I finished the stupid fucking paper that’s been making my life hell (and keeping me off Tumblr) and now I’m back to watching “Angel.”
There was a bit in this episode (5.12) where Cordelia is watching an old TV ad for Angel Investigations with Doyle in it and… I miss him. And his accent.
Lol… “He’s some type of super-soldier, like Steve Rogers or Captain America.” “Steve Rogers *is* Captain America, you 8-ball.”
Angel: So now you’re a Nazi?
Spike: No, I just ate one.
Later:
American sailor: They’re monsters and they’re in the SS.
Angel: Spike’s not in the SS, he just likes the jacket.
Holy shit Angel got turned into a Muppet.
Episode 5.15 was written by Joss and it has his fingerprints all over it.
Spike: If cavemen and astronauts got into a fight, who would win?
Wesley: Ah. [Pause] You’ve been yelling at each other for 40 minutes about this.
Thank you for this! It seems to be, at this point, a little nugget released with the intent of whipping Loki fans into a frenzy (which they have accomplished, positive or negative frenzy aside). I will give Marvel this, they know how to market. At this point, we are way beyond IW speculation and gossip, way beyond the IW DVD release follow-up gossip, yet still months away from A4. They need to keep people talking about the Avengers and about Loki, and so here we are.
What I find interesting, though, is that a lot of mainstream media hopped on it, and even Josh Horowitz (who is pretty good friends with Tom Hiddleston, or so I assume based on their interactions) tweeted a reaction. So it’s like, well, it’s probably just speculation at this point, but valid sources are like, “Idk seems legit?” and that does very little to dampen people’s hopes.
Either way, ultimately I want a Loki TV show very much, but I only want it if it’s going to be done right – by which, I mean no Taika Waititi-esque nonsense. I like a humorous Loki, but an appropriately humorous Loki, layered with his complexity and tragic history. (It’s worth mentioning I doubt very much TW himself would actually be involved – he’s CH’s buddy and made no secret of his dislike for Loki – but that doesn’t mean other directors won’t want to take a page from his book.)
Honestly, the best case scenario would be Joss and/or Jed Whedon being involved, the former who gave us a ton of Loki depth (even if Loki was banana balls for most of A1), and the latter who does excellent work on Agents of SHIELD, not to mention all of their experience with TV writing. They capture humor and depth very, very well. But Joss just had another show picked up for HBO, I think, and even so, apparently he seems to be Persona Non Grata at Marvel, for whatever reason. Oh, but wouldn’t it be SO AWESOME if the TV show took place in that year between Thor 1 and Avengers, with Joss Whedon at the helm, to show us exactly what Loki went through? This could be done without involvement from Hemsworth, Hopkins, etc, would tie nicely into the MCU, and would just …. well. ShutUpAndTakeMyMoney.gif.
Hey, I can dream.
Thank you for the ask! Sorry for rambling at you in reply. ❤️❤️❤️
I think the reason Joss is persona non grata at Marvel – and he’s none too fond of them either – is that he resented all their meddling in AOU. For me, that makes it seem deeply ironic that they just let Taika do whatever the fuck he wanted with Thor: Ragnarok. Like… dudes. Joss is an expert sci-fi/fantasy storyteller. He knows how to tie deep philosophical themes and compelling character development into an exciting narrative. He cares about these characters, the Asgardian ones as well as the human ones. None of those things are true of Taika. Joss is the one they should have left to do his thing; they should have pulled in the reins on the reckless bowdlerization of three of their central characters (Bruce as well as Thor and Loki).
You and I have the same wish list, it sounds like. (Though on some level I don’t want them to tell us exactly what happened during Loki’s lost year because I don’t want my fic to be rendered obsolete…)
For background, this is in reference to (my bitching about) the post claiming that Taika Waititi has a better understanding of the gods of Norse mythology than Bad White Christian Joss Whedon, first (presumably) because he’s Maori and therefore closer to paganism (never mind that a significant proportion of the Maori population has been Christian since the 19th century), and then, according to a later commenter, because he’s Jewish (on his mother’s side) and therefore has a more down-to-earth conception of God.
