shine-of-asgard:

juliabohemian:

apocalypticwafflekitten:

lucianalight:

juliabohemian:

lasimo74allmyworld:

mosellegreen:

ameliawilliams:

You think you could make Loki tell us where the Tesseract is?

Shit I hate it when I notice new things about these movies.

We’ve covered how conceited it is of Thor to assume, incorrectly, that this is about him. But what else can we expect from this spoiled brat.

And we’ve covered that this is Fury proposing torture. Asking a man to torture his own brother. Anyone who still thinks Fury is one of the good guys… he’s not.

But Thor says “There’s no pain would prise his need from him.”

Thor knows that pain won’t make Loki knuckle under.

Which means he must have tried it. Before Loki was officially designated a villain. When he was just the younger prince of Asgard, Thor’s loyal brother and comrade in arms.

Thor knows that torture won’t work on Loki from experience.

Shit. Did they think about what they were putting in these fucking movies at all?

The more we analyse the movies, the more we discover that the bad guys are the ones with shining armour and boosted egos.

Really, the painful truth I read above breaks my heart.

I also think it’s interesting that Thor assumes Loki coming to Earth is about him. It had nothing to do with Thor at all, but Thor never finds that out. Here’s hoping Infinity War will bring some shit to light, but I’m not holding my breath.

Also the thought that Thor knows Loki has an incredibly high pain tolerance kind of makes me cringe. 

“Which means he must have tried it. Before Loki was officially designated a villain. When he was just the younger prince of Asgard, Thor’s loyal brother and comrade in arms.

Thor knows that torture won’t work on Loki from experience.”

Before TR I would never believe that Thor would ever torture Loki, or put him through any kind of serious pain. So what I understood from Thor’s line in Avengers was that Thor had seen Loki going through torture and didn’t break. Not that he had done it himself. I mean they are princes, any kind of voilence could have happened by their enemys. But damn TR and that scene with obedience disk makes me question everything now.

@mosellegreen

@lasimo74allmyworld

@juliabohemian

@lucianalight

Alrighty. I know I’m late, but upon coming across this, have things to say. Don’t know if you’re going to like or agree with them, but here we go.

Im not going to get into Thor’s vanity, because that’s a topic for another time, but here we go on Loki and abuse:

I can NEVER belive that Thor would EVER torture Loki. He wouldn’t abuse him, or experiment on him because he loves his brother. I mean, look at the ENTIRE elevator scene in Ragnarok. Thor literally says in a morose, and reminiscent voice: “I thought the world of you. I thought we’re were always going to fight side by side.” (Something along those lines. Sorry if the quote isn’t correct.)Personally, I would never beat anyone if I thought the world of them. I wouldn’t wish to fight by their side if I hated them enough to beat them.

And it goes back to before then even. Look at TDW. The scene where Thor is asking for Loki’s help? He states that he used to belive that there was a glimmer of goodness and redeemability in Loki.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?!?!!??!? It means that he wanted to save his brother! If youre abusing someone, why would you wish to save them?

Granted, he does say that that is/was gone, but we never see him abuse or beat Loki after that. And then theres all the other things Loki did for Thor in that move.

  • He agreed to help him in the first
  • Saved/Protected Jane.
  • Twice
  • Didn’t actually betray him at all until he “died”
  • And, my personal favorite
  • LEFT THOR WITH THE THOUGHT THAT HIS FATHER WAS ACTUALLY A GOOD FATHER BY TELLING HIM SOMETHING KIND AND DEEP. SOMETHINGBHE NEEDED TO HEAR SO THE HE DIDNT ABSOLUTELY HATE HIS FATHER; HIS IDOL SINCE HE WAS A SMOL LIGHTNING BOLT WHILE DISGUISED AS ODIN

You don’t do things like that for people you hate.

