writernotwaiting:

philosopherking1887:

writernotwaiting:

philosopherking1887:

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.

One addendum.

Loki did not fake getting stabbed through the chest in TDW. Loki’s illusions are not solid—please note Thor tossing things at Loki to test whether he’s really there or not. Yes, Loki allowed Thor to believe he died from his wounds, but he most definitely was impaled in the process of saving Thor’s life. Loki’s usurpation of the throne was a betrayal against Odin, not Thor. And frankly, at that point, Odin had proven himself in dire need of an enforced vacation.

Loki’s actions in the second half of Thor I and in The Avengers were clearly unhinged, and murderously psychotic. His redemption arc, though, genuinely began in TDW, not Thor III. I was surprised that none of that got addressed in Ragnarok. At the same time, however, as much as I prefer the character development in TDW, the storytelling was a bit of a shitshow—very disjointed—and it wasn’t nearly the commercial success it could have been. The storytelling in Ragnarok is tight with a clear arc, and it made money.

It would be lovely to have a Thor/Loki movie with the quality character develop and tight storytelling that we get from Winter Soldier, but since that’s totally never going to happen, I’m going to drown myself in fan fic.

Right – I was assuming that the stabbing was real. The way it would have worked if he was planning to fake his death is that he deliberately stood in exactly the right place so that when Kurse grabbed him and impaled him, he didn’t hit anything vital. Loki does stand there a little too long – an ordinary sense of self-preservation would tell him to get out of the way – but there are other possible explanations, including (1) a sort of deer-in-the-headlights implicit death wish, and (2) an honest-to-god suicidal death wish (which we’ve seen Loki exhibit before). This explanation would also imply that Loki was willing to endure a lot of pain in order to fake his death, which I hope would suggest to people that he had better reasons for doing it than “mischievous shits and giggles.” The desire not to go back to prison, which Thor did promise he would make him do (“…and afterward, this cell”), is also a pretty good reason… and one that doesn’t make Thor look great, IMHO.

I agree that TDW was, on the whole, a narrative mess. The main villain and conflict were flimsy and pointless, and it didn’t deal well with the human characters. But it did a lot of interesting stuff with Loki… much of which was added in reshoots because the film was, frankly, boring without him.

I have never denied that Loki’s actions in Thor and The Avengers were “unhinged and murderously psychotic” (and I know you know that; I’m responding to the fact that you feel like you have to say it). The reasons he has for those actions are not good or sufficient reasons; they explain, but do not excuse – let alone justify – his actions. It annoys the crap out of me that we have to point out that we know that every time we want to criticize Loki’s portrayal in Ragnarok as doing an injustice to his character. Guess what – there are Loki fans (actual Loki fans, who find his character complex and interesting, not just ridiculous and amusing) who know that Loki is a villain and that many of his actions are morally bad and he is morally culpable for them. I know that there are Loki stans (the “apologists” or rather unconditional justifiers) who think he is a pure victim who cannot be blamed for any of his actions, and I know that they make up a large proportion of the people who are criticizing Ragnarok for its treatment of Loki’s character. But they are not the only ones, and I am not one of them, though of course it’s easier to dismiss the criticisms if you assume they’re coming from people who have proven themselves to be bad interpreters of character.

Yes.  I know you know that @philosopherking1887 🙂 It just seemed as though it needed to be said. When folks say “Loki faked his death,” it seems pretty dismissive. I mean, ok he didn’t die, but goddamn, it would still hurt like hel to get bloody impaled by a blade that looks at least as broad as the palm of my hand. That requires one hel of a lot of commitment to something (and saving his brother’s life seems pretty high on the list to me). I think he pauses because he knows the only way to get close enough to attach the grenade is to have Kurse come in for a close attack, and well, who wouldn’t stop for a minute and think “godfuckingdammitthisisgoingtohurtlikeamotherfucker.”

Maybe he knew he would survive that, but it sure as heck would surprise me if he knew for absolute positive that he would live through it. Maybe Jotun anatomy is different. Maybe his heart is over where everyone else’s kidneys should be. I, however, really don’t think he he had the whole “I-will-fake-out-my-brother-survive-this-hideous-injury-and-return-to-Asgard-and-usurp-the-throne” thing planned out in advance. I think after Thor left, Loki woke up with a *really* bad case of heartburn, said “hold shit I’m still alive how the hel do I keep from going back to rot in prison,” and began improvising like mad.

Oh right, the grenade. Duh. That is obviously the explanation for why Loki stood there a little too long: he could only get close enough to turn on the grenade without Kurse noticing by stabbing him and then letting himself get stabbed. So that makes it even more implausible that Loki was planning to fake his death all along; it indicates that he was responding to the exigencies and the opportunities presented by the moment, and his first priority was to save Thor’s life (and avenge Frigga’s death) even at the cost of his own. And that, in turn, makes the view that Loki’s usurping the throne and withholding from Thor the knowledge that he was still alive means that (in OP’s words) “we can’t for one second believe his aims in Thor: The dark world were actually good” even more untenable.

My idea that Loki might have been standing so that Kurse wouldn’t hit anything vital was kind of inspired by the bit in One Hundred Years of Solitude where the doctor puts a mark on Colonel Aurelio Buendía’s body in a place where he won’t hit anything vital when he shoots himself (I am still scarred by things I read in high school). And we do know (from season 1, episode 8 of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) that Aesir anatomy is different from human anatomy. But it was also a very large blade, which would make such surgical precision very difficult. So, again, probably not planned.