mastreworld:

statuesquecurls:

you could be more.

He’s always been more. You just never bothered to see him…

The manips are excellent, but the line doesn’t work at all. “More” than what exactly? More than being stolen and lied to? More than attempting suicide? Because that’s what the fotoset seems to suggest and it’s kinda creepy.

A better line could have been something about about Loki’s world getting torn apart time and again, first by Odin and now by Thanos, and about these things invariably lead to him almost dying. Asgard castout / Asgard last hope juxtaposition would work wonderfully. But the way it’s worded originally sends.the message that in order to be “more” he should overcome all the issues others have bestowed on him and proceed to sacrifice himself heroically for said others.

Maybe the idea is that he is more than a trickster, he always has been more than a trickster, as indicated by these images evoking his emotional complexity; but (as mastreworld put it) Thor – and the people responsible for the travesty that was Thor: Ragnarok – never bothered to see him. The caption “More than a trickster” directly on the gifs suggests that; the caption “you could be more” is somewhat confusing.

could you talk more about the male disney villains being queer coded with stereotypes?

fuckyeahrichardiii:

alfred-e-neuman:

fandomsandfeminism:

angstrydenbytch:

blue-author:

commanderbishoujo:

gadaboutgreen:

biyuti:

fandomsandfeminism:

fandomsandfeminism:

Pink hair bows.

Many male Disney villains are what we would call “camp.” Effeminate, vain, “wimpy” and portrayed as laughable and unlikable. Calling upon common negative stereotypes about gay men, these villains are characterized as villainous by embodying these tropes and traits.

Think about it: Often Thin/un-muscled figure, heavily inked and shadowed eyes (giving the impression of eyeliner and eye shadow?), stereotypically “sassy” and/or manipulative, often ends up being cowardly once on the defensive, many have comedic male sidekicks (such as Wiggins, Smee, Iago, the…snake that isn’t Kaa)

Other examples:

since i was talking about one of the disney man villains who doesn’t fit this stereotype yesterday…

Gaston.

my bf was listening to that song about him yesterday

and i mentioned that he is literally the most terrifying disney villain

why?

because his type of evil is banal and commonplace

there are white men walking around who are exactly like him

men who think that women are prizes they deserve

men who will not listen or pay attention to a rejection

men who will go out of their way, if rejected, to ruin a woman’s life

ppl often seem to miss this when discussion beauty and the beast since the stockholm syndrom ‘romance’ is also a giant icky thing

the terrifying thing about gaston is that he is supposed to be (as all disney villains) a hyperbolic cartoon

but he is the absolutely truest and most real villain

because he exists in the real world

we all know men like him

Also, if we’re talking about queer coded characters the MOST important of all the characters is Ursula who was bad off of a drag Queen (Divine) and has a whole host of negative stereotypes.

She’s also my favorite.

This post is sorely missing some seriously important historical context. The term for this as film history goes is the sissy, and as a stock character the sissy is probably one of the oldest archetypes in Hollywood, going back to the silent film era. Some of the most enduring stereotypes of male queerness—the limp wrist, swishing, etc—can actually be traced to the exaggerated movements of cinematic sissies in silent films. And it’s important to note sissies were portrayed in a range of ways, though they were generally used to comedic effect; queerness was considered a joke, and the modern notion of the “sassy gay friend” in films can probably be traced back to this bullshit too. It wasn’t until the Hays Code was adopted in the ’30s that sissies almost uniformly started being portrayed as villains. Homosexuality was specifically targeted under the euphemism of “sexual perversion”, and the only way it could fly under the radar in films under the strict censorship of the code was by coding villains that way in contrast to the morally upright hetero heroes. Peter Lorre’s character in The Maltese Falcon is one off the top of my head, but there are a slew of them from the ’30s onward, and this trope didn’t go away after the Code ended either. More modern examples in live action films are Prince Edward in Braveheart, Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs, and Xerxes in 300.

So Disney just provides some of the most egregious modern examples of the sissy villain, but this is a really old and really gross trope that goes back years and years in Western film. There’s a fantastic book and accompanying documentary about the history of homosexuality in film by Vito Russo called The Celluloid Closet that gets into a lot of this.

