joss whedon is not a bad writer – Loki is the Philosopher King

lucianalight:

iron-gauntlet:

One thing that kinda always baffles me is the whole, “Tony Stark created a murderbot!!” debate – not because Tony was necessarily in the right in attempting to harness alien power but because, as bad as Joss Whedon’s writing is, the one thing AOU does well is provide textual evidence and canonical support to the notion that a) Tony never intended to create Ultron as we see him, and that b) it is most assuredly not fully his fault.

I kinda think half of the blame towards Tony comes from misunderstanding what Ultron was meant to be, because people seem to be under this impression that Ultron was genuinely meant to be a weapon of some sorts, when it was much the opposite. The original programming was meant to be an AI which, like Jarvis, controls a group of Iron Man Legionnaires (unwearable Iron Man suits) which we’ve already seen in action. The programme was already touched upon in IM3 where Tony created several suits but later destroyed them in an attempt to move forward. The second set we actually see in AOU as the Avengers infiltrate the Hydra base at the beginning – their mission is to help evacuate or protect the civilians (”Strucker won’t care about civilians. Send out the Iron Legion”). The sole purpose of the program is to protect civilians and that’s what makes the later casualties in the final battle of Sokovia (and in CACW, the mention of Charles Spencer) so ironic and tragic.

Moving on from the fact that Ultron was meant to be something that was already in the works and proving to be useful, there is so much textual evidence and so much sub-text proving that the sceptre’s power is already in some way sentient, given the fact that there’s a Mind Stone in it. I know that people are eager to dismiss this but just look at the amount of evidence:

“I was asleep”. Ultron states this upon “waking” up, suggesting he was in some way already alive and sentient.

The attempt to integrate the programme fails – not just once, but a total of 76 times as shown on screen. Tony and Bruce give up, not understand where they went wrong (”What did we miss?”). When Ultron awakens himself, Jarvis remarks that he’s “not certain what triggered [Ultron’s] programming-”.

Earlier in the scene, Bruce remarks that scans of the sceptre make it look like a brain, and that it looks “like it’s thinking” – although, it’s not a “human mind”. The implication is that whatever is being housed by the sceptre is already, in some way, alive.

Again, Tony states that he and Bruce were “nowhere close to an interface”, which begs the question as to how Ultron not only woke himself up, but actually managed to go against his programming.

I mean, one of the most important scenes proving this is that Thor, upon having his vision, states that the twins’ “powers, our horrors, Ultron himself, it all came from the Mind Stone”. Given that the power is alien and that Thor knows the most about the Infinity Stones, I would say this sentence is significant in showing how little control Tony had over what he was creating – and how unaware he was of it’s true purpose.

I’m not saying that Tony was necessarily right in meddling with a volatile and dangerous alien weapon but I’m not sure Tony would have even attempted to try this had it not been for Wanda’s vision. I’m not saying Tony didn’t choose to do this (although again this is debatable given his state of mind), but there’s no doubt in my mind that Wanda’s manipulation of Tony mentally had brought these ideas to the forefront of his mind, firstly because Tony actually blew up and destroyed his last Legion in IM3 as a way to try to stop his obsessive PTSD-induced tinkering, and also because as Bruce remarks, Ultron was just a “fantasy” – and until now, there seemed to be no way to actually make it work.

Regardless of whether Tony would have messed around with it or not, there’s no doubt again that Wanda did influence him in his decision; not only does Fury believe so (”the Maximoff girl, she’s working you Stark”), but Wanda admits to it; “I saw Stark’s fear, I knew it would make him self destruct”. Wanda’s placement of visions in Tony’s head (and the rest of the Avengers’) is not only invasive and brings to question the ethical implications of her powers, but it is a direct trigger to Tony, who canonically has PTSD due to the alien invasion in the Avengers. The parallel between Tony building his first Legion during a manic and paranoid phase at which his PTSD was at its worst, and attempting to make Ultron after being shown a vision relating to his PTSD is stark throughout the movie to anyone who payed attention to IM3, and yet it goes on ignored by many. Not to mention, Bruce’s entire involvement in creating Ultron (and later, also Vision) seems to go on ignored or wildly misinterpreted.

