Tag: thor ragnarok hate

mentallydatingahotcelebrity:

just-another-millenial97:

I usually say very little when it comes to things like this, but come on, Hemsworth! This is so unprofessional. He literally calls it “meh”

I’m just so mindblown that he would do that. Like I can have respect for him not caring for it. Every actor probably has a piece of work that they regret, but to go out and trash it. Why is that necessary??

Hiddleston doesn’t trash Ragnorak despite having every reason to.

Hemsworth has to right to speak down about this film

He almost sounds like he has no idea what he’s talking about. I would take TDW over Ragnarok any day. In my personal opinion the worst movie is Ragnarok, because it’s essentially just him wandering around a set in a costume being him. At least before it felt like a movie instead of some weird skit that just felt fake and plastic and… bad. I honestly can’t believe that the cinematic industry is devolving this much to call Ragnarok good moviemaking and TDW bad moviemaking. 

I’ve seen bad movies. I actually just watched three of them on netflix today, and TDW in no way compares to them. This is just sad, the only reason he’s saying TDW is bad is because that’s what other people are saying, and the only reason he’s saying Ragnarok is good is because that’s what the majority is screaming. If it was the other way, his tune would be sounding way different.

He’s just really, really lucky people seem to now have no concept of what makes good movies and what makes bad movies.

I think the reason he’s saying TDW was bad is because he was “bored” of actually trying to act in dramatic roles instead of just dicking around in expensive costumes on expensive sets with expensive visual effects to distract from his non-acting.

And TDW may have been a classic archetype of masculinity, but I’ll definitely take that over the frat boy pseudo-humor we get from every Seth MacFarlane movie and “Thor: Ragnarok.” It was not progressive. It was not deflating the guy who’s trying to act cool, the way everyone who says it’s a distinctively Maori kind of humor claims it is – unless the “guy trying to act cool” is Loki, because it definitely put *him* in his place. Thor took a couple of pratfalls, but otherwise succeeded at everything he did, or if he didn’t it was always someone else’s fault. So Thor came out looking fine… unless we were actually *supposed* to perceive his behavior as deeply unpleasant, which I very much doubt. I thought the point of this (purported) Maori style of humor was to make your “cool” hero look foolish or incompetent, not like a narcissistic bully.

stmonkeys:

philosopherking1887:

stmonkeys:

philosopherking1887:

Anyone I see reblog that bullshit post about how Taika Waititi characterized Thor and Loki so much better than Joss Whedon because Taika has a Deep Pagan Understanding of Norse mythology while Joss is beholden to Bad Western Christianity and therefore thinks God is a fascist… you will be unfollowed. You are all hereby on notice.

(I just went looking through the notes to see if I could find my own comment, which I might reblog just to try to stem the idiocy, and saw another hot take, this one about how Taika’s compassionate understanding of gods reflects his Jewish heritage, and I am just… no. I’m about as proud to claim Adam Sandler as a landsman. At least he wrote the Chanukah song. Several of them.)

@philosopherking1887 taika’s jewish? I haven’t heard anything about that. There’s a plethora of jewish representation in the MCU, but I thought taika was part Australian Aboriginal. I have no great love for taika’s version of the odinson saga, but there were a few redeeming moments. I was really disappointed by the Russo brothers, because I held them in a much higher esteem. We watched IW again last night, and after my 3rd viewing I still find the firsr 10 minutes excruciating to watch.

He’s half Maori (New Zealand’s indigenous people), half Jewish.

I can’t decide whether I’m more pissed at him or at Markus & McFeely (who wrote IW) and the Russos. Well, Waititi shares my ire with Hemsworth, who brought him on and instigated the radical recharacterization, and Feige, who gave it the go-ahead.

As a fellow member of the tribe, I can’t exactly write him off, I’m proud of the Jewish representation in the mcu. I absolutely don’t agree with all the choices TW made in ragnarok, but there were some great moments. Do they outweigh the serious character assasinations that occurred? I don’t know, perhaps that blame rests with Kevin feige and the other powers that be.