It’s incredibly refreshing to see a response to a post like this that starts with “This post is sorely missing some seriously important historical context.” and then goes on to provide important historical context that adds information to the point being made. I was seriously wincing and bracing myself for “You guys, you don’t understand. It was different back then.”

(Of course, I wouldn’t have been worried if the name of the last poster hadn’t scrolled off the top of my screen by the time I got to it.)

There are some things that bother me about the first image being regarded as queer coded: 1) pink was considered masculine up until the early 1900’s (roughly pre- ww1), and was continued to be worn by guys thru the 1980’s.

As for the hair bow aspect, those were period correct as well.

Google, my friends. I agree with the rest of them, but…that first? He’s not queer coded. He’s just upper society jerk

Do you really think Pocahontas is a period accurate movie in any aspect?

The story we know of Pocahontas–or at least the one portrayed by the Disney film–is one told by John Smith himself. So, the reliability of a story that involves a woman being head over heels in love with the person telling you the story is questionable at the least.

Jumping in to add to the laundry list another (technically) Disney stereotypical queer-coded villain:

Though the GM’s queerness was not really coded, I still think it’s important to point out the enactment of the exact same features of the above-mentioned villains. It’s still frankly shocking to me that tumblr hasn’t dragged this movie for its regressive stereotypes. It was a huge step back for Disney/Marvel’s potential for respectful LGBTQ+ representation.

@philosopherking1887

foundlingmother:

philosopherking1887:

buckeed:

Thor: The Dark World || Thor: Ragnarok

#this is an interesting difference between the brothers #thor refuses the even give loki an answer #and only comes to loki because he needs him for the plan #loki comes and shares their grief #and offers to help thor #despite him being unnecessary for loki’s plan #thor loves loki #i don’t dispute it #i think he works really hard to stay mad at loki #and he tries really hard in avengers to bring loki back #but he also sometimes acts like a massive thoughtless dick to loki #and i think it’s that same malformed view of loki that i’ve spoken of #thor conceptualizes loki as a bad person who needs to be fixed or managed #and it’s much more complicated than that #and he’s going to feel horrible about everything #when he realizes that (via @foundlingmother)

I think the relevant difference between these two scenes is that in the first, Thor is still hurt and bewildered and angry at Loki over what happened in The Avengers (and probably toward the end of Thor 1, too), while in the second, Loki isn’t shown as having any particular reason to be mad at Thor. (He probably should be mad at Thor for blowing his cover and potentially allowing Thanos to discover where he is, but the movie doesn’t even acknowledge that as a reason why Loki was pretending to be Odin. Or any reason other than “mischief, hur hur.”)

Maybe there is more continuity between Thor’s thoughtlessness toward Loki in earlier movies and in Ragnarok than I’ve acknowledged, but earlier on it seems more complex and well-motivated.

I don’t think I would say that Thor consistently “conceptualizes Loki as a bad person who needs to be fixed or managed” before Ragnarok.

Thor’s callousness in TDW seems put-on, deliberate, and painful even for him; in Ragnarok it’s just a matter of course.

In my experience hurt doesn’t work that way. They’ve never dealt with their issues, so I’m pretty sure it’s all festering. I think they’d both still be holding on to a lot of pain that relates to one another (and Odin, that gets attached to one another unfairly).

You know, I think that brings up something I hadn’t considered. Maybe the problem with how Thor acts towards Loki in Ragnarok isn’t the actions (at least most of the time *glances at that one scene that is too ooc*) or words themselves, but the feeling behind it. See, what I mean when I say that Thor sees Loki as a bad person, I think it’s, 1. pretty forced on his part and something he has to keep reminding himself of, and 2. something he sees as a new and hopefully temporary (though he tries not to hope) insanity Loki’s experiencing. It’s painful for him how far he feels Loki’s fallen, and he wants his brother back.

Ragnarok just kind of makes him mad at Loki, and you don’t feel the love that’s tangible even under the anger in the previous Thor movies and Avengers.

Honestly, I don’t feel like I can take any of Loki’s (or Thor’s) actions in Ragnarok to shed light on preexisting aspects of their character. Would Loki share Thor’s grief even while being (justifiably) mad at him? I think so, but Ragnarok is just so blatantly OOC all the time that I don’t think it counts as evidence in favor. Rather, the evidence is that throughout his three movies, Loki never disregards or dismisses Thor’s feelings. He’s very attentive to them, whether he wants to flatter him, soothe him, provoke him, or outright wound him.

