This took much longer to finish than I intended but I got a message from @teenystarprince that had me inspired lmao
And right! I was wondering how they were going to go about it in the movie since I knew the relations from the comics and the Eddas before? And it was a fun variation. Fancy that conversation though (…which I’m pretty sure they had in Journey Into Mystery I think at one point but YOU KNOW)
Also, I wasn’t accusing you of writing fan fiction, I was noting that fandom generally has a perception of Loki that is not congruent with any canon portrayals of him. It is canon from previous films that MCU Loki loves attention, is terrible at long term planning but can quickly adapt to new situations, and is manipulative and enjoys playing cruel tricks (which is detrimental to his love for attention). These traits were all demonstrated in Thor Ragnarok.
Erm, actually, @wafflediaries, you said (and I quote), “Please stop being bitter just because he wasn’t lifted from your OOC Loki-centric fanfic.” Perhaps (as you seem to have confirmed in your later reply) that wasn’t aimed at me specifically, but as the originator of the post I did receive an e-mail notification with that reply in it, so you can understand why I might have thought that it was aimed at me.
Yes, all the traits you mention are part of Loki’s portrayal in earlier MCU films. But his love of attention is more complicated and subtle than shown in Ragnarok. In the first Thor film, he’s shown as being soft-spoken, almost retiring; it seems that we see him discover that he enjoys power and attention once he gets it for the first time. In the deleted scene in which he’s granted the throne by Frigga and some sort of prime minister guy, he hesitates to take Gungnir, and he looks to Frigga for reassurance, but a transformation seems to come over him when he realizes that yes, this power is really his by right.
Ragnarok seemed to make Loki’s insecurity out to be that of the Trumpian narcissist who’s constantly demanding attention and praise and deeply believes that he deserves it, but also feels threatened and lashes out when it’s withheld. That’s not the Loki we saw in Thor, who had genuine doubts about his worth and felt he needed to go to extreme (indeed, genocidal) lengths to prove it. Narcissists like Trump don’t feel like they have to do anything to prove their worth; they think the adulation is simply their due and something is profoundly wrong with the world if they don’t get it. Ragnarok also gave extremely short shrift to the issue that prompted Loki’s crisis in Thor, namely, the discovery that he belongs to a people that have historically been the enemies of Asgard. And it did not really acknowledge the other reasons for Loki’s long-standing insecurity, which were demonstrated in the first film: the fact that Asgardians don’t really respect his talents as a sorcerer who uses magic on the battlefield, or as a (sometimes devious and dishonest) diplomat who’d rather talk than punch his way out of problems. I’ve seen other people dispute that this was part of his characterization (I’m not tagging them, @foundlingmother; behold my self-restraint!), but it seems pretty clear that they missed the point of the deleted scene in which Thor says “Some do battle, others just do tricks” and a servant laughs at the quip (and by extension, at Loki), as well as Vostagg’s “What happened, silver tongue turned to lead?”, which the script explicitly describes as “needling” him, not good-natured ribbing.
So no, the complaint is not that Ragnarok introduced characteristics that were not present in earlier movies; it’s that it reduced Loki to those characteristics, thereby depriving him of depth and understandable motivation.
Thor Ragnarok was the best portrayal of Loki we have ever seen in the MCU. Please stop being bitter just because he wasn’t lifted from your OOC Loki-centric fanfic. Taika Waititi did a fantastic job.
LOL, @wafflediaries, have you actually read any of my fanfiction? (Or were you talking to @studiokawaii, whose reblog of the post I gather you were directly replying to?) I can’t control who reblogs and adds to the original post (short of blocking everyone I disagree with, which is emphatically NOT my M.O.), and I’m sure many of the rebloggers are who you think I am: unconditional Loki justifiers (also known as “apologists,” which is a misleading use of the term) who claim that he is a pure, blameless cinnamon roll, all of whose apparently immoral actions in canon can be excused on the grounds of his victimization by various other characters, and many of whom also ship Loki with themselves and/or write fanfiction pairing him with the reader or a self-insert OFC. (Not that there’s anything in principle wrong with character/reader fic or self-insert OFCs; it’s just not my bag, and tends to be associated with the mischaracterization of Loki described above.)
It’s easy to dismiss criticism of Loki’s portrayal in Ragnarok if you dismiss all the critics as a particular type of uncreditable person. I have never been accused of writing an OOC Loki, and since I am also a Thor/Loki shipper, many of my readers consider themselves Thor fans in the first instance and usually defend Thor against the attacks launched by the Loki-justifiers (sometimes to the also unjustified extreme of claiming that Thor is a blameless cinnamon roll who has no flaws and has never done anything wrong in his life, but that’s another story…). Then again, perhaps the reason no one has called my Loki OOC is simply the very strong norm against any form of criticism of fanfiction, even constructive criticism, and even when it is explicitly solicited (as I do).
So, Loki admits that he is jealous and planned on screwing up Thor’s big day, to get his brother to reveal his true colors. And the audience knows by the end of the movie that Loki does have power aspirations (which are exacerbated by having his fucking heart broken.)
HOWEVER
Look at the expression on his face as he talks about Thor. His face completely backs up the words he’s saying. the way he says “but” doesn’t apply the way it usually does.
It’s not “I love Thor more dearly than any of you, but *forget everything I just said*”
It’s more like “I love Thor more dearly than any of you, and because of this I feel I need to say this.”
There’s nothing insincere or ingenue about the first half of that sentence.
“I love Thor more dearly than any of you”
It’s true. He does love Thor the most, more than his parents do, more than their friends do, more than the people do, and because of this I think it does pain him to know that his brother (at the time) wasn’t fit for rule. Even though this fits well with his own power aspirations, it pains him to think of his brother as not being good enough.
After all, Loki knows more than anyone else what it’s like to not be good enough.
The assumption that you have to be one or the other annoys the hell out of me. I don’t believe in “stanning,” because it seems to involve being convinced that your favorite is a perfect angel who has never done anything wrong. If you think that about either of those characters, you did not watch the same movies I did. Conversely, if you think either of them is completely and irredeemably wicked, you did not watch the same movies I did. They are both interestingly flawed (Loki more so, to my mind – more flawed, and more interesting). Really appreciating an interesting character in all their complexity precludes stanning.
Loki is the Philosopher King 