Tag: anti taika waititi

Ignoring Tom Hiddleston’s Own Words To Fit an Agenda

nikkoliferous:

seiramili7:

This writing is inspired by this post:  post: https://thesunwillshineonus.tumblr.com/post/177979140245/taika-and-i-went-out-for-a-bowl-of-pasta-before 

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:

https://soundcloud.com/empiremagazine/tom-hiddleston-life-as-loki-interview-special 

The answers of this interview just recently got published in this article (basically he source of @thesunwillshineonus post): https://webbedmedia.com/2018/09/11/tom-hiddleston-on-loki-the-god-of-mischief-reveals-some-secrets/ , which contained the shortened versions of Tom Hiddleston’s overall answers. 

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.

Your thoughts?? 

@juliabohemian  @lucianalight  @lokiloveforever  @shine-of-asgard  @philosopherking1887  @foundlingmother  @i-ran-away-without-a-map  @morningfountain  @welle-nijordottir  @rewritefate  @ms-cellanies  @catwinchester @timetravellingshinigami  @doctor-disc0  @imnotakangaroo-imabunny  @small-potato-of-defiance  @edge-of-silvermoon @lasimo74allmyworld  @nikkoliferous  @sapphiredreamer26  @noli-something  @noli-ge  @cosmicjoke  @mentallydatingahotcelebrity  @kinathewolf  @miharu87  @mastreworld  @starscreamloki  @thebeevesknees  @lololalolotte  @lostlokichaos  @hiddlestonangelsmile  @hisasgardianangel  @lokimymuse  @lokisinsurrection

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 everything Tom 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.

elenatria:

thesunwillshineonus:

“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.

nikkoliferous:

dailymarvelheroes:

“So, I’ve known about that scene for two years.[…] My whole journey through making Thor: Ragnarok — I knew this was coming. By the end of Thor: Ragnarok, Loki has been accepted as Thor’s brother again. When I came to shoot the scene in Infinity War, I think it’s very powerful he calls himself an Odinson, and that closes the whole journey of Loki and what he can do. It [Loki’s death] set the stakes up emotionally. It takes the stakes up dramatically.”  

— Tom Hiddleston

I already hate what Taika Waititi, Marvel, etc did to Loki with Thor: Ragnarok.

But this quote makes it sting so much worse. Knowing that Tom knew the entire time while they were treating this character he loves and has poured his heart and soul and intellect into like such trash… knowing he knew that was Loki’s curtain call.

And you know what? I bet Chris and Taika knew, too. And they didn’t give a shit. They had no qualms about making his last significant film appearance a complete hatchet job. Talk about adding insult to injury… or taking the knife that Marvel had stuck in and twisting it around viciously before Tom’s Loki actually died.

Hey, so like…

catwinchester:

ms-cellanies:

lokiloveforever:

nikkoliferous:

lokiloveforever:

seiramili7:

timetravellingshinigami:

nikkoliferous:

asgardiankingofmischief:

nikkoliferous:

Does anyone want to talk about how ridiculous it is that Valkyrie, of all people, shames Loki for not caring about doing the right thing?

Loki: I don’t mean to impose…
(Valkyrie throws a bottle at him because violence is only bad if The Villain™ does it)
Loki: The Grandmaster has a great many ships. I may even have stolen the access codes to his security system.
Valkyrie: And suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?

You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie?

Yeah, and considering her history in enslaving people for the Grandmaster runs about 1000 or so years? Maybe more, I can’t recall, she doesn’t really have the moral high ground. 

In fact, Loki attempting to capture Thor and surrender him to the Grandmaster is more in line with something that Valkyrie would likely pursue (considering her time in Sakaar). Maybe they should have made her more difficult to convince. 

Her comment/question is rather out of place also and would have to assume that she’s familiar with Loki to the level that Thor or Hulk (cause of NY) are. 

I can only assume she said it in retaliation to what Loki did with her mind, but, in my opinion, she probably would have said something else. 

Or they could have validated that she wasn’t necessarily trustworthy too. 

It just felt like more of Taika’s lazy story-telling to me, as opposed to Valkyrie getting back at him for the whole ‘invading my mind’ thing. (But hey, don’t invade people’s brains, kids. It’s quite rude). I personally viewed it more as like, “hey, we haven’t reminded people that Loki’s a bad egg in the last 3 minutes or so; better let someone have a dig at his loose morals” sort of BS that is honestly just rampant in Thor: Ragnarok. 

Like, I know Ragnarok critics get labelled conspiracy theorists for thinking (or at least speaking as though) Taika just had it out for Loki and wanted to degrade him as much as possible. And I get it, that sounds objectively insane. But just, looking at the narrative of the film itself, it’s… hard not to get that impression? And there’s really no other indicator in that movie–unless I’m forgetting something–that anyone on Sakaar (not including Thor and Bruce, obviously) has a clue who Loki really is. I guess it’s possible that they do, but there’s no evidence that that’s the case. More show & tell problems in this film.

I actually do want to address the ‘betraying Thor for money’ thing, though. Because I see a lot of people complaining that it’s completely out of character for Loki to do so for the money, and I actually have a different take on it. We all know Loki is rarely able to just be honest about what’s going on in his head. That’s essentially what the entire conflict between him and Thor has been fueled by for all this time, really. So I kind of headcanon that Loki might have told Thor that it was for the money, but I personally believe that in reality, it was actually Loki’s last-ditch effort to save his brother. Even as strong as he and Thor both are, individually and together, he did not believe Hela was an enemy that they could defeat (which is technically true)–especially now that she’s all cozy on Asgard, where she’ll be even stronger than when they first met her. Loki already failed once to talk Thor into staying on Sakaar of his own free will; I think betraying him was Loki’s way of trying to keep him safe from Hela by any means necessary.

I also think that deceptiveness can extend to his fight with Valkyrie too. A lot of Loki fans complain about her being able to take him captive so easily, but I choose to believe he lost to her intentionally. Easy ticket to finding his brother. He is the trickster god. Why are we suddenly taking him at face value all the time?

Admittedly, when it comes to Thor: Ragnarok, it’s super hard to decide when Loki is acting out of character because he’s running a scheme and when he’s doing it because of bad writing.

People actually call Loki stans (the true Loki stans) and people who don’t like Ragnarok as idiots just ‘cause we analyzed the movie from start to finish. Most of these people who insult us are new to the fandom and only saw Ragnarok. And even if they saw the other Thor movies they don’t remember it or for some reason they don’t like it. They just here for the jokes and, me, who is someone who’s here for depth of character, good storytelling and just pure emotion cannot deal with people like that.

Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all okay.

You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie? 

In fact, Valkyrie’s own words about “

suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?

“ itself applies accurately to what Valkyrie was doing exactly at that time. 

And to be honest, Valkyrie is a hypocrite. Considering about her own deeds that sold many non-guilty people into slavery and causing those people’s deaths for thousands years, and the fact that she knows almost nothing about Loki himself, she has absolutely no right to judge Loki and then acts like she has never done anything wrong in her life, ever. 

Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all 🆗. 

People often forget about her actions because the narrative never call it. The narrative of Ragnarok want to condemn Loki only out of other characters and exaggerating his “evilness” into stereotype and caricature-like so people start to regard him as only “a mere background character who is just an useless twink who have no dignity and just nothing but a pest to Thor the Perfect ‘Hero’ with no absolute importance other than being fan-service”. That’s why they’re so many double standards in Ragnarok especially regarding Loki. 

@lucianalight  @juliabohemian  @welle-nijordottir

Waititi did have it in for Loki, he admitted it. He said Loki’s treatment and humiliation was “payback” for overshadowing the other movies. Everything, from that stupid play, to the deleted port o potty scene, to being chained up and having glass bottles thrown at his head, to Thor’s triumphant obedience disc scene was all a reflection of exactly how Waititi feels about Loki. “Blah, blah, blah, shut up, space orphan” “Loki tries so hard to be this tortured, artistic, space orphan”. Waititi’s not subtle about it. He thinks all the little Loki lovers are idiots. He meant out to “respectfully” disrespect the other movies, and extend a middle finger to those of us whose favorite character wasn’t Thor. It’s funny how, in that scene where Loki is sitting there chained up, nobody there, not Thor, not Bruce or Valkyrie, have any right to stand there and judge Loki. Valkyrie was just as much a “lackey” of the Grandmaster, if not moreso, because she worked for him and enslaved people for him for a long, long, time. She knew about the orgy ship too, and was obviously in high favor with the grandmaster. But yet in that scene, suddenly Thor, Bruce and Valkyrie are the spotless heroes with the right to look down their noses at Loki? No. 

That’s part of what makes it so maddening too. Waititi fans love to label Ragnarok critics as “conspiracy theorists”. And it’s like… well, yeah… there was a conspiracy. About which Waititi has been completely transparent. So like… how is this even a controversial or debatable thing? If you want to defend Waititi’s bullshit, fine. But don’t resort to gaslighting to do it.

Every time I hear them bitching about Thor not being the most popular character, though, I can’t help laughing. Like. This is literally the inverse of the premise of the movies. They mock Loki for being insecure about feeling second place to Thor in his own family… but that’s literally what Chris Hemsworth’s big problem with these movies is–coming in second to Loki in his own franchise. Except, you know, Hemsworth doesn’t have the underlying trauma of having been sold a lie his entire life and then tortured by a maniac, etc. So… ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Yes, LOL! So who’s the dramatic little bitch now? And who does Waititi see himself as, Thanos? Coming in and restoring order and balance to the Thor franchise? because people chose their own favorite character, and it wasn’t the title character? A character he doesn’t particularly care for or understand, so the only thing to do was tear him down, mock and ridicule him, and punish him for being loved and us for loving him.

Thank you one & all but especially @nikkoliferous for saying this:

“

They mock Loki for being insecure about feeling second place to Thor in his own family… but that’s literally what Chris Hemsworth’s big problem with these movies is–coming in second to Loki in his own franchise.”

That’s what I’ve been saying all along.  In Thor & TDW those were THOR Movies.  Hemsworth was the STAR, yet not just fans but CRITICS praised Tom as Loki.  At least one critic who reviewed TDW said the BEST SCENES were those with Tom as Loki.  Both films revolved around toxic sibling rivalry, primarily due to Daddy obviously loving and valuing one son more than the other.  In REAL LIFE the roles were reversed and poor Chris Hemsworth poured out his poor abused, broken heart to his comrade in arms, Taika.  Together they worked to destroy Loki and Tom’s fan base who are characterized as silly girls who fell for “the bad boy” instead of the “hero.”  What irks me more than anything else is that in nearly every interview Tom gave for the Thor films he praised Chris, first and foremost.  He NEVER put himself above or in front of Chris.  Betrayal of the worst kind, imho.

When they’re outmatched, most creatures up their game. 

The Lesser Talented Hemsworth, however, prefers to “win” by sabotaging its competition. 

It’s an effective tactic in the short term but in the longer term, it soon becomes obvious who has the greater talent. As time goes on, the Lesser Talented Hemsworth finds that increasingly, its box office returns for dramatic roles cannot justify the budget, not indeed its paycheque, and eventually they find themselves relegated to B movies, where their toxic effect on box office numbers is mitigated by significantly small budgets.

Reblogging again because there’s a new branch of the discussion and it is also excellent.

Hey, so like…

nikkoliferous:

philosopherking1887:

darthwindows:

lokilover9:

lokiloveforever:

seiramili7:

timetravellingshinigami:

nikkoliferous:

asgardiankingofmischief:

nikkoliferous:

Does anyone want to talk about how ridiculous it is that Valkyrie, of all people, shames Loki for not caring about doing the right thing?

Loki: I don’t mean to impose…
(Valkyrie throws a bottle at him because violence is only bad if The Villain™ does it)
Loki: The Grandmaster has a great many ships. I may even have stolen the access codes to his security system.
Valkyrie: And suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?

You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie?

Yeah, and considering her history in enslaving people for the Grandmaster runs about 1000 or so years? Maybe more, I can’t recall, she doesn’t really have the moral high ground. 

In fact, Loki attempting to capture Thor and surrender him to the Grandmaster is more in line with something that Valkyrie would likely pursue (considering her time in Sakaar). Maybe they should have made her more difficult to convince. 

Her comment/question is rather out of place also and would have to assume that she’s familiar with Loki to the level that Thor or Hulk (cause of NY) are. 

I can only assume she said it in retaliation to what Loki did with her mind, but, in my opinion, she probably would have said something else. 

Or they could have validated that she wasn’t necessarily trustworthy too. 

