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!?
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.
@latent-thoughts To be fair to Valkyrie, I think most of her animosity towards Loki comes from him forcing her to relive a traumatic memory, which was kind of a dick move.
However, I do find it strange that the parallels between Loki and Valkyrie are never addressed by the movie. To list a few off the top of my head:
Both desire to remain on Sakaar to avoid their responsibilities and enemies that have inflicted trauma upon them (Thanos/Hela).
Both of them express contempt for the lies of the Asgardian royal family, or the crown in general, really.
Neither of them are primarily concerned by the plight of the Asgardians (it’s a secondary concern), but motivated to leave Sakaar for other reasons (Loki to protect Thor, and a bit to prove him wrong, and Valkyrie to get her revenge).
Valkyrie’s treated far more sympathetically. As soon as she makes the choice to redeem herself, she’s treated heroically and respectfully, and her character never gets sacrificed. It’s never mentioned again that she sold people into slavery, and never mentioned at all that before that she fought for Odin, a conquering imperialist bastard. Meanwhile, Loki’s redemption arc wallows in his wrongdoings. And yes, Loki’s done wrong, and we shouldn’t overlook that, just like Valkyrie’s crimes shouldn’t be overlooked. There’s a clear bias evident in the treatment of these characters that parallel one another.
In my opinion, the only “hero” in Ragnarok is Heimdall, and he happens to be the only character treated seriously in every scene he takes part in. All the other characters are a mess of jokes and wasted potential. And that’s why I can’t stand that it’s an irreverent comedy movie.
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!?
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.
The composition here is very interesting. To some extent it indicates which villains they take to be most important; note that secondary villains like Justin Hammer, Kurse, Ayesha, and Ulysses Klaue are placed farther back and smaller than primary villains. Not sure why Zemo is so far back and tiny, though, considering that he was the primary villain of Civil War… maybe because he’s an operate-from-the-shadows kind of villain? (Computer-Zola is also in the back, but that might be for purely visual considerations.) Also, they’ve got the Mandarin a.k.a. Trevor Slattery on there pretty prominently, but where’s Aldrich Killian? Is he the guy between Ego and Zemo who looks like he’s on fire? Because if not I can’t figure out who that is. Note also that Hela and Ayesha are the only women. C’mon, Marvel.
Most importantly, though: what does it mean that Loki is placed front and center, and relatively larger than his nearest neighbors, making it look like he’s farther forward? Is it just because he was the villain of the first ensemble Avengers movie? Does it recognize the connection between him and Thanos? Is it an acknowledgment of his popularity, and the fact that he consistently gets ranked as the best Marvel villain? Might it be a sign (please, please) that they’ll let him play a significant role in Infinity War? (Again, I know I’m grasping at straws…)
Now you listen to me, Bruce Banner. You listen and listen well. I know for a FACT that you have multiple advanced degrees in the natural and theoretical sciences from the best Midgardian universities. You are a man who has been trained to observe, calculate, and observe again. I have little faith in most scientific minds but I respect yours for what it is, and therefore, if you are here trying to tell me that you cannot recognize when something is more of a “pussy out” look, then I have nothing to say to you, because you have failed me just as you have failed yourself.
Loki is the Philosopher King 