Of course I think Loki has a lot of reasons to still be pissed at Thor, but Ragnarok doesn’t frame it that way. It presents all of Loki’s grudges and resentments as childish and insignificant, things he just needs to grow up and get over. So the scene doesn’t present him as comforting Thor in spite of his hurt and anger; it presents him as trying to mend fences when Thor is still (justifiably, yes, but not as righteously as the movie makes out) pissed at him.

Your last point – “Ragnarok just kind of makes him mad at Loki, and you don’t feel the love that’s tangible even under the anger in the previous Thor movies and Avengers” – seems exactly right. Some of it surely is the words and actions themselves (it’s hard to believe he would say or do some of those things to someone he loves), but a lot of it is also the affect. Thor consistently has an air of “done with Loki’s shit” that’s supposed to show that he’s wised up, he has Loki’s number, he’s nobody’s fool anymore (pick your cliché), but all it says to me is that he’s given up on understanding Loki as a person and now just wants to control/manage him (as you said). And this might make sense if we were to accept Ragnarok’s retcon of Loki’s character as a capricious trickster who does bad shit just for the hell of it… but in light of the complexity of Loki’s emotions and motivations as shown in previous films, it just seems inexcusably cruel and obtuse (which also serves as an apt description for the entirety of Thor’s character in TR…).

P.S., on the subject of Thor figuring out how complicated Loki actually is, have you read my fic Starting Over, which is basically my fantasy version of Thor and Loki’s post-AOU reunion conversation (+ sex)?

buckeed:

Thor: The Dark World || Thor: Ragnarok

#this is an interesting difference between the brothers #thor refuses the even give loki an answer #and only comes to loki because he needs him for the plan #loki comes and shares their grief #and offers to help thor #despite him being unnecessary for loki’s plan #thor loves loki #i don’t dispute it #i think he works really hard to stay mad at loki #and he tries really hard in avengers to bring loki back #but he also sometimes acts like a massive thoughtless dick to loki #and i think it’s that same malformed view of loki that i’ve spoken of #thor conceptualizes loki as a bad person who needs to be fixed or managed #and it’s much more complicated than that #and he’s going to feel horrible about everything #when he realizes that (via @foundlingmother)

I think the relevant difference between these two scenes is that in the first, Thor is still hurt and bewildered and angry at Loki over what happened in The Avengers (and probably toward the end of Thor 1, too), while in the second, Loki isn’t shown as having any particular reason to be mad at Thor. (He probably should be mad at Thor for blowing his cover and potentially allowing Thanos to discover where he is, but the movie doesn’t even acknowledge that as a reason why Loki was pretending to be Odin. Or any reason other than “mischief, hur hur.”)

Maybe there is more continuity between Thor’s thoughtlessness toward Loki in earlier movies and in Ragnarok than I’ve acknowledged, but earlier on it seems more complex and well-motivated.

I don’t think I would say that Thor consistently “conceptualizes Loki as a bad person who needs to be fixed or managed” before Ragnarok.

Thor’s callousness in TDW seems put-on, deliberate, and painful even for him; in Ragnarok it’s just a matter of course.

themarvelcinematicuniverse:

philosopherking1887:

shine-of-asgard:

kitty-hulk:

I hate how Ragnarok made Bruce

Yeah, he’s funny and all. And that was the point of the movie. But look at his past movies. He isn’t frantic, he isn’t the cause of all jokes, he isn’t comfortable around his friends most of the time. Bruce was stern, an incredibly intelligent physicist. He didn’t have this cute little worried attitude. And that bothers me. They made him stupid. They made his intelligence a joke in the movie. And maybe it’s good that he’s “happier” but it’s an incredibly polar change considering Ragnarok Bruce is picking up rsactly where Ultron Bruce left, so there’s no time for any character development. See the gifs for comparison. It just doesn’t seem like the same character.

They made everyone stupid. Ragnarok is either stupid or dickish and everyone suffers for it. Thor lying to Hulk and to Bruce about their alter egos, using Bruce without a second glance is such a dick move. Not funny, just… Ew.

