Tag: thor ragnarok hate

In case you were wondering why I’ve been so bad about reading and/or writing fic lately, and instead have mostly been reblogging shitposts and liveblogging my rewatch of “Buffy” and “Angel,” with some occasional MCU-directed salt mixed in (and now Tumblr-directed salt; I started writing this post before the apocalypse), it’s because I am So Done with Marvel.

I no longer accept either Ragnarok or Infinity War as canon. I will not read fics that take them as canon – not even fix-it fics. (Or your super-dark rage fics, @illwynd. Do-overs are fair game, though, so @foundlingmother is in luck.) I regret that I wrote a few fics assuming Ragnarok as canon, before I realized what a horror show it is.

My imagination is firmly ensconced in my alternate universe in which Guillermo del Toro wrote and directed Ragnarok and Joss Whedon wrote and directed Infinity War (and its sequel/second part, as needed). Maybe Guillermo recast Charlie Hunnam as Thor once Hemsworth decided he was tired of pretending to be a dramatic actor, or maybe Hunnam was cast as Thor from the outset. (Part of the reason that Hemsworth was cast is that Whedon put in a good word for him, having worked with him on The Cabin in the Woods. Even the best creators make mistakes; Michelle Trachtenberg wasn’t great as Dawn, either.) I’m not sure who wrote Civil War, but it wasn’t those dimwitted hacks Markus and McFeely. Maybe it was Jed Whedon and Maurissa Tancharoen; they did a good job dealing with the moral quandaries of the Accords on “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” Or hell, maybe it was Aaron Sorkin. This is my fantasy world. Go big or go home, amirite?

I’m not going to try to write any of these versions because I’m not Guillermo del Toro, Joss or Jed Whedon, or Aaron Sorkin. I have only very vague ideas of what these movies would be like. Maybe I’ve frozen time at the point where all of the writers/directors have been announced but the movies haven’t come out. Maybe we have some stills. Hela actually has half a face and it looks awesome. Loki and Thanos have some meaningful interactions. Josh Brolin is very excited about all of their scenes and the fraught history revealed between them.

I’m not sure what stage of grief this is. The obvious choice would be Denial, but I think Denial was actually before I figured out just how terrible TR was (and was still writing fics acknowledging it). I’ve definitely been in Anger for most of the time since then, so I guess this must be some weird form of Bargaining? Like, in my mind I’m trying to trade the canon we have for the canon we should have had.

illwynd:

The number of people—both Thor stans and Loki stans—who responded to that one post of mine to argue that no, really, Thor and Loki should never interact again because of what we saw in TR… is proof of what a corruption of their relationship that movie is.

Listen. Listen. It’s a weird crack AU that ignores all previous canon. Which is great, I guess, if you found it funny and refreshing. And somewhere between disappointing and depressing if you didn’t. But either way, you just can’t project that characterization backwards onto the previous movies and try to construct a narrative where it all fits into one arc, because it wasn’t meant to fit with them. TW even said he was purposely going against existing canon. Those aren’t the same characters, even if they have the same faces. And Thor and Loki’s relationship in that movie has jack to do with any other version of canon.

(This is partially me yelling at myself, since I know this, logically, but my brain keeps torturing me trying to make it fit somehow, like a wrong puzzle piece, because it’s the third part of a trilogy and it should fit aaaaaaaah. But alas. It does not.) 

illwynd:

illwynd:

foundlingmother:

I read a pro-Ragnarok meta (in particular, it’s pro-Thor and Loki’s “reconciliation”). I don’t want to annoy the person, but I want to talk through some of the things it made me think about, so here’s some word vomit under the cut.

Keep reading

Thiiiiiis. I read that same meta, and you’ve laid out exactly why that interpretation will never work for me. That was maybe a reconciliation for a completely different Thor and Loki, though I personally don’t find it a very compelling one. But it definitely makes no sense for the characters we knew before. 

Also I want to pull this out, the idea that it is being interpreted that way due to a belief

that Loki’s betrayal of Thor is a pattern intrinsic to Loki’s personality, and not a deviation from a thousand year norm of loyalty stemming from Loki’s various traumas

because that is a fuckin good observation.

