Tag: loki in thor ragnarok

anicesentiment:

whitedaydream:

sass-is-my-fandom:

lasimo74allmyworld:

eisenvulcanstein:

lokilover9:

lokiloveforever:

lasimo74allmyworld:

Please, give me Loki fighting enemies.

Give me Loki swirling his daggers like a boss.

Give me Loki stand proudly for himself, out of Thor’s shadow.

Give me Loki smiling arrogantly at his enemies.

Give me sassy Loki, tricky Loki, free-to-be-himself Loki.

Give me a Loki who doesn’t need to prove his value to anyone, even less to his brother.

Give me a Loki who doesn’t give up.

Give me a Jutunn Loki who uses his Frost Giant powers against Thanos. Or whoever else.

Give me Loki full of strength. Full of power. A Loki who doesn’t need to steal his strength to anywhere.

Give me a Loki in all his glorious God’s aspect. Radiant. Powerful. He’s a God: show us in all his rightful, strong aspect.

Give me a Loki proud of his Jotunn heritage, without renounce at the Asgardian culture.

Give me Loki as he deserves to be represented.

Just…..yes…THIS

This is what we all want for Loki and exactly what Marvel is going to rob him of. Prohibiting all this, also robs Tom of enjoying giving it to him. It would have been amazing to watch him do it.

Give me Loki laughing at Doctor Strange’s feeble attempts to use magic on him. Because someone who’s been using magic for millennia, who’s known for being quick-witted, who’s strong enough to imprison Odin for months, isn’t going to be defeated in five seconds by some human who’s just barely learned magic.

This ⬆

I was so upset and angry during all Dr. Strange’s scene. A scene with no sense at all. Impossible to occur if you stop and think seriously. I mean…come on!!

Who’s Dr. Strange? A sorcerer? An illusionist? A human being trained to be a magician? And who are you to think to have a tiny chance against a God?

A God.

Louder for the people in the back.

A God.

Maybe someone has forgotten it, or maybe it’s convenient to remarks only when they want point out that Loki is “the villain who cheats his brother with tricks”.

Well, guess what?

Loki is a God.

No, wait, it goes better and better.

Loki is a Frost Giant with the powers of his people, and an Asgardian God. Like Thor.

Frigga teaches him magic.

And he grows powerful.

He became a God. And a warrior.

He’s a God.

Does this thing works only for Thor?

Loki is a God, and all those funny tricks and golden sparkles in the air, can only makes him smirks more amused before to wipe him away from his sight with a gesture of the hand.

Only in the Thor-centered fantasy world of TW we have to see such idiocy as the “I’ve been falling for thirty minutes!” scene…

“only in the thor-centered…” i keep saying Ragnarok was “told” by Thor.

They shot. They deleted. Better not to shoot.

Never was such a rich and so incredibly robust character so thoroughly squandered, deprived of potential, and relegated to second rate status as the way Marvel has so diminished and wasted Loki. A profound shame.

Wait, what? There was a scene between just Loki and Hela? That might have been cool… but of course they couldn’t keep letting Loki upstage Thor. And the way the whole movie was written, it might have just served to make Loki look (even more) pathetic.

damnyouhiddles:

Fine.

#this scene actually bugs me more than any other#thor’s oversimplification of loki’s actions#i expected a little#but they could have given loki a line or two in self defense#something#it was the perfect place#not in an elevator when they’ve got 20 seconds of silence to fill#this is a perfect example of how they turned Loki into a two dimensional character#it was disappointing

It’s definitely not the scene that bugs me most, @writernotwaiting, but it definitely bugs me for the same reason. It’s all of a piece, really: the movie consistently pushes the idea that Loki just does things for the lulz, because he’s “the god of mischief” and it’s somehow in his nature to do shitty things for no apparent reason. (Except I guess Thor is capable of guilting and/or electrocuting his nature out of him, at least temporarily?)

foundlingmother:

philosopherking1887:

shine-of-asgard:

salazharshaikh:

shine-of-asgard:

endiness:

the more i think about ragnarok, the more problems i have with it and the more i feel like it’s ultimately a disservice (if not an outright insult) to loki’s character.

Seguir leyendo

Loki’s 3 movie long development getting retconned so that Thor could be credited for it at the last hour in Ragnarok is the logical conclusion to the characterisation mess. Yep.

This whole mess reeks of Chris Hemsworth’s jealousy of Loki being more popular than Thor in the MCU. I maybe wrong but it seems likely that’s the case.

