#based on some Ragnarok discourse

[notagrayjedi]

almost all of Loki’s plans are extremely short-sighted and build on each other like a house of cards until they all fall down around him. He’s rarely two steps ahead of himself, and each decision is made based on how well the result will benefit Loki. Sometimes those decisions lead to him working for Thanos, sometimes they lead to him saving the people of Asgard. Loki isn’t really good or bad, he’s just Loki.

[moonlit-sunflower-books]

creating sympathetic villains

[@/moonlit_sunflower_books on ig]

hi everyone! today's post is about creating sympathetic villains, because let's be honest, the antagonist is the best part of any story /hj. a sympathetic villain is essentially one whose intentions are understandable, but whose actions are not. i hope this post helps!

disclaimer: i am not a professional writer and everything here is based on personal experience and opinion. i am always open to respectful discourse and constructive criticism!

give them reasons

and i don't necessarily mean a tragic past. give them genuinely sympathetic reasons. maybe they want to save the world by burning it down. maybe they want to wage war on the politicians that have denied them life. maybe they want to secure peace for the people in their country, if they're a ruler. or maybe they've been denied and ignored their entire life and just want to be recognised.

whatever your character's motivation, it should be something that the reader can sympathise with.

give them a past

yes, we all love characters with a tragic backstory, but don't stop at 'their parents were killed when they were young' or 'their girlfriend betrayed them and now they're a bad person' (yes this is me attacking the shadow and bone tv show no im not sorry). any character's backstory should have depth and reason to it.

take loki from the first avengers movie, for example. he's a sympathetic villain because we have seen him before in thor movies and we know his relationship with his adoptive father and brother. he was constantly pushed aside and watched his mother die in front of him, neither of which could have been fun. and his relationship with thor is a really strong dynamic that makes the viewer want him to get something out of the conflict.

his past gives him context and reason and the depth of it makes him seem like a character rather than a symbol, which made it easier for the viewer to sympathise.

give them humanity

make your antagonists funny. make them awkward. make them bad at flirting. make them walk into a grocery store and not understand how the self check-out works. i understand the appeal of having an all-powerful fantastical being be the villain, but if your aim is to create a sympathetic one, it's important that they are shown to be human because that's what allows the reader to relate to them.

i know i'm using all marvel examples, but if you take hela from thor: ragnarok - she is undoubtedly the evil antagonist, but she's funny, for goodness sake. also cate blanchett is gorgeous but that's unrelated, i just had to point it out.

they are not morally gray

there is a very important difference between a morally gray character and a sympathetic villain. a sympathetic villain is one who is, undoubtedly, a Bad Character - they just have understandable motives. they do the wrong things for the (arguably) right reasons - or their reasons have been corrupted by events and/or people, causing the reader to sympathise with them.

a morally gray character, on the other hand, often has the wrong reasons and justifies them anyway. they do a combination and Good and Bad things, unlike the villain who does solely Bad things.

helene aquila from an ember in the ashes is morally gray because she makes hard decisions in the face of crises and is often on the opposite side from laia and elias. she's arguably a good person with hard luck, and circumstance drives her to make questionable decisions that play on her mind.

the darkling, however, is a sympathetic villain, and i'm going to elaborate on this much more now.

case study: the darkling

okay before we get started: i am NOT a darkling apologist and i do not think any of his actions are excusable. but the fact that so many people on this hellsite think he's a good person just proves how well leigh bardugo created a sympathetic villain, and i'm going to explain how i think it worked. and yes, this has shadow and bone spoilers.

the darkling is grisha, and through his lifetime he was hunted and therefore hiding and living in perpetual fear (his past). he wanted to create a safe place for the grisha to live and thought the only way they could be safe was if they were feared (his reasons). he also supposedly fell in love with alina (although his is arguable) and that could be seen as his humanity.

rule of wolves spoilers: the end of the rule of wolves where he agrees to make a sacrifice for the good of ravka also gives him some amount of humanity.

all of the above make the reader sympathise with his intentions and are probably smitten with ben barnes' face which makes it easier. however, literally none of his actions are excusable. he manipulated teenage girls, kissed alina pretending to be mal, literally bound her to his power with an amplifier that completely eliminated her agency, created creatures that blinded his own mother and cut off one of his students' arms, and attempted to expand a physical darkness to take over the entire world. excusable? i think not.

his initial desire for safety is what the reader sympathises with. but the darkling uses that as a jumping-off point to go completely off the rails and essentially lose any sense of boundaries or limits on even his own power, which undoubtedly makes him the villain. not a single one of his actions are excusable.

[tricksterfly]

this is a post dedicated to getting started on The Lokean Path!

the first and most important thing to note is that everyone’s experience with Loki will be different. if you can use any of the information here, that is great! but it’s also not meant to be any kind of “rule list,” so please find what will personally work for you! i also encourage you to do your own research, because there’s a lot more information out there than what i’ve compiled here.

so, let’s get started. i’ll be answering some of the questions i had when i first started this journey. hopefully, you will gain a better understanding of what this path is about based on this information!

Q: who is Loki?

A: Loki Laufeyjarson is a frost giant born of fire and lightening. the story of his birth is both frightening and powerful. he is the Norse trickster god, who was considered an æser after making a blood oath with Odin. in Norse mythology, Odin is the Allfather but honestly treats Loki like a snide younger brother. Loki’s name itself causes discourse in the heathen community, since some perceive him as an evil figure of chaos. however, he is more so simply the catalyst of bigger events. his children were leading factors in Ragnarok (the fall of Asgard), and his hand in Baldr’s death was foreshadowing to this tragedy. but Loki as he is interpreted today is not a bringer of evil. instead, he is a fiery spark of fun and imagination. he is a jokester, a caregiver, a master shapeshifter, and a cunning leader. he breaks the status quo, and is very proud to be different.

Q: is Loki really queer?

A: yes! there are Norse myths that tell tales of Loki shapeshifting into different genders/sexes. he is also suggested to be polyamorous, as this seemed somewhat common in old Norse culture! i believe Loki uses any pronouns, because Loki can be anything.

Q: what can i do to connect with Loki?

A: start wherever you’re comfortable! make a new pattern just for the two of you. for example, i sing a song in Norwegian to start my rituals and meditations. you could write poems/letters/songs, draw a picture, go out and collect rocks for him, pick him a flower, offer him food/drink/smoke, or whatever feels personal to you! allow what you do to show Loki who you are and give yourselves a chance to bond. some people work with bones and blood, others offer tiny knick knacks. follow your intuition and be creative!

