Dude. I don’t want Loki to be unhappy. I just want him to be happy for a reason that makes sense. I want to see him figure out his own happiness because its compelling and fulfilling to watch.
If a character undergoes character growth off-screen, it is not satisfying “growth.” Rather, it seems like they just teleport the character to a new place for the convenience of lazy writing.
IMO that is what’s going on with cheery Loki in TR. His own dismissal of his own issues in the previous movies is exactly that; dismissal. It’s the writers disregarding it. We never get to actively see him get acknowledgement for all his very apparent suffering, and we never get to see how he figures out how to heal. Everything just vaporizes. The people behind the movie are too dumb, lazy, or callous to address and fix it on screen, so they sweep it under the carpet and make the character get over it so it will just go away.
If the pain, yelling, crying, snot and tears are all introduced on-screen, I want to see it resolved on-screen as well, with the same emotional intensity with which it was initially introduced. Telling me that all that was resolved while Loki hid behind the face of Odin-the-asshole, sucking on hand-peeled grapes and being (apparently) a dirty lazy moron… Well I don’t buy it.
I read a pro-Ragnarok meta (in particular, it’s pro-Thor and Loki’s “reconciliation”). I don’t want to annoy the person, but I want to talk through some of the things it made me think about, so here’s some word vomit under the cut.
Thiiiiiis. I read that same meta, and you’ve laid out exactly why that interpretation will never work for me. That was maybe a reconciliation for a completely different Thor and Loki, though I personally don’t find it a very compelling one. But it definitely makes no sense for the characters we knew before.
Also I want to pull this out, the idea that it is being interpreted that way due to a belief
that Loki’s betrayal of Thor is a pattern intrinsic to Loki’s personality, and not a deviation from a thousand year norm of loyalty stemming from Loki’s various traumas
because that is a fuckin good observation.
It is at the very least a lot more complicated than “loki betrays, as a matter of course, because ¯_(ツ)_/¯” and it is in fact not in the nature of trickster figures in general or Loki in particular to betray their (very few) loved ones reflexively, for no reason, just for shits and giggles. Even at his most flippant and devil-may-care (e.g., some of the early comics), he has comprehensible (if uncomfortable) motivations: he may turn cars into ice cream because it’s amusing, but he wouldn’t be coming up with hilarious ways to be a shit-stirrer in that context if it weren’t for his resentments, his jealousies, his broken relationship with his brother. And you don’t fix that by having Thor throw up his hands and say “well, you do you, catch ya on the flipside”
I think there’s a level of mischief Loki’s always going to possess. Turning cars into ice cream is something I can see Loki doing for a laugh before their falling out/after their reconciliation, though you’re correct that in that context in the comics he’s being a shit-stirrer due to resentment and jealousy. I find myself more frustrated when people attribute Loki dropping Thor out of the sky in Avengers or backhanding Thor in Thor or, if Ragnarok’s to be taken seriously, attempting to kill Thor many times throughout their childhood (Valkyrie: He did try to kill me. Thor:
Yes, me too. On many, many
occasions. There was one time when
we were children…) to “lol mischief!” That’s not mischief. That’s trying to kill someone that you love. Less extreme, more common, and still very annoying to me, is attributing Loki not telling Thor he survived in TDW or his plot in the beginning of Thor to Loki’s mischievous nature (though I think there’s an element of it in Thor because Loki’s chaotic, but it’s not even close to the main purpose–I don’t believe that Loki commits treason, gets a person killed, and does something that he knows will hurt Thor solely for shits and giggles, mainly because the movie makes it pretty explicit that wasn’t really the point).
The number of people—both Thor stans and Loki stans—who responded to that one post of mine to argue that no, really, Thor and Loki should never interact again because of what we saw in TR… is proof of what a corruption of their relationship that movie is.
Listen. Listen. It’s a weird crack AU that ignores all previous canon. Which is great, I guess, if you found it funny and refreshing. And somewhere between disappointing and depressing if you didn’t. But either way, you just can’t project that characterization backwards onto the previous movies and try to construct a narrative where it all fits into one arc, because it wasn’t meant to fit with them. TW even said he was purposely going against existing canon. Those aren’t the same characters, even if they have the same faces. And Thor and Loki’s relationship in that movie has jack to do with any other version of canon.
