juliabohemian:

apocalypticwafflekitten:

lucianalight:

juliabohemian:

lasimo74allmyworld:

mosellegreen:

ameliawilliams:

You think you could make Loki tell us where the Tesseract is?

Shit I hate it when I notice new things about these movies.

We’ve covered how conceited it is of Thor to assume, incorrectly, that this is about him. But what else can we expect from this spoiled brat.

And we’ve covered that this is Fury proposing torture. Asking a man to torture his own brother. Anyone who still thinks Fury is one of the good guys… he’s not.

But Thor says “There’s no pain would prise his need from him.”

Thor knows that pain won’t make Loki knuckle under.

Which means he must have tried it. Before Loki was officially designated a villain. When he was just the younger prince of Asgard, Thor’s loyal brother and comrade in arms.

Thor knows that torture won’t work on Loki from experience.

Shit. Did they think about what they were putting in these fucking movies at all?

The more we analyse the movies, the more we discover that the bad guys are the ones with shining armour and boosted egos.

Really, the painful truth I read above breaks my heart.

I also think it’s interesting that Thor assumes Loki coming to Earth is about him. It had nothing to do with Thor at all, but Thor never finds that out. Here’s hoping Infinity War will bring some shit to light, but I’m not holding my breath.

Also the thought that Thor knows Loki has an incredibly high pain tolerance kind of makes me cringe.

“Which means he must have tried it. Before Loki was officially designated a villain. When he was just the younger prince of Asgard, Thor’s loyal brother and comrade in arms.

Thor knows that torture won’t work on Loki from experience.”

Before TR I would never believe that Thor would ever torture Loki, or put him through any kind of serious pain. So what I understood from Thor’s line in Avengers was that Thor had seen Loki going through torture and didn’t break. Not that he had done it himself. I mean they are princes, any kind of voilence could have happened by their enemys. But damn TR and that scene with obedience disk makes me question everything now.

@mosellegreen

@lasimo74allmyworld

@juliabohemian

@lucianalight

Alrighty. I know I’m late, but upon coming across this, have things to say. Don’t know if you’re going to like or agree with them, but here we go.

Im not going to get into Thor’s vanity, because that’s a topic for another time, but here we go on Loki and abuse:

I can NEVER belive that Thor would EVER torture Loki. He wouldn’t abuse him, or experiment on him because he loves his brother. I mean, look at the ENTIRE elevator scene in Ragnarok. Thor literally says in a morose, and reminiscent voice: “I thought the world of you. I thought we’re were always going to fight side by side.” (Something along those lines. Sorry if the quote isn’t correct.)Personally, I would never beat anyone if I thought the world of them. I wouldn’t wish to fight by their side if I hated them enough to beat them.

And it goes back to before then even. Look at TDW. The scene where Thor is asking for Loki’s help? He states that he used to belive that there was a glimmer of goodness and redeemability in Loki.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?!?!!??!? It means that he wanted to save his brother! If youre abusing someone, why would you wish to save them?

Granted, he does say that that is/was gone, but we never see him abuse or beat Loki after that. And then theres all the other things Loki did for Thor in that move.

He agreed to help him in the first

Saved/Protected Jane.

Twice

Didn’t actually betray him at all until he “died”

And, my personal favorite

LEFT THOR WITH THE THOUGHT THAT HIS FATHER WAS ACTUALLY A GOOD FATHER BY TELLING HIM SOMETHING KIND AND DEEP. SOMETHINGBHE NEEDED TO HEAR SO THE HE DIDNT ABSOLUTELY HATE HIS FATHER; HIS IDOL SINCE HE WAS A SMOL LIGHTNING BOLT WHILE DISGUISED AS ODIN

You don’t do things like that for people you hate.

Then there the first Thor movie. Did you see any of the scenes before it was revealed to Loki what his heritage was? The two were close. Look at the deleted scenes. Loki says something similar to: “I admit that there have been times when I was envious, but never doubt that I love you.” Why would Loki say he loves Thor if his brother abused him? I hear y’all saying “Well it could be a show!” “He’s faking!” “Thor threatened him!” But look at the deleted scene mentioned earlier in this paragraph. The two are completely alone. Loki is smiling, and it’s genuine. There are creases by his eyes from his cheeks lifting. (That’s the physical cue that a smile is genuine) Loki’s body language in that scene doesn’t show any sort of discomfort or fear. He’s comfortable around his brother.

And then there were the scenes in Jotunheim in the first Thor. Loki is insistant that they go home (and that they not go at all, calling it suicide)because he doesn’t want to see his brother or ever his brother’s friends hurt or worse.

Oh, and this little gem: “I love Thor more dearly than any of you.”

If you look at the body language of someone whose been beaten while they’re around the person they are beaten by, you’ll see slouched shoulders, a tense body, constant glances to anywhere but their abusers face, clammy hands, hands in pockets (a cue that the person is trying to hide something) and just a general feel of unease and unrest. Fear and terror.

You see NONE of that body language when Loki and Thor are together. Look at Ragnarok. They’re fighting together to end Hella. They don’t hate each other. Loki isn’t afraid of Thor. He’s just so used to being in Thor’s shadow and he’s sick of it. He wants to be recognized.

When the two are alone at the end of Ragnarok, you don’t see Loki tense, or avoiding eye contant. He’s looking strait at Thor withought any glint of fear.

He’s comfortable.

Oh, and the line “I’m Here.”

And “Maybe you’re not so bad.”

Im gonna bring up a thought now.

They. Are. Norse. Gods. And. Brothers.

That means battles, and fighting side by side. Seeing each other take hits and blows, stabs and cuts. Seeing them push themselves to their limits. Thor knows that Loki won’t stop no matter the pain because he’s seen it in his brother in battle. He’s seen that fight in Loki’s eyes. He knows his brother’s ambitious nature.

“So how does Thor know that pain won’t stop Loki?” I hear you ask.

Well my friends. All you have to do is look at the ending of the first Thor film.

Loki is hellbent on destroying Jotumheim. So hellbent that he would fight his own brother to do it. Sure, Loki was angered and confused because of what he had recently learned, and he didn’t belive Thor to be his brother, but it had to hurt to fight his brother. I mean, it would hurt me to fight my brother.

At this point, Loki has discarded pain for his ambition and let it consume him. He didn’t care that he had to fight Thor. He didn’t care that destroying Jotunheim would have awful reprocussions. He just wanted to prove himself to someone, *cough cough* his father *cough*

And at the end you see Loki showing that he care for Thor. When Thor is destroying the Bifrost Loki yells at him: “But if you destroy the Bifrost you’ll never see her again!!!”

I don’t know about you, but to me, that screams that Loki cares about Thor’s wellbeing and interests. He cares about his brother’s happiness despite feeling estranged and ostracized because of what he is.

That’s not typically seen in someone who is abused. The care for their abusers wellbeing.

So no. I don’t think Thor would ever abuse Loki. They’re too close. They’ve been through too much together. Thor does NOT deserve that kind of belittlement. He has fought to save and protect his little brother since the beginning, and that ain’t gonna change.

@

apocalypticwafflekitten

Let me just preface this by saying that I have studied psychology, child development and trauma/abuse recovery at great length and for many years. I don’t usually bother responding to posts like this, simply because I don’t have the time, but given that your argument is based on some disturbingly false premises, I feel like I owe it to other Loki fans to construct a reply. You seem very young and sweet, so I’m going to do my best to be kind.

Tagging a few peeps here to see if they would like to chime in: @mosellegreen @lasimo74allmyworld @lucianalight @lokiloveforever

“I can NEVER believe that Thor would EVER torture Loki.”

I LIKE Thor and I have zero trouble believing this at all. Thor left Loki being electrocuted by the obedience disk. Thor had no idea how long Loki would lie there, or how much he could withstand. He didn’t know if Loki would be rescued, or if he’d be found by someone who was going to simply execute him…and they were on a planet where people were executed regularly (and painfully) for ridiculous reasons. In fact, Thor witnessed an execution, so he knew this for sure. And Thor didn’t JUST leave Loki there, he did so gleefully. So even if his comment to Nick Fury about knowing how much pain Loki can withstand doesn’t mean anything, the scene in Ragnarok leaves very little to the imagination.

“And it goes back to before then even. Look at TDW. The scene where Thor is asking for Loki’s help? He states that he used to belive that there was a glimmer of goodness and redeemability in Loki.”

The thing is, this is actually an awful thing to say. Like many of Thor’s comments towards Loki, it’s an insult disguised as a compliment. Thor has a lot of balls asking for help at that moment, in the first place. Loki does it because he loves his mother and wants to avenge her. The problem is that you are interpreting this from the POV that Loki is a villain who needs to be redeemed, instead of someone who has feelings and motives for his behavior, just like Thor.

