Tag: fandom discourse

Ignoring Tom Hiddleston’s Own Words To Fit an Agenda

philosopherking1887:

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.

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”).

Have any of these antis considered that maybe it’s a good thing to show relationships where one half wields a considerable amount of power and influence over the other as coercive and unhealthy? Especially if the first half is a literal slaveowner who has bought the other half’s brother? Like if you want to write a soft version you go and do that, but why is this interpretation so under fire?

loxxxlay:

foundlingmother replied to your post “ahhhhh they deleted it, niiiiiceeee”

soft!frostmaster shippers who are antis are so weird to me. Like, one of your favs is a despotic slave master who happily executes their family and threatened Loki’s, if not Loki himself. That ship is canonically a dumpster fire, and it’s far more concerning that some people can’t recognize that and think it’s weird that people get dubcon or noncon vibes.

Adding @foundlingmother‘s response too because it’s the similar topic and now I can respond to both at once.

(Also behind a cut because my anxiety med makes me ramble lol T_T)

Keep reading

“Ship and let ship” doesn’t have to mean you like or approve of all ships; it just means you don’t harass people for shipping things you don’t like and you don’t go around making unsupported claims about the real-life sexual morality of the shippers. Some ships are nOTPs just because I don’t think they make sense (*cough*ThorxBruce*cough*), but there are also some I side-eye real hard because of the in-canon dynamics of the characters. Killgrave x Jessica Jones is one of those (only shipped by fans of the Tenth Doctor because they can’t see David Tennant any other way, I’m pretty sure). Tony Stark x Peter Parker is another (though I can’t say I have the moral high ground on this one, given some of the Thorki AUs I read). And soft!Frostmaster also falls into this category for me. I’m not going to go crashing their party because I’m not that kind of asshole, but yeah, I’m giving it some serious side-eye.

freedom-of-fanfic:

shipping-isnt-morality:

freedom-of-fanfic:

shipping-isnt-morality:

I don’t want to reblog the post, but there’s a callout going around for someone who write violent, torture-centric Mob Psycho fic. and like

What kind of cognitive gymnastics do you even have to do to enjoy a series that has an entire ARC about the middle-school protag being subjected to continuous torture, but then accuse fans of being predators for enjoying….. works about the middle schooler protag being subjected to torture

All of it was properly warned for better than the series itself, even

A part of me wonders if they don’t recognize how messed up the canon material is because it’s not nicely tagged for their condemnation

I honestly think the thought process goes like this:

  1. ‘everybody knows’ that mainstream popular media is problematic and shows bad things. we tell people to not imitate stuff on TV all the time.
  2. but when people in fandom recreate in fanworks or talk about those bad things with anything less than absolute, complete condemnation, they’re endorsing those bad things. they’re saying those bad things are actually good. 
  3. so if a show has problematic elements, it’s fan endorsement of those elements (by interacting with them) that’s actually dangerous. If fans would just ignore those canon problematic elements, nobody could be fooled into thinking they’re actually good.*
  4. (bonus) that’s why a good fan strips everything potentially hurtful out of problematic canon and only focuses on the fluffy, positive parts. 

(*fan endorsement is worse because fandom is made up of marginalized people who should know better than the shitty straight cis men who dominate media. it is therefore the duty of marginalized fans to ensure everything they do is educational so that younger people in fandom don’t get confused about right and wrong. )

if you create fanworks that contain problematic canon elements/ship ‘bad’ canon ships, you must either be a bad fan or too stupid to know those things were bad in canon.

either way, it is the duty of a good fan to educate you and punish you for leading others astray. (preferably in whatever way will shame you out of fandom entirely.)

Y’know? I think you may be onto something here, with the idea that it’s become marginalized peoples’ jobs to educate, to lead by example. So a marginalized person who writes Bad fiction has done something worse than a non-oppressed person, because we teach young people to Listen To The Wise Marginalized Person rather than teaching them how to critically consider the topic themselves.

I think the process went something like:

  1. Group A is the oppressor and group B is oppressed.
  2. All members of group A are systemically oppressors whether they consciously contribute to reinforcing that or not
  3. All members of group A are bigots because All members of group A are oppressors
  4. All members of group A are bad people.
  5. All members of group B personally experience oppression.
  6. All members of group B want to end oppression.
  7. All members of group B are good people.

I’m pretty sure that with some digging, I could actually find tumblr posts that correspond to the slow shifting and evolving of these ideas over time.

And then the end conclusion: A bad person doing a bad thing is to be expected. A good person doing a bad thing is a betrayal.

And so, through some oversimplified social justice fuckery, we’ve circled back around to holding marginalized people to a higher standard than their oppressors, thus reinforcing the system that we were originally supposed to be opposing.

Weird how that works.

^^^^ this!