It is at the very least a lot more complicated than “loki betrays, as a matter of course, because ¯_(ツ)_/¯” and it is in fact not in the nature of trickster figures in general or Loki in particular to betray their (very few) loved ones reflexively, for no reason, just for shits and giggles. Even at his most flippant and devil-may-care (e.g., some of the early comics), he has comprehensible (if uncomfortable) motivations: he may turn cars into ice cream because it’s amusing, but he wouldn’t be coming up with hilarious ways to be a shit-stirrer in that context if it weren’t for his resentments, his jealousies, his broken relationship with his brother. And you don’t fix that by having Thor throw up his hands and say “well, you do you, catch ya on the flipside”

it is in fact not in the nature of trickster figures in general or Loki in particular to betray their (very few) loved ones reflexively, for no reason, just for shits and giggles.

Thank you for saying that – and I know that you’ve done more thorough research and contemplation of the cross-mythology trickster archetype than I have (or probably anyone else in this godsforsaken fandom). I’m so tired of hearing people insist that Ragnarok was a welcome return to Loki’s “canonical” (in comics? myths? what is “canon” here?) characterization as “a trickster” rather than a Shakespearean tragic villain. It’s a pretty simplistic, cartoonish version of a trickster… and that might be insulting to cartoons.

How did ragnarok make such a huge impact that people seem to forget about thor 1 and 2 completely? How did it rope in this many fans and make them fall in love with their retconned personality? I still can’t fathom it. They’re unable to accept IW thor and most definitely wont accept A4 thor too.

incredifishface:

Lots of reasons, I suppose. I’m no psychologist or social sciences student, so I can only call on my common sense.

The character retcon was endorsed by the most successful film of the 3, by its director, über-cool Taika Waititi world-wide trendsetter who can’t do no wrong, and by his flaming star, Chris Hemsworth, who was very vocal about his opinions on IW Thor and his disappointment about the “changes” he had to put up with for his character; surely the guy who plays Thor can’t be wrong about his own character??

Lots of people came to the fandom because of Ragnarök. Of course they like this Thor more than the others. Maybe they haven’t even seen the others. They haven’t read the comics. This is all they know, their canon. They know Hemsworth opposed it. He must know, right? *shrug*

I can tell you why I liked Ragnarök initially, why I left the theatre with a huge sense of relief and joy, and why I went a second time and enjoyed it even more. I had feared so much what we would find. We had heard so many terrifying things about it. It sounded like it would be all about Thor and the Hulk initially, with Loki pushed to the sides barely to be seen or heard.

So I saw it, and I felt those fears had not been confirmed. I had had a good time. It felt fresh. The retro graphics really worked imo (I know lots of people didn’t like them.) It was a straighforward, fun story with a snazzy, dashing hero having adventures, not taking himself too seriously, and winning in the end, with a few soft touches of (what felt like) genuine feeling, even a theme (family, belonging, COLONIALISM). There were several really memorable new characters to love (Valki, Topaz, the GM, Hela)… and when I walked out of the theatre, what stuck with me was the “I’m here.” So yeah, I thought THANK GOD I LIKED THIS FILM.

I think lots of people wanted to like this film. The first two Thors have absolutely wonderful moments but on the whole are underwhelming movies. The romance doesn’t work. The earth setting is boring. There are not lots of heroic fun adventures, and not many chances for Thor to show off what he can do. And for those who don’t like (very basic) character analysis, Thor can come through as clunky, idk, cardboardy, and because he is not totally clued up with things on Midgard, some people will think “he’s dumb.” Poptart Thor. If you were not a fan in the first place, you can’t be totally faulted for discarding him as a big dumb jock. If you were a fan in the first place, you can’t be faulted at all for feeling that your beautiful, noble, mighty space prince is being done a disservice.

The first Captain America wasn’t that much better than Thor 1 imho; Red Skull wasn’t more interesting than Loki in any way, and Steve was cute and all, but he wasn’t the Total Steve we have come to know and adore; but then The Winter Soldier came and cast over it its empowering influence, making it look better than it was. I mean, you had the honest human moments, the new love interest (I’m talking Sam), the breath of fresh air that it was to NOT have a forced hetero romance shoved down our throats with Natasha, but having a buddy movie instead; and not only did Steve have like ten action sequences to leave your jaw dangling and your inner child screaming FRICK YEAH!!, but the “villain” was just as deadly, smooth, powerful, and ultimately, IT WAS BUCKY GODDAMMIT. *sound of million broken hearts drowning end credits music*. The characters came into their own in TWS and everything that started (and was only really sketched out) in CA 1 seemed more fleshed out and full of meaning in further re-watches.