Interestingly enough, I’ve noticed that people who tend to defend Thor’s actions are people who share the view that he and Loki are not actually equals.

“DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?!?!!??!? It means that he wanted to save his brother! If youre abusing someone, why would you wish to save them…You don’t do things like that for people you hate.”

First of all, no one has said that Loki hates Thor. For the record, I don’t think that Thor hates Loki either. Abuse victims don’t usually hate their abusers. In fact, many would openly claim to love them. Abuse victims also absolutely do defend their abusers, do things for their abusers and feel loyal and/or indebted to their abusers. It’s actually more common for abuse victims to feel this way, than not. That’s pretty textbook. Extreme versions of this are known as Stockholm Syndrome.

Loki is consistently desperate for Thor’s approval and validation, as well as that of his father’s. He even says as much. “All I ever wanted was to be your equal…” Loki’s motives can be summed up, almost entirely by that quote alone. He tries to kill himself when he realizes that his dad isn’t going to give him that approval. Let’s take a moment to recognize what a devastating act that is. It’s not the sort of thing someone does when they are secure in their position in their family. That’s the act of a desperate person, who just wants to put themselves out of their misery.

Did you see any of the scenes before it was revealed to Loki what his heritage was? The two were close. Look at the deleted scenes. Loki says something similar to: “I admit that there have been times when I was envious, but never doubt that I love you.”

Yes, I have seen all of them, many times. Loki says he loves Thor and Thor says…thank you. That’s got to be the absolute worst response a person can offer to someone who is telling them that they love them. And once again…abuse victims tell their abusers that they love them all the time. It’s very, very common. Abusers also withhold love and affection in order to control their victims. They might -for instance- refuse to say the words I love you, even when those words are said to them.

“Well it could be a show!” “He’s faking!”

No, it’s not a show. Loki believes what he is saying when he tells Thor that he loves him. He is sincere. Loki loves Thor, whatever that means for Loki. He doesn’t need to be faking for it to be evidence of an unhealthy relationship. It is possible for someone to be a victim of emotional abuse and to feel like they love someone or to feel that they are happy in their relationship. They can laugh and smile and hug and even make love to their significant other, because they are not aware of the dysfunction they are living in. Because of that dysfunction, their perception of what it means to love someone is skewed and disordered.

“If you look at the body language of someone whose been beaten while they’re around the person they are beaten by, you’ll see slouched shoulders, a tense body, constant glances to anywhere but their abusers face, clammy hands, hands in pockets (a cue that the person is trying to hide something) and just a general feel of unease and unrest. Fear and terror.”

I mean no disrespect when I say this, but you either have no firsthand knowledge whatsoever of what an abusive relationship is like OR you are in one and are deep in denial about it.

I say this as someone who has worked with many people who recovering from various types of abuse. Loki’s body language towards Thor is fairly consistent with someone who feels inferior and who is desperate for approval. When Loki is not in Thor’s presence, he actually stands taller and speaks more confidently. And I recognize that such a thing doesn’t necessarily imply physical abuse, but it definitely implies emotional abuse. It implies a disparity in their relationship that isn’t healthy.

And “Maybe you’re not so bad.”

Oh my, this is another terrible thing to say. It’s another insult, disguised as a compliment. Who said he was bad in the first place? This, once again, comes from the premise that Loki is someone who needs to be redeemed and Thor is not.

“I don’t know about you, but to me, that screams that Loki cares about Thor’s wellbeing and interests. He cares about his brother’s happiness despite feeling estranged and ostracized because of what he is.That’s not typically seen in someone who is abused. The care for their abusers wellbeing.“

I have no doubt that Loki cares for Thor, because we have seen plenty of evidence of that. I believe that Thor only cares for Loki conditionally. Thor loves Loki as long as Loki is the person Thor thinks he should be, but he doesn’t really seem to KNOW Loki at all. I find it tragic that Loki has become okay with this. I had hoped that Ragnarok would end with Thor apologizing for not trying harder to understand his brother. Instead, Loki has embraced that he will never be understood and that the only way he’s doing to have Thor in his life is to accept that he will never be regarded as an equal.

Thor’s attitude towards his brother is evident with lines like “know your place” and “your imagined slights.” Thor does not see Loki as his equal, so in his mind it is totally reasonable for him to disregard Loki’s feelings. This is not entirely his fault. He was raised to see himself as better, as superior. Loki appears to know, even before his Jotun origins are revealed, that he is somehow less than his brother. This is not a perception that comes out of thin air.

Let me rephrase that -Loki’s slights are not “imagined” simply because the protagonist says they are. This is a common mistake people make when digesting fiction. They accept the hero or good guy’s POV as reality, instead of what it is…that one person’s POV. This is especially evident when you have characters who are larger than life like Captain America or Han Solo or Harry Potter.

What’s amusing is…Loki cares openly about Thor’s feelings. He acknowledge’s Thor’s loss when Frigga dies, and again when Odin dies. He even pats him on the back when he is reminded that Jane broke up with him. These are the actions of someone who has accepted that his feelings do not matter, but the other party’s do. This is actually a very common dynamic in abusive or codependent relationships.

You mention Thor’s line in Ragnarok. “I thought the world of you. I thought we’re were always going to fight side by side.”

Except that…we’ve seen zero evidence that Thor EVER thought the world of Loki. We’ve seen plenty of evidence that Loki thinks the world of Thor. Granted he says some negative things about him too -but he does so bitterly. Thor treats his brother as a pest in the original film. He talks down to him almost consistently, throughout all 4 films they are in together. In Avengers, Thor doesn’t even ask what Loki is doing on Earth or suspect something might be wrong (he’s suddenly trying to invade a planet he previously had no interest in). Thor makes one brief attempt to appeal to Loki, but it’s only so he can put an end to the battle and cart him off to prison. He shows no interest in finding out why Loki did what he did and we learn in TDW that Thor doesn’t even visit Loki in prison.

“Personally, I would never beat anyone if I thought the world of them.”

I believe you! I wouldn’t be able to beat anyone, even if I couldn’t stand them, but since these characters are not based on you or me, that’s not really useful information.

Do I know for sure that Thor has tortured Loki? Outside of the scene in Ragnarok, no. But do I think he’s capable of it? Absolutely. And that’s all this post is really about…whether Thor is capable of such thing. I’m amused that people are threatened by that notion. It’s almost as though they think that Thor’s motives are all good, simply because he has been cast as the hero.

Do I think Thor is a terrible person? No. He’s a character that is flawed, just like all the other Marvel characters. Thor is a product of his childhood and his family, just like Loki. They were both set against one another from the get go. They are both flawed and deeply messed up and that’s what makes them interesting.

Here’s the thing, though. While I believe there is evidence to support the fact that Loki’s relationship with Thor is imbalanced and dysfunctional…I don’t think it was the intention of the MCU writers to portray it as such. I think it’s just poor and inconsistent writing. I think it’s also a result of the fact that comic style writers tend to subscribe to the notion that anything the hero does is okay, simply because they are the hero and anything the villain does is not okay, simply because they are the villain. Which is a shame, but we take what we can get.

@juliabohemian Thank you for the in depth and lovely meta. It certainly puts many things into perspective. Sadly, I agree that such a rich interpretation wasn’t intentional and came about through a combination of cliched writing and Tom Hiddelston’s method acting, which is why we will see no acknowledgement of these issues and no resolution on screen. But it’s still important that the audience interpret what’s onscreen critically, and this includes judging the heroes by their deeds and not by their words.

I also appreciate @juliabohemian‘s meta, because it very neatly punctured the idea that the points the previous reblogger (not tagging because I don’t want to get into it with them) raises are evidence against abuse. It’s actually kind of hilarious how bad an argument it is for the intended conclusion, especially considering that some of the evidence offered (Thor’s claims that Loki “still has some good” in him or “isn’t so bad”) is actually evidence for the exact opposite.

That said… I absolutely did not draw the conclusion @mosellegreen did from that line in The Avengers. I think we were supposed to think, as @lucianalight suggested, that Thor knows Loki can hold up under torture because of experience with their common enemies during one of the many campaigns they’ve fought in together. And even after Ragnarok, I still think that, because I do not consider it legitimate to read Thor’s character as presented in Ragnarok back into the earlier movies. It’s so different, so discontinuous, that it provides absolutely no insight into his character in the other movies. The Thor of TR gleefully inflicts pain on his brother to “teach him a lesson”; the Thor of the earlier movies would not do that.