It just felt like more of Taika’s lazy story-telling to me, as opposed to Valkyrie getting back at him for the whole ‘invading my mind’ thing. (But hey, don’t invade people’s brains, kids. It’s quite rude). I personally viewed it more as like, “hey, we haven’t reminded people that Loki’s a bad egg in the last 3 minutes or so; better let someone have a dig at his loose morals” sort of BS that is honestly just rampant in Thor: Ragnarok. 

Like, I know Ragnarok critics get labelled conspiracy theorists for thinking (or at least speaking as though) Taika just had it out for Loki and wanted to degrade him as much as possible. And I get it, that sounds objectively insane. But just, looking at the narrative of the film itself, it’s… hard not to get that impression? And there’s really no other indicator in that movie–unless I’m forgetting something–that anyone on Sakaar (not including Thor and Bruce, obviously) has a clue who Loki really is. I guess it’s possible that they do, but there’s no evidence that that’s the case. More show & tell problems in this film.

I actually do want to address the ‘betraying Thor for money’ thing, though. Because I see a lot of people complaining that it’s completely out of character for Loki to do so for the money, and I actually have a different take on it. We all know Loki is rarely able to just be honest about what’s going on in his head. That’s essentially what the entire conflict between him and Thor has been fueled by for all this time, really. So I kind of headcanon that Loki might have told Thor that it was for the money, but I personally believe that in reality, it was actually Loki’s last-ditch effort to save his brother. Even as strong as he and Thor both are, individually and together, he did not believe Hela was an enemy that they could defeat (which is technically true)–especially now that she’s all cozy on Asgard, where she’ll be even stronger than when they first met her. Loki already failed once to talk Thor into staying on Sakaar of his own free will; I think betraying him was Loki’s way of trying to keep him safe from Hela by any means necessary.

I also think that deceptiveness can extend to his fight with Valkyrie too. A lot of Loki fans complain about her being able to take him captive so easily, but I choose to believe he lost to her intentionally. Easy ticket to finding his brother. He is the trickster god. Why are we suddenly taking him at face value all the time?

Admittedly, when it comes to Thor: Ragnarok, it’s super hard to decide when Loki is acting out of character because he’s running a scheme and when he’s doing it because of bad writing.

People actually call Loki stans (the true Loki stans) and people who don’t like Ragnarok as idiots just ‘cause we analyzed the movie from start to finish. Most of these people who insult us are new to the fandom and only saw Ragnarok. And even if they saw the other Thor movies they don’t remember it or for some reason they don’t like it. They just here for the jokes and, me, who is someone who’s here for depth of character, good storytelling and just pure emotion cannot deal with people like that.

Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all okay.

You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie? 

In fact, Valkyrie’s own words about “

suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?

“ itself applies accurately to what Valkyrie was doing exactly at that time. 

And to be honest, Valkyrie is a hypocrite. Considering about her own deeds that sold many non-guilty people into slavery and causing those people’s deaths for thousands years, and the fact that she knows almost nothing about Loki himself, she has absolutely no right to judge Loki and then acts like she has never done anything wrong in her life, ever. 

Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all 🆗. 

People often forget about her actions because the narrative never call it. The narrative of Ragnarok want to condemn Loki only out of other characters and exaggerating his “evilness” into stereotype and caricature-like so people start to regard him as only “a mere background character who is just an useless twink who have no dignity and just nothing but a pest to Thor the Perfect ‘Hero’ with no absolute importance other than being fan-service”. That’s why they’re so many double standards in Ragnarok especially regarding Loki. 

@lucianalight  @juliabohemian  @welle-nijordottir

Waititi did have it in for Loki, he admitted it. He said Loki’s treatment and humiliation was “payback” for overshadowing the other movies. Everything, from that stupid play, to the deleted port o potty scene, to being chained up and having glass bottles thrown at his head, to Thor’s triumphant obedience disc scene was all a reflection of exactly how Waititi feels about Loki. “Blah, blah, blah, shut up, space orphan” “Loki tries so hard to be this tortured, artistic, space orphan”. Waititi’s not subtle about it. He thinks all the little Loki lovers are idiots. He meant out to “respectfully” disrespect the other movies, and extend a middle finger to those of us whose favorite character wasn’t Thor. It’s funny how, in that scene where Loki is sitting there chained up, nobody there, not Thor, not Bruce or Valkyrie, have any right to stand there and judge Loki. Valkyrie was just as much a “lackey” of the Grandmaster, if not moreso, because she worked for him and enslaved people for him for a long, long, time. She knew about the orgy ship too, and was obviously in high favor with the grandmaster. But yet in that scene, suddenly Thor, Bruce and Valkyrie are the spotless heroes with the right to look down their noses at Loki? No. 

What I also find bothersome about Lokis treatment in Ragnarok is wondering how Tom took it. No one knows really and we may never, yet I can’t help but think it affected him negatively on some level, after devoting so much time, talent and heart into the character. I’d certainly be insulted and secretly pissed. And yes, Sakaar must’ve dwelled within the boonies of space, as I too found it odd no one there ever recognized Loki. A form of subliminal messaging, perhaps? 

Let us not forget please that Taika is not completely to blame. Hemsworth specifically asked for Taika because he was mad about how Tom overshadowed him in TDW because he did a shitty job and was tired of playing Thor like how it was written. Hemsy requested Taika. Which might be why Tom and Hemsworth aren’t tight anymore.

^ Yes, that is exactly right. I don’t think Taika himself gave a shit about any of the MCU films or characters until Hemsworth brought him on in order to showcase his (Hemsworth’s), er, comedic genius. He came in predisposed to despise Loki for stealing poor Chris’s limelight… and other than hating Loki on Chris’s behalf – and being incredibly pleased with himself over his witticisms as Korg, getting Jeff Goldblum to play himself, and getting away with spending all that money to produce a gold-plated “fuck you” sign aimed at Tom Hiddleston, Kenneth Branagh, Joss Whedon, and all of the fangirls who are too stupid to realize that they were supposed to fall for Thor, not Loki – I’m pretty sure he still doesn’t give a shit about the MCU or its characters. I blame Chris more than Taika, because I would have expected him to have some sense of artistic integrity with respect to the character he had been playing for 8 years, and perhaps even some loyalty to Tom and the work they had done together. Taika had no reason not to take Marvel’s money and run; his only loyalty was to his pal Chris who got him that sweet lucrative gig. Of course he would give full rein to Chris’s grievances.

