Loki and Spike, some thoughts
Forgive the not very good icon. I made it myself.
I have no time at the moment, but anyway, some thoughts (which I'm sure someone else has already thought and expressed more eloquently) on (according to Joss Whedon) Loki being 'the new Spike.'
ETA: I should probably state that when Joss said this, he was probably just referring to the fan (or fangirl) reaction to Loki being similar to the reaction to Spike, not implying that he thought the characters were that similar in other ways.
I should really bullet point this, I suppose, due to aforementioned having no time.
Similarities
1) Clearly, ignoring the physical aspect would be silly, so yes, there's the whole cheekbones thing going on with both actors (both of whom also are very good at interacting with their fans). But it's more than that. Both are very good at portraying a sort of emotional vulnerability that's very attractive, it cannot be denied.
2) This segues in to the whole redeem the bad boy trope, which most of us (at least around these parts) who love both characters are wary of because of being burned in the past, especially in anything Whedon-penned. Joss will pull that rug from under you at some point. Best to be prepared. (He did it with Spike in Seeing Red, and Loki calling the Black Widow an effing c**t (in so many words) and threatening to do not explicit but probably extremely unpleasant things to her when he gets out of his cage has the same effect to a much lesser extent).
The message being hammered home in both cases is, This is not a nice guy. Silly little girlies beware. Which is of course a valid message, if very patronising.
3) Both characters get a kick out of causing mayhem.
4) Both characters suffer from being put in the shade by an annoying alpha-male, who is a lot less intelligent than they are (and yes, I really do think Spike is more intelligent than Angel, though neither of them is exactly a genius).
5) Joss at least (and probably not just him) believes that less is more in the case of both characters, both of whom take up far more space in the fannish imagination than their role in the show/movie would warrant (though clearly this is not true of Loki in the first Thor movie or in Avengers where he was the principle villain, but it is true now. It's possible that Marvel will struggle to work out what to do with the character in future movies even more than they seem to have struggled with his role in Thor: the Dark World. Spike, meanwhile, after his heroic death in Chosen, has been suffering from continuous '"What the hell do we do with this inexplicably (to us) popular character?' syndrome (and if you don't believe me, try reading the Buffy comics - or better yet, don't).
There, though, I think the similarities end.
Differences
With reference to 3) above, while Spike (both souled and unsouled) certainly enjoys a bit of mayhem, he's not actually as much of a rebel as he thinks he is, and a lot of his supposed 'bad boy' act is bluster to hide the quivering, would-be romantic poet within. Loki, meanwhile, really loves chaos (or so he says. Actually, he most of all seems to want to be king of Asgard, which is probably not something you can successfully do when things are too chaotic. Hmm, maybe this should be under 'similarities'?)
Re: 4) The difference here is that, with Thor and Loki the rivalry is only one way. Loki is jealous of Thor. Thor (who is a much nicer person than Angel/Angelus, if not nearly as complex) is not jealous of Loki. I think with Spike and Angel it's very much a two-way street.
Final difference, Spike is an original character created by Joss Whedon. What happens to him is entirely up to Joss (even if that means Joss telling Scott Allie or some comic book writer, "Do what you like with him. I don't care,"). He's also actually redeemable and (potentially at least) capable of becoming a good person. Loki, on the other hand, because of the weight of Marvel comics history (during most of which he's been a horrible, horrible villain), not to mention the role of Loki in Norse mythology (not to mention Loki from the movies is probably quite mad), isn't.
Redeemable, that is. The comics version of the character was created as a nemesis for Thor. He may not always be Thor's chief antagonist in the movies, but he'll never (IMO) stray too far from that role.
Unless they kill him again and bring him back as a kid, of course. ;)
Okay, that was all a bit pointless and incoherent. Better get back to packing boxes.
:sigh:
I have no time at the moment, but anyway, some thoughts (which I'm sure someone else has already thought and expressed more eloquently) on (according to Joss Whedon) Loki being 'the new Spike.'
ETA: I should probably state that when Joss said this, he was probably just referring to the fan (or fangirl) reaction to Loki being similar to the reaction to Spike, not implying that he thought the characters were that similar in other ways.
I should really bullet point this, I suppose, due to aforementioned having no time.
Similarities
1) Clearly, ignoring the physical aspect would be silly, so yes, there's the whole cheekbones thing going on with both actors (both of whom also are very good at interacting with their fans). But it's more than that. Both are very good at portraying a sort of emotional vulnerability that's very attractive, it cannot be denied.
2) This segues in to the whole redeem the bad boy trope, which most of us (at least around these parts) who love both characters are wary of because of being burned in the past, especially in anything Whedon-penned. Joss will pull that rug from under you at some point. Best to be prepared. (He did it with Spike in Seeing Red, and Loki calling the Black Widow an effing c**t (in so many words) and threatening to do not explicit but probably extremely unpleasant things to her when he gets out of his cage has the same effect to a much lesser extent).
The message being hammered home in both cases is, This is not a nice guy. Silly little girlies beware. Which is of course a valid message, if very patronising.
3) Both characters get a kick out of causing mayhem.
4) Both characters suffer from being put in the shade by an annoying alpha-male, who is a lot less intelligent than they are (and yes, I really do think Spike is more intelligent than Angel, though neither of them is exactly a genius).
5) Joss at least (and probably not just him) believes that less is more in the case of both characters, both of whom take up far more space in the fannish imagination than their role in the show/movie would warrant (though clearly this is not true of Loki in the first Thor movie or in Avengers where he was the principle villain, but it is true now. It's possible that Marvel will struggle to work out what to do with the character in future movies even more than they seem to have struggled with his role in Thor: the Dark World. Spike, meanwhile, after his heroic death in Chosen, has been suffering from continuous '"What the hell do we do with this inexplicably (to us) popular character?' syndrome (and if you don't believe me, try reading the Buffy comics - or better yet, don't).
There, though, I think the similarities end.
Differences
With reference to 3) above, while Spike (both souled and unsouled) certainly enjoys a bit of mayhem, he's not actually as much of a rebel as he thinks he is, and a lot of his supposed 'bad boy' act is bluster to hide the quivering, would-be romantic poet within. Loki, meanwhile, really loves chaos (or so he says. Actually, he most of all seems to want to be king of Asgard, which is probably not something you can successfully do when things are too chaotic. Hmm, maybe this should be under 'similarities'?)
Re: 4) The difference here is that, with Thor and Loki the rivalry is only one way. Loki is jealous of Thor. Thor (who is a much nicer person than Angel/Angelus, if not nearly as complex) is not jealous of Loki. I think with Spike and Angel it's very much a two-way street.
Final difference, Spike is an original character created by Joss Whedon. What happens to him is entirely up to Joss (even if that means Joss telling Scott Allie or some comic book writer, "Do what you like with him. I don't care,"). He's also actually redeemable and (potentially at least) capable of becoming a good person. Loki, on the other hand, because of the weight of Marvel comics history (during most of which he's been a horrible, horrible villain), not to mention the role of Loki in Norse mythology (not to mention Loki from the movies is probably quite mad), isn't.
Redeemable, that is. The comics version of the character was created as a nemesis for Thor. He may not always be Thor's chief antagonist in the movies, but he'll never (IMO) stray too far from that role.
Unless they kill him again and bring him back as a kid, of course. ;)
Okay, that was all a bit pointless and incoherent. Better get back to packing boxes.
:sigh: