Dude. I don’t want Loki to be unhappy. I just want him to be happy for a reason that makes sense. I want to see him figure out his own happiness because its compelling and fulfilling to watch.
If a character undergoes character growth off-screen, it is not satisfying “growth.” Rather, it seems like they just teleport the character to a new place for the convenience of lazy writing.
IMO that is what’s going on with cheery Loki in TR. His own dismissal of his own issues in the previous movies is exactly that; dismissal. It’s the writers disregarding it. We never get to actively see him get acknowledgement for all his very apparent suffering, and we never get to see how he figures out how to heal. Everything just vaporizes. The people behind the movie are too dumb, lazy, or callous to address and fix it on screen, so they sweep it under the carpet and make the character get over it so it will just go away.
If the pain, yelling, crying, snot and tears are all introduced on-screen, I want to see it resolved on-screen as well, with the same emotional intensity with which it was initially introduced. Telling me that all that was resolved while Loki hid behind the face of Odin-the-asshole, sucking on hand-peeled grapes and being (apparently) a dirty lazy moron… Well I don’t buy it.
Lots of reasons, I suppose. I’m no psychologist or social sciences student, so I can only call on my common sense.
The character retcon was endorsed by the most successful film of the 3, by its director, über-cool Taika Waititi world-wide trendsetter who can’t do no wrong, and by his flaming star, Chris Hemsworth, who was very vocal about his opinions on IW Thor and his disappointment about the “changes” he had to put up with for his character; surely the guy who plays Thor can’t be wrong about his own character??
Lots of people came to the fandom because of Ragnarök. Of course they like this Thor more than the others. Maybe they haven’t even seen the others. They haven’t read the comics. This is all they know, their canon. They know Hemsworth opposed it. He must know, right? *shrug*
I can tell you why I liked Ragnarök initially, why I left the theatre with a huge sense of relief and joy, and why I went a second time and enjoyed it even more. I had feared so much what we would find. We had heard so many terrifying things about it. It sounded like it would be all about Thor and the Hulk initially, with Loki pushed to the sides barely to be seen or heard.
So I saw it, and I felt those fears had not been confirmed. I had had a good time. It felt fresh. The retro graphics really worked imo (I know lots of people didn’t like them.) It was a straighforward, fun story with a snazzy, dashing hero having adventures, not taking himself too seriously, and winning in the end, with a few soft touches of (what felt like) genuine feeling, even a theme (family, belonging, COLONIALISM). There were several really memorable new characters to love (Valki, Topaz, the GM, Hela)… and when I walked out of the theatre, what stuck with me was the “I’m here.” So yeah, I thought THANK GOD I LIKED THIS FILM.
I think lots of people wanted to like this film. The first two Thors have absolutely wonderful moments but on the whole are underwhelming movies. The romance doesn’t work. The earth setting is boring. There are not lots of heroic fun adventures, and not many chances for Thor to show off what he can do. And for those who don’t like (very basic) character analysis, Thor can come through as clunky, idk, cardboardy, and because he is not totally clued up with things on Midgard, some people will think “he’s dumb.” Poptart Thor. If you were not a fan in the first place, you can’t be totally faulted for discarding him as a big dumb jock. If you were a fan in the first place, you can’t be faulted at all for feeling that your beautiful, noble, mighty space prince is being done a disservice.
The first Captain America wasn’t that much better than Thor 1 imho; Red Skull wasn’t more interesting than Loki in any way, and Steve was cute and all, but he wasn’t the Total Steve we have come to know and adore; but then The Winter Soldier came and cast over it its empowering influence, making it look better than it was. I mean, you had the honest human moments, the new love interest (I’m talking Sam), the breath of fresh air that it was to NOT have a forced hetero romance shoved down our throats with Natasha, but having a buddy movie instead; and not only did Steve have like ten action sequences to leave your jaw dangling and your inner child screaming FRICK YEAH!!, but the “villain” was just as deadly, smooth, powerful, and ultimately, IT WAS BUCKY GODDAMMIT. *sound of million broken hearts drowning end credits music*. The characters came into their own in TWS and everything that started (and was only really sketched out) in CA 1 seemed more fleshed out and full of meaning in further re-watches.