Then there the first Thor movie. Did you see any of the scenes before it was revealed to Loki what his heritage was? The two were close. Look at the deleted scenes. Loki says something similar to: “I admit that there have been times when I was envious, but never doubt that I love you.” Why would Loki say he loves Thor if his brother abused him? I hear y’all saying “Well it could be a show!” “He’s faking!” “Thor threatened him!” But look at the deleted scene mentioned earlier in this paragraph. The two are completely alone. Loki is smiling, and it’s genuine. There are creases by his eyes from his cheeks lifting. (That’s the physical cue that a smile is genuine) Loki’s body language in that scene doesn’t show any sort of discomfort or fear. He’s comfortable around his brother.

And then there were the scenes in Jotunheim in the first Thor. Loki is insistant that they go home (and that they not go at all, calling it suicide)because he doesn’t want to see his brother or ever his brother’s friends hurt or worse.

Oh, and this little gem: “I love Thor more dearly than any of you.”

If you look at the body language of someone whose been beaten while they’re around the person they are beaten by, you’ll see slouched shoulders, a tense body, constant glances to anywhere but their abusers face, clammy hands, hands in pockets (a cue that the person is trying to hide something) and just a general feel of unease and unrest. Fear and terror.

You see NONE of that body language when Loki and Thor are together. Look at Ragnarok. They’re fighting together to end Hella. They don’t hate each other. Loki isn’t afraid of Thor. He’s just so used to being in Thor’s shadow and he’s sick of it. He wants to be recognized.

When the two are alone at the end of Ragnarok, you don’t see Loki tense, or avoiding eye contant. He’s looking strait at Thor withought any glint of fear.

He’s comfortable.

Oh, and the line “I’m Here.”

And “Maybe you’re not so bad.”

Im gonna bring up a thought now.

They. Are. Norse. Gods. And. Brothers.

That means battles, and fighting side by side. Seeing each other take hits and blows, stabs and cuts. Seeing them push themselves to their limits. Thor knows that Loki won’t stop no matter the pain because he’s seen it in his brother in battle. He’s seen that fight in Loki’s eyes. He knows his brother’s ambitious nature.

“So how does Thor know that pain won’t stop Loki?” I hear you ask.

Well my friends. All you have to do is look at the ending of the first Thor film.

Loki is hellbent on destroying Jotumheim. So hellbent that he would fight his own brother to do it. Sure, Loki was angered and confused because of what he had recently learned, and he didn’t belive Thor to be his brother, but it had to hurt to fight his brother. I mean, it would hurt me to fight my brother.

At this point, Loki has discarded pain for his ambition and let it consume him. He didn’t care that he had to fight Thor. He didn’t care that destroying Jotunheim would have awful reprocussions. He just wanted to prove himself to someone, *cough cough* his father *cough*

And at the end you see Loki showing that he care for Thor. When Thor is destroying the Bifrost Loki yells at him: “But if you destroy the Bifrost you’ll never see her again!!!”

I don’t know about you, but to me, that screams that Loki cares about Thor’s wellbeing and interests. He cares about his brother’s happiness despite feeling estranged and ostracized because of what he is.

That’s not typically seen in someone who is abused. The care for their abusers wellbeing.

So no. I don’t think Thor would ever abuse Loki. They’re too close. They’ve been through too much together. Thor does NOT deserve that kind of belittlement. He has fought to save and protect his little brother since the beginning, and that ain’t gonna change.

@

apocalypticwafflekitten

Let me just preface this by saying that I have studied psychology, child development and trauma/abuse recovery at great length and for many years. I don’t usually bother responding to posts like this, simply because I don’t have the time, but given that your argument is based on some disturbingly false premises, I feel like I owe it to other Loki fans to construct a reply. You seem very young and sweet, so I’m going to do my best to be kind. 

Tagging a few peeps here to see if they would like to chime in: @mosellegreen @lasimo74allmyworld @lucianalight @lokiloveforever 

“I can NEVER believe that Thor would EVER torture Loki.” 

