#based on some Ragnarok discourse

[thortwenty151]

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.

[traumatizedbymay2016]

Ok this might be a little bit tinfoil hat, but I feel like a large part of the reason that Tony Stark ended up being the de facto soul of the MCU was that he was in a different genre to everyone else. It feels so obvious to me.

Every other Avenger stars in some variation on character versus character conflict the majority of the time, and the exceptions I can think of are still (generally) external (character versus society and character versus fate seem to be common secondary conflicts). Tony is the only character who stars predominantly in character versus self conflicts.

For starters, the Iron Man trilogy is way better when you recognize this distinction. Whiplash and Killian are lame villains, yes, but it's because they aren't the antagonist at all. At best they're secondary conflicts, but at worst they're straight up just the inciting incident. The real antagonist of the story is the flaw that Tony is grappling with --- in Iron Man, it's his willful ignorance and isolation from the world; in Iron Man 2, it's his fear of needing help or being a burden (and secondarily his fear of his impending death); and in Iron Man 3 it's his crippling anxiety that nothing he ever does will be enough to protect the ones he loves. It's relatively rare that we see any other character perform this kind of introspection at all, let alone see an entire story built around it (Thor: Ragnarok is the only one that readily comes to mind).

Even weirder to me is that this somehow persists into crossover films. Age of Ultron features Tony grappling with the way the remnants of his Iron Man 3 anxieties are interfacing with his mask of hyper competence; Civil War centers around Tony deconstructing that same mask and attempting to hand the reins over to someone else; the examples are abundant (even if they're handled worse here than in the standalone films).

And I think that's why so much of the Marvel discourse that the interwebs seem hell bent on showing me ends up presenting every Marvel character as "uwu soft precious pure bean" heroes who are nuance-free portrayals of goodness and light in spite of their own laundry lists of mistakes that they move past but never really grow from, only to reach Tony Stark and present even the most understandable of mistakes as though they were pre-meditated and cold blooded decisions for which he is responsible and can never be absolved. If the narrative never forces anyone else to properly reconcile their actions, then those actions were clearly justified; when it does so to Tony, that sends the message that his actions are clearly worse or of greater significance than the others' are.

But that difference is about presentation. It's about the story being told and the conflict being centered, not the culpability or severity of the actions at play. I'm not sure any Avenger has ever screwed up as royally as the time that Thor's coronation got crashed and he decided to get his friends together to attempt frost giant genocide, but the narrative chooses not to focus on that in favor of other elements of Thor's progression. Weighing it as lesser is purely based on bias.

And here's the thing! I understand that 1) protagonists are not necessarily good people and 2) good people can and do make mistakes. I actually prefer characters who can do something terrible --- whether as a result of ignorance, trauma, or panic --- and then, in time, learn from those mistakes and become better people. I would argue that makes a character more compelling, not less so. In fact, the very way that the narrative never even acknowledges the potential for Steve Rogers' actions to have a negative consequence when even bare minimum common sense would dictate that there must be at least a little downside is part of why I don't enjoy the character.

But so much fan meta fails to engage with this in any meaningful way, and so you end up with situations where people are ranting about Tony blasting Sam after Rhodey got knocked out of the sky while entirely ignoring the obvious and understandable distress that would cloud anyone's judgement in that situation in favor of treating it like an intentional act of malice on Tony's part; in spite of the fact that there are dozens of instances in the MCU of heroes attacking each other with greater force in lower stakes situations --- Thor choking Tony in Age of Ultron comes to mind.

Age of Ultron is actually the perfect case study in this phenomenon, as it stands. Tony's arc in the movie is an explicit continuation of his arc in Iron Man 3: He's terrified by the vision of his teammates dead and the world at risk, and is desperately trying to solve that problem on his own in a panic. This leads to the objective mistake of Ultron's birth and near rise to power, which the fandom all-too-happily places the blame for squarely on Tony's shoulders.

