Ignoring Tom Hiddleston’s Own Words To Fit an Agenda

philosopherking1887:

nikkoliferous:

seiramili7:

This writing is inspired by this post: post: https://thesunwillshineonus.tumblr.com/post/177979140245/taika-and-i-went-out-for-a-bowl-of-pasta-before

So, for all of you who’re curious enough to visit this post of mine, here’s the actual link/source of the Empire Podcast full interview of Tom Hiddleston that already existed since 4 months ago:

https://soundcloud.com/empiremagazine/tom-hiddleston-life-as-loki-interview-special

The answers of this interview just recently got published in this article (basically he source of @thesunwillshineonus post): https://webbedmedia.com/2018/09/11/tom-hiddleston-on-loki-the-god-of-mischief-reveals-some-secrets/ , which contained the shortened versions of Tom Hiddleston’s overall answers.

So, this article only contained the shortened version, it certainly couldn’t post all of the word Tom Hiddleston said in the interview. But of course, I find this article interesting in the way they published his answer, but I just want to highlight one part of what they published:

Talking to Taika Waititi before Ragnarok
Taika and I went out for a bowl of pasta before Ragnarok and he said ‘I’m gonna change quite a lot. But I’m not gonna change you.’ And I took that as a huge compliment. I’ve always felt a responsibility to both honor the respect in which the character is held but also to try and progress it on.

Here’s the minutes in which its sentences was taken for the writing purpose:

From 9:38 – 9:50: Taika and I went out for a bowl of pasta before Ragnarok and he said ‘I’m gonna change quite a lot. But I’m not gonna change you.’ And I took that as a huge compliment.

From 10:12 – 10:25: I’ve always felt a responsibility to both honor the respect in which the character is held but also to try and progress it on.

As you see, there’s the space of between this word “I took that as a huge compliment”, and the word “

I’ve always felt a responsibility to both honor the respect in which the character is held but also to try and progress it on.”

For those of you who’re curious of those missing words (Tom Hiddleston’s words which cut off by the article writer, of course), here’s the real continuation right after “And I took that as a huge compliment.” part, with the bonus of full words taken from 9: 38- 9: 52 minutes.

“Taika and I went out for a bowl of pasta before Ragnarok and he said ‘I’m gonna change quite a lot, but I’m not gonna change you.’ And I took that as a huge compliment.

BUT that he (waititi) did change things actually (9:50-9:52 minutes)”

Anyone else is curious on why did the writers take this two seconds part —->>> “but he did change things actually”?? (Feel free to interpret this on your own to make your answer, as I already have mine).

P.S.: It’s ironic how Ragnarok zealots calling us as “ignoring Tom Hiddleston’s own words” when in reality, they’re the one who ignoring Tom Hiddleston’s words just because it doesn’t fit their own agenda.

Your thoughts??

@juliabohemian @lucianalight @lokiloveforever @shine-of-asgard @philosopherking1887 @foundlingmother @i-ran-away-without-a-map @morningfountain @welle-nijordottir @rewritefate @ms-cellanies @catwinchester @timetravellingshinigami @doctor-disc0 @imnotakangaroo-imabunny @small-potato-of-defiance @edge-of-silvermoon @lasimo74allmyworld @nikkoliferous @sapphiredreamer26 @noli-something @noli-ge @cosmicjoke @mentallydatingahotcelebrity @kinathewolf @miharu87 @mastreworld @starscreamloki @thebeevesknees @lololalolotte @lostlokichaos @hiddlestonangelsmile @hisasgardianangel @lokimymuse @lokisinsurrection

I think part of it is, obviously, the tendency to accuse other people of the thing you’re guilty of yourself (e.g., accusing Loki fans who hate Ragnarok of ignoring Tom’s own words while they ignore Tom’s own words).

And I think there’s also an aspect of a tendency I see in discourse about politics all the time, wherein most people don’t actually read full articles or identify nuance. They see a headline or a blurb and they take that at face value instead of determining the context of what they’ve just read.

Obviously, neither of those fallacies are exclusive to Ragnarok/Taika zealots; they’re just generally a human tendency. But I definitely see them at work a lot with people who will defend Ragnarok to the death.

As to why the writers of the article decided to omit that short additional portion of his answer (for the fullest possible context; here is word-for-word absolutely everything Tom said in between “I took that as a huge compliment” and “But I’ve always felt a responsibility…”):

“But that he also–we did change things, actually. But [Taika] was really–of course, as we’ve–everyone’s seen Ragnarok, he radically changed things. Specifically with regards to Thor. You know, just, break him down, chop his hair off. And, uh… and Asgard too. But also, I do feel like it’s different every time, in a way that I’m not fully conscious of.”

….good question. And I am curious, actually. Specifically because in the fullest context, what he said in the omitted portion seems fairly neutral to me. He doesn’t speak especially positively or negatively about the changes Taika made. The main point I’d just want to highlight is that he never says Taika didn’t change Loki. Ragnarok lovers use this interview to claim that Tom approves of what Taika did with Loki in Ragnarok, but he never says that. He says Taika told him he wouldn’t change Loki. There’s no indication that he believes they didn’t change him. So at best, these fans are making an argument from silence. And at worst, they’re being intentionally disingenuous little assholes.

Thank you so much for doing the research, @seiramili7! I listened to the full interview, and you’re right that the context makes it ambiguous whether he thought Taika didn’t change Loki. It’s interesting that he remembered that conversation… I guess if it was one of his first significant interactions with him, it might stand out.

Speaking of making arguments from silence… it’s interesting to me that Tom has never said that he likes the way Ragnarok changed Thor as a character and the tone of the movies. He gushes about Kenneth Branagh and the depth that the original scriptwriters gave Loki; there was that similarly gushy e-mail to Joss Whedon where he said how much he loved the role:

It’s high operatic villainy alongside detached throwaway tongue-in-cheek; plus the “real menace” and his closely guarded suitcase of pain. It’s grand and epic and majestic and poetic and lyrical and wicked and rich and badass and might possibly be the most gloriously fun part I’ve ever stared down the barrel of playing. It is just so juicy.

I love how throughout you continue to put Loki on some kind of pedestal of regal magnificence and then consistently tear him down. He gets battered, punched, blasted, side-swiped, roared at, sent tumbling on his back, and every time he gets back up smiling, wickedly, never for a second losing his eloquence, style, wit, self-aggrandisement or grandeur, and you never send him up or deny him his real intelligence.

What Tom did say in praise of Taika in the Empire podcast was that he, like the other directors he’s worked with, “respected the brotherly relationship between Thor and Loki.” I would definitely side-eye that claim; there were some brotherly shenanigans, but they reflect a fundamentally unequal relationship in which Loki’s whole world revolves around Thor but Thor scarcely gives a thought to Loki’s feelings or inner world. And I’m sure some brotherly relationships are really like that. It was also interesting how Tom said that Ragnarok gave us a “capitulation or reconciliation” regarding Loki’s fraught relationship with his family. He then went on to talk about Odin’s acknowledgment of Loki as his son rather than Loki’s relationship with Thor. Still, interesting choice of word.

As a bunch of people have been saying, Tom is far too gracious to publicly criticize his co-workers or the films he’s been in (unlike Chris Hemsworth…). I don’t think I’ve ever heard him say a bad word about anyone, except maybe indirectly Donald Trump. So I’m not sure that we can take his positive words or omissions of criticism at face value. His omissions of praise, given his general tendency to gush about people and writing that really impress him, may actually be more significant. His downcast, disaffected demeanor and body language throughout the press for Ragnarok – but not so much for Infinity War, interestingly – could mean any number of things. Maybe he had just filmed the death scene in IW and he was depressed about that, about saying goodbye to the role; maybe he was getting a little too into his stage role as Hamlet, or was stressed out about preparing for it; maybe something else was going on in his personal life that we don’t know about because it’s none of our business. I don’t think we can determine for sure either way whether he approved of the direction in which TW and CH took the Thor franchise and the characters of Thor and Loki.

But as a bunch of people have also been saying, even if Tom thinks Taika didn’t ruin Loki, and even if Taika really didn’t intend to change Loki, that doesn’t prove what the TR/TW/CH stans want it to prove: that Taika did not, in fact, ruin Loki’s character. Tom is, in general, a sophisticated reader of texts and characters… but he’s not infallible, and he has an obvious motivation to see the best in his role in Ragnarok. And what an artist “intended” to do in advance of creating their work is often not the same as what they end up doing. Many of the things Taika has said in interviews do reflect contempt and lack of sympathy for Loki; I found this collection of quotes from him, but there was another compilation, I think by @yume-no-fantasy, that has even more evidence and I’m having trouble finding it, so if someone could help me out… I do remember a quotation of him saying “Not to want to humiliate Loki throughout the whole movie…” that reminded me strongly of when Trump says “I’m not even going to talk about X” and then proceeds to rant about X.

But even if Taika didn’t have malicious intent, even if he didn’t want to make Loki look like a shallow, incompetent narcissist with no understandable motives beyond “I did it for the lulz” and no legitimate grievances against anyone in his family… what matters is what the work shows. And the work does show contempt for Loki and an inability and/or unwillingness to understand his problems and motivations in previous films. My considered view, given the evidence both in interviews and in the tone of the film itself, is that this was malicious; but perhaps it was just the result of incomprehension and/or incompetence. My evaluation of the movie would not change even if Tom and Taika held a press conference in which Taika very earnestly and sincerely said that he was trying his best to do justice to Loki’s character and Tom said that he believes Taika succeeded; I would just say that they were wrong about the film that was actually made. Everyone on here is perfectly happy to say that even if Joss Whedon was trying to be feminist in his oeuvre, he failed and in fact made non- or anti-feminist works (I would dispute that generalization, but that’s not the point here). Artists can be wrong about the import of their work, the message or perspective it conveys. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating,” as they say; and the only way to determine the content or attitude of a piece of media is to examine it carefully and critically.

Oh P.S. I wanted to express my agreement with this remark from @nikkoliferous:

I think part of it is, obviously, the tendency to accuse other people of the thing you’re guilty of yourself (e.g., accusing Loki fans who hate Ragnarok of ignoring Tom’s own words while they ignore Tom’s own words).