I don’t know enough about the actors to feel comfortable accusing them of active behind-the-scenes meddling, but there clearly was only one winner in this case and he was very eager to shit on the previous movies and outspoken about how cool and great it was that Thor was the centerpiece of Ragnarok. Hmmmm… So maybe he didn’t actively make it happen, but he sure is happy that it happened :/.

Oh, I’m perfectly willing to accuse Hemsworth of behind-the-scenes meddling. I also suspect that the recent coldness between him and Tom, and Tom’s relative lack of involvement in Ragnarok promotion, has to do with the fact that Tom was completely aware of TW and CH’s lack of respect for Loki’s character (and Thor’s!) and was trying to resist it but got steamrollered over.

W.r.t. @endiness‘s discourse about the mistreatment of Loki’s character in Ragnarok, I completely agree. In fact, @foundlingmother and I have discussed at length the way that TR missed – or rather, deliberately ignored – the opportunity to bring up the issue of Loki’s adoption and internalized racism in connection with the imperialism allegory. I’ve also remarked on the regression of Loki’s character and suggested an explanation in terms of replacing a Shakespearean villain with a simplistic version of the trickster archetype, and I’d be curious to know what y’all think of that hypothesis.

Regarding Loki using the story of his fall as an amusing anecdote on Sakaar, I think @endiness is completely right:

while i could find it entirely possible that loki was regaling them of his tales to somehow endear himself to the populace and i could find it believable that, in general, loki would use his pain and trauma in whatever way necessary to benefit himself… i doubt the sincerity of that in this movie. because when any of loki’s trauma was even mentioned at all, it was shown more as a joke at his expense rather than something actually meaningful and significant.

This is something else I’ve discussed with @foundlingmother and others. Ignoring authorial intent (which is often a good idea), one could certainly interpret this bit of storytelling, as well as the play at the beginning, as Loki taking ownership of his trauma and turning it into an asset so that it no longer has power over him… but I think it’s patently obvious that that’s not the interpretation intended by Waititi and Pearson (the screenwriter). They take every opportunity to minimize and ridicule Loki’s problems and motivations. The fact that the events can be given a better and deeper interpretation should not be credited to the film itself as a product of its actual creators, but to the ingenuityof the fans who actually care about the characters.

I also think @endiness makes some very good points about the lost opportunity to give Loki a prior connection to Sakaar, especially this:

“lost and unloved. like you. but here on sakaar, you are significant. you are valuable. here, you are loved. where once you were nothing, now you are something.” perfectly describes loki’s mindset for having let go in the first place.

In fact, I was somewhat concerned when I was reading stuff before Ragnarok came out about how Sakaar is where wormholes dump their trash that we would learn that Loki ended up on Sakaar after the end of Thor, which would automatically falsify the fic I’ve been writing about what happened to Loki between Thor and The Avengers. The nice thing about Marvel not caring enough about Loki to provide such an account that is that my fic will never become defunct and irrelevant 😛 (Though it’s still a possibility that Infinity War will explain the connection between Loki and Thanos instead of just having Thanos kill Loki in the first 5 minutes.)

You know what’s amusingly unamusing to me when I think about ignoring authorial intent and Ragnarok? In trying to make Thor cooler and Loki less complex, they ruined Thor’s character more than Loki’s. Most of Loki’s actions in Ragnarok can be manipulated to mesh well with the character we know from previous films. It’s Thor’s character that can’t be reconciled. The thoughtfulness, protectiveness, and subtle humor vanished, and the only traits he retains are hot-headedness, which he’d been working on, and ignorance born of bad parenting and Asgardian society, which he’d also started chipping away at (defying Odin in TDW was a great first step). 

Interesting point, and I think you’re right that they screwed up Thor’s character more than Loki’s. The reasons I tend to focus on the damage to Loki’s character are (1) I cared more about Loki going in, (2) the other people who post threads criticizing Ragnarok tend to be Loki fans (how ironic is it that the Thor “stans” all seem to like the hash that was made of his character integrity?!), and (3) the character assassination of Loki was deliberate and malicious and I’m pissed about how little respect the creators have for Loki’s many fans (mostly female, natch) and for Tom Hiddleston, an actual Shakespearean actor who has poured a lot of heart and serious thought into the character.

