what spins the story. Loki, honestly, doesn’t have a considerable fan base like another Marvel supervillain like Magneto does. And like you said, film rights are different. Loki can be killed in Dark World and he can stay dead without any repercussions on the main Marvel comic TM.
        In other words, Loki may fit in cinematic plans for now but no way is that some proof or evidence that he’s getting his own movie because the Loki fangirls are deluding themselves to believe they are some force bigger than the Marvel fanboys. It’s obnoxious of them to think Loki is somehow more important to Marvel than Thor or the Avengers combined, and that he’ll get his ow movie.

        Sorry if what I’ve been saying is confusing. My whole spiel is about Loki not getting his own movie and not against his overall role in the movies or his extra footage. Loki fangirls really shouldn’t see the extra footage in Dark World as proof that Loki could or would get his own feature film. I highly doubt the Loki fan numbers (or even Hiddlestoner fan numbers) justify that kind of financial investment for Marvel. My initial ridicule still stands.

        I don’t know if I believe in the female quotient as strongly as you, Miss Thing. When I watched Avengers, the theater was filled with fanboys, majority carrying some sort of Thor, Iron Man, Cap, or Hulk prop. I know Loki has his fangirls but unfortunately, they aren’t that big that they can their own Loki movie that explores his storyline. A little extra screen time in Thor and maybe some other future Avengers for more cash but definitely not a box office force to be reckoned with. At least, that’s not the gist I get once I step outside of the Loki/ Hiddleston fan circle.

      • Lucrezia says:

        @ Portia: I actually agree there shouldn’t/wouldn’t be a Loki-centric movie (though my argument isn’t numbers-based: I simply think the character doesn’t work as a stand-alone).

        I’m just trying to make sure everyone understands the copyright/trademark issues. You still seem to believe they need to reincarnate comic!Loki every couple of years. And that’s simply not true. For starters, trademark protection last for 10 years, not two. More importantly, you don’t need to make Loki live to renew trademark protection. A single-cell flashback (with Thor being emo about dead-Loki) would be enough to establish “usage” of the character and re-file the trademark. Or you could re-release an old comic, call it a “memorial-edition” and establish usage.

        Hmmm. It probably sounds like I want Marvel to perma-kill Loki. I don’t. Just saying they could easily do so if they wanted to.

      • Portia says:

        @Lucrezia: Oh okay, gotcha! I didn’t know they could re-use the character in any capacity to keep the TM running. I thought it had to be a literal reincarnation. Thanks for explaining!

        The reason I thought it was two years was because my friend who is an artist at Marvel told me that. I’ll ask him again. Maybe he was referring to a specific TM and I misunderstood him as it being a general guideline.

        And yeah, Loki as a stand alone is just not as effective unless it’s as part of the whole Thor world, no matter how good Tom Hiddleston plays him.

        Thanks again for clarifying the TM matter for me!

  21. MonicaQ says:

    People saying “Loki is whimpy” don’t understand what Loki is supposed to be. He’s a Trickster God, not Galactus. I would talk about Norse mythology here but I doubt anyone cares but the point is, Loki in films is about as close as they could get.

    • Sixer says:

      I care about Norse mythology (right down to the sources, the kennings, and everything). So you can always talk to me about it. I’ll be happier than happy to listen.

    • Lucrezia says:

      I care! Feel free to talk about mythology as much as you like.

      I actually adored Loki long before Hiddleston played him. I love trickster god stories.

      I think this dates back to when I was learning about Aboriginal mythology in primary school (I’m Australian). The stories made no sense … Greek, Roman mythology, even Norse, there’s a familiar rhythm, you can usually understand the archetypes and motivations. Aboriginal mythology is just flat out strange (from a non-Aboriginal perspective). Finally we covered a Aboriginal trickster god tale, and it was the first story that actually made sense to me. So I think I see the archetype as something that crosses all cultures. Heroes depend on the time (what is heroic in one instance may not be heroic in another). With a trickster god tale, you know where you stand: probably waist-deep in snakes, but in a familiar, comforting kind of way.