I’m wary of any movement where the effect is to reinforce the existing social norms (only for ‘woke’ reasons).

I have observed that way of thinking about members of oppressed and oppressor groups in parts of the Left outside of fandom, too. Usually, though, anything apparently bad done by a member of an oppressed group is assumed to be a consequence of the oppression, because oppressed people are automatically good and innocent.

This way of thinking runs into problems at intersections of privilege and marginalization, but race is always the most important factor, probably followed by trans identity.

curlicuecal:

warpedellipsis:

shinelikethunder:

Fuck, I miss the days when puffed-up intellectual posturing was the universal currency of fandom arguments.

For one thing, the wank was a lot more harmlessly entertaining than it’s been since the shift to a currency of puffed-up moral posturing.

But there’s also something subtler that I was only able to articulate earlier this evening. When most of the arguments are about who’s got the biggest nerd-dick, it’s possible to go “wait, back up, that thing you just said was waaay over the line” and not have it be part of the game. Criticism of someone’s behavior is more-or-less independent from the subject of the argument–not that it’s never dragged in as a tactic for winning the argument, but it retains the capacity to be independent. And generally, social norms will maintain an expectation that it be kept independent and only invoked when it actually applies, and that it can be invoked on either side without affecting their status in the debate (i.e. whether they’re right or wrong).

When the arguments are about who’s got the biggest social justice dick, all bets are off. Accusations of unacceptable behavior are one of the core elements of the debate. There is no “look, you may have the most righteous point on earth, but god you’re being a flaming asshole about making it”–that’s a move in the game, traditonally parried by accusations of tone-policing. The result is a lack of meaningful limits on how toxic you can be in an argument. Predictably, it tends to devolve into an arms race.

Not that the “intellectual posturing as debate currency” model isn’t vulnerable to pathologies of its own–but ultimately, they’re nowhere near as destructive to a community’s social fabric as making the unacceptability of someone else’s behavior the terms on which every single fucking petty fandom wank is fought. Right down to flamewars over whose ship is better.

>making the unacceptability of someone else’s behavior the terms on which every single fucking petty [issue]

It occurs to me that this is the same thing that nasty people and abusers rest everything on? It’s never about the actual subject, it’s always an emotional battle about how vile of a person you are and how *that* means you’re wrong and they’re right.

I’ve been trying to articulate for a while how this shift to the personal and the character-based and the “aha! I have discerned your TRUE NATURE” make it nearly impossible to counter them in any meaningful way. It becomes and assertion of the other person’s identity and motivations and internal beliefs.

When other people claim the right to assert your identity and internal self… the argument has moved so abstract and emotionally-fraught it’s going to be almost impossible to actually debate anything.

I think it’s time for a chat, fandom.

fraifraii:

lunariagold:

darklittlestories:

raven-brings-light:

philosopherking1887:

I have made it no secret that I am greatly dissatisfied with many aspects of Thor: Ragnarok, most especially the characterizations of Thor and Loki and the discontinuity with their characterization in earlier movies. Among more extreme Loki fans, including those who (reportedly) used to call themselves “Loki’s Resistance” and are widely known as “Loki-apologists” (I prefer “unconditional Loki-justifiers,” for reasons of precision), people have no trouble saying that they disliked the movie because of the way it thinned out Loki’s character. Loki fans who are in networks with the Loki-justifiers but do not hate Thor (as so many of the justifiers do) also have no trouble pointing out that Ragnarok messed up Thor’s character, virtually disregarding the process of maturation he had gone through in previous MCU movies.

However, it seems that more moderate Loki fans (who do acknowledge his flaws and misdeeds), including but not limited to Thor/Loki shippers, have been feeling pressured into silence about their dissatisfaction with the movie. Four such people have communicated with me about it under their own names, two relatively openly in replies to my posts, two in private messages; a few more have expressed similar sentiments in anonymous asks. I’m kind of concerned that smart, thoughtful people feel like they can’t express their views for fear of being shunned or bombarded with hate. (About a movie, FFS; this isn’t a matter of life and death!)

Maybe this is just a function of the overall climate of Tumblr, which a friend of mine has characterized as just a bunch of young people all agreeing with each other (in my more bitter moments, I’ve used the terms “groupthink” and “circle-jerk”). It seems that around here group identities revolve around people all sharing the same views. Arguments (or firefights, really) can only be had on a hostile footing across group lines; there’s not much of a chance for productive or friendly disagreement within a community. As a philosopher (and a Jew), this strikes me as extremely bizarre and more than a little creepy. I disagree with other philosophers about a lot of things, and we argue, and raise objections to each other’s papers, but we’re still friends, still enjoy many of the same things, still share (largely) the same basic values. There are subcommunities, to be sure, of those who agree about certain issues, but we are still a community, engaged in a common enterprise, in spite of (indeed, driven by!) our disagreements.

What can we do to make the fandom such that people feel comfortable expressing their actual views even if they disagree with the majority of the community, or just (as it may be) with the loudest voices? If the fandom is already open to such disagreement, how can we reassure people that they won’t be ostracized for holding minority/unpopular views?

I hope that some people with more standing in the fandom than I have will take an active part in opening it up to productive disagreement. All these “I thought it was just me” and “everyone’s been telling me I’m crazy” and “I was so relieved to see your post” and “I feel like I should just stfu if my interpretation is different from the main one” messages are making me kind of alarmed and kind of sad.

Signal boosting and adding –

I didn’t even know this was a problem until recently, and the fact that people are actually nervous to share their opinions about a movie is worrisome.

I too have some issues with Ragnarok, but I also have various issues with all the movies, and I don’t think I’ve ever been shy about expressing them…if I ever don’t bring them up, it’s just because I prefer talking about the things that I DO like. I do realize I have a pretty thick skin, though.

Anyway, I for one welcome all opinions both positive and negative about Ragnarok, and I enjoy discussions among people with different viewpoints. How better to think about issues from different angles, or have the chance to further explore why you feel a certain way, or even maybe come to change your mind about things? I’ve done all of those in the past. I sincerely hope that we as a fandom are mature enough not to flame each other over differences of opinion.

Please no one ever feel the need to keep quiet on my account! And I hope that maybe people will start to get more comfortable with expressing non-majority opinions.

PREACH!

Though I adored Ragnarok—probably because I was prepared for mindless fun and I got even more fun than I’d expected (and I didn’t find it very mindless)—I can’t stand fandom wank. It’s fascinating as hell to chat about our differences of experience and analysis of the films.

But yeah, I agree it is very jarring to have three distinct moods for the films that should have continuity but instead we have three sets of writers/directors who have vastly different takes and HUGE resulting mood whiplash. I get that very much.

Yeah I basically made a conscious decision to just enjoy Ragnarok for what it was- and be glad that Thor/Loki were together… and also Grandgoldblum- and not get all deep into criticism. I didn’t like everything; for instance Thor left me completely cold and I get how the mood is so different than previous films it can be jarring. In general, I share deeper meta opinions with closest friends because they know where I’m at already and it’s easier to break it down with them than with a bunch of people over the void.

I can get very annoyed and passionate over some things I don’t like, but I do not take it out on other people. I would walk away and take a breather if it would get up my crack this badly. Everybody has a right to enjoy what they do, or not enjoy it; it’s that simple. Be like Siskel and Ebert: You can argue opposite views until blue in the face but it’s not personal; you can still be respectful.

Thank you for paving the way of open discussion…I wrote a first reactions post, because I felt so strongly about it. But I deleted it because I edited it so many times,  that it lost its point.Mainly because 98% of people not only loved it but adored it. I liked maybe 10% of it, so didn’t want to crash the party. Because I basically strongly felt the opposite. :”D

The main reason for me was Thor, as a main character, had no continuity to the other Thor’s. He became a frat boy. He lost all his previously built depth. It felt like he didn’t care about anything at all. It was even far from many comic Thors. The intense emotions were gone. So there was nothing to grasp onto. As the main character, you have to have at least that. ALL familiarity was gone along with his hair. Too many changes at once.

Loki was mostly ok. As mischief he’s a morally ambiguous character. Whether redemption arc or not, how his strength and intellect were downplayed so much for comic relief was not believable to me..

It felt very much like Taika wanted to disarm him to put Chris more in the spotlight. Which Is understandable on Chris’s POV. Tom seemed like he was forced into it though.

I love Gotg, but within its own established world. The anus thing. I feel like Tom was mentally cringing. He plays way more developed characters than that.

I don’t get how the electrocution scene could be funny. Loki deserved it. Undoubtedly. but how was it funny? I don’t see Thor even doing that. At least not leaving him like that anyway. I don’t see how it could be funny? .-.

Warriors 3.

Jane MIA. She got a sentence of explanation,
even though she was a big presence in TDW.

It was overall a bit sloppy. the ends were not only left untied but sometimes ignored all together.

er… that said.. I respect that everyone enjoyed it. And adored it. Its okay 🙂 Its okay that most people liked it. I just wish it wasn’t canon. Because non Ragnarok fanfic is going to be near impossible to find now. Ragnarok is canon now. I still have hope in AU though.. 🙂 

Reblogging with permission. Some civil, reasoned criticism. (And fortunately, if people get any hate for reblogs of this post, it will also come to me and we can laugh about it together.)

