Tag: thor ragnarok hate

foundlingmother:

satanssyn-n-things:

lasimo74allmyworld:

shine-of-asgard:

shine-of-asgard:

Wow Waititi is being a gross asshole today for no good reason. WTF man, it’s not your job to decide which Marvel movies should / will be done.

If it’s supposed to be humorous, I fail to see the humor.

He was always an asshole. The success of his film only showed off his Loki/Tom hating assholery.

Oh, thank goodness there are people on here who think this is rude! The first post I saw with pictures of these tweets was praising TW’s response. I get it if you don’t want a Loki movie–I don’t really want one either (I’d like the MCU to stop messing with Loki and Thor because they don’t care about them at all)–but the people in the comments of that post were mocking the twitter user, and found TW’s response hilarious and proper. Um, no. He could and should have just ignored this person. Instead, he utterly crushed them.

#also that post was reblogged by a thorki shipper#it’s a constant surprise to me how many thorki shippers don’t like loki#don’t think there’s anything interesting about him beyond how he relates to thor#or any redeeming qualities#or really depth to his character#and i didn’t notice it much before ragnarok#so i wonder if tw’s version influenced things#or at least brought people’s true opinions out of the woodwork#or if i just became more observant

Sorry if you didn’t want those tags made more visible, @foundlingmother, but I do have something to say about this. I have noticed that certain Thorki shippers like to diminish Loki’s virtues and complexity and I kind of thought it might be an oppositional reaction to the “Loki’s Army”/ “Loki’s Resistance” types who absolve Loki of all guilt for his misdeeds and usually blame Odin and Thor (and Thanos, later) for all of Loki’s problems. These people sanctify Loki and demonize Thor as a bully/abuser, so the contrary reaction of the Thor stans is to sanctify Thor and demonize Loki.

This looks very odd if they ship Thor and Loki: why would you want a character you love and think is perfect to be with a character you despise and think has no redeeming qualities (other than physical attractiveness, maybe)? That’s part of why I suspect that the demonization of Loki is just a reaction to the contrary view, which (I gather) gained prominence in 2012-13; after Thor 1, which came out in 2011 (or maybe before they encountered Loki’s Resistance on Tumblr, if they entered the fandom later), such Thorki shippers may have recognized the interest and complexity of both characters, but started denying it later. The Thor-hating Loki stans, meanwhile, are at least consistent in that they never ship Loki with Thor; instead, they usually ship Loki with themselves or a self-insert OFC (sometimes named Sigyn for the sake of appearances).

Or maybe these Thorki shippers always despised Loki and they just think that Hiddleston and Hemsworth are hot together. Or maybe it’s just an acknowledgment that Thor (at least before Ragnarok) loves and values Loki and wants to be with him, and their idea of a happy resolution – like TW and CH’s, apparently – is for Loki to give up all independent agency and conform himself to Thor’s desires.

Have the people calling Thor the biggest Loki stan/apologist actually seen “Ragnarok”? Because Thor basically spends the entire movie calling Loki a horrible person except for when he does exactly what Thor wants him to because he gave him an ultimatum and electrocuted him.

foundlingmother:

philosopherking1887:

buckeed:

Thor: The Dark World || Thor: Ragnarok

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fuckyeahrichardiii:

philosopherking1887:

shine-of-asgard:

kitty-hulk:

I hate how Ragnarok made Bruce

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

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

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

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

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

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

I love you and your crabbiness, @fuckyeahrichardiii.

lokiloveforever:

thiddlestonismyknight:

sweetdreamr:

lokiloveforever:

yume-no-fantasy:

whitedaydream:

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

— Chris Hemsworth on “Avengers: Infinity War”

BONUS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“You faked your own death”

“Maybe there’s still some good in you”

“Dear brother, you’re becoming predictable. I trust you, you betray me. Round and round in circles we go. See, Loki, life is about… It’s about growth. It’s about change. But you seem to just wanna stay the same. I guess what I’m trying to say is that you’ll always be the God of Mischief, but you could be more.”

“Maybe you’re not so bad after all” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a quote from Tom Hiddleston regarding Loki:

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

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

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

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

@whitedaydream thank you for this post!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other things that were wrong with this movie:

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

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

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

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

@lokiloveforever @whitedaydream @yume-no-fantasy

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

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

fuckyeahrichardiii:

philosopherking1887:

fuckyeahrichardiii replied to your post “foundlingmother:
philosopherking1887:

shine-of-asgard:

…”

It felt like the film equivalent of that move in modern comics where writers essentially douchebro beloved characters (this is especially true if IM comics) in part for the explicit purpose of alienating female fans. The whole time I was sitting in the theater I felt like I was being insulted.

Funny you should mention that, @fuckyeahrichardiii… I recently saw a post from @flange5 where she referred to that kind of behavior by male comics writers (in reference specifically to Iron Man comics, I think) as “fencepost-pissing,” because they’re making a point of “leaving their mark” on the character rather than remaining consistent with the character as it’s been established previously. I remarked that according to that definition, Taika Waititi is also a fencepost-pisser.