I do still think that to rescue Loki’s character you have to ignore not only authorial intent but tonal cues, which are actually part of the text (and often the most explicit expression of authorial intent in the text).

latent-thoughts:

burningarbiterheart:

endiness:

more reasons why i don’t understand how people can say t////’s version of loki was good and that he understood him: the movie literally mocks all of the serious, emotionally meaningful, significant moments for loki in past movies that gave insight into his character and fleshed him out and gave him depth and complexity. that alone implies some kind of intentional maliciousness to what went into creating his character for this movie.

and, ffs, look at how everything else that went into creating the thor franchise was treated: jane was written out in a line of dialogue. darcy and selvig weren’t even mentioned. the warriors three were unceremoniously killed off as fast as possible. sif wasn’t even mentioned. asgard being destroyed was used as a punchline. even thor’s characterization felt like it was made by someone who didn’t like thor in the past movies, either, and wanted to make him into their misguided idea of a better character. like, how the fuck could the movie have treated loki with respect and have any regard for his character when it didn’t for anything else!?

@latent-thoughts

I concur with the many points raised above. 

I understand that Darcy and Erik didn’t work as part of s plot so they were not mentioned at all. That’s still better than what they did with characters like Jane and warriors 3. 

I’ve also been mentioning the OOC behaviour of everyone, from Thor and Loki to even Bruce. Now, I can understand Bruce acting like that, after such a long time of Hulk taking over. I’m sure he was not feeling himself and was hence acting all nervous and sans filter.

Further, there was way too much pontificating going on. The whole holier than thou attitude of the characters, especially Thor and Valkyrie, against Loki, really irked me. I need to see a character do heroic acts, not claim himself to be a hero and justify his acts thusly as heroic. Valkyrie had her hypocritical moment when she threw the bottle at Loki and asked why he felt the urge to do the right thing. She was a willful participant in human trafficking, she sold people off to die for booze. I understand that she was suffering from severe PTSD, but that didn’t give her the right to do those shitty things. I still am ok with that story arc, as she eventually woke up from her haze of trauma and helped people of Asgard. But she didn’t have the moral high ground to act as though she was a better person than Loki, or that she even knew Loki enough to judge him on his actions.

The movie wants us to think that Thor and Valkyrie pontificating is justified, that it’s the right thing to do, because… that’s what heroes do. The perspective of the movie is too centred on projecting a heroic image for certain characters rather than showing why or how they are heroic.

yume-no-fantasy:

shine-of-asgard:

2oppositesidesof1coin:

luxury-loki:

kaori04:

shine-of-asgard:

luxury-loki:

From the director’s commentary of ‘Thor: Ragnarok’ (2017) // This film really is about them, and they resolve their differences. It’s so much better than the other two films where the main relationship was between Thor and Jane.

I’d have really loved to see this alternative version of the film. A script where Thor and Loki BOTH resolve THEIR differences, as opposed to a script where Thor reaffirms his view of what Loki should be, do and feel in order to be considered worthy by Thor’s standards. Alas, it was not to be.

I would say two other films (yes, with Jane) were like million times better in depicting brothers relationship and in developing them. Just absence of Jane won’t help you to do better job with that.

I have to disagree. I think Thor wants Loki to learn about being a trustworthy brother, and to stop this streak where he always feels the need to make a sneaky exit/betray the people trying to help him. Plus, I think in the second film, we think we’re seeing great character development for Thor and Loki, and after Loki’s death we think “Oh wow he actually died to save his brother!” but then we clearly learn he’s just pretending so that he can have the throne of Asgard. I love Loki, but we can’t for one second believe his aims in Thor: The dark world were actually good, where as in Ragnarok he actually STICKS AROUND. He helps save the day, and by the end of the film we see a Loki who’s actually proved to himself that he can be more than the god of mischief.

I do understand where you guys are coming from, but you have to remember Loki isn’t meant to be an inherently good person, if he was left to just be himself he would literally just cause non-stop trouble. Thor helps him be a better person, and he helps him in that rough/brotherly way which happens with all siblings. I know my elder sister would never sit me down nicely and tell me I was being ass hole, she’d fucking do something about it hahaha.

Anyway, I do respect your opinions and I hope you’ll respect mine, just wanted to say my piece!

I won’t be reblogging this again, but feel free to add any opinions x

I get where your coming from too and I agreed to a point. But I also agree that Loki changes based on Thor’s idea of worth. Loki never does it because he wants to and it never feels like it comes from a decision within himself. Maybe Infinity War will rectify that because I get the feeling that we will have more Loki without Thor. Also, Takia acts like he did so well with this but personally we had more interaction and them discussing family problems in the dark world then we did in Ragnarok. Remember the boat scene from the Dark World after Frigga’s death. I wanted the humor to stop for two seconds so that could happen. But no. They don’t come to any terms. Thor just let’s Loki cause Ragnarok and that’s the end of it.

