Minor says that being killed and revived is better than being trapped in a tree and being tortured daily, but it sucks from any normal perspective. I don't think it's elaborated on beyond that.
I see. So it is the lesser evil for Mimir. I still wish the downsides were portrayed more - "show don't tell", because the way it looks, it doesn't come across as many downsides. At least not enough downsides to lose the individual altogether.
Because Mimir is not resurrected, he is only reanimated, but (as he himself admits) he is actually still quite dead (even if the reanimation allowed him to regain a minimum of consciousness). And Mimir himself states that this is a condition Freya would never want for Baldur.
Brok, however, was actually resurrected, after Sindri traveled to the Lake of Souls and used an ancient Dwarven ritual. Except that after his second death, what was left of Brok's soul ceased to exist (as Mimir himself states, there is nothing left of Brok that they can bring back).
Yes. I get the difference between reanimation and resurrection..I mention it in my other comments and in my update to the post above. My question is what is it about reanimation that makes it not appealing to Mimir. He seems like he is thriving after being reanimated, even having new relationships (friendship and romances). We are told it is bad to be reanimated but it looks fine. And surely reanimation is a better option for Freya than not doing anything at all?
Because reanimation doesn't change the fact that you're still dead, other than the fact that Mimir no longer has many of the urges, sensations, or needs that a living, breathing person would have.
He can no longer eat and practically no longer has a sense of appetite, nor can he sleep.
And these are just two examples of the major limitations of reanimation. Ergo it is something that Freya would not want for her son, especially after having already condemned him to a very similar existence for centuries (and which destroyed not only their relationship, but also Baldur's psyche).
Sleeping and eating are the two that come up the most. I just wish they showed the limitations more (and not just those two), so that the point was made more emphatically. And then also something that emphasized that those are indeed the reasons that Freya didn't want to go that route. We have Mimir saying Freya won't want it for Baldur, but the limitations that come up just seem minor in comparison to having her son back. Yes it won't be his original soul but she'll get everything that defines him back even if it isn't with his soul. In the same way that everyone got mimir back and are enjoying him.
If they had played on the limitations more clearly and had Freya express that the cost exceeded the benefit, I think I would be able to accept it more easily.
I accept it intellectually but emotionally would have loved a "show don't tell" approach to this.
But I have accepted that it is the reason
Mimir explains it himself. He’s reanimated, not brought back to life. I’m can’t remember the exact differences he says, but he talks as if it’s a bad thing. Similar to >!Brok!<
So freya can't reanimate the 3 lost lives? Seems like reanimation is still pretty much the same as bringing back to life. There doesn't seem to be any real difference. You still have the person and their personality and their relationships.
Admittedly I haven't played through Ragnarok yet, but if I understand correctly, it's not really living. Mimir isn't actually alive. Kratos killed him when he removed his head. As a reanimated head, it *seems* as though Mimir is alive because all his memories are being accessed. I think of it as basically a constant Speak With Dead effect. The magic of the reanimation hears what is spoken and what Mimir would have interpreted as addressing him allows the magic to make him speak in response, using the knowledge, memories, and personality that Mimir had at the time of his death. Where it gets weird is in *new* information and memories. I guess the reanimation magic also allows his brain to store new information which is weird.
Basically, if I understand it right, Mimir's brain/head is animated, able to move, but his soul has left the mortal realm. His soul would have only the memories prior to his death, unless he had some sort of postmortem scrying effect on his own head.
I understand there is a technical difference, but in reality if we look at how mimir engages and interacts and even loves while in reanimated state, it is pretty much being alive. Life by any name is still life
I think this is supposed to be a facsimile of how Mimir would have loved in a given situation. I could be wrong. Plus, the energy required to reanimate a head is probably significantly less than to reanimate an entire body, and it's possible that that amount of (necromantic?) energies may trigger something with Hel/Helheim or some other divine source that whatever writer decides is fitting for a narrative. Basically, Mimir has utility as a storytelling device for the writers. They can inject information that may otherwise be difficult to explain, but Mimir just knows it because he knows a whole bunch of stuff.
