matociquala: But I'm still on Loki's side.
sovay: I don't yet know anyone who's not.
coffeeem: Well, duh. Any with more brains than hormones is on Loki's side.
alecaustin: Yah, I'm definitely with Loki on this one. On the excursion into Jotunheim, he's the only one who shows any bloody sense. (We will ignore the required-but-nonsensical villainy that followed his Hollywood-mandated parentage freakout.)
xiphias: Note, of course, that Loki's actions resulted in the death of ZERO Aseir, ZERO humans, and crippled the ability of the Jotuns, who were beginning to get restless, to make war on the Aseir for at least another generation... Without Loki, Thor takes over, and starts up a war that he's unaware that he's unprepared for. Even if he manages to win, he gets lots and lots of his people killed. WITH Loki, Thor gets exiled to Earth and gets a taste of what it is like to live without godly power, and therefore learns the limits of power, and thereby is probably a less foolish ruler. And he forces Thor to grow up, by attacking him with the whatever the heck it was, AND forces the Three Musketeers Plus Sif to band together to actually think and plot against him, instead of simply being dumb cannon fodder...
tsubaki_ny: The whole film is on Loki's side if you ask me.
What the Hel? Have we completely lost the ability to make distinctions between "the trickster-god character I like" and "the side I should be on"? The film advocates the genocide of people who happen to have blue skin? Attempted fratricide is OK, as long as it fails and the good guys manage to get any innocents out of the way?
Is this a jocks-vs-geeks thing? Thor is so obviously Not Our Tribe that we're willing to excuse any behavior at all from a more "interesting" character? It's a good thing to have villains who are sympathetic and reasonable rather than merely scene-chewingly evil. That doesn't mean we have to jettison our moral compass in order to appreciate them.