This was also on display in the anonymous message that one of these Ragnarok/Waititi stans sent to @iamanartichoke, accusing her of “threatening” when the only person who had done any threatening was the person whom iamanartichoke (Charlotte) had rebuked for threatening to incite dogpiling on me. (I referred to this yesterday as a “No puppet, no puppet, you’re the puppet” moment.) The TR/TW/CH/Thor* stans like to play the victim when in fact they are the ones who send anonymous hate to anti-Ragnarok folks and disparage certain of us by name, implicitly (or explicitly) encouraging their followers to dogpile (this is another distinctly Trumpian behavior). They act like martyrs when people like me jump onto a thread to dispute their logic or offer counterarguments and counterevidence, but it’s extremely common for them to insert themselves into Ragnarok-critical threads just to insult the posters as hysterical, delusional, racist, homophobic straight girls who just want to fuck Tom Hiddleston, or otherwise just to say they “can’t believe” some people or put in some skeptical gif as if it’s a refutation (philosophers call this pseudo-argument “the incredulous stare”).

Ignoring Tom Hiddleston’s Own Words To Fit an Agenda

nikkoliferous:

seiramili7:

This writing is inspired by this post: post: https://thesunwillshineonus.tumblr.com/post/177979140245/taika-and-i-went-out-for-a-bowl-of-pasta-before

So, for all of you who’re curious enough to visit this post of mine, here’s the actual link/source of the Empire Podcast full interview of Tom Hiddleston that already existed since 4 months ago:

https://soundcloud.com/empiremagazine/tom-hiddleston-life-as-loki-interview-special

The answers of this interview just recently got published in this article (basically he source of @thesunwillshineonus post): https://webbedmedia.com/2018/09/11/tom-hiddleston-on-loki-the-god-of-mischief-reveals-some-secrets/ , which contained the shortened versions of Tom Hiddleston’s overall answers.

So, this article only contained the shortened version, it certainly couldn’t post all of the word Tom Hiddleston said in the interview. But of course, I find this article interesting in the way they published his answer, but I just want to highlight one part of what they published:

Talking to Taika Waititi before Ragnarok
Taika and I went out for a bowl of pasta before Ragnarok and he said ‘I’m gonna change quite a lot. But I’m not gonna change you.’ And I took that as a huge compliment. I’ve always felt a responsibility to both honor the respect in which the character is held but also to try and progress it on.

Here’s the minutes in which its sentences was taken for the writing purpose:

From 9:38 – 9:50: Taika and I went out for a bowl of pasta before Ragnarok and he said ‘I’m gonna change quite a lot. But I’m not gonna change you.’ And I took that as a huge compliment.

From 10:12 – 10:25: I’ve always felt a responsibility to both honor the respect in which the character is held but also to try and progress it on.

As you see, there’s the space of between this word “I took that as a huge compliment”, and the word “

I’ve always felt a responsibility to both honor the respect in which the character is held but also to try and progress it on.”

For those of you who’re curious of those missing words (Tom Hiddleston’s words which cut off by the article writer, of course), here’s the real continuation right after “And I took that as a huge compliment.” part, with the bonus of full words taken from 9: 38- 9: 52 minutes.

“Taika and I went out for a bowl of pasta before Ragnarok and he said ‘I’m gonna change quite a lot, but I’m not gonna change you.’ And I took that as a huge compliment.

BUT that he (waititi) did change things actually (9:50-9:52 minutes)”

Anyone else is curious on why did the writers take this two seconds part —->>> “but he did change things actually”?? (Feel free to interpret this on your own to make your answer, as I already have mine).

P.S.: It’s ironic how Ragnarok zealots calling us as “ignoring Tom Hiddleston’s own words” when in reality, they’re the one who ignoring Tom Hiddleston’s words just because it doesn’t fit their own agenda.

Your thoughts??

@juliabohemian @lucianalight @lokiloveforever @shine-of-asgard @philosopherking1887 @foundlingmother @i-ran-away-without-a-map @morningfountain @welle-nijordottir @rewritefate @ms-cellanies @catwinchester @timetravellingshinigami @doctor-disc0 @imnotakangaroo-imabunny @small-potato-of-defiance @edge-of-silvermoon @lasimo74allmyworld @nikkoliferous @sapphiredreamer26 @noli-something @noli-ge @cosmicjoke @mentallydatingahotcelebrity @kinathewolf @miharu87 @mastreworld @starscreamloki @thebeevesknees @lololalolotte @lostlokichaos @hiddlestonangelsmile @hisasgardianangel @lokimymuse @lokisinsurrection

I think part of it is, obviously, the tendency to accuse other people of the thing you’re guilty of yourself (e.g., accusing Loki fans who hate Ragnarok of ignoring Tom’s own words while they ignore Tom’s own words).

And I think there’s also an aspect of a tendency I see in discourse about politics all the time, wherein most people don’t actually read full articles or identify nuance. They see a headline or a blurb and they take that at face value instead of determining the context of what they’ve just read.

Obviously, neither of those fallacies are exclusive to Ragnarok/Taika zealots; they’re just generally a human tendency. But I definitely see them at work a lot with people who will defend Ragnarok to the death.

As to why the writers of the article decided to omit that short additional portion of his answer (for the fullest possible context; here is word-for-word absolutely everything Tom said in between “I took that as a huge compliment” and “But I’ve always felt a responsibility…”):

“But that he also–we did change things, actually. But [Taika] was really–of course, as we’ve–everyone’s seen Ragnarok, he radically changed things. Specifically with regards to Thor. You know, just, break him down, chop his hair off. And, uh… and Asgard too. But also, I do feel like it’s different every time, in a way that I’m not fully conscious of.”

….good question. And I am curious, actually. Specifically because in the fullest context, what he said in the omitted portion seems fairly neutral to me. He doesn’t speak especially positively or negatively about the changes Taika made. The main point I’d just want to highlight is that he never says Taika didn’t change Loki. Ragnarok lovers use this interview to claim that Tom approves of what Taika did with Loki in Ragnarok, but he never says that. He says Taika told him he wouldn’t change Loki. There’s no indication that he believes they didn’t change him. So at best, these fans are making an argument from silence. And at worst, they’re being intentionally disingenuous little assholes.

Thank you so much for doing the research, @seiramili7! I listened to the full interview, and you’re right that the context makes it ambiguous whether he thought Taika didn’t change Loki. It’s interesting that he remembered that conversation… I guess if it was one of his first significant interactions with him, it might stand out.

Speaking of making arguments from silence… it’s interesting to me that Tom has never said that he likes the way Ragnarok changed Thor as a character and the tone of the movies. He gushes about Kenneth Branagh and the depth that the original scriptwriters gave Loki; there was that similarly gushy e-mail to Joss Whedon where he said how much he loved the role:

It’s high operatic villainy alongside detached throwaway tongue-in-cheek; plus the “real menace” and his closely guarded suitcase of pain. It’s grand and epic and majestic and poetic and lyrical and wicked and rich and badass and might possibly be the most gloriously fun part I’ve ever stared down the barrel of playing. It is just so juicy.

I love how throughout you continue to put Loki on some kind of pedestal of regal magnificence and then consistently tear him down. He gets battered, punched, blasted, side-swiped, roared at, sent tumbling on his back, and every time he gets back up smiling, wickedly, never for a second losing his eloquence, style, wit, self-aggrandisement or grandeur, and you never send him up or deny him his real intelligence.

What Tom did say in praise of Taika in the Empire podcast was that he, like the other directors he’s worked with, “respected the brotherly relationship between Thor and Loki.” I would definitely side-eye that claim; there were some brotherly shenanigans, but they reflect a fundamentally unequal relationship in which Loki’s whole world revolves around Thor but Thor scarcely gives a thought to Loki’s feelings or inner world. And I’m sure some brotherly relationships are really like that. It was also interesting how Tom said that Ragnarok gave us a “capitulation or reconciliation” regarding Loki’s fraught relationship with his family. He then went on to talk about Odin’s acknowledgment of Loki as his son rather than Loki’s relationship with Thor. Still, interesting choice of word.

As a bunch of people have been saying, Tom is far too gracious to publicly criticize his co-workers or the films he’s been in (unlike Chris Hemsworth…). I don’t think I’ve ever heard him say a bad word about anyone, except maybe indirectly Donald Trump. So I’m not sure that we can take his positive words or omissions of criticism at face value. His omissions of praise, given his general tendency to gush about people and writing that really impress him, may actually be more significant. His downcast, disaffected demeanor and body language throughout the press for Ragnarok – but not so much for Infinity War, interestingly – could mean any number of things. Maybe he had just filmed the death scene in IW and he was depressed about that, about saying goodbye to the role; maybe he was getting a little too into his stage role as Hamlet, or was stressed out about preparing for it; maybe something else was going on in his personal life that we don’t know about because it’s none of our business. I don’t think we can determine for sure either way whether he approved of the direction in which TW and CH took the Thor franchise and the characters of Thor and Loki.

But as a bunch of people have also been saying, even if Tom thinks Taika didn’t ruin Loki, and even if Taika really didn’t intend to change Loki, that doesn’t prove what the TR/TW/CH stans want it to prove: that Taika did not, in fact, ruin Loki’s character. Tom is, in general, a sophisticated reader of texts and characters… but he’s not infallible, and he has an obvious motivation to see the best in his role in Ragnarok. And what an artist “intended” to do in advance of creating their work is often not the same as what they end up doing. Many of the things Taika has said in interviews do reflect contempt and lack of sympathy for Loki; I found this collection of quotes from him, but there was another compilation, I think by @yume-no-fantasy, that has even more evidence and I’m having trouble finding it, so if someone could help me out… I do remember a quotation of him saying “Not to want to humiliate Loki throughout the whole movie…” that reminded me strongly of when Trump says “I’m not even going to talk about X” and then proceeds to rant about X.