I think it’s time for a chat, fandom.

lunariagold:

darklittlestories:

raven-brings-light:

philosopherking1887:

I have made it no secret that I am greatly dissatisfied with many aspects of Thor: Ragnarok, most especially the characterizations of Thor and Loki and the discontinuity with their characterization in earlier movies. Among more extreme Loki fans, including those who (reportedly) used to call themselves “Loki’s Resistance” and are widely known as “Loki-apologists” (I prefer “unconditional Loki-justifiers,” for reasons of precision), people have no trouble saying that they disliked the movie because of the way it thinned out Loki’s character. Loki fans who are in networks with the Loki-justifiers but do not hate Thor (as so many of the justifiers do) also have no trouble pointing out that Ragnarok messed up Thor’s character, virtually disregarding the process of maturation he had gone through in previous MCU movies.

However, it seems that more moderate Loki fans (who do acknowledge his flaws and misdeeds), including but not limited to Thor/Loki shippers, have been feeling pressured into silence about their dissatisfaction with the movie. Four such people have communicated with me about it under their own names, two relatively openly in replies to my posts, two in private messages; a few more have expressed similar sentiments in anonymous asks. I’m kind of concerned that smart, thoughtful people feel like they can’t express their views for fear of being shunned or bombarded with hate. (About a movie, FFS; this isn’t a matter of life and death!)

Maybe this is just a function of the overall climate of Tumblr, which a friend of mine has characterized as just a bunch of young people all agreeing with each other (in my more bitter moments, I’ve used the terms “groupthink” and “circle-jerk”). It seems that around here group identities revolve around people all sharing the same views. Arguments (or firefights, really) can only be had on a hostile footing across group lines; there’s not much of a chance for productive or friendly disagreement within a community. As a philosopher (and a Jew), this strikes me as extremely bizarre and more than a little creepy. I disagree with other philosophers about a lot of things, and we argue, and raise objections to each other’s papers, but we’re still friends, still enjoy many of the same things, still share (largely) the same basic values. There are subcommunities, to be sure, of those who agree about certain issues, but we are still a community, engaged in a common enterprise, in spite of (indeed, driven by!) our disagreements.

What can we do to make the fandom such that people feel comfortable expressing their actual views even if they disagree with the majority of the community, or just (as it may be) with the loudest voices? If the fandom is already open to such disagreement, how can we reassure people that they won’t be ostracized for holding minority/unpopular views?

I hope that some people with more standing in the fandom than I have will take an active part in opening it up to productive disagreement. All these “I thought it was just me” and “everyone’s been telling me I’m crazy” and “I was so relieved to see your post” and “I feel like I should just stfu if my interpretation is different from the main one” messages are making me kind of alarmed and kind of sad.

Signal boosting and adding –

I didn’t even know this was a problem until recently, and the fact that people are actually nervous to share their opinions about a movie is worrisome.

I too have some issues with Ragnarok, but I also have various issues with all the movies, and I don’t think I’ve ever been shy about expressing them…if I ever don’t bring them up, it’s just because I prefer talking about the things that I DO like. I do realize I have a pretty thick skin, though.

Anyway, I for one welcome all opinions both positive and negative about Ragnarok, and I enjoy discussions among people with different viewpoints. How better to think about issues from different angles, or have the chance to further explore why you feel a certain way, or even maybe come to change your mind about things? I’ve done all of those in the past. I sincerely hope that we as a fandom are mature enough not to flame each other over differences of opinion.

Please no one ever feel the need to keep quiet on my account! And I hope that maybe people will start to get more comfortable with expressing non-majority opinions.

PREACH!

Though I adored Ragnarok—probably because I was prepared for mindless fun and I got even more fun than I’d expected (and I didn’t find it very mindless)—I can’t stand fandom wank. It’s fascinating as hell to chat about our differences of experience and analysis of the films.

But yeah, I agree it is very jarring to have three distinct moods for the films that should have continuity but instead we have three sets of writers/directors who have vastly different takes and HUGE resulting mood whiplash. I get that very much.

Yeah I basically made a conscious decision to just enjoy Ragnarok for what it was- and be glad that Thor/Loki were together… and also Grandgoldblum- and not get all deep into criticism. I didn’t like everything; for instance Thor left me completely cold and I get how the mood is so different than previous films it can be jarring. In general, I share deeper meta opinions with closest friends because they know where I’m at already and it’s easier to break it down with them than with a bunch of people over the void.