I can hardly even appreciate the great visual moments because the assassination of the main characters was so egregious and insulting to fans of the previous movies. The way Thor, the supposed hero, behaves toward his supposed friends and the way Loki’s pretty clear signs of mental illness in prior canon are callously written off says nothing good to me about the ethical character of the creators. (And yes, it was more Waititi and Hemsworth riffing than the screenwriter’s screenplay.)

Here’s my obligatory mention of his hiring of Australian aboriginal workers. That was good. Doesn’t mean I like him personally.

stmonkeys:

philosopherking1887:

Anyone I see reblog that bullshit post about how Taika Waititi characterized Thor and Loki so much better than Joss Whedon because Taika has a Deep Pagan Understanding of Norse mythology while Joss is beholden to Bad Western Christianity and therefore thinks God is a fascist… you will be unfollowed. You are all hereby on notice.

(I just went looking through the notes to see if I could find my own comment, which I might reblog just to try to stem the idiocy, and saw another hot take, this one about how Taika’s compassionate understanding of gods reflects his Jewish heritage, and I am just… no. I’m about as proud to claim Adam Sandler as a landsman. At least he wrote the Chanukah song. Several of them.)

@philosopherking1887 taika’s jewish? I haven’t heard anything about that. There’s a plethora of jewish representation in the MCU, but I thought taika was part Australian Aboriginal. I have no great love for taika’s version of the odinson saga, but there were a few redeeming moments. I was really disappointed by the Russo brothers, because I held them in a much higher esteem. We watched IW again last night, and after my 3rd viewing I still find the firsr 10 minutes excruciating to watch.

He’s half Maori (New Zealand’s indigenous people), half Jewish.

I can’t decide whether I’m more pissed at him or at Markus & McFeely (who wrote IW) and the Russos. Well, Waititi shares my ire with Hemsworth, who brought him on and instigated the radical recharacterization, and Feige, who gave it the go-ahead.

Anyone I see reblog that bullshit post about how Taika Waititi characterized Thor and Loki so much better than Joss Whedon because Taika has a Deep Pagan Understanding of Norse mythology while Joss is beholden to Bad Western Christianity and therefore thinks God is a fascist… you will be unfollowed. You are all hereby on notice.

(I just went looking through the notes to see if I could find my own comment, which I might reblog just to try to stem the idiocy, and saw another hot take, this one about how Taika’s compassionate understanding of gods reflects his Jewish heritage, and I am just… no. I’m about as proud to claim Adam Sandler as a landsman. At least he wrote the Chanukah song. Several of them.)

iamanartichoke:

lookforastar:

Fine. I guess I’ll just have to go it alone. Like I’ve always done.

I’ve talked about Loki’s response before, but I like this part too because in the first gif, Loki looks like he’s about to be like, “Now wait a minute, that’s totally not what happened,” but by the third gif, his face is more of a resigned, “You’re not going to believe me anyway, so why would I try to defend myself?” 

Poor Loki. 😦 

I think Tom Hiddleston included more of Loki’s POV and emotional depth in his facial expressions than were in the script.

juliabohemian:

peoplearenotdiamonds:

STOP KILLING LOKI. JUST FUCKING STOP. HIM LIVING WOULD BE REFRESHING AT THIS POINT, MARVEL.

Or you know… another character acknowledging Loki’s pain. Or another character acknowledging that Loki has a reason for doing anything he’s ever done, other than him just being evil. Or another character just liking Loki for who he is. Or Thor acknowledging how shitty it must have been for Loki to find out he was adopted. Or Thor even acknowledging that Loki was lied to his entire life. Or Thor admitting to ever being a less than perfect brother.

But at this point, I would settle for Loki not being dead.