Q: what kinds of things does Loki like?

A: here’s a list of items i’ve found to be symbolic to Loki! all of them can be used as offerings.

- the color mahogany/dark red

- gemstones: citrine, obsidian, and fool’s gold

- dandelions & leaves

- wood (reference to the birch tree)

- alcohol

- shiny things

- anything that makes you think of him

Q: do i have to have an altar, cast runes, or swear oaths?

A: no to all 3. you can do these things if you’d like, but they don’t make you less of a Lokean if you choose not to. remember to do plenty of research when getting into these things though, especially runes and oaths. there is powerful sacred magic behind these things that take a great deal of understanding to master. go at your own pace that feels the best for you!

Q: where can i find more information on Loki?

A: unfortunately, there is little documentation from the past on Norse mythology. i would recommend reading the Eddas, as they are the oldest sources that describe Loki. also, a book called Pagan Portals: Loki is a very good compilation of info. you can also find tons of Norse mythology videos on youtube—some are even animated and really funny!

i hope this is a good list of things to get started with! i’m new to this path myself, and i still have much to learn as i make my way. the biggest thing to remember is that Loki has a lot of love to give! if he has found you, consider yourself blessed. there’s a bright road ahead!

[thelightofthingshopedfor]

man, I just kind of...I don’t know how to find a place to fit in the Loki fandom anymore. I mean I probably haven’t for a while, at least since things exploded over Ragnarok, but a lot of the same stuff is heating up again because of the show, and it’s like--

there’s this idea in some circles, right, that either you like pre-Ragnarok Loki and see Ragnarok (and probably the show, based on the trailers) as an awful retcon, or that you like Ragnarok Loki and don’t care all that much about the previous movies. it’s deeply polarizing--people seem to either love it or hate it, without much in between, and people who like it think the anti-Ragnarok people are whiny entitled fans who are determined to be negative, and people who hate it think pro-Ragnarok people are shallow fans who don’t actually care about continuity, characterization, emotional development, or really anything but spectacle and cheap laughs.

and the same general attitudes are extending to the show. people who like what we’ve seen so far, or are just excited to be getting more Loki, sometimes go out of their way to mock people who have doubts or act like it’s pathetic and unhealthy to be anything but 100% excited. and people who have doubts assume the excited fans are casual viewers, and sometimes add negative stuff to reblogs of neutral or positive posts, which can be pretty demoralizing especially for, say, somebody who wants to like it but does have some concerns.

it feels like you have to choose, and it’s just...weird and uncomfortable because I don’t want to choose, that’s the whole point, I’ve been a fan since the very first Thor movie and I’ve seen discourse about every single Loki-related movie since, and there have been things I’ve liked and disliked in all of them. I agree with many criticisms of Ragnarok! but I also get real uncomfortable real fast around people who primarily dislike Ragnarok because I do see throughlines in characterization, in part because I’m always happiest making the effort to reconcile new and old canon, and most of my favorite fics have done a good job of expanding on that and accepting these characters as the same ones we loved before. and I don’t want to argue because I never want to get yelled at, and I’m old and tired, and I don’t have the energy to argue, so I keep being uncomfortable and feel like I can’t say anything. and on the other side of things I don’t think I know anyone who only likes Ragnarok, actually, but feeling like you can’t say anything negative or you’ll be yelled at for whining is...also really weird?? especially if, say, your main criticisms are for IW/Endgame, and explaining why those featured some immensely bad writing gets you labeled a whiny entitled fan who’s throwing a fit because they didn’t get exactly what they wanted??

I liked all the actual Loki-related movies (which for me doesn’t include Endgame at all and only partly includes IW, both for lack of screentime), generally speaking! I also rely heavily on fic to fill in things the movies didn’t care about! I mostly loved Loki’s characterization in IW but hated it for pointlessly killing him off so fast in a way that really didn’t make sense, and I mostly hated Endgame for a whole bunch of reasons and only a couple of those reasons involved Loki! I have reservations about the show but I’m also excited to be getting more Loki, and I do see moments in the trailers that remind me a lot of moments from pre-Ragnarok movies, and I’m at least hopeful that what we end up getting will be more good than bad! and it’s really weird and uncomfortable that all these fucking middle-of-the-road opinions make me feel wrong everywhere and too nervous to join most discussions or say much of anything because there’s a very good chance I’ll get mocked, mischaracterized, or yelled at!

I don’t know where I’m trying to go with this, it’s just frustrating because it feels like everybody has to choose one side or the other and I don’t want to, so instead I end up feeling like I don’t really belong anywhere, especially when a lot of people who also seemed to have pretty balanced opinions have moved on to something else or are in the process of doing so. it’s...kinda lonely, you know?

[alwida10]

The tragedy of Loki of Asgard

Or why I think the Infinity War Loki should stay dead.

TW: suicide, depression, narcissistic behavior

To understand this essay you need some basic understanding of the family dynamic in Odins family. The dynamic is one of a narcistic parent who has a golden child he projects his own awesomeness onto and a scapegoat child . The parent ensures himself the support of the golden child and makes himself the very center of attention, which is what a narcisst tribes for. The golden child longs to remain golden child and refrains from criticism of the parent. The scapegoat child strives to finally get out of the scapegoat position by pleasing the parent. To bad the child can’t do so because it gets not the blame because it did something wrong but because there must always be someone to blame. Therefore possible explanations and things the parent presented as desirable aren’t really that. Now, a golden child sooner or later gets used to blame everything on the scapegoat. It might even learn to control the scapegoat by blaming him the same way the parent did (aka the scapegoat longs for positive attention/affirmation and therefore does everything the golden child wants him to).

Now, in Thor Ragnarok Odin says ‘I love you my sons’ before he dies, placing the two of them more or less on equal positions for the first time ever. (I know there can be good arguments made, but just let’s assume it’s possition zero they start at.)

Pretty soon both end up on Sakarr, Thor in prison, Loki in the Grandmasters favors. Loki visits Thor in prison, suggesting teaming up, even though it endangers his position (the Grandmaster could hear about it, Thor would probably claim the higher position etc.) At that moment Thor doesn’t have anything to offer. Yet, he stonewalls, blaming Loki for all bad that happened. (For a much more detailed spot -on analysis please read this post where @i-dreamed-i-had-a-son even correctly predicted Loki’s death).