This is not completely crazy, because while Judaism only recognizes one god, it has not always been strictly monotheistic in the sense in which Christianity and Islam are. According to ancient Jewish religion, the gods of other tribes/nations do exist, but we only worship one god, and there’s only one god worth worshiping, because he’s cooler than all the other gods (he created the world, so there) and can kick their asses any day. (There’s actually a story about that in First Samuel, when the Ark gets stolen and put in a Philistine temple and God comes out at night and breaks the idol of their god.) That’s why the Hebrew Bible says all that stuff about God being “a jealous god”; that wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense if God just didn’t want us wasting our time praying to gods that don’t exist. God has a personality, and it’s not always perfect; he’s jealous, he’s vengeful, he gets angry easily.
Since then, Judaism has become more properly monotheistic under the influence of Christianity in Europe and Islam under the medieval Caliphate (Maimonides, one of the most important Jewish theologians, lived in Caliphate-ruled Spain and wrote in Arabic. Sometimes empires can be cool). The God of Judaism has gotten closer to the omnipotent, omniscient, unfailingly benevolent God of philosophical monotheism, which runs you into the problem of evil… and that has definitely been a problem in Jewish history, especially recently. The main respect in which Judaism differs from Christianity (I don’t know about Islam) is that it doesn’t emphasize how sinful and unworthy human beings are compared to God. Sure, there’s some of that “what are we that You should take notice of us?” stuff in the psalms… but the fact remains that God has not only taken notice of us, but made an agreement with us on more or less equal terms; that’s what the covenant is. Paul claimed that the whole point of the covenant was to demonstrate that human beings are incapable of living up to God’s standards of goodness on their own, which is why they needed God to step in and save them (from Himself, apparently). Jews don’t buy that. Yes, it’s hard to do what God demands of us. Try anyway. When you mess up, apologize to God and to the people you’ve wronged, then try again.
I’m honestly not sure what any of that has to do with Taika Waititi’s and Joss Whedon’s portrayal of Thor and Loki, except that maybe someone raised Jewish is used to the idea of a god being an asshole and going overboard on punishing people (*cough*electrocution*cough*), which God definitely does in the Books of Moses. But rabbinic Judaism is as likely to try to justify that as Christianity is. And also I just don’t think it’s true that Whedon was trying to portray Thor as a perfect Christ figure and Loki as a completely evil Satan. European Christian culture has evolved; we have Milton’s Satan, we have Goethe’s Mephistopheles, we have flawed and human versions of Jesus. Whedon is well-read and educated; he refers to existentialist philosophy and the canon of great Western literature – including pre-Christian classical literature – in his work. If all people are seeing is a simplistic black and white Jesus vs. Satan, that’s their problem, not his.
I spent way too long writing this little essay, so I’m reblogging it in hopes that someone will actually see it.
For background, this is in reference to (my bitching about) the post claiming that Taika Waititi has a better understanding of the gods of Norse mythology than Bad White Christian Joss Whedon, first (presumably) because he’s Maori and therefore closer to paganism (never mind that a significant proportion of the Maori population has been Christian since the 19th century), and then, according to a later commenter, because he’s Jewish (on his mother’s side) and therefore has a more down-to-earth conception of God.
This is not completely crazy, because while Judaism only recognizes one god, it has not always been strictly monotheistic in the sense in which Christianity and Islam are. According to ancient Jewish religion, the gods of other tribes/nations do exist, but we only worship one god, and there’s only one god worth worshiping, because he’s cooler than all the other gods (he created the world, so there) and can kick their asses any day. (There’s actually a story about that in First Samuel, when the Ark gets stolen and put in a Philistine temple and God comes out at night and breaks the idol of their god.) That’s why the Hebrew Bible says all that stuff about God being “a jealous god”; that wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense if God just didn’t want us wasting our time praying to gods that don’t exist. God has a personality, and it’s not always perfect; he’s jealous, he’s vengeful, he gets angry easily.
