edge-of-silvermoon:

foundlingmother:

Monthly (or there abouts) reminder that…

1. My problems with Loki in Ragnarok have nothing to do with him being hedonistic, more overtly sexual, a tad ridiculous, and just more lighthearted in general. I didn’t buy into the characterization of MCU!Loki as a dark, twisted creature standing on the precipice above total psychopathy. That’s not who I think MCU!Loki was. Ever. My problem is with the implication that he’s just a trickster with shallow motivations, if any motivations at all, and with his legitimate issues and traumas being made into punchlines or brought up only to be shoved aside, left unresolved, as though they are unimportant.
2. My problems with Thor in Ragnarok have nothing to do with him being smart, capable of the same tactics Loki uses, or even him being angry at Loki (it makes perfect sense to me that Thor would be upset–his father has just died and Loki did betray him for, from his perspective, no good reason). I didn’t buy into the characterization of MCU!Thor as a stupid jock who smiles, praises, and forgives Loki through every betrayal or attempted mass murder/genocide. That’s not who I think MCU!Thor was. Ever. My problem is with the way he derives enjoyment, apparently, from witnessing Loki in serious pain (he feels way more dudebro to me in this movie, and that’s exactly what Thor isn’t), that some of the jokes and dialogue sound more like Hemsworth than Thor, and the fact that he doesn’t have a character arc.
3. I welcome all of the new and returning fans that Ragnarok brought in. Your talent is welcome. Your thoughts are welcome. I don’t think you’re wrong to enjoy the film.

“that some of the jokes and dialogue sound more like Hemsworth than Thor”, I am pretty sure that’s because it is (more like Hensworth than Thor). They proudly proclaim that in Ragnarok Hemsworth “is not even acting”, and well, we all see the results. They never thought about how Thor would have behave, would have acted, they just want to make him more fun to play for Hemsworth, and care little about anything else. I think that’s a ridiculous way to make character decisions.

My friends have taken to call Ragnarok Thor “Chris Odinson” just to make a distinction with the previous Thor, and I don’t think I can fault them.

Ooh, “Chris Odinson” is good. I’ve been using “Thor*” because people in philosophy use the asterisk to mark something that you might think matches up to the concept under discussion, but doesn’t really, or would be a really unusual way of using the concept. Like if you’re trying to come up with a good account of the concept of friendship, and as a first pass you propose “a non-sexual relationship with someone whose company you enjoy,” but then you point out that there are such things as friends with benefits, and you might want to call a sexual/romantic partner your friend as well, so then friendship* is the thing described by your first proposed definition. (That was really rough, sorry.)

It also occurred to me to call him “Shmor,” because the Yiddish shm- word beginning is another thing philosophers use to indicate a “close but no cigar” interpretation of a concept or another philosopher. So you know how if you’re skeptical about whether something counts as belonging to a certain category, you say the category name and then rhyme it starting with shm-? For example, if someone says they’re going to give me chocolate and then they give me white chocolate, which contains no actual cacao, I’d say “chocolate, shmocolate.” And when contemporary philosophers want to talk about a cartoon version of a historical philosopher that they know is not really an accurate representation of their view, they’ll use “Shmaristotle” or “Shmittgenstein” to note that. So “Shmor” would have been appropriate given that usage, but it also sounds weird and is even more confusing than Thor*.

I’m kind of attached to my nerdy convention, but “Chris Odinson” really does get the point across. Or “Thor Hemsworth.” Or “Hemsthor.”