Yes, Thor probably “beat up on” little brother Loki in the way that siblings do, and Loki probably gave as good as he got, both in physical fights and in obnoxious pranks. (Forget the story about Loki “trying to kill” Thor by stabbing him when they were 8… that makes no damn sense for a lot of reasons. If Loki stabbed Thor with anything, it was probably the equivalent of a pair of scissors.) If their relationship was “abusive” in Thor 1 and before, it was just a matter of Thor being one of the “cool kids” who dismisses and sometimes bullies his tag-along uncool little brother… and of accepting the superiority that Odin has convinced both him and Loki that he (Thor) possesses. But that, I think, is better described as a situation where both Thor and Loki are victims of Odin’s crappy parenting, albeit in different ways (which seems to be the conclusion @juliabohemian reaches as well). I’m definitely bothered by the ways in which Thor shows, pre-TR, that he doesn’t care about Loki’s feelings (dismissing him, not asking him WTF happened in the year he was gone, assuming invading Midgard was All About Him, not visiting him in prison…), but I can accept that because Thor 1 acknowledges that its hero is flawed, and both that movie and The Avengers show him as improving but still a work in progress. He is getting better in TDW, and their brotherly dynamic is kind of adorable; he still says some pretty cringe-y things, but you can also see genuine respect and affection there. TR just ignores and/or reverses all the growth we’ve seen in Thor’s character and presents him as a self-absorbed, manipulative asshole who’s willing to punish and “train” Loki with severe pain while smiling smugly and speechifying at him, and then blithely leave him vulnerable in a hostile world, because he just kind of doesn’t care how anyone else feels or even, apparently, regard Loki as a full person.

foundlingmother:

philosopherking1887:

shine-of-asgard:

salazharshaikh:

shine-of-asgard:

endiness:

the more i think about ragnarok, the more problems i have with it and the more i feel like it’s ultimately a disservice (if not an outright insult) to loki’s character.

Seguir leyendo

Loki’s 3 movie long development getting retconned so that Thor could be credited for it at the last hour in Ragnarok is the logical conclusion to the characterisation mess. Yep.

This whole mess reeks of Chris Hemsworth’s jealousy of Loki being more popular than Thor in the MCU. I maybe wrong but it seems likely that’s the case.

I don’t know enough about the actors to feel comfortable accusing them of active behind-the-scenes meddling, but there clearly was only one winner in this case and he was very eager to shit on the previous movies and outspoken about how cool and great it was that Thor was the centerpiece of Ragnarok. Hmmmm… So maybe he didn’t actively make it happen, but he sure is happy that it happened :/.

Oh, I’m perfectly willing to accuse Hemsworth of behind-the-scenes meddling. I also suspect that the recent coldness between him and Tom, and Tom’s relative lack of involvement in Ragnarok promotion, has to do with the fact that Tom was completely aware of TW and CH’s lack of respect for Loki’s character (and Thor’s!) and was trying to resist it but got steamrollered over.

W.r.t. @endiness‘s discourse about the mistreatment of Loki’s character in Ragnarok, I completely agree. In fact, @foundlingmother and I have discussed at length the way that TR missed – or rather, deliberately ignored – the opportunity to bring up the issue of Loki’s adoption and internalized racism in connection with the imperialism allegory. I’ve also remarked on the regression of Loki’s character and suggested an explanation in terms of replacing a Shakespearean villain with a simplistic version of the trickster archetype, and I’d be curious to know what y’all think of that hypothesis.

Regarding Loki using the story of his fall as an amusing anecdote on Sakaar, I think @endiness is completely right:

while i could find it entirely possible that loki was regaling them of his tales to somehow endear himself to the populace and i could find it believable that, in general, loki would use his pain and trauma in whatever way necessary to benefit himself… i doubt the sincerity of that in this movie. because when any of loki’s trauma was even mentioned at all, it was shown more as a joke at his expense rather than something actually meaningful and significant.

This is something else I’ve discussed with @foundlingmother and others. Ignoring authorial intent (which is often a good idea), one could certainly interpret this bit of storytelling, as well as the play at the beginning, as Loki taking ownership of his trauma and turning it into an asset so that it no longer has power over him… but I think it’s patently obvious that that’s not the interpretation intended by Waititi and Pearson (the screenwriter). They take every opportunity to minimize and ridicule Loki’s problems and motivations. The fact that the events can be given a better and deeper interpretation should not be credited to the film itself as a product of its actual creators, but to the ingenuityof the fans who actually care about the characters.

I also think @endiness makes some very good points about the lost opportunity to give Loki a prior connection to Sakaar, especially this:

“lost and unloved. like you. but here on sakaar, you are significant. you are valuable. here, you are loved. where once you were nothing, now you are something.” perfectly describes loki’s mindset for having let go in the first place.

In fact, I was somewhat concerned when I was reading stuff before Ragnarok came out about how Sakaar is where wormholes dump their trash that we would learn that Loki ended up on Sakaar after the end of Thor, which would automatically falsify the fic I’ve been writing about what happened to Loki between Thor and The Avengers. The nice thing about Marvel not caring enough about Loki to provide such an account that is that my fic will never become defunct and irrelevant 😛 (Though it’s still a possibility that Infinity War will explain the connection between Loki and Thanos instead of just having Thanos kill Loki in the first 5 minutes.)

You know what’s amusingly unamusing to me when I think about ignoring authorial intent and Ragnarok? In trying to make Thor cooler and Loki less complex, they ruined Thor’s character more than Loki’s. Most of Loki’s actions in Ragnarok can be manipulated to mesh well with the character we know from previous films. It’s Thor’s character that can’t be reconciled. The thoughtfulness, protectiveness, and subtle humor vanished, and the only traits he retains are hot-headedness, which he’d been working on, and ignorance born of bad parenting and Asgardian society, which he’d also started chipping away at (defying Odin in TDW was a great first step).

Interesting point, and I think you’re right that they screwed up Thor’s character more than Loki’s. The reasons I tend to focus on the damage to Loki’s character are (1) I cared more about Loki going in, (2) the other people who post threads criticizing Ragnarok tend to be Loki fans (how ironic is it that the Thor “stans” all seem to like the hash that was made of his character integrity?!), and (3) the character assassination of Loki was deliberate and malicious and I’m pissed about how little respect the creators have for Loki’s many fans (mostly female, natch) and for Tom Hiddleston, an actual Shakespearean actor who has poured a lot of heart and serious thought into the character.

I do still think that to rescue Loki’s character you have to ignore not only authorial intent but tonal cues, which are actually part of the text (and often the most explicit expression of authorial intent in the text).

foundlingmother:

latent-thoughts:

burningarbiterheart:

endiness:

more reasons why i don’t understand how people can say t////’s version of loki was good and that he understood him: the movie literally mocks all of the serious, emotionally meaningful, significant moments for loki in past movies that gave insight into his character and fleshed him out and gave him depth and complexity. that alone implies some kind of intentional maliciousness to what went into creating his character for this movie.

and, ffs, look at how everything else that went into creating the thor franchise was treated: jane was written out in a line of dialogue. darcy and selvig weren’t even mentioned. the warriors three were unceremoniously killed off as fast as possible. sif wasn’t even mentioned. asgard being destroyed was used as a punchline. even thor’s characterization felt like it was made by someone who didn’t like thor in the past movies, either, and wanted to make him into their misguided idea of a better character. like, how the fuck could the movie have treated loki with respect and have any regard for his character when it didn’t for anything else!?

@latent-thoughts

I concur with the many points raised above.

I understand that Darcy and Erik didn’t work as part of s plot so they were not mentioned at all. That’s still better than what they did with characters like Jane and warriors 3.

I’ve also been mentioning the OOC behaviour of everyone, from Thor and Loki to even Bruce. Now, I can understand Bruce acting like that, after such a long time of Hulk taking over. I’m sure he was not feeling himself and was hence acting all nervous and sans filter.

Further, there was way too much pontificating going on. The whole holier than thou attitude of the characters, especially Thor and Valkyrie, against Loki, really irked me. I need to see a character do heroic acts, not claim himself to be a hero and justify his acts thusly as heroic. Valkyrie had her hypocritical moment when she threw the bottle at Loki and asked why he felt the urge to do the right thing. She was a willful participant in human trafficking, she sold people off to die for booze. I understand that she was suffering from severe PTSD, but that didn’t give her the right to do those shitty things. I still am ok with that story arc, as she eventually woke up from her haze of trauma and helped people of Asgard. But she didn’t have the moral high ground to act as though she was a better person than Loki, or that she even knew Loki enough to judge him on his actions.

The movie wants us to think that Thor and Valkyrie pontificating is justified, that it’s the right thing to do, because… that’s what heroes do. The perspective of the movie is too centred on projecting a heroic image for certain characters rather than showing why or how they are heroic.