Thor wasn’t that lucky. The second Thor film failed on many levels. The romance didn’t get any more compelling in it, the villain was pure cardboard (shame), again we only had very short glimpses of what Thor can really do. True, for any Thorki fan, that film is pure wonderful soul porn. (and with all that manhandling and neck grabbing, other type porn too.) But those scenes are not enough to sustain the whole thing. Interest really decreases whenever Thor and Loki are not together on screen.
What is more, and I haven’t thought until now. The first two films can feel underwhelming too in that Thor doesn’t become more powerful or defeats his enemy and triumphs. They are not straightforward uplifting stories. In the first one, Thor has to learn humility and other kingly qualities the sad way: standing there and offering himself in sacrifice. In his fight with the Jotnar, you’re thinking mostly “this is a mistake and a very bad idea.” In his fight with Loki, he is holding back. When he beats him, it’s not a glorious victory. In the end, it’s about MORE self-sacrifice; destroying the bifrost and losing Jane (yaaawn.) So basically at no point in Thor 1 does your inner child get to scream “FUCK YEAH!!”.
In the second, more of the same. Every “victory” is tainted with pain and foreboding of worse things to come. The fight on Svartalfheim is a constant “OH NOES”, first when you feel Loki has betrayed him AGAIN, and then when the plan of ending it there and then not only fails, but ends with Loki dead and Thor in shatters. On earth, again, it’s not Thor’s victory. AND to top it all off, it turns out that Thor was had AGAIN by his scheming brother.
What I’m getting at here is, Thor is a fucking loser. The impression you might get if you’re not into in-depth ananlysis, is the dumb jock who can’t fucking win. Doesn’t get the girl, can’t save his mom, needs humans to defeat the enemy, his brother keeps playing him… He has some fun action sequences in Avengers and Avengers 2, but in Avengers 1, again, he can’t win poor baby, and his constant loyalty and faith in his brother can be mistaken by some as being a dumb jerk who doesn’t learn (for some of us Loki is the noblest part of Thor instead), and Avengers 2 was a fucking disaster on so many levels WHO CARES EVEN that Thor was there.
So I think people were either not that interested in Thor, or if they were, they were really hungry to see him get justice.
Ragnarök seems to do that. He gives us adventures, lots of chances for Thor by himself to show his power, he comes into his fully godly thing with the lightning and storming thing, the clever use of music makes it look even cooler, and even if the end of it all is not his personal victory, it IS his plan, his stroke of genius, his realization. AND he is shown as finally getting wiser about Loki. The manipulated learns to manipulate, and he’s so so clever, he realizes what Loki needs is tough love and turns him around. And in the end, they might have lost their world, but Thor has managed to save what matters, and his brother is by his side again, at last. Yes, Thanos’s shadow hovers in the post-credits scene announcing bad things to come, but that’s just the Marvel thing, and it doesn’t dampen the general feeling that finally Thor has got the film he deserved.
And that was my impression too in the beginning, I swear. Lots of things bugged me about it, but I was fully and committedly willing to dismiss them all. I wanted to love it. Didn’t love it, but I thought it was close enough.
So I’m guessing lots of people felt like me, and then lots of others just don’t do in-depth analysis and comparison with previous films.
Then there are many others who like to bet on winners, and Ragnarök wins, rotten tomatoes and box office wise, over the previous 2 Thor films.
So it wins, and the others lose; this one got it right, so the previous 2 must have got it wrong. So this is Thor now. And going back from this must therefore be a mistake and a betrayal of the character.