      • Crumpets & Crotchshots says:

        Have you read Lewis Hyde’s Trickster Makes the World? You’d love it.

        That said I think Marvel is the wrong place to go for anything that feels like depth. It’s like Pixie Hollow: he may be playing Hook, but this is not JM Barrie.

        I love comic books, don’t get me wrong– you will find plenty of real myth to chew on in Sandman or 1602 for example, but Marvels take on Thor? Not so much.

      • Lucrezia says:

        Ooh, no I haven’t read that. It does indeed look interesting, thanks for the recommendation :)

        We agree on Sandman (Gaiman rocks – full stop). And I agree about Marvel if we’re just talking about the movies. But have you read the kid-Loki arc in Journey into Mystery? I doubt you’d be so dismissive of Marvel’s depth if you had. It’s a new story, not a re-telling of any existing myth, but it is classical storytelling (as opposed to Hollywood storytelling) and it is simply brilliant.

      • Crumpets & Crotchshots says:

        It’s on my list of things to read and it does sound a lot more compelling tha. The old comics which are all about the God of Evvvvviiiiiiiiillllll. Which I find terribly reductive.

        I mean Myth!Loki has some real depth– he’s the reason Thor even has the damned hammer in the first place. He swaps gender, gives birth to Sleipner, father a wolf monster, the Midgard serpent, and the queen of the dead, gets tied up with entrails of his own son…. Chrikey. I’m typing on my iPhone or I would say more.

        I don’t mean to be dismissive of adaptations– get a good writer and go to town I say. I do feel though that myth Loki and marvel Loki are very different beasts. They aren’t the same thing. Apples and oranges.

        So when people say that the marvel movie version of Loki is”wimpy,” well, that’s valid. Loki in the myth is a trickster God, but this is an adaptation that turned him into something very different, and it is valid to comment on that. Journey I to mystery might change my mind, but so far I see a lot of missed opportunity.

    • Crumpets & Crotchshots says:

      The marvel films are not about Norse myth. Please. I’m a Norse myth geek from childhood, and these are completely unrelated worlds. The Lokesanna would be great fun to film, but that Snorri Sturlson, not Marvel. Hiddlestons portrayal of Loki only takes the character even further from the myth.

      • MissThing says:

        Oh dear not the myth vs Marvel debate again. Sigh.

        All we have are fanfictions of Norse myths. Every single one including the Eddas are basically fanfiction and take liberties with the stories in various ways.

        Choose your preference basically.

    • Sixer says:

      C&C – what are you favourite modern day adaptations? One of mine is the reimagining of the Volsunga Saga by the YA author Melvin Burgess. It’s one of the reasons I can’t help but side-eye The Hunger Games. Dystopia? I’ll give you dystopia AND Odin!

      • Crumpets & Crotchshots says:

        I haven’t read any of the modern day adaptions, other than the childrens book versions by D’Aulier and The Chsren of Odin, but am all ears! I known Gaiman has a churned book out based on the travels of Odin, Loki, and Thor and I’ve been looking for it.

        One thing Marvel fumbled in my opinion is making Loki Odin’s adopted son and reducing the whole conflict to a battle between brothers. The mythic Loki has a hell of a lot more at stake.

        Hmmmm . At Arisia last year there was an a paella group that wrote an opera based on the myths– there was an amazing piece sung by Odin and Loki called “my brother my enemy.” Which presented both points of view. I’ll dig it up– they are online.

      • Lucrezia says:

        I’m looking forward to hearing everyone’s serious suggestions.

        But meanwhile, can I give a shout-out to Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul ?

      • Sixer says:

        I can really recommend Bloodsong and Bloodtide, the Burgess novels, then. Set in a future dystopian London in an environment of genetic manipulation. But they follow the saga pretty faithfully.

        Joanne Harris (of Chocolat fame) also did a couple of standard fantasy worldbuilding-y novels that I enjoyed and felt authentic. I forget the names – will look them up on my shelves and come back.