@latent-thoughts To be fair to Valkyrie, I think most of her animosity towards Loki comes from him forcing her to relive a traumatic memory, which was kind of a dick move.

However, I do find it strange that the parallels between Loki and Valkyrie are never addressed by the movie. To list a few off the top of my head:

Both desire to remain on Sakaar to avoid their responsibilities and enemies that have inflicted trauma upon them (Thanos/Hela).

Both of them express contempt for the lies of the Asgardian royal family, or the crown in general, really.

Neither of them are primarily concerned by the plight of the Asgardians (it’s a secondary concern), but motivated to leave Sakaar for other reasons (Loki to protect Thor, and a bit to prove him wrong, and Valkyrie to get her revenge).

Valkyrie’s treated far more sympathetically. As soon as she makes the choice to redeem herself, she’s treated heroically and respectfully, and her character never gets sacrificed. It’s never mentioned again that she sold people into slavery, and never mentioned at all that before that she fought for Odin, a conquering imperialist bastard. Meanwhile, Loki’s redemption arc wallows in his wrongdoings. And yes, Loki’s done wrong, and we shouldn’t overlook that, just like Valkyrie’s crimes shouldn’t be overlooked. There’s a clear bias evident in the treatment of these characters that parallel one another.

In my opinion, the only “hero” in Ragnarok is Heimdall, and he happens to be the only character treated seriously in every scene he takes part in. All the other characters are a mess of jokes and wasted potential. And that’s why I can’t stand that it’s an irreverent comedy movie.

seidrade
replied to your post “I know you talked about the elevator scene before, but what are your…”

I just stumbled on this thread (I think it’s even longer on @foundlingmother ‘s page?) and just wanted to say thank you both because after talking to each of you individually then reading this, I feel like I have a much better read on the whole situation (in context of Thor 3 both alone and in light of the previous films.) I feel more comfortable acknowledging inconsistent/bad writing instead of trying to give too much credit where it isn’t due.

The thing that was esp. tripping me up was reconciling Thor’s behaviour (because in some ways it’s consistent with his earlier issues and in other ways it seems pretty OOC, which was throwing me off.) Thanks for delving into the inherent issues and then addressing how/why Ragnarok could have tackled them differently via Thor’s characterization in particular (but failed to.) We were given a facade of reconciliation and its nice to pull back the curtain and figure out why it wasn’t really that.

Heh, @seidrade, it sounds like you went through the same process as I did, only a few months later. In one respect, I’m sorry; it’s disappointing to realize that the conclusion to a series that means a lot to you is just bad and you can’t salvage it. But on the other hand, I know how frustrating it is to be dissatisfied with something but not quite able to pinpoint why, so you’re welcome for helping with that.

It’s reassuring to know that saying variations on the same thing over and over again can actually help someone break through a difficulty. I kind of feel like one of those weirdos (or hobo!Odin) who stands on a street corner preaching repentance; most of the people who see it will probably just be indifferent, annoyed, or offended, but if I can reach one person it feels like it’s worth it. Or maybe it’s like teaching history of philosophy to undergrads… you keep trying different ways to explain something and it can be frustrating and dispiriting but you see a lightbulb go on in one student’s head and it’s all worthwhile.

I know you talked about the elevator scene before, but what are your thoughts on Thor’s point of view? I thought he accepted Loki by choosing to let him go instead of chasing him and trying to force him to change or come home. That he was acknowledging who Loki wanted him to believe he was, and was choosing to do what was best for himself/his people despite loving Loki. It seemed like Thor chose to change first by stepping back from an unhealthy relationship instead of continuing to force it??

foundlingmother:

philosopherking1887:

When I first watched Ragnarok, I saw it much the way Anon did… mostly because I was trying to be optimistic. But the more I thought about it and discussed it with people (especially you and @illwynd), the more I realized that Thor is just trying to manipulate Loki into doing and being what he wants, and does not in any way “accept” him for who he is. It’s not only due to Loki that the relationship is unhealthy, and Thor completely fails to acknowledge any part he may have played in contributing to Loki’s unhappiness, or any way in which the relationship was perniciously unequal. His speeches to Loki, in the elevator and while electrocuting Loki, indicate that the only way he sees himself as being at fault is in continuing to extend Loki his trust and affection. He doesn’t seem to entertain the idea that Loki might have legitimate grievances that motivate his actions, even if they don’t excuse them. You’re quite right on this point:

What he sees is someone throwing a fit, baiting him to pay attention, and betraying and hurting him all over (and maybe he thinks that’s a bit his fault because he’s showing Loki love when he’s not being “good”).

Well, part of why the pat on the back seems knowing is that that’s when Thor puts the obedience disk on Loki. Of course he can’t suppress a smug little smile for his oh-so-clever scheme.

Oh, interesting point about Loki helping Thor by exiling Odin… and saying something nice to him when it doesn’t seem to have been necessary for maintaining the ruse. (Though maybe he thought buttering him up was the best way to keep Thor satisfied with his decision to abdicate?)

You may be right that Thor’s complete inability to see things from Loki’s perspective, understand his depth, or think of Loki as having motivations that aren’t centered around him (Thor) is actually not such a departure from Thor’s characterization in earlier films… but I guess I thought he had matured since Thor 1 and the beginning of The Avengers, and it was a real disappointment to see him regress that way. On the other hand, Thor is still pretty obtuse about Bruce’s feelings in AOU when he starts going on about the Hulk’s accomplishments in battle, even if he’s perceptive enough to get something out of his visions.

Regarding Thor’s “plans to bring Loki back to a planet that hates him and just force them to accept that’s what’s happening”: I don’t think that’s meant to be a sign of Thor’s affection or respect for Loki… the self-absorbed “Earth loves me,” plus the fatuous tone in which he delivers the line, makes me think he’s just being an arrogant moron again (as he has been for the entire film) and disregarding Loki’s legitimate concerns for his own well-being. Of course, when we’re trying desperately to make Ragnarok consistent with the rest of canon, we can say it’s because Thor cares so much about Loki that he’ll face down the rest of the Avengers and the International Criminal Court and what have you to protect him.

foundlingmother:

I see it very differently.

Thor wants his brother back. He wants to redeem Loki the Villain. He loves and misses Loki. We know this because he challenges Loki to be more than the God of Mischief (which is a challenge to follow him to save Asgard) and saving Asgard kind of hinges on Loki bring reinforcements (and I think Thor knows that), but I also get the vibe from the way he behaves in the elevator. That pat he gives Loki when he says “that’s what you always wanted” seems so knowing. He knows that he’s pissing Loki off. Well, he’s actually upsetting Loki, but he’s aiming for irritated. He’s really, really bad at seeing/accepting Loki’s side of things and emotions. That’s why Loki’s redemption has to happen on Thor’s terms in the end. When Loki reaches out to Thor, Thor doubts it’s genuine, or can’t conceptualize it as Loki reaching out. Often times the ways Loki ends up helping Thor, thereby showing how much he cares about his brother still, aren’t obvious or nice/affectionate. The obvious help he gives, sacrificing his life, Thor now believes to be a trick (it isn’t by the rules canon outlined for Loki’s magic). When Loki puts Odin in a care home, he saves Thor again (Thor expects Odin to banish him and take away Mjolnir). It’s not an affectionate or traditionally heroic action, but it’s hardly devoid of love. He even fucking tells Thor, as Odin, how proud he is of the man Thor became. You think Odin would ever have said anything like that? No.

Thor thinks his brother’s pretty petty. From his perspective, Loki attacks Midgard because of “imagined slights”. I imagine he also doesn’t get why discovering he was adopted upset Loki so much. If Odin hadn’t adopted Loki, he would have died. Loki betrays and hurts Thor. We know that Loki has reasons, and that it’s difficult to even classify everything he’s done as a betrayal (Thor probably sees Loki not letting anyone know he was alive the first time as a betrayal, but we know shit went down). Thor doesn’t know anything about Loki’s feelings or issues. He’s ignorant of Loki’s depth. What he sees is someone throwing a fit, baiting him to pay attention, and betraying and hurting him all over (and maybe he thinks that’s a bit his fault because he’s showing Loki love when he’s not being “good”).