@fuckyeahrichardiii also pointed out that this Bruce didn’t seem to care that he had spent 2 years killing people for fun as the Hulk. A major part of Bruce’s character in the two Avengers movies—and presumably also in The Incredible Hulk, though I haven’t seen it—is his guilt over the damage he does when he’s in Hulk form. In AOU, when Thor does his “report on the Hulk” and talks about the gates of Hel being filled with the screams of his enemies (which is how you do Thor humor, btw), Bruce groans and covers his face because he hates the idea of killing people. (And then Thor picks up on his discomfort and starts backtracking, because pre-Ragnarok Thor, while he may be a little obtuse about other people’s feelings, actually cares about them.) In fact, the reason Bruce/Hulk leaves Earth at the end of AOU is because he’s so distraught over the damage he did and the danger he put people in when Wanda messed with him in Johannesburg.

I loved Thor: Ragnarok as a standalone film, but as for its use of old characters (specifically Loki, Thor, and Bruce) it butchered them. Loki and Bruce were made incompetent, which is sad, because one of their most defining qualities is their intelligence.

I’m not sure how I would feel about it as a standalone film… I’d probably still think it relies too much on cringe humor, and that the protagonist is deeply unlikable, even apart from his complete discontinuity from the character as established in previous films.

As someone with a PhD myself, that “haha, Bruce has 7 PhDs but can’t pilot a spaceship” joke kind of stuck in my craw. The trope that “book smarts” or “book learning” are useless in a dangerous or urgent situation isn’t original or revolutionary; that kind of anti-intellectualism is all over the place in the culture. We’re invited to watch over-educated intellectuals fail at life in media from “The Big Bang Theory” to Irrational Man (no, I haven’t seen it and I don’t plan to, but I get the basic idea). In general, the Marvel comics and films don’t do that; characters like Tony Stark, Peter Parker, and Jane Foster are able to put their theoretical knowledge to successful use in emergencies. I guess someone decided that Marvel needed to give equal time to the old anti-intellectual canard.

fuckyeahrichardiii:

philosopherking1887:

shine-of-asgard:

kitty-hulk:

I hate how Ragnarok made Bruce

Yeah, he’s funny and all. And that was the point of the movie. But look at his past movies. He isn’t frantic, he isn’t the cause of all jokes, he isn’t comfortable around his friends most of the time. Bruce was stern, an incredibly intelligent physicist. He didn’t have this cute little worried attitude. And that bothers me. They made him stupid. They made his intelligence a joke in the movie. And maybe it’s good that he’s “happier” but it’s an incredibly polar change considering Ragnarok Bruce is picking up rsactly where Ultron Bruce left, so there’s no time for any character development. See the gifs for comparison. It just doesn’t seem like the same character.

They made everyone stupid. Ragnarok is either stupid or dickish and everyone suffers for it. Thor lying to Hulk and to Bruce about their alter egos, using Bruce without a second glance is such a dick move. Not funny, just… Ew.

@fuckyeahrichardiii also pointed out that this Bruce didn’t seem to care that he had spent 2 years killing people for fun as the Hulk. A major part of Bruce’s character in the two Avengers movies—and presumably also in The Incredible Hulk, though I haven’t seen it—is his guilt over the damage he does when he’s in Hulk form. In AOU, when Thor does his “report on the Hulk” and talks about the gates of Hel being filled with the screams of his enemies (which is how you do Thor humor, btw), Bruce groans and covers his face because he hates the idea of killing people. (And then Thor picks up on his discomfort and starts backtracking, because pre-Ragnarok Thor, while he may be a little obtuse about other people’s feelings, actually cares about them.) In fact, the reason Bruce/Hulk leaves Earth at the end of AOU is because he’s so distraught over the damage he did and the danger he put people in when Wanda messed with him in Johannesburg.

Yep. Bruce is *tortured* at the damage he does pretty consistently in all the MCU except for Ragnarok. In Ragnarok I saw Mark Ruffalo playing a put upon nerd who whined a lot, rather than an intelligent man who struggled with horrific anxiety (that open nerve line in Avengers was perfection) and the unwelcome burden of being the Hulk. TW did the same awful shit with Bruce that he did with Loki: he took several movies’ worth of beautiful, 3D character development and gutted all of that so that the audience could laugh at it.

Absolute fucking garbage. God, the movie makes me more angry the more I think about it.

