Tag: thor ragnarok hate

shine-of-asgard:

loki-god-of-menace:

lokihiddleston:

“Almighty Thanos, I, Loki, Prince of Asgard… Odinson… The
rightful king of Jotunheim, God of Mischief… Do hereby pledge to you, my
undying fidelity.”

[That deep, steadying, terrified breath before his attempt on Thanos’ life just kills me. You can see the tears clinging to his eyes. You can watch him stiffen and coil. You can see him pull all of himself together to make this last, resigned but still brave-to-the-end attempt at bringing down Thanos. It’s heart-wrenching, watching him go to his death to protect Thor.

He deserved better. He always will.]

Anyone remembers the little promotion video of TH filming this and making little up and down jumps? Some people wanted to see a sign of hope in that. I remember thinking that it looked the opposite. Like psyching oneself to do something very unpleasant. Like a come on, let’s get this over with.

Feige also commented some time ago on the scene being difficult for TH. That’s 3 people saying the same fucking thing! So… Not cute. Not funny. And don’t try to tell me TH didn’t know Loki was being shat on. He might have tried to give his best in that scene, but no-one in fandom can even phantom what was going on there. What was Loki trying to accomplish. Concpiracy theories abound. Which is a big mark of how badly written that scene was. It has zero closure and zero sense. But nothing of it it TH fault.

God now I hate these hacks with renewed passion.

I wish Tom had had the power, or maybe the chutzpah, to protest on his character’s behalf. I wish I could believe that there was some big plan, some greater sense, to this absolutely idiotic and gratuitously violent and gruesome death. Which is to say, I wish Markus & McFeely and the Russo brothers had any sense of character or narrative logic.

But more than anything, I wish Feige and Marvel hadn’t alienated Joss Whedon. I wish he had been writing Infinity War. Honestly, I kind of wish he had been around to put the brakes on Taika Waititi’s (and Chris Hemsworth’s) complete mangling of Thor, Loki, and Bruce’s characters. He, unlike M&M and the Russos, had affection and understanding for the Asgardian characters. He was invested in making Loki interesting and formidable, as a reluctant villain and antihero (as reflected in the scenes he rewrote in TDW). He established the connection between Loki and Thanos and I firmly believe he intended to give us some payoff for it.

I find it absurd and ironic that the Marvel higher-ups were doing enough micromanaging on AOU that Joss Whedon threw up his hands in frustration, but apparently they gave Waititi completely free rein to ad lib his way through Ragnarok. I think that shows how little they care about the Thor franchise; it was making them less money, so they were willing to throw it under the bus artistically.

juliabohemian:

In light of THIS post:

First, I’d really like to write more about this, but free time is intermittent for me. Please, please don’t comment or share this just to argue with me. If you have well thought out points that are based on critical thinking, okay. Otherwise, that’s not why I come to this site. And I will probably just end up blocking you to save myself the stress.

That being said…

I think my issue with Thor fans is that they don’t analyze Loki’s relationship with him critically. Imagine that you just met these two guys. They weren’t gods. They were just two brothers. One wasn’t a hero and one wasn’t a villain. They were just regular guys. Their relationship would seem woefully imbalanced. Most people’s perception of these two characters is deeply colored by the fact that one is marketed to us as a hero and the other a villain.

I often seen people cite examples of how Thor loves Loki -but then they will list something that is actually an example of how their relationship is dysfunctional. Thor “trusting” Loki in TDW was not love. It was desperation to save Jane. It was about his infatuation for Jane. Thor’s relationship with Jane didn’t last -most likely because it was more about possessing her than actually being with her physically. 

Thor telling Loki “maybe you’re not so bad” or “maybe there’s still good in you” or “I thought the world of you” is not love. It’s manipulative and passive aggressive and once again, dysfunctional. 

Thor using Loki to do “get help” was not an example of how well they get along. It was an example of how Thor continually disregards Loki’s feelings, as long as it serves his purpose. 