So this is as far as I can go before the overwhelming burden of the irony crushes me to the thickness of a pancake, and before I start foaming at the mouth with the actual feeling of my heart which I tried to set aside during the composition of this reply, in favor of rationality.
What do you think?
I like Jane better than you do, I like her chemistry with Thor in the first movie, I think The Winter Soldier is highly overrated and Age of Ultron was far from a disaster (other than in its reception); but otherwise I think this analysis of fandom dynamics is right on.
Thank you for this! It seems to be, at this point, a little nugget released with the intent of whipping Loki fans into a frenzy (which they have accomplished, positive or negative frenzy aside). I will give Marvel this, they know how to market. At this point, we are way beyond IW speculation and gossip, way beyond the IW DVD release follow-up gossip, yet still months away from A4. They need to keep people talking about the Avengers and about Loki, and so here we are.
What I find interesting, though, is that a lot of mainstream media hopped on it, and even Josh Horowitz (who is pretty good friends with Tom Hiddleston, or so I assume based on their interactions) tweeted a reaction. So it’s like, well, it’s probably just speculation at this point, but valid sources are like, “Idk seems legit?” and that does very little to dampen people’s hopes.
Either way, ultimately I want a Loki TV show very much, but I only want it if it’s going to be done right – by which, I mean no Taika Waititi-esque nonsense. I like a humorous Loki, but an appropriately humorous Loki, layered with his complexity and tragic history. (It’s worth mentioning I doubt very much TW himself would actually be involved – he’s CH’s buddy and made no secret of his dislike for Loki – but that doesn’t mean other directors won’t want to take a page from his book.)
Honestly, the best case scenario would be Joss and/or Jed Whedon being involved, the former who gave us a ton of Loki depth (even if Loki was banana balls for most of A1), and the latter who does excellent work on Agents of SHIELD, not to mention all of their experience with TV writing. They capture humor and depth very, very well. But Joss just had another show picked up for HBO, I think, and even so, apparently he seems to be Persona Non Grata at Marvel, for whatever reason. Oh, but wouldn’t it be SO AWESOME if the TV show took place in that year between Thor 1 and Avengers, with Joss Whedon at the helm, to show us exactly what Loki went through? This could be done without involvement from Hemsworth, Hopkins, etc, would tie nicely into the MCU, and would just …. well. ShutUpAndTakeMyMoney.gif.
Hey, I can dream.
Thank you for the ask! Sorry for rambling at you in reply. ❤️❤️❤️
I think the reason Joss is persona non grata at Marvel – and he’s none too fond of them either – is that he resented all their meddling in AOU. For me, that makes it seem deeply ironic that they just let Taika do whatever the fuck he wanted with Thor: Ragnarok. Like… dudes. Joss is an expert sci-fi/fantasy storyteller. He knows how to tie deep philosophical themes and compelling character development into an exciting narrative. He cares about these characters, the Asgardian ones as well as the human ones. None of those things are true of Taika. Joss is the one they should have left to do his thing; they should have pulled in the reins on the reckless bowdlerization of three of their central characters (Bruce as well as Thor and Loki).
You and I have the same wish list, it sounds like. (Though on some level I don’t want them to tell us exactly what happened during Loki’s lost year because I don’t want my fic to be rendered obsolete…)
(first of all, i know not what the fuck. I’m tired. That being said.)
Thor’s characterization in Ragnarök is a fucking joke. A bad joke.
Take the infamous scene with Loki and the obedience disk. You know why it feels so utterly, terribly wrong? Why it’s upsetting and disturbing beyond issues of how much it hurts or doesn’t, how much Loki had it coming or didn’t (he didn’t), if it constitutes abuse or whatever the fuck?
Because it’s villains who stab people in the back, and then hover around gloating as their enemies hurt and bleed. It’s villains who smirk while watching another twitching in pain. It’s villains who stand there, enjoying the sight of the helpless foe they have defeated, relish in their cunning and their callousness, give a speech expressing their contempt and their superiority, and probably make a point that “you are the way you are and you can’t help it, that’s why you FAILED, mwah hah hah.”