Except Tony is just one piece of the puzzle. At a minimum, Bruce Banner was equally involved in the creation of Ultron; a task perfectly in line with his established character trait of pursuing scientific advancement at any cost. Cinematic parallels between the birth of Ultron and the birth of the Hulk are unsubtle, to say the least.

Thor could (and should) have provided some instruction to the two pertaining to the literal magic gemstone they were studying, but went off to go celebrate another victory. Wanda used her mind control powers to influence the situation in the direction of Ultron. Hell, I find it hard to take Steve's "sometimes my team mates don't tell me things" line seriously when the lab is a room made entirely of windows inside his house.

The cherry on top, obviously, being that even if we ignore all available subtext and let Iron Man be the sole creator of Ultron, the Avengers were still effectively functioning as a team and were properly equipped to prevent Ultron from enacting any real damage to the world when they intervened in the vibranium deal with Klaue --- but a certain pair of Avengers were literally fighting on Ultron's team at that point, enabling him to retrieve the needed vibranium and capture Helen Cho.

They're not culpable for that, though, right? How was it said... "She's just a kid"?

With the final irony being that the selfsame Avenger in question would go on to marry the Vision. A character who is literally just "What Tony Stark intended Ultron to be." But when it comes to Vision coming out worthy to wield Mjolnir, that's not Tony's fault, is it? It was a team effort, or a happy accident, or the Mind stone intervening. Never mind that it's personifying J.A.R.V.I.S., Tony's creation. Tony's not the one who does good things, he's the one who makes mistakes.

Meanwhile from the perspective of someone who loves the man versus self narrative, Age of Ultron is about Tony admitting his mistakes and quite literally learning from them and doing better next time. He spends the film taking responsibility for the places he messed up and working to understand how he can do better, and the next time he tries, he does do better. The narrative functions as intended.

But because there isn't a single other character in the room willing to admit wrongdoing --- or, perhaps more accurately, there isn't a single other character in the room that the narrative is willing to force to admit such a thing --- the implication to someone who isn't acclimated to the cycle of Fail, Learn, Succeed that characterizes Tony is just that Tony is The One Who Made Ultron. I mean, Bruce Banner gets more remorseful about being mind controlled to unleash the Hulk than he does about having been an active participant in the creation of a malevolent AI.

I just think it's interesting because so much of the fandom buys into the idea that the characters who never admit that they were wrong actually never were wrong, and that therefore Tony Stark is the worst; but at the same time, the whole heart is gone from the MCU as a franchise. There are still individual fun properties, especially when your particular favorite character is on screen, but you can feel in the places where the fandom is even still a fandom and not a toxic pile of self-consuming sludge that there's something missing.

As frustrated as I am that the fandom is like this, though, I'm more sad that other characters never got to have this kind of introspection. There's just so much missed potential for growth in so many of these characters.

[lokiinmediasideblog]

"I Remember it so you don't have to": MCU Loki in the 2010s: Rape Culture, Villain Queer-coding, and Homophobia

-----------------------

I know Loki is Tumblr’s sweetheart since 2011 (and that subsets of Loki fans are insufferable, fuck those that harassed and singled out Kate Herron and Sophia Di Martino because Sylvie). But a part of me will always be protective of the character outside of Tumblr despite his popularity. I hate seeing bad takes about how Odin was a wonderful father and king, and Loki was just an ungrateful bastard.

Although Tumblr (and many AO3 fics) seem to excuse Loki of all wrongdoings (letting the Frost Giants in and the attempted genocide), I see the opposite outside of it, where he even gets blamed for Hela getting out of her imprisonment. And I have seen a horrible take saying that he should have been left to die as a baby because “he ruined Thor’s life” by some Odin apologist that clearly lied about liking Loki. So he seems to be quite polarizing in that respect based on social media of choice and demographic of users. And some people get a little weird about the Loki hate because how dare you like the sympathetic villain that isn't as masculine as the heroes (I will go more in detail and show some examples).