Thor wasn’t that lucky. The second Thor film failed on many levels. The romance didn’t get any more compelling in it, the villain was pure cardboard (shame), again we only had very short glimpses of what Thor can really do. True, for any Thorki fan, that film is pure wonderful soul porn. (and with all that manhandling and neck grabbing, other type porn too.) But those scenes are not enough to sustain the whole thing. Interest really decreases whenever Thor and Loki are not together on screen.

What is more, and I haven’t thought until now. The first two films can feel underwhelming too in that Thor doesn’t become more powerful or defeats his enemy and triumphs. They are not straightforward uplifting stories. In the first one, Thor has to learn humility and other kingly qualities the sad way: standing there and offering himself in sacrifice. In his fight with the Jotnar, you’re thinking mostly “this is a mistake and a very bad idea.” In his fight with Loki, he is holding back. When he beats him, it’s not a glorious victory. In the end, it’s about MORE self-sacrifice; destroying the bifrost and losing Jane (yaaawn.) So basically at no point in Thor 1 does your inner child get to scream “FUCK YEAH!!”.

In the second, more of the same. Every “victory” is tainted with pain and foreboding of worse things to come. The fight on Svartalfheim is a constant “OH NOES”, first when you feel Loki has betrayed him AGAIN, and then when the plan of ending it there and then not only fails, but ends with Loki dead and Thor in shatters. On earth, again, it’s not Thor’s victory. AND to top it all off, it turns out that Thor was had AGAIN  by his scheming brother.

What I’m getting at here is, Thor is a fucking loser. The impression you might get if you’re not into in-depth ananlysis, is the dumb jock who can’t fucking win. Doesn’t get the girl, can’t save his mom, needs humans to defeat the enemy, his brother keeps playing him… He has some fun action sequences in Avengers and Avengers 2, but in Avengers 1, again, he can’t win poor baby, and his constant loyalty and faith in his brother can be mistaken by some as being a dumb jerk who doesn’t learn (for some of us Loki is the noblest part of Thor instead), and Avengers 2 was a fucking disaster on so many levels WHO CARES EVEN that Thor was there. 

So I think people were either not that interested in Thor, or if they were, they were really hungry to see him get justice. 

Ragnarök seems to do that. He gives us adventures, lots of chances for Thor by himself to show his power, he comes into his fully godly thing with the lightning and storming thing, the clever use of music makes it look even cooler, and even if the end of it all is not his personal victory, it IS his plan, his stroke of genius, his realization. AND he is shown as finally getting wiser about Loki. The manipulated learns to manipulate, and he’s so so clever, he realizes what Loki needs is tough love and turns him around. And in the end, they might have lost their world, but Thor has managed to save what matters, and his brother is by his side again, at last. Yes, Thanos’s shadow hovers in the post-credits scene announcing bad things to come, but that’s just the Marvel thing, and it doesn’t dampen the general feeling that finally Thor has got the film he deserved.

And that was my impression too in the beginning, I swear. Lots of things bugged me about it, but I was fully and committedly willing to dismiss them all. I wanted to love it. Didn’t love it, but I thought it was close enough.

So I’m guessing lots of people felt like me, and then lots of others just don’t do in-depth analysis and comparison with previous films.

Then there are many others who like to bet on winners, and Ragnarök wins, rotten tomatoes and box office wise, over the previous 2 Thor films. 

So it wins, and the others lose; this one got it right, so the previous 2 must have got it wrong. So this is Thor now. And going back from this must therefore be a mistake and a betrayal of the character.

So this is as far as I can go before the overwhelming burden of the irony crushes me to the thickness of a pancake, and before I start foaming at the mouth with the actual feeling of my heart which I tried to set aside during the composition of this reply, in favor of rationality.

What do you think?

I like Jane better than you do, I like her chemistry with Thor in the first movie, I think The Winter Soldier is highly overrated and Age of Ultron was far from a disaster (other than in its reception); but otherwise I think this analysis of fandom dynamics is right on.

Hey, I just wanted to know your thoughts on the Loki show that was announced. Have you spoken on it already?