Since then, Judaism has become more properly monotheistic under the influence of Christianity in Europe and Islam under the medieval Caliphate (Maimonides, one of the most important Jewish theologians, lived in Caliphate-ruled Spain and wrote in Arabic. Sometimes empires can be cool). The God of Judaism has gotten closer to the omnipotent, omniscient, unfailingly benevolent God of philosophical monotheism, which runs you into the problem of evil… and that has definitely been a problem in Jewish history, especially recently. The main respect in which Judaism differs from Christianity (I don’t know about Islam) is that it doesn’t emphasize how sinful and unworthy human beings are compared to God. Sure, there’s some of that “what are we that You should take notice of us?” stuff in the psalms… but the fact remains that God has not only taken notice of us, but made an agreement with us on more or less equal terms; that’s what the covenant is. Paul claimed that the whole point of the covenant was to demonstrate that human beings are incapable of living up to God’s standards of goodness on their own, which is why they needed God to step in and save them (from Himself, apparently). Jews don’t buy that. Yes, it’s hard to do what God demands of us. Try anyway. When you mess up, apologize to God and to the people you’ve wronged, then try again.
I’m honestly not sure what any of that has to do with Taika Waititi’s and Joss Whedon’s portrayal of Thor and Loki, except that maybe someone raised Jewish is used to the idea of a god being an asshole and going overboard on punishing people (*cough*electrocution*cough*), which God definitely does in the Books of Moses. But rabbinic Judaism is as likely to try to justify that as Christianity is. And also I just don’t think it’s true that Whedon was trying to portray Thor as a perfect Christ figure and Loki as a completely evil Satan. European Christian culture has evolved; we have Milton’s Satan, we have Goethe’s Mephistopheles, we have flawed and human versions of Jesus. Whedon is well-read and educated; he refers to existentialist philosophy and the canon of great Western literature – including pre-Christian classical literature – in his work. If all people are seeing is a simplistic black and white Jesus vs. Satan, that’s their problem, not his.
i wish whedon didn’t cancel his twitter so that i could just waltz in and ask what the hell this is
He ships Thorki and Superhusbands. It’s as plain as the anguished yearning on their faces.
Yep I honestly think if it were up to him they WOULD be canon, especially Stony.
That log-splitting scene in AOU, good God. Control your thirst, all of you.
Re: your tag about Bruce/Nat as Angel/Buffy… is that because Bruce and Buffy are both Whedon’s self-inserts? I can see that. But I could also see Tony as his stand-in and Steve as having aspects of Angel, including the out-of-timeness and the brooding. But not the guilt, that’s definitely Natasha. I thought Bruce/Nat made sense because they share the profound guilt and self-loathing, but they don’t try to cover it up as theatrically as Tony does.
Oh man that’s way deeper than my logic. Mostly because, like Bruce, Angel is this mild-mannered nice guy, but then a Thing happens and he can easily kill her, and tries. But eventually she overpowers him anyway. Also Nat, like Buffy, didn’t want the life she had to live, she was forced to become an assassin/The One, but eventually she owned it and turned it into something that’s entirely her own.
i wish whedon didn’t cancel his twitter so that i could just waltz in and ask what the hell this is
He ships Thorki and Superhusbands. It’s as plain as the anguished yearning on their faces.
Yep I honestly think if it were up to him they WOULD be canon, especially Stony.
That log-splitting scene in AOU, good God. Control your thirst, all of you.
Re: your tag about Bruce/Nat as Angel/Buffy… is that because Bruce and Buffy are both Whedon’s self-inserts? I can see that. But I could also see Tony as his stand-in and Steve as having aspects of Angel, including the out-of-timeness and the brooding. But not the guilt, that’s definitely Natasha. I thought Bruce/Nat made sense because they share the profound guilt and self-loathing, but they don’t try to cover it up as theatrically as Tony does.