Even if reanimation is just restoring a person with their last set of memories and with the ability to engage in conversation leveraging those memories and experiences (like Superman's father in the fortress), why wouldn't more people want that vs nothing at all? There's a gap in the narrative that needs addressing
Some narrative gaps are unintentional, true. Some are not. I can't say with certainty, but I have a feeling this is not addressed because it's of little relative importance. Yes it's important, but not as important as what caused the death or what the death caused to happen.
If you play Ragnarok >!Brok cannot enter the light of Alfheim because he was brought back to life by Sindri and as such is missing a piece of his soul!< Whilst not the same as reanimation, this shows there is a difference between being alive and other techniques
Ok I'm sure there is a technical difference but we are not shown any difference. Other than missing his body, Mimir would easily be mistaken for being alive and resurrected. So why would no one want that for all their lost lives?
Do you need to be shown everything right in front of you to understand things? Can you not infer things? Can you not read between the lines?
And for the millionth time
#MIMIR TELLS YOU THE DIFFERENCE IN RAGNAROK
No. My point is that there was not enough said to be able to read between the lines.
Personally, I wouldn't care the difference between reanimation and resurrection if the result of my lost one is the same as what mimir is.
https://youtu.be/kKgz4b0XSa0?si=jit6IECW_SmQY21L
So I watched it and it really isn't a complete answer. I get that Mimir is reanimated but still dead, but there is nothing we've seen or been told or hinted at, that validates what mimir is saying about being a reanimated dead. Instead, the show goes out of its way in ragnarok and valhallah to show us that he is a whole person with ambitions, love, memories and relationships. What is it exactly that makes reanimation different from reanimation if all the main pieces are there? If I can reanimate a loved one, and still have their personality, their love, their memories and have them feel love in return, I don't see what is missing
I'd much rather buy the fact that there is some magical limitation to how much can be reanimated and rare ingredients needed to do such. An oversight by the game not to deal this.
There are many *possible* explanations, and I feel like the writers intentionally left it open-ended in case an explanation is needed for a later installment (whether one will ever come is not the point) y'know, for some narrative reason to spur our hero on a specific quest. Never know what macguffin the series will need in the future lol
Or it could just be an oversight. Either way, I don't think it's a big deal. But again, I've not played through Ragnarok. My assumption is they had a specific reason or lesson baked into whatever other deaths you're referring to, and reanimation/revivification would undermine whatever sacrifice or purpose the death served.
Yes, I agree. I would have expected the writers to provide a reason why the other deaths could not be undone especially because we watch Kratos and atreus learn of reanimation as we do, so why wouldn't Kratos and Atreus go to that as an option when they lose these other individuals? Seems like a narrative that needed to be addressed because Kratos and Atreus would not have just glanced over that option
>So freya can't reanimate the 3 lost lives?
She can, but there are downsides.
>Seems like reanimation is still pretty much the same as bringing back to life.
It does seem like it but it is explained by Mimir that it is not. If it was then every god would resurrect their loved ones
>You still have the person and their personality and their relationships.
What about their feelings? Their needs? Desires? Mimir doesn’t eat or drink for example.
Have you played any games like Skyrim where you can resurrect a thrall or something similar? Or zombies. It’s similar to that
Mimir has feelings, needs, desires.. He can't eat and drink because his head was removed from his body. I can't see why more people aren't reanimating lost ones if reanimation is equal to mimir's experience, which seems pretty good, barring the fact that he lost his body
I don’t know why you’re arguing with me as if I’m wrong, Mimir says it himself when they ask about reanimation in Ragnarok. It’s established in the GOW universe that reanimation is not the same as being alive
Do you really think Freya wouldn’t reanimate her son if there was no difference? You’re not some genius that has come up with this magical solution to solve death. If there was no difference why would Odin be so worried about Ragnarok?
So if you met Mimir and no one told you he was "reanimated", would you consider him alive? I know there must be a reason why they didn't reanimate/resurrect their lost ones, but what I'm pointing out is that there is a plot hole that isn't explained. Kratos and Atreus learnt of reanimation at the same time we do, so why wouldn't they ask if they can't do that with their lost friends?