The whole dynamic in the prison is Thor falling back into the old family dynamic. Only that Odin is dead now, and the position of the prime narcisst is open. Now, narcissm is often correlated with abusive behavior, as written in ‘why does he do that? - inside they mind of angry and controlling men’ by Lundy Bancroft. In another post I found many of the things she describes can be observed in Thor’s actions in Thor Ragnarok.

But let’s get finally come to the elevator scene which is the heart piece of my explanation. Remember – Loki is at this point starved for any affirmation or positive reaction by his family. After Thor rejected Loki’s plan, he accepted Loki joining his plan. Thor lures Loki by claiming they should talk right before they enter the elevator. For a starving person this is huge temptation. But Loki did live with his family for eons and is certainly aware of it being a trap.

Right from his first appearance in Thor 1 (before the coronation) we learn that Loki never lowers his guard when it comes to admitting feelings. In that scene he said he loved Thor but directly glossed it over with a joke. After all what happened in Thor 1, Avengers and TDW Loki would never let himself appear weak by outright asking if Thor does still hold any positive feelings mg a for him. So he uses reverse psychology (claiming something against your own wishes, hoping the other disagrees and thereby affirms you.)

LOKI: Here's the thing. I'm probably better off staying here on Sakaar.

The problem with reverse psychology is when the other person agrees with it, it hits you right where it hurts the most.

THOR: That's exactly what I was thinking.

LOKI: ...Did you just agree with me?

THOR: This place is perfect for you. It's savage, chaotic, lawless. Brother,you're going to do GREAT here.

Thor follows up by insulting Loki and pushing him away hard. Why? Because he knows Loki has nobody else to turn to. Even after TDW Loki returned to Asgard. For one part because he’s still loyal but certainly also for the lack of alternatives. And Asgard will always include Thor. Thor knows Loki won’t be able to leave him.

LOKI: Do you truly think so little of me?

Loki is hurt, obviously and it’s very much visible on his face. To make sure no blame can be laid open him, Thor uses gaslighting.

THOR: Loki, I thought the world of you. I thought we were gonna fight side by side forever. But, at the end of the day, you're you, I'm me… I don't know, maybe there's still good in you, but let's be honest, our paths diverged a long time ago.

Loki is wounded by Thor's willingness to discard him. But he masks his feelings.

LOKI: It's probably for the best that we never see one another again.

Thor pats Loki on the shoulder, placing the obidience disk. And this action proves that the manipulation on Thor’s part was intentional. Why else would he have done it? (Everyone claiming ‘Loki betrayed Thor endless times, please read this meta). Thor knew that by pushing Loki away hard enough he would trigger a desperate act of reactive aggression. He did so to push Loki back into his place (which is beneath him, as far Thor is concerned). As soon that has happened Thor gives his little self righteous speech.

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

Briefly summarized:

you suck, and I don’t think you’ll ever be worth my affection. If you want to try tho, here is your option.

Of course, to prove Thor wrong Loki is forced to resume his subservant position he had at the beginning of Thor 1. He can only ‘prove his worth’ by doing Thor’s bidding and supporting his plans. And that he does. He convinces kork and his crew to join him and brings them to Asgard where he receives his reward by Thor acknowledging him in a not-aggressive way. He even fulfills Thor’s plan, knowing that henceforth he will be blamed whenever someone remembers Asgard’s destruction. In Thor’s ‘coronation scene’ Loki stands at the side, behind the Valkyrie (yet, still at the right side. That surprised me, tbh. The ‘right hand of the King’ is a prestigious title and I didn’t believe TW would have allowed Loki that. But he’s still only second on Thor’s right.)

Anyway, Loki is back in the position he had in Thor 1 with a lot of added baggage and no Frigga to rant to when everything gets to bad. And then Thanos appears. Under Thanos Loki would suffer even more than under Thor (remember the Other’s ‘no barren moon..’ speach.) So basically he’s caught between two horrible fates.

Loki’s death scene itself has been criticized a lot and everyone knows the butterknive-discourse. It can only interpreted in two ways: either him being stupid or him being suicidal. Based on all written above and the fact that he already tried to commit suicide at the end of Thor 1, I can only believe the second to be true.

It has another point: Tom said Loki’s arc was finished. I was confused and unhappy about this statement, but now I am coming to piece with it. Tom loves Shakespeare, including Hamlet and Coriolanus. Those are tragedies. Tragedies are characterized by the protagonist being ruined because of a dramatic conflict that leaves him only two choices, one being death and one being worse. So perhaps this is his very own version of the tragedy of Loki of Asgard.

[redspiderling]

Imagine my shock to see the Russos in the credits of Arrested Development's pilot. Per IMDB they directed 10 episodes, which don't suck. They DO have tight character-based writing, a solid vision of specific locations, seasoned actors with other series under their belts who grok ensemble work, and an established fake-documentary visual language of quick cuts with camera motion and close-ups. Costumes, props, editors, narrator, even the music is on-board with what story they're all telling.

That’s an interesting piece of information. 

I haven’t seen Arrested Development so I can’t really judge the quality of that project, but assuming they did do a good job directing episodes for it, that makes their work in the MCU even worse, in a way. Because if they were otherwise capable of creating good content, why mess it up this badly now? Especially since the MCU has a big similarity with TV productions: It’s, for the most part, the same group of people working on each film. So they’re all on the same page in terms of what they’re doing.

So why didn’t the Russos do their part? I mean, sure, there’s pressure to finish fast, there’s pressure to do things in a specific way, but how come other people manage? I could be unfair and compare them to Taika. And I’d say I’d be unfair not only because Taika is a talented director, but also because one could argue that solo MCU films aren’t as taxing as the group projects. Still, I look at the Winter Soldier and I look at Thor: Ragnarok and I can’t help but wonder. 

The Winter Soldier is arguably their best work in the MCU. It had a decent script, (even though there are things that I’m decidedly dissatisfied with in that film). Looking at it in terms of film-making, it’s nothing special and it does have a lot of badly directed scenes, mostly the quiet/non-action heavy ones. Not to mention it suffers from the same bland lighting and locations most MCU films suffer from. I say most because the 2 films that have managed to make a space for themselves in the MCU (imho) are Thor:Ragnarok and Black Panther. 

Those are 2 films that don’t suffer from lack of cinematic merit. And those are the films that dared to adapt elements of the comics in their language (the colours, the bold characters, the extra dramatic scenes, all that fun stuff we actually like from the comics). The Russos make grey film for the MCU.