And we are coded, as we damn well should be, to read that scene in a certain way. Villains do these things, and the one twitching in pain on the floor is the hero, defeated by the betrayal of someone they trusted. That’s usually where the cliffhanger goes, with the villain walking away cackling as the hero is left helpless on the floor, and it seems that all is lost. WILL OUR HERO GET FREE BEFORE THE VILLAIN MANAGES TO CARRY OUT THEIR EVIL SCHEME AND DESTROY THE WORLD? DUN DUN DUNNNNN…! SEE IT IN THE NEXT ISSUE!
Thank you so much for this, @incredifishface. The last part in particular was beautifully written; it’s a Thorki manifesto with the eloquence and heart you’ve brought to your Thorki fics over the years. Still, the paragraph I’m going to excerpt is this one:
In fact, this is all so wrong, that the film would work best as a story in which old timey, classic comics!Loki was trying to pull a scheme by taking his brother’s appearance, and then went around manipulating and fooling his friends (very poorly), to try and destroy Thor’s reputation and his character. (Good plan, Lo, you totally pulled it off! Nobody could like or love that fucking asshole!)
Because you are so fucking right. @fuckyeahrichardiii, I thought you might get a kick out of that.
And then there was this interview, with this interesting little excerpt:
Thor: Ragnarok’s director Taika Waititi – New Zealander of the Year, blossoming fashion icon, and man of a thousand poses – is swift to launch into a description of Loki, the unbeloved son of Asgard, as, “someone who tries so hard to embody this idea of the tortured artist, this tortured, gothy orphan.”
“Swift to launch into” this description, huh? Kind of sounds like someone with an idée fixe, a preoccupation, a grudge… probably a secondhand grudge, on behalf of one Chris Hemsworth, but one he has made charmingly his own.
What gets me most about this is using “orphan” as sth degrading. Not to mention disregarding someone’s pain: “tortured, gothy orphan”. And as someone who loves gothic art, I have to ask what’s wrong with being a goth and gothic things?
Waititi is trying to make it sound like Loki is a big fake and a phoney, “trying” to be tortured, “trying” to be artistic, “trying” to be emo and goth, like, Loki’s legitimate pain, heartbreak, and suffering is something he is faking so that he will be seen as these things. The whole thing is really insulting, and along the lines of stereotyping. And Tom Hiddleston had said these things, Loki’s soul was tortured, he had deep, inner reservoirs of pain, and yeah, Loki had a sensitive, artistic relationship with Frigga. He compared it like Thor being the star quarterback, and Loki being the sensitive artist. But Waititi is trying to say Loki is a big faker and a poser that just wants attention and to stab his brother.
And there is nothing wrong with being goth! I love gothic music too! ❤❤❤❤
When you bring up those quotes from Tom, it makes me wonder whether Taika was really saying it about Tom under the guise of saying it about Loki: that Tom is trying so hard to make Loki into a tortured, artistic orphan with real trauma and pain.
Taika sounds like the most callous kind of neurotypical or “mentally healthy” person who thinks everyone with mental illness must somehow be faking it for attention or as an excuse for behaving badly.
Sigh… I really think that Taika should evaluate himself and his way of thinking.
That would require a capacity for self-reflection and self-criticism that he pretty obviously lacks.
And then there was this interview, with this interesting little excerpt:
Thor: Ragnarok’s director Taika Waititi – New Zealander of the Year, blossoming fashion icon, and man of a thousand poses – is swift to launch into a description of Loki, the unbeloved son of Asgard, as, “someone who tries so hard to embody this idea of the tortured artist, this tortured, gothy orphan.”
“Swift to launch into” this description, huh? Kind of sounds like someone with an idée fixe, a preoccupation, a grudge… probably a secondhand grudge, on behalf of one Chris Hemsworth, but one he has made charmingly his own.