Thor is nice to Loki when he needs something from him. The eagerness with which Loki responds to this is disturbing. They are both very messed up people. Loki’s eagerness to gain validation from someone is most likely what led to his entanglement with Thanos. 

Thor’s obsession with Earth is not love. It’s ego. He likes the idea of protecting someone who is smaller than he is. He likes that they adore and worship them there. And in his defense…who the hell wouldn’t like that?

Does that mean Thor isn’t capable of love? No way. It just means that because of his personalty, experience and maturity level, his concept of what it means to love someone is fairly skewed. Loki’s too, for that matter.

Now all of that being said, I don’t mind that this is their relationship. If they weren’t dysfunctional, they would likely be very boring. I continue to be confused as to why people want to defend Thor, as though the fact that he is a hero means he is supposed to be completely without flaws or questionable motives.

In classic literature, heroes are flawed by nature.

Here’s what Thor SHOULD have said to Fury in Avengers: “My brother tried to kill himself and I’m frankly relieved to find out that he’s still alive. He is unwell, I’m afraid. Please allow me to talk to him and reason with him and take him back home.” And then Thor would have done his best to return Loki to Asgard immediately, instead of dicking around on a hillside with Tony Stark and then dragging Loki off so SHIELD could put him in Bruce Banner’s cage. Those would have been the actions of someone who loved and cared for his brother. Unfortunately, they would also have made for a very boring movie, which is why we got something else.

I will add to this later, when I have time.

I have less of a problem with Thor’s lapses in sensitivity in The Avengers than in Thor: Ragnarok, because he’s still working on his process of maturation and we’re aware that he comes from a warrior culture steeped in toxic masculinity and completely lacking a compassionate understanding of mental illness. But we watch him growing up through the movies that follow… until Thor: Ragnarok, when all of that is more than reversed.

The other extremely problematic thing that I see people citing as an example of how much Thor loves Loki is “Thor didn’t kill Loki when he could have.” Like, what? That is such an incredibly low bar. No shit you don’t kill someone you love, even when they do something shitty to you. If you love them, you also don’t inflict unnecessary pain on them. Saying “Thor just immobilized him with the obedience disk instead of killing him for his betrayal” is like saying “You know that husband loves his wife because he only sprained her wrist when he found her cheating on him, he didn’t actually break it.”

And no, that is not comparable to arguing that Loki still cares about Thor even when he’s in villain mode because he only does things to incapacitate him, not kill him. What Loki does when he’s having a complete emotional and psychological breakdown in Thor or when he’s been manipulated, probably tortured, and severely coerced by Thanos (NOT brainwashed or mind-controlled, I didn’t say that) is NOT comparable to what Thor does when he’s completely in control of his rational faculties, as part of his “clever plan” to reform Loki. In my fanfiction, I’ve had to reinterpret that incident in Ragnarok as Thor reacting in irrational anger, because otherwise it’s unconscionable.

latent-thoughts:

mastreworld:

kaori04:

foundlingmother:

Loki fans don’t dislike Ragnarok!Loki because he’s heroic, mischievous, charming, etc.

Loki fans dislike Ragnarok!Loki because Ragnarok mocks and/or ignores Loki’s depth, character arc and development, and mental health issues.

Fuck it, let’s get a little too personal, shall we? Warning: what comes under the cut is heavy shit.

Keep reading

Yes, thank you! I am so tired of seeing statements as “how can you dislile Ragnarok!Loki if he is so mischievous/witty/funny and overcomes his traumas all of a sudden because Thor specifically told him to and becomes happy instead of miserable probably because he realised that being happy is better then being miserable. And also his perfect brother approves, that’s what really matters, right?” Yep, that’s all real reasons how people are improving their mental state in real life, not the opposite, nope.