Yes, it’s speculation; no, we can never know the secret inner lives of celebrities… but we have it spelled out in interviews that CH was bored of playing an actual dramatic character, that TW wanted to take Loki down a peg or several, that they wanted to “make sure Thor was the most interesting character in his own movie” (who might that have been before, hmm?), and that they were taking full license to retcon and “respectfully disrespect” previous canon (where we all understand that the “respectfully” part is horseshit). It *is* mere speculation, or rather interpretive guesswork, to conjecture that Tom’s dissatisfaction or even a feeling of betrayal over the handling of Loki’s character and previous canon in general is the reason he was absent from much of the Ragnarok promotion, and when he was there, looked downcast and alienated from the camaraderie of the rest of the cast. Maybe scheduling conflicts were the only reason that Tom and Chris did very few interviews together, though they had been teamed up constantly during promotion for TDW, and Tom was more likely to be paired with Jeff Goldblum or Tessa Thompson (both of whom seemed to have a lot more respect for him than either TW or CH did).

I’m not even clear what Chris and Taika’s endgame was with this. Like, was this just simple revenge on Tom and fans? Or did Chris somehow come to the wild conclusion that all they needed to do was take Tom/Loki down a few pegs and fans would just suck it up and be like, “Ugh, fiiiiine, I guess Thor is my favourite character now”?

I suspect it was just a “fuck you” to the fans who were already devoted to Loki; it was critics and potential new fans they were trying to win over. They seem to have succeeded with critics (sadly), who don’t particularly care about the consistency of the MCU, are probably pretty sick of it, and like seeing its self-seriousness mocked. Tom didn’t get the same chorus of praise for his nuanced acting that he had received for Thor 1, The Avengers, and TDW – of course, because they deliberately gave him nothing that would showcase his dramatic acting ability or capacity for conveying emotional depth; the intent was to make Loki appear shallow and ridiculous.

The usual dudebro casual fans are delighted with the new Thor who’s a dudebro like them; Loki always just confused them, but TR gave them permission to laugh at the… cigarette (or bassoon, if you know Italian or read orchestral scores). Oddly, Loki does seem to have acquired a contingent of new “fans” who accept TR’s flattening of his character and claim to “love” him anyway, while also affirming that he’s morally worthless and a dumb bitch. Not sure if that was the intent… in any case, it is succeeding in demoralizing the established Loki fans.

Hey, so like…

darthwindows:

lokilover9:

lokiloveforever:

seiramili7:

timetravellingshinigami:

nikkoliferous:

asgardiankingofmischief:

nikkoliferous:

Does anyone want to talk about how ridiculous it is that Valkyrie, of all people, shames Loki for not caring about doing the right thing?

Loki: I don’t mean to impose…
(Valkyrie throws a bottle at him because violence is only bad if The Villain™ does it)
Loki: The Grandmaster has a great many ships. I may even have stolen the access codes to his security system.
Valkyrie: And suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?

You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie?

Yeah, and considering her history in enslaving people for the Grandmaster runs about 1000 or so years? Maybe more, I can’t recall, she doesn’t really have the moral high ground. 

In fact, Loki attempting to capture Thor and surrender him to the Grandmaster is more in line with something that Valkyrie would likely pursue (considering her time in Sakaar). Maybe they should have made her more difficult to convince. 

Her comment/question is rather out of place also and would have to assume that she’s familiar with Loki to the level that Thor or Hulk (cause of NY) are. 

I can only assume she said it in retaliation to what Loki did with her mind, but, in my opinion, she probably would have said something else. 

Or they could have validated that she wasn’t necessarily trustworthy too. 

It just felt like more of Taika’s lazy story-telling to me, as opposed to Valkyrie getting back at him for the whole ‘invading my mind’ thing. (But hey, don’t invade people’s brains, kids. It’s quite rude). I personally viewed it more as like, “hey, we haven’t reminded people that Loki’s a bad egg in the last 3 minutes or so; better let someone have a dig at his loose morals” sort of BS that is honestly just rampant in Thor: Ragnarok. 

Like, I know Ragnarok critics get labelled conspiracy theorists for thinking (or at least speaking as though) Taika just had it out for Loki and wanted to degrade him as much as possible. And I get it, that sounds objectively insane. But just, looking at the narrative of the film itself, it’s… hard not to get that impression? And there’s really no other indicator in that movie–unless I’m forgetting something–that anyone on Sakaar (not including Thor and Bruce, obviously) has a clue who Loki really is. I guess it’s possible that they do, but there’s no evidence that that’s the case. More show & tell problems in this film.

I actually do want to address the ‘betraying Thor for money’ thing, though. Because I see a lot of people complaining that it’s completely out of character for Loki to do so for the money, and I actually have a different take on it. We all know Loki is rarely able to just be honest about what’s going on in his head. That’s essentially what the entire conflict between him and Thor has been fueled by for all this time, really. So I kind of headcanon that Loki might have told Thor that it was for the money, but I personally believe that in reality, it was actually Loki’s last-ditch effort to save his brother. Even as strong as he and Thor both are, individually and together, he did not believe Hela was an enemy that they could defeat (which is technically true)–especially now that she’s all cozy on Asgard, where she’ll be even stronger than when they first met her. Loki already failed once to talk Thor into staying on Sakaar of his own free will; I think betraying him was Loki’s way of trying to keep him safe from Hela by any means necessary.

I also think that deceptiveness can extend to his fight with Valkyrie too. A lot of Loki fans complain about her being able to take him captive so easily, but I choose to believe he lost to her intentionally. Easy ticket to finding his brother. He is the trickster god. Why are we suddenly taking him at face value all the time?

Admittedly, when it comes to Thor: Ragnarok, it’s super hard to decide when Loki is acting out of character because he’s running a scheme and when he’s doing it because of bad writing.

People actually call Loki stans (the true Loki stans) and people who don’t like Ragnarok as idiots just ‘cause we analyzed the movie from start to finish. Most of these people who insult us are new to the fandom and only saw Ragnarok. And even if they saw the other Thor movies they don’t remember it or for some reason they don’t like it. They just here for the jokes and, me, who is someone who’s here for depth of character, good storytelling and just pure emotion cannot deal with people like that.

Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all okay.

You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie? 

In fact, Valkyrie’s own words about “

suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?

“ itself applies accurately to what Valkyrie was doing exactly at that time. 

And to be honest, Valkyrie is a hypocrite. Considering about her own deeds that sold many non-guilty people into slavery and causing those people’s deaths for thousands years, and the fact that she knows almost nothing about Loki himself, she has absolutely no right to judge Loki and then acts like she has never done anything wrong in her life, ever. 

Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all 🆗. 

People often forget about her actions because the narrative never call it. The narrative of Ragnarok want to condemn Loki only out of other characters and exaggerating his “evilness” into stereotype and caricature-like so people start to regard him as only “a mere background character who is just an useless twink who have no dignity and just nothing but a pest to Thor the Perfect ‘Hero’ with no absolute importance other than being fan-service”. That’s why they’re so many double standards in Ragnarok especially regarding Loki. 

@lucianalight  @juliabohemian  @welle-nijordottir

Waititi did have it in for Loki, he admitted it. He said Loki’s treatment and humiliation was “payback” for overshadowing the other movies. Everything, from that stupid play, to the deleted port o potty scene, to being chained up and having glass bottles thrown at his head, to Thor’s triumphant obedience disc scene was all a reflection of exactly how Waititi feels about Loki. “Blah, blah, blah, shut up, space orphan” “Loki tries so hard to be this tortured, artistic, space orphan”. Waititi’s not subtle about it. He thinks all the little Loki lovers are idiots. He meant out to “respectfully” disrespect the other movies, and extend a middle finger to those of us whose favorite character wasn’t Thor. It’s funny how, in that scene where Loki is sitting there chained up, nobody there, not Thor, not Bruce or Valkyrie, have any right to stand there and judge Loki. Valkyrie was just as much a “lackey” of the Grandmaster, if not moreso, because she worked for him and enslaved people for him for a long, long, time. She knew about the orgy ship too, and was obviously in high favor with the grandmaster. But yet in that scene, suddenly Thor, Bruce and Valkyrie are the spotless heroes with the right to look down their noses at Loki? No. 

What I also find bothersome about Lokis treatment in Ragnarok is wondering how Tom took it. No one knows really and we may never, yet I can’t help but think it affected him negatively on some level, after devoting so much time, talent and heart into the character. I’d certainly be insulted and secretly pissed. And yes, Sakaar must’ve dwelled within the boonies of space, as I too found it odd no one there ever recognized Loki. A form of subliminal messaging, perhaps? 

Let us not forget please that Taika is not completely to blame. Hemsworth specifically asked for Taika because he was mad about how Tom overshadowed him in TDW because he did a shitty job and was tired of playing Thor like how it was written. Hemsy requested Taika. Which might be why Tom and Hemsworth aren’t tight anymore.

^ Yes, that is exactly right. I don’t think Taika himself gave a shit about any of the MCU films or characters until Hemsworth brought him on in order to showcase his (Hemsworth’s), er, comedic genius. He came in predisposed to despise Loki for stealing poor Chris’s limelight… and other than hating Loki on Chris’s behalf – and being incredibly pleased with himself over his witticisms as Korg, getting Jeff Goldblum to play himself, and getting away with spending all that money to produce a gold-plated “fuck you” sign aimed at Tom Hiddleston, Kenneth Branagh, Joss Whedon, and all of the fangirls who are too stupid to realize that they were supposed to fall for Thor, not Loki – I’m pretty sure he still doesn’t give a shit about the MCU or its characters. I blame Chris more than Taika, because I would have expected him to have some sense of artistic integrity with respect to the character he had been playing for 8 years, and perhaps even some loyalty to Tom and the work they had done together. Taika had no reason not to take Marvel’s money and run; his only loyalty was to his pal Chris who got him that sweet lucrative gig. Of course he would give full rein to Chris’s grievances.

Yes, it’s speculation; no, we can never know the secret inner lives of celebrities… but we have it spelled out in interviews that CH was bored of playing an actual dramatic character, that TW wanted to take Loki down a peg or several, that they wanted to “make sure Thor was the most interesting character in his own movie” (who might that have been before, hmm?), and that they were taking full license to retcon and “respectfully disrespect” previous canon (where we all understand that the “respectfully” part is horseshit). It *is* mere speculation, or rather interpretive guesswork, to conjecture that Tom’s dissatisfaction or even a feeling of betrayal over the handling of Loki’s character and previous canon in general is the reason he was absent from much of the Ragnarok promotion, and when he was there, looked downcast and alienated from the camaraderie of the rest of the cast. Maybe scheduling conflicts were the only reason that Tom and Chris did very few interviews together, though they had been teamed up constantly during promotion for TDW, and Tom was more likely to be paired with Jeff Goldblum or Tessa Thompson (both of whom seemed to have a lot more respect for him than either TW or CH did).

Hey, so like…

lokiloveforever:

seiramili7:

timetravellingshinigami:

nikkoliferous:

asgardiankingofmischief:

nikkoliferous:

Does anyone want to talk about how ridiculous it is that Valkyrie, of all people, shames Loki for not caring about doing the right thing?

Loki: I don’t mean to impose…
(Valkyrie throws a bottle at him because violence is only bad if The Villain™ does it)
Loki: The Grandmaster has a great many ships. I may even have stolen the access codes to his security system.
Valkyrie: And suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?

You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie?

Yeah, and considering her history in enslaving people for the Grandmaster runs about 1000 or so years? Maybe more, I can’t recall, she doesn’t really have the moral high ground. 

In fact, Loki attempting to capture Thor and surrender him to the Grandmaster is more in line with something that Valkyrie would likely pursue (considering her time in Sakaar). Maybe they should have made her more difficult to convince. 

Her comment/question is rather out of place also and would have to assume that she’s familiar with Loki to the level that Thor or Hulk (cause of NY) are. 

I can only assume she said it in retaliation to what Loki did with her mind, but, in my opinion, she probably would have said something else. 

Or they could have validated that she wasn’t necessarily trustworthy too. 

It just felt like more of Taika’s lazy story-telling to me, as opposed to Valkyrie getting back at him for the whole ‘invading my mind’ thing. (But hey, don’t invade people’s brains, kids. It’s quite rude). I personally viewed it more as like, “hey, we haven’t reminded people that Loki’s a bad egg in the last 3 minutes or so; better let someone have a dig at his loose morals” sort of BS that is honestly just rampant in Thor: Ragnarok. 

Like, I know Ragnarok critics get labelled conspiracy theorists for thinking (or at least speaking as though) Taika just had it out for Loki and wanted to degrade him as much as possible. And I get it, that sounds objectively insane. But just, looking at the narrative of the film itself, it’s… hard not to get that impression? And there’s really no other indicator in that movie–unless I’m forgetting something–that anyone on Sakaar (not including Thor and Bruce, obviously) has a clue who Loki really is. I guess it’s possible that they do, but there’s no evidence that that’s the case. More show & tell problems in this film.