This is a very good commentary, especially the distinction of the growth being self-driven as opposed to forced from the outside. It feels like Loki ends up behaving in Ragnarok because Thor essentially threatens him with disowning him as a brother once and for all (and Loki believes him). Which is worryingly enough the reason Loki was somewhat well behaved up until Thor 1. He wanted to belong and he went along with Odin’s and Thor’s wishes. So for me, in Ragnarok he circles back to being a well behaved and overshadowed second in command with a high potential of his resentment growing over years and spilling into confrontation once again. So what’s the arc? What’s his internal decision? That despite satisfaction not being in his nature and him explicitly wanting Thor’s respect he’ll now be happy with being told “maybe he’s not so bad after all”? Hmmm…

To be fair it might’ve been the only way to get through to Loki, given his wilfulness… This was the part of the script I had a problem with, though:


“I trust you, you betray me. Round and round in circles we go. See, Loki,
life is about… It’s about growth. It’s about change. But you seem to just
want to stay the same. I guess what I’m trying to say is that you’ll always be
the God of Mischief, but you could be more.“ 

What bugged me was how Thor said it as if every time Loki betrayed him it had
been out of mischief, even though that clearly hadn’t been the case at all. If
we run through the ways in which Loki had "betrayed” Thor in the previous film–

1) Ruined Thor’s coronation by secretly letting the frost giants into Asgard
because he had thought Thor unworthy of the throne (which was true in
hindsight)
2) Lied to Thor about Odin dying, told Thor he could not come back to Asgard
and sent the Destroyer to attack Thor on Earth after he had learned of his heritage from Odin 
3) Wreaked havoc on Thor’s precious Earth
4) Faked his own death, exiled Odin and took over the throne 

–to me it was clear that each time Loki betrayed Thor there
was an understandable reason for it, whether it was jealousy or hurt or spite. He
was jealous of Thor, he was hurt and heartbroken and angry at being lied to
about his true heritage and birth right, he was mad, he was full of hatred for
Odin… Everything he did above was hardly attributable to his nature as the
“God of Mischief” at all, yet Thor had dismissed him as such, never
acknowledging any of the hurt and betrayal he had experienced to cause him to
turn malicious in the first place. It was just like at the beginning of the
Avengers film where he had dismissed Loki’s resentments as “imagined slights”,
and evidently this gross misunderstanding still hasn’t been resolved in this
film. 

To be honest it was odd that Thor should say that Loki “just seemed to want to stay the same” like he regarded Loki’s betrayal in this film as just
some same old mischievous behaviour that could be easily likened to his previous betrayals, because the motivations behind Loki’s actions had not been so shallow

in any of the previous films

and surely should not be generalized or written off as such. He spoke
as if Loki had always been lawless and incorrigible, when in fact he should
know full well that Loki hadn’t been like that at the beginning and just how
much Loki had changed from the baby
brother he once knew, as well as what had triggered the change–Loki most certainly didn’t turn bad for no reason.

Even though his words were meant to be used as some kind of reverse psychology
to get through to Loki, I feel like they had severely downplayed everything Loki had
gone through, which simply didn’t sit well with me because it wasn’t fair to Loki’s
character. It would’ve been nice if Thor could just acknowledge his and Loki’s
differences without belittling Loki’s values/imposing his own sense of
righteousness on Loki, like:

“Loki, I thought the world of you. I thought we were going
to fight side-by-side forever, but at the end of the day you’re you and I’m me
and… Maybe there’s still good in you but… let’s be honest, our paths
diverged a long time ago.”

I would’ve liked to see him make it clear to Loki that he cared
and understood what it was that had led to Loki doing what he did, and that he respected Loki’s point of view and decisions (even if he did not approve of them), before proceeding on with the reverse psychology thing where he would let Loki know that from now
on he would no longer force him to adhere to his expectations nor try to stop him from
going anywhere he wanted. Then it’d be up to Loki to decide whether he wanted to
stay by Thor–if he chose to do so it’d entirely be out of his own accord,
as an equal and only because he cared;
not because Thor told him that he could be more, talking as though he knew better just because he stood on the moral high ground. The part with Loki abruptly betraying Thor and getting tased afterwards and the whole “God
of Mischief” talk should just be scrapped altogether, thank you very much. It was completely misleading the audience into having the impression that Loki was just a frivolous God of Mischief who liked to betray Thor for the sake of it, when his character and motivations had never been that simple and trivial.

