The Purpose of Loki’s Death

writernotwaiting:

bengalaas:

lucianalight:

yume-no-fantasy:

Tom has mentioned during the ACE comic con panel that he has
known about the scene for two years.

This was what Thanos said in this test footage: “I got the
information that I need, and now I have to break your neck. It’s just the way
it is.”

For reference, here’s some stuff from the Avengers: Infinity War director’s audio
commentary during the opening scene:

McFeely: We’re
starting the script in December, say January of 2016. There’s no Ragnarok
script. They’re in in various stages of development, and so the first scene of this movie changed a
bunch. And until we figured out that they were gonna end on a trip off of a
destroyed Asgard, we didn’t know where Thanos would find Loki.

Markus: We did
know we wanted Thanos to come to Loki. And we would find him in any… We have drafts of him in any number of
places.

McFeely: It establishes a vengeance story for Thor
by taking out his brother and arguably, his best friend.

Joe Russo: Part of
what we wanted to do out of the gate was to unsettle you as you’re watching the film. You’re sitting in the
theatre thinking, “Most characters in the Marvel Universe have been safe
for a decade.” And we wanted to
knock you off-kilter and make the
audience understand that the stakes were
going to be significant and the cost was going to be very high in the
movie.

Markus: And in
that regard, this scene does away with a
lot of things from the ongoing MCU. That was… The first MacGuffin from
the first Captain America movie just got crushed and stuck into a glove.

Anthony: Bye bye,
Tesseract.

Markus: And
shortly, the villain from the first
Avengers movie…

McFeely: Right. Arguably the best villain in the MCU…

Markus: …will achieve a similar end.

Anthony: Aside
from establishing… introducing Thanos as our lead and POV in the movie, this
scene also heavily kicks off Thor’s arc
in the film.

Anthony: The one thing
that’s wonderful, one thing we all really responded to about Thor is where he’s
left at the end of Ragnarok with the destruction of Asgard… And there’s
something fascinating about exporing these people as you strip away who they
are and their built-out identities, and find out what’s left. I think we’re
going through a very similar process with Thor in this film, especially with this
scene, we’re sort of completing the
experience that Ragnarok brought to Thor in the sense that we’re taking away
the rest of everything away from him.

McFeely: And
remember, he (Thanos) had a relationship with Loki even if it was off-screen
where he entrusted him with a duty in
Avengers 1 and Loki failed, so...

Joe: He’s making him pay.

McFeely: Yeah.
Thanos has a long memory.

Anthony: Yep. Fair
enough.

Part of an interview with the IW screenwriters:

Stephen McFeely: Hemsworth came to set, and
went, “You guys really need to understand that we are doing something
different with Ragnarok.” And we knew they were changing it
some, but it was so early in the process, so we flew [Ragnarok screenwriter]
Eric Pearson and [director] Taika Waititi in and we had long conversations with
them. There are at least a couple of jokes in there Taika himself said in
passing that we thought were gold. They showed us a few scenes, so we knew that
Thor was being re-toned. And we needed to embrace that.

Christopher Markus: But it was also the realization
that even in the “funny” one [Ragnarok], his father and his
sister die, and that he’s almost
becoming comically unlucky at this point, and to follow that to its natural
conclusions.

So in summary, Loki’s death scene was decided since two
years ago and he mainly died for the following purposes:

1. Set the tone for the movie by showing Thanos’
   cruelty
2. For shock value
3. Give place to the new “best” MCU villain Thanos
4. Fuel Thor’s motivation for revenge, to further Thor’s storyline and character
   development from where he left off in Ragnarok 

Evidently, none of
the above reasons has anything to do with Loki’s arc and character development.

In terms of narrative, it was mentioned in the IW commentary
that here Thanos was actually punishing Loki for failing to fulfill his duty in the first
Avengers film, but IMO that’s just a load of crap. Thanos was already going to
leave the ship; it was Loki who suddenly popped up with his butter knife. Also,
what Loki was promised in Avengers was
this: “You will long for something as
sweet as pain.”

But how could death be worse than pain for Loki, when he had already let himself die twice before? (Just in case anyone wishes to protest
that he faked his own death in Ragnarok,
please read this first)

In TDW he even said this: “If I am for the axe, then for mercy’s sake, just swing it.”

Loki isn’t afraid and does not cower in the face of death, unlike what had been portrayed of
his character in Ragnarok, which was
just OOC af. Though I’m glad they rectified this part of his character in IW, the
way he died was just too needlessly brutal and meaningless, and also stupid. If the writers truly meant for Thanos to punish Loki in the worst possible way
like what was foreshadowed in A1, to be honest it would make more sense to kill
Thor instead (just saying). But as it is, the directors and writers were just making excuses and don’t actually care.

I assert that this is a direct result of Thor: Ragnarok. Those who don’t
follow the Ragnarok discussions may think
this is ridiculous, but really, it’s not. This was what I wrote on 20 Apr,
before IW was released:

“…when you consider the fact that Thanos arrived right after he said that, and just minutes after he had told Loki ‘Maybe you’re not so bad after all’. It only proved Thor*’s opinion about Loki right–because of course Thor* can never be wrong–that Loki was just never-ending trouble. 