I actually do want to address the ‘betraying Thor for money’ thing, though. Because I see a lot of people complaining that it’s completely out of character for Loki to do so for the money, and I actually have a different take on it. We all know Loki is rarely able to just be honest about what’s going on in his head. That’s essentially what the entire conflict between him and Thor has been fueled by for all this time, really. So I kind of headcanon that Loki might have told Thor that it was for the money, but I personally believe that in reality, it was actually Loki’s last-ditch effort to save his brother. Even as strong as he and Thor both are, individually and together, he did not believe Hela was an enemy that they could defeat (which is technically true)–especially now that she’s all cozy on Asgard, where she’ll be even stronger than when they first met her. Loki already failed once to talk Thor into staying on Sakaar of his own free will; I think betraying him was Loki’s way of trying to keep him safe from Hela by any means necessary.

I also think that deceptiveness can extend to his fight with Valkyrie too. A lot of Loki fans complain about her being able to take him captive so easily, but I choose to believe he lost to her intentionally. Easy ticket to finding his brother. He is the trickster god. Why are we suddenly taking him at face value all the time?

Admittedly, when it comes to Thor: Ragnarok, it’s super hard to decide when Loki is acting out of character because he’s running a scheme and when he’s doing it because of bad writing.

People actually call Loki stans (the true Loki stans) and people who don’t like Ragnarok as idiots just ‘cause we analyzed the movie from start to finish. Most of these people who insult us are new to the fandom and only saw Ragnarok. And even if they saw the other Thor movies they don’t remember it or for some reason they don’t like it. They just here for the jokes and, me, who is someone who’s here for depth of character, good storytelling and just pure emotion cannot deal with people like that.

Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all okay.

You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie? 

In fact, Valkyrie’s own words about “

suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?

“ itself applies accurately to what Valkyrie was doing exactly at that time. 

And to be honest, Valkyrie is a hypocrite. Considering about her own deeds that sold many non-guilty people into slavery and causing those people’s deaths for thousands years, and the fact that she knows almost nothing about Loki himself, she has absolutely no right to judge Loki and then acts like she has never done anything wrong in her life, ever. 

Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all 🆗. 

People often forget about her actions because the narrative never call it. The narrative of Ragnarok want to condemn Loki only out of other characters and exaggerating his “evilness” into stereotype and caricature-like so people start to regard him as only “a mere background character who is just an useless twink who have no dignity and just nothing but a pest to Thor the Perfect ‘Hero’ with no absolute importance other than being fan-service”. That’s why they’re so many double standards in Ragnarok especially regarding Loki. 

@lucianalight  @juliabohemian  @welle-nijordottir

Waititi did have it in for Loki, he admitted it. He said Loki’s treatment and humiliation was “payback” for overshadowing the other movies. Everything, from that stupid play, to the deleted port o potty scene, to being chained up and having glass bottles thrown at his head, to Thor’s triumphant obedience disc scene was all a reflection of exactly how Waititi feels about Loki. “Blah, blah, blah, shut up, space orphan” “Loki tries so hard to be this tortured, artistic, space orphan”. Waititi’s not subtle about it. He thinks all the little Loki lovers are idiots. He meant out to “respectfully” disrespect the other movies, and extend a middle finger to those of us whose favorite character wasn’t Thor. It’s funny how, in that scene where Loki is sitting there chained up, nobody there, not Thor, not Bruce or Valkyrie, have any right to stand there and judge Loki. Valkyrie was just as much a “lackey” of the Grandmaster, if not moreso, because she worked for him and enslaved people for him for a long, long, time. She knew about the orgy ship too, and was obviously in high favor with the grandmaster. But yet in that scene, suddenly Thor, Bruce and Valkyrie are the spotless heroes with the right to look down their noses at Loki? No. 

I’m so baffled by his use of “space orphan” as an insult. Shouldn’t that make Loki *more* sympathetic? I mean, much of the plot of “Pirates of Penzance” turns on the fact that being an orphan makes people more sympathetic to you. What’s Waititi’s problem?

Analysis of Thor and Loki’s Characters in Their Childhood

lucianalight:

“Loki has stabbed Thor since they were children!”

“Loki tried to kill Thor his entire life!”

These assumptions came after TR tried to retcon everything about Thor franchise and characterizations. It came from the snake story which was improvise by CH just for jokes, and no one cared to remind him that Thor and Loki aren’t the same age, since Odin declared Thor his firstborn in Thor 1. These assumption came from TW who didn’t understand Loki at all despite enough material in other movies:

  • “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

None of these conclusions are true. Loki was pretty loyal to Thor his entire life. Even disrupting the coronation wasn’t a betrayal to Thor.

“You are my brother and my friend. Sometimes I’m envious, but never doubt I love you.”

“I love Thor more dearly than any of you, but you know what he is. He’s arrogant. He’s reckless. He’s dangerous. You saw how he was today. Is this what Asgard needs from its king?”

He knew Thor wasn’t ready and he also wanted a chance to prove to his father that he is worthy too, since that was the impression both Thor and Loki got from Odin, that the better son get to be the king.

We got to see Thor and Loki as children in Thor 1. Let’s see what can be understood from their scene as children.

The scene starts when Odin finishing his tale about the war with Jotunheim and shows his children the war prize he got from them, the Casket of Ancient Winters to stop them to cause further harm. His tale portrays Jotuns as villains who attacked Earth with no reason and Asgardians as heroes. He speaks of a long and bloody war with an enemy that is very strong. As all children, Thor and Loki see their father as a hero and invincible, but in their case even more so, because Odin calls himself the protector of the nine realms. But this enemy even took their father’s eye. They must be very strong and scary. They must be monsters. Notice that Odin calls Jotuns, “Frost Giants”, a word that can inflicts fear and has a negative effect. Odin finishes his tale with:

“But the day will come when one of you will have to defend that peace.”

And starts the idea of brother’s competition for the throne right there.

The camera zooms on Thor and Loki’s faces individually.

image

Loki: 
“Do the Frost Giants still live?”

Loki’s face and question shows that he is analyzing this information. His expression and tone also shows caution and that he’s scared(of his own race). this can be an indication that he’s a sensitive kid. He has just heard a tale of war and death and it doesn’t interest him. Although he’s scared, he is still curious and wants to know more.