What gets me most about this is using “orphan” as sth degrading. Not to mention disregarding someone’s pain: “tortured, gothy orphan”. And as someone who loves gothic art, I have to ask what’s wrong with being a goth and gothic things?
Waititi is trying to make it sound like Loki is a big fake and a phoney, “trying” to be tortured, “trying” to be artistic, “trying” to be emo and goth, like, Loki’s legitimate pain, heartbreak, and suffering is something he is faking so that he will be seen as these things. The whole thing is really insulting, and along the lines of stereotyping. And Tom Hiddleston had said these things, Loki’s soul was tortured, he had deep, inner reservoirs of pain, and yeah, Loki had a sensitive, artistic relationship with Frigga. He compared it like Thor being the star quarterback, and Loki being the sensitive artist. But Waititi is trying to say Loki is a big faker and a poser that just wants attention and to stab his brother.
And there is nothing wrong with being goth! I love gothic music too! ❤❤❤❤
When you bring up those quotes from Tom, it makes me wonder whether Taika was really saying it about Tom under the guise of saying it about Loki: that Tom is trying so hard to make Loki into a tortured, artistic orphan with real trauma and pain.
Taika sounds like the most callous kind of neurotypical or “mentally healthy” person who thinks everyone with mental illness must somehow be faking it for attention or as an excuse for behaving badly.
Loki of Thor1, Avengers and The Dark World. I identified with him in several ways, mostly because he was other. He was different, an outsider – as I was and am still.
Then along comes Ragnarok and a bunch of fans declare that they love this version. The version where his otherness is mocked and attacked. Where his pain is invalidated and his struggles deemed either unimportant or joke fodder. These people are saying they will not love Loki as he is, but they will ‘love’ him when he is flattened, confined, reduced to something unthreatening.
It feels very personal. I’m old enough and cynical enough to not let it hurt (much) but I have heard the message: to be loved, you cannot be other. It is a message I’ve heard all my life. And Ragnarok is a movie that embodies that nasty little message. Ragnarok-positive posts? Nails on a chalkboard most of the time. They’re certainly not a positive thing for me to see on my dash (Public blog, public space. Tumblr has tools to manage what we see. I use them, I’m ok.)
But to those people I follow who write wonderful thinky posts, you are treasured.
Loki fans from Ragnarok and people that are a fan of Loki character from another movies should be a two separated fandom.
I seriously think ao3 should provide tags to separate these two fandoms. It will save us lots of grief.
Oh my God, yes. And we should use different tags on Tumblr, too. I think my system of using Thor* and Loki* to designate their Ragnarok incarnations is very handy; it’s a lot easier for their side than typing ragnarok!thor. Or r-thor and r-loki, like using d- and l- to designate the different chiralities of enantiomers.
Thanks, @lostlokichaos. It’s always nice to know I’m not shouting into a void! And you’re right about invalidating Loki’s other-ness… which makes it ironic that the Ragnarok stans are constantly calling Loki* a “queer icon” and calling us (many of whom are queer) homophobic for not liking his stereotypical queer-coded villain/ effete limp-wristed sissy portrayal. It’s also utterly confusing that Taika keeps using “space orphan” as an insult. Why does being an orphan somehow reflect badly on Loki…? His story of being adopted (or kidnapped?) by a conquering society, raised in ignorance of his origin, and taught to fear and loathe the race he was born to should have played perfectly into the anti-imperialist theme that Ragnarok was (half-assedly) trying to get across; but apparently Taika despised Loki too much to be willing to put him on the oppressees’ side of the ledger, so he pooh-poohed the idea that it might be a source of genuine, justified distress or trauma.
The terrible interpretation of Loki’s character in Thor: Ragnarok
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 overpowered Thor a lot in the other films in terms of presence and his story, and kind of overshadowed him 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
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:
Gagnarok!Loki:
Bonus:
“You’re a screw up, so whatever.”