YES! This is absolutely true, and a great way of thinking about the movie. I didn’t watch a lot of interviews (and tbh have had the tag for the movie blocked for a while since seeing stuff from it made me so upset) but the teeny bit I did see gave me the impression that TW seemed happy to made his mark on the franchise and to have given us an All New, All Different!™️ Thor. And given the fact that his main point of pride is that Thor was “funny” (to some people, I guess, though not to me), this is a pretty simplistic take on character innovation.

This new Thor was lobotomized, buffoonish, and, well, cruel. But the entire movie seemed to be characterized by a kind of cruelty, in a way. Not only did it lack a heart and soul, but it displayed contempt for the very idea of any kind of genuine earnestness, and clearly open contempt for the storylines and character development in the earlier movies.

That’s one of the several reasons why stupid comments comparing TW’s Thor to that of Kirby and Lee send me into a hate spiral: not only are these comparisons wrong on aesthetic grounds (Ragnarok seemed to be drawing its over-the-top look from the goofy brightness of 90s comics) but they absolutely ignore the fact that Kirby and Lee? Loved. These. Characters. The earnest affection that bubbles out of 60s comics, and absolute seriousness with which Thor’s emotional ups and downs are treated, are the antithesis of what TW did with Ragnarok.

Taika Waititi pissed on his fence post, alright. He also left a giant stinking turd in the yard.

@shine-of-asgard, since you said on another post (which is long so I’m excerpting),

fanboys LOVED Ragnarok. Loved it. Hulk boing boing and hammer strokes and whatnot. And they hate Loki with a passion, almost to a point where I think their masculinity is threatened by him.

I thought I should point you to this post and introduce you to @fuckyeahrichardiii. And yes, I suspect you’re entirely right that fanboys feel their masculinity threatened by Loki. He’s queer-coded, almost effeminate, and yet women are attracted to him more strongly and in greater numbers than to male power fantasy Thor! How to neutralize the threat? Ridicule him; impugn his masculinity further by making him the sugar baby (a.k.a. “bitch”) of another ridiculous, effeminate character.

If the goal was to alienate female fans, they may have succeeded to some extent… but they certainly haven’t shaken their affection for the Loki of earlier movies, and apparently some women even find Loki/Grandmaster hot.

fuckyeahrichardiii:

philosopherking1887:

fuckyeahrichardiii replied to your post “foundlingmother:
philosopherking1887:

shine-of-asgard:

…”

It felt like the film equivalent of that move in modern comics where writers essentially douchebro beloved characters (this is especially true if IM comics) in part for the explicit purpose of alienating female fans. The whole time I was sitting in the theater I felt like I was being insulted.

Funny you should mention that, @fuckyeahrichardiii… I recently saw a post from @flange5 where she referred to that kind of behavior by male comics writers (in reference specifically to Iron Man comics, I think) as “fencepost-pissing,” because they’re making a point of “leaving their mark” on the character rather than remaining consistent with the character as it’s been established previously. I remarked that according to that definition, Taika Waititi is also a fencepost-pisser.

YES! This is absolutely true, and a great way of thinking about the movie. I didn’t watch a lot of interviews (and tbh have had the tag for the movie blocked for a while since seeing stuff from it made me so upset) but the teeny bit I did see gave me the impression that TW seemed happy to made his mark on the franchise and to have given us an All New, All Different!™️ Thor. And given the fact that his main point of pride is that Thor was “funny” (to some people, I guess, though not to me), this is a pretty simplistic take on character innovation.

This new Thor was lobotomized, buffoonish, and, well, cruel. But the entire movie seemed to be characterized by a kind of cruelty, in a way. Not only did it lack a heart and soul, but it displayed contempt for the very idea of any kind of genuine earnestness, and clearly open contempt for the storylines and character development in the earlier movies.

That’s one of the several reasons why stupid comments comparing TW’s Thor to that of Kirby and Lee send me into a hate spiral: not only are these comparisons wrong on aesthetic grounds (Ragnarok seemed to be drawing its over-the-top look from the goofy brightness of 90s comics) but they absolutely ignore the fact that Kirby and Lee? Loved. These. Characters. The earnest affection that bubbles out of 60s comics, and absolute seriousness with which Thor’s emotional ups and downs are treated, are the antithesis of what TW did with Ragnarok.

Taika Waititi pissed on his fence post, alright. He also left a giant stinking turd in the yard.

squeeful:

axiomatiq:

Imagine saying a character “know[ing] they’re right and doesn’t want to hear it when you tell them they’re wrong” was a good thing. That this wasn’t one of Steve Rogers, Captain America’s greatest flaws.

Imagine believing that this is a character trait that CAROL DANVERS would be proud to have. Imagine never having picked up a comic book in your life, and saying that Carol Danvers isn’t one of these “flawed, fucked up people”.

Imagine if Marcus & McFeely actually gave a f*ck about Carol and didn’t get her character so wrong.

—Cinemablend

No. Thank fuck they’re not writing Captain Marvel.

Wait, so… they didn’t think that was a flaw in Steve Rogers? They wrote Civil War thinking that Steve was the sympathetic one and Tony “contorted ego” [???] Stark was the villain? Because boy, did that go wrong. I came out of that movie thinking that Steve was a complete asshole and Tony was the one being (relatively) reasonable.

…kind of like what happened when Waititi, Pearson, and Hemsworth tried to make Thor the “best” character in his own movie, eh, @fuckyeahrichardiii?