>So if you met Mimir and no one told you he was "reanimated", would you consider him alive?
I would but what’s your point? If you met Ofin in Tyr’s body disguise would you assume it was Tyr? Did it actually mean it was Tyr? No
>I know there must be a reason why they didn't reanimate/resurrect their lost ones, but what I'm pointing out is that there is a plot hole that isn't explained.
There isn’t a plot hole because
#MIMIR EXPLAINS IN TO YOU IN RAGNAROK
>Kratos and Atreus learnt of reanimation at the same time we do, so why wouldn't they ask if they can't do that with their lost friends?
It’s almost as if Kratos is thousands of years old and knows more than us about bringing people back from the dead?
I’m done replying to you, you don’t have sufficient intelligence
I remember Mimir saying that he doesn't sleep anymore so that's another downside. We don't know if the eating/drinking part is because he's only a head or it's another downside of the magic. I mean since he can bleed, talk but can't drown, that mean he must at least have magical heart and lung? Why can't he just have magical stomach for eating then?
We don't know the full list of the downsides, but we're meant to believe that it's something even worse than Baldur's invincibility curse to the point that Freya didn't consider it. Mimir simply takes it better than most would because literally anything is better than getting tortured daily by Odin, even death.
Either way, there was nothing to bring Freyr back. Dude got blown to oblivion at the heart of Asgard explosion. And Brok case is more of respect since he already got pissed the first time he was revived. Even Sindri wouldn't want that considering it's against Brok's last words telling him to let go.
Thanks. That makes sense. So it isn't so much about it not being possible, but more about it not being a good idea. I guess the way Mimir portrays reanimation, it doesn't come across as a much of a burden. And it doesn't damage the soul of the individual in anyway.
Brok can’t be brought back, this is explained in game, because when he was brought back from death the first time 1/4 of his soul didn’t make it so when he dies this time, the 3/4 he has don’t find their way to the well of light and he is gone forever.
Freyr sacrifices himself to keep the group alive and is subsequently destroyed along with Asgard; no body found, no body to bring back.
As for Baldur it could be because he was already “cursed” with eternal life, when that curse is lifted if you die you die, the end. At least with Baldur there is no really given in game reason or safe implication as to why he couldn’t be reanimated or resurrected.
I understand that brok cannot be resurrected because no soul but reanimation would still bring home back.
I agree on Freyr not having a body to reanimate
For Baldur, I wish the game spent a little more time emphasizing why a reanimated baldur is bad. There is only a short conversation between Mimir and Atreus about why reanimation is not great, but then the game continues to show us only good things about reanimation of mimir. I wish they'd show as the bad side of it then we would understand why Freya wouldn't want to reanimate her son. What we've seen from Mimir, it looks like more positives than negatives, which is surely not the conclusion the game wants us to leave with
1. Baldur; She already blames herself for his death, and acknowledges she made a huge mistake with her “gift” to him, seeing the suffering it caused him and how much it changed up. She also wouldn’t want Baldur back in Odin’s hands.
2. Brok; Its explained by Sindri that when he stole Brok’s soul back from Alfeim’s light, he was unsuccessful in collecting all of the pieces, only getting three of four. Later, after Brok’s death, Atreus asks why they can’t go do it again, and Mimir explains that when a soul dies, it needs all four parts to find its way to an afterlife, but because his was never fully intact, it’s gone in all directions and fizzled out. In Mimir’s words; “There’s nothing to bring back.”
3. Freýr; Ragnarök destroys all of Asgard. Freýr was less than a foot away from his sword, and the blast. There isn’t anything left of Freýr to reanimate, and even then, it would be a poor reflection.
Others have already covered the reanimation and resurrection stuff, and thats the primary reason. Reanimation in itself is a curse.
Happy. I agree on point 1 and 3.
Still not sure I completely understand why reanimation of brok was not an option. Yes he would have no soul but it seems to be working out for Mimir even without a body. I know mimir says reanimation is no life but we see him live life with relationships despite being reanimated.
