Tom Hiddleston & Stellan Skarsgård Talk Loki In ‘The Avengers’

Published 4 years ago by , Updated November 4th, 2011 at 11:00 am,

avengers loki tom hiddleston Tom Hiddleston & Stellan Skarsgård Talk Loki In The Avengers

Between the recent spate of set photos from The Avengers‘ Cleveland shoot – and what appears to be further confirmation of who exactly will make up “Loki’s Army” in the film – there’s been little to no discussion about what kind of villain Thor’s trickster sibling will be in Joss Whedon’s Marvel superhero extravaganza.

The man behind Loki (Tom Hiddleston) touched on that very topic in a recent interview, as did Stellan Skarsgård – whose Marvel Universe character, Professor Erik Selvig, was seemingly being manipulated by Loki during the post-credits scene in Thor.

Skarsgård spoke with I Am Rogue about his role in The Avengers, confirming what we all pretty much suspected – that Loki has somehow entered Professor Selvig’s mind and controls him for a good portion of the film. Other than that, Skarsgård was fairly tight-lipped about the mechanics of how exactly that works.

He did allude to a matter that Hiddleston likewise confirmed recently: Loki in The Avengers won’t be the conflicted semi-villain that he was before, even by the conclusion of Thor.

Here is what Hiddleston told MTV about that matter:

“In ‘The Avengers’ [Loki is] really dark and kind of sociopathic, or maybe even psychopathic is the word, in a deluded way. Obviously I haven’t let go of the spiritual damage at the heart of him, it still comes from that lost place, but he’s just incredibly nasty. I think that probably in ‘Thor 2′ his previous actions will, he’ll have to take responsibility for what he’s done.”

tom hiddleston as loki in the avengers Tom Hiddleston & Stellan Skarsgård Talk Loki In The Avengers

Part of what made Loki such a great antagonist in Thor was his “spiritual damage,” as Hiddleston puts it. He wasn’t merely a one-dimensional, power-hungry madman out to rule the world (or, rather, Asgard); instead, Loki was tormented by his jealousy of Thor being favored over himself – feelings that were only enhanced when he discovered the truth about his birthright. Misguided, to be sure, but it’s hard to not sympathize with the guy, on some level.

Point being: Loki is definitely a figure who could be an agent for either good or evil, and Hiddleston says that won’t change in The Avengers – even as the character takes a turn for the worst and wreaks havoc against the citizens of Earth. To quote:

“The great thing about Loki is there is potential in him for greatness and awfulness, for great heroism and great villainy. There are still, even within ‘The Avengers,’ there are moments where you see within Loki a glimmer of hope and that possibility of redemption. Nobody is black and white, there are shades of gray in all of us. We all have potential for greatness and we all have flaws. I for one am championing the redemption… This isn’t definitely going to happen, but I think there would be nothing more awesome than seeing Loki and Thor fight somebody side by side.”
Thor 2 to hit theaters in Summer 2013 Tom Hiddleston & Stellan Skarsgård Talk Loki In The Avengers

Will Loki and Thor reunite one day?

Whedon has thrived at handling ensemble TV series in the past (see: Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly) and that’s a big reason why a lot of fans are optimistic about his ability to juggle so many superheroes in The Avengers – without one being neglected, in terms of screen time or character development. News that even the film’s villain will have a fair amount of depth is all the more encouraging, in that regard.

The Avengers stars Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man, Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Captain America, Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/Hulk, Scarlett Johansson as Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow, Jeremy Renner as Clint Barton/Hawkeye, Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill, Clark Gregg as Agent Phil Colson, Tom Hiddleston as Loki and Stellan Skarsgard as Professor Eric Selvig.

It is of course written and directed by Joss Whedon, opening in theaters on May 4th, 2012.

Source: I Am Rogue, MTV
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I’m pretty sure I know how Loki manages to control the doctor:
    In some of the artwork released, we see Loki holding his magic-staff-thing, and attached to it, we see a small circular object – I think it’s one of the infinity gems (which Loki could have easily stolen while he was king of Asgard).

    In the comics, the blue gem is the mind gem and allows the user to greatly strengthen and enhance mental and psionic power and access the thoughts and dreams of other beings.
    While the green gem (the soul gem) allows the user to steal, control, manipulate and alter souls, living or dead.

    So… one of those gems might be the reason for Loki’s enhanced powers at the post-credit scene of Thor.