Also such statements show that these people never really read why some of us dislike TR and just made up reasons we don’t like it themselves and now are accusing us that we are having wrong reasons that are not even our reasons asdsgahfgd

Yes, this! It took me 28 years to get a proper diagnosis as proof that I have an innate neurological disability and am not lazy or difficult for the heck of it. The attitude towards people with neurological or emotional trauma is despicable and seeing it so blatantly displayed in a movie is fucking hurtful. We don’t deserve respect in “normal” people’s eyes, do we? It’s perfectly fine to make fun of us and put us down because we can’t function the way people are supposed to.

As for “Loki stan”, that’s a title I’d wear with pride.

This bigotry by certain Thor: Ragnarok fans matches well with the callous attitude of TW, CH and the writers of the movie. Mental health issues and trauma are made fun of in the form of immature humor.

It’s a typical case of where a person hurts you and then calls you stupid for reacting negatively to it, as it was supposed to be a joke.

The sheer level of the dismissal and rudeness is baffling. Saying things like-

“You’re not fun at all!”

“You just hate on everything!”

“Why take a movie seriously? It’s not real life!”

“You just want his dick, that’s all!”

It reflects how TW sees the character of Loki and his fandom. It’s why that scene with the play is like a direct slap to those people who dared to identify with Loki and his pain, who dared to like a character which was crafted with care and love by its actor.

Of course these fans don’t get it. They’re too far up TW’s ass (yes, I’m taking this argument now, as us Loki fans are reduced to being thirsty for his dick). Character nuances are lost on them, including Thor’s. They’re wooed by the colours and action sequences, which btw are more the result of a dedicated Marvel team, rather than TW’s brainchild.

Also, as a POC living in a country ravaged by colonialism, I feel like cutting those bitches who say that we’re only targeting TW because he’s a brown guy. Incompetence and arrogance is what I hate, not the bloody skin colour.

/Rant over.

The amount of articles I see saying “Tom confirms Loki death” it’s officially official floating around the media as final death. I also like the one that comments on him knowing for 2 years and was able to keep it a secret and that lil Tom could learn from him. It’s true but poor lil Tom so picked on.

vicariousvictoria:

adamcansuckme:

insanely-smart:

Yep, Tom 1.0 definitely knows how to keep secrets. 

Tom 2.0 is a sweetheart, though. 

Look, as a fucking grown up, I’m ready to face it if it’s true. As a fan girl, I’m still hanging onto to the fact that if he hid Loki’s death from us for two years, he could he hiding further information about his return.

^^^ THIS

Yeah, I fucking wish. But between the gratuitous graphic gruesomeness of his death, that highly unusual bit of fourth-wall-breaking (“No resurrections this time”), and the way they allowed Loki’s character to be neutered in both Ragnarok and Infinity War, the powers that be at Marvel Studios have made it quite clear how they feel about Loki and his fans.

foundlingmother mentioned you in a photoset

@philosopherking1887​ The Casket is still around. We see it when Hela’s in the Vault and she specifically notes that it’s not fake but rather “weak”, so there’s absolutely no reason he couldn’t have grabbed it and done exactly this except that Thor and Loki had to be useless for the first 10 minutes of the film so that the plot could progress.

@foundlingmother I guess I forgot that because so much of that movie was worth forgetting… and I absolutely refuse to rewatch it. Something else they retconned or just weren’t paying attention to… I didn’t notice that the Casket was being used to freeze the Bifrost open until a Tumblr post called my attention to it; I thought the Observatory was just frozen because it was connected to Jotunheim. But given that the Casket was still in the Vault… the quick-thinking, forward-planning Loki of previous films would have grabbed it and saved it and pulled it out to use it in a pinch, as he did with Heimdall. Another example of how Markus & McFeely had to make him stupid so they could use him as an emotional manipulation device.

thortunes:

Tag yourself, I’m Tom Hiddleston’s silent screams and internal monologue rejecting the artlessness of every single thing that is happening to me