I LIKE Thor and I have zero trouble believing this at all. Thor left Loki being electrocuted by the obedience disk. Thor had no idea how long Loki would lie there, or how much he could withstand. He didn’t know if Loki would be rescued, or if he’d be found by someone who was going to simply execute him…and they were on a planet where people were executed regularly (and painfully) for ridiculous reasons. In fact, Thor witnessed an execution, so he knew this for sure. And Thor didn’t JUST leave Loki there, he did so gleefully. So even if his comment to Nick Fury about knowing how much pain Loki can withstand doesn’t mean anything, the scene in Ragnarok leaves very little to the imagination.

“And it goes back to before then even. Look at TDW. The scene where Thor is asking for Loki’s help? He states that he used to belive that there was a glimmer of goodness and redeemability in Loki.”

The thing is, this is actually an awful thing to say. Like many of Thor’s comments towards Loki, it’s an insult disguised as a compliment. Thor has a lot of balls asking for help at that moment, in the first place. Loki does it because he loves his mother and wants to avenge her. The problem is that you are interpreting this from the POV that Loki is a villain who needs to be redeemed, instead of someone who has feelings and motives for his behavior, just like Thor. 

Interestingly enough, I’ve noticed that people who tend to defend Thor’s actions are people who share the view that he and Loki are not actually equals. 

“DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?!?!!??!? It means that he wanted to save his brother! If youre abusing someone, why would you wish to save them…You don’t do things like that for people you hate.”

First of all, no one has said that Loki hates Thor. For the record, I don’t think that Thor hates Loki either. Abuse victims don’t usually hate their abusers. In fact, many would openly claim to love them. Abuse victims also absolutely do defend their abusers, do things for their abusers and feel loyal and/or indebted to their abusers. It’s actually more common for abuse victims to feel this way, than not. That’s pretty textbook. Extreme versions of this are known as Stockholm Syndrome. 

Loki is consistently desperate for Thor’s approval and validation, as well as that of his father’s. He even says as much. “All I ever wanted was to be your equal…” Loki’s motives can be summed up, almost entirely by that quote alone. He tries to kill himself when he realizes that his dad isn’t going to give him that approval. Let’s take a moment to recognize what a devastating act that is. It’s not the sort of thing someone does when they are secure in their position in their family. That’s the act of a desperate person, who just wants to put themselves out of their misery.

Did you see any of the scenes before it was revealed to Loki what his heritage was? The two were close. Look at the deleted scenes. Loki says something similar to: “I admit that there have been times when I was envious, but never doubt that I love you.” 

Yes, I have seen all of them, many times. Loki says he loves Thor and Thor says…thank you. That’s got to be the absolute worst response a person can offer to someone who is telling them that they love them. And once again…abuse victims tell their abusers that they love them all the time. It’s very, very common. Abusers also withhold love and affection in order to control their victims. They might -for instance- refuse to say the words I love you, even when those words are said to them.

“Well it could be a show!” “He’s faking!”

No, it’s not a show. Loki believes what he is saying when he tells Thor that he loves him. He is sincere. Loki loves Thor, whatever that means for Loki. He doesn’t need to be faking for it to be evidence of an unhealthy relationship. It is possible for someone to be a victim of emotional abuse and to feel like they love someone or to feel that they are happy in their relationship. They can laugh and smile and hug and even make love to their significant other, because they are not aware of the dysfunction they are living in. Because of that dysfunction, their perception of what it means to love someone is skewed and disordered.

“If you look at the body language of someone whose been beaten while they’re around the person they are beaten by, you’ll see slouched shoulders, a tense body, constant glances to anywhere but their abusers face, clammy hands, hands in pockets (a cue that the person is trying to hide something) and just a general feel of unease and unrest. Fear and terror.” 

I mean no disrespect when I say this, but you either have no firsthand knowledge whatsoever of what an abusive relationship is like OR you are in one and are deep in denial about it. 

I say this as someone who has worked with many people who recovering from various types of abuse. Loki’s body language towards Thor is fairly consistent with someone who feels inferior and who is desperate for approval. When Loki is not in Thor’s presence, he actually stands taller and speaks more confidently. And I recognize that such a thing doesn’t necessarily imply physical abuse, but it definitely implies emotional abuse. It implies a disparity in their relationship that isn’t healthy. 