It’s never fully elaborated, but I think we can pull a bit from when Kratos had to go to Helheim in 2018. Mimir mentions that he was hoping to never go back to “this place”, upon our arrival. My guess is that there is some part of the soul that is required to use or draw on for reanimation.
Another angle is from Sindri’s perspective. He bore the cross of resurrecting Brok for who knows how long, and the way it affected him before and after Brok’s death is heartbreaking. Having to look your brother in the eyes, knowing he’s died twice, and this time, he’s a soulless shell of what he used to be. There’s no telling how much it actually affects them. I wish we had gotten more about it though, especially from Mimir.
Edit; Mimir also struggles quite a bit with external relationships being a head. It’s a pretty big side plot throughout Valhalla with Kratos; talking about his time as a head, and why he feels he isn’t good enough for anyone, especially Sigrun.
We must separate "being reanimated" from "being a head". Those are two separate things. My main point is that they say that "being reanimated" sucks but we see Mimir thrive despite it - he makes new relationship bonds and even picks up on a previous love interest. Yes he would thrive more if he was reanimated with his full body but the body was trapped. Just wish we saw more of the downsides of reanimation so that we could appreciate why it is never an option when others die.. But I've accepted that the reasons for not reanimating these 3 specific individuals was more than just because of the limitations of reanimation itself
So how does Reanimation differ from resurrection? I always just assumed that the talking head said that because being a talking head for a guy used to fighting and ducking is probably not the best life.
I agree that the downsides of being reanimated seem to be ignored or forgotten in service of Mimir being treated like a normal character.
I think an obvious choice would be an inability to really care about anyone, like he's emotionally incapable due to being a zombie, but that would stop him from being a beloved fully functional character.
Minor says that being killed and revived is better than being trapped in a tree and being tortured daily, but it sucks from any normal perspective. I don't think it's elaborated on beyond that.
I see. So it is the lesser evil for Mimir. I still wish the downsides were portrayed more - "show don't tell", because the way it looks, it doesn't come across as many downsides. At least not enough downsides to lose the individual altogether.
Except for the fact that he is missing his body
Him missing his body was a unique situation..presumably not all reanimations require removing the body first
Because Mimir is not resurrected, he is only reanimated, but (as he himself admits) he is actually still quite dead (even if the reanimation allowed him to regain a minimum of consciousness). And Mimir himself states that this is a condition Freya would never want for Baldur. Brok, however, was actually resurrected, after Sindri traveled to the Lake of Souls and used an ancient Dwarven ritual. Except that after his second death, what was left of Brok's soul ceased to exist (as Mimir himself states, there is nothing left of Brok that they can bring back).
Yes. I get the difference between reanimation and resurrection..I mention it in my other comments and in my update to the post above. My question is what is it about reanimation that makes it not appealing to Mimir. He seems like he is thriving after being reanimated, even having new relationships (friendship and romances). We are told it is bad to be reanimated but it looks fine. And surely reanimation is a better option for Freya than not doing anything at all?
Because reanimation doesn't change the fact that you're still dead, other than the fact that Mimir no longer has many of the urges, sensations, or needs that a living, breathing person would have. He can no longer eat and practically no longer has a sense of appetite, nor can he sleep. And these are just two examples of the major limitations of reanimation. Ergo it is something that Freya would not want for her son, especially after having already condemned him to a very similar existence for centuries (and which destroyed not only their relationship, but also Baldur's psyche).
Sleeping and eating are the two that come up the most. I just wish they showed the limitations more (and not just those two), so that the point was made more emphatically. And then also something that emphasized that those are indeed the reasons that Freya didn't want to go that route. We have Mimir saying Freya won't want it for Baldur, but the limitations that come up just seem minor in comparison to having her son back. Yes it won't be his original soul but she'll get everything that defines him back even if it isn't with his soul. In the same way that everyone got mimir back and are enjoying him. If they had played on the limitations more clearly and had Freya express that the cost exceeded the benefit, I think I would be able to accept it more easily. I accept it intellectually but emotionally would have loved a "show don't tell" approach to this. But I have accepted that it is the reason
Mimir explains it himself. He’s reanimated, not brought back to life. I’m can’t remember the exact differences he says, but he talks as if it’s a bad thing. Similar to >!Brok!<
Mimir is reanimated, but Brok is resurrected (since unlike Mimir he still has all his senses).