Before Odin has a chance to answer, Thor confidently declares:

image

Thor: “When I’m king, I’ll hunt the monsters down and slay them all!”

The camera cuts to Loki..

image

The way Loki looks at him after this, is very telling. There’s a bit exasperation and annoyance in his expression. As if he’s thinking “why are you
like this?” and “why do you think it’s you who’s going to be king”. There’s also embarrassment because Thor’s reaction made him look
weak, and envy because he thinks he isn’t as brave as his brother.

Thor continues,
full of excitement and admiration for his father, his hero: “Just as you did, Father”

image

This whole part shows that Thor is completely sure and confident that he is the one who is going to be the king. That it doesn’t matter to him if there are any monsters. He is going to kill them all. He is going to be like his father.

The next moment is very important in the movie. Both kids are looking to their father and waiting for his answer. Which one of them get his acknowledgment and approval? Does he think it’s better to know about the Frost Giants or just kill them all?

Loki’s face shows insecurity while Thor’s shows confidence. And both of them are longing to be validated by their father.

Odin knows this damn well. He looks at both of his sons and choose to answer them indirectly:

“A wise king never seeks out war but he must always be ready for it.”

Translation: It doesn’t matter to know about the Frost Giants more than it’s needed to defeat them. You must always be ready for war but don’t seek it.

He answers both of them with that. But in doing so he also confirms what Thor said, that Frost Giants are monsters. And the only information you need to know about them is how to beat them. There it is. Odin validating racism for his sons, knowing one of them is from the same race he just covertly confirmed to be monsters.

I was so shocked by this moment the very first time I watched this movie. I expected for Odin to tell Thor that they are not monsters. But instead Odin answered like that and it made me sure that this moment will come back to bite them(and us).

As Odin walks away from the children, Thor and Loki look at each other. There is love, excitement and innocence in their faces. And then they both run to reach to their father and grab his hands.

Thor states with confidence and determination while looking at Odin:

“I’m ready Father!”

Loki grabs Odin’s other hand and with desperation and insecurity tells Odin:

“So am I!”

Thor looks at Loki irritated. Loki looks at Odin, desperate to be acknowledged. Odin says:

“Only one of you can ascend to the throne. But both of you were born to be kings.”

Thor’s confidence returns and Loki’s face turns hopeful.

What Odin did here is pitting the two brothers against each other. His answer implies that only one of them, the better son can be king. This will make them compete against each other. This will make them seek Odin’s approval all the time which makes it easy for Odin to control them.

The way this scene plays out is very clever. The brothers look at each other with love but then run to Odin. Odin comes between them, literally and figuratively. The compete to gain his approval and as Loki’s insecurity here shows and later we find out, favoring Thor are the reasons that truly set the brothers apart.

So what can be concluded from this analysis? That neither Thor, nor Loki were malicious and definitely not towards each other. They got annoyed or irritated with each other but their reactions are as normal and childlike as any other child. Loki shows envy towards Thor, but the love in his eyes surpasses it far more(“sometimes I’m envious but never doubt I love you”). Besides his main concern is getting Odin’s approval. So a sensitive, curious, cautious child who is get upset and scared by the story of war and monsters, whose love for his brother is far more than his envy, isn’t capable of going around stabbing his brother. Also from a more logical point of view, he is intelligent, he knows stabbing his brother, the favorite son I might add, would never help him to gain his father’s approval which is his main goal. This also confirms what Loki later says to Thor:

“I never wanted the throne. I only ever wanted to be your equal!”

He wasn’t after the throne. Getting the throne was the proof that Odin saw him worthy. It was what Odin planted in their mind when they were children.

Kid Thor also isn’t malicious. He’s just a child who admires his father very much and wants to be like him. A child that his mistakes aren’t corrected but enabled and he is treated more favorably and better than his brother. So he learns that he’s better than Loki and learns to treat him the same way as he sees while they grow up. So the assumption that he was a sensitive kid(he was the one who got excited by stories of war and killing monsters) who was bullied by his broody evil brother can’t be correct.

Loki was never as evil and wrong as TR portrayed him. Neither Thor was like a saint and always right. Their relationship is far more complicated than good Thor vs. evil Loki. I don’t accept TR retconning their characteristics like this. Especially when there’s proof that TR’s interpretation of them is wrong.

edge-of-silvermoon:

cosmicjoke:

sapphiredreamer26:

sonepegg:

lucianalight:

sigridlaufeyson:

catwinchester:

asgardianss:

Please be thor 4

Bitch what the fuck?! I am so done with this fandom! If it’s gonna be Thor 4, I rather have Loki stay dead or Taika will fuck him up even more.

Agreed. Some part of me like to see TW direct another franchise of MCU just so people see how he can ruin it but that’s really not fair for the fans who don’t like his work.

Don’t really see how they can even do Thor 4, considering they’ve killed off pretty much the entire supporting cast. 

Unless they just make it the Thor and Korg show which…no. 

And if he directs any other movie, I think Marvel should be prepared for Waititi to completely ignore the comics, and any other ideas Marvel may have, because he will create his own monstrosity of a story line filled with endless gags.

Fuck it.  Who cares.  I’m done with the Marvel Cinematic Universe anyway.  It lost the plot long ago at this point.  Hemsworth and Waititi can go have their circle jerk together.  Loki’s apparently dead for good, so Tom Hiddleston won’t have to taint himself with this trash anymore anyway.

But they absolutely have the ability to belittle and humiliate Loki and distort his character further in dialogues. Just…no. I don’t want them touching any thing even remotely related to Loki ever again. =(

And I’m still out here saying they fucked up Thor’s character even worse than Loki’s. To be honest I don’t care as much because I never personally identified with Thor the way I did with Loki, so it didn’t feel like an attack on me (and everyone else with mental illness) the way Loki’s retcon did. But yeah, I’m about ready to wash my hands of the MCU entirely. I’m already sorry I spent money on any of it.

Loki dropped him like 25,000 feet in a glass cage, he told him that his father was dead, he backhanded him with the destroyer, he stabbed him in the chest – on several different occasions. The fact is that had Thor not turned the tables on him in that moment that he was going to hand him back over to the grandmaster to be put back in the cage and used for his battles. Thor and Loki are called gods for a reason. And he laughed b/ he knew that Loki would get out of it like he does everything.

lucianalight:

I got this ask in response to this post.

