stmonkeys:

philosopherking1887:

Anyone I see reblog that bullshit post about how Taika Waititi characterized Thor and Loki so much better than Joss Whedon because Taika has a Deep Pagan Understanding of Norse mythology while Joss is beholden to Bad Western Christianity and therefore thinks God is a fascist… you will be unfollowed. You are all hereby on notice.

(I just went looking through the notes to see if I could find my own comment, which I might reblog just to try to stem the idiocy, and saw another hot take, this one about how Taika’s compassionate understanding of gods reflects his Jewish heritage, and I am just… no. I’m about as proud to claim Adam Sandler as a landsman. At least he wrote the Chanukah song. Several of them.)

@philosopherking1887 taika’s jewish? I haven’t heard anything about that. There’s a plethora of jewish representation in the MCU, but I thought taika was part Australian Aboriginal. I have no great love for taika’s version of the odinson saga, but there were a few redeeming moments. I was really disappointed by the Russo brothers, because I held them in a much higher esteem. We watched IW again last night, and after my 3rd viewing I still find the firsr 10 minutes excruciating to watch.

He’s half Maori (New Zealand’s indigenous people), half Jewish.

I can’t decide whether I’m more pissed at him or at Markus & McFeely (who wrote IW) and the Russos. Well, Waititi shares my ire with Hemsworth, who brought him on and instigated the radical recharacterization, and Feige, who gave it the go-ahead.

The terrible interpretation of Loki’s character in Thor: Ragnarok

yume-no-fantasy:

Things that Thor: Ragnarok director Taika Waititi said of Loki:

  • “Not to really wanna humiliate Loki all the way through the film, but because he was most definitely over-powered for a lot in the other films in terms of presence and his story, and kind of overshadowed (…) a little bit… This one, it was just nice to kind of switch it around, after all the shitty things that Loki’s done in the last few films…” (Source: Empire Film Podcast)
  • “space orphan”
  • “someone who tries so hard to embody this idea of the tortured artist, this tortured, gothy orphan”
  • “…this little emo goth hanging out by himself. He was like the kid in Harry Potter [Malfoy].”
  • has been trying to kill Thor his entire life
image
image
image
image

A number of significant ways in which Loki’s character was retconned in Ragnarok:

1.

Tom: Loki’s death on Svartalfheim was written as a death, and Chris and I played that scene for real. That was meant to be sort of that he redeemed himself. He helped save his brother and helped save Jane Foster, but he, in the process, sacrificed himself.

Ragnarok!Thor: You FAKED your own death

2.

TDW!Thor: Loki, for all his grave imbalance, understood rule as I know I never will.

Ragnarok!Thor: And what do I find, but the Nine Realms completely in chaos. Enemies of Asgard assembling, plotting our demise, all while you, Odin, the protector of those Nine Realms, are sitting here in your bathrobe, eating grapes.

3.

Tom: The best thing about Loki is that if he is afraid he won’t show it. He’s been highly trained through the experience of his slightly traumatic life to shield his fear. 

Loki in all other films:

image

Gagnarok!Loki:

image

Bonus:

image

“You’re a screw up, so whatever.”

For the people out there who still don’t believe that Taika Waititi *and Chris Hemsworth* have been overtly contemptuous of Loki.

NB: this is not a spewing of venom, it is a presentation of evidence. (I don’t endorse the “Gagnarok” label, on grounds of taste rather than substance.)

pedeka:

obsessedwithloki:

It’s been months and I still can’t believe there’s a deleted scene with Loki in a porta-potty.

Let’s humiliate Loki. It’s been fun since the first “Know your place, brother.” In the first movie!

More to the point, it’s revenge for the humiliation Loki (Tom) has imposed upon Thor (Chris) by daring to be more popular, especially among women.

the-haven-of-fiction:

peoplearenotdiamonds:

hiddlememes:

free-loki:

cheese-and-craziness:

Now if that’s doesn’t spark a Loki movie, I don’t know what will.

I love you for saying this.