Creative decisions (or lack thereof) aside, making films for the MCU comes with its special set of challenges. I’ve heard enough stories during VFX meetings and seminars, to know that most FX studios are not exactly happy with Marvel, given how often they end up remaking the same scenes for the most ridiculous of reasons (e.g. re-render the Endgame entirely, because Marvel suddenly decided they wanted some changes on a “watch” the characters were wearing). Usually those stories end with a “welp, that’s Marvel for ‘ya”. 

But in spite of that dissatisfaction (and the ridiculous deadlines), those studios manage to produce solid work (except for Endgame, but that’s a disaster for another day). So do the other MCU directors, not to mention the countless composers, make up artists, costume designers etc. Solid, not necessarily noteworthy. 

I see how it might look like I’m targeting the Russos, and while that used to bother me (they are people trying to do their jobs) I’m not feeling particularly bad about it anymore. It becomes more and more obvious that they simply didn’t care after a point, something that their more professional coworkers didn’t end up doing. 

Plus, I look at all the female film-makers (and composers and actresses and costume designers etc) out there, fighting tooth and nail and praying to their Gods that they don’t misstep because that would be the end of their career. And I look at those dudes who made 4, 4 films for the MCU, of which 1 is somewhat good, whom the male part of the famdom has deemed untouchable for whatever reason, and I end up being particularly petty. Damn those Russos xDThanks again for the ask! I’m loving the discourse on the subject and I have to go watch Arrested Development now, from sheer curiosity xo

[dalishious]

I don't want know what anon is talking about Disney did the polar opposite of saying fuck colonialism. Nothing like having a white king murder the chief of an indigenous clan, white-wash a brown character and have her hide her indigenous identity and have her marry the son of the king who murdered her chief and then have the chance to destroy a colonial place of power like in Thor Ragnarok, but chicken out at the last second and take the easy way out. Like the movie was terribly racist.

You don’t need to publish this, I don’t want to pull you into discourse especially since you haven’t seen it, but Frozen 2 epically whitewashed a character and some stuff they did with the mains was… not great and just. Don’t get your hopes up because of that anon, again you don’t have to publish this but just so you know.

Wait what the fuck what 

Who in the what

I’m trying to guess who these characters you’re talking about are based on the first movie which I admit I’ve only seen once and I’m so confused omf

The trailer makes it look like an adventure for Elsa to find out about her magic and then gets stranded in Twillingate or something?

You don’t need to tell me anymore though I’m not asking for more details, I’ll find out when I eventually see it several months or so from now

[lokilesbian]

het th/loki fans are on some shit, i just saw one of them say that ragnarok didn’t just ruin the character arcs but that it ruined chemsworth and th’s friendship bc chris got jealous of tom and i’m just?? based on what?

Literally I have no idea what’s going on with the actor discourse I just know it exists

[sathinfection]

my thoughts on tlj

putting beneath a readmore

overall, i’d say it was... ok. i don’t think it will stand up very well over time, and there were lots of cringey scenes (some of the humor, some of the drama) in a way that felt very um prequel-like. not gonna get into Ship Discourse but my wife misheard snoke at one point and left the theater convinced that rey and kylo were somehow twins separated at birth and was confused, but trying to make it work. 

i feel like i saw a very different film than everyone else. what lots of people said was good was bad, what lots of people said was bad was good

A RUNDOWN OF THOUGHTS

i’ll admit that i went into the movie most apprehensive about finn. he’s my fave and i’d heard his section of the film was pointless and his character went nowhere. while the canto bight thing was completely unnecessary, i felt like finn actually had a really good character arc. it seemed to me like he was growing into his bravery and also totally kicked phasma’s ass. i actually liked that fight better than the one in snoke’s boudoir. yet more proof i saw a different movie than everyone else!

speaking of phasma, she’s not dead. there’s no way she’s dead. I AM CALLING IT NOW: SHE IS NOT DEAD. her armor is made of salvaged chromium from the emperor’s yacht. 1) that shit already survived being exploded once 2) chromium is super resistant to everything. that whole dramatic eye-glare thing just means that she’s gonna pop up in ep 9 with a cool missing eye. srsly i’m calling this now. i’m not even invested in her character but that was p obvious misdirection to me. 

dj’s character was pretty offensive. like, the inaccurate stutter, the movements, all seemed like “oh yeah let’s give the duplicitous guy some disabilities. yeah it’ll add to the menace!’” ugh. 

luke’s sloth milking was honestly so fucking weird, so early on. i wish the rest of the film had been like that tbh

every time rey and kylo reached out to each other, i thought of the “sun’s going down” gag from ragnarok. thank you taika. he is saving all of us from cringeworthy metaphors. 

porgs were great! i like how chewie and the porgs became friends. zero disappointments on the porg front. 

based on his luke, i actually have no idea whether or not rian’s seen the original trilogy. rian’s luke was TERRIBLE, absolutely bad and i couldn’t buy into any of it - just seemed like rian wanted to say what he wanted to say and he didn’t care about any sort of narrative consistency with THREE OTHER FILMS. i will again, bet people now that JJ will retcon luke drawing his saber on ben by revealing it was snoke manipulating him into doing it

speaking of character assassination, poe was terrible and i don’t understand why leia and holdo were just ok with him disobeying orders (IN A MILITARY!!!) and then VIOLENTLY TAKING OVER THE SHIP. oh my god. what the fuck. what the f u c k. i don’t understaaaaaaaaaaaand everyone was reacting like some sort of alien in this, and not the kind of alien like ackbar (RIP)

i’m not sure that snoke’s actually dead, but lol i killed him in an anti-climactic way first. pay me, rian. 

i enjoyed all the kylux interactions a lot. i came to this pairing for the fucked up, and this movie delivered. i’m pleased that hux is still alive and ready to fuck up at everything in ep 9

renperor was a twist i didn’t expect! i liked it. i would say that i’ve gone from predicting a definite redemption (based on previous films) to expecting him to stay the big bad. if snoke’s not really dead maybe he’ll have a disappointing last-minute redemption by death. i do love villain redemptions but based on tlj, him staying evil is the most interesting.

rose is delightful! i’m pretty sure she’ll die near the beginning of ep 9, though. 

still love bb8. holdo was amazing!!!

critics said the cinematography was great but i found it really bleh? no stirring landscape shots except for crait, and i didn’t like how claustrophobic a lot of the film felt. the entrance to the boudoir was nice.