Tbh, I’m thinking he should’ve stayed dead in The Dark World, because it’s all been downhill from there.

incredifishface:

philosopherking1887:

@foundlingmother replied to your post

“Ugh, I really don’t like it when people reblog stuff about Loki’s…”

Yeah, Thor 100% has the capacity to understand Loki’s grievances, he just didn’t get a chance to because he wasn’t even in Ragnarok, Thor* was. Heimdall might not be a saint, but I think it’s wrong to assume he saw Loki with Thanos. It seems unlikely he would have mentioned none of that. As for Loki pulling a double-cross… while I get the appeal of this, it seems like such an unrealistic culmination of Loki’s arc even ignoring Ragnarok.

I’m not sure I think it would have been Whedon’s angle.

I mean, I know that Thanos behaves kind of stupid in GotG, but I feel like having him accept Loki as his ally with all that happens… would have undermined him as a villain.

Right… I wasn’t completely on board with all of @juliabohemian‘s analysis on my other post. She and I seem to fundamentally disagree about Thor’s moral character and disposition toward Loki as shown in previous films: I think the character called “Thor” in Ragnarok is a radical departure from Thor as we’ve seen him in previous movies, which is why I refer to him as Thor*; she, and many other non-Thorki-shipping Loki fans, think that Ragnarok amplifies Thor’s previous tendencies toward self-absorption and insensitivity, but is not completely discontinuous with the character. I don’t see us coming to full agreement on that issue anytime soon, and that’s fine.

As to the issue of the double-cross being “an unrealistic culmination of Loki’s arc”… I actually disagree with you there. If you just mean it would have been unrealistic for Thanos to accept Loki as his ally, I do see where you’re coming from there, but there are ways around it. The idea of having Thanos take Thor as a hostage is one way. That way Thanos wouldn’t have to trust Loki; he would just have to trust Loki’s unwillingness to allow harm to come to Thor, which given what Thanos knows about him he absolutely would and should. I think that would appeal to Thanos for a couple of reasons:

(1) Good old-fashioned sadism. Whedon’s Thanos clearly wasn’t into any of that pseudo-benevolent Malthusian bullshit; the reference to “courting death” in the Avengers tag scene indicated that Whedon was picturing a Thanos obsessed with Lady Death like he is in the comics. No attempt would have been made to make that Thanos sympathetic. That Thanos is a creepy fucker who would have gotten a kick out of torturing Thor physically (just a little) and torturing Loki psychologically with the knowledge that a step out of line would mean pain and/or permanent damage to Thor. Ooh, maybe he would have cut off a finger or a toe when Loki made a decision to undermine Thanos that he was just barely able to pass off as an incompetent fuck-up. And Loki would have known that… and wouldn’t have hesitated to trade his own pain, but when it’s Thor’s it’s so much worse. (Should I be worried about myself, coming up with this shit?)

(2) It would mean that Loki wasn’t a completely wasted investment. If Thanos were a good economist (which clearly he isn’t…), he wouldn’t buy into the sunk costs fallacy, and he’d be perfectly happy cutting his losses and cutting Loki loose… but I think he’s into narrative neatness (OK, this is just “Abyss” Thanos now, never mind what Whedon would have done) and he would like the idea of making Loki useful after all. Plus, there must have been a reason he thought it was a good idea to trust Loki with the Tesseract retrieval mission – and the Mind Stone! – in the first place; he must think he’s good at some stuff.

If by “unrealistic culmination of Loki’s arc,” you mean it wouldn’t be a realistic place for Loki’s character progression to go, then I definitely disagree. Part of what was so objectionable about Thor*’s treatment of Loki in Ragnarok was that he was effectively demanding that Loki become a different person as a condition of maintaining a relationship with Thor* (classic sign of an abusive relationship, btw). Of course, that demand was also based on the faulty premise, assumed by Ragnarok but by none of the previous films, that Loki’s basic nature or “essence” was the “god of mischief” who betrays people out of hedonistic self-interest or just because he thinks it’s fun. I mean, it’s not unreasonable for Thor to demand that Loki stop betraying him, but when you’re working on the assumption that that’s what Loki has been doing their whole lives, instead of just for the past 6 really shitty years out of 1000+, and that it’s just in his nature to do that, then you’ve really gotta wonder why Thor put up with it for as long as he did… and also you don’t give an abusive “change fundamentally or I’m leaving” ultimatum; you just fucking leave.