“Not enough Loki.” -Rolling Stone

Just casually bringing this back in 2018

^^^ in which I am reminded how much I love The Dark World and detest Ragnarok

And Taika Waititi’s response to this critical consensus – probably motivated by Chris Hemsworth, and with the blessing of Kevin Feige – was to gut Loki’s character, to ridicule and emasculate him at every turn, to deprive him of the complex interiority that all of these critics love, to reduce his motivations to “I couldn’t help myself, I’m a trickster” (an actual line from the ridiculous play in Ragnarok), a.k.a. “I did it for the lulz.”

Don’t give me that “But he foregrounded Thor and Loki’s relationship!” bullshit. He reinforced and endorsed the imbalance that was always present; he dismissed and delegitimized all of Loki’s grievances and presented his complete submission to Thor’s will as his redemption.

shine-of-asgard:

loki-god-of-menace:

lokihiddleston:

“Almighty Thanos, I, Loki, Prince of Asgard… Odinson… The
rightful king of Jotunheim, God of Mischief… Do hereby pledge to you, my
undying fidelity.”

[That deep, steadying, terrified breath before his attempt on Thanos’ life just kills me. You can see the tears clinging to his eyes. You can watch him stiffen and coil. You can see him pull all of himself together to make this last, resigned but still brave-to-the-end attempt at bringing down Thanos. It’s heart-wrenching, watching him go to his death to protect Thor.

He deserved better. He always will.]

Anyone remembers the little promotion video of TH filming this and making little up and down jumps? Some people wanted to see a sign of hope in that. I remember thinking that it looked the opposite. Like psyching oneself to do something very unpleasant. Like a come on, let’s get this over with.

Feige also commented some time ago on the scene being difficult for TH. That’s 3 people saying the same fucking thing! So… Not cute. Not funny. And don’t try to tell me TH didn’t know Loki was being shat on. He might have tried to give his best in that scene, but no-one in fandom can even phantom what was going on there. What was Loki trying to accomplish. Concpiracy theories abound. Which is a big mark of how badly written that scene was. It has zero closure and zero sense. But nothing of it it TH fault.

God now I hate these hacks with renewed passion.

I wish Tom had had the power, or maybe the chutzpah, to protest on his character’s behalf. I wish I could believe that there was some big plan, some greater sense, to this absolutely idiotic and gratuitously violent and gruesome death. Which is to say, I wish Markus & McFeely and the Russo brothers had any sense of character or narrative logic.

But more than anything, I wish Feige and Marvel hadn’t alienated Joss Whedon. I wish he had been writing Infinity War. Honestly, I kind of wish he had been around to put the brakes on Taika Waititi’s (and Chris Hemsworth’s) complete mangling of Thor, Loki, and Bruce’s characters. He, unlike M&M and the Russos, had affection and understanding for the Asgardian characters. He was invested in making Loki interesting and formidable, as a reluctant villain and antihero (as reflected in the scenes he rewrote in TDW). He established the connection between Loki and Thanos and I firmly believe he intended to give us some payoff for it.

I find it absurd and ironic that the Marvel higher-ups were doing enough micromanaging on AOU that Joss Whedon threw up his hands in frustration, but apparently they gave Waititi completely free rein to ad lib his way through Ragnarok. I think that shows how little they care about the Thor franchise; it was making them less money, so they were willing to throw it under the bus artistically.

can someone explain this plothole: loki tells the revengers that hes run out of favor with the grandmaster and in exchange for a ship, he wants passage through the devils anus. Then thor tells him in the elevator that this is a perfect place for you, lawless yada yadh and both agree that he should stay (even though 2 seconds ago he told thor he’s run out of favor with the grandmaster) did loki betray thor last minute so he can stay on Sakaar like Thor wants him to? did thor not even hear him

juliabohemian:

shine-of-asgard:

edge-of-silvermoon:

lokihiddleston:

.

They need Loki to betray Thor for no reason so they can stomp on Loki’s character harder, and give Thor a chance for grandstanding, what else is there to it? This betrayal literally serves no other purpose than give Thor the chance to deliver his “you can be more” lectures. It’s lazy and sloppy writing.