editing was a total disaster. even going in the movie pre-spoiled i had difficulty following the internal timeline and i felt like the cuts between scenes were jumpy.

anyway i’m looking forward to what JJ does with 9 and also going to see ragnarok a fifth time

[thelightofthingshopedfor]

@kiwimeringue replied to your post “I know it’s generally rude and very unwise to reply to a fandom...”

ok I'm super curious now, feel free to message me if you want to talk about it all stealthy-like~

@veliseraptor replied to your post “I know it’s generally rude and very unwise to reply to a fandom...”

i'm so curious

apparently I did want to talk about it, because this got looooong (also please do not add more discourse to this post, it’s probably kind of shitty of me but I don’t super want to have a dialogue about it, I just want to barf out my thoughts and defend my own faves on my own post, so if you want to argue with me I would really rather you didn’t and just made your own post instead)

(I also only just realized that I only put “tony stark negative” and “tony stark critical” in the tags, not anywhere before the cut, so here’s your warning now if you didn’t see the tags that this is me being frustrated with a lot things about how Tony is written)

I can't find the actual post now to screenshot or link because I just came across it on my dash, got annoyed, scrolled past, and then made my post when I couldn't stop grumpily thinking about it (so at this point I also don't remember who the OP was or who reblogged it onto my dash, which is probably just as well), but the gist was that almost all MCU title characters have storylines establishing that they're wrong about something and they show growth by accepting that and working to improve...except Steve, who never acknowledges that he might ever be wrong about anything, with the implication that this makes him a bad, self-righteous character who is basically incapable of growth. several other characters--Tony, Thor, Dr. Strange, Peter Parker--were mentioned, but the state of fandom discourse makes me assume any Steve-negative post exists at least in part to show how much better Tony is, which...may not always be a fair assumption on my part, but I do think it's fair to say that's still a relevant context. and of course Steve is one of my favorite characters, so anything even mildly Steve-negative puts me at least somewhat on the defensive right away, which again is not necessarily fair. (the other post that’s already sitting in my notes is about Ragnarok, which is probably even less surprising.)

anyway the post made me grumpy to begin with and then doubly so because I couldn't think of a good way to refute it aside from "yeah well maybe Steve's just a better person than your faves and he doesn't need a whole character arc about realizing he's been an asshole and needs to change because he didn't start out as an asshole to begin with, bet you didn't think of that huh" which is of course VERY unhelpful. but then I started thinking about how I don't think OP is right about the changed characters to begin with, given that a) it's not really fair to compare a character who's only had one solo movie (Dr. Strange) with characters who've had more, b) Spider-Man is kind of an edge case because he's a teenager and a lot of the problems in his movies stem from a combination of him being a fucking teenager and Tony dumping him with tons of dangerous tech that he doesn't have the training or adult impulse control to use safely and then blaming him when disaster inevitably results, and c) the characters who have had multiple movies and arcs focused on realizing they were wrong about something (just Thor and Tony, really) are...maybe not actually great examples because like 75% of that character development seems to reset after each movie and, actually, the narrative still operates under the premise that these characters are basically right even if some other characters don't agree. like...I mean, the only lessons Thor really, consistently seems to learn are "humans are at least not totally worthless (but lbr they're mostly silly and cute)" and "Odin is extremely wise and probably right about almost everything despite mountains of evidence--that grow with every single film he's in--to the contrary". 

and Tony, well--yeah, that's his arc, in theory, and in theory I don't have a problem with flawed characters who keep making the same mistakes because let's face it, that's a very human thing to do. but with posts like this, it's like...you're effectively arguing that he doesn't really make mistakes overall, though, because it’s really just an opportunity for growth? and that when he does, the narrative shows he's wrong, he admits he's wrong, and he makes consistent efforts to change? which...again, obviously I have my own biases, but I have to see this as a weird interpretation because he's basically been the main character of the entire MCU thus far, which means he's likely to get sympathetic treatment and justification from the narrative even if he's ostensibly being called out for fucking up, and that's something I've definitely seen. his entire first movie is about him realizing how wrong he was and working to do better, definitely, but he ends up being his own worst enemy half the time and other people suffer for it. like...he wants to protect the world, okay, that's a reasonable goal. you can argue that the vision Wanda gave him made things worse, and that's possible, but I don't know how much that might be true given that I'm pretty sure he was working on Ultron before that too (and her mind-magic mostly seemed to work by emphasizing something that was already there, not planting new ideas). so he ends up creating a murderbot, with good intentions but he still does it and he keeps it secret from the other Avengers, and now-sentient murderbot immediately reaches the conclusion that humanity is awful and they won't need protecting if they're all gone, and everything breaks very bad, and then Tony...basically does the exact same thing again, without telling anybody else, in hopes that it'll work out better this time because JARVIS? and it does but that seems like mostly luck? and everybody manages to defeat the murderbot, barely, but a not-insignificant number of civilians die anyway because that tends to happen when a sentient murderbot goes on a rampage, and Tony feels really guilty about this when it's shoved in his face, so he deals with his guilt by kind of...spreading it around and allowing the possibility of other major problems down the line so they can hand over some of that responsibility and he can feel less guilty. (that’s not the most charitable interpretation, yeah, but I also don’t think it’s an unreasonable one, based on what’s there in the text.) and then of course things blow up and other problems get dragged in and it's a huge mess and half the Avengers are fugitives, and the general consensus sort of seems to be that nobody was completely right or completely wrong but Steve is the only one who actually apologizes for any of it (no wait, I guess Wanda and Vision apologized but just to each other) and Rhodey reinforces the idea that the Accords were a good idea with no major drawbacks...and then Thanos shows up and things get SO VERY MUCH worse.

and Tony is once again stricken with grief and guilt (not to mention half dead), so lashing out at Steve is understandable, but what he actually says is basically that this is all Steve's fault because he wasn't there (even though he immediately sent Tony that phone, which means Tony could have contacted him at any time but hesitated to do so even when monsters were basically falling from the sky), and he was right about the Accords and Ultron even if the latter didn't work out so well in ways that probably could have been predicted, and...that's what we're left with. nobody else has a meaningful opportunity to say "now hold on a second, you cannot possibly be arguing both for accountability and for your right to decide for the entire world that exchanging some freedom for some potential security is a good trade, and also how are you saying you were essentially right about Ultron when Ultron is what kicked off the desire for the Accords" or, like, anything. (does the world need a security blanket? going by the evidence...yeah, probably? but again. Tony. you tried that and you made a sentient murderbot instead so like, your track record is not great!!)

and then it all culminates with Tony sacrificing himself to save the universe, which I do at least think was a climactic, thematically resonant send-off for such a major character--for the final time, in the most final possible of ways, he reaches a point where there's no more clever tricks and he reacts by selflessly taking the entirety of the consequences onto himself. I can't say I'm happy with it, because I'm not a fan of character death in general even when it doesn't involve my top faves, and it absolutely would have been possible for the filmmakers to keep him alive if they hadn't gone into this with the specific intention of ending Tony's arc with his death. (ditto on all the other major character deaths, which is a big part about why they make me mad--none of them really, honestly had to happen, some even less than others.) but regardless of my feelings on whether it had to happen, it's inarguable that his entire arc from Iron Man to Endgame is that of a brilliant but selfish manchild who changes and grows until he doesn't hesitate to make the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of the entire universe.