My hot take on Loki's moral fibre: I just see MCU!Loki as not particularly morally worse (or better) than MCU!Thor, but he just had worse luck in timing and who he ended up with during those badly-timed breakdowns.

I joke around that I defend Loki from Redditors and dudebros because I especially dislike the takes of cishet men that get offended when a girl said she preferred Loki over Thor, and pretend to be “concerned” over “impressionable young women and girls that will get into abusive relationships”. And if you haven’t seen those, well I did while growing up, and I took them personally.

The Nostalgia Critic, one of the men behind the death of media literacy and criticism, even made a video complaining about the phenomenon of Loki thirst. It made me spitefully not care about any other Avengers (2012) character. It’s still up on YouTube, and it was a bit patronizing. Also, he thinks Thor 1 Thor looks like a girl (joke?), make of that what you will...

There was also a propensity to make homophobic jokes about Loki in parody skits. Loki was not canonically queer yet in either the movies or the comics, but he was queer-coded and people could tell, based on the jokes and quips directed at him. There’s one parody skit where Thor and Loki go to court-appointed therapy and one of the jokes is that Loki likes to fuck himself with bananas or “plantains because they’re bigger.” One of the worst parody skits was The Key of Awesome’s Thor:TDW parody.

Loki is put into a “normal” prison instead of the “glowy” kind he kept escaping from. The main joke was Loki getting raped in prison. And that now he can’t act all “haughty” about Thor’s request for help, and is instead the "desperate" one. And you’ll see some old comments over how hilarious that is. And people arguing about how weak or powerful Loki is and bringing the Norse myth about him being raped by a horse into it as proof that the terrible “joke” makes sense and could happen in cannon.

An example that almost made it into the screen is a deleted scene in Thor Ragnarok that I refer to as “the director’s barely disguised fetish”, where instead of falling for 30 minutes, Loki gets locked in a portable restroom while men continuously enter to piss. Loki’s trying his best not to get pissed on. Thor opens the stall giggling, and of course Loki is rightfully angry about being trapped there. It seems to veer into the “bad guys deserve sexual assault as punishment” to an uncomfortable degree.

I often just keep quiet on MCU Loki defense discourse because:

1. Loki is a popular character with many defenders.

2. Subsets of Loki fans are ridiculous and use false pretenses to harass writers and actors. And the discourse that arises from this is mind-numbing and pointless.

But I remember all this crap from the early 2010s, and I am not fond of Loki being deemed "Just evil, whiny, and ungrateful". There’s also the very questionable tropes from earlier Thor comics (hell some of these should ellicit WAY more backlash than Sylki if you really care that much about rep). I also don’t like being told what characters I should and shouldn’t like, and I have taken that personally ever since.

A part of me feels a bit unintentionally gaslighted when people act like there was no backlash to Loki being popular. It has the same vibes as the increduloulity of Gen Z regarding how BAD homophobia in the 2000s and early 2010s was.

[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!

[iamanartichoke]

I am posting this mostly to get it off my chest, and I'll probably regret it, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think the biggest problem I have with Fandom Wank(tm) in regards to positivity or negativity, is what bothers me has literally nothing to do with whether one's positivity/negativity will turn out to be right.

last night I followed a couple of posts and went down a rabbit hole of "series negativity" bashers' posts, bc apparently I hate myself and do not wish to be in a good mental space right now, and the common thread I noticed is that those who are overwhelmingly positive and take issue with criticism seem to be doing so bc they see their own versions of Loki being portrayed on-screen, either as how they've interpreted him as a character in generral or as how they've written him in fics. And not only are they fiercely protective of those versions but they also get validation from the confirmation that their Loki is The Right Loki(tm). Criticism takes the on-screen portrayal (and, subsequently, their own personal versions of The Right Loki(tm)) and says, uh, I can't actually see Loki doing this? I think this is ooc? I think Loki as portrayed here is not consistent with previous portrayals? -

- and suddenly you've got this rabid backlash on your hands where it becomes 'omg stop being toxic,' 'your headcanon is not canon' (look in the mirror), 'this is tom's loki so it's accurate,' 'i see no difference whatsoever in characterization y'all're just deluded and have invented a loki that never existed' (tf????), etc.