(This is partially me yelling at myself, since I know this, logically, but my brain keeps torturing me trying to make it fit somehow, like a wrong puzzle piece, because it’s the third part of a trilogy and it should fit aaaaaaaah. But alas. It does not.)
I read a pro-Ragnarok meta (in particular, it’s pro-Thor and Loki’s “reconciliation”). I don’t want to annoy the person, but I want to talk through some of the things it made me think about, so here’s some word vomit under the cut.
Thiiiiiis. I read that same meta, and you’ve laid out exactly why that interpretation will never work for me. That was maybe a reconciliation for a completely different Thor and Loki, though I personally don’t find it a very compelling one. But it definitely makes no sense for the characters we knew before.
Also I want to pull this out, the idea that it is being interpreted that way due to a belief
that Loki’s betrayal of Thor is a pattern intrinsic to Loki’s personality, and not a deviation from a thousand year norm of loyalty stemming from Loki’s various traumas
because that is a fuckin good observation.
It is at the very least a lot more complicated than “loki betrays, as a matter of course, because ¯_(ツ)_/¯” and it is in fact not in the nature of trickster figures in general or Loki in particular to betray their (very few) loved ones reflexively, for no reason, just for shits and giggles. Even at his most flippant and devil-may-care (e.g., some of the early comics), he has comprehensible (if uncomfortable) motivations: he may turn cars into ice cream because it’s amusing, but he wouldn’t be coming up with hilarious ways to be a shit-stirrer in that context if it weren’t for his resentments, his jealousies, his broken relationship with his brother. And you don’t fix that by having Thor throw up his hands and say “well, you do you, catch ya on the flipside”
it is in fact not in the nature of trickster figures in general or Loki in particular to betray their (very few) loved ones reflexively, for no reason, just for shits and giggles.
Thank you for saying that – and I know that you’ve done more thorough research and contemplation of the cross-mythology trickster archetype than I have (or probably anyone else in this godsforsaken fandom). I’m so tired of hearing people insist that Ragnarok was a welcome return to Loki’s “canonical” (in comics? myths? what is “canon” here?) characterization as “a trickster” rather than a Shakespearean tragic villain. It’s a pretty simplistic, cartoonish version of a trickster… and that might be insulting to cartoons.
can we talk about Marvel official website has updated Loki’s bio that confirms the “Loki was under the influence of the mind stone” fan theory?
Not a Loki apologist here, he did what he did, but a lot of stuff, his version of how he fell from the Bifrost, that speech in Germany, especially the “sudden clarity” scene with Thor makes a lot more sense.
Seems like after 10 fuckin years marvel saw a value in Loki and has stopped shitting on him. What a time to be alive
Gonna be totally tacky and toot my own horn, but a) I knew it and b) I think I have a better hypothesis on how exactly Loki was influenced by the Mind Stone than anyone at Marvel does. (I think even Joss Whedon didn’t think it all the way through.)
And yes, in 2011-2013 Marvel saw Loki’s value and complexity. Fanboys and certain other actors who were jealous of Loki’s popularity (notably with women) seem to have played a role in Marvel’s decision to shit on his character in his most recent movie appearances. I’m not sure why they’re coming back around to acknowledging his complexity, other than that you can’t sustain a TV show with the cartoon character we got in Ragnarok.
I just remembered another convenient plot hole in TR. In the scene where Thor forces Loki to reveal himself, why Loki doesn’t have Gungnir with himself?
As we’ve seen in other movies Odin doesn’t carry Gungnir with himself when he is in his home/palace. But it’s not logical for the king to not bring his weapon with himself when he is out of the palace and among other people. What if someone attempts to kill him? Loki specially is a person who doesn’t trust others with sth like his life. He would think of possible dangers and has backup plans for them. He would think of sth possibly goes wrong and his cover’s blown, and then the guards might turn against him. He wouldn’t leave a weapon like Gungnir in the palace. Just imagine how the scene would have played out differently, had Loki had Gungnir to defend himself against Thor. But no, according to TR, Loki isn’t intelligent enough to think about sth like that!