      • Lucrezia says:

        @ C&C: My copy of Gaiman’s American Gods is sitting literally a foot away from me as I type, and I’d happily hand it over to you if it weren’t for the fact you’re probably 6,000 miles from my house. (It’s not my favourite Gaiman novel, but it’s still good.)

      • Crumpets & Crotchshots says:

        Yay! Geeks! I love you!

        May I give a shout out to Marvel’s 1602, penned by Neil Gaiman? It’s not Norse myth, but he takes on Dr. Strange and many other things, and tells a smart wild story.

      • Crumpets & Crotchshots says:

        @Lucrezia: Gaiman has a long fascination with Norse myth, and I think Odin as a character makes an appearance in the Sandman somewhere. I have always loved Odin as a character– the ravens, the eye patch, the broad brimmed hat…. (I hate it that Marvel’s story is that he lost his eye in battle. Arrrgh! Missed opportunity! He plucked it out himself and gave it to Mimir in exchange for drinking from the well of wisdom! This is soooooooo much more interesting!)

      • paranormalgirl says:

        C&C, I think I have an extra copy of “American Gods” up at the lake house. If you want it, let me know.

        edited to add: Oh goodness, the lake house sounds so pretentious! But there you have it. LOL

      • Lucrezia says:

        Book buying spree! I grabbed Bloodsong and Bloodtide, and J Harris’s Runemarks and Runelight – which I assume are the ones Sixer was talking about.

        Lewis Hyde’s Trickster wasn’t available on Kindle though, so it’ll have to wait until the next hard-copy buying spree. (I refuse to pay more in shipping than for the actual book, so I usually wait until there’s 3 or 4 on the list.)

        I also discovered that Neil Gaiman has another Norse-related book: Odd and the Frost Giants. It’s for age 8 and up, so I’m thinking definitely a kid’s book rather than YA. I’m going to pass for the moment, but if it’s really good, let me know … it can go on my shame-shelf with Harry Potter.

        Edit: Wait, was THAT the book you were talking about C&C? Your post said “churned book” and I had no idea what that meant, so I skipped over it and assumed you meant American Gods. Now I’m thinking churned might be auto-correct for children’s.

      • Sixer says:

        They’re the right books, Lucrezia. I really hope you enjoy them. If you don’t mind reading books for middle grade readers (I read a lot of fiction for kids for work) then I can also recommend Gaiman’s Graveyard Book as a beautiful, imaginative little fable with a little dollop of danger. Not Norse though.

        PS: for AFTER you’ve read the Burgess, here’s a really good essay on how the novels relate to the sources –

      • Lucrezia says:

        Okay, I’ve read the Burgess. I second Sixer’s recommendation, they were indeed good.

        Darker than I was expecting from the YA qualifier … enough that I’m going to have to take a Pratchett-break or something before I try the Harris books – there’s only so much Norse tragedy I can handle.

        The essay mentions Bladerunner as an influence. I can see that, but the first comparison that jumped to mind was actually Iain M Banks (Culture novels). A lot less humour than Banks, but that’d be the source material: the Volsunga saga was never supposed to be funny.

      • Sixer says:

        Oh, I’m glad I checked back in. Glad you thought the Burgess novels were good. This guy has a reputation for being uncompromising in YA circles – even in Britain where fewer subjects are taboo. He’s the one who wrote Junk, which is um… Trainspotting for kids, I guess. I would compare these two books to something like Oryx and Crake.

        The Harris books aren’t a million miles from Pratchett, actually – or at least the YA/Tiffany Aching entries in the Discworld canon. But I think she caught the characterisation of the myths.

  22. Londongal says:

    Don’t fancy Loki, although TH would get it so very hard that he’d temporarily lose all capacity for rational speech. :-} I don’t get the TH hate. I think he’s genuinely a sweet, smart dude who likes to intellectualise things and also to please. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those Dragonflies that thinks he’s a medievil Knight/Nun hybrid, but I do think he’s probably just a sweet, very well-hung, sexy, lanky, smart geek. YES. PLEASE. that’s all I can say!

  23. dahlianoir says:

    Keep the wig Tom and let’s ride until sunrise… of the next year !