I could have sworn I’d reblogged this before, but I couldn’t find it when I searched my blog. Tumblr’s search function is weirdly… non-functional. Thanks, @lokiloveforever, for finding this for me!
Anyway, yeah. Evidence that Taika did not like or understand Loki, regardless of what he may have told Tom over a bowl of pasta. It’s quite possible that Taika thinks he didn’t change Loki, because he thought his version of Loki (whiny, hedonistic, venally self-interested, pointlessly malicious, with no real problems or grievances to speak of) is who Loki always was. That means he was wrong about the Loki of the previous films. If Ragnarok fans prefer the new Loki, they can have him, I guess… but stop trying to make the case that he’s identical to the Loki of previous films, or that everyone before Taika somehow got him “wrong,” whatever that would mean. It’s not like Ragnarok!Loki is the Platonic Form of MCU Loki that all prior Lokis were only imperfectly striving toward, and it’s definitely controversial whether Ragnarok succeeded in portraying the Loki of recent comics (which I assume is what some people mean by “canon”… never mind that the various writers haven’t characterized him consistently) or of myth (which was definitely not the target…?).
So, for all of you who’re curious enough to visit this post of mine, here’s the actual link/source of the Empire Podcast full interview of Tom Hiddleston that already existed since 4 months ago:
So, this article only contained the shortened version, it certainly couldn’t post all of the word Tom Hiddleston said in the interview. But of course, I find this article interesting in the way they published his answer, but I just want to highlight one part of what they published:
Talking to Taika Waititi before Ragnarok Taika and I went out for a bowl of pasta before Ragnarok and he said ‘I’m gonna change quite a lot. But I’m not gonna change you.’ And I took that as a huge compliment. I’ve always felt a responsibility to both honor the respect in which the character is held but also to try and progress it on.
Here’s the minutes in which its sentences was taken for the writing purpose:
From 9:38 – 9:50: Taika and I went out for a bowl of pasta before Ragnarok and he said ‘I’m gonna change quite a lot. But I’m not gonna change you.’ And I took that as a huge compliment.
From 10:12 – 10:25: I’ve always felt a responsibility to both honor the respect in which the character is held but also to try and progress it on.
As you see, there’s the space of between this word “I took that as a huge compliment”, and the word “
I’ve always felt a responsibility to both honor the respect in which the character is held but also to try and progress it on.”
For those of you who’re curious of those missing words (Tom Hiddleston’s words which cut off by the article writer, of course), here’s the real continuation right after “And I took that as a huge compliment.” part, with the bonus of full words taken from 9: 38- 9: 52 minutes.
“Taika and I went out for a bowl of pasta before Ragnarok and he said ‘I’m gonna change quite a lot, but I’m not gonna change you.’ And I took that as a huge compliment.
BUT that he (waititi) did change things actually (9:50-9:52 minutes)”
Anyone else is curious on why did the writers take this two seconds part —->>> “but he did change things actually”?? (Feel free to interpret this on your own to make your answer, as I already have mine).
P.S.: It’s ironic how Ragnarok zealots calling us as “ignoring Tom Hiddleston’s own words” when in reality, they’re the one who ignoring Tom Hiddleston’s words just because it doesn’t fit their own agenda.
I think part of it is, obviously, the tendency to accuse other people of the thing you’re guilty of yourself (e.g., accusing Loki fans who hate Ragnarok of ignoring Tom’s own words while they ignore Tom’s own words).
And I think there’s also an aspect of a tendency I see in discourse about politics all the time, wherein most people don’t actually read full articles or identify nuance. They see a headline or a blurb and they take that at face value instead of determining the context of what they’ve just read.
Obviously, neither of those fallacies are exclusive to Ragnarok/Taika zealots; they’re just generally a human tendency. But I definitely see them at work a lot with people who will defend Ragnarok to the death.