I think if you analyze TR deeply enough, you will find that it is the sea of motherfucking holes.
(first of all, i know not what the fuck. I’m tired. That being said.)
Thor’s characterization in Ragnarök is a fucking joke. A bad joke.
Take the infamous scene with Loki and the obedience disk. You know why it feels so utterly, terribly wrong? Why it’s upsetting and disturbing beyond issues of how much it hurts or doesn’t, how much Loki had it coming or didn’t (he didn’t), if it constitutes abuse or whatever the fuck?
Because it’s villains who stab people in the back, and then hover around gloating as their enemies hurt and bleed. It’s villains who smirk while watching another twitching in pain. It’s villains who stand there, enjoying the sight of the helpless foe they have defeated, relish in their cunning and their callousness, give a speech expressing their contempt and their superiority, and probably make a point that “you are the way you are and you can’t help it, that’s why you FAILED, mwah hah hah.”
And we are coded, as we damn well should be, to read that scene in a certain way. Villains do these things, and the one twitching in pain on the floor is the hero, defeated by the betrayal of someone they trusted. That’s usually where the cliffhanger goes, with the villain walking away cackling as the hero is left helpless on the floor, and it seems that all is lost. WILL OUR HERO GET FREE BEFORE THE VILLAIN MANAGES TO CARRY OUT THEIR EVIL SCHEME AND DESTROY THE WORLD? DUN DUN DUNNNNN…! SEE IT IN THE NEXT ISSUE!
Thank you so much for this, @incredifishface. The last part in particular was beautifully written; it’s a Thorki manifesto with the eloquence and heart you’ve brought to your Thorki fics over the years. Still, the paragraph I’m going to excerpt is this one:
In fact, this is all so wrong, that the film would work best as a story in which old timey, classic comics!Loki was trying to pull a scheme by taking his brother’s appearance, and then went around manipulating and fooling his friends (very poorly), to try and destroy Thor’s reputation and his character. (Good plan, Lo, you totally pulled it off! Nobody could like or love that fucking asshole!)
Because you are so fucking right. @fuckyeahrichardiii, I thought you might get a kick out of that.
Pinterest is a goldmine for seeing posts like this….
Sure. That’s why he spent 2 weeks secretly stealing acess codes to the ships to escape, andhad a plan to kill the psychotic leader, a plan that sounded like he had had for awhile, like 2 weeks. Sounds like he couldn’t wait to get the hell away from all that so called “love”, and was biding his time until the opportunity came.
The notion that Loki would feel at home on Sakaar because it is chaotic and lawless is based on Thor’s skewed perception of his brother. It is based on the premise that Loki is the god of mischief and thus, has had no deeper reasons for any of the things he’s done.
Which conflicts entirely with a huge chunk of the initial Thor film, that goes to a lot of trouble to set up Loki’s narrative, in which there is already an existing sibling rivalry and he is pushed over the edge by discovering that he was adopted.
Really he should be called the god of a lot of shitty things happened to me and I reacted badly…what can I say?
Loki of Thor1, Avengers and The Dark World. I identified with him in several ways, mostly because he was other. He was different, an outsider – as I was and am still.
Then along comes Ragnarok and a bunch of fans declare that they love this version. The version where his otherness is mocked and attacked. Where his pain is invalidated and his struggles deemed either unimportant or joke fodder. These people are saying they will not love Loki as he is, but they will ‘love’ him when he is flattened, confined, reduced to something unthreatening.
It feels very personal. I’m old enough and cynical enough to not let it hurt (much) but I have heard the message: to be loved, you cannot be other. It is a message I’ve heard all my life. And Ragnarok is a movie that embodies that nasty little message. Ragnarok-positive posts? Nails on a chalkboard most of the time. They’re certainly not a positive thing for me to see on my dash (Public blog, public space. Tumblr has tools to manage what we see. I use them, I’m ok.)
But to those people I follow who write wonderful thinky posts, you are treasured.