But even if Taika didn’t have malicious intent, even if he didn’t want to make Loki look like a shallow, incompetent narcissist with no understandable motives beyond “I did it for the lulz” and no legitimate grievances against anyone in his family… what matters is what the work shows. And the work does show contempt for Loki and an inability and/or unwillingness to understand his problems and motivations in previous films. My considered view, given the evidence both in interviews and in the tone of the film itself, is that this was malicious; but perhaps it was just the result of incomprehension and/or incompetence. My evaluation of the movie would not change even if Tom and Taika held a press conference in which Taika very earnestly and sincerely said that he was trying his best to do justice to Loki’s character and Tom said that he believes Taika succeeded; I would just say that they were wrong about the film that was actually made. Everyone on here is perfectly happy to say that even if Joss Whedon was trying to be feminist in his oeuvre, he failed and in fact made non- or anti-feminist works (I would dispute that generalization, but that’s not the point here). Artists can be wrong about the import of their work, the message or perspective it conveys. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating,” as they say; and the only way to determine the content or attitude of a piece of media is to examine it carefully and critically.

Hey, so like…

catwinchester:

ms-cellanies:

lokiloveforever:

nikkoliferous:

lokiloveforever:

seiramili7:

timetravellingshinigami:

nikkoliferous:

asgardiankingofmischief:

nikkoliferous:

Does anyone want to talk about how ridiculous it is that Valkyrie, of all people, shames Loki for not caring about doing the right thing?

Loki: I don’t mean to impose…
(Valkyrie throws a bottle at him because violence is only bad if The Villain™ does it)
Loki: The Grandmaster has a great many ships. I may even have stolen the access codes to his security system.
Valkyrie: And suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?

You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie?

Yeah, and considering her history in enslaving people for the Grandmaster runs about 1000 or so years? Maybe more, I can’t recall, she doesn’t really have the moral high ground.

In fact, Loki attempting to capture Thor and surrender him to the Grandmaster is more in line with something that Valkyrie would likely pursue (considering her time in Sakaar). Maybe they should have made her more difficult to convince.

Her comment/question is rather out of place also and would have to assume that she’s familiar with Loki to the level that Thor or Hulk (cause of NY) are.

I can only assume she said it in retaliation to what Loki did with her mind, but, in my opinion, she probably would have said something else.

Or they could have validated that she wasn’t necessarily trustworthy too.

It just felt like more of Taika’s lazy story-telling to me, as opposed to Valkyrie getting back at him for the whole ‘invading my mind’ thing. (But hey, don’t invade people’s brains, kids. It’s quite rude). I personally viewed it more as like, “hey, we haven’t reminded people that Loki’s a bad egg in the last 3 minutes or so; better let someone have a dig at his loose morals” sort of BS that is honestly just rampant in Thor: Ragnarok.

Like, I know Ragnarok critics get labelled conspiracy theorists for thinking (or at least speaking as though) Taika just had it out for Loki and wanted to degrade him as much as possible. And I get it, that sounds objectively insane. But just, looking at the narrative of the film itself, it’s… hard not to get that impression? And there’s really no other indicator in that movie–unless I’m forgetting something–that anyone on Sakaar (not including Thor and Bruce, obviously) has a clue who Loki really is. I guess it’s possible that they do, but there’s no evidence that that’s the case. More show & tell problems in this film.

I actually do want to address the ‘betraying Thor for money’ thing, though. Because I see a lot of people complaining that it’s completely out of character for Loki to do so for the money, and I actually have a different take on it. We all know Loki is rarely able to just be honest about what’s going on in his head. That’s essentially what the entire conflict between him and Thor has been fueled by for all this time, really. So I kind of headcanon that Loki might have told Thor that it was for the money, but I personally believe that in reality, it was actually Loki’s last-ditch effort to save his brother. Even as strong as he and Thor both are, individually and together, he did not believe Hela was an enemy that they could defeat (which is technically true)–especially now that she’s all cozy on Asgard, where she’ll be even stronger than when they first met her. Loki already failed once to talk Thor into staying on Sakaar of his own free will; I think betraying him was Loki’s way of trying to keep him safe from Hela by any means necessary.

I also think that deceptiveness can extend to his fight with Valkyrie too. A lot of Loki fans complain about her being able to take him captive so easily, but I choose to believe he lost to her intentionally. Easy ticket to finding his brother. He is the trickster god. Why are we suddenly taking him at face value all the time?

Admittedly, when it comes to Thor: Ragnarok, it’s super hard to decide when Loki is acting out of character because he’s running a scheme and when he’s doing it because of bad writing.

People actually call Loki stans (the true Loki stans) and people who don’t like Ragnarok as idiots just ‘cause we analyzed the movie from start to finish. Most of these people who insult us are new to the fandom and only saw Ragnarok. And even if they saw the other Thor movies they don’t remember it or for some reason they don’t like it. They just here for the jokes and, me, who is someone who’s here for depth of character, good storytelling and just pure emotion cannot deal with people like that.

Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all okay.

You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie?

In fact, Valkyrie’s own words about “

suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?

“ itself applies accurately to what Valkyrie was doing exactly at that time.

And to be honest, Valkyrie is a hypocrite. Considering about her own deeds that sold many non-guilty people into slavery and causing those people’s deaths for thousands years, and the fact that she knows almost nothing about Loki himself, she has absolutely no right to judge Loki and then acts like she has never done anything wrong in her life, ever.

Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all 🆗.

People often forget about her actions because the narrative never call it. The narrative of Ragnarok want to condemn Loki only out of other characters and exaggerating his “evilness” into stereotype and caricature-like so people start to regard him as only “a mere background character who is just an useless twink who have no dignity and just nothing but a pest to Thor the Perfect ‘Hero’ with no absolute importance other than being fan-service”. That’s why they’re so many double standards in Ragnarok especially regarding Loki.

@lucianalight @juliabohemian @welle-nijordottir

Waititi did have it in for Loki, he admitted it. He said Loki’s treatment and humiliation was “payback” for overshadowing the other movies. Everything, from that stupid play, to the deleted port o potty scene, to being chained up and having glass bottles thrown at his head, to Thor’s triumphant obedience disc scene was all a reflection of exactly how Waititi feels about Loki. “Blah, blah, blah, shut up, space orphan” “Loki tries so hard to be this tortured, artistic, space orphan”. Waititi’s not subtle about it. He thinks all the little Loki lovers are idiots. He meant out to “respectfully” disrespect the other movies, and extend a middle finger to those of us whose favorite character wasn’t Thor. It’s funny how, in that scene where Loki is sitting there chained up, nobody there, not Thor, not Bruce or Valkyrie, have any right to stand there and judge Loki. Valkyrie was just as much a “lackey” of the Grandmaster, if not moreso, because she worked for him and enslaved people for him for a long, long, time. She knew about the orgy ship too, and was obviously in high favor with the grandmaster. But yet in that scene, suddenly Thor, Bruce and Valkyrie are the spotless heroes with the right to look down their noses at Loki? No.

That’s part of what makes it so maddening too. Waititi fans love to label Ragnarok critics as “conspiracy theorists”. And it’s like… well, yeah… there was a conspiracy. About which Waititi has been completely transparent. So like… how is this even a controversial or debatable thing? If you want to defend Waititi’s bullshit, fine. But don’t resort to gaslighting to do it.

Every time I hear them bitching about Thor not being the most popular character, though, I can’t help laughing. Like. This is literally the inverse of the premise of the movies. They mock Loki for being insecure about feeling second place to Thor in his own family… but that’s literally what Chris Hemsworth’s big problem with these movies is–coming in second to Loki in his own franchise. Except, you know, Hemsworth doesn’t have the underlying trauma of having been sold a lie his entire life and then tortured by a maniac, etc. So… ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Yes, LOL! So who’s the dramatic little bitch now? And who does Waititi see himself as, Thanos? Coming in and restoring order and balance to the Thor franchise? because people chose their own favorite character, and it wasn’t the title character? A character he doesn’t particularly care for or understand, so the only thing to do was tear him down, mock and ridicule him, and punish him for being loved and us for loving him.

Thank you one & all but especially @nikkoliferous for saying this:

“

They mock Loki for being insecure about feeling second place to Thor in his own family… but that’s literally what Chris Hemsworth’s big problem with these movies is–coming in second to Loki in his own franchise.”

That’s what I’ve been saying all along. In Thor & TDW those were THOR Movies. Hemsworth was the STAR, yet not just fans but CRITICS praised Tom as Loki. At least one critic who reviewed TDW said the BEST SCENES were those with Tom as Loki. Both films revolved around toxic sibling rivalry, primarily due to Daddy obviously loving and valuing one son more than the other. In REAL LIFE the roles were reversed and poor Chris Hemsworth poured out his poor abused, broken heart to his comrade in arms, Taika. Together they worked to destroy Loki and Tom’s fan base who are characterized as silly girls who fell for “the bad boy” instead of the “hero.” What irks me more than anything else is that in nearly every interview Tom gave for the Thor films he praised Chris, first and foremost. He NEVER put himself above or in front of Chris. Betrayal of the worst kind, imho.

When they’re outmatched, most creatures up their game.

The Lesser Talented Hemsworth, however, prefers to “win” by sabotaging its competition.

It’s an effective tactic in the short term but in the longer term, it soon becomes obvious who has the greater talent. As time goes on, the Lesser Talented Hemsworth finds that increasingly, its box office returns for dramatic roles cannot justify the budget, not indeed its paycheque, and eventually they find themselves relegated to B movies, where their toxic effect on box office numbers is mitigated by significantly small budgets.

Reblogging again because there’s a new branch of the discussion and it is also excellent.

Hey, so like…

nikkoliferous:

philosopherking1887:

darthwindows:

lokilover9:

lokiloveforever:

seiramili7:

timetravellingshinigami:

nikkoliferous:

asgardiankingofmischief:

nikkoliferous:

Does anyone want to talk about how ridiculous it is that Valkyrie, of all people, shames Loki for not caring about doing the right thing?

Loki: I don’t mean to impose…
(Valkyrie throws a bottle at him because violence is only bad if The Villain™ does it)
Loki: The Grandmaster has a great many ships. I may even have stolen the access codes to his security system.
Valkyrie: And suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?

You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie?

Yeah, and considering her history in enslaving people for the Grandmaster runs about 1000 or so years? Maybe more, I can’t recall, she doesn’t really have the moral high ground.

In fact, Loki attempting to capture Thor and surrender him to the Grandmaster is more in line with something that Valkyrie would likely pursue (considering her time in Sakaar). Maybe they should have made her more difficult to convince.