    It will be interesting to see what ~mystical powers~ Loki will use to take over earth (besides the cosmic cube obviously)

      • But in Thor we saw the Infinity Gauntlet with all the gems attached to it… that means he couldn’t have “found it while roaming the cosmos”.

        • Yes, but it has been posited before that the gauntlet’s gems could be fake or cosmetic placeholders, or that some of the gems are missing or haven’t been found yet.

  2. I think Loki has the potential to steal the show in this movie. Really good character.

    • Like Heath Ledger’s Joker.

      • nooooo. sure loki was “three dimensional” in the Thor movie, but he wasn’t written well. and the fact that he already has a weak intro does not serve the character in The Avengers, tho joss whedon WILL make everyone better. (his ensemble feature film writing is amazing).

        But to say that he would even come CLOSE to Heath Ledger’s Joker is definitely stretching it by miles and miles.
        Also, Joker was never ever ever a sympathetic character.

        • @ Deuce

          How can you be so sure Hiddleton’s performace be close as Ledger’s performance as the Joker? You make it sound like Heath Ledger’s performance can’t be topped by anyone one day.

          • He said steal the show. Ledger’s Joker (and pretty much everyJoker incarnation; film, animation, comics) always steals the show. He’s an encentric complicated character. Loki has the potential to do the same.

          • Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker was iconic. It can not be topped. It was an amazing performance by a gifted actor, and it is a shame that he died before it could be seen. In my opinion, the best thing about “The Dark Knight” was that Christopher Nolan created a movie that actually had complex characters the actors could inhabit and interpret.

            Let’s compare this to “Thor.” Not so much. It is what it is, and I enjoyed it. “The Avengers” is the comic book movie we all want to see, and I’m pretty sure deep character development isn’t part of the plan. I’m not only OK with that, I’m excited!

            • @ RwDokken

              Ledger’s performance as the Joker was great but i wouldn’t go as far as saying it was iconic Ledger’s performance can never be topped. People thought the sameway of Nicolson’s performance as the Joker back in 89 as people do now about Ledger’s. So, there can always be someone else to top both of their performances. Imo if Mark Hamill was taller & younger today, he’d top both of them just as Kevin Conroy would top both Michael Keaton & Christian Bale as Batman in a film. That’s my opinion though. I didn’t enjoy TDK as much as i did Batman Begins. Watchin TDK first few 3 or 4 times is great but after that, meh. I hope TDKR will be better.

              • I agree Wally. I don’t think you can ever say, “…cannot be topped.” I also think it’s an unfair comparison. Loki is currently not the household name of a character that The Joker is. Even noncomic people know who The Joker is. I somewhat disagree about Jack. Back then I was as caught up as everybody else about it, but in retrospect, acting aside, I think Jack as The Joker was brilliant CASTING more than anything else. Now, concerning the acting, I think believe these two things. Number one, it was Jack being Jack, and number two, I think his acting was very much(as directed) an imitation of Cesar Romero’s Joker from the 60’s t.v. show. All that aside, I don’t believe for one minute that Loki will “steal the show” in The Avengers.

  3. this seems more of a Thor film to me for some reason, i want the Leader to be part of the the heroes problem and bring the whole supersoldier serum around again, by him maybe createing super monsters, and hulk and captain america could be more fleshed out, and given some story.i really hope this is’nt just a huge action film because i love story above all else.

  4. or use loki/skrull for the firt film then do Leader for the hulk and captain america serum storyline to evolve, and in the third use ultron/winter slodier to use the whole ironman tech story line.

    • Sorry, but those ideas are pretty lame… (I mean no offense)

      P.S. We ALL know by now that you really want the Leader in Avengers, but just think about it for a sec… it wouldn’t work: in the comics the Leader hardly ever fought the Avengers – he’s the Hulk’s villain, not the Avengers’ villain.
      Also, he just wouldn’t fit into the plot of the movie… there are already so many characters and not everybody knows everything about the Marvel movies – so if they randomly see a very smart, green guy with a big/huge head, they would just get confused…

      P.P.S. I’ve read A LOT of comics, and have never read a single one where the Leader experiments with the the super-soldier serum. How would he even know anything about it? To my knowledge that whole thing is classified.
      The Leader’s plans usually have something to do with GAMMA-RADIATION and NOT the super-soldier serum: and while the two do have something in common (i.e. Banner’s experiment, where he tried to create something LIKE the super-soldier serum using gamma-radiation) the ties between the two don’t really go further than that.