Loki fans from Ragnarok and people that are a fan of Loki character from another movies should be a two separated fandom.
I seriously think ao3 should provide tags to separate these two fandoms. It will save us lots of grief.
Oh my God, yes. And we should use different tags on Tumblr, too. I think my system of using Thor* and Loki* to designate their Ragnarok incarnations is very handy; it’s a lot easier for their side than typing ragnarok!thor. Or r-thor and r-loki, like using d- and l- to designate the different chiralities of enantiomers.
Thanks, @lostlokichaos. It’s always nice to know I’m not shouting into a void! And you’re right about invalidating Loki’s other-ness… which makes it ironic that the Ragnarok stans are constantly calling Loki* a “queer icon” and calling us (many of whom are queer) homophobic for not liking his stereotypical queer-coded villain/ effete limp-wristed sissy portrayal. It’s also utterly confusing that Taika keeps using “space orphan” as an insult. Why does being an orphan somehow reflect badly on Loki…? His story of being adopted (or kidnapped?) by a conquering society, raised in ignorance of his origin, and taught to fear and loathe the race he was born to should have played perfectly into the anti-imperialist theme that Ragnarok was (half-assedly) trying to get across; but apparently Taika despised Loki too much to be willing to put him on the oppressees’ side of the ledger, so he pooh-poohed the idea that it might be a source of genuine, justified distress or trauma.
The terrible interpretation of Loki’s character in Thor: Ragnarok
Things that Thor: Ragnarok director Taika Waititi said of Loki:
“Not to really wanna humiliate Loki all the way through the film, but because he was… most definitely overpowered Thor a lot in the other films in terms of presence and his story, and kind of overshadowed him a little bit… This one, it was just nice to kind of switch it around, after all the shitty things that Loki’s done in the last few films…” (Source: Empire Film Podcast)
“space orphan”
“someone who tries so hard to embody this idea of the tortured artist, this tortured, gothy orphan”
“…this little emo goth hanging out by himself. He was like the kid in Harry Potter [Malfoy].”
has been trying to kill Thor his entire life
A number of significant ways in which Loki’s character was retconned in Ragnarok:
1.
Tom: Loki’s death on Svartalfheim was written as a death, and Chris and I played that scene for real. That was meant to be sort of that he redeemed himself. He helped save his brother and helped save Jane Foster, but he, in the process, sacrificed himself.
Ragnarok!Thor: You FAKED your own death
2.
TDW!Thor: Loki, for all his grave imbalance, understood rule as I know I never will.
Ragnarok!Thor: And what do I find, but the Nine Realms completely in chaos. Enemies of Asgard assembling, plotting our demise, all while you, Odin, the protector of those Nine Realms, are sitting here in your bathrobe, eating grapes.
3.
Tom: The best thing about Loki is that if he is afraid he won’t show it. He’s been highly trained through the experience of his slightly traumatic life to shield his fear.
Loki in all other films:
Gagnarok!Loki:
Bonus:
“You’re a screw up, so whatever.”
I could have sworn I’d reblogged this before, but I couldn’t find it when I searched my blog. Tumblr’s search function is weirdly… non-functional. Thanks, @lokiloveforever, for finding this for me!
Anyway, yeah. Evidence that Taika did not like or understand Loki, regardless of what he may have told Tom over a bowl of pasta. It’s quite possible that Taika thinks he didn’t change Loki, because he thought his version of Loki (whiny, hedonistic, venally self-interested, pointlessly malicious, with no real problems or grievances to speak of) is who Loki always was. That means he was wrong about the Loki of the previous films. If Ragnarok fans prefer the new Loki, they can have him, I guess… but stop trying to make the case that he’s identical to the Loki of previous films, or that everyone before Taika somehow got him “wrong,” whatever that would mean. It’s not like Ragnarok!Loki is the Platonic Form of MCU Loki that all prior Lokis were only imperfectly striving toward, and it’s definitely controversial whether Ragnarok succeeded in portraying the Loki of recent comics (which I assume is what some people mean by “canon”… never mind that the various writers haven’t characterized him consistently) or of myth (which was definitely not the target…?).
Loki is the Philosopher King 