As to why the writers of the article decided to omit that short additional portion of his answer (for the fullest possible context; here is word-for-word absolutely everythingTom said in between “I took that as a huge compliment” and “But I’ve always felt a responsibility…”):
“But that he also–we did change things, actually. But [Taika] was really–of course, as we’ve–everyone’s seen Ragnarok, he radically changed things. Specifically with regards to Thor. You know, just, break him down, chop his hair off. And, uh… and Asgard too. But also, I do feel like it’s different every time, in a way that I’m not fully conscious of.”
….good question. And I am curious, actually. Specifically because in the fullest context, what he said in the omitted portion seems fairly neutral to me. He doesn’t speak especially positively or negatively about the changes Taika made. The main point I’d just want to highlight is that he never says Taika didn’t change Loki. Ragnarok lovers use this interview to claim that Tom approves of what Taika did with Loki in Ragnarok, but he never says that. He says Taika told him he wouldn’t change Loki. There’s no indication that he believes they didn’t change him. So at best, these fans are making an argument from silence. And at worst, they’re being intentionally disingenuous little assholes.
Thank you so much for doing the research, @seiramili7! I listened to the full interview, and you’re right that the context makes it ambiguous whether he thought Taika didn’t change Loki. It’s interesting that he remembered that conversation… I guess if it was one of his first significant interactions with him, it might stand out.
Speaking of making arguments from silence… it’s interesting to me that Tom has never said that he likes the way Ragnarok changed Thor as a character and the tone of the movies. He gushes about Kenneth Branagh and the depth that the original scriptwriters gave Loki; there was that similarly gushy e-mail to Joss Whedon where he said how much he loved the role:
It’s high operatic villainy alongside detached throwaway tongue-in-cheek; plus the “real menace” and his closely guarded suitcase of pain. It’s grand and epic and majestic and poetic and lyrical and wicked and rich and badass and might possibly be the most gloriously fun part I’ve ever stared down the barrel of playing. It is just so juicy.
I love how throughout you continue to put Loki on some kind of pedestal of regal magnificence and then consistently tear him down. He gets battered, punched, blasted, side-swiped, roared at, sent tumbling on his back, and every time he gets back up smiling, wickedly, never for a second losing his eloquence, style, wit, self-aggrandisement or grandeur, and you never send him up or deny him his real intelligence.
What Tom did say in praise of Taika in the Empire podcast was that he, like the other directors he’s worked with, “respected the brotherly relationship between Thor and Loki.” I would definitely side-eye that claim; there were some brotherly shenanigans, but they reflect a fundamentally unequal relationship in which Loki’s whole world revolves around Thor but Thor scarcely gives a thought to Loki’s feelings or inner world. And I’m sure some brotherly relationships are really like that. It was also interesting how Tom said that Ragnarok gave us a “capitulation or reconciliation” regarding Loki’s fraught relationship with his family. He then went on to talk about Odin’s acknowledgment of Loki as his son rather than Loki’s relationship with Thor. Still, interesting choice of word.
As a bunch of people have been saying, Tom is far too gracious to publicly criticize his co-workers or the films he’s been in (unlike Chris Hemsworth…). I don’t think I’ve ever heard him say a bad word about anyone, except maybe indirectly Donald Trump. So I’m not sure that we can take his positive words or omissions of criticism at face value. His omissions of praise, given his general tendency to gush about people and writing that really impress him, may actually be more significant. His downcast, disaffected demeanor and body language throughout the press for Ragnarok – but not so much for Infinity War, interestingly – could mean any number of things. Maybe he had just filmed the death scene in IW and he was depressed about that, about saying goodbye to the role; maybe he was getting a little too into his stage role as Hamlet, or was stressed out about preparing for it; maybe something else was going on in his personal life that we don’t know about because it’s none of our business. I don’t think we can determine for sure either way whether he approved of the direction in which TW and CH took the Thor franchise and the characters of Thor and Loki.