One of the best parts of TDW, which totally got me the first time I watched it, was when Loki makes a show of betraying Thor to trick Malekith into drawing the Aether from Jane. That was absolutely brilliant because it was Thor and Loki, together, taking advantage of some of Loki’s most distinctive features – illusion magic, acting ability, and a reputation for treachery – to achieve a good aim they shared. Having Loki pull a long con on Thanos would be that gambit writ large. And ideally, this time – in order for it to represent a progression from the incident in TDW rather than just a replay – Thor would not be on on the plan… but he would indicate, perhaps while conversing in a dungeon with one of Thanos’s other unfortunate prisoners, that he believes Loki is still on his side and is planning to double-cross Thanos in the end. He doesn’t know; he harbors some doubts; but he believes. That would represent character growth for both Thor and Loki: Thor is forced to trust Loki for a long period of uncertainty; and Loki is, on some level, trusting Thor to trust him. That, too, would be a source of anguish for Loki – wondering whether Thor thinks that Loki has betrayed him again, more grievously than ever – but he hopes, and maybe even believes (William James will-to-believe style, because it helps), that Thor believes Loki is doing the right thing, in his indirect, strategic way.

@fuckyeahrichardiii, @illwynd, @incredifishface, @seidrade, I’m bringing y’all in on my harebrained IW do-over ideas because I’m curious to know what you think. (I’m never writing this as a fic, because I’m not that good at plot details, but just the outline.)

i appreciate it, but I think I’ll pass. I can’t engage this level of mind power into fixing a movie I wouldn’t even have made. I simply don’t want to give Thanos a second of my mental time. He’s a stupid character with stupid motivations and he bores me. I would have preferred ye olde “rule the universe hur hur hur” kind of villain 145977577647 times, and failing that, the Thanos in love with Hela / Death was a good route to go to.  

So all the artistic and narrative decisions started from a point which for me was already irreparably stupid and boring. they killed Loki in the first 5 minutes, and that’s when they lost me and never got me back. 

If I was to conjecture ways to improve this film, it would be with an entirely different villain, with different motivations, and so my contribution as to what part Thor and Loki played in that imaginary story that never was is moot. 

i’m bitter and miserable and you’ll find me in the universe next door raving about the Transformers. Now THAT is a plot.

I completely agree with you about the version of Thanos we saw in Infinity War, as written by those dimwitted hacks-turned-freshman boys in philosophy seminar Markus & McFeely and made “sympathetic” by the equally sophomoric Russos. I’m only interested in reimagining the movie with the Thanos who was in love with Death/Hela, largely because in the fic I’ve been writing about what happened to Loki between Thor and The Avengers, that was the motivation I was assuming (and actually wrote in, long before we got the ridiculous movie version of Thanos). And also because I’m fantasizing about the version of IW that Joss Whedon would have written if he hadn’t gotten fed up with Marvel’s meddling in AOU. I really don’t think he would have killed Loki in the first 5 minutes, because he was the one who established the connection with Thanos in the first place and would have wanted to give it a satisfying payoff, and aside from that all the evidence suggests that he was genuinely impressed with the work Hiddleston and Branagh put into building Loki’s character and was invested in continuing to give him depth and interest.