To me, Tony’s flaws lie in not consulting him team about the AI, or Thor about an alien power; more concerning perhaps is the ethical, moral and political questions that such a programme raises, which in some ways becomes important again in CACW, where Tony’s failures push him towards signing the Accords and trying to create a system of accountability. I wouldn’t however state that AOU was meant to be so decisive in saying Ultron, and all of Ultron’s actions, were solely Tony’s fault, so much as it was a tragic series of events that snowballed and very quickly got out of control.

This so in line with my ultimate theory!

OK, why was it necessary to add that “as bad as Joss Whedon’s writing is” disclaimer at the beginning? The entire thrust of this post is that AOU was very well-constructed in terms of its conception of how the Mind Stone works and treatment of Tony’s character. I’m tempted to think the initial disclaimer was just to ward off attacks from overzealous Tumblrites who might detect a heretical departure from the moralistic consensus that because Whedon’s feminism is flawed, nothing about his writing could possibly be good.

oelfinessend:

foundlingmother:

philosopherking1887:

foundlingmother:

philosopherking1887:

You know, it wasn’t until I was talking to someone in person about Thor: Ragnarok that I realized how pissed I am that Taika Waititi clearly does not like Loki. This is evident to me in all his interviews about the movie, as well as in his approach to Loki in the film. (He also seems not to appreciate Tom Hiddleston’s acting ability, but that’s another story. At least Jeff Goldblum knows where the real talent in the cast is.) I don’t know what it is – maybe he’s one of those people who’s just incapable of sympathizing with (sometime) villains. In any case, he seems to have misinterpreted Loki’s character and simplified him into a cartoon version of himself: self-absorbed and narcissistic, with nothing but “poor me, I’m misunderstood,” “rich kid” problems that he just needs to “grow up” and get over.

I might be wrong, but I get the sense that people of many different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds find Loki compelling and sympathetic. Maybe Taika is just too mentally healthy? Most of the Loki fans on here seem to have some mental illness or another. I’m reminded of when my former roommate started reading Lev Grossman’s The Magicians, on my recommendation, and said she couldn’t sympathize with the protagonist, Quentin, because he just couldn’t appreciate all the good things he had and was always whining about still being unhappy. And I’m like, yeah, that’s called depression. Everything in your life can be going great on the surface and you’re still miserable for no apparent reason. So yeah, Loki’s reactions to the (legitimately shitty) things that happen to him are irrational. Because he’s pretty clearly mentally unwell. I mean, he canonically – onscreen, FFS – attempts suicide. “Rich kid problems,” huh?

Or maybe the deflation of Loki’s character was deliberate. Taika kept saying in interviews that he wanted to make sure Thor was the best, most interesting character in his own movie. The implication, of course, is that in previous movies he wasn’t – which means that someone else was, and the obvious candidate is Loki (Jane Foster may have been a more interesting character than Thor in the first movie, but they gave her basically nothing to do for most of the second one). The difficult thing to do would be to make Thor at least as interesting as Loki. The easy thing to do is to portray Loki as less interesting than he is/was/could be so that Thor can outshine him.

If you need to talk about this in detail with someone, I’m your woman.

For me personally, one standout moment comes right at the beginning, when we see the statue and the play. I’ve seen the meta that connects Loki’s mental health with his contributions to Asgard’s art and culture, and I like the interpretation that these are methods for Loki to help himself heal. I don’t believe it was what we were intended to take from that scene, however. I think we’re just supposed to say, “Oh that Loki! Of course the silly rich boy would make a golden statue of himself and write a play glorifying his life and death. He’s such a narcissist.” Right… did you miss the part where he’s dealing with internalized racism against his own kind? That was a pretty big part of the first Thor movie’s plot and conflict. Oh right, we’re disregarding those.