But as a bunch of people have also been saying, even if Tom thinks Taika didn’t ruin Loki, and even if Taika really didn’t intend to change Loki, that doesn’t prove what the TR/TW/CH stans want it to prove: that Taika did not, in fact, ruin Loki’s character. Tom is, in general, a sophisticated reader of texts and characters… but he’s not infallible, and he has an obvious motivation to see the best in his role in Ragnarok. And what an artist “intended” to do in advance of creating their work is often not the same as what they end up doing. Many of the things Taika has said in interviews do reflect contempt and lack of sympathy for Loki; I found this collection of quotes from him, but there was another compilation, I think by @yume-no-fantasy, that has even more evidence and I’m having trouble finding it, so if someone could help me out… I do remember a quotation of him saying “Not to want to humiliate Loki throughout the whole movie…” that reminded me strongly of when Trump says “I’m not even going to talk about X” and then proceeds to rant about X.
But even if Taika didn’t have malicious intent, even if he didn’t want to make Loki look like a shallow, incompetent narcissist with no understandable motives beyond “I did it for the lulz” and no legitimate grievances against anyone in his family… what matters is what the work shows.And the work does show contempt for Loki and an inability and/or unwillingness to understand his problems and motivations in previous films. My considered view, given the evidence both in interviews and in the tone of the film itself, is that this was malicious; but perhaps it was just the result of incomprehension and/or incompetence. My evaluation of the movie would not change even if Tom and Taika held a press conference in which Taika very earnestly and sincerely said that he was trying his best to do justice to Loki’s character and Tom said that he believes Taika succeeded; I would just say that they were wrong about the film that was actually made. Everyone on here is perfectly happy to say that even if Joss Whedon was trying to be feminist in his oeuvre, he failed and in fact made non- or anti-feminist works (I would dispute that generalization, but that’s not the point here). Artists can be wrong about the import of their work, the message or perspective it conveys. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating,” as they say; and the only way to determine the content or attitude of a piece of media is to examine it carefully and critically.
Oh P.S. I wanted to express my agreement with this remark from @nikkoliferous:
I think part of it is, obviously, the tendency to accuse other people of the thing you’re guilty of yourself (e.g., accusing Loki fans who hate Ragnarok of ignoring Tom’s own words while they ignore Tom’s own words).
This was also on display in the anonymous message that one of these Ragnarok/Waititi stans sent to @iamanartichoke, accusing her of “threatening” when the only person who had done any threatening was the person whom iamanartichoke (Charlotte) had rebuked for threatening to incite dogpiling on me. (I referred to this yesterday as a “No puppet, no puppet, you’re the puppet” moment.) The TR/TW/CH/Thor* stans like to play the victim when in fact they are the ones who send anonymous hate to anti-Ragnarok folks and disparage certain of us by name, implicitly (or explicitly) encouraging their followers to dogpile (this is another distinctly Trumpian behavior). They act like martyrs when people like me jump onto a thread to dispute their logic or offer counterarguments and counterevidence, but it’s extremely common for them to insert themselves into Ragnarok-critical threads just to insult the posters as hysterical, delusional, racist, homophobic straight girls who just want to fuck Tom Hiddleston, or otherwise just to say they “can’t believe” some people or put in some skeptical gif as if it’s a refutation (philosophers call this pseudo-argument “the incredulous stare”).
“Taika and I went out for a bowl of pasta before Ragnarok and he said ‘I’m gonna change quite a lot, but I’m not gonna change you.’ And I took that as a huge compliment. I’ve always felt a responsability to both honor the respect in which the character is held but also to try and progress it on.”
I love Tom’s quote so much because it proves all the Taika (“he ruined Loki!!11”) haters wrong.
Nope, it just proves that he’s a liar… or, perhaps more charitably (to his moral character if not his intellect), that he massively misunderstood Loki’s character throughout the previous movies.
Loki is the Philosopher King 