And “Maybe you’re not so bad.”

Oh my, this is another terrible thing to say. It’s another insult, disguised as a compliment. Who said he was bad in the first place? This, once again, comes from the premise that Loki is someone who needs to be redeemed and Thor is not.

“I don’t know about you, but to me, that screams that Loki cares about Thor’s wellbeing and interests. He cares about his brother’s happiness despite feeling estranged and ostracized because of what he is.That’s not typically seen in someone who is abused. The care for their abusers wellbeing.“

I have no doubt that Loki cares for Thor, because we have seen plenty of evidence of that. I believe that Thor only cares for Loki conditionally. Thor loves Loki as long as Loki is the person Thor thinks he should be, but he doesn’t really seem to KNOW Loki at all. I find it tragic that Loki has become okay with this. I had hoped that Ragnarok would end with Thor apologizing for not trying harder to understand his brother. Instead, Loki has embraced that he will never be understood and that the only way he’s doing to have Thor in his life is to accept that he will never be regarded as an equal.

Thor’s attitude towards his brother is evident with lines like “know your place” and “your imagined slights.” Thor does not see Loki as his equal, so in his mind it is totally reasonable for him to disregard Loki’s feelings. This is not entirely his fault. He was raised to see himself as better, as superior. Loki appears to know, even before his Jotun origins are revealed, that he is somehow less than his brother. This is not a perception that comes out of thin air. 

Let me rephrase that -Loki’s slights are not “imagined” simply because the protagonist says they are. This is a common mistake people make when digesting fiction. They accept the hero or good guy’s POV as reality, instead of what it is…that one person’s POV. This is especially evident when you have characters who are larger than life like Captain America or Han Solo or Harry Potter.

What’s amusing is…Loki cares openly about Thor’s feelings. He acknowledge’s Thor’s loss when Frigga dies, and again when Odin dies. He even pats him on the back when he is reminded that Jane broke up with him. These are the actions of someone who has accepted that his feelings do not matter, but the other party’s do. This is actually a very common dynamic in abusive or codependent relationships.

You mention Thor’s line in Ragnarok. “I thought the world of you. I thought we’re were always going to fight side by side.” 

Except that…we’ve seen zero evidence that Thor EVER thought the world of Loki. We’ve seen plenty of evidence that Loki thinks the world of Thor. Granted he says some negative things about him too -but he does so bitterly. Thor treats his brother as a pest in the original film. He talks down to him almost consistently, throughout all 4 films they are in together. In Avengers, Thor doesn’t even ask what Loki is doing on Earth or suspect something might be wrong (he’s suddenly trying to invade a planet he previously had no interest in). Thor makes one brief attempt to appeal to Loki, but it’s only so he can put an end to the battle and cart him off to prison. He shows no interest in finding out why Loki did what he did and we learn in TDW that Thor doesn’t even visit Loki in prison.

“Personally, I would never beat anyone if I thought the world of them.”

I believe you! I wouldn’t be able to beat anyone, even if I couldn’t stand them, but since these characters are not based on you or me, that’s not really useful information.

Do I know for sure that Thor has tortured Loki? Outside of the scene in Ragnarok, no. But do I think he’s capable of it? Absolutely. And that’s all this post is really about…whether Thor is capable of such thing. I’m amused that people are threatened by that notion. It’s almost as though they think that Thor’s motives are all good, simply because he has been cast as the hero.

Do I think Thor is a terrible person? No. He’s a character that is flawed, just like all the other Marvel characters. Thor is a product of his childhood and his family, just like Loki. They were both set against one another from the get go. They are both flawed and deeply messed up and that’s what makes them interesting.

Here’s the thing, though. While I believe there is evidence to support the fact that Loki’s relationship with Thor is imbalanced and dysfunctional…I don’t think it was the intention of the MCU writers to portray it as such. I think it’s just poor and inconsistent writing. I think it’s also a result of the fact that comic style writers tend to subscribe to the notion that anything the hero does is okay, simply because they are the hero and anything the villain does is not okay, simply because they are the villain. Which is a shame, but we take what we can get.