#this movie was an insulting shit-heap deal with it #but I guess mcu fandom is okay with its bad writing #outright and deliberation alienation of female fans #gross queer-coding and homophobia #and complete ruin of the thor franchise #because the fandom prefers lulz #and a bottom of the barrel surface barely there commentary on imperialism?#it was a shit commentary on imperialism btw #even that was cheapened and thinned by TW’s focus on making everything and everyone (especially the audience) the butt of a cruel joke #i’m a little bit crabby today can you tell

I love you and your crabbiness, @fuckyeahrichardiii.

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?)

shine-of-asgard:

kitty-hulk:

I hate how Ragnarok made Bruce

Yeah, he’s funny and all. And that was the point of the movie. But look at his past movies. He isn’t frantic, he isn’t the cause of all jokes, he isn’t comfortable around his friends most of the time. Bruce was stern, an incredibly intelligent physicist. He didn’t have this cute little worried attitude. And that bothers me. They made him stupid. They made his intelligence a joke in the movie. And maybe it’s good that he’s “happier” but it’s an incredibly polar change considering Ragnarok Bruce is picking up rsactly where Ultron Bruce left, so there’s no time for any character development. See the gifs for comparison. It just doesn’t seem like the same character.

They made everyone stupid. Ragnarok is either stupid or dickish and everyone suffers for it. Thor lying to Hulk and to Bruce about their alter egos, using Bruce without a second glance is such a dick move. Not funny, just… Ew.

@fuckyeahrichardiii also pointed out that this Bruce didn’t seem to care that he had spent 2 years killing people for fun as the Hulk. A major part of Bruce’s character in the two Avengers movies—and presumably also in The Incredible Hulk, though I haven’t seen it—is his guilt over the damage he does when he’s in Hulk form. In AOU, when Thor does his “report on the Hulk” and talks about the gates of Hel being filled with the screams of his enemies (which is how you do Thor humor, btw), Bruce groans and covers his face because he hates the idea of killing people. (And then Thor picks up on his discomfort and starts backtracking, because pre-Ragnarok Thor, while he may be a little obtuse about other people’s feelings, actually cares about them.) In fact, the reason Bruce/Hulk leaves Earth at the end of AOU is because he’s so distraught over the damage he did and the danger he put people in when Wanda messed with him in Johannesburg.

lokiloveforever:

thiddlestonismyknight:

sweetdreamr:

lokiloveforever:

yume-no-fantasy:

whitedaydream:

I came into this and called Joe and Anthony and said, “Look, don’t write me the old Thor, we’ve got a new Thor now.” I was really protective of the new Thor I’d created with Taika.

— Chris Hemsworth on “Avengers: Infinity War”

BONUS:

Loki probably in his heart wants to be worthy. The way he achieves his redemption, his salvation is to ultimately sacrifice himself, for Thor, and for Jane. I hope it’s a very cathartic and moving moment, by saving his brother’s life and avenging his mother’s death.

— Tom Hiddleston (“Thor: The Dark World” Blu-ray Extra)

Source of Kevin Feige’s speech:
▪“Thor: The Dark World” Blu-ray Extra
▪ The Empire Film Podcast

There are so many inconsistencies in Ragnarok it’s utterly ridiculous, not to mention how they’ve changed the Asgardians’ speech patterns entirely. One significant inconsistency:

Odin in TDW: We are not gods. We’re born, we live, we die, just as humans do.

Odin in TR: Hela, Goddess of Death/Are you the God of Hammers?

Thor in TR: I am the God of Thunder/You’ll always be the God of Mischief

I’ll get to why this is relevant later. First I have to talk about the issues with Thor’s character in TR.

Across the films Thor has been shown to be sincere and forthright, sometimes to the point of being naive–those were inherent qualities in him that I liked very much. But TR made him manipulative and scheming, towards both Bruce (in the scene shown in this post) and Loki (elevator “heart-to-heart talk” scene), who are his friend and brother respectively. How is this the Thor we know from before???