      P.P.P.S If the Leader was going to be in the movie, we would have had some info concerning the casting by now…

      Okay… ran out of P’s now 😉

      • But in TIH, Abomination never had the super soldier serum in him EVER… it was just a higher dose of gamma radiation…

        Bucky never fell out of a train, instead it was a plane to sacrifice himself and save steve rodgers…

        In thor, the destroyer wouldn’t have been beaten that easily…

        So when it comes to marvel movies, they dont REALLY have a problem with changing the origins of a character to make it more logical, or to save time…

        so having leader working on super soldier serum isnt THAT far fetched.

        BTW avenger, I do agree with you that it would kinda be lame if they did make the movie that had that idea…

        • But, like I said, the super-soldier project is TOP-SECRET/CLASSIFIED.
          How would the Leader (who was just a plain ol’ college professor when we last saw him) know anything about it?
          And if he did manage to find out about the formula, it could be kinda confusing to explain in a movie.

          Concerning the Destroyer:
          I’m not too happy about that short battle either, but the only reason it was so short is because the movie needed to fit into a 2hr time-slot (it’s not like they tried to make him look “weak” on purpose).
          I think they could have cut the “bar scene” from the movie to make time for an epic battle, but that obviously didn’t happen :(
          I’m not too hung up about it though… it’s not all that important – I mean, he would have been destroyed anyway…

          Concerning Bucky’s (so called) “death”:
          I though the way he “died” was completely unnecessary/wrong… why couldn’t he have “died” on the plane at the climax of the film (when Cap fought the Red Skull)?
          But, once again, I’m not too hung up about it… he would have “died” either way: whether it’s from falling of a train or falling off a plane – it still happened – he still fell into ICE – where people will find him, revive him and turn him into the Winter Soldier.

          In short: most of those “continuity changes” aren’t really all that important to the actual plots of the films (IMO): Bucky STILL “died”, the Destroyer was still destroyed and the Abomination still became the Abomination (whether it’s from the Hulk’s blood, from an over dose of gamma-radiation or from a rip-off/imperfect version of the super-soldier serum).

          Those changes weren’t “major” changes – it didn’t affect the plot (that much), but when changes are made that AREN’T logical and makes the movie’s plot confusing (like the ones Film Fan mentioned – once again, no offence), THEN I have a problem with it.

          P.S. I think it would have been so much better if the Abomination was created because of an over-dose of gamma-radiation or from exposure to the Hulk’s blood – Blonsky becoming the Abomination because of an imperfect super-soldier serum was a terrible decision IMO.

          • @TheAvenger
            Wasn’t it an imperfect super-soldier serum coupled with Banner’s gamma radiation infected blood that created the Abomination.

            I believe how Bucky dies was very essential and important to not only Bucky but also Caprain America. His quick death scene took away the guilt he would continue to fill over the years. Bucky’s death would affect his confidence and his ability to lead a team because of guilt. A horrible and slightly predicatable way to go.

            • No, I’m pretty sure it was only the imperfect super-soldier serum (not coupled with gamma-radiation) – I could be wrong though… it’s been a while since I watched TIH… I think I’l watch it today!

              And yeah… I also didn’t like the way Bucky died, but Cap still felt massive guild about it: there was that whole scene in the bar where he tried to get drunk – he said Bucky’s “death” was his fault, and that he should have done more to prevent it…
              I agree, they could have done it a bit better, but they didn’t – there’s nothing that can be done now (except) wait for the Avengers to see how Cap evolves and handles the situations that are thrown at him.
              BUT, I doubt Bucky’s “death” would have a massive impact on the way Cap leads the team (IMO). Cap is Cap: he’s a born leader and even though he does feel very guilty about what happened and wished he could somehow prevent it, the mission is still the number one priority, he has to defeat HYDRA to AVENGE Bucky so that he wouldn’t have “died” in vain.

              Watch the Avengers: EMH TV show… Cap admits there isn’t a moment that goes by where he doesn’t feel regret about what happened to Bucky – and even though he feels that way, he leaves it outside the battleground and always manages to keep focus on the priority (and in some cases lead some of the Avengers when Iron Man is absent).

              • So, I guess what I’m saying… is that Cap wouldn’t “sulk” about Bucky’s “death” – he would get ANGRY, and do anything in his power to avenge him.

                • @TheAvenger

                  I think you get confused (no offense) to what happens on screen and what happens in comics/animation. The two are not mutually exclusive. I don’t see a resemblance between EMH’s Cap & Evans’ Cap. I did not see a Cap on screen that is a natural leader. It looked like a group of soldiers that each had their own specific skills working as a team. Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan was a leader.