@juliabohemian Thank you for the in depth and lovely meta. It certainly puts many things into perspective. Sadly, I agree that such a rich interpretation wasn’t intentional and came about through a combination of cliched writing and Tom Hiddelston’s method acting, which is why we will see no acknowledgement of these issues and no resolution on screen. But it’s still important that the audience interpret what’s onscreen critically, and this includes judging the heroes by their deeds and not by their words.

I also appreciate @juliabohemian‘s meta, because it very neatly punctured the idea that the points the previous reblogger (not tagging because I don’t want to get into it with them) raises are evidence against abuse. It’s actually kind of hilarious how bad an argument it is for the intended conclusion, especially considering that some of the evidence offered (Thor’s claims that Loki “still has some good” in him or “isn’t so bad”) is actually evidence for the exact opposite.

That said… I absolutely did not draw the conclusion @mosellegreen did from that line in The Avengers. I think we were supposed to think, as @lucianalight suggested, that Thor knows Loki can hold up under torture because of experience with their common enemies during one of the many campaigns they’ve fought in together. And even after Ragnarok, I still think that, because I do not consider it legitimate to read Thor’s character as presented in Ragnarok back into the earlier movies. It’s so different, so discontinuous, that it provides absolutely no insight into his character in the other movies. The Thor of TR gleefully inflicts pain on his brother to “teach him a lesson”; the Thor of the earlier movies would not do that.

Yes, Thor probably “beat up on” little brother Loki in the way that siblings do, and Loki probably gave as good as he got, both in physical fights and in obnoxious pranks. (Forget the story about Loki “trying to kill” Thor by stabbing him when they were 8… that makes no damn sense for a lot of reasons. If Loki stabbed Thor with anything, it was probably the equivalent of a pair of scissors.) If their relationship was “abusive” in Thor 1 and before, it was just a matter of Thor being one of the “cool kids” who dismisses and sometimes bullies his tag-along uncool little brother… and of accepting the superiority that Odin has convinced both him and Loki that he (Thor) possesses. But that, I think, is better described as a situation where both Thor and Loki are victims of Odin’s crappy parenting, albeit in different ways (which seems to be the conclusion @juliabohemian reaches as well). I’m definitely bothered by the ways in which Thor shows, pre-TR, that he doesn’t care about Loki’s feelings (dismissing him, not asking him WTF happened in the year he was gone, assuming invading Midgard was All About Him, not visiting him in prison…), but I can accept that because Thor 1 acknowledges that its hero is flawed, and both that movie and The Avengers show him as improving but still a work in progress. He is getting better in TDW, and their brotherly dynamic is kind of adorable; he still says some pretty cringe-y things, but you can also see genuine respect and affection there. TR just ignores and/or reverses all the growth we’ve seen in Thor’s character and presents him as a self-absorbed, manipulative asshole who’s willing to punish and “train” Loki with severe pain while smiling smugly and speechifying at him, and then blithely leave him vulnerable in a hostile world, because he just kind of doesn’t care how anyone else feels or even, apparently, regard Loki as a full person.

foundlingmother:

philosopherking1887:

shine-of-asgard:

salazharshaikh:

shine-of-asgard:

endiness:

the more i think about ragnarok, the more problems i have with it and the more i feel like it’s ultimately a disservice (if not an outright insult) to loki’s character.

Seguir leyendo

Loki’s 3 movie long development getting retconned so that Thor could be credited for it at the last hour in Ragnarok is the logical conclusion to the characterisation mess. Yep.

This whole mess reeks of Chris Hemsworth’s jealousy of Loki being more popular than Thor in the MCU. I maybe wrong but it seems likely that’s the case.

I don’t know enough about the actors to feel comfortable accusing them of active behind-the-scenes meddling, but there clearly was only one winner in this case and he was very eager to shit on the previous movies and outspoken about how cool and great it was that Thor was the centerpiece of Ragnarok. Hmmmm… So maybe he didn’t actively make it happen, but he sure is happy that it happened :/.