Waititi and Hemsworth wanted a scene of Thor triumphing over Loki as a “payback” for 3 movies or Loki outsmarting him, and they wrote… that. Whatever the hell it was. And it’s been proven that it was a last minute addition because the official novel doesn’t have this last “twist”. Loki leaves with everyone, willingly.

Could we just re-shoot the movie and have it like the novel? So it isn’t this ridiculous mess? Like did no one edit this film besides TW? Did anyone check for consistency or to be sure that it made sense? How does something make it all the way to the theater with that many mistakes?

This thread is missing the original answer, which was a screenshot of another anonymous ask:

“It’s not really a plothole. Loki has only fallen out of favor with the Grandmaster because he did not return with Thor and his champion as promised. But Thor/Valkyrie are staging a revolt with Korg. So once the Grandmaster is out of power, Thor knows Loki could take over. However, Loki decides that he could regain favor with the Grandmaster by giving him Thor and then probably Bruce. I think though that Loki partially chose this route because he honestly didn’t think that Thor stood a chance against Hela […] I think at least partially, Loki is trying to keep his brother alive.”

There is something to that… but I still think @edge-of-silvermoon and @shine-of-asgard​ hit the nail on the head. Not only were Loki’s last-minute betrayal and Thor*’s (this is not the same person as the Thor of previous films) ultimatum/electrocution combo not in the novel (which I haven’t read), but we have some indication from the trailers that they shot a version where Loki came in the small ship with the rest of the Revengers: the clips of him standing on the bridge in a row with Thor, Valkyrie, and Hulk, and that shot of Hulk punching him off the bridge like he did to Thor in The Avengers. The betrayal and subsequent smackdown were a later addition – probably by Waititi rather than the screenwriter (Eric Pearson), possibly at Hemsworth’s behest – and I suspect that they wanted three things out of it:

  1. To show Thor*’s “character growth”: he has learned not to fall for Loki*’s tricks and illusions anymore (I’m using Loki* because the motivation for the betrayal, which I still think is basically “shits and giggles,” is not in keeping with Loki’s established character).
  2. The famous “trickster tricked” narrative trope. That’s fine in and of itself; we saw it in The Avengers when Black Widow successfully pulls her “wounded gazelle” act on Loki and again when Hawkeye shoots an arrow at Loki, Loki catches it, and then the arrow explodes. We also saw it in TDW when Thor handcuffed Loki and then pushed him out of the Dark Elf ship onto the skiff. This version, however, is undermotivated and unnecessarily cruel, and I really do think the purpose was to assert Thor*’s superiority over Loki. It also gives us the completely unintended irony of Thor*, who has reverted to a cruelty and arrogance worse than that he was humbled for in Thor 1, lecturing to Loki, who has evolved quite a bit over the past 3 films, about the need for “growth and change.”
  3. As @endiness​ argued a while back: “i do legitimately believe that loki’s character was regressed in order to make thor responsible for loki’s character growth (rather than loki himself) to kind of prop thor up and have him come off as the better character […] loki’s character had to start out in ragnarok regressed (and far beyond where he was at the end of tdw) and passive, stay that way for most of the movie as most of his actions were dictated by other characters, and then only ‘change’ after and because thor prompted him to through reverse psychology.”

ms-cellanies:

catwinchester:

cosmicjoke:

littlefanthing:

cosmicjoke:

One of the lines in “Thor: The Dark World” that gets overlooked, I think (possibly because Marvel cut it from the final edit) was when Thor is talking to Frigga about Loki, and she says to him that he and Odin always shone so brightly, it was hard for Loki to find any sun for himself, or something to that effect.

Anyway, this is such a massively important line, because it basically tells us EVERYTHING about Loki’s childhood, and how he felt.  And here again is yet another example of how absolutely WRONG Taika Waitit’s view of these characters was, given what I heard about him wanting to include a flashback in Ragnarok showing Thor as a sensitive and bullied child, and Loki as dark and mean.  That would have been in DIRECT conflict with everything we know about these characters, just like everything else in Ragnarok is.