It also annoys me that Thor treats fucking Hela’s grievances with Odin with more sympathy than Loki’s. Loki says something along the lines of “It hurts being lied to,” (for I a second I thought we might actually get to talk about one of the big issues) and Thor just does not give a shit. It’s all on Loki. Meanwhile, Thor relates to Hela during their conversation. Odin told them both they were worthy and then cast them out the instant they did something he found objectionable, despite the fact that he’d done the very same shit. Am I honestly supposed to feel more sympathy for Hela?

Oh goodness, I’m ranting now…

I completely agree with you about the play and the statue. I felt called out, and honestly kind of offended, by the way they were making a mockery of what was actually a very moving scene in Thor: The Dark World. Yeah, OK, Loki didn’t die, but it’s not totally clear whether or not he thought he was going to die at the time; and there was a moment of genuine affection and honesty between him and Thor. They even made fun of the emotional background music by having that little angelic choir sing it. Yeah, thanks, I knew it was calculated to tug at my heart. Guess what? It worked. So fuck you very much.

Right… did you miss the part where he’s dealing with internalized racism against his own kind? That was a pretty big part of the first Thor movie’s plot and conflict. Oh right, we’re disregarding those.

^ This is the part of your comment that really stood out to me. We see, briefly, in the play that Loki-as-Odin has revealed his Jotun origin to all of Asgard. That’s a HUGE DEAL. I had imagined that Loki would keep trying to hide it forever – unless real-Odin had already made it public either after Loki’s fall (unlikely) or after his return and imprisonment (more likely; an excellent way to “explain” why he went bad and distance the rest of the royal family from the “bad apple”). But it’s slipped in there not only with no follow-up, but without seriousness. “A little blue baby icicle who melted this foolish old man’s heart”? Hahaha, WTF Loki just outed himself as a Jotun adoptee.

[This got really long so I’m putting the rest under a cut. Warning: it’s about race.]

Keep reading

Yes! All this!

Loki’s story could have been used to flesh out the narrative about colonialism. Recall Hela’s dismissive remark about bogus “peace treaties” commemorated on the redecorated walls of the throne room: that might have been an allusion to the one-sided “treaties” that Britain and the U.S. signed with American Indian nations and then trampled all over. Loki could have been one of those stolen indigenous children raised among the colonists and taught to scorn the people to whom he was born.

^ I especially like this summary of how his story could have fleshed out the narrative. Ragnarok is funny, and actions happen in a logical order, but even the most obvious message of the movie, the anti-imperialism, is muddied because it’s not fully addressed.

Or maybe the deflation of Loki’s character was deliberate. Taika kept saying in interviews that he wanted to make sure Thor was the best, most interesting character in his own movie.

This may seem a little tangential, but while I was looking out for this I got to thinking about this part of your post. Loki is the only victim of imperialism in the entire main cast. Disregarding Loki’s connection to the critique of imperialism doesn’t just do a disservice to his character and the story, it also does a disservice to Thor’s character.

(I’m aware of how long this post is getting, so here’s a cut.)

Keep reading

Please, please, can I join? I’m stranded to my mobile but I’m so furious half of the time, so it doesn’t matter. I don’t really like Ragnarok as much as a lot of people I asked do. The problem is quite obvious, I think. Even a brief Wikipedia glance reveals that all three films have different story writers, screenwriters and directors, a bit telling, isn’t it? I’m not really familiar with Alan Taylor’s style but can say that Branagh and Waititi are really different in their vision. I mean, I LOVE What We Do In The Shadows and Hunt for the Wilderpeople but in in these cases Waititi didn’t have two previous films to base on and in the former case he was the screenwriter along with his friend. It just shows, Waititi has a very strong vision and I sure got the impression that he didn’t really care for Thor 1 and 2, instead following his own ideas, which I can get as a writer but let’s be honest, at this point, TtDW and Ragnarok look more like au-ish fanfiction than serious follow ups. So Taika created his own movie in his own style. I’m glad for him? I only wish it wasn’t at the expense of a dramatic and thought out premise of the first movie. Although to be fair Joss did a great job at destroying Asgardian credibility.