And what I’m worried about is that this will be taken into Infinity War
and Loki will be made the scapegoat again.I don’t want Thor* to blame him again
and make him feel like the only way he’ll be worthy of his brother’s love and
forgiveness is to sacrifice himself to make up for his mistake of taking the
Tesseract.”

I couldn’t believe this ended up being exactly what happened in
IW, and I hated it so much. While the rest of the audience was laughing, my
blood ran cold the moment Thor told Loki “you really are the worst brother”.

By now I think we can all agree that what Loki said—“I hereby
pledge to you my undying fidelity”—was meant for Thor. If anyone’s not
convinced, here:

‘Undying Fidelity’ was the title of the
soundtrack that was playing from the instant Loki started saying ‘I, Loki,
Prince of Asgard…’ to the moment Thor collapsed over his body.

Loki was crying when he said that. Assuming those were Loki’s
tears (in character), then it was almost as if Loki had been prepared to die, as though his futile attempt at killing Thanos was
deliberate. Why?!?!?! Just because Thor changed his mind about saying “maybe you’re
not so bad after all” and told him he was the “worst brother”, so he wanted to
prove his fidelity using his life??? It was foolish and OOC, is what I think. 

But then again, if we consider his character and their relationship in Ragnarok, it might not be that out of
character after all… As a case in point, I’ve seen someone say this: 

If Loki
couldn’t even trick Thor in Ragnarok,
what makes you think he can outsmart Thanos?

In Ragnarok, his
character was twisted and reduced to comic relief, his sacrifice and redemption
in TDW was made to seem like a sham and a joke. A previously complex,
multifaceted character was simplified into a misbehaving and terrible brother
who would betray his only remaining family for the sake of money(?!). When the God of
Mischief was asked whether he had a better idea than “get help”, he answered “no”
as though it was supposed to be obvious. The graceful, regal, composed and
witty prince of Asgard was played for a fool throughout most of the film. His
brother criticized him in a way that made it sound like he had always been incorrigible,
even though that’s definitely not
true if you watched the previous films. Only when he compromised and became “good” on Thor*’s
terms after listening to Thor*’s bullshit of a speech was he deemed redeemable.

In short, Ragnarok
“put him in his place”, downplayed his powers, stripped him of his purpose, wits,
importance and independence as a
character, never gave him the equality and respect he wanted. 

The IW writers said this:

“…the first scene of
this movie changed a bunch. And until we figured out that they were gonna end
on a trip off of a destroyed Asgard, we didn’t know where Thanos would find
Loki.”

“We did know we wanted
Thanos to come to Loki. And we would find him in any… We have drafts of him
in any number of places.”

But with how Ragnarok ended
up, it became entirely too convenient. It made him too easy to kill off—they could simply make him sacrifice himself
for his brother again, since his sacrifice in TDW was retconned into a faked
death anyway. 

There wasn’t a need to think of an intricate plot for a
character who no longer seemed important—they only needed to put the final nail
in the coffin. Since it would serve all their purposes anyway, why not?

This made my blood boil again. Yeah, we saw what you did, we saw how you used Loki as a plot device for shock value. “Arguably the best villain”? There is no argue. He is the best villain and no matter how much you try, your stupid disgusting abuser of a villain can’t replace him.

“there’s
something fascinating about exploring these people as you strip away who they
are and their built-out identities, and find out what’s left. I think we’re
going through a very similar process with Thor in this film”

Aren’t you creative? Using the same plot that you used for Steve, for Thor. How did you manage to come up with that? You didn’t care about Thor’s development, you only wanted an excuse so your beloved villain win. No matter how much it makes Thor ooc. No matter the fact that Thor doesn’t need sth to avenge to fight someone like Thanos. And TR just made things easy for you. So you even didn’t try to write a good death or even a good scene. It was just lazy writing.

“there’s something fascinating about exploring these people as you strip away who they are and their built-out identities, and find out what’s left.”

THAT IS LITERALLY THE PLOT OF THE FIRST THOR MOVIE. He was banished to Earth, powerless, weaponless, without his home and family, with no way of return in the nearest future. And he FOUND who he was, a protector, a self-sacrificing hero who doesn’t need revenge as a motivator, to do the right thing.

The whole Infinity War just makes me want to step off this planet, because the very idea that the only motivator for Thor would be to ‘lose everything’ is so pathetically cruel, stupid and shallow. That they needed to kill off the whole of Asgard (or whatever remains of it) and Loki — a brilliant, powerful sorcerer — to ‘establish’ Thanos’ power, that so much was done for nothing but shock value, that the whole movie intentionally leaves such a disgusting aftertaste of pointlessness and loss… It honestly says more about the writers than it does about the characters of that story.

Why the hell is this kind of budget spent on movies like this?? Why the hell these are the stories we as mankind choose to tell?? 

This is lazy writing, pure and simple. Of the millions of ways a writer could choose to motivate a character toward any kind of life change, the single most overused plot device is killing off a loved one. And, in fact it has been used in nearly every Marvel movie, as well–Pietro, Frigga, Bucky (though he came back), Coulson, Peter Quill’s mother (though there was a bit of a tape delay there)–seriously, they could have done so much better.

Remember, Markus and McFeely are the geniuses who decided to fridge Frigga to motivate Thor and Loki in TDW. They have one playbook and it ain’t long.