Previously, Thor’s tried to entice Loki into returning home or to his side by expressing his love and how much he’s mourned him. He does so poorly, to be sure, and he’s a hothead who loses the plot quickly, but it’s genuine. I mean, he sneaks some affection into his elevator speech. He does think the world of Loki. At the end of Ragnarok, he essentially plans to bring Loki back to a planet that hates him and just force them to accept that’s what’s happening. That’s a big fuck you to Midgard. The affection approach doesn’t work on Loki, either because of Loki’s insecurities, or because he’s got to keep acting like an obedient servant to Thanos, since he fears him. From Thor’s perspective, it just doesn’t work. So, new plan. This time he’ll not give Loki attention. This time he’ll act disinterested and outsmart him, call him predictable, and then challenge him not to be. This forces Loki to do good, reminding him that he can, and allowing Thor to once more express his love and trust in response to Loki’s goodness. Some might think I’m giving Thor a lot of credit, but I don’t think it’s that brilliant a plan.

Here are the steps (according to Thor):

Irritate Loki. Don’t give him attention. Just agree with him. Act like you’re fine that he does his own thing (though you’re not).

Loki will try and betray you. That’s what Loki does (when he feels slighted).

Stop him.

Call him predictable (oh, the God of Mischief will really hate that).

Challenge him not to be.

Leave him on Sakaar.

Pray he follows.

Truly, Thor Odinson is a mastermind.

(It should be noted, this causes Loki a lot of emotional pain (and physical pain… that’s the one of the reasons I would rewrite the scene to function differently), and it’s something that should have been addressed (and that I would address in fics, since I know the MCU never will). Thor, once again, unknowingly preys on Loki’s insecurities. However, since the director didn’t particularly care about/recognize Loki’s depth either, it’s all about Thor. Loki’s pretty shallow in Ragnarok. Also, it’s stupid/cruel and ooc for Thor that leaving him on Sakaar means that he leaves him defenseless.)

@philosopherking1887 This feels relevant to what we were discussing about Loki’s betrayal, so I’m @ing you. Also, if you haven’t, I’d be glad for you to read this and let me know your thoughts/how you’d do things.

You may be right that Thor’s complete inability to see things from Loki’s perspective, understand his depth, or think of Loki as having motivations that aren’t centered around him (Thor) is actually not such a departure from Thor’s characterization in earlier films… but I guess I thought he had matured since Thor 1 and the beginning of The Avengers, and it was a real disappointment to see him regress that way.

In one of TDW’s deleted scenes, the one with Frigga and Thor, he seems pretty unable to see Loki’s perspective. He doesn’t understand why Frigga even visits him. That, to me, resembles slash and burn justice. I love Thor, but he doesn’t get Loki. I think it’s less to do with immaturity, though that’s a part of it, and more to do with… how do I put it? Sometimes you’re so close to someone you don’t see them, just the idea you have of them. Thor’s idea of Loki is poorly conceptualized, and fed by Odin (and Loki, who never defends himself). Add Thor’s relative immaturity (he’s trying, but he’s not 100% by any means), and it’s just a mess. That’s why I always say I think Odin’s the biggest obstacle to their reconciliation. Thor needs to have the entire bedrock of his way of thinking shaken, and to stop idolizing his father. Ragnarok, at least, allows me to imagine that happened.

Also, all my meta should come with a warning that I’m completely disregarding the intentions of the director, and I’m going to fix the mess they made so that the characters are consistent.

Ugh, you’re right. P.S., “Sometimes you’re so close to someone you don’t see them, just the idea you have of them” is a very Proustian point, and one that he makes specifically about people you love/ are in love with 😛 Usually that’s a matter of idealizing them, but it also includes thinking that their entire world revolves around you and thinking that all their motivations must somehow be about you.

I was just thinking about interpretation and authorial intent recently, and it occurred to me that with a good work of art, you can explain all its features with reference wholly to reasons internal to the artwork itself, whereas bad works of art force you to look outside the work for explanations (in the mental state or external situation of the creator). It’s heroic of you to try to interpret Ragnarok in a way that’s consistent with the rest of the films, but I think that’s going to involve some really bizarre contortions because (at least as a successor/conclusion to the other films) it’s just so bad. Some people seemed to think the same of The Avengers with respect to Loki’s characterization; part of my goal with Abyss was to show that that wasn’t the case, not least because I trust Joss Whedon’s instincts as a writer (at least when it comes to male characters) and he seemed to genuinely appreciate what Branagh and Hiddleston had accomplished in Thor. So my task wasn’t/isn’t nearly as difficult as yours. In my fanfiction I’ve decided to be semi-selective in which parts of Ragnarok I even accept as canon, or anyway to present interpretations of Thor and Loki’s actions and character drastically different from the ones the film invites.

I know you talked about the elevator scene before, but what are your thoughts on Thor’s point of view? I thought he accepted Loki by choosing to let him go instead of chasing him and trying to force him to change or come home. That he was acknowledging who Loki wanted him to believe he was, and was choosing to do what was best for himself/his people despite loving Loki. It seemed like Thor chose to change first by stepping back from an unhealthy relationship instead of continuing to force it??

When I first watched Ragnarok, I saw it much the way Anon did… mostly because I was trying to be optimistic. But the more I thought about it and discussed it with people (especially you and @illwynd), the more I realized that Thor is just trying to manipulate Loki into doing and being what he wants, and does not in any way “accept” him for who he is. It’s not only due to Loki that the relationship is unhealthy, and Thor completely fails to acknowledge any part he may have played in contributing to Loki’s unhappiness, or any way in which the relationship was perniciously unequal. His speeches to Loki, in the elevator and while electrocuting Loki, indicate that the only way he sees himself as being at fault is in continuing to extend Loki his trust and affection. He doesn’t seem to entertain the idea that Loki might have legitimate grievances that motivate his actions, even if they don’t excuse them. You’re quite right on this point:

foundlingmother:

I see it very differently.

Thor wants his brother back. He wants to redeem Loki the Villain. He loves and misses Loki. We know this because he challenges Loki to be more than the God of Mischief (which is a challenge to follow him to save Asgard) and saving Asgard kind of hinges on Loki bring reinforcements (and I think Thor knows that), but I also get the vibe from the way he behaves in the elevator. That pat he gives Loki when he says “that’s what you always wanted” seems so knowing. He knows that he’s pissing Loki off. Well, he’s actually upsetting Loki, but he’s aiming for irritated. He’s really, really bad at seeing/accepting Loki’s side of things and emotions. That’s why Loki’s redemption has to happen on Thor’s terms in the end. When Loki reaches out to Thor, Thor doubts it’s genuine, or can’t conceptualize it as Loki reaching out. Often times the ways Loki ends up helping Thor, thereby showing how much he cares about his brother still, aren’t obvious or nice/affectionate. The obvious help he gives, sacrificing his life, Thor now believes to be a trick (it isn’t by the rules canon outlined for Loki’s magic). When Loki puts Odin in a care home, he saves Thor again (Thor expects Odin to banish him and take away Mjolnir). It’s not an affectionate or traditionally heroic action, but it’s hardly devoid of love. He even fucking tells Thor, as Odin, how proud he is of the man Thor became. You think Odin would ever have said anything like that? No.

Thor thinks his brother’s pretty petty. From his perspective, Loki attacks Midgard because of “imagined slights”. I imagine he also doesn’t get why discovering he was adopted upset Loki so much. If Odin hadn’t adopted Loki, he would have died. Loki betrays and hurts Thor. We know that Loki has reasons, and that it’s difficult to even classify everything he’s done as a betrayal (Thor probably sees Loki not letting anyone know he was alive the first time as a betrayal, but we know shit went down). Thor doesn’t know anything about Loki’s feelings or issues. He’s ignorant of Loki’s depth. What he sees is someone throwing a fit, baiting him to pay attention, and betraying and hurting him all over (and maybe he thinks that’s a bit his fault because he’s showing Loki love when he’s not being “good”).

Previously, Thor’s tried to entice Loki into returning home or to his side by expressing his love and how much he’s mourned him. He does so poorly, to be sure, and he’s a hothead who loses the plot quickly, but it’s genuine. I mean, he sneaks some affection into his elevator speech. He does think the world of Loki. At the end of Ragnarok, he essentially plans to bring Loki back to a planet that hates him and just force them to accept that’s what’s happening. That’s a big fuck you to Midgard. The affection approach doesn’t work on Loki, either because of Loki’s insecurities, or because he’s got to keep acting like an obedient servant to Thanos, since he fears him. From Thor’s perspective, it just doesn’t work. So, new plan. This time he’ll not give Loki attention. This time he’ll act disinterested and outsmart him, call him predictable, and then challenge him not to be. This forces Loki to do good, reminding him that he can, and allowing Thor to once more express his love and trust in response to Loki’s goodness. Some might think I’m giving Thor a lot of credit, but I don’t think it’s that brilliant a plan.

Here are the steps (according to Thor):

Irritate Loki. Don’t give him attention. Just agree with him. Act like you’re fine that he does his own thing (though you’re not).

Loki will try and betray you. That’s what Loki does (when he feels slighted).