#first taika#then the russos#why tom cant have nice things

Guess he’d better stick to Shakespeare and little art films, eh, @duskyhuedladysatan? He’ll be happier, we’ll be happier, and the morons at the big studios who don’t know how to deal with him will be happier, too.

can someone explain this plothole: loki tells the revengers that hes run out of favor with the grandmaster and in exchange for a ship, he wants passage through the devils anus. Then thor tells him in the elevator that this is a perfect place for you, lawless yada yadh and both agree that he should stay (even though 2 seconds ago he told thor he’s run out of favor with the grandmaster) did loki betray thor last minute so he can stay on Sakaar like Thor wants him to? did thor not even hear him

juliabohemian:

shine-of-asgard:

edge-of-silvermoon:

lokihiddleston:

.

They need Loki to betray Thor for no reason so they can stomp on Loki’s character harder, and give Thor a chance for grandstanding, what else is there to it? This betrayal literally serves no other purpose than give Thor the chance to deliver his “you can be more” lectures. It’s lazy and sloppy writing.

Waititi and Hemsworth wanted a scene of Thor triumphing over Loki as a “payback” for 3 movies or Loki outsmarting him, and they wrote… that. Whatever the hell it was. And it’s been proven that it was a last minute addition because the official novel doesn’t have this last “twist”. Loki leaves with everyone, willingly.

Could we just re-shoot the movie and have it like the novel? So it isn’t this ridiculous mess? Like did no one edit this film besides TW? Did anyone check for consistency or to be sure that it made sense? How does something make it all the way to the theater with that many mistakes?

This thread is missing the original answer, which was a screenshot of another anonymous ask:

“It’s not really a plothole. Loki has only fallen out of favor with the Grandmaster because he did not return with Thor and his champion as promised. But Thor/Valkyrie are staging a revolt with Korg. So once the Grandmaster is out of power, Thor knows Loki could take over. However, Loki decides that he could regain favor with the Grandmaster by giving him Thor and then probably Bruce. I think though that Loki partially chose this route because he honestly didn’t think that Thor stood a chance against Hela […] I think at least partially, Loki is trying to keep his brother alive.”

There is something to that… but I still think @edge-of-silvermoon and @shine-of-asgard​ hit the nail on the head. Not only were Loki’s last-minute betrayal and Thor*’s (this is not the same person as the Thor of previous films) ultimatum/electrocution combo not in the novel (which I haven’t read), but we have some indication from the trailers that they shot a version where Loki came in the small ship with the rest of the Revengers: the clips of him standing on the bridge in a row with Thor, Valkyrie, and Hulk, and that shot of Hulk punching him off the bridge like he did to Thor in The Avengers. The betrayal and subsequent smackdown were a later addition – probably by Waititi rather than the screenwriter (Eric Pearson), possibly at Hemsworth’s behest – and I suspect that they wanted three things out of it:

  1. To show Thor*’s “character growth”: he has learned not to fall for Loki*’s tricks and illusions anymore (I’m using Loki* because the motivation for the betrayal, which I still think is basically “shits and giggles,” is not in keeping with Loki’s established character).
  2. The famous “trickster tricked” narrative trope. That’s fine in and of itself; we saw it in The Avengers when Black Widow successfully pulls her “wounded gazelle” act on Loki and again when Hawkeye shoots an arrow at Loki, Loki catches it, and then the arrow explodes. We also saw it in TDW when Thor handcuffed Loki and then pushed him out of the Dark Elf ship onto the skiff. This version, however, is undermotivated and unnecessarily cruel, and I really do think the purpose was to assert Thor*’s superiority over Loki. It also gives us the completely unintended irony of Thor*, who has reverted to a cruelty and arrogance worse than that he was humbled for in Thor 1, lecturing to Loki, who has evolved quite a bit over the past 3 films, about the need for “growth and change.”
  3. As @endiness​ argued a while back: “i do legitimately believe that loki’s character was regressed in order to make thor responsible for loki’s character growth (rather than loki himself) to kind of prop thor up and have him come off as the better character […] loki’s character had to start out in ragnarok regressed (and far beyond where he was at the end of tdw) and passive, stay that way for most of the movie as most of his actions were dictated by other characters, and then only ‘change’ after and because thor prompted him to through reverse psychology.”