(At this point I know some people might want to object by saying that Loki was going to betray Thor so it was only fair that he took precautions, but that reason is bullshit in the first place and I will explain why later)

TDW might have been boring overall, but as I’ve mentioned before I loved Thor in that film. In TDW he had become a mature and sensible prince, no longer the reckless, arrogant, entitled heir to the throne in the first film, and by the end of TDW he had even shown humility and consideration towards Loki’s motivations. This was good character development in my opinion, but then they (TW and CH) simply decided to throw all that out the window and create a whole new Thor instead because they found him boring. Now that I know that, it’s no longer surprising that Thor was so OOC, because they’ve admitted themselves that they had fully intended to reinvent the character and TW even outright said that CH was just playing himself. (Btw, excuse me?? I went to the cinema to watch Thor Odinson, not Chris Odinson?)

Now, my biggest issue with the film was how they had sacrificed Loki’s character and made him OOC as well. Most significantly, they made him the scapegoat for everything that had happened. If you listened to the podcast above, you’d know that Loki did not fake his death and he had essentially already redeemed himself by the end of TDW. Yet in TR this was what Thor said of him:

“You faked your own death”

“Maybe there’s still some good in you”

“Dear brother, you’re becoming predictable. 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 wanna 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.”

“Maybe you’re not so bad after all”

“Still some good”??? “Not so bad”???? Seriously, New Thor????? Your brother risked his life to protect you and your ex-girlfriend and he doesn’t get any credit??? He was a villain for a while but surely he’s not all that bad??? In the past 1000 years you’ve known him??

And I’ve already explained in detail before why that ‘God of Mischief’ speech was complete nonsense but just to summarise,

1) Loki didn’t fake his death, if that was one of the betrayals that New Thor was referring to. Tom Hiddleston actually played out the scene thinking that Loki was going to die. But thanks to TR making it into a joke now no one’s gonna take Loki’s death scene in TDW seriously anymore.

2) “But you seem to just wanna stay the same” –Thor should know damn well how much Loki has changed across the films and why

3) OOC: They made Loki betray Thor for no reason other than he is the “God of Mischief”, even though this was something that Loki had never done before. He always had clear motivations in every case.

Also, the thing I’ve mentioned at the start: they only started to emphasize the characters as “Gods” in this film. In Loki’s case it’s the “God of Mischief”–no problem with that, except that they took the label literally and oversimplified his character. New Thor told him “you’ll always be the God of Mischief, but you could be more”, but Loki has always been more, so what was he even talking about?

This is a quote from Tom Hiddleston regarding Loki:

‘He’s just evil. He’s just evil from the front.’ Thanks for the sympathy. Just worked three films, kind of like, integrated a psychology, and all I get: ‘He’s just evil’. Correct.

Replace the word ‘evil’ with ‘mischievous’, and that’s exactly how they interpreted Loki’s character in Ragnarok.

(Oh, another example is the Loki turning into a snake and stabbing Thor thing that everyone seems to love so much. Umm?? Since when has Loki stabbed his brother for the fun of it? In Avengers he had been crying when he stabbed Thor. In TDW it had been an act to trick the Dark Elves. So? Again, retcon.)

TL;DR: Loki was supposed to have redeemed himself by the end of TDW, but Thor: Ragnarok threw all his character development out the window and instead retconned him into an incorrigible troublemaker so that it would justify OOC Thor’s ‘done with your shit’ attitude towards him throughout the film, making him the scapegoat for everything. All his issues were made into jokes and never addressed.

@whitedaydream thank you for this post!

@lokiloveforever @latent-thoughts @lucianalight @mastreworld @shine-of-asgard

@yume-no-fantasy @whitedaydream Thank you!! As you might know I hated Ragnarok, and I found it very offensive and hurtful, and the humor I found to have a very mean-spirited feeling to it. But Thor, omg, he is just….disgusting, and disturbing, and I agree with everything you are saying!

Loki already was MORE than just the god of mischief – and Tom Hiddleston made him that way! What he did for Loki shook the Marvel world, and they were not prepared for the response and the following that Loki gained. He had a depth, mystery, intelligence, elegance, class, complexity, layers, humor mixed with heartbreaking sadness,and tangible pain. And TW made him less, stripped all of that away. So that Thor would look like the quarterback hero, and Loki would look like the loser punk.