Her comment/question is rather out of place also and would have to assume that she’s familiar with Loki to the level that Thor or Hulk (cause of NY) are.

I can only assume she said it in retaliation to what Loki did with her mind, but, in my opinion, she probably would have said something else.

Or they could have validated that she wasn’t necessarily trustworthy too.

It just felt like more of Taika’s lazy story-telling to me, as opposed to Valkyrie getting back at him for the whole ‘invading my mind’ thing. (But hey, don’t invade people’s brains, kids. It’s quite rude). I personally viewed it more as like, “hey, we haven’t reminded people that Loki’s a bad egg in the last 3 minutes or so; better let someone have a dig at his loose morals” sort of BS that is honestly just rampant in Thor: Ragnarok.

Like, I know Ragnarok critics get labelled conspiracy theorists for thinking (or at least speaking as though) Taika just had it out for Loki and wanted to degrade him as much as possible. And I get it, that sounds objectively insane. But just, looking at the narrative of the film itself, it’s… hard not to get that impression? And there’s really no other indicator in that movie–unless I’m forgetting something–that anyone on Sakaar (not including Thor and Bruce, obviously) has a clue who Loki really is. I guess it’s possible that they do, but there’s no evidence that that’s the case. More show & tell problems in this film.

I actually do want to address the ‘betraying Thor for money’ thing, though. Because I see a lot of people complaining that it’s completely out of character for Loki to do so for the money, and I actually have a different take on it. We all know Loki is rarely able to just be honest about what’s going on in his head. That’s essentially what the entire conflict between him and Thor has been fueled by for all this time, really. So I kind of headcanon that Loki might have told Thor that it was for the money, but I personally believe that in reality, it was actually Loki’s last-ditch effort to save his brother. Even as strong as he and Thor both are, individually and together, he did not believe Hela was an enemy that they could defeat (which is technically true)–especially now that she’s all cozy on Asgard, where she’ll be even stronger than when they first met her. Loki already failed once to talk Thor into staying on Sakaar of his own free will; I think betraying him was Loki’s way of trying to keep him safe from Hela by any means necessary.

I also think that deceptiveness can extend to his fight with Valkyrie too. A lot of Loki fans complain about her being able to take him captive so easily, but I choose to believe he lost to her intentionally. Easy ticket to finding his brother. He is the trickster god. Why are we suddenly taking him at face value all the time?

Admittedly, when it comes to Thor: Ragnarok, it’s super hard to decide when Loki is acting out of character because he’s running a scheme and when he’s doing it because of bad writing.

People actually call Loki stans (the true Loki stans) and people who don’t like Ragnarok as idiots just ‘cause we analyzed the movie from start to finish. Most of these people who insult us are new to the fandom and only saw Ragnarok. And even if they saw the other Thor movies they don’t remember it or for some reason they don’t like it. They just here for the jokes and, me, who is someone who’s here for depth of character, good storytelling and just pure emotion cannot deal with people like that.

Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all okay.

You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie?

In fact, Valkyrie’s own words about “

suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?

“ itself applies accurately to what Valkyrie was doing exactly at that time.

And to be honest, Valkyrie is a hypocrite. Considering about her own deeds that sold many non-guilty people into slavery and causing those people’s deaths for thousands years, and the fact that she knows almost nothing about Loki himself, she has absolutely no right to judge Loki and then acts like she has never done anything wrong in her life, ever.

Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all 🆗.

People often forget about her actions because the narrative never call it. The narrative of Ragnarok want to condemn Loki only out of other characters and exaggerating his “evilness” into stereotype and caricature-like so people start to regard him as only “a mere background character who is just an useless twink who have no dignity and just nothing but a pest to Thor the Perfect ‘Hero’ with no absolute importance other than being fan-service”. That’s why they’re so many double standards in Ragnarok especially regarding Loki.

@lucianalight @juliabohemian @welle-nijordottir

Waititi did have it in for Loki, he admitted it. He said Loki’s treatment and humiliation was “payback” for overshadowing the other movies. Everything, from that stupid play, to the deleted port o potty scene, to being chained up and having glass bottles thrown at his head, to Thor’s triumphant obedience disc scene was all a reflection of exactly how Waititi feels about Loki. “Blah, blah, blah, shut up, space orphan” “Loki tries so hard to be this tortured, artistic, space orphan”. Waititi’s not subtle about it. He thinks all the little Loki lovers are idiots. He meant out to “respectfully” disrespect the other movies, and extend a middle finger to those of us whose favorite character wasn’t Thor. It’s funny how, in that scene where Loki is sitting there chained up, nobody there, not Thor, not Bruce or Valkyrie, have any right to stand there and judge Loki. Valkyrie was just as much a “lackey” of the Grandmaster, if not moreso, because she worked for him and enslaved people for him for a long, long, time. She knew about the orgy ship too, and was obviously in high favor with the grandmaster. But yet in that scene, suddenly Thor, Bruce and Valkyrie are the spotless heroes with the right to look down their noses at Loki? No.

What I also find bothersome about Lokis treatment in Ragnarok is wondering how Tom took it. No one knows really and we may never, yet I can’t help but think it affected him negatively on some level, after devoting so much time, talent and heart into the character. I’d certainly be insulted and secretly pissed. And yes, Sakaar must’ve dwelled within the boonies of space, as I too found it odd no one there ever recognized Loki. A form of subliminal messaging, perhaps?

Let us not forget please that Taika is not completely to blame. Hemsworth specifically asked for Taika because he was mad about how Tom overshadowed him in TDW because he did a shitty job and was tired of playing Thor like how it was written. Hemsy requested Taika. Which might be why Tom and Hemsworth aren’t tight anymore.

^ Yes, that is exactly right. I don’t think Taika himself gave a shit about any of the MCU films or characters until Hemsworth brought him on in order to showcase his (Hemsworth’s), er, comedic genius. He came in predisposed to despise Loki for stealing poor Chris’s limelight… and other than hating Loki on Chris’s behalf – and being incredibly pleased with himself over his witticisms as Korg, getting Jeff Goldblum to play himself, and getting away with spending all that money to produce a gold-plated “fuck you” sign aimed at Tom Hiddleston, Kenneth Branagh, Joss Whedon, and all of the fangirls who are too stupid to realize that they were supposed to fall for Thor, not Loki – I’m pretty sure he still doesn’t give a shit about the MCU or its characters. I blame Chris more than Taika, because I would have expected him to have some sense of artistic integrity with respect to the character he had been playing for 8 years, and perhaps even some loyalty to Tom and the work they had done together. Taika had no reason not to take Marvel’s money and run; his only loyalty was to his pal Chris who got him that sweet lucrative gig. Of course he would give full rein to Chris’s grievances.

Yes, it’s speculation; no, we can never know the secret inner lives of celebrities… but we have it spelled out in interviews that CH was bored of playing an actual dramatic character, that TW wanted to take Loki down a peg or several, that they wanted to “make sure Thor was the most interesting character in his own movie” (who might that have been before, hmm?), and that they were taking full license to retcon and “respectfully disrespect” previous canon (where we all understand that the “respectfully” part is horseshit). It *is* mere speculation, or rather interpretive guesswork, to conjecture that Tom’s dissatisfaction or even a feeling of betrayal over the handling of Loki’s character and previous canon in general is the reason he was absent from much of the Ragnarok promotion, and when he was there, looked downcast and alienated from the camaraderie of the rest of the cast. Maybe scheduling conflicts were the only reason that Tom and Chris did very few interviews together, though they had been teamed up constantly during promotion for TDW, and Tom was more likely to be paired with Jeff Goldblum or Tessa Thompson (both of whom seemed to have a lot more respect for him than either TW or CH did).

I’m not even clear what Chris and Taika’s endgame was with this. Like, was this just simple revenge on Tom and fans? Or did Chris somehow come to the wild conclusion that all they needed to do was take Tom/Loki down a few pegs and fans would just suck it up and be like, “Ugh, fiiiiine, I guess Thor is my favourite character now”?

I suspect it was just a “fuck you” to the fans who were already devoted to Loki; it was critics and potential new fans they were trying to win over. They seem to have succeeded with critics (sadly), who don’t particularly care about the consistency of the MCU, are probably pretty sick of it, and like seeing its self-seriousness mocked. Tom didn’t get the same chorus of praise for his nuanced acting that he had received for Thor 1, The Avengers, and TDW – of course, because they deliberately gave him nothing that would showcase his dramatic acting ability or capacity for conveying emotional depth; the intent was to make Loki appear shallow and ridiculous.

The usual dudebro casual fans are delighted with the new Thor who’s a dudebro like them; Loki always just confused them, but TR gave them permission to laugh at the… cigarette (or bassoon, if you know Italian or read orchestral scores). Oddly, Loki does seem to have acquired a contingent of new “fans” who accept TR’s flattening of his character and claim to “love” him anyway, while also affirming that he’s morally worthless and a dumb bitch. Not sure if that was the intent… in any case, it is succeeding in demoralizing the established Loki fans.

Hey, so like…

darthwindows:

lokilover9:

lokiloveforever:

seiramili7:

timetravellingshinigami:

nikkoliferous:

asgardiankingofmischief:

nikkoliferous:

Does anyone want to talk about how ridiculous it is that Valkyrie, of all people, shames Loki for not caring about doing the right thing?

Loki: I don’t mean to impose…
(Valkyrie throws a bottle at him because violence is only bad if The Villain™ does it)
Loki: The Grandmaster has a great many ships. I may even have stolen the access codes to his security system.
Valkyrie: And suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?

You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie?

Yeah, and considering her history in enslaving people for the Grandmaster runs about 1000 or so years? Maybe more, I can’t recall, she doesn’t really have the moral high ground.

In fact, Loki attempting to capture Thor and surrender him to the Grandmaster is more in line with something that Valkyrie would likely pursue (considering her time in Sakaar). Maybe they should have made her more difficult to convince.

Her comment/question is rather out of place also and would have to assume that she’s familiar with Loki to the level that Thor or Hulk (cause of NY) are.

I can only assume she said it in retaliation to what Loki did with her mind, but, in my opinion, she probably would have said something else.

Or they could have validated that she wasn’t necessarily trustworthy too.

