redwwood:

philosopherking1887:

redwwood:

philosopherking1887:

redwwood:

philosopherking1887:

redwwood:

philosopherking1887:

redwwood:

philosopherking1887:

redwwood:

redwwood:

Loki in the comics is so powerful and so magical and can like time hop and zoom around and it’s so funny compared to mcu loki who just twinked about asgard until his dad yelled at him one time

comics loki: im going to rewrite time and trap various characters into vicious time hells and also I’m going to throw the dimensions out of WACK and i can fly sometimes and also I can turn into various forms of myself and i have green orb hands and im so powerful 

mcu loki: i have a knife and im a size queen

That’s just what “Ragnarok” and, following it, “Infinity War” made him. There was more to him in previous movies: he made strategic use of illusions, the Casket of Ancient Winters, the Mind Stone, and secret pathways between worlds; he fucked with people’s heads and played double agent. Let’s please not forget that.

But he was actually a good character in Ragnarok so

Yes, all the best characters are paper-thin caricatures. Who has time for psychological complexity?

Didn’t realize having an engaging character arc that allows him to make the first steps towards redemption while also being a fun and entertaining character suddenly means that he’s a paper thin caricature. Salty cause your a thorki huh

And I didn’t realize that pretending the things he had already done to earn redemption didn’t happen (almost dying to save both Jane and Thor, avenging Frigga), reducing all his motivations to “I’m a trickster, it’s in my nature, I betray people for the lulz,” and giving someone else’s manipulative ultimatum full credit for the do-over “redemption” makes for an engaging character arc.

How did he redeem himself when he literally stripped his dad if power and there him in what is presumably a fucked up old folks home and letting the nine realms desolve into chaos oh my God…. The point of Ragnarok isn’t that he’s full redeemed, but rather that Thor has forgiven him and Loki feels accepted again as a Brother rather than a traitor….. The trickster one note characterization was literally just thor 1 and 2 and avengers omegalul

I’m tired of having this conversation with people who have trouble interpreting movies, so I’m just going to copy what I wrote in response to some other people who seem to have swallowed the same predigested-by-Tumblr opinions:

“The writers Hiddleston praises are the ones who gave him complexity to work with: Miller & Stentz (the writers of Thor 1) and Joss Whedon. And the way Whedon wrote Loki often was funny: ‘I’m listening’; ‘Are you ever not going to fall for that?’; ‘This usually works’; ‘If it’s all the same to you, I’ll have that drink now.’ But it’s a subtle humor (which I guess goes over some people’s heads?) and Loki is as often in on the joke as it is at his expense. Which is as it should be: he’s intelligent and mischievous and doesn’t always take himself seriously. If all the Waititi/TR/Thor* stans see is ‘a bland pretentious baddie’ or ‘a greasy asshole,’ that’s their problem.

“Similarly, if they didn’t see ‘an interesting, conflicted trickster’ in the previous movies, all I can conclude is that they didn’t understand (or watch) the previous movies. In Thor 1, Loki secretly disrupts Thor’s coronation and subtly goads him into charging into Jotunheim (trickster) – not only ‘to ruin my brother’s big day,’ but because he recognizes that Thor isn’t ready to rule (interesting). He finds out that he’s a member of a people that has historically been Asgard’s enemies (interesting, conflicted). He makes overtures to the ruler of that people, his biological father, offering to let them into Asgard to murder Odin so that Loki can take the throne permanently (trickster, conflicted); but then he turns around and kills his biological father to protect his adoptive father to prove his loyalty to Asgard and enmity toward Jotunheim (double trickster, double conflicted). He lies to Thor to keep him from returning to prevent him from going through with this plan (trickster), but on his way out tries to lift Mjolnir, desperate to be found worthy (conflicted); he obviously hesitates before he has the Destroyer strike Thor, and he does it in a way that isn’t guaranteed to kill him the way blasting him with fire would (conflicted). He tries to destroy the planet where he was born because he so deeply hates what he now knows he is; he begs Thor to fight him while fucking crying (have I given enough proof that he’s interesting and conflicted?).

“I could keep doing this with The Avengers and Thor: The Dark World, but I have better things to do than write Reader’s Digest summaries of Marvel movies for people who didn’t understand them the first time around. (I didn’t exactly think they were intellectually taxing, but people continue to surprise me.)”

WE’RE PRAISING JOSS WHEDON?

Yes, because our opinions do not come predigested by Tumblr, and we are capable of acknowledging a creator’s flaws alongside his strengths. Moreover, we are not one of those fandom hipsters who liked “Buffy” and “Firefly” but then claim always to have hated Whedon when the tide of Tumblr opinion turns against him.

Is your url alluding to the fact that you were born in 1887 Bc you talk like an imperialist. Also he’s fine in those movies if always pathetically working for other people rather than himself 👌

Sorry, what is it that makes me sound like an imperialist? The fact that I didn’t like the characterization in Ragnarok, which also happened to contain a half-assed critique of imperialism? The fact that I use standard grammar and punctuation (old habits are hard to break)? The use of the royal ‘we’ (which was just echoing you, but I guess you’d forgotten you did that)?

The 1887 refers to the publication date of the second edition of The Gay Science and On the Genealogy of Morality, which contain some of my favorite ideas and arguments of Nietzsche’s.