Oh, I’m perfectly willing to accuse Hemsworth of behind-the-scenes meddling. I also suspect that the recent coldness between him and Tom, and Tom’s relative lack of involvement in Ragnarok promotion, has to do with the fact that Tom was completely aware of TW and CH’s lack of respect for Loki’s character (and Thor’s!) and was trying to resist it but got steamrollered over.

W.r.t. @endiness‘s discourse about the mistreatment of Loki’s character in Ragnarok, I completely agree. In fact, @foundlingmother and I have discussed at length the way that TR missed – or rather, deliberately ignored – the opportunity to bring up the issue of Loki’s adoption and internalized racism in connection with the imperialism allegory. I’ve also remarked on the regression of Loki’s character and suggested an explanation in terms of replacing a Shakespearean villain with a simplistic version of the trickster archetype, and I’d be curious to know what y’all think of that hypothesis.

Regarding Loki using the story of his fall as an amusing anecdote on Sakaar, I think @endiness is completely right:

while i could find it entirely possible that loki was regaling them of his tales to somehow endear himself to the populace and i could find it believable that, in general, loki would use his pain and trauma in whatever way necessary to benefit himself… i doubt the sincerity of that in this movie. because when any of loki’s trauma was even mentioned at all, it was shown more as a joke at his expense rather than something actually meaningful and significant.

This is something else I’ve discussed with @foundlingmother and others. Ignoring authorial intent (which is often a good idea), one could certainly interpret this bit of storytelling, as well as the play at the beginning, as Loki taking ownership of his trauma and turning it into an asset so that it no longer has power over him… but I think it’s patently obvious that that’s not the interpretation intended by Waititi and Pearson (the screenwriter). They take every opportunity to minimize and ridicule Loki’s problems and motivations. The fact that the events can be given a better and deeper interpretation should not be credited to the film itself as a product of its actual creators, but to the ingenuityof the fans who actually care about the characters.

I also think @endiness makes some very good points about the lost opportunity to give Loki a prior connection to Sakaar, especially this:

“lost and unloved. like you. but here on sakaar, you are significant. you are valuable. here, you are loved. where once you were nothing, now you are something.” perfectly describes loki’s mindset for having let go in the first place.

In fact, I was somewhat concerned when I was reading stuff before Ragnarok came out about how Sakaar is where wormholes dump their trash that we would learn that Loki ended up on Sakaar after the end of Thor, which would automatically falsify the fic I’ve been writing about what happened to Loki between Thor and The Avengers. The nice thing about Marvel not caring enough about Loki to provide such an account that is that my fic will never become defunct and irrelevant 😛 (Though it’s still a possibility that Infinity War will explain the connection between Loki and Thanos instead of just having Thanos kill Loki in the first 5 minutes.)

You know what’s amusingly unamusing to me when I think about ignoring authorial intent and Ragnarok? In trying to make Thor cooler and Loki less complex, they ruined Thor’s character more than Loki’s. Most of Loki’s actions in Ragnarok can be manipulated to mesh well with the character we know from previous films. It’s Thor’s character that can’t be reconciled. The thoughtfulness, protectiveness, and subtle humor vanished, and the only traits he retains are hot-headedness, which he’d been working on, and ignorance born of bad parenting and Asgardian society, which he’d also started chipping away at (defying Odin in TDW was a great first step). 

Interesting point, and I think you’re right that they screwed up Thor’s character more than Loki’s. The reasons I tend to focus on the damage to Loki’s character are (1) I cared more about Loki going in, (2) the other people who post threads criticizing Ragnarok tend to be Loki fans (how ironic is it that the Thor “stans” all seem to like the hash that was made of his character integrity?!), and (3) the character assassination of Loki was deliberate and malicious and I’m pissed about how little respect the creators have for Loki’s many fans (mostly female, natch) and for Tom Hiddleston, an actual Shakespearean actor who has poured a lot of heart and serious thought into the character.