Sorry for rambling, pain to edit w/o laptop.

As for his rich kids line… Idk, that’s just shallow and really crossing the line. I get that Taika likes to flirt with the audience in interviews and call himself fabulous, but sometimes one just needs to, idk, be more self aware? Yea, they’re rich kids so their problems don’t count, because money. They don’t have problems, maybe, because MONEY. Suicide and self loathing are fine and dandy as soon as you have money!

Also, it’s extremely disrespectful to the audience to treat one of the most beloved and relatable characters like shit. Doesn’t Marvel do research? They sometimes pander so hard my teeth ache, but what the hell, Loki fans are just wet for Hiddleston, so screw them!

Nothing new here, why I even bother

I’m not sure what you mean by saying “Joss did a great job at destroying Asgardian credibility.” Do you mean that he started establishing the hollowness of the Asgardian empire, or that he somehow messed up with the writing of the Asgardian characters? If the latter, I would certainly dispute that assessment. Thor and Loki’s interactions in The Avengers are some of the most emotionally fraught and powerful between them. Joss Whedon also wrote both Loki’s shapeshifting scene in The Dark World and what I have seen fondly referred to as “the bro-boat scene,” i.e., the scene on the skiff flying through Svartalfheim with the “Satisfaction’s not in my nature”/ “Surrender’s not in mine” exchange. I would say that Whedon kept up the Shakespearean tone that had been established by Branagh and the writers of the first Thor. The failings of TDW were pretty much entirely due to the primary script writers, Markus and McFeely, who made melodramatic hash of Captain America: Civil War and are now responsible for Avengers: Infinity War, God help us.

You are entirely correct that Thor: Ragnarok is a Taika Waititi movie, not a Thor movie. It’s full of little references to previous movies, but many of them are distancing rather than unifying – the play essentially making fun of Loki’s “death” scene in TDW being a prime example. The musical evocation at the end of Thor’s coronation scene from the first movie was actually a nice unifying touch, but there wasn’t enough of that. Tonally, the “trilogy” is just a hot mess.

The remark about rich kids seems to imply that we shouldn’t read most classic works of literature, because they’re about royalty and nobility and other obnoxious rich kids. We should just throw out everything written before the late 19th century, apparently. If it’s not about the heroic proletarian, it’s counter-revolutionary. Barf. Cut it out with the cheap populism, Taika; it’s not cute.

Loki fans are just wet for Hiddleston, so screw them!

Honestly, I do wonder if that’s Taika’s attitude toward Loki’s fans. It seems not to be Marvel’s attitude more generally, considering that basically all the Dark World reshoots were to give Loki more screen time (including the scenes that Joss added/rewrote). For whatever reason (whether mental health or wrong oppressed perspective, as speculated above), Taika doesn’t understand what makes Loki interesting and sympathetic, and he wasn’t motivated to try to figure it out.

To be clear about the perspective I’m coming from (for the benefit of certain sectors of the fandom): yes, I am primarily a Loki fan, and I do find Tom Hiddleston attractive, especially in his role as Loki. But I do not ship either of them with myself (that would be weird). Nor do I “stan” for Loki (or anyone), inasmuch as that involves refusing to recognize any faults. I do not attempt to defend or excuse all of his actions; I think he bears guilt for a great many of them. I do not hate Thor; I do not claim that he “abuses” Loki after the bullying portrayed early in the first movie – anyway, not any more than Loki abuses him in return. I do find Thor a somewhat boring character (possibly because I don’t think Chris Hemsworth is a very good actor), but I try to remedy that in my own fic. My complaint about Loki’s treatment in Thor: Ragnarok has much more to do with the way that his character depth is thinned out than the way he personally is treated.