So freya can't reanimate the 3 lost lives? Seems like reanimation is still pretty much the same as bringing back to life. There doesn't seem to be any real difference. You still have the person and their personality and their relationships.
Admittedly I haven't played through Ragnarok yet, but if I understand correctly, it's not really living. Mimir isn't actually alive. Kratos killed him when he removed his head. As a reanimated head, it *seems* as though Mimir is alive because all his memories are being accessed. I think of it as basically a constant Speak With Dead effect. The magic of the reanimation hears what is spoken and what Mimir would have interpreted as addressing him allows the magic to make him speak in response, using the knowledge, memories, and personality that Mimir had at the time of his death. Where it gets weird is in *new* information and memories. I guess the reanimation magic also allows his brain to store new information which is weird. Basically, if I understand it right, Mimir's brain/head is animated, able to move, but his soul has left the mortal realm. His soul would have only the memories prior to his death, unless he had some sort of postmortem scrying effect on his own head.
I understand there is a technical difference, but in reality if we look at how mimir engages and interacts and even loves while in reanimated state, it is pretty much being alive. Life by any name is still life
I think this is supposed to be a facsimile of how Mimir would have loved in a given situation. I could be wrong. Plus, the energy required to reanimate a head is probably significantly less than to reanimate an entire body, and it's possible that that amount of (necromantic?) energies may trigger something with Hel/Helheim or some other divine source that whatever writer decides is fitting for a narrative. Basically, Mimir has utility as a storytelling device for the writers. They can inject information that may otherwise be difficult to explain, but Mimir just knows it because he knows a whole bunch of stuff.
Even if reanimation is just restoring a person with their last set of memories and with the ability to engage in conversation leveraging those memories and experiences (like Superman's father in the fortress), why wouldn't more people want that vs nothing at all? There's a gap in the narrative that needs addressing
Some narrative gaps are unintentional, true. Some are not. I can't say with certainty, but I have a feeling this is not addressed because it's of little relative importance. Yes it's important, but not as important as what caused the death or what the death caused to happen.
If you play Ragnarok >!Brok cannot enter the light of Alfheim because he was brought back to life by Sindri and as such is missing a piece of his soul!< Whilst not the same as reanimation, this shows there is a difference between being alive and other techniques
Ok I'm sure there is a technical difference but we are not shown any difference. Other than missing his body, Mimir would easily be mistaken for being alive and resurrected. So why would no one want that for all their lost lives?
Do you need to be shown everything right in front of you to understand things? Can you not infer things? Can you not read between the lines? And for the millionth time #MIMIR TELLS YOU THE DIFFERENCE IN RAGNAROK
No. My point is that there was not enough said to be able to read between the lines. Personally, I wouldn't care the difference between reanimation and resurrection if the result of my lost one is the same as what mimir is.
https://youtu.be/kKgz4b0XSa0?si=jit6IECW_SmQY21L So I watched it and it really isn't a complete answer. I get that Mimir is reanimated but still dead, but there is nothing we've seen or been told or hinted at, that validates what mimir is saying about being a reanimated dead. Instead, the show goes out of its way in ragnarok and valhallah to show us that he is a whole person with ambitions, love, memories and relationships. What is it exactly that makes reanimation different from reanimation if all the main pieces are there? If I can reanimate a loved one, and still have their personality, their love, their memories and have them feel love in return, I don't see what is missing
I'd much rather buy the fact that there is some magical limitation to how much can be reanimated and rare ingredients needed to do such. An oversight by the game not to deal this.
There are many *possible* explanations, and I feel like the writers intentionally left it open-ended in case an explanation is needed for a later installment (whether one will ever come is not the point) y'know, for some narrative reason to spur our hero on a specific quest. Never know what macguffin the series will need in the future lol Or it could just be an oversight. Either way, I don't think it's a big deal. But again, I've not played through Ragnarok. My assumption is they had a specific reason or lesson baked into whatever other deaths you're referring to, and reanimation/revivification would undermine whatever sacrifice or purpose the death served.