I do still think that to rescue Loki’s character you have to ignore not only authorial intent but tonal cues, which are actually part of the text (and often the most explicit expression of authorial intent in the text).

shine-of-asgard:

salazharshaikh:

shine-of-asgard:

endiness:

the more i think about ragnarok, the more problems i have with it and the more i feel like it’s ultimately a disservice (if not an outright insult) to loki’s character.

Seguir leyendo

Loki’s 3 movie long development getting retconned so that Thor could be credited for it at the last hour in Ragnarok is the logical conclusion to the characterisation mess. Yep.

This whole mess reeks of Chris Hemsworth’s jealousy of Loki being more popular than Thor in the MCU. I maybe wrong but it seems likely that’s the case.

I don’t know enough about the actors to feel comfortable accusing them of active behind-the-scenes meddling, but there clearly was only one winner in this case and he was very eager to shit on the previous movies and outspoken about how cool and great it was that Thor was the centerpiece of Ragnarok. Hmmmm… So maybe he didn’t actively make it happen, but he sure is happy that it happened :/.

Oh, I’m perfectly willing to accuse Hemsworth of behind-the-scenes meddling. I also suspect that the recent coldness between him and Tom, and Tom’s relative lack of involvement in Ragnarok promotion, has to do with the fact that Tom was completely aware of TW and CH’s lack of respect for Loki’s character (and Thor’s!) and was trying to resist it but got steamrollered over.

W.r.t. @endiness‘s discourse about the mistreatment of Loki’s character in Ragnarok, I completely agree. In fact, @foundlingmother and I have discussed at length the way that TR missed – or rather, deliberately ignored – the opportunity to bring up the issue of Loki’s adoption and internalized racism in connection with the imperialism allegory. I’ve also remarked on the regression of Loki’s character and suggested an explanation in terms of replacing a Shakespearean villain with a simplistic version of the trickster archetype, and I’d be curious to know what y’all think of that hypothesis.

Regarding Loki using the story of his fall as an amusing anecdote on Sakaar, I think @endiness is completely right:

while i could find it entirely possible that loki was regaling them of his tales to somehow endear himself to the populace and i could find it believable that, in general, loki would use his pain and trauma in whatever way necessary to benefit himself… i doubt the sincerity of that in this movie. because when any of loki’s trauma was even mentioned at all, it was shown more as a joke at his expense rather than something actually meaningful and significant.

This is something else I’ve discussed with @foundlingmother and others. Ignoring authorial intent (which is often a good idea), one could certainly interpret this bit of storytelling, as well as the play at the beginning, as Loki taking ownership of his trauma and turning it into an asset so that it no longer has power over him… but I think it’s patently obvious that that’s not the interpretation intended by Waititi and Pearson (the screenwriter). They take every opportunity to minimize and ridicule Loki’s problems and motivations. The fact that the events can be given a better and deeper interpretation should not be credited to the film itself as a product of its actual creators, but to the ingenuityof the fans who actually care about the characters.

I also think @endiness makes some very good points about the lost opportunity to give Loki a prior connection to Sakaar, especially this:

“lost and unloved. like you. but here on sakaar, you are significant. you are valuable. here, you are loved. where once you were nothing, now you are something.” perfectly describes loki’s mindset for having let go in the first place.

In fact, I was somewhat concerned when I was reading stuff before Ragnarok came out about how Sakaar is where wormholes dump their trash that we would learn that Loki ended up on Sakaar after the end of Thor, which would automatically falsify the fic I’ve been writing about what happened to Loki between Thor and The Avengers. The nice thing about Marvel not caring enough about Loki to provide such an account that is that my fic will never become defunct and irrelevant 😛 (Though it’s still a possibility that Infinity War will explain the connection between Loki and Thanos instead of just having Thanos kill Loki in the first 5 minutes.)

foundlingmother:

portraitoftheoddity:

Sometimes I really wish people would differentiate between “I hate this character” and “I dislike aspects of how this character was handled in a work.” 