I think both the elevator speech and the obedience disc speech are so damn abusive, and it’s all about Thor, how HE feels, how HE thinks Loki should be, and how Loki has fallen short of HIS expectations. It’s a major guilt trip: “maybe there’s still good in you, but you are you, and I am me” meaning, “maybe there’s still good in you, but you’ll never be like me, you’ll never live up to MY kind of goodness" and “you see Loki, life is about growing,changing, moving on” – maybe Thor can let everything roll off his abnormally muscled back, but Loki isn’t like that. what happened to Loki hurt him to the core, and Thor and Loki are 2 very different people! When Loki comes to visit Thor in the freaky circle, Thor has already moved on, forgiven Odin of all his lies, and is right back to blaming Loki. There’s no emotional impact whatsoever.

The stupid play was aimed to wipe away the other movies, and the seriousness of Loki’s redeeming sacrifice for Thor. It was made to make Loki seem laughable, simple and underhanded, and “weasley”. Just like him sitting on his ass eating grapes, we know Loki would never rule like that, but they wanted to make him seem simple in his schemes. TW and CH made Loki this way because that’s the Loki that THEY wanted. A laughable loser whose redemption is set up through a “heartfelt” speech that his loving brother gives him.

By the end it’s just…..wrong. They’re not on even ground. Thor takes the throne, Loki is on the far, far right, with Valkyrie between them, and he’s barely in the shot. Everybody says how happy he is, that he’s finally accepted his place. His place. It makes me sad. I feel like Marvel needs to make up for letting this movie be made!

Also, (I don’t know if this is said or not) TR made Loki ruling as a joke. As Thor said, ‘Sitting in your bath robe eating grapes.” And Loki as odin watching theater about himself. They made it a joke. And they think that’s ‘okay’. That it’s ‘fine’ or ‘cool’. No! They made Loki ruling a frickin joke! I understand the gold statue. But sitting back, eating grapes, watching a play about yourself? That’s NOT okay.

I totally agree with what lokilovefrever said about the 2 little speeches Thor gave Loki. I mean, yeah Thor wanted his brother back (the brother he had before Thor 1) the so-called ‘good’ brother. But Loki has changed. He’s changed.

That doesn’t mean Loki is gonna be an outright bad guy. Loki adjusted himself. He adjusted his desires, his feelings, so he could be better brother and so he could redeem himself in Thor’s eyes. But no…TW and CH had to throw away Loki’s redemption of TDW in TR. *sheds an angry tear*

Other things that were wrong with this movie:

When Odin dies Thor says to Loki, “this was your doing.”

The dungeon talk. Thor says “…you stripped Odin of his powers, stranded him on earth, and left him to die…”

I don’t want to get into detail about those. I just wanna put them out there.

I don’t care how many people unfollow me. This whole post is wonderful. It’s the best. It needs to be passed on. 😀 😀 ❤ ❤

@lokiloveforever @whitedaydream @yume-no-fantasy

Thank you @thiddlestonismyknight I’m totally with you <3<3<3<3

@fuckyeahrichardiii, @illwynd, more fuel for our rage…

Chris Hemsworth angry writers reinvented Thor in Avengers Infinity War

ribbon-couture:

latinextra:

whitedaydream:

‘I came into this and called Joe and Anthony and said, “Look, don’t write me the old Thor, we’ve got a new Thor now,”’ Chris said.

He was referencing the highly acclaimed shift towards a comedic, self-referential tone he and Taika made with Ragnarok.

But instead of observing his request to keep the character’s newfound mojo alive, the Russo brothers reportedly told him they’d ‘reinvented’ the character once again.

Chris recalled his response: ‘I was like “no, no, no” and I was really protective of what I’d created with Taika.’

They explained that the new direction was in line with the higher-stakes of the Avengers film, and to ensure the character worked well in an ensemble cast.

No offence to anyone whose reblogged this bc they prob didn’t know better/I know we’re all emotional wrecks about these movies thus we take a lot of this information at face value but … this is false. Taika, Ryan, Peyton, James, and Jon worked closely with the Russo’s to ensure every franchise under their control was in character and not fucked up. Any Thor you will see on screen in IW has been approved by Taika himself. The Daily Mail is a trashy clickbait tabloid that often gets their facts wrong also IW was still in the process of filming before Thor 3 was even done and out to the public hence why Chris was scared to go back to the old Thor bc no one had even SEEN the new Thor yet. Thank u for coming to my Ted talk.

Of course, “not fucked up” is in the eye of the beholder…

Chris Hemsworth angry writers reinvented Thor in Avengers Infinity War