I’ve reblogged some salty commentary, but I don’t think I’ve given a straightforward statement of my view. So here it is: I’m not getting my hopes up. After Ragnarok and Infinity War, I don’t trust any of the schmucks at Marvel as far as I can throw them, and I’m tiny with a terrible arm. I trust Tom to try not to let it get fucked up, but there’s only so much he can do. (I don’t think he was happy with what was done to his character in TR and IW, but obviously he had limited power to advocate for himself and for Loki.)

I am VERY cynical about Disney’s motivations for doing this. Starting a separate streaming service so people need to pay for something else on top of Netflix and Hulu and Amazon Prime and whatever else they’re already paying for is incredibly obnoxious, and they’re using Loki’s popularity to rope in a guaranteed audience. In the movies, they catered to the fanboy hatred of Loki (surely motivated by dismayed resentment over how many women find Loki more attractive than the standard male power fantasies); but they’re more than happy to keep taking our money in a new medium.

Will I buy the streaming service? I don’t know yet. I’ll see what else is on it. I’m also waiting to see what happens with Loki in Avengers 4. I’m not above pirating things. I still haven’t watched Ant-Man and the Wasp, and when I do, it will be either on a service I’m already paying for or illegally.

{Salt}

shine-of-asgard:

lucianalight:

seiramili7:

I love seeing salty THORturer fans’s asses got roasted by reality. 

Producer: “Mr. Hemsworth, you have the choice between guest starring in the new Lowki series or chewing broken glass.” Hemsworth: ”May I have some sriracha and a spoon for my glass shards?”

lackey’s mini series has been confirmed. disney loves to beat a dead horse and squeeze a dead fandom dry. a lot of people want hems to gueststar. I can not tell you how much I hate that idea. I don’t think hems enjoys working with him and if there is another thor movie i’d like it lackey-free.

So satisfying to watch…..

I’m glad that 90% of possibility is that Chris Hems will not appear on the show otherwise the story will be instantly ruined by his unconvincing and half-asses “acting”. 

Also, did those Thorturer fans really just putting Chris Hems on the “same level” with RDJ and Chris Evans?? That’s extremely disgraceful for classy actors like them. 

On a side note, I hope that this shows prove that Loki can exist perfectly fine without being involved in toxic relationship with his self-centered brother. I want Loki to find love/happiness outside of his shitty, toxic, and abusive family, and that means stay away as far as possible from his family especially his witless oaf brother who always made his life worse by abusing his identity repeatedly until Loki had to submitted to their toxic relationship like in the first place, again, instead of getting away from it. 

Wow! Seems like the confirmation of a Loki TV show really hit a nerve with some Loki haters. And I have to say I agree with some of their points @seiramili7 ! I don’t think CH enjoys working with TH anymore since Tom’s performance overshadows his acting. I love the idea of a real reconciliation for Thor and Loki(you know I loved Thor before TR) but if TR Thor is the characterization we’re going to get from Thor, I don’t want him to guest star either and I don’t want Loki in another Thor movie. Because Loki needs to accept and love himself and he won’t have real happiness if he goes back to be Thor’s shadow.

It honestly makes me laugh that these people are calling Loki’s fandom a “dead fandom” when all the social medias were taken over yesterday by Loki’s Army only with just a news about Loki and a tweet from Tom. This fandom never dies. We literally showed that even if Loki dies in canon we are still here. We still make content and metas and people started petitions for Loki to come back alive. This popularity must be a burn to them that they’re calling Loki, “lackey”. We have TR to thank, for giving Loki haters a derogatory term to use. And you know it is already proven that Loki can exist without Thor since a lot of his scenes don’t involve Thor and Loki has enough depth to be the lead character of a story.

Ohhh… How do I love some Schadenfreude with my breakfast…

Apparently even Hemsworth’s fans think he’s an asshole. Only they don’t seem to realize that being a jerk to/about your colleagues is a bad thing. That says a lot about both them and him.

Like @lucianalight, I’d be happy for Loki to continue having a relationship with Thor. Their relationship was the heart of the first two “Thor” movies and one of the emotional centers of gravity in “The Avengers.” But since CH and TW killed Thor and replaced him with the impostor I call Thor*, I definitely want Thor*, CH, and TW to stay the hell away from Loki. Fuck, I’d be happy if they recast Thor. Luke Hemsworth isn’t a terrible actor, and maybe he could be persuaded to atone for that gross cameo in TR. Or Charlie Hunnam, he looks about right.

