#crying because this is the same room that his life fell apart in#those are the same steps that his identity was shattered on#this is the place where he broke#all those years ago in the first movie#and now hes back#and look how much has changed#frosty bby#thor ragnarok
But of course we’re not going to talk about any of that. Because Loki is just over it, right? Or if he’s not, he should be. His emotional problems are totally bumming Thor out.
Right, and of course TW was explaining the change in Thor’s speech patterns by citing the time he’s spent with Tony Stark. Which somehow occurred in the 2 years after AOU when Thor was not on Earth, but out in the universe searching for Infinity Stones.
The whole thing in Civil War was just kind of bizarre… and the writers have said things suggesting that they think Cap’s moral certainty is a virtue and Tony’s self-doubt is somehow a bad thing. Which I think is completely absurd, because it seemed to me that Tony came off as the reasonable one and Cap as an arrogant, self-righteous asshole.
(To the people tempted to bring up General Ross and the HYDRA infiltration of SHIELD again: I kind of doubt that HYDRA is going to infiltrate the governments of all the member countries of the UN. And recall that it was Wakanda leading the call for international supervision of the Avengers. Wakanda. Uncolonized, technologically advanced, hidden African nation Wakanda.)
‘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.
oh thank the fucking norns
Oh no, Chris is going to have to actually act as a character instead of just playing himself.
I hope by “reinvented” they just mean went back to the character as we’d known him for 4 movies before Chris got tired of pretending he can act.
(This article doesn’t even really make sense because the Russos didn’t write the script, they just directed it; Markus & McFeely were the writers.)
It’s an unpopular opinion, but I welcome this change. I hated Ragnarok!Thor. The Russo Brothers know what they’re doing. They did a great job with Cap, and they’ll do great with Thor. By not making him a Space Viking Tony Stark.
Dude, calling Ragnarok!Thor a “Space Viking Tony Stark” is an insult to Tony Stark. Tony Stark only pretends to be indifferent to other people’s feelings.
I’m not sure I trust the writers, Markus and McFeely; they turned Captain America: Civil War into a soap opera about personal loyalties and vendettas and completely dropped the ball on the larger political and philosophical issues they had the opportunity to explore. They also wrote most of Thor: The Dark World, which is largely a boring, forgettable mess without the Loki scenes they brought Joss Whedon in to add in reshoots. I’m actually kind of intrigued by the strategy they described of making Thanos the central character of IW and the Avengers effectively supporting characters, even though everyone else is appalled by it, but I’m skeptical that they have the skill to carry it off well.
Chris Hemsworth angry writers reinvented Thor in Avengers Infinity War
Someone just replied to my Hemsworth-critical post saying “you know Loki’s gonna die right?” I think they were trying to hurt my feelings because my icon makes it obvious that I’m a Loki fan foremost (or maybe they just assumed I must be because I “hate Thor,” except I don’t, just the “new and [definitely not] improved Thor”), but it’s just so beside the point that it’s baffling. It’s like responding to any insult or criticism with “oh yeah, your mom’s fat.”
‘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.
oh thank the fucking norns
Oh no, Chris is going to have to actually act as a character instead of just playing himself.
I hope by “reinvented” they just mean went back to the character as we’d known him for 4 movies before Chris got tired of pretending he can act.
(This article doesn’t even really make sense because the Russos didn’t write the script, they just directed it; Markus & McFeely were the writers.)
Chris Hemsworth angry writers reinvented Thor in Avengers Infinity War
I continue to wonder what the hell Thor, Avengers, and TDW people watched that made them think Marvel was writing Loki as a mustache-twirling villain. You know, people always said prior to Ragnarok that Loki was Marvel’s best villain. He had understandable motivations and even could be seen as sympathetic. He was explicitly praised for not being the one-dimensional trying-to-destroy-the-universe villain. WTF changed your minds on that? Why is he now a case of tragically bad writing on Marvel’s part? A case of untapped potential until TW took him over, retconned his personality, and ignored the relatable issues he experiences (outsiderness, internalized-racism, bad parenting)? Or is this all some joke I’m not in on?
fuckyeahrichardiii replied to your post “foundlingmother:
philosopherking1887:shine-of-asgard:
…”
It felt like the film equivalent of that move in modern comics where writers essentially douchebro beloved characters (this is especially true if IM comics) in part for the explicit purpose of alienating female fans. The whole time I was sitting in the theater I felt like I was being insulted.
Funny you should mention that, @fuckyeahrichardiii… I recently saw a post from @flange5 where she referred to that kind of behavior by male comics writers (in reference specifically to Iron Man comics, I think) as “fencepost-pissing,” because they’re making a point of “leaving their mark” on the character rather than remaining consistent with the character as it’s been established previously. I remarked that according to that definition, Taika Waititi is also a fencepost-pisser.
YES! This is absolutely true, and a great way of thinking about the movie. I didn’t watch a lot of interviews (and tbh have had the tag for the movie blocked for a while since seeing stuff from it made me so upset) but the teeny bit I did see gave me the impression that TW seemed happy to made his mark on the franchise and to have given us an All New, All Different!™️ Thor. And given the fact that his main point of pride is that Thor was “funny” (to some people, I guess, though not to me), this is a pretty simplistic take on character innovation.
This new Thor was lobotomized, buffoonish, and, well, cruel. But the entire movie seemed to be characterized by a kind of cruelty, in a way. Not only did it lack a heart and soul, but it displayed contempt for the very idea of any kind of genuine earnestness, and clearly open contempt for the storylines and character development in the earlier movies.