Having said all that, I did appreciate seeing Loki returning to Thor’s side at the end and finally accepting Thor as a worthy king
after everything. Though I wasn’t exactly satisfied with how they got there, I did
have the biggest smile on my face when I was watching the “I’m here”
scene. It’s cute how Loki kept trying to push Thor away, but when Thor showed a
willingness to discard him he immediately felt wounded by it. At least they both
learnt a little something from this—for Loki it was to be more honest and to stop taking the person he cared
about and who cared about him for granted, and for Thor, well, I think the clichéd saying
goes, ‘If you love someone, set them free; if they come back, they’re yours’…

I completely agree with @shine-of-asgard​ and must strenuously disagree with @luxury-loki​‘s analysis – as well as Taika’s utterly disingenuous commentary. I’ve said this before, but @yume-no-fantasy​ articulates and explains very well the way that Ragnarok completely changes Loki’s character (or should I say “character”?) so that he becomes “lawless and incorrigible” rather than acting badly and villainously, yes – I am emphatically NOT claiming that Loki is “an inherently good person” – but from identifiable, comprehensible motivations. 

The part with Loki abruptly betraying Thor and getting tased afterwards and the whole “God of Mischief” talk should just be scrapped altogether, thank you very much. It was completely misleading the audience into having the impression that Loki was just a frivolous God of Mischief who liked to betray Thor for the sake of it, when his character and motivations had never been that simple and trivial.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is a beautiful way of putting it. 

(@illwynd​, I thought you might appreciate this too.)

I want to point to and rebut this claim from @luxury-loki in particular:

Plus, I think in the second film, we think we’re seeing great character development for Thor and Loki, and after Loki’s death we think “Oh wow he actually died to save his brother!” but then we clearly learn he’s just pretending so that he can have the throne of Asgard. I love Loki, but we can’t for one second believe his aims in Thor: The dark world were actually good

I think this is what Taika Waititi and Eric Pearson want you to think, but I absolutely do not believe this was what the creators of TDW (Markus & McFeely as screenwriters, Alan Taylor as director) had in mind. It is not clear in TDW whether Loki intended to fake his death from the time he was freed from prison, or whether he believed when he was stabbed that he was going to die, fortuitously survived, and took advantage of the opportunity. Regardless, he still acted to save Jane’s life several times; maybe he did that just to stay on Thor’s good side, but it’s still a good thing he did, and apparently the desire to stay on Thor’s good side is worthy enough to make his turnaround in Ragnarok count as a redemption. And in keeping with @yume-no-fantasy’s point about Loki’s motivations in earlier films: I believe that Loki had some comprehensible reasons for usurping the throne at the end of TDW, even though I fully acknowledge that it was not a morally good thing to do. I think he did it partly because he was pissed at Odin for lying to him, threatening to execute him, and then imprisoning him for life without once asking why he did what he did; partly because he believed, like Thor, that Odin was no longer a competent ruler (and we’ve seen Loki take action, again morally flawed but comprehensible, on that conviction before); and partly because he thought it was the best way to protect himself from Thanos (hiding in plain sight, shielding himself behind Asgard’s might, and using his position to control the disposal of the Infinity Stones). But Ragnarok completely ignores all of these explanations and decides that Loki did it just for power, self-aggrandizement, and mischievous shits and giggles. This is a bad, shallow retcon and I will never regard that interpretation as canon.

No, Taika, Thor and Loki do not reach any sort of “understanding,” because Thor never seeks to understand why Loki does what he does; and if they reach a “resolution,” it is only because Loki surrenders and resigns himself to a subordinate position.

Thor just ignores Loki when he brings up the issue of having been lied to his entire life about who and what he was. He never gets past pseudo-apologizing at the end of Thor for “whatever I have done to wrong you” and dismissing Loki’s “imagined slights” in The Avengers. He never asks Loki to explain why he felt like he’d been living in Thor’s shadow, why he felt slighted and underappreciated, or what happened in the year between Thor and The Avengers that led him to come back and try to conquer Midgard. They never talk about how traumatic it must have been for Loki to find out he was a Frost Giant. And that’s because the writer and director of Thor: Ragnarok just decided that none of that matters; Loki is just a malicious mischief-maker who needs to be put in his place, taught through painful punishment that Thor the Unfailingly Virtuous will no longer tolerate his unreasonable behavior.