I can get very annoyed and passionate over some things I don’t like, but I do not take it out on other people. I would walk away and take a breather if it would get up my crack this badly. Everybody has a right to enjoy what they do, or not enjoy it; it’s that simple. Be like Siskel and Ebert: You can argue opposite views until blue in the face but it’s not personal; you can still be respectful.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed many things about Ragnarok, too. I thought Jeff Goldblum playing the Grandmaster playing Jeff Goldblum was delightful, and I cracked up pretty loudly when “Pure Imagination” from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory started playing on the weird introduction ride. Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie was badass, relatable, sexy, and wonderful (along with her giant flaming bottles of space booze). There were even some genuine moments of family pathos that I appreciated, including Odin telling Loki that Frigga would have been proud of his spell. I liked three interactions between Thor and Loki: the one in the circular prison hallway where Thor throws rocks at Loki’s projection (a little childish, but also amusing); the one in the elevator before the “Get Help” bit; and of course the “I’m here” at the end. Those can provide sustenance for emotionally satisfying fanfiction, even if we have to ignore most of the way Thor and Loki were characterized in order to take full advantage of them.

But sharing critical opinions only with close friends doesn’t always help. Two of the people who have talked to me said specifically that they have shared their concerns with friends and that’s how they got the impression that they were alone in those concerns; one even said that their friends told them they were “imagining things.” These are people who wouldn’t have started conversations with me if I hadn’t put my dissenting views out in the open. So no, it’s not about “taking out” my annoyance on other people; it’s about trying to dispel the illusion of universal agreement so that people don’t feel isolated and “smothered” (their word).

I think it’s time for a chat, fandom.

incredifishface:

philosopherking1887:

I have made it no secret that I am greatly dissatisfied with many aspects of Thor: Ragnarok, most especially the characterizations of Thor and Loki and the discontinuity with their characterization in earlier movies. Among more extreme Loki fans, including those who (reportedly) used to call themselves “Loki’s Resistance” and are widely known as “Loki-apologists” (I prefer “unconditional Loki-justifiers,” for reasons of precision), people have no trouble saying that they disliked the movie because of the way it thinned out Loki’s character. Loki fans who are in networks with the Loki-justifiers but do not hate Thor (as so many of the justifiers do) also have no trouble pointing out that Ragnarok messed up Thor’s character, virtually disregarding the process of maturation he had gone through in previous MCU movies.

However, it seems that more moderate Loki fans (who do acknowledge his flaws and misdeeds), including but not limited to Thor/Loki shippers, have been feeling pressured into silence about their dissatisfaction with the movie. Four such people have communicated with me about it under their own names, two relatively openly in replies to my posts, two in private messages; a few more have expressed similar sentiments in anonymous asks. I’m kind of concerned that smart, thoughtful people feel like they can’t express their views for fear of being shunned or bombarded with hate. (About a movie, FFS; this isn’t a matter of life and death!)

Maybe this is just a function of the overall climate of Tumblr, which a friend of mine has characterized as just a bunch of young people all agreeing with each other (in my more bitter moments, I’ve used the terms “groupthink” and “circle-jerk”). It seems that around here group identities revolve around people all sharing the same views. Arguments (or firefights, really) can only be had on a hostile footing across group lines; there’s not much of a chance for productive or friendly disagreement within a community. As a philosopher (and a Jew), this strikes me as extremely bizarre and more than a little creepy. I disagree with other philosophers about a lot of things, and we argue, and raise objections to each other’s papers, but we’re still friends, still enjoy many of the same things, still share (largely) the same basic values. There are subcommunities, to be sure, of those who agree about certain issues, but we are still a community, engaged in a common enterprise, in spite of (indeed, driven by!) our disagreements.

What can we do to make the fandom such that people feel comfortable expressing their actual views even if they disagree with the majority of the community, or just (as it may be) with the loudest voices? If the fandom is already open to such disagreement, how can we reassure people that they won’t be ostracized for holding minority/unpopular views?

I hope that some people with more standing in the fandom than I have will take an active part in opening it up to productive disagreement. All these “I thought it was just me” and “everyone’s been telling me I’m crazy” and “I was so relieved to see your post” and “I feel like I should just stfu if my interpretation is different from the main one” messages are making me kind of alarmed and kind of sad.

(climbs on the Rostra) SO I have massive issues with Rangarök.

I haven’t voiced many of those issues out loud not because I am afraid, but because I prefer to only express positive things in public, in general. 

And mostly, because I know how this place works.

When you make a post on Tumblr, it’s like climbing on a podium and voicing criticism to an invisible, indistinct crowd, and inviting that mass of people to reply to you. Now, some will do this moderately and respectfully and in a civilized manner, and many others will throw things at you from their own podiums, tag you with reductionist tags you yourself would not identify with, and then use those, and every word you’ve said, to try and destroy whatever it is they’ve understood about what you were saying, which won’t be much, tbh, and also destroy you, in the process. In other words, when it comes to rational, civilized debate, Tumblr as a platform fucking sucks.

This is why I have talked about my issues in private, because I don’t want to spread negativity, and because I feel it’s inviting a kind of interaction I really don’t feel will add to my enjoyment of the fandom at all.

However, that is just me. I have indeed felt a lot of people expressing this kind of fear you say, Phil. 