It just felt like more of Taika’s lazy story-telling to me, as opposed to Valkyrie getting back at him for the whole ‘invading my mind’ thing. (But hey, don’t invade people’s brains, kids. It’s quite rude). I personally viewed it more as like, “hey, we haven’t reminded people that Loki’s a bad egg in the last 3 minutes or so; better let someone have a dig at his loose morals” sort of BS that is honestly just rampant in Thor: Ragnarok.

Like, I know Ragnarok critics get labelled conspiracy theorists for thinking (or at least speaking as though) Taika just had it out for Loki and wanted to degrade him as much as possible. And I get it, that sounds objectively insane. But just, looking at the narrative of the film itself, it’s… hard not to get that impression? And there’s really no other indicator in that movie–unless I’m forgetting something–that anyone on Sakaar (not including Thor and Bruce, obviously) has a clue who Loki really is. I guess it’s possible that they do, but there’s no evidence that that’s the case. More show & tell problems in this film.

I actually do want to address the ‘betraying Thor for money’ thing, though. Because I see a lot of people complaining that it’s completely out of character for Loki to do so for the money, and I actually have a different take on it. We all know Loki is rarely able to just be honest about what’s going on in his head. That’s essentially what the entire conflict between him and Thor has been fueled by for all this time, really. So I kind of headcanon that Loki might have told Thor that it was for the money, but I personally believe that in reality, it was actually Loki’s last-ditch effort to save his brother. Even as strong as he and Thor both are, individually and together, he did not believe Hela was an enemy that they could defeat (which is technically true)–especially now that she’s all cozy on Asgard, where she’ll be even stronger than when they first met her. Loki already failed once to talk Thor into staying on Sakaar of his own free will; I think betraying him was Loki’s way of trying to keep him safe from Hela by any means necessary.

I also think that deceptiveness can extend to his fight with Valkyrie too. A lot of Loki fans complain about her being able to take him captive so easily, but I choose to believe he lost to her intentionally. Easy ticket to finding his brother. He is the trickster god. Why are we suddenly taking him at face value all the time?

Admittedly, when it comes to Thor: Ragnarok, it’s super hard to decide when Loki is acting out of character because he’s running a scheme and when he’s doing it because of bad writing.

People actually call Loki stans (the true Loki stans) and people who don’t like Ragnarok as idiots just ‘cause we analyzed the movie from start to finish. Most of these people who insult us are new to the fandom and only saw Ragnarok. And even if they saw the other Thor movies they don’t remember it or for some reason they don’t like it. They just here for the jokes and, me, who is someone who’s here for depth of character, good storytelling and just pure emotion cannot deal with people like that.

Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all okay.

You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie?

In fact, Valkyrie’s own words about “

suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?

“ itself applies accurately to what Valkyrie was doing exactly at that time.

And to be honest, Valkyrie is a hypocrite. Considering about her own deeds that sold many non-guilty people into slavery and causing those people’s deaths for thousands years, and the fact that she knows almost nothing about Loki himself, she has absolutely no right to judge Loki and then acts like she has never done anything wrong in her life, ever.

Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all 🆗.

People often forget about her actions because the narrative never call it. The narrative of Ragnarok want to condemn Loki only out of other characters and exaggerating his “evilness” into stereotype and caricature-like so people start to regard him as only “a mere background character who is just an useless twink who have no dignity and just nothing but a pest to Thor the Perfect ‘Hero’ with no absolute importance other than being fan-service”. That’s why they’re so many double standards in Ragnarok especially regarding Loki.

@lucianalight @juliabohemian @welle-nijordottir

Waititi did have it in for Loki, he admitted it. He said Loki’s treatment and humiliation was “payback” for overshadowing the other movies. Everything, from that stupid play, to the deleted port o potty scene, to being chained up and having glass bottles thrown at his head, to Thor’s triumphant obedience disc scene was all a reflection of exactly how Waititi feels about Loki. “Blah, blah, blah, shut up, space orphan” “Loki tries so hard to be this tortured, artistic, space orphan”. Waititi’s not subtle about it. He thinks all the little Loki lovers are idiots. He meant out to “respectfully” disrespect the other movies, and extend a middle finger to those of us whose favorite character wasn’t Thor. It’s funny how, in that scene where Loki is sitting there chained up, nobody there, not Thor, not Bruce or Valkyrie, have any right to stand there and judge Loki. Valkyrie was just as much a “lackey” of the Grandmaster, if not moreso, because she worked for him and enslaved people for him for a long, long, time. She knew about the orgy ship too, and was obviously in high favor with the grandmaster. But yet in that scene, suddenly Thor, Bruce and Valkyrie are the spotless heroes with the right to look down their noses at Loki? No.

What I also find bothersome about Lokis treatment in Ragnarok is wondering how Tom took it. No one knows really and we may never, yet I can’t help but think it affected him negatively on some level, after devoting so much time, talent and heart into the character. I’d certainly be insulted and secretly pissed. And yes, Sakaar must’ve dwelled within the boonies of space, as I too found it odd no one there ever recognized Loki. A form of subliminal messaging, perhaps?

Let us not forget please that Taika is not completely to blame. Hemsworth specifically asked for Taika because he was mad about how Tom overshadowed him in TDW because he did a shitty job and was tired of playing Thor like how it was written. Hemsy requested Taika. Which might be why Tom and Hemsworth aren’t tight anymore.

^ Yes, that is exactly right. I don’t think Taika himself gave a shit about any of the MCU films or characters until Hemsworth brought him on in order to showcase his (Hemsworth’s), er, comedic genius. He came in predisposed to despise Loki for stealing poor Chris’s limelight… and other than hating Loki on Chris’s behalf – and being incredibly pleased with himself over his witticisms as Korg, getting Jeff Goldblum to play himself, and getting away with spending all that money to produce a gold-plated “fuck you” sign aimed at Tom Hiddleston, Kenneth Branagh, Joss Whedon, and all of the fangirls who are too stupid to realize that they were supposed to fall for Thor, not Loki – I’m pretty sure he still doesn’t give a shit about the MCU or its characters. I blame Chris more than Taika, because I would have expected him to have some sense of artistic integrity with respect to the character he had been playing for 8 years, and perhaps even some loyalty to Tom and the work they had done together. Taika had no reason not to take Marvel’s money and run; his only loyalty was to his pal Chris who got him that sweet lucrative gig. Of course he would give full rein to Chris’s grievances.

Yes, it’s speculation; no, we can never know the secret inner lives of celebrities… but we have it spelled out in interviews that CH was bored of playing an actual dramatic character, that TW wanted to take Loki down a peg or several, that they wanted to “make sure Thor was the most interesting character in his own movie” (who might that have been before, hmm?), and that they were taking full license to retcon and “respectfully disrespect” previous canon (where we all understand that the “respectfully” part is horseshit). It *is* mere speculation, or rather interpretive guesswork, to conjecture that Tom’s dissatisfaction or even a feeling of betrayal over the handling of Loki’s character and previous canon in general is the reason he was absent from much of the Ragnarok promotion, and when he was there, looked downcast and alienated from the camaraderie of the rest of the cast. Maybe scheduling conflicts were the only reason that Tom and Chris did very few interviews together, though they had been teamed up constantly during promotion for TDW, and Tom was more likely to be paired with Jeff Goldblum or Tessa Thompson (both of whom seemed to have a lot more respect for him than either TW or CH did).

I had the thought that as with Thor 1 being the “chick flick” of the MCU and guys generally not understanding Loki’s sex appeal, maybe the disrespect Loki receives in Infinity War is of a misogynistic nature, like he has traits more traditionally given to female characters and then is fridged like Gamora, et al. with the jarringness coming more from that a male character got the treatment traditionally reserved for female characters than to any good aspect of the death scene. What do you think?

Yes, I definitely agree with you, and I think I’ve ranted about it before. Actually, I think his treatment is misogynistic in two respects: his character is treated the way female characters usually are; and the way his death happened – in the first 10 minutes for shock value, with unusual gruesomeness and brutality, and with that fourth-wall-breaking “No resurrections this time” line – shows utter contempt for Loki’s fans, who are understood to be mostly female.

I searched “loki’s death in infinity war” on my blog and came up with this post where I answered a similar question from someone else and also linked to previous rants about it and reblogs of other people’s rants. Here’s another one that I don’t think I linked in that post.

I’m not sure how you feel about Ragnarok, but I’ve also reblogged and/or contributed to a couple of long analyses of how Loki’s discarding in Infinity War was connected to the deflation and ridicule of his character in Ragnarok, which was ultimately a misogynistic fuck-you to his fans: here’s one, here’s another, and here’s a third.

Hey, so like…

lokiloveforever:

seiramili7:

timetravellingshinigami:

nikkoliferous:

asgardiankingofmischief:

nikkoliferous:

Does anyone want to talk about how ridiculous it is that Valkyrie, of all people, shames Loki for not caring about doing the right thing?

Loki: I don’t mean to impose…
(Valkyrie throws a bottle at him because violence is only bad if The Villain™ does it)
Loki: The Grandmaster has a great many ships. I may even have stolen the access codes to his security system.
Valkyrie: And suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?

You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie?

Yeah, and considering her history in enslaving people for the Grandmaster runs about 1000 or so years? Maybe more, I can’t recall, she doesn’t really have the moral high ground.

In fact, Loki attempting to capture Thor and surrender him to the Grandmaster is more in line with something that Valkyrie would likely pursue (considering her time in Sakaar). Maybe they should have made her more difficult to convince.

Her comment/question is rather out of place also and would have to assume that she’s familiar with Loki to the level that Thor or Hulk (cause of NY) are.

I can only assume she said it in retaliation to what Loki did with her mind, but, in my opinion, she probably would have said something else.

Or they could have validated that she wasn’t necessarily trustworthy too.

It just felt like more of Taika’s lazy story-telling to me, as opposed to Valkyrie getting back at him for the whole ‘invading my mind’ thing. (But hey, don’t invade people’s brains, kids. It’s quite rude). I personally viewed it more as like, “hey, we haven’t reminded people that Loki’s a bad egg in the last 3 minutes or so; better let someone have a dig at his loose morals” sort of BS that is honestly just rampant in Thor: Ragnarok.