Stop him.

Call him predictable (oh, the God of Mischief will really hate that).

Challenge him not to be.

Leave him on Sakaar.

Pray he follows.

Truly, Thor Odinson is a mastermind.

(It should be noted, this causes Loki a lot of emotional pain (and physical pain… that’s the one of the reasons I would rewrite the scene to function differently), and it’s something that should have been addressed (and that I would address in fics, since I know the MCU never will). Thor, once again, unknowingly preys on Loki’s insecurities. However, since the director didn’t particularly care about/recognize Loki’s depth either, it’s all about Thor. Loki’s pretty shallow in Ragnarok. Also, it’s stupid/cruel and ooc for Thor that leaving him on Sakaar means that he leaves him defenseless.)

@philosopherking1887 This feels relevant to what we were discussing about Loki’s betrayal, so I’m @ing you. Also, if you haven’t, I’d be glad for you to read this and let me know your thoughts/how you’d do things.

What he sees is someone throwing a fit, baiting him to pay attention, and betraying and hurting him all over (and maybe he thinks that’s a bit his fault because he’s showing Loki love when he’s not being “good”).

Well, part of why the pat on the back seems knowing is that that’s when Thor puts the obedience disk on Loki. Of course he can’t suppress a smug little smile for his oh-so-clever scheme.

Oh, interesting point about Loki helping Thor by exiling Odin… and saying something nice to him when it doesn’t seem to have been necessary for maintaining the ruse. (Though maybe he thought buttering him up was the best way to keep Thor satisfied with his decision to abdicate?)

You may be right that Thor’s complete inability to see things from Loki’s perspective, understand his depth, or think of Loki as having motivations that aren’t centered around him (Thor) is actually not such a departure from Thor’s characterization in earlier films… but I guess I thought he had matured since Thor 1 and the beginning of The Avengers, and it was a real disappointment to see him regress that way. On the other hand, Thor is still pretty obtuse about Bruce’s feelings in AOU when he starts going on about the Hulk’s accomplishments in battle, even if he’s perceptive enough to get something out of his visions.

Regarding Thor’s “plans to bring Loki back to a planet that hates him and just force them to accept that’s what’s happening”: I don’t think that’s meant to be a sign of Thor’s affection or respect for Loki… the self-absorbed “Earth loves me,” plus the fatuous tone in which he delivers the line, makes me think he’s just being an arrogant moron again (as he has been for the entire film) and disregarding Loki’s legitimate concerns for his own well-being. Of course, when we’re trying desperately to make Ragnarok consistent with the rest of canon, we can say it’s because Thor cares so much about Loki that he’ll face down the rest of the Avengers and the International Criminal Court and what have you to protect him.

Thor Ragnarok Review-Part 2

lucianalight:

I waited 4 years with patience and excitement for this movie. TR was
entertaining, there is no argue with that. And Weirdly enough I enjoyed
it. But it lacked what I care about most in a movie: depth, character
development and consistency. After watching it, I was disappointed,
angry and upset~~(I know it seems contradictory)~~. I
waited for months to calm down enough to be able to write from a logical
point of view and not just emotionally. So in this series of posts I’m
going to explain why this movie didn’t meet my expectations.

Part 1: Loki or How Thor Ragnarok Tried to Give us Agent of Asgard and How it Utterly Failed

Part 2: Heroes, Villains and Double Standards

In my opinion a good narrator should be neutral to some extend and if not, at least should acknowledge the errors of their protagonist and give some credit to the antagonist view point. While Marvel has always been a hypocrite in regards to its heroes and villains, I’ve never expected to see the white or black narrative that we see in children’s stories. TR forces the view of its protagonist on the audience, that if someone doesn’t act as Thor wants, they are bad and their opinion is invalid. It also feeds the audience the notion that if someone is not on the side of heroes, they deserve everything that happens to them. This is what I call double standards. Because when sth is wrong, it is wrong no matter to whom it happens. Here’s a list of all the hypocritical things in the movie:

1.It is ok to invade a planet and kill their people if you think they are threatening your planet. I don’t know if anyone has written about this issue, but it seems no one noticed that what Thor did at the start of TR, attacking Fire Giants, killing Surtur and the inhabitants was basically the same thing he did in the first Thor movie by attacking and killing Frost Giants. Is it ok because they were plotting Asgardians demise? So does that mean What Loki did by unleashing the Bifrost on Frost Giants was ok because they were doing the same thing? Or is it ok because Thor only wanted Surtur’s crown and all the others he killed were unavoidable casualties? I mean Loki only wanted the Tesseract and the Earth and everyone he killed were unavoidable casualties too. Or maybe it is ok because Fire Giants and Frost Giants don’t look human? Racist much?

2. It seems that it’s ok to threaten someone’s life to reveal their plans if you are Thor(Thor threatening Loki with Mjolnir), but not if you are Loki(Loki attacking Valkyrie).

3. Basically if you are a hero, you can trap someone to fall(what Strange did to Loki) or torture them(Thor leaving Loki with the obedience disc)
for an indefinite amount of time and there’s nothing wrong with it. But if you are a villain, then the same acts are considered wrong(Loki dropping Thor in Avengers and the obedience disc being used on Thor).

4. Hulk is bad because he refuses to help Thor or listen to him, not because he’s been apparently killing slaves for fun for two years. Valkyrie is a traitor and a coward because she doesn’t want to go back to her old life, not because she’s been capturing and selling people as slaves for about a millennium.

5. If you are Thor, you have every right to want to take the throne from the rightful heir if you think they are not suited for the job. But if you are Loki then you are a villain for doing the same thing.

6. Basically if you are Loki, your emotions doesn’t matter and you can only speak on Thor’s terms and if you don’t agree and act the way Thor doesn’t approve, then you don’t deserve acceptance and love.

A good narrator doesn’t have double standards. They doesn’t make the protagonist completely right and superior to everyone. A good narrator treats all the characters fairly or at least gives some form of validity to other characters that are not the protagonist. As double standards is one of the things I absolutely can’t tolerate, I was really angry and disappointed to see it to this extend in the movie.

Thanks for making these points about Valkyrie and the Hulk as well as Thor and Loki. I was really uncomfortable with being invited to regard the Hulk as cute or endearing when clearly he has been killing other gladiators, and enjoying it, for two years. Korg makes some jokes about some guy named Doug and that’s pretty much all we hear about it. I was even kind of uncomfortable about Valkyrie just nonchalantly blowing up a whole bunch of other scrappers. I mean, I guess they’re evil… but as far as I can tell, they’re not any worse than she is. They were threatening to eat Thor, so it’s fine to kill them all.

#5 is a very interesting point. I mean, it’s indisputable that Hela was a bad ruler… but we’re also supposed to think that Thor wasn’t ready to rule at the beginning of the first movie, and we’re definitely supposed to have doubts about Odin’s competence by the end of TDW. The key differences between Thor’s actions and Loki’s are (1) Loki does his usurping work in secret while Thor does it out in the open, and (2) the movies are named after Thor, which legitimates his actions as heroic.

Asgardians, Pain, and the Obedience Disk

foundlingmother:

I’ll admit right up front that I’m particularly sensitive to the argument that, if you’re able to function, your pain mustn’t really be that bad. I have had fibromyalgia since I was 8, and I was diagnosed with lupus just two weeks ago (fucking yay!). I’m in pain 24/7. My immune system attacks healthy tissue in my body. It’s fucking painful. And yet, I still function. Many people have doubted how much pain I’m in because of the myth that you can’t function when you’re in pain.

Today there was a lot of meta focused on asgardians and pain. The meta addressed people who call Thor’s use of the obedience disk on Loki torture. As goes the response to any argument that’s too pro-Loki, things quickly escalated to “he’s just mildly irritated by the obedience disk” and “Loki hasn’t experienced actual physical pain in the MCU except for maybe when he nearly died in TDW.”

*sigh*

I often state that asgardians can handle pain. That’s something I believe in. I think they respond differently to painful circumstances that would kill or severely disable a human. That’s based on evidence from the movies. Fandral’s impaled in Thor, and survives. Thor’s obviously been stabbed by Loki multiple times, and he’s fine. Both Thor and Loki have been smashed by Hulk, and both have had the obedience disk used on them, and they’re both still alive. Loki’s been in Thanos’ clutches, and he’s seemingly made a full physical recovery from that (despite looking incredibly fucked up and tripping all over himself in Avengers). For that reason, I tend to be more accepting of how physical characters get with asgardians. I forgive Loki stabbing Thor. I forgive Thor grabbing Loki by the neck and throwing him to the ground when they’re reunited in Avengers. My assumption is that asgardian culture is more permissive of acts we’d recognize as excessively violent (let’s not get into whether those acts are justified–that’s not the point) by virtue of asgardians being able to survive more.