From what Frigga says to Thor, it’s plain as day that Loki as a child was always struggling just to catch up to Thor, to try and be equal to him, not just in Odin’s and Frigga’s eyes, but in the eyes of probably the entire kingdom.  It tells us that Thor, as a boy, was as popular and well liked, as charming and charismatic and as easy to make friends as he is as an adult, and that Loki was very much the introvert, quiet, awkward and isolated.  And from Loki’s desperation to win Odin’s approval in the first Thor film, I think it becomes apparent that that desperation grew directly from his feeling inadequate and lesser to the standard of both his father and his big brother growing up.  And it’s just so unbelievably sad, to envision that.  To envision Loki constantly struggling, trying to match Thor, trying to make himself seem as good as Thor for Odin, trying to make himself seem like a “true and worthy son”, as he says in the first film.  How anyone could miss this about his character is beyond me, unless they’re being willfully obtuse.  

And we see from this one line, that Loki’s entire motivation is based on a feeling of lack on his own part.  He feels like he’s less.  He feels like he isn’t as good as Thor, and that Odin must not love him because he’s not as good as Thor, and until he discovers he’s a Jotun, he doesn’t know why, and he can’t figure it out, and he keeps trying and trying to do the right thing to somehow make him, in his father’s eyes, Thor’s equal.  Think of the kind of psychological effect that would have on a person, especially a young man growing up in the kind of culture Loki did.  Think of the burden of constantly feeling like there’s something WRONG with you, because you’re constantly measuring yourself against the perfection of an older sibling who everyone loves, while everyone treats you like you’re strange, and even are at times outwardly hostile and cruel to you.  Think of the weight of trying to figure out how to change yourself so that others will treat you like they treat your perfect older sibling, but not being able to, because you don’t really know what it is about you that makes everyone dislike or hate you in the first place.  And then think of what it must have been like, to discover you’re from a race of beings who the people you’ve grown up around consider to be monsters, who are those people’s mortal enemies, and coming to the swift and awful realization that that must have been it all along.  That THAT’S what was wrong with you.  That that’s why you’ve always been an outcast.

I just think that one moment from The Dark World was so important for understanding Loki’s character.

And yet, once again, Marvel proves it’s own stupidity by cutting it out.  Just like they cut out so many scenes from the first Thor film which showed Loki in a more sympathetic light.  Gee, it’s almost like they didn’t want people feeling for him.  Too bad they ended up doing so anyway.

Yeah, Taika is clearly biased against Loki, for whatever reason. Logic suggests that an anti-imperialist poc would identify with Loki’s character and his storyline, but Taika seems to have rejected him in favor of Thor. I can’t understand it at all. Can anyone think of a plausible explanation.

Well definitely Taika favors Thor, and what I think it really comes down to is, he favors Chris Hemsworth over Tom Hiddleston.  Tom is a total professional actor and he takes his craft seriously.  I don’t get that impression with Chris.  Chris seems to have more or less given up trying to be a serious actor, taking on one comedic role after another, probably because all his attempts at serious drama got panned by the critics.  And Chris has a goofy kind of personality with a goofy sense of humor, and for whatever reason, that appealed to Takia Waititi and they hit it off.  You get the definite impression that wasn’t the case with Tom.  Every interview with Tom done during Ragnarok’s promotion, he talks about how well Takia and Chris got along, and you just get the sense from it that Tom was very much the outsider to their little party.  Takia is also one of those directors that HAS to put himself in his own films, which smacks of a massive ego problem.  He isn’t satisfied with being behind the scenes.  He wants to be the star too.  Which tells me he doesn’t appreciate actors or understand what it takes to BE an actor.  He’s one of these people, it seems to me, that thinks anyone can do it.  But no, it takes a LOT of talent to be a good actor.  It’s an actual art.  I just don’t think Tom was able to relate at all to what seemed like the idiotic atmosphere on the set of Ragnarok, and I also get the sense that Taika Waititi aggressively shut Tom out of any collaboration regarding Loki’s character, for example Tom’s saying how he was trying to give Matt Daemon (Chris Hemsworth’s friend, by the way) lines that Loki would say, and Taika Waititi just kept telling him no, and giving his own lines, as if he knew better what Loki would say than Tom.   He basically steam rolled him.  Tom’s a sophisticated, very intelligent and high class man, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that irritated and intimidated a low class shill like Waititi.  