That’s one of the several reasons why stupid comments comparing TW’s Thor to that of Kirby and Lee send me into a hate spiral: not only are these comparisons wrong on aesthetic grounds (Ragnarok seemed to be drawing its over-the-top look from the goofy brightness of 90s comics) but they absolutely ignore the fact that Kirby and Lee? Loved. These. Characters. The earnest affection that bubbles out of 60s comics, and absolute seriousness with which Thor’s emotional ups and downs are treated, are the antithesis of what TW did with Ragnarok.
Taika Waititi pissed on his fence post, alright. He also left a giant stinking turd in the yard.
@shine-of-asgard, since you said on another post (which is long so I’m excerpting),
fanboys LOVED Ragnarok. Loved it. Hulk boing boing and hammer strokes and whatnot. And they hate Loki with a passion, almost to a point where I think their masculinity is threatened by him.
I thought I should point you to this post and introduce you to @fuckyeahrichardiii. And yes, I suspect you’re entirely right that fanboys feel their masculinity threatened by Loki. He’s queer-coded, almost effeminate, and yet women are attracted to him more strongly and in greater numbers than to male power fantasy Thor! How to neutralize the threat? Ridicule him; impugn his masculinity further by making him the sugar baby (a.k.a. “bitch”) of another ridiculous, effeminate character.
If the goal was to alienate female fans, they may have succeeded to some extent… but they certainly haven’t shaken their affection for the Loki of earlier movies, and apparently some women even find Loki/Grandmaster hot.
fuckyeahrichardiii replied to your post “foundlingmother:
philosopherking1887:shine-of-asgard:
…”
It felt like the film equivalent of that move in modern comics where writers essentially douchebro beloved characters (this is especially true if IM comics) in part for the explicit purpose of alienating female fans. The whole time I was sitting in the theater I felt like I was being insulted.
Funny you should mention that, @fuckyeahrichardiii… I recently saw a post from @flange5 where she referred to that kind of behavior by male comics writers (in reference specifically to Iron Man comics, I think) as “fencepost-pissing,” because they’re making a point of “leaving their mark” on the character rather than remaining consistent with the character as it’s been established previously. I remarked that according to that definition, Taika Waititi is also a fencepost-pisser.
YES! This is absolutely true, and a great way of thinking about the movie. I didn’t watch a lot of interviews (and tbh have had the tag for the movie blocked for a while since seeing stuff from it made me so upset) but the teeny bit I did see gave me the impression that TW seemed happy to made his mark on the franchise and to have given us an All New, All Different!™️ Thor. And given the fact that his main point of pride is that Thor was “funny” (to some people, I guess, though not to me), this is a pretty simplistic take on character innovation.
This new Thor was lobotomized, buffoonish, and, well, cruel. But the entire movie seemed to be characterized by a kind of cruelty, in a way. Not only did it lack a heart and soul, but it displayed contempt for the very idea of any kind of genuine earnestness, and clearly open contempt for the storylines and character development in the earlier movies.
That’s one of the several reasons why stupid comments comparing TW’s Thor to that of Kirby and Lee send me into a hate spiral: not only are these comparisons wrong on aesthetic grounds (Ragnarok seemed to be drawing its over-the-top look from the goofy brightness of 90s comics) but they absolutely ignore the fact that Kirby and Lee? Loved. These. Characters. The earnest affection that bubbles out of 60s comics, and absolute seriousness with which Thor’s emotional ups and downs are treated, are the antithesis of what TW did with Ragnarok.
Taika Waititi pissed on his fence post, alright. He also left a giant stinking turd in the yard.
Imagine saying a character “know[ing] they’re right and doesn’t want to hear it when you tell them they’re wrong” was a good thing. That this wasn’t one of Steve Rogers, Captain America’s greatest flaws.
Imagine believing that this is a character trait that CAROL DANVERS would be proud to have. Imagine never having picked up a comic book in your life, and saying that Carol Danvers isn’t one of these “flawed, fucked up people”.
Imagine if Marcus & McFeely actually gave a f*ck about Carol and didn’t get her character so wrong.
No. Thank fuck they’re not writing Captain Marvel.
Wait, so… they didn’t think that was a flaw in Steve Rogers? They wrote Civil War thinking that Steve was the sympathetic one and Tony “contorted ego” [???] Stark was the villain? Because boy, did that go wrong. I came out of that movie thinking that Steve was a complete asshole and Tony was the one being (relatively) reasonable.
…kind of like what happened when Waititi, Pearson, and Hemsworth tried to make Thor the “best” character in his own movie, eh, @fuckyeahrichardiii?
fuckyeahrichardiii replied to your post “foundlingmother:
philosopherking1887:
shine-of-asgard:
…”
It felt like the film equivalent of that move in modern comics where writers essentially douchebro beloved characters (this is especially true if IM comics) in part for the explicit purpose of alienating female fans. The whole time I was sitting in the theater I felt like I was being insulted.
Funny you should mention that, @fuckyeahrichardiii… I recently saw a post from @flange5 where she referred to that kind of behavior by male comics writers (in reference specifically to Iron Man comics, I think) as “fencepost-pissing,” because they’re making a point of “leaving their mark” on the character rather than remaining consistent with the character as it’s been established previously. I remarked that according to that definition, Taika Waititi is also a fencepost-pisser.
Loki is the Philosopher King 