What I mean when I say asgardians can handle pain is that they are durable. They are like Deadpool or Wolverine. Both can survive very painful, violent acts. That isn’t the same as not feeling pain.

Volstagg, when touched by a frost giant, shouts in pain. He quickly recovers from a severe case of frostbite, and is able to continue functioning, but he clearly feels the pain.

Loki is terrified of Hulk. If he doesn’t feel the pain of being smashed by Hulk, then why is he so scared of him?

Thor passes out each time the obedience disk is used on him. Loki can’t even fucking move when it’s used on him. My assumption was that Thor passes out from pain, and Loki’s in so much pain that he’s unable to function while that pain is sustained. That’s something the script states, really. It says he’s writhing in pain.

So yes, the obedience disk is a torture device. It superheats veins. I forgive Thor using it on Loki to disable him–he needs to stop Loki from betraying him. I still think Loki feels intense, sustained pain. I don’t agree that it’s just a mildly irritating device. I think Loki’s felt pain in numerous instances. Sometimes the characters inflicting that pain are justified, and sometimes they’re not. Hulk was justified. Thor was justified (for at least as long as he needed to disable Loki, and I happen to think the fact that he just leaves him disabled is ooc). Thanos wasn’t justified. Kurse wasn’t justified.

I’m kind of sick of fans not being allowed to feel uncomfortable with that scene. If people are uncomfortable watching Thor gloat over his brother’s twitching body, that seems reasonable. It bothers me that Thor uses it on Loki for the amount of time that he does (so much that I call it ooc because I don’t think Thor would torture Loki, or leave him to potentially die). It bothers me that it gets used on Thor, too.

I can’t even watch the scenes where the obedience disk gets used on Thor or Loki. I close my eyes. Watching them in pain reminds me of my own. I feel my own more keenly when I watch those scenes. I also feel very, very squeamish seeing the veins under their skin.

TL;DR: Asgardians are durable, but they still experience pain. People are entirely justified in being uncomfortable with the obedience disk. It’s very easy to interpret that device as a torture device. Please stop rolling your eyes when someone finds it uncomfortable to watch their favorite character(s) twitch in pain. Consider that your interpretation of a piece of media may not be the only “right” or even reasonable one.

To add something semi-relevant: I’ve been seeing a lot of people try to justify Thor by pointing out that Loki has done worse things to him; most commonly they will cite the incident in The Avengers where Loki drops Thor out of the Helicarrier in the Hulk cage. (This is such a common move that I feel like it’s got to be in some Thor stan/ Ragnarok defense playbook.) Here is why that comparison doesn’t accomplish what they want it to accomplish:

It was entirely reasonable for Loki to think he was not endangering Thor’s life. He knew Thor could get out of the cage because he had Mjolnir with him. As far as we can tell, in Ragnarok, Thor had no way of knowing that the first people who would happen along were Korg & co. as opposed to, e.g., Topaz, who probably would have just killed Loki while he was incapacitated. Maybe he did have some way of knowing, but this was not made at all clear in the film. So even if he didn’t think he was endangering Loki’s life, he was being culpably negligent.
In The Avengers, Loki was acting as an adversary, and everyone was completely aware of that. He was trying to hamper his opponents by scattering them, and possibly to demoralize Thor by showing that he wasn’t going to get his brother back. In Ragnarok, Thor presented what he did as some kind of “tough love” – punishing Loki “for his own good,” with the aim of getting Loki back on his side rather than (as Loki was doing in The Avengers) turning him decisively against him. If you can’t see why that’s kind of fucked up, well…
Loki is clearly aware that what he’s doing in The Avengers is wrong. He hesitates before he hits the button to drop the cage, and hesitates again (with tears in his eyes, FFS!) before he stabs Thor later. He’s conflicted, and it’s not unreasonable to think he regrets hurting Thor when he’s no longer under direct threat from Thanos (his attempts at self-justification in TDW have a defensive air that make me think the lady doth protest too much). In Ragnarok, Thor just looks smug and self-righteous about the electrocution thing, even though he’s very aware that Loki is in severe pain.

It troubles me that neither Thor himself nor the narrative – which consistently seems to take Thor’s POV as unproblematic and incontestable – considers that what Thor did might have been excessive. Yes, I get that it’s the “trickster tricked” narrative device. I get that Loki was going to betray Thor. And here’s why that doesn’t prove what people seem to think it proves:

Very simply, Thor could have done something less severe. He could have used the buzzer to incapacitate Loki temporarily, and turned it off before he left. Hell, considering how Thor tended to remain incapacitated for a while even after it was no longer active, he probably should have given his (obnoxiously self-righteous, manipulative) “pep talk” after he turned the thing off. But the least he could have done was not leave it on for an indefinite amount of time, leaving Loki vulnerable to whoever happened along first. (I’ve also seen people claim that Thor put it on a “lower setting,” which is why it’s OK that Loki endured it for several minutes continuously rather than a few seconds and why he recovered faster. Maybe; but again, this is not made clear.)
The way I read the film (as charitably as I could), Loki had good reason to be pissed at Thor. He had been trying to reach out and offer help, and Thor blew him off (that conversation is another post entirely, and other people have analyzed it at length, which I don’t need to do now). No, it wasn’t a good thing that he planned to turn Thor back in to the Grandmaster (though again, I doubt he thought he was putting Thor in serious danger; he was too entertaining as a gladiator to be melted). But you can also see why it wasn’t just an act of capricious malice, and therefore why it isn’t cleanly a matter of Bad Loki being bad and Good Thor needing to righteously punish him however severely he pleases.
Or maybe we are supposed to think it was an act of capricious malice, because as I’ve complained before, this film makes Loki’s motivations completely incomprehensible beyond “I did it for the lulz.” Which may be intended to recast him into the Trickster archetype (on a fairly simplistic understanding thereof), but is massively discontinuous with the way the Loki of previous MCU films is motivated. So part of the problem here is that the narrative has already set Thor up to be justified in punishing Loki by giving Loki no clear motivation for doing anything he does. This is just lazy writing. And if you know me, you know that I will usually bend over backwards to avoid blaming an apparent inconsistency on bad writing. (This is partly a reflex of my professional life. Most historians of philosophy assume that if you say that your subject’s argument is invalid, you have missed something. You have not tried hard enough to make it consistent. Kant always knows better than you. Kant scholarship is like Talmud scholarship: you never want to say that the source text is inconsistent, because it’s basically divinely inspired.)

kingloptr:

philosopherking1887:

kingloptr:

philosopherking1887 replied to your post “Why tf do people think he’s abusive? All he ever tries to do is help…”

I never considered Thor’s behavior abusive before “Ragnarok,” but his character changed so radically – and not for the better – that I’m rethinking that opinion.

Just–here’s the thing, perhaps it’s technically a semantics issue that has me wanna physically fight when I hear the words ‘Thor’ and ‘abusive’ in the same sentence? I notice the word ‘abusive’ getting thrown around a lot in fandom lately, so much so that it almost annoys me nearly as much as the word ‘problematic’, or the incorrect use of the word ‘romanticize’. And I wouldn’t mind seeing people state some of the less than savory characteristics of Thor in relation to Loki so much IF they were also using it to describe Loki’s more vicious tricks and manipulations and mind-games, and if it weren’t used to ultimately demonize Thor as if he’s unreasonable to do the things he’s done in reaction to Loki’s most recent theatrics (literal theatrics too lol). I mean. ‘left Loki to die’???? Please, like Thor would ever do that holy shit I couldn’t believe I saw that phrase earlier today. Plus where is the respect for Loki’s power and abilities there omg like that little buzzer was actually capable of torturing or harming Loki seriously??

Anyways. if I didn’t see people calling regular ‘rival’ and flat out ‘enemy’ relationships in fiction ‘abusive’ every time I turn around, when that word has a very specific connotation and social meaning to it, and implies all sorts of (different kinds than seen here!) broken trust, power imbalances, specific patterns, cultural settings, stigmas and whatnot….then maybe me seeing someone say “Thor’s behavior is abusive” wouldn’t set off such a ‘do not want’ reflex on my end.

But I absolutely cannot stand behind using that term to describe any way Thor treats Loki other than maybe any IMPLIED (not even shown in story!) ways he may have treated Loki unwittingly, before Thor 1.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. I reblog all those anti-anti posts decrying the misuse and overuse of moralistic social justice buzzwords. I think it’s absurd to call villain/protagonist ships inherently abusive. Enmity and rivalry are not to be conflated with abuse. I wrote a fairly blistering post pre-Ragnarok insisting that Thor throwing something at chained-up Loki was just standard sibling crap, not abuse, and it’s OK (indeed, desirable) for heroes to be less than perfect. I even lost a longtime mutual for my trouble.