  24. bluecalling says:

    OMG that was so effing funny (like old school dlisted funny)!!!

    That poster will be my Facebook muggy.

    Ugh loved it.

  25. bettyrose says:

    He’s so hot as Loki it makes me weak, but when I see him out of character, he does nothing for me. So weird.

  26. diva says:

    I like Loki. Thor is boring. Nice to look at but not an interesting character. The cast of Thor was a bore too. I like idris but he didn’t get many scenes.

  27. Alex says:

    I think they were going to kill off Loki in the film and then backtracked and realized it might not have been a good idea…but hey what do i know. lol

  28. j.eyre says:

    I know I do not need to proclaim my love of TommyannE but that photo of him “shushing” with his long, elegant finger to his lips? Honestly, they don’t make a Sunroom big enough for what I want to do to that boy.

    Shush me, TommyannE – just this once I will let you hold the riding crop.

    • Alex says:

      ok I know this is a silly question but why do people call him TommyAnnE…I know the name Hiddles and Hiddlestoners. But I don’t know DragonFlies and TommyAnnE.

      • j.eyre says:

        It’s not silly at all, Alex. We should explain our nicknames from time to time. Our desire for unique nicknames is a bonding agent at CB so we should include everyone on them.

        “Dragonflies” are compliments of Kaiser. TommyannE was wearing a jacket that had dragonflies on the lapel and many became all a-titter about it so Kaiser dubbed us Dragonflies which we feels set us apart from Hiddlstoners. The important distinction here is that we who call ourselves Dragonflies adore TommyannE but will call him on his you-know-what. We also tend to prefer his sassier side than his “ah shucks” side.

        TommyannE = Tom + Pollyanna + AnnE Hathaway. He was Tommyanna after a few particularly doe-eyed interviews. Then his clutching at fame reminded many of AnnE Hathaway so the name changed to TommyannE.

      • Alex says:

        @ j.eyre – ahhhh ok thanks! I get it now. I like the concept too…well then I know finally what group I fit into. Because the Hiddlestoners are too much for me but at the same time I like Hiddles a lot, so ok…gotcha! I have a home now haha

      • j.eyre says:

        Oh darling, definitely count yourselves among the Dragonflies; we have parties and dress to kill! Welcome – scone?

      • RPG says:

        Why is the “E” in Anne capitalized, anyway? It’s rampant on ONTD as well.

      • Lucrezia says:

        Anne Hathaway received some award, her name on it was misspelled as Ann, and she made a big deal over it. So Anne Hathaway is always spelled AnnE, to emphasise the E.

        (To be honest, as a fellow Anne, I was completely on Hathaway’s side for this one. Ann is not my name; you might as well have spelled it Jason. I would’ve made a similar: “Yay – I won … but apparently you don’t even know my name” comment.)

  29. The Original Mia says:

    Not a fan of Loki. He works well in the Thor-verse. Keep him out of Avengers: Age of Ultron and we’ll be fine.

    I will say that this film looked a mess in earlier previews, so I’m not surprised there are reshoots. Something is off about this film, but I’m not sure if it’s the directing or script.

    If there is no Thor in Avengers, I won’t be too upset. I like CHemsworth, but the film is going to be bloated as is.

  30. Lindy79 says:

    That poster is nothing short of Fabulous!

    My personal favourite is Odin with the wonderfully photoshopped beard.

    This smacks of Feige showing both Hemsworth and Taylor who really has the power. I doubt Hemsworth cares tough to be honest.

    Reminds me of the Alien 3 crap with David Fincher.

  31. Miss Melissa says:

    In a year where many of his projects were put on hold and he filmed nothing, you have got to give Hiddleston props for this.

    If they were really going to kill him off, he comes in to comic con, writes his own script and blows everyone away and BAM – not dead! And maybe, BAM a Loki standalone movie?

    Yeah, Hiddles made that happen. Good for him.

    Unless of course, HE wanted out.

  32. Ginger says:

    This is a very shrewd move on their part! They are bound to make bucketloads more money with more Loki and they know it! My 11 year old son loves to watch these films with me but complains that I like “the bad guy” too much! what can I say? It’s that Loki will be so serious and then suddenly break into that devilish grin…gets me every time!