None of the things you mentioned can be considered as torture. Loki dropped Thor with the glass cage right after he saw that Mjolnir could crack the glass. The reason Thor stopped attempting to break the glass wasn’t because the glass was unbreakable, but because the cage would fall if he continued. So Loki knew Thor could free himself before the cage hit the ground. Yes, Loki lied to Thor about Odin’s death and he almost killed him with that backhand and IMO these are very horrible and

the worst things he ever did to Thor. Still they are not torture. He broke Thor with his lies but those lies showed Thor that the consequences of his actions can be very grave. Also an argument can be made that if Loki really wanted Thor dead, he would incinerate him with the destroyer not backhand him. The only time Loki really stabbed Thor was in The Avengers. They were fighting, and it was a stab to the gut not the chest and it was with a really small blade that didn’t harm Thor that much. The stab in TDW was an illusion(again that was a stab to the gut), because when he lifted the illusion Thor’s armor was intact while in The Avengers, Thor’s armor remained torn after the stab.

No one said Thor shouldn’t have stopped Loki from betraying him. But Thor could simply make Loki unconscious with the obedience disk(I explained in this post that the device has two settings). That would be acceptable. But Thor chose to leave Loki in constant pain with the device on for an infinite amount of time. Yes, Thor and Loki are called gods and they are more durable. But just because they can tolerate more pain, it doesn’t make it ok to inflict pain on them. It’s still pain and the obedience disc is a torture device. And no Thor had no way of knowing that Loki could get out of it. In fact he knew Loki couldn’t free himself. Thor with all his power, was paralyzed by the obedience disc. Even his lightning couldn’t get him free from it. Only the control device could free Loki. And he was unable to move.

What is torture?

“The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a
punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure
of the person inflicting the pain.”

Thor didn’t just stopped Loki’s betrayal. He inflicted severe pain on him for an infinite amount of time

as punishment for his betrayal and then had the audacity to gleefully preach Loki about growth and change and laugh at his pain.

What Thor did in TR was torture and that makes him so much ooc that I don’t consider TR Thor, the real Thor.

I think it would be appropriate to reiterate what I said in the last post linked in the above (the one arguing that the obedience disc is a torture device), so here it is again for people who don’t bother to follow links:

< I’ve been seeing a lot of people try to justify Thor* by pointing out that Loki has done worse things to him; most commonly they will cite the incident in The Avengers where Loki drops Thor out of the Helicarrier in the Hulk cage. (This is such a common move that I feel like it’s got to be in some Thor* stan/ Ragnarok defense playbook.) Here is why that comparison doesn’t accomplish what they want it to accomplish:

  1. It was entirely reasonable for Loki to think he was not endangering Thor’s life. He knew Thor could get out of the cage because he had Mjolnir with him. As far as we can tell, in Ragnarok, Thor* had no way of knowing that the first people who would happen along were Korg & co. as opposed to, e.g., Topaz, who probably would have just killed Loki while he was incapacitated. Maybe he did have some way of knowing, but this was not made at all clear in the film. So even if he didn’t think he was endangering Loki’s life, he was being culpably negligent.
  2. In The Avengers, Loki was acting as an adversary, and everyone was completely aware of that. He was trying to hamper his opponents by scattering them, and possibly to demoralize Thor by showing that he wasn’t going to get his brother back. In Ragnarok, Thor* presented what he did as some kind of “tough love” – punishing Loki “for his own good,” with the aim of getting Loki back on his side rather than (as Loki was doing in The Avengers) turning him decisively against him. If you can’t see why that’s kind of fucked up, well…
  3. Loki is clearly aware that what he’s doing in The Avengers is wrong. He hesitates before he hits the button to drop the cage, and hesitates again (with tears in his eyes, FFS!) before he stabs Thor later. He’s conflicted, and it’s not unreasonable to think he regrets hurting Thor when he’s no longer under direct threat from Thanos (his attempts at self-justification in TDW have a defensive air that make me think the lady doth protest too much). In Ragnarok, Thor* just looks smug and self-righteous about the electrocution thing, even though he’s very aware that Loki is in severe pain. >

And I’m sure I’ve said it somewhere else, but again, it doesn’t really make sense to compare the electrocution in Ragnarok to the things Loki did to Thor in Thor 1 and The Avengers because in both of the latter cases, it’s made pretty clear that Loki isn’t in his right mind. In Thor 1, Loki has pretty clearly been profoundly disturbed by the revelation that he actually belongs to a race that he has been taught all his life to hate and fear (and that Thor has twice vowed to “finish”). He is convinced that the reason Odin always favored Thor is because Loki is really Jotun, not Asgardian, so he’s desperate to prove how very Asgardian and not Jotun he really is. I agree that it’s not clear whether Loki meant to kill Thor with the Destroyer; he must have known that killing Odin’s other son wouldn’t be a great way of earning his favor. (Maybe he had it backhand rather than incinerate him so he could pass it off as an accident… or maybe he lacked commitment there too.) At any rate, he is very obviously emotionally and psychologically unwell for… over half of the movie, tbh, but it becomes increasingly obvious in the last third.

In The Avengers, Loki shows up looking like shit; his eyes are wild and hollow and he’s saying some really weird stuff. When they communicate through the scepter, the Other threatens him and he looks terrified. No, Loki wasn’t completely under Thanos’s control and maybe he bears some responsibility for getting himself into that position… but again, he’s clearly been through some shit and is under severe duress. And, as noted above, he’s conflicted about hurting Thor.

Thor* has no such excuse or explanation in Ragnarok. On the contrary; he’s presented as being fully in control, cool-headed, rational, oh-so-cleverly out-thinking his clever brother. He even thought up this scheme in advance, because he predicted that Loki would betray him (for no good reason other than it was needed as set-up for the “trickster tricked” scenario where Loki gets his painful, humiliating comeuppance). Thor*’s action is more blameworthy than anything Loki has done to him because he does it while in full possession of his faculties and shows sadistic glee at making Loki suffer.

And no, Loki has not been stabbing Thor or “trying to kill him” since they were children. Taika Waititi pulled that out of his ass. It should be obvious from Thor 1 that Thor trusts Loki, that they’ve been comrades in arms for centuries, and that Loki’s betrayal and his demand that Thor fight him come as an incredible shock. If you want to accept the stabbing-since-childhood BS as canon, then you’d better stop citing anything Loki does in Thor 1, including telling Thor their father is dead and striking him with the Destroyer, because clearly you’re ignoring what that movie established as the longtime dynamic between them. You want to pretend previous canon doesn’t exist? Then at least do it consistently.