I get the feeling some people are positively intimidated by BFN who regularly and boldly contribute their opinions to the fandom, and will reply to posts they disagree with. 

So I get how this might feel. You, a “normal fan”, put out an opinion to your blog, with a few followers, likeminded individuals who will reblog your stuff. And everything is going great and you’re getting positive comments and additions that make you feel understood and supported, until suddenly, there from Up On High, one of these Elders falls upon your humble opinion and strongly disagrees with you. Yikes. I was just talking to my mates here, how did this happen?

And it gets worse, because that Elder has other Elder friends who now also enter the conversation and Fucking Hell I am Under Attack By Powers Beyond my Ken. And here I was only in my corner doing my things. I am being Cornered. And some of those Elders have even blocked me! (some people block people often bc it’s a way of curating their experience of this place. The more followers you have, the wiser that strategy gets, I think.) shit this is scary! I better shut up next time!

Result: The Fandom Is Afraid to Go Against the Elders’s Opinions.

Now. Those Elders? Normal people, I swear. Their Elder friends? Also normal people. They’ve been here longer, they have more followers, they are respected by their output to the fandom in whichever form, but when they replied to your post they did it as a normal fan entering the debate. Which you invited when you put your post out there. Because this is how Tumblr works. It’s not just your friendly trusty followers who will see it, and sometimes that’s good, and sometimes that’s awful. For civilized fandom debate, let’s face it, this system is not great. 

And this is why I will probably continue to keep trying to express mainly positivity in my blog, because I prefer to restrict more nuanced, trickier debate to people I know, trust, and respect, in a contained environment, which is the opposite of Tumblr.

Nonetheless, I hate to hear that some people are afraid of voicing their critical opinions in public. I don’ t think there are real grounds to that fear (the Thor fandom is quite a welcoming place, compared to others I know of. No major wars, no hate campaigns from within, moderate ship wars, def no mobs sent against dissenters, not that I know of, even if it feels like this to some of you.)

NOW, if by expressing my opinions out loud I can help people feel more comfortable voicing theirs, here goes: (i was going to put them under the cut bc this post is too long already, but I would hate for people to think I am actually afraid, so no cut)

I hated Thor’s characterization in Ragnarök, dialogue wise. I don’t think Hemsworth is funny. I found so many of the jokes jarring. I really, really wasn’t crazy about the slapstick. I mean, My Thor can trip up, sure, but he is still a prince of Asgard. I compare it to Loki. He also tripped up a lot, but he didn’t break character when he got up. Just saying it can be done. So yeah, sure, lighten Thor up, make it funny. Just make sure he sounds and acts more like Thor while you’re at it. Just my opinion.

ON THE OTHER HAND, this film had some of the best moments in the entire trilogy. With all its misgivings, far be it from me to tear it all down. I LOVED lots of things about it. The Grandmaster, Thor God of Thunder, Hela, the dragon, Valky, more Odin (I’m a sucker for family feels), “I’m here”… NO NECK GRAB DAMMIT but yeah ok fade to black and I’ll take it from there in my dreams.

WHILE I AM AT IT, I had issues just as big with the previous films, if of a different nature. Just as I didn’t like Hemsworth’s shenanigans in Ragnarök, i feel it’s equally jarring and painful to watch Thor making jokes half a second after his brother’s death, and not shortly after his mother’s death, which he was allowed to mourn for like ½ second. That film was a godawful mess, and boring AF. The only bits I enjoy (but I enjoy them a lot) are the interactions between the brothers, and the Sad Poncho of Sad. Thor has never looked prettier.

And while we’re at it, the jokes in Thor 1 in general were pretty awful too. And don’t get me started about Thor’s arc. Yes he talks High Speech, but his character goes from Spoilt Prince to Worthy Noble Man by the power of Natalie Portman’s Big Brown Eyes in 3 days and I’m just as pissed off as Loki about it. BUT, that film has those Shakespearean insights into the family dynamics I will feed on for the rest of my life, and it established Loki as the most compelling villain in the history of ever, and that’s what I take from it.

and as always, I ramble too much.

Anyway, there. Opinions. 

If you take one thing from this post, let it be this: no BFN here is out to get anyone. there is no witch hunt in this fandom for those who did not like Ragnarök. Don’t be afraid of voicing your opinions. 

But know also that this platform is a shitty place for nuanced debate, and your opinions will invite replies, and you won’t always like them. That’s how this place works. So take that into account, if nothing else.

You’re mischaracterizing the problem based on false assumptions. The people who have talked to me aren’t entry-level peons; they’re well-established in the fandom, and a couple of them have been around as long as, if not longer than, the B-est of BNFs (Big Name Fans, for the uninitiated). So they certainly don’t regard BNFs as mystical Elders descending on them from on high, if that’s who they’re worried about. Based on the feedback I’ve gotten, there seem to be two sources of concern: (1) hate from anonymous askers and randos in the crowd (which is, as you say, a danger of the podium-like format); and (2) the sense that they’re not allowed to express opinions that differ from those of their fandom circle of friends/acquaintances.