                  The death of any soldier while under your command would (or mayve should in this case) effect how a leader leads his team. When Cap, comes up with thay horrible plan, enters the Alps by himself is sorta an example of him going alone because he did not want to put others in danger. But Bucky’s death wadn’t his fault in any way in thr film and Hayley Atwell made that clear. So there is really nothing to be guilty about. If anything he is just sad that his friend died.

              • I thought it was the combo of the serum and the gamma. Remember when he shows up at Mr. Blue’s office and demands to be injected with something? Mr. Blue wouldn’t have access to the super soldier stuff but he had the Hulks blood.

                • Yeah… I was wrong:
                  I just watched TIH again… the imperfect-super-soldier serum only made Blonsky stronger, faster, etc… but it WAS indeed (as you said) a combo of gamma-radiation and a sample of the Hulk’s blood that literally turned him into the Abomination.

                  So the whole process of Blonsky to Abomination actually consisted of super-soldier formula, Hulk blood AND gamma rays.

              • It was the super-soldier serum, which amplifies the subject’s internal characteristics, that further warped Emil Blonsky’s personality, and it was the combination of the serum & “cure” that they had tried on the Hulk that then created Abomination.

      • It has been confirmed. Both The Leader and Modok will be in The Avengers sequel. The movie is subtitled “Battle Of The Big Heads”.

  5. ‘Soul Gem’ Do you think this could eventually bring us Adam Warlock and Thanos ?!

    • I think this whole thing is leading to Thanos as the final main villian for all this and it would make this all the more epic than it already is…damnit if we cant get a live action version of Apocalypse than give us a close 2nd in Thanos!

  6. Honestly, I would like to see the Avengers play out the way we think, then have Loki NOT die by the end. My post-credit scene would have a shot of the Asgaurdian weapons room from “Thor”, focusing on the “Infinity Gauntlet”. We see a hand, that of Thanos, reaching for the glove saying, “I finally got you back.” (or something along those lines) From here, we could make The Avengers 2, having Odin come in and explain the threat of Thanos, and what he did when he first constructed the glove. The movie would then have the triumphant moment when Thor and Loki would team up to battle the ultimate odds. Then again, its my hope they could do a cross studio pollination of characters, having the X-men, the new Spiderman, and others join the fight. I envision an epic battle on Earth (al a Transformers Dark of the Moon’s last hour) with some really cool wide-frame shots that show the greatest of Marvels heroes taking on Thanos, and possibly, the Army of Death.

    • they won’t kill Loki. No one dies in comic books…

      • Well, some of them do die – but they always get resurrected.

        I’m 100% positive that Loki won’t get killed in the movie though – Hiddleston said “there’s this great scene at the end of the movie where all the Avengers are looking down at Loki” – obviously the Avengers will beat Loki in the movie – but they would never kill him (that isn’t what the Avengers do) – they’ll probably throw him in jail, or Thor will insist that Loki should go back to Asgard to stand before trail (then he’ll most likely get thrown in an Asgardian jail)

        • Killing isn´t something the Avengers do? As far as I know, Iron Man kinda killed Stane, Cap throws a Hydra guy into a propeller and Thor kills dozens of Frost Giants.

          • What I meant to say was: they don’t kill for no reason… if they can take the enemies in alive, they do that. Killing isn’t the priority, and if it can be prevented, then they succeeded.

        • I’d put money on one of the Avengers dying in this film. Whedon loves to kill off main cast memebers, in tv and film. As far as I’m aware, Hulk is the only one without plans for another movie, so I’d say Hulk makes a heroic sacrifice towards the end of the film. Just having fun speculating…

          • So your saying… the strongest character in the Marvel Universe is going to die in this movie? Riiiiight 😉

            I doubt Whedon has the authority to kill of a character: all those types of decisions needs to be approved by but-loads of people, and I doubt the Marvel execs will “OK” that decision.

          • If someone dies, my money is on the Widow. She´s a boring character.

            • meh prolly archer. Johanson probably makes too much to kill. plus she is the only women

              • So if she dies, there´s room for another female character in the next movie.

    • Oorrr, the scene could go like this:
      In the ruins of the final battle between the Avengers and Loki (after the Avengers beat Loki and put him in jail) – Loki’s staff lies underneath a couple of rocks – attached to the staff is one of the infinity gems – we see someone walking up to the staff – picking it up – removing the gem – and saying “5 more to go” (at this point, the camera pans outwards to reveal Thanos’s face).