Tom’s a sophisticated, very intelligent and high class man, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that irritated and intimidated a low class shill like Waititi.   

I think you’re right. I also think it could be his background, He’s English and went to Eton (known as school of Kings for a reason).

A lot of people hate that. And I get why. A perfect example, there’s a show on BBC at the moment about Jeremy Thorpe trying to murder his gay lover, and he basically got away with it because the judge was an old Etonian, like Thorpe, and was incredibly biased in his favour, pretty much instructing the jury to find Thorpe not guilty. “The establishment” has historically protected its own, even from murder charges. 

Some people can’t see past that privilege to the individual. 

Never mind that Tom’s grandfather was a dockworker, oh no, if he went to Eton he’s got to be an evil establishment coloniser intent on keeping the working man down.

Reblogging for the latest comments, which I’m onboard with.  I think there’s another aspect at play in all this as well.  I’ve always seen the relationship between Thor/Loki as classic sibling rivalry…..anyone else remember the Smothers’ Brothers schtick of “Mom always loved you best?”  Thor’s the favored child in the THOR films but LOKI is the favored character by the fans and critics.  If you go back and watch all of the Chris/Tom interviews for Thor there isn’t a single one where Tom doesn’t deflect a question to sing the praises of Chris.  Never, that I’ve seen, has Tom put himself out there as the star, better actor or slighted Chris in any way.  I feel certain that CH, in the real world, feels that Tom has, so to speak, stolen his thunder.  Personally I put the tearing down of Loki in Ragnarok on the shoulders of both Taika & Chris.  Ragnarok was clearly The Assassination of Loki.

This last comment is exactly right. I suspect that Taika and maybe also Chris assume that Tom thinks he’s better than them because he’s educated, cultured, and classically trained. He *is* better than them: he’s kinder, more empathetic, a better actor with a better understanding of human psychology and dramatic narrative, and 100% less narcissistic. But he doesn’t know that and he would never act like he thinks he’s better than anyone.

I want to emphasize that the important sense in which Waititi and Hemsworth are “low class” has nothing to do with money or genealogy. It’s entirely about mindset. They lack “class” in the normative sense. They are low class in the same way as the Trumps (though to a lesser extent, of course). You can be in the highest echelons of society and still regard everything as a competition with you (and maybe your buddies) against the world that you must win at all costs.

juliabohemian:

whitedaydream:

TW’s interesting recreation of Loki’s “death” in Svartalfheim and Loki’s “betrayal” in Sakaar

(There are more than 90% similarities between the novel version and the film version when it comes to Thor 1 & Thor: The Dark World. So I feel it’s safe to say Thor: Ragnarok novel reflects the original movie script before Waititi’s 80% improvisation.) 

In Thor: Ragnarok novel Thor’s first reaction to “Odin” changing back to Loki –

Thor: “How did you escape Death?”

Loki: “By evading its grasp in the first place, of course.”

Thor: “Only you would make a mockery of your own sacrifice.”

This Thor knew for sure his brother risked his own life to save him from the dark elves. He understood Loki’s play as more of self-mockery rather than self-delusion or narcissism (which would get his ideas across to the audience). And Thor didn’t blame Loki for anything except usurping the throne and blinding Odin’s mind.

Later in Sakaar when Loki helped them to escape, he told Thor he wanted to make up for his mistake –

Thor: “You’ll help us free Asgard from Hela’s grip when we arrive? I can count on you?”

Loki: “Of course. After all, I’m sure you blame me for her resurgence. It’s at least I can do.”

Then Thor admitted his own fault to Loki: “I should not have refused the throne when Asgard needed me most” and “Our self-centered conflict over Asgard has ruined our kingdom” and –

Thor: “I want to change. I want to be better. And I think you can, too. Helping us escape has shown you can take strides toward that.” He looked at Loki earnestly. “Make a fresh start, brother. It’s time.”