Tom probably SAID he’s happy w/Loki’s arc, but Tom is known to be polite & sweet & kind & not likely to say a nasty thing about anyone, even someone who actively treats him badly. Naturally, he’ll say he’s happy w/Loki’s arc & thinks the world of Taika because he’s not the type of person to openly say he’s pissed off & feels mistreated or that a character of his was given a shit deal by the director/writers/co-star (Hemsworth), whom he cares about a great deal & views as a brother.

iamanartichoke:

This is very true. Tom never says anything bad about anyone, or even critical of anyone. 

It would be especially funny if Tom actually said, in so many words, that he “thinks the world of” Taika. Because anyone who watched that movie with a critical eye and emotional intelligence knows what that really means.

delyth88:

lokiloveforever:

shine-of-asgard:

warfenroar:

Pardon my fandom rant, but…

…my biggest fear about Avengers 4 isn’t that Loki won’t come back: it’s the MCU, it’s Loki, he won’t stay dead for long. No, my biggest fear is that he’ll come back and that Thor, after all that happened in Infinity War – things that should finally have taught him humility and empathy and changed him for the better – STILL will treat his own brother like his inferior (because apparently the writers think saying Thor loves Loki is enough). And that this will be portrayed as a “happy ending” and something Loki should be content with, even thankful for, because who wants a brother who respects them anyway.

How the heck am I gonna be satisfied with that for either of them?!

I really hope – no, I beg – that anyone messaging Marvel about bringing Loki back would do him (and me) a favor and also drop them a line about Thor’s treatment of him, just to let them know we expect better. ‘Cause honestly, if it continues like so far, he’s probably no worse off dead.

My fear is Loki being resurrected by Thor’s noble and fearless actions, this making all about Thor… again. Loki’s death was about Thor, now Loki’s life could be about Thor as well, this confiding Loki’s status as a a useless twink / fridge wife

That’s exactly my fear too. That’s why I hope those theories about Thor going to Hel / Vallhalla to resurrect Loki don’t pan out, because then it will only be about Thor’s noble act and not about Loki himself. What I’d like to see is Loki to come back by his own incredible will and wits, somehow, like he’s always done. He died for Thor (again) now can’t his life be about himself?

“…now can’t his life be about himself?”

This!!

To your concerns, @shine-of-asgard: I haven’t read the Kid Loki or Agent of Asgard comics (yet…), but I get the sense that even though Thor was responsible for bringing Loki back, Loki has nonetheless been able to lead his own life – intertwined with Thor’s, of course, but not beholden to him. They might want to do something like that… but if Tom Hiddleston comes back in cameos as “Old Loki,” it wouldn’t have the same significance it does in the comics (I gather), because the MCU “Old Loki” was never actually evil. Even at his worst, in Thor and The Avengers, there were extenuating circumstances; he wasn’t in his right mind, and his intentions weren’t entirely malicious. I’m afraid that the way they’ll try to make it work is to frame Old Loki the way Ragnarok did, as not *evil* precisely – because even that would be giving him more credit for competence and motivational complexity/coherence than Ragnarok wanted to – but as *bad*, this cartoon trickster who betrays people for shits and giggles, or because it’s “in his nature” and he “just can’t help himself.”

Alternatively, though, Old Loki could just represent his envy and resentment against Thor and the pain and grievances he can’t move past, while Kid or Teen Loki is trying to live a new life free of all that baggage. That might be compelling, and would be worthy of Tom Hiddleston.

If they are going to reincarnate Loki with a new young actor… I wish Old Loki’s sacrifice had been more significant. I wish he had either had a real reconciliation of Thor, with an acknowledgment of fault on both sides and a resolve from both to do better, or that he had remained Thor’s enemy; the false reconciliation and “redemption” as submission to Thor’s will, and then the pointless shock-value death that didn’t even give much of a payoff to his connection with Thanos (what the hell happened, Marvel?!), are just such a disappointing end to his character arc. This is how your best, most complex and interesting character goes out, not with a bang but a whimper.