      The only reason I think the “Thanos in Asgard’s weapon room” thing won’t work is because they’d need to explain how he got inside the weapon’s vault (seeing as it’s guarded) – and most of the post credit scenes aren’t longer than 30 seconds – so I think that whole thing might be a little too long.

    • he mentioned how in Thor 2 Loki would have to take responsibility for his actions, so he obviously doesn’t die.

  7. I wonder if the theft of one of the Gems leads to Thor coming to Earth to get it back?

    Or do we think Thor comes to Earth to get the Cosmic Cube back? Didn’t they say in Cap America that is was part of Odin’s treasure room?

    I can’t see the Asgardians trusting Earth/SHIELD to hold and protect such powerful things.

    • The cube was once part of Odin’s vault, but if you remember – Cap takes place during WW2 – so why would Thor come back to earth to reclaim something that was (supposedly) stolen from them 70 years ago?

      I’m 100% sure Thor doesn’t come back to earth to get an ancient artifact back. He’ll return to earth because he wants to be with Jane Foster and, of course, to help protect earth against his evil brother Loki.

      The cube will most likely be used to TELEPORT Thor back to earth (since the Bifrost was destroyed)

      • is she even in this movie?

        And would he be the only one to know what the ancient artifacts actually do? Maybe he comes back to warn them?

        Meh… i just want something more in-depth that Thor comes back because of some girl he met for a little bit. How would shield even know how to properly use the cube?

        • That´s why they hired Doc Selvig in the after-credits-scene in Thor. So if he, who works with Jane Foster, is in the movie, I guess Portman makes at least a cameo.

    • Yeah that was in Reply to the previous comment, but the site posted it as its own instead. Sorry about that…there appears to be no Edit or Delete option.

  8. What if Selvig helps them to use the cube which opens a gateway like it did with the Red Skull in CA. And Thor just comes through it.

    • That’s what I thought as well…

  9. Loki cannot be killed, he is an essential character that must stay alive until Ragnorak. If Loki dies, then all would be lost because Loki will be needed to help defend Asgard and the other realms from Ragnorok. As legend is fortold by the norns, the death of Balder by an arrow made of mistletoe will herald in Ragnorok. Balder The Brave will be in Thor 2 as well as The Enchantress, Skourge The Executioner, and possibly Malekith The Accursed. Thor 3 will more than likley feature Ulik, Kurse, Surtur and The Twilight Sword with the main story as the arrival of Rgnorok.

    • I don’t know where you read that Balder, the Enchantress, the Executioner, etc will be in the movie – nothing has been confirmed yet. They haven’t even chosen a director for the movie.

      Here is the only confirmed fact we know: Thor 2 will be released on July 26, 2013. That’s all.

      • @TheAvenger

        The Executioner and Enchantress are the villians the scribe (cant remember his name) wants for Thor 2. I don’t remember hearing about Baldur but they definately have been working on a story to utilize the former 2.

      • Concept art for Balder can be found online as Blader was supposed to be in Thor#1 but they didn’t have enough time for him to be introduced so he will appear in the sequel. Ragnorok is the apex of Asgadian lore so not having Balder in Thor#2 would mess up the sequence leading up to Ragnorok. Having him in Thor#3 would’nt give him enough screen time for character development. He have to at least apear in Thor#2 first leading up to Thor#3 (Ragnorok) and the coming of Surtur with the Twilight sword. Loki will have to redeam himself for being responsible for Ragnorok by causing Balder’s death which is the catalyst for Ragnorok. Loki possibly may die helping to defend Asgard against Surtur and the giant fire demons of “Muspelheim”. This is all in line with Norse mythology and Marvel 616 lore that has also been used for a basis for cinematic sequences.

  10. I started watching the avengers when i was home sick with a stomach flue. I only clicked on the movie because i wanted to watch something that didn’t require a lot of thought. How ever i was maybe half an hour into it when i turned it off. I was so incredibly offended because of the way hollywood chose to portray Loki. Now i know that some people will think “stop being so conservative, it’s just a story and stories change” Wich is to some point true and i am sure that not everyone is as pissed off as me. But if i were to put it in american terms; how would you feel if your stories about the indians and your constitution and in generally things that make up your society were to be changed and screwed up? And in this modern world we live in with television and and computers and what have you, people rather believe what is said in a movie than a book.
    But all that aside i was also ticked off because Loki’s caracter (the original one) is great, like you could base some pretty awesome story lines on Loki.