I beg to differ with your suggestion that it has anything to do with expressing negativity vs. positive attitudes. People are perfectly happy to share negative views, provided they think everyone in their audience will share them: on Trump (of course), Taylor Swift, heteronormative media, patriarchal culture, white people… But those are larger societal issues, you may say; what about the content of the fandom we’re primarily here for? People in MCU fandom have no problem being negative about, e.g., Joss Whedon’s contributions to canon, especially Age of Ultron, precisely because they assume that everyone agrees with them. They say something brief and dismissive, or offer some flimsy reasons, and everyone nods along; it’s the ritual Two Minutes of Hate. Anyone who disagrees – and I know from private conversations that I’m not the only one – keeps their mouth shut for reasons (1) and (2) described above. Of course, as noted before, this seems to be a general problem with Tumblr culture, not with the MCU or Thor fandom as such. I guess I was hoping that in our little corner we might be able to overcome the tendency toward enforced unanimity, but if it is a necessary consequence of the format… (Why am I here again?)

Regarding (1), anonymous/random hate, I think there’s perfectly good reason to be worried about that, especially if you have a decent number of followers and your posts are likely to get a fair amount of uptake. I did get an obnoxious reply from some rando to a post detailing my concerns about Taika Waititi’s approach to Loki’s character. My approach – which I realize is not everyone’s – was to try to engage the person in a discussion about the issues I raised (search “wafflediaries” on my blog for the blow-by-blow). Fairly predictably, it devolved into the person calling me a racist for not liking TW’s characterization (because apparently now every schmuck on the internet is an authority on Maori culture). I was a little rattled, a little worked up, but I was able to laugh it off and move on – which I know not everyone can do. However unproductive the conversation was with respect to the standard goal of convincing one’s opponent, it was nonetheless productive for the person who was counting down the days until someone said that not liking Ragnarok makes one a racist (you’re welcome), and for communicating to people who had similar concerns about the movie that they were not the only one.

What can we do about that fear? Maybe nothing; anonymous hate seems to be endemic to Tumblr and/or fandom. Nonetheless, crowds are made up of people, and maybe people can be convinced that the correct way to respond to opinions they disagree with is through civil presentation of reasons, not hit-and-run insults. I will admit to not always being as polite as I could be when expressing disagreement (though regarding the exchange described above, you can’t really expect me to be polite to someone who starts off with gratuitous nastiness); that’s something we could all stand to work on. And maybe, if you want to avoid direct engagement, the correct approach is to start a new thread, maybe with a link to the post you disagreed with, explaining why you disagree. But the important thing is to have a plurality of views in the ether so that people won’t think they’re alone and/or crazy.

What’s going on with (2)? I don’t know, and that might be a personal problem you and I simply don’t suffer from, though it is apparently pretty widespread around here. (A consequence of the high rate of social anxiety? I dunno, I have a fair amount of social anxiety, but somehow it dissipates when someone is saying something that’s wrong.) But what’s so sad and ironic about it is that if no one expresses views contrary to the ones they’ve been hearing because they haven’t heard anyone who shares them, there are going to be a bunch of people silently disagreeing with the apparent consensus and not being able to identify each other. Someone has to talk first. I guess that’s me? If people are agreeing with me in confidence but afraid or reluctant to speak up themselves, should I put them in touch with each other?

Finally: you risk very little by saying you think Ragnarok had some problems, but no more than either of the other Thor movies. The view people seem reluctant to express is that the problems with Ragnarok are different in both kind and magnitude from the problems with the previous films: that it fails to do its job, as the close to a trilogy, to follow up on and provide satisfying pay-off for what came before – not just as a matter of tone or aesthetic, but of doing justice to the characters we’ve come to care about. And from private conversations, personal experience, and feedback in the reblog tags on this post, it seems people hesitate to voice these views for fear of either being called a racist (I feel so proud), or of being dismissed as one of those obnoxious, irrational Loki-justifiers and thus excluded from the fandom subcommunity they considered themselves to be part of (this one actually bothers me). If it comes from anons and/or randos who aren’t really in your network, it may not change anything, but it still hurts. If newcomers are so dismissed by people with more clout, yeah, that can pose a bigger problem for their experience. If people are worried about getting that from people they considered friends – and I don’t know if that’s precisely what they’re concerned about, so much as not rocking the boat – I think they need to be reassured that they won’t be cast into the outer darkness for disagreeing. Maybe some people will find your reply reassuring, though the tone is pretty dismissive.

I think it’s time for a chat, fandom.