Nope, not bothering me, and I will get to your other question eventually…
The reason I don’t talk much about Alan Taylor is because I don’t really think of him as an artist with a distinctive voice or vision, the way Kenneth Branagh, Joss Whedon, and Taika Waititi are. That might be unfair to him, but I only really know him as one of a rotating cast of directors on Game of Thrones, where the writer and the director are almost always different people, and the “voice” of the series, if there is one, belongs either to George R.R. Martin or to Benioff & Weiss (especially in the last season… what a mess of disappointing clichés).
Now, it’s also true that the writer and the director of Thor 1 and Thor: Ragnarok were separate people: Thor 1 was written by Ashley Miller & Zack Stentz; Ragnarok was, in theory, written by Eric Pearson. However, by all accounts TR was about 80% “improvised,” which is to say, Taika Waititi suggested/shouted things to say instead of what was in the script… and Jeff Goldblum came up with his own shit. One of the more egregious examples of directorial departure from the original screenplay appears to be the infamous bit where Loki plans to betray Thor to the Grandmaster and then Thor outsmarts him by putting the obedience disk on him, gives him a smug little lecture about growth and change while he’s convulsing in pain, and then leaves him there incapacitated and defenseless (which I still think is unbelievably cruel, negligent of Loki’s safety, and OOC). According to people who have read the novel version (which I haven’t but maybe should) – @whitedaydream might be the person I got this from, or @lucianalight – that entire sequence was completely absent from the novelization. And we seem to have some evidence that they filmed a version without it: in some of the trailers: Loki shows up on the Bifrost with the rest of the Revengers rather than arriving later with the big ship. So even if the outlines of the plot were provided by Eric Pearson’s screenplay, the tone and character of the movie – its “humor,” if you liked it, or its soulless flippancy and cruelty (to both characters and fans), if you didn’t – indubitably came from Taika Waititi.
Thor 1 adhered more closely to the screenplay – which is available on IMSDb, if you’re interested – so I consider Miller & Stentz to have more of a role in its creative vision than Pearson did with TR. Stentz has even commented on Twitter about the theme of internalized racism; and that writing team also did X-Men: First Class, in which you can see some of the same themes and also the (totally unintentional…?) homoerotic tension between the two main male characters. That said, you can definitely see Kenneth Branagh’s distinctively Shakespearean sensibility in the way some of the important confrontations are presented – and that’s a major part of what gives that movie its overall tone and emotional power. (Also, as this post notes, Branagh & Hiddleston made some notable departures from the acting instructions in the screenplay that contributed to its tragic and also gay-incestuous vibe.)
The Dark World, as much as I loved it for its Thorki fic realness and ANGST, was kind of a creative mess. Patty Jenkins was supposed to direct it, but then backed out for reasons I’m not completely clear on, and Alan Taylor was brought in kind of last-minute. The screenplay was mostly written by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely, who wrote the Captain America movies, Infinity War, and Avengers 4, and whom I am fond of calling dimwitted hacks because that’s what they are. (The First Avenger was fine; The Winter Soldier is massively overrated and frankly kind of boring and confusing IMO; Civil War was a disaster of muddled, unsympathetic characterization and missed opportunities for interesting philosophical exploration; Infinity War was similarly disastrous, and showed us exactly why dimwitted hacks should not be attempting to explore philosophical issues.) I say “mostly” because Joss Whedon was brought in as a script doctor (one of his original jobs in Hollywood) to rewrite some scenes that weren’t working, including an “emotional” scene between Thor and Jane (not sure which one), the notorious Thorki bro-boat scene (and you can definitely see the hallmarks of his writing in that one), and Loki’s shapeshifting scene. Loki’s trial scene at the beginning was also a late addition, inspired by a TDW prelude comic; I honestly don’t know who wrote that scene, but the comic seems to have been written by Craig Kyle and Christopher Yost. The upshot is that TDW was most definitely a horse designed by committee, so it’s hard to identify whose creative vision it was expressing. I can identify Alan Taylor’s influence in the dark, grungy Game of Thrones-esque aesthetic, but I’m not sure where else to find him.
Loki is the Philosopher King 