And Loki didn’t make an inexplicable “betrayal” later in the novel. The four of them came back to Asgard together, followed by the rebels’ big ship. (And the novel ends here.)

As a comparison, Thor’s reaction at the first sight of Loki in Thor: Gagnarok film – “Where’s Odin? Did you kill him?” Then “You faked your own death! You stripped Odin of his power! You left him to die and releasing Hela! And let’s go back than the past 2 days! Blah Blah Blah!” Then “Our path diverged long time ago” and “Life is about growth and change but you stayed the same”. – This guy pushed all the responsibility and blame to his adopted brother.

Gagnarok Thor, look at yourself first.

By the way, in the novel Thor treats Valkyrie, Hulk and Banner sincerely and kindly. None of these bullshits↓ exist.

#although waititi confessed to respectfully disrespect the early thor films #i mean no respectful disrespect to him

I think Taika’s narcissism shined through in his direction of the character of Thor. Because here Thor comes off as an uncaring asshole and not the sensitive guy we knew from previous films.

Does this mean I have to read the novel version…?

It definitely means I can place the blame for that characterization disaster squarely on Waititi (and Hemsworth!) and I don’t have to bring Eric Pearson (the screenwriter) into it. (Meanwhile, over at “Infinity War,” Markus & McFeely deserve *at least* as much blame as the Russos.)

One more problem with Ragnarok

rizzo87:

lokis-queen05:

ambitious-witch:

mosellegreen:

If they wanted to tell a story about how Odin abused one of his children for imperialist purposes, why didn’t they just use the character who fit that description who already existed instead of inventing a new one out of whole cloth?

Because it would have taken the spotlight of their precious Saakar and their toilet humor. If Loki would have being the antagonist, the movie would have being driven to Tom no matter what, becasue he is… A better actor than Chris. Period. Just like RDJ is better actor than Evans and CW was more driven by his performance. He couldn’t have Loki taking the spotlight and actually delivering something close to deep, even as an antagonist.

Instead of that TW brought one of the best actress of her generation, made hype around her because she was strange to Marvel and would create more fans… And put her in a role so empty that it makes me angry in her behalf as an actress myself.

Ragnarok could of been so much better but they got writers and a director who wanted to push Loki/Tom aside. One thing that still has me upset are some of the pictures of the cast. It’s all of them except Tom. Makes me wonder if he really was happy with that movie. Since TDW when they brought Loki back from the dead, Marvel has been wanting him out. It’s evident with IW. Taika Waititi has such a love for Chris, that it I could see that Loki’s sl was never going to play out like it should of. Its bad when Marvel won’t get directors and writers that actually do care for a character and just favor some characters over others. No way are they ever going to bring Loki to the front of the main characters. Even if he is loved more and has more fans. 

^This! I noticed, too, that Tom is noticeably absent from a lot of Ragnarok bts media. But they sure paraded him around exhaustively during IW press(not that I’ll complain about the opportunity to see him as often as possible). Almost like they knew if we knew ahead of time that his role was only a few minutes long, we wouldn’t care about IW as much. This is just MY opinion, of course.

van-dyne:

the fact that people only see Jane’s (potential) return will ‘ruin’ Thor’s character is hilarious and offending at the same time. Girl is an astrophysicist, girl is an expert in quantum physics and space, girl had been a host for an infinity stone and survived. She has knowledge and experience to bring to the table, she is HER OWN CHARACTER and she is NOT defined by Thor or anyone. You all fake feminists praising Thor for being a feminist, for supporting women, and then you turn around and reduce Jane Foster, the world’s foremost astronomer,  to Thor’s ex who will ruin his character. I see you there.

Taika Waititi and Chris Hemsworth were the people who ruined Thor’s character. He was just fine when Jane was around.

I’m honestly kind of stunned by the people saying that Ragnarok!Thor is a feminist. We have absolutely no good evidence of that, and a lot of circumstantial evidence (i.e., the fact that he’s a complete douchebro) that he probably isn’t. But then, I’m stunned by people saying Ragnarok!Thor is a great interpretation of Thor’s character, or a “ray of sunshine,” or anything other than a self-absorbed tool. So why does this surprise me?