Having seen Ragnarok, talked to people whose opinions and insight I respect, and thought through the implications of the characters’ actions, I now find that the language of psychological and emotional abuse (forget the fucking buzzer for now) is not inappropriate for the way Thor behaves toward Loki (only in Ragnarok !) – especially because he’s presenting himself not as an adversary, but as acting in Loki’s own best interests. I could probably make all the same points without ever using the words “abuse” or “abusive.” I might instead say that he sees no need to try to take his brother’s perspective, manipulates him, gives him an ultimatum, deals with his behavior by training him with punishment rather than making any effort to understand the reasons behind his actions.

This is, of course, a reflex of the way the movie regards Loki: as a motivationally opaque “naughty piece of fate” (in a Nietzschean phrase) who betrays people for shits and giggles and has no real reason to complain of his treatment by his family. If he has no reasons for anything he does, it is entirely appropriate to deal with him as a causal cog to be manipulated (in the non-moral sense of the word, as one manipulates a tool) rather than an agent. But the previous movies did not present him that way, to my mind; they took his motivations seriously, making his actions comprehensible, intelligible, though (emphatically!) not excusable, much less defensible or justifiable. When Thor, along with the last movie, starts taking the “objective stance” rather than a “participant stance” toward Loki (to use more contemporary philosophical language) – i.e., treating him as something less than a rational agent – it is no longer much of a relationship.

But I realize that it’s probably pointless to try to set myself apart from the people who have been inappropriately applying the language of abuse since the beginning and try to defend my credentials as a reasonable interpreter of the films. There is a distinct class of people (not just me) who take this view only of the Thor of Ragnarok, who is a very different character from the Thor of the previous films. But I suspect that once we have departed from the respectable interpretation, we will continue to be lumped in with a group whose views are presumed to be irrational and easily dismissed.

Nah, I wouldn’t lump you specifically in with the more easily dismissed points of view I’ve seen floating around, and which caused me to rant etc in the first place~~

Mostly because I see what you mean here and I also respect your opinion on this and other things. I mean I’m not ignoring that there are manipulation tactics in place and that Thor certainly isn’t always as understanding of Loki as we think/see he should be from an outside perspective. My literal only problem here is when the word ‘abusive’ is being carelessly applied to Thor, when if we’re using that word to describe Thor’s treatment of Loki in any of the movies, it can also be used to describe Loki. Just meaning that their relationship is tumultuous on both sides, it’s not an ‘abuser and victim’ setup at all, in any sense of the word, that’s just not the correct interpretation of the dynamic in any version of Thor and Loki’s story. It may be a different type of abuse, or for different reasons, but any time I see a word as strong and with as much of an implication as ‘abuse’ used to describe Thor, and then right after Loki is considered someone who only behaves the way he does because Thor is and has always ‘abused’ him first….that’s where I tap out. Because anywhere outside of Thor 1 and prior (and I only include that bc we don’t see it for ourselves and can’t guess, but we see hints that Loki was regularly teased….which I would call more tantamount to ‘schoolyard drama’ rather than abuse), in the MCU, it’s the opposite. Thor reacts to Loki the way he does because Loki is still an untrustworthy and unpredictable wildcard. Not the other way around. And there are too many things at stake usually for Thor to have much choice about how he handles Loki in a pinch, IMO. ~

OK, good. I absolutely do not think that all of Loki’s bad actions have been responses to abuse by Thor. There are much better ways of describing their dynamic in earlier movies. Because of the adversarial relationship, I don’t think anything Loki does could felicitously be described as abuse; “being an asshole,” “fucking with Thor,” “straight-up trying to seriously injure Thor” are much more to the point. I prefer “bullying” or really just “being massively insensitive” to describe Thor’s behavior in Thor 1 and earlier. I find the language of abuse applicable only to the manipulation Thor pulls in Ragnarok, and then mostly because he didn’t even bother to ask why Loki banished Odin and pretended to be dead for 4 years. Loki is untrustworthy, but obviously Thor doesn’t think he’s unpredictable (quite the contrary). It’s the assumption that Loki does what he does just for shits and giggles and not because (I don’t know) he’s fucking pissed at Odin and hiding from Thanos.

In a way, Ragnarok treats Loki much more like the classic trickster of myth, who does fuck shit up just because he feels like it and then is forced to clean up his mess under threat of punishment, or just punished if clean-up is not a possibility. That is definitely not an egalitarian relationship, even in myth; Loki is the whipping boy of the gods, not only because he likes to fuck shit up, but also because he’s an outsider, a foreigner, strange and perverse by their moral-cultural standards. But that’s not how Loki has hitherto been presented in the MCU. Thor turns Loki into a Shakespearean villain rather than a trickster; he commits his misdeeds for recognizable psychological reasons, because he bears grudges and is desperate for approval. Even The Avengers points toward comprehensible reasons for Loki’s villainy: revenge against Thor and Odin for previous humiliation; ominous threats from a more powerful villain. I came to understand MCU Loki in those modern literary terms, as a psychologically familiar agent, who does things for reasons recognizable as such – bad reasons, often, but reasons nonetheless. I suppose that the reversion to a pre-modern character archetype (if that’s what happened) is jarring to me. Trickster Loki is cool and all, but that’s not the Loki I got to know and was motivated to write philosophical fanfiction about. And it was also jarring to see MCU Thor reacting as one of the mythical Aesir might to Trickster!Loki – as a “naughty piece of fate” to be controlled rather than a complex agent to be reasoned with. (I’m using that phrase from On the Genealogy of Morality advisedly; Nietzsche does use it to describe a pre-modern way of regarding criminals who break the rules of the community.) From a modern standpoint, the way the mythical Aesir treat Loki is pretty fucked up. Drop that into a basically modern narrative and it looks kind of horrifying.

Anyway, it’s nice to see that reasonable disagreement is sometimes possible in fandom… at least between people who previously know each other and respect each other’s intelligence 😛

toomanylokifeels:

kingloptr:

philosopherking1887:

These people insisting that when Loki let go at the end of “Thor 1,” he knew he would survive – that it wasn’t a suicide attempt, just a bid to get out of hot water – have they been around since 2011-12, or is this a post-“Ragnarok” phenomenon?

When I see people express that belief, I always think of how Thor and Odin know just as much

(if not more-so.. Loki only just learned his genetics)

as Loki does about what he and his body are capable of surviving. And if they both genuinely believed he was dead after that (which I gotta remind people was not JUST falling into ‘a void’ it was into a really fucked up wormhole warped into existence by the destruction of the Bifrost and all the debris from that powerful technology…), then chances were not high that it was survivable even for someone with his skills, and Loki would’ve guessed that too.

Loki didn’t care about the consequences. He cared about Odin’s approval. With Odin’s final words of disapproval, it was enough for Loki to give up entirely. Loki was denied the one thing that he really wanted so he let go. It was very much a suicide attempt.

Loki may concoct elaborate plans, but there’s little evidence that he planned on surviving his fall. It just so happened by chance that he did, and Loki being Loki he played along with it as if he planned it and as if he’s been in control all along. From then on he just uses this trauma to try to manipulate people.

e.g. Loki trying to manipulate Thor by saying Thor tossed him into the abyss or using his story to win the favor of new allies.

…but make no mistake, folks, Loki intended on ending it all in that moment.

From then on he just uses this trauma to try to manipulate people.

e.g. Loki trying to manipulate Thor by saying Thor tossed him into the abyss or using his story to win the favor of new allies.

I don’t think I’m on board with that interpretation. I don’t think “I remember you tossing me into an abyss” was Loki lying to manipulate Thor into feeling guilty, because if he remembered what actually happened, he would know that the distortion of the facts was too obvious for that to work—and sure enough, Thor comes back at him about “imagined slights.” I think Loki’s memories got screwed with in some way, possibly involving Thanos using the Mind Stone to amplify his resentment toward his former family, or possibly just involving a lot of shame and repression. But he seems to have had enough time to recover since then that he straightened out his own account of what happened.

I’m still wrestling with the “using his story to win the favor of new allies” thing. The fact that he was telling it for laughs still makes me a little uncomfortable, but yes, I’ve been getting a lot of people saying that they joke about their trauma to regain power over it, and I do that too, so OK. I’d hesitate to call it “using his trauma to manipulate people,” though. He found a way to turn it into a good story, which probably includes changing a lot of facts about the lead-up and pretending it wasn’t traumatic, and he’s using it to impress people on Sakaar.