I’m also vaguely assuming in this imagining that we got the version of Ragnarok that we deserved, though I’m also not completely clear on what that would have looked like. Thor and Loki would have had a real fucking conversation, for one thing. I think it was written and directed by Guillermo del Toro. Hela actually had half of her face missing (Guillermo loves that shit), and she and Loki bonded over being seen by the world and themselves as monsters. Maybe she was Loki’s mother, not Thor’s sister. And she definitely didn’t die at the end, because she needs to show up as Thanos’s would-be love interest in IW.

@juliabohemian replied to your post “@foundlingmother replied to your post “Ugh, I really don’t like it…”

I consider Ragnarok Thor to be woefully inconsistent with other films. My analysis of Ragnarok Thor is based on the premise that the film is intended to be part of a continuous narrative -despite its failure to be so. All of my analysis is based on my study of human behavior/child development & has zero to do with who I do or do not ship. I do not mind you disagreeing with my views & continue to enjoy your discourse. But I do not wish to be misunderstood.

No, I didn’t think it was a consequence of your not shipping Thorki; sorry for giving that impression. If anything it would be the reverse: Loki fans who have a darker view of Thor to begin with are unlikely to ship him with a character they love. (That doesn’t really explain the Thor*-stanning Thorki shippers who seem to believe that Loki has absolutely no redeeming characteristics, maybe beyond physical attractiveness… but then I don’t really expect consistency from people who don’t seem to know what it is.)

Thanks for clarifying on the issue of continuity of character. I’m operating on the assumption that the creators of Ragnarok honestly didn’t give a shit whether the narrative and/or characterization was continuous. In fact, I think they were banking more on the assumption of continuity with Loki than with Thor: they were trying to remove or forestall people’s sympathy for Loki by reframing everything he had ever done as merely an expression of his asshole-ish trickster nature, while they made it pretty clear that they were “reinventing” Thor.

Am I the only one who assumed the “stabbing” in the snake story was with, like, some kind of practice or toy weapon? That’s not to say it couldn’t have hurt a lot, but even before seeing all of this fandom interpretation of it (I’m new around here), I was definitely picturing the stabbing part happening with like a non-lethal weapon… I just find it so bizarre to see people seizing on that as some kind of proof that Loki is evil and always has been??

makerofrunevests:

lokiloveforever:

I think that story was intended to put an image in our minds of Thor being sensitive, thoughtful and gentle, and long-suffering at the hands of Loki, who we’re supposed to see as just a mean little shit who ran around randomly stabbing Thor for kicks and lols. Tom Hiddleston made the comparison between Thor and Loki to a son who was the star quarterback jock and the other son who was the sensitive artist. He and Rene Russo even created together Loki and Frigga having this sensitive, artistic relationship. Ragnarok tried to make Loki out to be like Draco Malfoy, always dark and “emo”, lurking, scheming his next attack on his brother, for no apparent reason. Just because. But that’s not how it was, and that’s not how he was. Loki was bright, funny, quick witted and full of hope, and highly intelligent. People who are that intelligent are very sensitive. And lonely. Maybe he did stab Thor, but I don’t think it was for no other reason than he just wanted to hurt him. I’m sure Loki could tell stories about things Thor did to him as well. But anyway, people seem to think it makes a good meme, and people love memes, right?

😃

This is how he was. He adored Thor and Odin, and just wanted to be seen in their eyes.

My headcanon is that he stabbed Thor because he was startled that somebody picked him up suddenly, and didn’t even realize that it was Thor–a headcanon based on how my sensitive, intelligent, introverted little brother used to react to being startled by yelling furiously and running straight at whatever had startled him.

I don’t even try to justify it via headcanon. If it happened, it was a pair of scissors, and melodramatic little boy Thor blew it out of proportion. But I think @lokiloveforever is exactly right about the abrupt, nonsensical retcon of the characters. It’s probably best to dismiss most of the movie’s dialogue as bullshit and retain the bare bones of the plot, at most, for fanfiction and continuity. Or just pretend none of the MCU movies made after 2015 exist except “Homecoming” and “Black Panther,” which is what I often do.