BUT THEN THERE'S SPIDER-MAN AGAIN.

spoilers if you haven't seen Spider-Man: Far From Home but like, the entire conflict of that movie was based on two major things: a bunch of disgruntled Stark Industries employees, at least some of whom had to have legitimate, recent grievances (and frankly that whole mess demonstrates--among other things--that Stark Industries must have unforgivably lax security around its arsenal of world-ending weapons); and Tony's decision at some point to essentially REMAKE ULTRON AND THEN DUMP THAT RESPONSIBILITY ON A FUCKING TEENAGER WITH ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THE WAY OF WARNINGS, TRAINING, OVERSIGHT, OR EVEN BASIC FAILSAFES, like holy shit my computer spends more time making sure I definitely want to delete that file than EDITH does about confirming that yes this random teenager is a legitimate target for IMMEDIATE DEATH. all the other adults involved in this clusterfuck bear a good share of the responsibility for this too, given that not one of them ever seemed to think either "hey, maybe saddling a smart and very good but basically normal sixteen-year-old boy with the power and responsibility (but not the resources or experience) of a grown-ass adult with unlimited resources is not the smartest move here, and yelling at him when he inevitably fucks up this power and responsibility we dumped on him with no training whatsoever is not actually fair or reasonable" or even "maybe before giving a piece of massively powerful and dangerous tech to a sixteen-year-old boy, we should spend at least 15 minutes going over the device's major functions and how to not accidentally kill someone, even if we figure things like ethics and privacy rights and knowing when not to use this tech aren't that important".

but, but, Tony still made the decision to give it to him, and he did so without building in any precautions at all, which is the exact same thing he did in CW/Homecoming with Peter's new suit (yes, the Training Wheels protocol was a good step, but the fact that it could just be turned off that easily--and that Tony isn't shown even trying to tell Peter to use the training programs or safely practice with the suit--shows that it really, really wasn't good enough) except even worse because EDITH is about 100 times more invasive and destructive than the suit. and he pretty much scolded Peter in Homecoming for getting ahead of himself, but then the second Peter did well in a bad situation Tony was right back to making this teenager an official Avenger and giving him all this power and responsibility he'd just decided Peter hadn't really earned, and Peter turned him down because at that point he had a better idea of his own limits and need for growth than Tony did, and then!! in what must have been one of his last acts alive!! Tony dumped an even bigger, more dangerous power/responsibility combo on him!!! way way bigger than the one he'd already turned down and maturely decided he wasn't yet experienced enough to handle!!! without even giving him a chance to say no!!!! and did not take any of that (or the mess with Ultron and the lessons he theoretically learned there, or the mess with the Accords and the lessons he theoretically learned there, or for that matter the lessons he theoretically learned in his three solo movies about treating his employees well and making sure he knows exactly what his company is doing at all times) into account when designing it, handing it off to other adults who also should have been more responsible about it, and leaving it to a teenager against that teenager's stated wishes, thereby ensuring that this teenager will follow Tony's footsteps in being unable to have a normal life!!!!!

...................but, okay, the point of the original post was that Steve is generally deemed to be Always Right and therefore he never has to change, and that makes him unrelatable at best and also not a great character. which...well, that's part of the point, that's why he was picked for Project Rebirth in the first place because he's a good dude dedicated to doing what's right; even before the serum, he was literally willing to die to protect a few people he barely knew (the grenade scene, remember). he was already starting from a point of selflessness and an understanding of responsibility that the others lacked, so it would be tough to give him a similar character arc without undermining or ignoring the whole point of the character. sure, though, even a character like Steve is imperfect and human and bound to be wrong sometimes, and when that happens he should acknowledge he was wrong and take steps to make amends, and if he's never shown doing any of that, it's true that it's not great even if part of the issue is that he's never really put in a position to do so. 

except, except DID YOU ALL COMPLETELY FORGET THE ENDING OF CIVIL WAR

like, sure, if what you wanted was to hear Steve say "I was wrong about everything and Tony was right about everything, and I will humbly submit to whatever you think is best regardless of my own convictions, my very good reasons for having those convictions, and my personal concerns for my friends, or at the very least I will humbly ask for forgiveness and accept whatever you throw at me, because Tony Was Right About Everything," then...yeah, I'm sure it was a disappointment, especially if you figure Tony was right about the Accords and at least the intentions behind Ultron. it's true Steve doesn't really address any of that, which indicates he definitely still believes he’s right about those parts. but...look, the last time he saw Tony, he was fighting to save his lifelong friend from being murdered from a crime he didn't necessarily remember and really wasn't responsible for. once again I don't blame Tony for reacting emotionally and lashing out at the nearest targets instead of the people who were really at fault, but that doesn't change the facts of the situation, which are, Steve was fighting to save Bucky's life. and when he did that by incapacitating Tony, he didn't go any further; he took Bucky and left. and then he almost immediately sent Tony a letter of apology and a means of contacting him in return if an emergency comes up--and again, yes, his apology wasn't "I'm sorry for everything because I was wrong about everything," but it was a genuine, compassionate apology for the ways he'd hurt Tony even if his intentions were basically good. (this of course assumes that he really did know for a fact that Bucky killed the Starks and consciously chose to hide the knowledge from Tony, and frankly I'm not convinced that's true, but it's not really the issue here.) honestly, I thought his letter was kind of funny because it so closely followed the format of the apology-note meme--you know, "I was trying to do X, but I see now that I hurt you because Y" and everything. he didn't apologize for opposing the Accords or protecting Bucky or fighting in Germany so he could get to Siberia in time to stop what he had every reason to believe was a much bigger threat, because all those actions stemmed directly from his convictions and sense of morality and he wouldn't be Steve Rogers or Captain America if he was willing to compromise his most foundational convictions--but he absolutely did apologize for hurting Tony and recognized that he'd made at least one big mistake where Tony was concerned. 