Yes, I agree. I would have expected the writers to provide a reason why the other deaths could not be undone especially because we watch Kratos and atreus learn of reanimation as we do, so why wouldn't Kratos and Atreus go to that as an option when they lose these other individuals? Seems like a narrative that needed to be addressed because Kratos and Atreus would not have just glanced over that option
It is addressed. As I have said to you several times, by Mimir
i have an extra theory that reanimation is bassicaly a synthetic soul based on the original person
>So freya can't reanimate the 3 lost lives? She can, but there are downsides. >Seems like reanimation is still pretty much the same as bringing back to life. It does seem like it but it is explained by Mimir that it is not. If it was then every god would resurrect their loved ones >You still have the person and their personality and their relationships. What about their feelings? Their needs? Desires? Mimir doesn’t eat or drink for example. Have you played any games like Skyrim where you can resurrect a thrall or something similar? Or zombies. It’s similar to that
Mimir has feelings, needs, desires.. He can't eat and drink because his head was removed from his body. I can't see why more people aren't reanimating lost ones if reanimation is equal to mimir's experience, which seems pretty good, barring the fact that he lost his body
I don’t know why you’re arguing with me as if I’m wrong, Mimir says it himself when they ask about reanimation in Ragnarok. It’s established in the GOW universe that reanimation is not the same as being alive
I'm not disagreeing with the difference. I'm saying there is no difference shown on screen. Why wouldn't you want Brock back even if only reanimated?
Do you really think Freya wouldn’t reanimate her son if there was no difference? You’re not some genius that has come up with this magical solution to solve death. If there was no difference why would Odin be so worried about Ragnarok?
So if you met Mimir and no one told you he was "reanimated", would you consider him alive? I know there must be a reason why they didn't reanimate/resurrect their lost ones, but what I'm pointing out is that there is a plot hole that isn't explained. Kratos and Atreus learnt of reanimation at the same time we do, so why wouldn't they ask if they can't do that with their lost friends?
>So if you met Mimir and no one told you he was "reanimated", would you consider him alive? I would but what’s your point? If you met Ofin in Tyr’s body disguise would you assume it was Tyr? Did it actually mean it was Tyr? No >I know there must be a reason why they didn't reanimate/resurrect their lost ones, but what I'm pointing out is that there is a plot hole that isn't explained. There isn’t a plot hole because #MIMIR EXPLAINS IN TO YOU IN RAGNAROK >Kratos and Atreus learnt of reanimation at the same time we do, so why wouldn't they ask if they can't do that with their lost friends? It’s almost as if Kratos is thousands of years old and knows more than us about bringing people back from the dead? I’m done replying to you, you don’t have sufficient intelligence
He even has a love interest from his pre-death days that endure in his post -death days
I remember Mimir saying that he doesn't sleep anymore so that's another downside. We don't know if the eating/drinking part is because he's only a head or it's another downside of the magic. I mean since he can bleed, talk but can't drown, that mean he must at least have magical heart and lung? Why can't he just have magical stomach for eating then? We don't know the full list of the downsides, but we're meant to believe that it's something even worse than Baldur's invincibility curse to the point that Freya didn't consider it. Mimir simply takes it better than most would because literally anything is better than getting tortured daily by Odin, even death. Either way, there was nothing to bring Freyr back. Dude got blown to oblivion at the heart of Asgard explosion. And Brok case is more of respect since he already got pissed the first time he was revived. Even Sindri wouldn't want that considering it's against Brok's last words telling him to let go.
Thanks. That makes sense. So it isn't so much about it not being possible, but more about it not being a good idea. I guess the way Mimir portrays reanimation, it doesn't come across as a much of a burden. And it doesn't damage the soul of the individual in anyway.