ms-cellanies:

catwinchester:

cosmicjoke:

littlefanthing:

cosmicjoke:

One of the lines in “Thor: The Dark World” that gets overlooked, I think (possibly because Marvel cut it from the final edit) was when Thor is talking to Frigga about Loki, and she says to him that he and Odin always shone so brightly, it was hard for Loki to find any sun for himself, or something to that effect.

Anyway, this is such a massively important line, because it basically tells us EVERYTHING about Loki’s childhood, and how he felt.  And here again is yet another example of how absolutely WRONG Taika Waitit’s view of these characters was, given what I heard about him wanting to include a flashback in Ragnarok showing Thor as a sensitive and bullied child, and Loki as dark and mean.  That would have been in DIRECT conflict with everything we know about these characters, just like everything else in Ragnarok is.

From what Frigga says to Thor, it’s plain as day that Loki as a child was always struggling just to catch up to Thor, to try and be equal to him, not just in Odin’s and Frigga’s eyes, but in the eyes of probably the entire kingdom.  It tells us that Thor, as a boy, was as popular and well liked, as charming and charismatic and as easy to make friends as he is as an adult, and that Loki was very much the introvert, quiet, awkward and isolated.  And from Loki’s desperation to win Odin’s approval in the first Thor film, I think it becomes apparent that that desperation grew directly from his feeling inadequate and lesser to the standard of both his father and his big brother growing up.  And it’s just so unbelievably sad, to envision that.  To envision Loki constantly struggling, trying to match Thor, trying to make himself seem as good as Thor for Odin, trying to make himself seem like a “true and worthy son”, as he says in the first film.  How anyone could miss this about his character is beyond me, unless they’re being willfully obtuse.  

And we see from this one line, that Loki’s entire motivation is based on a feeling of lack on his own part.  He feels like he’s less.  He feels like he isn’t as good as Thor, and that Odin must not love him because he’s not as good as Thor, and until he discovers he’s a Jotun, he doesn’t know why, and he can’t figure it out, and he keeps trying and trying to do the right thing to somehow make him, in his father’s eyes, Thor’s equal.  Think of the kind of psychological effect that would have on a person, especially a young man growing up in the kind of culture Loki did.  Think of the burden of constantly feeling like there’s something WRONG with you, because you’re constantly measuring yourself against the perfection of an older sibling who everyone loves, while everyone treats you like you’re strange, and even are at times outwardly hostile and cruel to you.  Think of the weight of trying to figure out how to change yourself so that others will treat you like they treat your perfect older sibling, but not being able to, because you don’t really know what it is about you that makes everyone dislike or hate you in the first place.  And then think of what it must have been like, to discover you’re from a race of beings who the people you’ve grown up around consider to be monsters, who are those people’s mortal enemies, and coming to the swift and awful realization that that must have been it all along.  That THAT’S what was wrong with you.  That that’s why you’ve always been an outcast.

I just think that one moment from The Dark World was so important for understanding Loki’s character.

And yet, once again, Marvel proves it’s own stupidity by cutting it out.  Just like they cut out so many scenes from the first Thor film which showed Loki in a more sympathetic light.  Gee, it’s almost like they didn’t want people feeling for him.  Too bad they ended up doing so anyway.

Yeah, Taika is clearly biased against Loki, for whatever reason. Logic suggests that an anti-imperialist poc would identify with Loki’s character and his storyline, but Taika seems to have rejected him in favor of Thor. I can’t understand it at all. Can anyone think of a plausible explanation.