Tony...didn't. even before doubling down on the Accords and Ultron, I don't think he ever really said, hey, at least some of this was my bad; most of what he said boiled down to "okay this situation isn't ideal but I'm sure if I throw more money at it things will work out fine, more or less". in the Raft and in Siberia he got close to saying that maybe he'd been wrong about a few things, but that all went out the window pretty quick, and I don't think there's ever a point where he--just for instance--at least apologizes for trying very very hard to kill Bucky. and by Endgame, apparently he’s pretty much walked back what little he did kinda sorta think he was maybe wrong about. so.

that's...basically what I've got, OP’s interpretation is wrong because their facts are actually wrong and I was apparently annoyed enough to barf out all these words when I could’ve been doing anything else, the end

[sammysdewysensitiveeyes]

I kinda wish that the discourse on the Thor franchise would stop devolving into bashing on Chris Hemsworth, Taika Waititi or Tom Hiddleston as people, based largely on speculation and rumor.  I mean, say what you want about their work, how they interpret the characters and story, etc.  And if they said something in public that you take issue with, that’s totally fair game.  None of them are above criticism.  But people are basically writing fanfiction about how CH and TH must have had some big falling-out over Ragnorok, and wanting to make one of them either hero or villain.  And we really don’t know.  We don’t know that much about any of these people, beyond the public faces they put on.  Maybe Tom Hiddleston had a jolly good time working on Ragnarok and loved the movie.  Maybe he didn’t, but he and Hemsworth are still friends.  Or maybe they totally hate each other - we don’t know.  Maybe Tom Hiddleston is a lovely gentleman and Chris and Taika are egotistical monsters, or maybe it’s the other way around.  I kinda think all three of them are probably a bit egotistical in their own ways.  Some fans wanna characterize them as either total assholes or pure cinnamon rolls, as if they aren’t, you know, actual people with their own virtues and flaws.

I have my own issues with Ragnarok - it was fun on first viewing, but I can really enjoy it as Waititi’s zany crack fic, not something that was supposed to wrap-up the story developing over three movies.  (And it doesn’t really “resolve” the story so much as toss most of it out the window and try to re-write past continuity.)  And I don’t really care for the new “Bro Thor,” who seems like a backward step in the character’s evolution.  That doesn’t mean Hemsworth or Waititi are jerks.  Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t.

I’m sorry to get preachy here, I know people vent on their blogs.  Vent away. (I’m venting right now, really).  I just think that arguing over Ragnarok doesn’t mean we have to set up some behind-the-scenes Hemsworth-Hiddleston conflict that, for all we know, might not even exist.    

[lelliefant]

Some things about this conversation really bother me, as one of the people who has expressed disappointment over how Loki was treated in Ragnarok and IW. I want to be clear that I’m not just responding to @tinchentitri here, but to many of the comments in this string. I don’t mean to “pick on” anyone individually. I think many good points were made in these comments, especially those about how it’s important to be respectful of others’ opinions, etc. However, there’s also some meanness in these comments, and I’m going to call foul on it.

I don’t think it’s fair to describe the people who are upset over how Loki has been treated as being “haters” or to say we are bringing in “negativity.” We’re sharing our sadness and anger over how our beloved character has been disempowered, abused, maligned, and mocked in Ragnarok and IW.

We have a right to express our feelings about this, and telling us to “not be so negative” is, in effect, a nicey-nice way of telling us to sit down and shut up because you don’t want to be bothered with unpleasantness. It feels like being put in a corner.

A few people indicated that we are saying that people who disagree with us aren’t “real fans.” I honestly don’t know where this is coming from. Of course, I can’t speak for every post ever made, but in my experience, the Ragnarok/IW objectors aren’t going anywhere near there. What I see is people who are upset trying to connect with other Loki fans, not shutting them down. But maybe I’m choosing to read different posts from you.

Another thing that has been said is that we need to “give it (the series) a chance before judging.” Let’s be real: we’re not talking about a totally new context. Marvel signed off on the crap treatment of Loki in Ragnarok and IW. Why wouldn’t we worry that they might do it again now? How many times are we supposed to keep smiling and being quiet while our hero gets systematically trashed by the powers that be?

Frankly, I’m pissed that some of you are calling us “whiners” and claiming that we’re bringing the “negativity” and making “attacks.” We’re upset. We’re expressing it. Now you’re upset. You’re expressing it. How is one group being any whinier or more negative than the other? How is saying we’re angry necessarily an “attack”? Those words are pejorative and dismissive. It’s disingenuous to wield them like a club against someone you simply disagree with.

It feels like some of you are doing the very thing you’re accusing us of: judging, hating, attacking. It’s kind of crazymaking, actually. But we’re angry with Marvel, or the Russo’s, or Taika, or all of the above—people who we’re essentially powerless to reach. While some of your comments are shutting down real people who have just as much right to an opinion as you.

So, I have a few requests:

If you don’t agree or don’t want to read someone’s “rant,” scroll past it.

Avoid characterizing opinions you don’t agree with as “negativity.” The term is being misused.

Tag your posts carefully. (I, for need to do a better job of tagging my posts as anti-Ragnarok and whatnot.)

Try to be careful about the language you’re using. Instead of calling someone a hater, explain what bothers you about what they are saying.

Allow room for discourse within the fandom. We don’t all have to agree. Debate is not only okay, it’s much healthier than having everyone cultishly agree about everything. It does not mean the fandom is falling apart.

Review the tone of your comments before posting them, and ask yourself whether you are building bridges or blockades. Bridges give us an opportunity to delve into deeper discussion of our fave. Blockades put up walls that will only increase resentment (and they usually don’t work the way you intended anyway).

Yes, there is a lot of dissent in the Loki fandom right now, and there are a lot of hurt feelings. The changes made to the character in Ragnarok and IW were major. Some of us hate what was done to him; some don’t. We’re a passionate and diverse fan base. We’re not going to agree on everything! We can’t control where Marvel decides to take Loki, but we can be respectful of each other.

Yes, I’ll be ranting here.

I find it astonishing how much hate and negativity I see here whenever they announce something new about Loki.