Like, I know Ragnarok critics get labelled conspiracy theorists for thinking (or at least speaking as though) Taika just had it out for Loki and wanted to degrade him as much as possible. And I get it, that sounds objectively insane. But just, looking at the narrative of the film itself, it’s… hard not to get that impression? And there’s really no other indicator in that movie–unless I’m forgetting something–that anyone on Sakaar (not including Thor and Bruce, obviously) has a clue who Loki really is. I guess it’s possible that they do, but there’s no evidence that that’s the case. More show & tell problems in this film.

I actually do want to address the ‘betraying Thor for money’ thing, though. Because I see a lot of people complaining that it’s completely out of character for Loki to do so for the money, and I actually have a different take on it. We all know Loki is rarely able to just be honest about what’s going on in his head. That’s essentially what the entire conflict between him and Thor has been fueled by for all this time, really. So I kind of headcanon that Loki might have told Thor that it was for the money, but I personally believe that in reality, it was actually Loki’s last-ditch effort to save his brother. Even as strong as he and Thor both are, individually and together, he did not believe Hela was an enemy that they could defeat (which is technically true)–especially now that she’s all cozy on Asgard, where she’ll be even stronger than when they first met her. Loki already failed once to talk Thor into staying on Sakaar of his own free will; I think betraying him was Loki’s way of trying to keep him safe from Hela by any means necessary.

I also think that deceptiveness can extend to his fight with Valkyrie too. A lot of Loki fans complain about her being able to take him captive so easily, but I choose to believe he lost to her intentionally. Easy ticket to finding his brother. He is the trickster god. Why are we suddenly taking him at face value all the time?

Admittedly, when it comes to Thor: Ragnarok, it’s super hard to decide when Loki is acting out of character because he’s running a scheme and when he’s doing it because of bad writing.

People actually call Loki stans (the true Loki stans) and people who don’t like Ragnarok as idiots just ‘cause we analyzed the movie from start to finish. Most of these people who insult us are new to the fandom and only saw Ragnarok. And even if they saw the other Thor movies they don’t remember it or for some reason they don’t like it. They just here for the jokes and, me, who is someone who’s here for depth of character, good storytelling and just pure emotion cannot deal with people like that.

Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all okay.

You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie?

In fact, Valkyrie’s own words about “

suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?

“ itself applies accurately to what Valkyrie was doing exactly at that time.

And to be honest, Valkyrie is a hypocrite. Considering about her own deeds that sold many non-guilty people into slavery and causing those people’s deaths for thousands years, and the fact that she knows almost nothing about Loki himself, she has absolutely no right to judge Loki and then acts like she has never done anything wrong in her life, ever.

Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all 🆗.

People often forget about her actions because the narrative never call it. The narrative of Ragnarok want to condemn Loki only out of other characters and exaggerating his “evilness” into stereotype and caricature-like so people start to regard him as only “a mere background character who is just an useless twink who have no dignity and just nothing but a pest to Thor the Perfect ‘Hero’ with no absolute importance other than being fan-service”. That’s why they’re so many double standards in Ragnarok especially regarding Loki.

@lucianalight @juliabohemian @welle-nijordottir

Waititi did have it in for Loki, he admitted it. He said Loki’s treatment and humiliation was “payback” for overshadowing the other movies. Everything, from that stupid play, to the deleted port o potty scene, to being chained up and having glass bottles thrown at his head, to Thor’s triumphant obedience disc scene was all a reflection of exactly how Waititi feels about Loki. “Blah, blah, blah, shut up, space orphan” “Loki tries so hard to be this tortured, artistic, space orphan”. Waititi’s not subtle about it. He thinks all the little Loki lovers are idiots. He meant out to “respectfully” disrespect the other movies, and extend a middle finger to those of us whose favorite character wasn’t Thor. It’s funny how, in that scene where Loki is sitting there chained up, nobody there, not Thor, not Bruce or Valkyrie, have any right to stand there and judge Loki. Valkyrie was just as much a “lackey” of the Grandmaster, if not moreso, because she worked for him and enslaved people for him for a long, long, time. She knew about the orgy ship too, and was obviously in high favor with the grandmaster. But yet in that scene, suddenly Thor, Bruce and Valkyrie are the spotless heroes with the right to look down their noses at Loki? No.

I’m so baffled by his use of “space orphan” as an insult. Shouldn’t that make Loki *more* sympathetic? I mean, much of the plot of “Pirates of Penzance” turns on the fact that being an orphan makes people more sympathetic to you. What’s Waititi’s problem?

Analysis of Thor and Loki’s Characters in Their Childhood

lucianalight:

“Loki has stabbed Thor since they were children!”

“Loki tried to kill Thor his entire life!”

These assumptions came after TR tried to retcon everything about Thor franchise and characterizations. It came from the snake story which was improvise by CH just for jokes, and no one cared to remind him that Thor and Loki aren’t the same age, since Odin declared Thor his firstborn in Thor 1. These assumption came from TW who didn’t understand Loki at all despite enough material in other movies:

“someone who tries so hard to embody this idea of the tortured artist, this tortured, gothy orphan”

“…this little emo goth hanging out by himself. He was like the kid in Harry Potter [Malfoy].”

has been trying to kill Thor his entire life

None of these conclusions are true. Loki was pretty loyal to Thor his entire life. Even disrupting the coronation wasn’t a betrayal to Thor.

“You are my brother and my friend. Sometimes I’m envious, but never doubt I love you.”

“I love Thor more dearly than any of you, but you know what he is. He’s arrogant. He’s reckless. He’s dangerous. You saw how he was today. Is this what Asgard needs from its king?”

He knew Thor wasn’t ready and he also wanted a chance to prove to his father that he is worthy too, since that was the impression both Thor and Loki got from Odin, that the better son get to be the king.

We got to see Thor and Loki as children in Thor 1. Let’s see what can be understood from their scene as children.

The scene starts when Odin finishing his tale about the war with Jotunheim and shows his children the war prize he got from them, the Casket of Ancient Winters to stop them to cause further harm. His tale portrays Jotuns as villains who attacked Earth with no reason and Asgardians as heroes. He speaks of a long and bloody war with an enemy that is very strong. As all children, Thor and Loki see their father as a hero and invincible, but in their case even more so, because Odin calls himself the protector of the nine realms. But this enemy even took their father’s eye. They must be very strong and scary. They must be monsters. Notice that Odin calls Jotuns, “Frost Giants”, a word that can inflicts fear and has a negative effect. Odin finishes his tale with:

“But the day will come when one of you will have to defend that peace.”

And starts the idea of brother’s competition for the throne right there.

The camera zooms on Thor and Loki’s faces individually.

Loki:
“Do the Frost Giants still live?”

Loki’s face and question shows that he is analyzing this information. His expression and tone also shows caution and that he’s scared(of his own race). this can be an indication that he’s a sensitive kid. He has just heard a tale of war and death and it doesn’t interest him. Although he’s scared, he is still curious and wants to know more.

Before Odin has a chance to answer, Thor confidently declares:

Thor: “When I’m king, I’ll hunt the monsters down and slay them all!”

The camera cuts to Loki..

The way Loki looks at him after this, is very telling. There’s a bit exasperation and annoyance in his expression. As if he’s thinking “why are you
like this?” and “why do you think it’s you who’s going to be king”. There’s also embarrassment because Thor’s reaction made him look
weak, and envy because he thinks he isn’t as brave as his brother.

Thor continues,
full of excitement and admiration for his father, his hero: “Just as you did, Father”

This whole part shows that Thor is completely sure and confident that he is the one who is going to be the king. That it doesn’t matter to him if there are any monsters. He is going to kill them all. He is going to be like his father.

The next moment is very important in the movie. Both kids are looking to their father and waiting for his answer. Which one of them get his acknowledgment and approval? Does he think it’s better to know about the Frost Giants or just kill them all?

Loki’s face shows insecurity while Thor’s shows confidence. And both of them are longing to be validated by their father.

Odin knows this damn well. He looks at both of his sons and choose to answer them indirectly:

“A wise king never seeks out war but he must always be ready for it.”

Translation: It doesn’t matter to know about the Frost Giants more than it’s needed to defeat them. You must always be ready for war but don’t seek it.

He answers both of them with that. But in doing so he also confirms what Thor said, that Frost Giants are monsters. And the only information you need to know about them is how to beat them. There it is. Odin validating racism for his sons, knowing one of them is from the same race he just covertly confirmed to be monsters.

I was so shocked by this moment the very first time I watched this movie. I expected for Odin to tell Thor that they are not monsters. But instead Odin answered like that and it made me sure that this moment will come back to bite them(and us).

As Odin walks away from the children, Thor and Loki look at each other. There is love, excitement and innocence in their faces. And then they both run to reach to their father and grab his hands.

Thor states with confidence and determination while looking at Odin:

“I’m ready Father!”

Loki grabs Odin’s other hand and with desperation and insecurity tells Odin:

“So am I!”

Thor looks at Loki irritated. Loki looks at Odin, desperate to be acknowledged. Odin says:

“Only one of you can ascend to the throne. But both of you were born to be kings.”

Thor’s confidence returns and Loki’s face turns hopeful.

What Odin did here is pitting the two brothers against each other. His answer implies that only one of them, the better son can be king. This will make them compete against each other. This will make them seek Odin’s approval all the time which makes it easy for Odin to control them.

The way this scene plays out is very clever. The brothers look at each other with love but then run to Odin. Odin comes between them, literally and figuratively. The compete to gain his approval and as Loki’s insecurity here shows and later we find out, favoring Thor are the reasons that truly set the brothers apart.

So what can be concluded from this analysis? That neither Thor, nor Loki were malicious and definitely not towards each other. They got annoyed or irritated with each other but their reactions are as normal and childlike as any other child. Loki shows envy towards Thor, but the love in his eyes surpasses it far more(“sometimes I’m envious but never doubt I love you”). Besides his main concern is getting Odin’s approval. So a sensitive, curious, cautious child who is get upset and scared by the story of war and monsters, whose love for his brother is far more than his envy, isn’t capable of going around stabbing his brother. Also from a more logical point of view, he is intelligent, he knows stabbing his brother, the favorite son I might add, would never help him to gain his father’s approval which is his main goal. This also confirms what Loki later says to Thor:

“I never wanted the throne. I only ever wanted to be your equal!”