I have made it no secret that I am greatly dissatisfied with many aspects of Thor: Ragnarok, most especially the characterizations of Thor and Loki and the discontinuity with their characterization in earlier movies. Among more extreme Loki fans, including those who (reportedly) used to call themselves “Loki’s Resistance” and are widely known as “Loki-apologists” (I prefer “unconditional Loki-justifiers,” for reasons of precision), people have no trouble saying that they disliked the movie because of the way it thinned out Loki’s character. Loki fans who are in networks with the Loki-justifiers but do not hate Thor (as so many of the justifiers do) also have no trouble pointing out that Ragnarok messed up Thor’s character, virtually disregarding the process of maturation he had gone through in previous MCU movies.

However, it seems that more moderate Loki fans (who do acknowledge his flaws and misdeeds), including but not limited to Thor/Loki shippers, have been feeling pressured into silence about their dissatisfaction with the movie. Four such people have communicated with me about it under their own names, two relatively openly in replies to my posts, two in private messages; a few more have expressed similar sentiments in anonymous asks. I’m kind of concerned that smart, thoughtful people feel like they can’t express their views for fear of being shunned or bombarded with hate. (About a movie, FFS; this isn’t a matter of life and death!)

Maybe this is just a function of the overall climate of Tumblr, which a friend of mine has characterized as just a bunch of young people all agreeing with each other (in my more bitter moments, I’ve used the terms “groupthink” and “circle-jerk”). It seems that around here group identities revolve around people all sharing the same views. Arguments (or firefights, really) can only be had on a hostile footing across group lines; there’s not much of a chance for productive or friendly disagreement within a community. As a philosopher (and a Jew), this strikes me as extremely bizarre and more than a little creepy. I disagree with other philosophers about a lot of things, and we argue, and raise objections to each other’s papers, but we’re still friends, still enjoy many of the same things, still share (largely) the same basic values. There are subcommunities, to be sure, of those who agree about certain issues, but we are still a community, engaged in a common enterprise, in spite of (indeed, driven by!) our disagreements.

What can we do to make the fandom such that people feel comfortable expressing their actual views even if they disagree with the majority of the community, or just (as it may be) with the loudest voices? If the fandom is already open to such disagreement, how can we reassure people that they won’t be ostracized for holding minority/unpopular views?

I hope that some people with more standing in the fandom than I have will take an active part in opening it up to productive disagreement. All these “I thought it was just me” and “everyone’s been telling me I’m crazy” and “I was so relieved to see your post” and “I feel like I should just stfu if my interpretation is different from the main one” messages are making me kind of alarmed and kind of sad.

foundlingmother:

philosopherking1887:

luxury-loki:

Thor, Loki and ‘The Warriors three’ attempt to travel to Jotunheim via the bifrost, ‘Thor’ (2011) // Loki’s face in that last gif makes me so sad. Like I love Thor, and he has developed so much as a character, but it is clear in this first film that sometimes he let his role of heir to the throne over cloud his actions towards his brother, and he probably was quite bossy.

Hey, @foundlingmother, let’s see if I can start a food fight…

Looks like you’ve mostly got a consensus of opinion in these notes. And here I was ready with a spoon full of mashed potatoes.

It looks like it just hasn’t reached the people who would disagree. Most likely none of them follow me, so the right combination of people would have to reblog for those mashed potatoes to become useful.

nightfallgoddess:

frostyemma:

firebirdscratches:

shrineart:

exfoliate:

sapphicsupergirl:

“why aren’t u talking abt this one Problematic thing involving that actor/show u like??”

listen. i am tired. im putting down my pitchfork. i’ll acknowledge that thing was bad if it was but im tired of vilifying ppl for their mistakes just bc they’re famous. i want to enjoy things. i want Peace

For a long time I was second guessing everything I liked because they did this or that wrong, the actors did this, the writers did that, they left out this or ignored that… It’s just too much.

It’s just so tiring. Acknowledge where they can do better, but give yourself a break for the things you like. No one is perfect and you can like things that aren’t perfect.

Boom, there it is.

All-or-nothing thinking is so draining and toxic. It’s okay to say “I’m aware of x, y, and z, but I really like a, b, and c.”

It’s okay to have a multi-faceted, nuanced understanding of the people and things around you.

I just can’t get behind the whole “this person said/did this one bad thing this one time, therefore they are literal human trash #deleted forever bye!” all-or-nothing culture

it’s toxic and it’s draining, and it puts people in the awful position of being a hair’s breadth from “unproblematic fave” to “garbage person” with zero possibility of being allowed to grow or change

this kind of all-or-nothing thinking is *exhausting*. people fuck up. people grow. people make mistakes and sometimes say imperfect things and sometimes act shitty. people can also learn and change and move on

but it takes grace and compassion

@ Every fandom in history