I slowly feel like the fandom can’t have nice things anymore because Loki stans fans seem to want to feel offended whenever it’s not Shakespeare material and Kenneth Branagh directing.

Nobody needs to love Ragnarok, but I’d like to be happy about announcements without seeing dozens of posts about the unfair treatment of Loki.

I get it, everybody’s out to hurt you and your favourite character, and everybody who likes Taika, Ragnarok, or IW isn’t a real fan.

But nobody’s forcing you to watch.

[iamanartichoke]

All the wank over the past couple of days has made me realize that a lot of us, here on Tumblr, could probably use a refresher in what constitutes a logical fallacy, if we are going to engage in discussion, discourse, or basic conversation with another human being. So, here are some of the most prevalent fallacies I’ve seen circulating these past couple of days, along with helpful examples. 

** Please note that I am providing these examples without subjective commentary about either side of the Ragnarok argument. Do with these what you will. 

1. Ad Hominem: Literally against the man. This is a fallacy which occurs when you attack your opponent’s person rather than their argument. This seems to be a favorite among many people on tumblr. 

Example of an Ad Hominem fallacy in action:  

Person 1: I don’t think Taika Waititi did Loki justice in Thor Ragnarok.  Person 2: You are a moron and you should feel bad. 

Example of what you can say to avoid this fallacy: 

Person 1: I don’t think Taika Waititi did Loki justice in Thor Ragnarok.  Person 2: I can see why you think that, but if you look at it from this point of view, it’s actually in Loki’s character to do A, B, or C. 

2. Slippery Slope. This is a type of reasoning which oversimplifies the idea that every action has a consequence and follows it to the absolute worst possible conclusion or outcome that could occur. 

Example of a Slippery Slope fallacy in action:  

Person 1: If you don’t like hearing XYZ about Thor Ragnarok, you should just block people who post it.  Person 2: If I block people who post XYZ about Thor Ragnarok, it’s like I’m saying it’s okay for them to have XYZ opinion, and that I condone it, and it’s chasing me off of my own tumblr and my own posts, and it’s like saying I don’t have freedom of speech or choice and I don’t have a right to not see things on my tumblr that will make me feel bad and my tumblr experience will be ruined and I’ll look bad to my friends and the world will end. 

Example of what you can say to avoid this fallacy: 

Person 1: If you don’t like hearing XYZ about Thor Ragnarok, you should just block people who post it.  Person 2: Oh, that’s a good idea, thanks. 

3. Circular Argument: This occurs when a person is just repeating their same argument over and over again. Kind of self-explanatory. 

Example of a Circular Argument fallacy in action:

Person 1: Tom Hiddleston said Taika Waititi told him that he wasn’t going to change Loki, therefore all Ragnarok dissenters’ arguments are invalid.  Person 2: What Tom actually said was XYZ. Person 1: Okay, but Tom Hiddleston said Taika Waititi told him that he wasn’t going to change Loki, are you really going to ignore the words from Tom’s own mouth?  Person 2: Look at Loki’s behavior in this instance from Ragnarok vs. this other instance from The Dark World. Here’s how they’re different.  Person 1: Whatever, Tom Hiddleston said Taika Waititi told him ... 

Example of what you can say to avoid this fallacy: 

Person 1: Tom Hiddleston said Taika Waititi told him that he wasn’t going to change Loki, therefore all Ragnarok dissenters’ arguments are invalid. Person 2: What Tom actually said was XYZ. Person 1: Okay, well, I can see how that context might change things, but I still think that Loki was in-character and that his arc makes sense.  Person 2: That’s fair, I just disagree with you.  Person 1: That’s fair. 

4. Hasty Generalization: This is when a blanket statement or judgment is passed on a person’s argument without adequate evidence to support it. 

Example of a Hasty Generalization fallacy in action:

Person 1: All Loki stans hate Thor Ragnarok.  Person 2: All Loki stans hate Taika Waititi.  Person 3: All Loki stans just want to bang Tom Hiddleston. 

Example of what you can say to avoid this fallacy: 

I don’t have any. Don’t generalize. 

5. Appeal to Hypocrisy: This fallacy means that instead of focusing on the argument, a dissenter will instead distract the point to their opponent’s actions to help prove their point. 

Person 1: You commented on my post with a different opinion, now I’m going to tell all my friends to harass and report you. Person 2: Hey, that’s bullying and it’s not cool. People can express different opinions.  Person 1: Well, look at you coming on my post to threaten me and bully me! I’m just posting my own different opinion, which you said I could do! 

Bonus: Hate Speech. “Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.” (via the American Bar Association) (emphasis mine) 

Example of hate speech in action:

Person 1: Taika Waititi is just a [insert slur here] who did a shitty job with Thor Ragnarok.

Example of what you can say to avoid being the kind of person who uses hate speech:

Person 1: Taika Waititi shit on previous Thor canon when he decided to make Ragnarok a comedy. 

** This one seems to need a bit of explanation. The difference between hate speech and criticism here is that One attacks Taika’s person, which has nothing to do with his job as a director, while the other attacks his actions. It is negative, but it is not hate speech. 

Just a note that labeling anything even slightly negative or critical as “hate speech” just makes the term meaningless and detracts from instances of real hate speech, which undermines those who are oppressed and discriminated against due to their race, religion, sexual orientation, whatever. 

I hope this guide will prove helpful to your future fandom endeavors. 

[scintillatingshortgirl19]

Ok, largely because of my mixed feelings on Ragnarok I avoid Ragnarok/Taika Waititi discourse but this??? would be terrible??? Whether you like Thor Ragnarok and/or Taika Waititi or not, we know for a fact he dislikes Loki. Some think his characterization of Loki was horrible, some liked it, but however you feel about what he did film-wise, Taika has said really shitty things about the character and sometimes even appears to have a weird personal bias against him. He doesn’t appear to understand or respect him at all. (Again, I’m not referring to how he’s portrayed in Ragnarok - this can be entirely based on quotes from Taika himself). But anyway, due that dislike of Loki I don’t think it’s likely he’ll be interested in having anything to do with the TV show, but it’s a scary thought for sure and I’m trying to prepare for Marvel potentially screwing us over in every way possible. 

Thanks to @rainbocake for bringing this to my attention.

People who are on Twitter: can you please @ the folks at Marvel Studios or Disney+ or whoever is in charge of this and tell them that we do not want Taika Waititi anywhere near Loki��s show or character?

Thank you!!