He wasn’t after the throne. Getting the throne was the proof that Odin saw him worthy. It was what Odin planted in their mind when they were children.

Kid Thor also isn’t malicious. He’s just a child who admires his father very much and wants to be like him. A child that his mistakes aren’t corrected but enabled and he is treated more favorably and better than his brother. So he learns that he’s better than Loki and learns to treat him the same way as he sees while they grow up. So the assumption that he was a sensitive kid(he was the one who got excited by stories of war and killing monsters) who was bullied by his broody evil brother can’t be correct.

Loki was never as evil and wrong as TR portrayed him. Neither Thor was like a saint and always right. Their relationship is far more complicated than good Thor vs. evil Loki. I don’t accept TR retconning their characteristics like this. Especially when there’s proof that TR’s interpretation of them is wrong.

The Purpose of Loki’s Death

yume-no-fantasy:

The Purpose of Loki’s Death

Tom has mentioned during the ACE comic con panel that he has known about the scene for two years.

This was what Thanos said in this test footage: “I got the information that I need, and now I have to break your neck. It’s just the way it is.”

For reference, here’s some stuff from the Avengers: Infinity War director’s audio commentary during the opening scene:

McFeely: We’re starting the script in December, say January of 2016. There’s no Ragnarok script. They’re in in various stages of development, and so the first scene of this movie changed a bunch. And until we figured out that they were gonna end on a trip off of a destroyed Asgard, we didn’t know where Thanos would find Loki.

Markus: We did know we wanted Thanos to come to Loki. And we would find him in any… We have drafts of him in any number of places.

McFeely: It establishes a vengeance story for Thor by taking out his brother and arguably, his best friend.

Joe Russo: Part of what we wanted to do out of the gate was to unsettle you as you’re watching the film. You’re sitting in the theatre thinking, “Most characters in the Marvel Universe have been safe for a decade.” And we wanted to knock you off-kilter and make the audience understand that the stakes were going to be significant and the cost was going to be very high in the movie.

Markus: And in that regard, this scene does away with a lot of things from the ongoing MCU. That was… The first MacGuffin from the first Captain America movie just got crushed and stuck into a glove.

Anthony: Bye bye, Tesseract.

Markus: And shortly, the villain from the first Avengers movie…

McFeely: Right. Arguably the best villain in the MCU…

Markus: …will achieve a similar end.

Anthony: Aside from establishing… introducing Thanos as our lead and POV in the movie, this scene also heavily kicks off Thor’s arc in the film.

Anthony: The one thing that’s wonderful, one thing we all really responded to about Thor is where he’s left at the end of Ragnarok with the destruction of Asgard… And there’s something fascinating about exporing these people as you strip away who they are and their built-out identities, and find out what’s left. I think we’re going through a very similar process with Thor in this film, especially with this scene, we’re sort of completing the experience that Ragnarok brought to Thor in the sense that we’re taking away the rest of everything away from him.

McFeely: And remember, he (Thanos) had a relationship with Loki even if it was off-screen where he entrusted him with a duty in Avengers 1 and Loki failed, so...

Joe: He’s making him pay.

McFeely: Yeah. Thanos has a long memory.

Anthony: Yep. Fair enough.

Part of an interview with the IW screenwriters:

Stephen McFeely: Hemsworth came to set, and went, “You guys really need to understand that we are doing something different with Ragnarok.” And we knew they were changing it some, but it was so early in the process, so we flew [Ragnarok screenwriter] Eric Pearson and [director] Taika Waititi in and we had long conversations with them. There are at least a couple of jokes in there Taika himself said in passing that we thought were gold. They showed us a few scenes, so we knew that Thor was being re-toned. And we needed to embrace that.

Christopher Markus: But it was also the realization that even in the “funny” one [Ragnarok], his father and his sister die, and that he’s almost becoming comically unlucky at this point, and to follow that to its natural conclusions.

So in summary, Loki’s death scene was decided since two years ago and he mainly died for the following purposes:

Set the tone for the movie by showing Thanos’ cruelty

For shock value

Give place to the new “best” MCU villain Thanos

Fuel Thor’s motivation for revenge, to further Thor’s storyline and character development from where he left off in Ragnarok

Evidently, none of the above reasons has anything to do with Loki’s arc and character development.

In terms of narrative, it was mentioned in the IW commentary that here Thanos was actually punishing Loki for failing to fulfill his duty in the first Avengers film, but IMO that’s just a load of crap. Thanos was already going to leave the ship; it was Loki who suddenly popped up with his butter knife. Also, what Loki was promised in Avengers was this: “You will long for something as sweet as pain.”

But how could death be worse than pain for Loki, when he had already let himself die twice before? (Just in case anyone wishes to protest that he faked his own death in Ragnarok, please read this first)

In TDW he even said this: “If I am for the axe, then for mercy’s sake, just swing it.”

Loki isn’t afraid and does not cower in the face of death, unlike what had been portrayed of his character in Ragnarok, which was just OOC af. Though I’m glad they rectified this part of his character in IW, the way he died was just too needlessly brutal and meaningless, and also stupid. If the writers truly meant for Thanos to punish Loki in the worst possible way like what was foreshadowed in A1, to be honest it would make more sense to kill Thor instead (just saying). But as it is, the directors and writers were just making excuses and don’t actually care.

I assert that this is a direct result of Thor: Ragnarok. Those who don’t follow the Ragnarok discussions may think this is ridiculous, but really, it’s not. This was what I wrote on 20 Apr, before IW was released:

“…when you consider the fact that Thanos arrived right after he said that, and just minutes after he had told Loki ‘Maybe you’re not so bad after all’. It only proved Thor*’s opinion about Loki right–because of course Thor* can never be wrong–that Loki was just never-ending trouble.

And what I’m worried about is that this will be taken into Infinity War and Loki will be made the scapegoat again.I don’t want Thor* to blame him again and make him feel like the only way he’ll be worthy of his brother’s love and forgiveness is to sacrifice himself to make up for his mistake of taking the Tesseract.”

I couldn’t believe this ended up being exactly what happened in IW, and I hated it so much. While the rest of the audience was laughing, my blood ran cold the moment Thor told Loki “you really are the worst brother”.

By now I think we can all agree that what Loki said—“I hereby pledge to you my undying fidelity”—was meant for Thor. If anyone’s not convinced, here:

‘Undying Fidelity’ was the title of the soundtrack that was playing from the instant Loki started saying ‘I, Loki, Prince of Asgard…’ to the moment Thor collapsed over his body.

Loki was crying when he said that. Assuming those were Loki’s tears (in character), then it was almost as if Loki had been prepared to die, as though his futile attempt at killing Thanos was deliberate. Why?!?!?! Just because Thor changed his mind about saying “maybe you’re not so bad after all” and told him he was the “worst brother”, so he wanted to prove his fidelity using his life??? It was foolish and OOC, is what I think.

But then again, if we consider his character and their relationship in Ragnarok, it might not be that out of character after all… As a case in point, I’ve seen someone say this:

If Loki couldn’t even trick Thor in Ragnarok, what makes you think he can outsmart Thanos?

In Ragnarok, his character was twisted and reduced to comic relief, his sacrifice and redemption in TDW was made to seem like a sham and a joke. A previously complex, multifaceted character was simplified into a misbehaving and terrible brother who would betray his only remaining family for the sake of money(?!). When the God of Mischief was asked whether he had a better idea than “get help”, he answered “no” as though it was supposed to be obvious. The graceful, regal, composed and witty prince of Asgard was played for a fool throughout most of the film. His brother criticized him in a way that made it sound like he had always been incorrigible, even though that’s definitely not true if you watched the previous films. Only when he compromised and became “good” on Thor*’s terms after listening to Thor*’s bullshit of a speech was he deemed redeemable.

In short, Ragnarok “put him in his place”, downplayed his powers, stripped him of his purpose, wits, importance and independence as a character, never gave him the equality and respect he wanted.

The IW writers said this:

“…the first scene of this movie changed a bunch. And until we figured out that they were gonna end on a trip off of a destroyed Asgard, we didn’t know where Thanos would find Loki.”

“We did know we wanted Thanos to come to Loki. And we would find him in any… We have drafts of him in any number of places.”

But with how Ragnarok ended up, it became entirely too convenient. It made him too easy to kill off—they could simply make him sacrifice himself for his brother again, since his sacrifice in TDW was retconned into a faked death anyway.

There wasn’t a need to think of an intricate plot for a character who no longer seemed important—they only needed to put the final nail in the coffin. Since it would serve all their purposes anyway, why not?

Loki was crying when he said that. Assuming those were Loki’s tears (in character), then it was almost as if Loki had been prepared to die, as though his futile attempt at killing Thanos was deliberate. Why?!?!?! Just because Thor changed his mind about saying “maybe you’re not so bad after all” and told him he was the “worst brother”, so he wanted to prove his fidelity using his life???

That suggestion about why Loki apparently deliberately sacrifices himself (to no useful purpose, btw – he knew he couldn’t actually hurt Thanos, and his death did nothing to help Thor’s situation) matches up exactly with @illwynd‘s analysis in this post: that what Ragnarok did to Thor and Loki’s relationship made Loki’s self-immolation the only place left for them to go.

Telling someone who has known trauma around identity and belonging “who you are is as a person is inadequate and I will disown you unless you change to suit my standards” is…

… What Loki needed was to be able to trust in Thor’s love for him: that it wasn’t just circumstantial. That he, as a person, mattered to Thor, and that Thor would be able to re-accept him after his transgressions and would continue to value him. …

But the above scene from Ragnarok, Thor’s ultimatum, would utterly shatter Loki’s trust in all of those things. …

And to me it is fitting, under those circumstances, that Loki would go and get himself killed kinda-sorta on purpose at the first opportunity as well. I mean, last time he was in a similar situation of having been rejected by those he cared about, he threw himself into an abyss. And this time he even got to continue to try to prove himself to Thor while doing it, just like one might feel compelled to do after such an ultimatum.