#this is my relationship to thor in ragnarok#i love my golden son#i hate how he’s handled in ragnarok (via @foundlingmother)

Same here (though I don’t think I’d ever refer to Thor as “my golden son”… I liked him fine before Ragnarok, but never to that degree). And I’m often at pains to distinguish myself from the Loki stans who hated Thor and thought he was a horrible abusive bully in the first 2 Thor films + The Avengers. I do not hate Thor as he was introduced and characterized for 4 films. If I fully accepted his characterization in Ragnarok as canon, I think I would have to start hating him. But since I think he’s basically not even the same person as the Thor of previous films, it makes more sense to say I hate the way his character was handled in Ragnarok.

aftselakhis-shaladin:

leproblematique:

Czytaj dalej

@philosopherking1887 has engaged in conversations negative about Ragnarok. You can check their blog. I personally hated the film ever since Thor’s conversation with Surtur proved the director does not understand the characters he is writing at all. This is so much more depressing when you learn that first draft of the scenario had much more character developement and serious moments, but all that was thrown out of the window to accomodate for more jokes. If the film were to be retconned, the only part I’d miss would be Valkyrie’s Memory scene (did anyone realize she was never given a name?).

It’s not in the movie, but her name is Brunnhilde.

@foundlingmother and @lucianalight also have a lot of meta that’s critical of “Ragnarok,” in case you’re looking for more allies.

master-beta:

foundlingmother:

latent-thoughts:

burningarbiterheart:

endiness:

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!?

@latent-thoughts

I concur with the many points raised above. 

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.

so, what we’re saying here, is that Hemsworth re-wrote the movie himself and got rid of all the stuff he didn’t like, and made his character look like the cool dude and mocked the depth other characters had developed, and then strong-armed Marvel into hiring his new comic buddy to direct? bc, in all honesty, that’s what the movie feels like – Hemsworth going all Downey on the script and the production and getting his way bc he wanted to be the cool dude for once, instead of actually having to, ya know, act and shit. 

Hey man, that’s unfair to Robert Downey, Jr. He acts the shit out of Tony Stark.

foundlingmother:

latent-thoughts:

burningarbiterheart:

endiness:

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!?

@latent-thoughts

I concur with the many points raised above. 

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.

latent-thoughts:

burningarbiterheart:

endiness:

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!?

@latent-thoughts

I concur with the many points raised above. 

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.

seidrade
replied to your post “I know you talked about the elevator scene before, but what are your…”

I just stumbled on this thread (I think it’s even longer on @foundlingmother ‘s page?) and just wanted to say thank you both because after talking to each of you individually then reading this, I feel like I have a much better read on the whole situation (in context of Thor 3 both alone and in light of the previous films.) I feel more comfortable acknowledging inconsistent/bad writing instead of trying to give too much credit where it isn’t due.

The thing that was esp. tripping me up was reconciling Thor’s behaviour (because in some ways it’s consistent with his earlier issues and in other ways it seems pretty OOC, which was throwing me off.) Thanks for delving into the inherent issues and then addressing how/why Ragnarok could have tackled them differently via Thor’s characterization in particular (but failed to.) We were given a facade of reconciliation and its nice to pull back the curtain and figure out why it wasn’t really that.

Heh, @seidrade, it sounds like you went through the same process as I did, only a few months later. In one respect, I’m sorry; it’s disappointing to realize that the conclusion to a series that means a lot to you is just bad and you can’t salvage it. But on the other hand, I know how frustrating it is to be dissatisfied with something but not quite able to pinpoint why, so you’re welcome for helping with that.

It’s reassuring to know that saying variations on the same thing over and over again can actually help someone break through a difficulty. I kind of feel like one of those weirdos (or hobo!Odin) who stands on a street corner preaching repentance; most of the people who see it will probably just be indifferent, annoyed, or offended, but if I can reach one person it feels like it’s worth it. Or maybe it’s like teaching history of philosophy to undergrads… you keep trying different ways to explain something and it can be frustrating and dispiriting but you see a lightbulb go on in one student’s head and it’s all worthwhile.