When did taika call loki a space orphan? Or did he call both thor and loki that?

rewritefate:

mastreworld:

philosopherking1887:

lokiloveforever:

lucianalight:

philosopherking1887:

Nope, just Loki. It was a Twitter status, here.

And then there was this interview, with this interesting little excerpt:

Thor: Ragnarok’s director Taika Waititi – New Zealander of the Year, blossoming fashion icon, and man of a thousand poses – is swift to launch into a description of Loki, the unbeloved son of Asgard, as, “someone who tries so hard to embody this idea of the tortured artist, this tortured, gothy orphan.”

“Swift to launch into” this description, huh? Kind of sounds like someone with an idée fixe, a preoccupation, a grudge… probably a secondhand grudge, on behalf of one Chris Hemsworth, but one he has made charmingly his own.

What gets me most about this is using “orphan” as sth degrading. Not to mention disregarding someone’s pain: “tortured, gothy orphan”. And as someone who loves gothic art, I have to ask what’s wrong with being a goth and gothic things?

Waititi is trying to make it sound like Loki is a big fake and a phoney, “trying” to be tortured, “trying” to be artistic, “trying” to be emo and goth, like, Loki’s legitimate pain, heartbreak, and suffering is something he is faking so that he will be seen as these things. The whole thing is really insulting, and along the lines of stereotyping. And Tom Hiddleston had said these things, Loki’s soul was tortured, he had deep, inner reservoirs of pain, and yeah, Loki had a sensitive, artistic relationship with Frigga. He compared it like Thor being the star quarterback, and Loki being the sensitive artist. But Waititi is trying to say Loki is a big faker and a poser that just wants attention and to stab his brother.

And there is nothing wrong with being goth! I love gothic music too! ❤❤❤❤

When you bring up those quotes from Tom, it makes me wonder whether Taika was really saying it about Tom under the guise of saying it about Loki: that Tom is trying so hard to make Loki into a tortured, artistic orphan with real trauma and pain.

Taika sounds like the most callous kind of neurotypical or “mentally healthy” person who thinks everyone with mental illness must somehow be faking it for attention or as an excuse for behaving badly.

Sigh… I really think that Taika should evaluate himself and his way of thinking.

That would require a capacity for self-reflection and self-criticism that he pretty obviously lacks.

When did taika call loki a space orphan? Or did he call both thor and loki that?

lokiloveforever:

lucianalight:

philosopherking1887:

Nope, just Loki. It was a Twitter status, here.

And then there was this interview, with this interesting little excerpt:

Thor: Ragnarok’s director Taika Waititi – New Zealander of the Year, blossoming fashion icon, and man of a thousand poses – is swift to launch into a description of Loki, the unbeloved son of Asgard, as, “someone who tries so hard to embody this idea of the tortured artist, this tortured, gothy orphan.”

“Swift to launch into” this description, huh? Kind of sounds like someone with an idée fixe, a preoccupation, a grudge… probably a secondhand grudge, on behalf of one Chris Hemsworth, but one he has made charmingly his own.

What gets me most about this is using “orphan” as sth degrading. Not to mention disregarding someone’s pain: “tortured, gothy orphan”. And as someone who loves gothic art, I have to ask what’s wrong with being a goth and gothic things?

Waititi is trying to make it sound like Loki is a big fake and a phoney, “trying” to be tortured, “trying” to be artistic, “trying” to be emo and goth, like, Loki’s legitimate pain, heartbreak, and suffering is something he is faking so that he will be seen as these things. The whole thing is really insulting, and along the lines of stereotyping. And Tom Hiddleston had said these things, Loki’s soul was tortured, he had deep, inner reservoirs of pain, and yeah, Loki had a sensitive, artistic relationship with Frigga. He compared it like Thor being the star quarterback, and Loki being the sensitive artist. But Waititi is trying to say Loki is a big faker and a poser that just wants attention and to stab his brother.

And there is nothing wrong with being goth! I love gothic music too! ❤❤❤❤

When you bring up those quotes from Tom, it makes me wonder whether Taika was really saying it about Tom under the guise of saying it about Loki: that Tom is trying so hard to make Loki into a tortured, artistic orphan with real trauma and pain.

Taika sounds like the most callous kind of neurotypical or “mentally healthy” person who thinks everyone with mental illness must somehow be faking it for attention or as an excuse for behaving badly.