And the thing is… even if Ragnarok hadn’t done away with Loki’s cleverness and planning ability, it might not be completely OOC for Loki to basically commit suicide in order to prove to Thor that he was good now. After all, Thor* told him that his identity as “the god of mischief” wasn’t valuable; he needed to become someone different, someone straightforwardly heroic. Loki couldn’t trust Thor to trust him, so if he had made a serious effort to do what I think he should have done (and what I think he would have done if Joss Whedon had still been writing…) – namely, insinuate himself into Thanos’s team to “make amends” for his previous failure – he would have feared, rightly, that Thor just thought he was turning wickedly self-interested again, changing his colors to suit whichever way the wind was blowing. Ragnarok would have actually needed to reestablish their mutual trust in order for that gambit to work (as I touched on in this post). As it is… well, as illwynd pointed out, we saw Loki’s response to rejection in Thor 1, when his planning abilities were perfectly intact. (And as usual, anyone who says that was not a suicide attempt, just an attempt to escape punishment, can piss up a rope).

A Bad Case of the Blues

cookiesforthedarkside:

shine-of-asgard:

foundlingmother:

Get it? Cause they’re both blue? And bad guys? I’m hysterical, admit it.

In this meta, I will be examining the similarities between the sibling relationship arcs of Thor & Loki and Gamora & Nebula, from their childhood to their reconciliation (or “reconciliation”, as the case may be).

This meta will be split into two parts: Context and Argument.

The purpose of this meta is to explain why I am dissatisfied with the conclusion to Thor & Loki’s relationship arc. If you’re not a fan of Ragnarok criticism/discussion, this meta isn’t for you, and the tag you should blacklist if you’re following me is “ragnarok discourse”. It’s perfectly fine to tailor your dashboard to your preferences. I do it too. If you aren’t a fan of Ragnarok criticism, but would like to rebut my arguments, you’re more than welcome to do so politely.

Some people who might find this interesting/want to add something… @philosopherking1887, @imaginetrilobites, @lucianalight, @princess-ikol, @illwynd, @incredifishface, and @iamanartichoke (I know Ragnarok criticism isn’t always your thing, but when it comes to the Brodinsons’ relationship we seem to agree). I hate tagging people, but this post was too much work not to. I always feel like I’m bothering everyone. Do feel free to disregard if you would like.

Context

Childhood

Gamora and Nebula both lose everything, Thanos kidnaps them, and they’re trained and mutilated, turned into assassins who travel the galaxy and do his bidding. Thanos pits them against one another in a competition where Gamora always comes out on top. Nebula grew to resent Gamora for winning–that they were in this competition at all since she just wanted a sister–even though Thanos was ultimately responsible/the one at fault for this. Through it all, Gamora remained focused on her own problems, and in so doing unintentionally contributed to Nebula’s (ex: Gamora winning results in Nebula being augmented).

Thor and Loki, compared to Gamora and Nebula, have an idyllic childhood. They’re actually Odin and Frigga’s children. Odin and Frigga are bad/abusive parents, but they are parents. Both Odin and Frigga conceal from Loki his heritage. They allow Thor and others to spout racism against Frost Giants, even in Loki’s presence. They permit Thor’s worst impulses until after someone gets hurt. Odin pits them against one another in a competition where Thor always comes out on top. Loki grew to resent Thor for being the favored son–that they were in this competition at all since he just wanted to be equals–even though Odin was ultimately responsible/the one at fault for this. Through it all, Thor remained focused on his own problems, and in so doing unintentionally contributed to Loki’s (ex: Thor’s own insecurities and resulting arrogance lead to him reinforcing Loki’s insecurities with commands like, “Know your place, brother.”).

Conflict

To summarize the entire active conflict between Thor and Loki (two+ fucking films worth!) would be exhausting, so I’m merely going to enumerate the similarities where I see them.

Both pairs of siblings begin at a relatively equal moral position. Gamora and Nebula have both committed grave crimes against the galaxy at the behest of Thanos and Ronan. Thor and Loki both start firmly convinced of the vileness of the Frost Giant race. Gamora and Thor are, perhaps, worse than their siblings. Gamora easily steals an opportunity from Nebula in GotG. It’s not a stretch to infer Thanos and Ronan favored sending her on jobs, meaning she would have committed more crimes. Thor
has genocidal aspirations, where Loki does not (at first), wanting to destroy the Frost Giants in whole or in part (look at me exercising my knowledge of the U.N. definition of genocide like some pedantic asshole) because of the prejudice he’s absorbed from society and, almost certainly, Odin specifically.

Gamora and Thor both come to the realization that they were wrong. Gamora betrays Thanos and finds a new family, while Thor confronts his greatest flaws and adjusts his behavior and values.

Meanwhile, Nebula and Loki hurt innocent people to achieve their (sympathetic) desires. In Nebula’s case, she helps Ronan attempt to annihilate the Nova Empire in exchange for the opportunity to destroy Thanos, the “father” that’s tortured her all her life. In Loki’s case, he first attempts genocide against the Frost Giants in the midst of a mental breakdown/identity crisis in order to win Odin’s approval, and then attacks Midgard to survive Thanos, get away from the torture, and to lash out at the people he feels did him wrong (Thor and Odin).

At various points, Nebula and Loki attempt to kill their siblings. (I’m not going to list them–you know them.)

Gamora and Thor initially attempt to reason with their siblings, to talk them down from the conflict, but they both, inevitably, give up on them. Gamora gives up on Nebula at the end of GotG. At the beginning of GotG Vol. 2, Nebula is a bounty Gamora means to collect. Thor gives up on Loki twice. First, at the end of Avengers. Second, in Ragnarok.

Argument

You know, looking at the similarities between the sibling arcs, I have to wonder about fandom’s treatment of Nebula vs. Loki. I, for one, have never seen anyone claim that Nebula doesn’t deserve Gamora, despite the fact that both Nebula and Loki try to kill their siblings, lead armies that devastate a city, and attempt genocide/to massacre the people of an empire, not primarily out of a desire to kill (though in Loki’s case there’s certainly a bit of that when it comes to the Frost Giants), but for other reasons (family issues/Thanos issues). Granted, Nebula does both at the same time, whilst Loki spreads these things out, but that doesn’t explain the difference in the fandom’s treatment of these characters and their relationships with their siblings.

Seguir leyendo

It’s a very thoughtful description of the two relationships. To summarize, Nebula and Gamora are independent characters with independent goals who reconcile as equals. Loki is narratively a prop for Thor and he skunks back to Thor’s shadow under the pain of abandonment.

A interesting detail is that Nebula is allowed a clean win in the field where their rivalry was centered (physical prowess). Loki is denied a clean win in the two fields where his rivalry with Thor was at its peak: he’s shown as a very lousy king/leader AND the generally unworthy brother throughout the film.

Not only that, but the movie shows him up in areas where he used to have the upper hand on Thor – manipulation and trickery. If you can call Thor’s hamfisted tactics “manipulation” and not bludgeoning. What next, are they going to make Thor an accomplished sorcerer? Oh wait, they already got Strange to overshadow Loki there too.

That’s a pretty standard narrative/mythic trope, the “trickster tricked.” It happens in the Norse myths, as when Loki turns into a salmon to try to escape punishment for causing Balder’s death and then Thor catches him in the fishnet that Loki had been weaving. (A very literal version of the weaver of schemes being caught in his own net.) We saw a little bit of that in TDW, when Thor handcuffed Loki instead of arming him (“I thought you liked tricks”) and pushed him out of the Dark Elf ship onto the skiff (“You lied to me. I’m impressed”). In theory, I don’t have a problem with that.

What @foundlingmother points to as the problem with their “reconciliation” is exactly right. Unlike GotG2 with Nebula, TR doesn’t even acknowledge, let alone validate, Loki’s perspective on the sibling conflict. Of course the in-story reason Loki doesn’t rebut Thor’s assessment is because he’s paralyzed by the obedience disk… but that parallels the structural narrative situation, too. He’s being silenced, physically by Thor* and narratively by the film’s implied perspective (which basically lines up with Thor*’s). By acquiescing to Thor*’s demands, apparently because he’s responded to the ultimatum, Loki appears to confirm Thor*’s and the film’s diagnosis that all of the problems in the relationship were the result of Loki’s selfish, capricious badness – never mind that 3 previous films made a point of showing that this is not the case.

Tag: thor ragnarok criticism

Ignoring Tom Hiddleston’s Own Words To Fit an Agenda

“Taika and I went out for a bowl of pasta before Ragnarok and he said ‘I’m gonna change quite a lot, but I’m not gonna change you.’ And I took that as a huge compliment.

BUT that he (waititi) did change things actually (9:50-9:52 minutes)”

Ignoring Tom Hiddleston’s Own Words To Fit an Agenda

“Taika and I went out for a bowl of pasta before Ragnarok and he said ‘I’m gonna change quite a lot, but I’m not gonna change you.’ And I took that as a huge compliment.

BUT that he (waititi) did change things actually (9:50-9:52 minutes)”

Hey, so like…

Hey, so like…

Hey, so like…

Hey, so like…

Analysis of Thor and Loki’s Characters in Their Childhood

The Purpose of Loki’s Death

The Purpose of Loki’s Death

A Bad Case of the Blues

Context

Argument

“Taika and I went out for a bowl of pasta before Ragnarok and he said ‘I’m gonna change quite a lot, but I’m not gonna change you.’ And I took that as a huge compliment. BUT that he (waititi) did change things actually (9:50-9:52 minutes)”

“Taika and I went out for a bowl of pasta before Ragnarok and he said ‘I’m gonna change quite a lot, but I’m not gonna change you.’ And I took that as a huge compliment. BUT that he (waititi) did change things actually (9:50-9:52 minutes)”

The Purpose of Loki’s Death

Context

Argument

“Taika and I went out for a bowl of pasta before Ragnarok and he said ‘I’m gonna change quite a lot, but I’m not gonna change you.’ And I took that as a huge compliment.

BUT that he (waititi) did change things actually (9:50-9:52 minutes)”

“Taika and I went out for a bowl of pasta before Ragnarok and he said ‘I’m gonna change quite a lot, but I’m not gonna change you.’ And I took that as a huge compliment.

BUT that he (waititi) did change things actually (9:50-9:52 minutes)”