Well definitely Taika favors Thor, and what I think it really comes down to is, he favors Chris Hemsworth over Tom Hiddleston.  Tom is a total professional actor and he takes his craft seriously.  I don’t get that impression with Chris.  Chris seems to have more or less given up trying to be a serious actor, taking on one comedic role after another, probably because all his attempts at serious drama got panned by the critics.  And Chris has a goofy kind of personality with a goofy sense of humor, and for whatever reason, that appealed to Takia Waititi and they hit it off.  You get the definite impression that wasn’t the case with Tom.  Every interview with Tom done during Ragnarok’s promotion, he talks about how well Takia and Chris got along, and you just get the sense from it that Tom was very much the outsider to their little party.  Takia is also one of those directors that HAS to put himself in his own films, which smacks of a massive ego problem.  He isn’t satisfied with being behind the scenes.  He wants to be the star too.  Which tells me he doesn’t appreciate actors or understand what it takes to BE an actor.  He’s one of these people, it seems to me, that thinks anyone can do it.  But no, it takes a LOT of talent to be a good actor.  It’s an actual art.  I just don’t think Tom was able to relate at all to what seemed like the idiotic atmosphere on the set of Ragnarok, and I also get the sense that Taika Waititi aggressively shut Tom out of any collaboration regarding Loki’s character, for example Tom’s saying how he was trying to give Matt Daemon (Chris Hemsworth’s friend, by the way) lines that Loki would say, and Taika Waititi just kept telling him no, and giving his own lines, as if he knew better what Loki would say than Tom.   He basically steam rolled him.  Tom’s a sophisticated, very intelligent and high class man, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that irritated and intimidated a low class shill like Waititi.  

Tom’s a sophisticated, very intelligent and high class man, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that irritated and intimidated a low class shill like Waititi.   

I think you’re right. I also think it could be his background, He’s English and went to Eton (known as school of Kings for a reason).

A lot of people hate that. And I get why. A perfect example, there’s a show on BBC at the moment about Jeremy Thorpe trying to murder his gay lover, and he basically got away with it because the judge was an old Etonian, like Thorpe, and was incredibly biased in his favour, pretty much instructing the jury to find Thorpe not guilty. “The establishment” has historically protected its own, even from murder charges. 

Some people can’t see past that privilege to the individual. 

Never mind that Tom’s grandfather was a dockworker, oh no, if he went to Eton he’s got to be an evil establishment coloniser intent on keeping the working man down.

Reblogging for the latest comments, which I’m onboard with.  I think there’s another aspect at play in all this as well.  I’ve always seen the relationship between Thor/Loki as classic sibling rivalry…..anyone else remember the Smothers’ Brothers schtick of “Mom always loved you best?”  Thor’s the favored child in the THOR films but LOKI is the favored character by the fans and critics.  If you go back and watch all of the Chris/Tom interviews for Thor there isn’t a single one where Tom doesn’t deflect a question to sing the praises of Chris.  Never, that I’ve seen, has Tom put himself out there as the star, better actor or slighted Chris in any way.  I feel certain that CH, in the real world, feels that Tom has, so to speak, stolen his thunder.  Personally I put the tearing down of Loki in Ragnarok on the shoulders of both Taika & Chris.  Ragnarok was clearly The Assassination of Loki.

This last comment is exactly right. I suspect that Taika and maybe also Chris assume that Tom thinks he’s better than them because he’s educated, cultured, and classically trained. He *is* better than them: he’s kinder, more empathetic, a better actor with a better understanding of human psychology and dramatic narrative, and 100% less narcissistic. But he doesn’t know that and he would never act like he thinks he’s better than anyone.

I want to emphasize that the important sense in which Waititi and Hemsworth are “low class” has nothing to do with money or genealogy. It’s entirely about mindset. They lack “class” in the normative sense. They are low class in the same way as the Trumps (though to a lesser extent, of course). You can be in the highest echelons of society and still regard everything as a competition with you (and maybe your buddies) against the world that you must win at all costs.