  33. truetalk says:

    Guys,this could be worse you know. He could start wearing his hair like Loki all the time….

  34. Bread and Circuses says:

    I would like a Loki spin-off movie, please, Hollywood.

  35. TheWendyNerd says:

    If this film is a hit, they’re definitely going to put him in another Avengers movie. Maybe not the upcoming one, but they’ll find a way.

  36. St says:

    Great they came to their senses. I can’t even imagine what kind of scandal and worldwide meltdown would happen if they would kill Loki. Those producers would get death threats from Loki fans for next 10 years.

    North (I mean Loki fans) will never forget….

  37. seVen says:

    as my biscuits just exploded…

  38. Lia says:

    It’s true, since Loki isn’t in the Avengers sequel, I probably won’t bother to see it. Honestly, Hiddleston / Loki could stand there and recite nursery rhymes for two hours and I’d happily sit there and enjoy it…..

  39. LilyRose says:

    Feige: Let us circle back on the core competencies of the franchise in order to optimize the brand and its reach. Moving forward it will allow us to leverage a lot of moving parts to take it vertical and reach out to achieve a paradigm shift. We’re not reinventing the wheel, we are plussing the movie. It’s a win-win that allows us to drill down and deliver all hands on deck the type of outside the box thinking that our stakeholders expect. Let’s touch base and decide how we can ramp up the value add and bring to the table proactive, high level learnings.

    Taylor: So… more Loki?

  40. Dommy Dearest says:

    Loki is able to reattach body limps such as his head in the comics. There is no way that he wouldn’t be able to come back in the third movie even if he did end up ‘dying’ in Dark World.

  41. Marie says:

    I’m a MAHOOSIVE Loki fangirl, from myth to comics to films. I LOVE him in all his iterations. I’m grateful to Tom for giving Loki live-action swagger, wit, and pulling off a badass costume, but I’d never call myself a Hiddlestoner (or a Dragonfly :) . Maybe I’m in a significant minority here, but not all Loki fangirls are gaga over Tom. Despite all his sheltered pretentiousness, I think Tom is probably a decent bloke at heart, but he’s just some skinny, regular-looking guy in real world. But I’d climb over hot coals to get to Loki. Since I prefer to keep my fantasy men strictly in fantasy worlds, I say BRAVO to all the Loki scenes they want to add, even if it’s nothing more than him pacing about his cell and smirking.

  42. Grant says:

    Loki isn’t really that important to the overall Marvel Universe. There are a copious number of supervillians who are more powerful/more interesting. Also, in current canon, Loki has transformed himself into a WOMAN. Rut-ro!

    Also, I think that it would be in Hiddles’s best interest to milk this role for as long as he can because every other role he would be up for he’ll likely have to compete against, oh, Cumberbatch for and we know how that will probably end.

    • Bread and Circuses says:

      He could turn female in the original Norse myths too; Loki even gave birth a few times, I believe.

      They could always get Rooney Mara to play female-Loki. She’s practically a face-twin to Tom-in-a-black-wig.

    • Dommy Dearest says:

      Lady Loki arc has been done. They went on to the Ultimates in which he was reverted into a child. But luckily the new comic ‘Hunger’ is Galactus eating pretty much most of the Ultimate universe.

      Also, Loki takes over Sif’s body so they wouldn’t need to cast anyone else but the woman who played Sif.

  43. vixo says:

    This silly hiddleston x cumberbatch thing is really boring. It’s become the new anniston x jolie . I stopped reading JA/AJ (just realized them share initials lol) posts because of the comments and I’m about to do the same with them, which is a shame as I appreciate BOTH .

  44. Spanks says:

    Ive never read Thor, to be honest Ive always been more into DC than Marvel. Spider-man is my marvel go to comic.

    That being said, with my limited knowledge of the character Loki, I don’t really like him in in movie adaptations.I feel that Tom might be a part of that, but as someone who always favored the villains, I found it sad I wasn’t feelin it with Loki.