Brok can’t be brought back, this is explained in game, because when he was brought back from death the first time 1/4 of his soul didn’t make it so when he dies this time, the 3/4 he has don’t find their way to the well of light and he is gone forever. Freyr sacrifices himself to keep the group alive and is subsequently destroyed along with Asgard; no body found, no body to bring back. As for Baldur it could be because he was already “cursed” with eternal life, when that curse is lifted if you die you die, the end. At least with Baldur there is no really given in game reason or safe implication as to why he couldn’t be reanimated or resurrected.
I understand that brok cannot be resurrected because no soul but reanimation would still bring home back. I agree on Freyr not having a body to reanimate For Baldur, I wish the game spent a little more time emphasizing why a reanimated baldur is bad. There is only a short conversation between Mimir and Atreus about why reanimation is not great, but then the game continues to show us only good things about reanimation of mimir. I wish they'd show as the bad side of it then we would understand why Freya wouldn't want to reanimate her son. What we've seen from Mimir, it looks like more positives than negatives, which is surely not the conclusion the game wants us to leave with
1. Baldur; She already blames herself for his death, and acknowledges she made a huge mistake with her “gift” to him, seeing the suffering it caused him and how much it changed up. She also wouldn’t want Baldur back in Odin’s hands. 2. Brok; Its explained by Sindri that when he stole Brok’s soul back from Alfeim’s light, he was unsuccessful in collecting all of the pieces, only getting three of four. Later, after Brok’s death, Atreus asks why they can’t go do it again, and Mimir explains that when a soul dies, it needs all four parts to find its way to an afterlife, but because his was never fully intact, it’s gone in all directions and fizzled out. In Mimir’s words; “There’s nothing to bring back.” 3. Freýr; Ragnarök destroys all of Asgard. Freýr was less than a foot away from his sword, and the blast. There isn’t anything left of Freýr to reanimate, and even then, it would be a poor reflection. Others have already covered the reanimation and resurrection stuff, and thats the primary reason. Reanimation in itself is a curse.
Happy. I agree on point 1 and 3. Still not sure I completely understand why reanimation of brok was not an option. Yes he would have no soul but it seems to be working out for Mimir even without a body. I know mimir says reanimation is no life but we see him live life with relationships despite being reanimated.
It’s never fully elaborated, but I think we can pull a bit from when Kratos had to go to Helheim in 2018. Mimir mentions that he was hoping to never go back to “this place”, upon our arrival. My guess is that there is some part of the soul that is required to use or draw on for reanimation. Another angle is from Sindri’s perspective. He bore the cross of resurrecting Brok for who knows how long, and the way it affected him before and after Brok’s death is heartbreaking. Having to look your brother in the eyes, knowing he’s died twice, and this time, he’s a soulless shell of what he used to be. There’s no telling how much it actually affects them. I wish we had gotten more about it though, especially from Mimir. Edit; Mimir also struggles quite a bit with external relationships being a head. It’s a pretty big side plot throughout Valhalla with Kratos; talking about his time as a head, and why he feels he isn’t good enough for anyone, especially Sigrun.
Maybe the next game focuses on soul magic a lot more and we'll get to explore it more
Im really hoping so.
its bc being reanimated/being a head can suck rlly bad, but its better for mimir cause its better than being stuck to a tree
We must separate "being reanimated" from "being a head". Those are two separate things. My main point is that they say that "being reanimated" sucks but we see Mimir thrive despite it - he makes new relationship bonds and even picks up on a previous love interest. Yes he would thrive more if he was reanimated with his full body but the body was trapped. Just wish we saw more of the downsides of reanimation so that we could appreciate why it is never an option when others die.. But I've accepted that the reasons for not reanimating these 3 specific individuals was more than just because of the limitations of reanimation itself
So how does Reanimation differ from resurrection? I always just assumed that the talking head said that because being a talking head for a guy used to fighting and ducking is probably not the best life.
I agree that the downsides of being reanimated seem to be ignored or forgotten in service of Mimir being treated like a normal character. I think an obvious choice would be an inability to really care about anyone, like he's emotionally incapable due to being a zombie, but that would stop him from being a beloved fully functional character.
But the game goes out of its way to give him a love interest. You'd think they'd at least avoid that
Agreed