And I can't help but conclude that the backlash against criticism/negativity has nothing to do with the criticism itself; it's more to do with the undermining of someone else's validation in how they view this character.

This is purely speculation. There's some mental gymnastics here, admittedly. I could be way off base and I realize that I risk my post being shared and misconstrued and mocked by even posting it publicly. But the only reason I'm writing this - and thus getting it off my chest after my spiral down the rabbit hole - is bc from my point of view, I didn't feel like my experience in enjoying this tv show was being threatened until the discourse backlash over the negativity started spilling onto my dash. Not the negativity itself; the actual discourse. (And, look, there's a lot of negativity that's been posted that I don't agree with whatsoever, and there's other negativity that I may agree with but don't agree that it's an issue, or - my point is, this isn't bc I don't have conflict with the actual arguments themselves.)

Full disclosure: for the first three weeks, I was more positive than not regarding the show. (I think I still am.) I posted about what I liked but I also posted about what I felt was ooc and about the elements I liked less. A lot of my mutuals are not thrilled (to say the least) with the show, so there was already a ton of negativity on my dash and I personally went through a few minor meltdowns on whether or not I was on the right page with my enjoyment when so many others (whose opinions I trust and whose versions of Loki [that I've read] in fic ring true to me) were not sharing that enjoyment.

I did/have been talking it out with friends who feel similarly and I've more or less come to terms with being in the middle. And in the meantime, when I felt like the negativity was not something I wanted to be cognizant of, I skipped those posts entirely. Doing these things allowed me to come to terms with where I was standing regarding my overall feelings on the series, and overall enjoyment with my fandom experience.

And then, mostly after episode 3 (which seems to be the most divisive so far), discourse started popping up on my dash more and more. I'm defining discourse, in this context, as 'wank regarding whether or not Loki is actually ooc, wank over people who enjoy the show not wanting to see the negativity, wanky posts asking people who are critical to reserve judgement until the show has finished airing (but praise is fine)' -

- and suddenly, I feel much more self-conscious about posting my takes. Suddenly I feel much more anxiety about hitting the "post" button when said post is more critical than not. Suddenly I am worried about who, exactly and actually, is reading my posts? Who is going to decide to paraphrase my takes and include them in a 'guess what they're complaining about NOW' post? Who is going to decide to pass around a post I've made only to mock it, as has happened to some of my friends already?

Over the past three days, I have gotten 30+ new followers, and instead of feeling good about it - hey, some of these may be porn bots but still, people are interested in my blog?! - I feel just increasing anxiety about it bc, I mean, I don't know who anyone is or what they're here for.

I do not feel secure in the current fandom environment, is what I'm saying, and the reason I do not feel secure is not because of the negativity; it's because of the wank coming from the people who post about the negativity and mock the negativity and call other fans deluded stans who have a shitty grasp on characterization, story telling, and Loki in general. It's Ragnarok bullshit all over again, only worse.

And this circles me back to my original point, which is that the anxiety and the wank/discourse and whatever else really has nothing to do with the on-screen portrayal of Loki.

For me, personally? It took me awhile to realize it, admittedly, but I did realize that I do not care if what I perceive as ooc actually isn't. I do not care if the final product of Loki - once the entire series has aired - is a different Loki than what I've written and perceived as "my" Loki all this time. It's not going to make me feel like less of a fan or less valid; it's just going to make me feel like I have a perception of Loki that may differ in some ways with "canon Loki" but is still similar enough that I will continue to enjoy engaging with him and writing meta about him and writing fic about him and sharing those things with people who view Loki similarly. Likewise, I am not going to feel less valid as a writer and a critical thinker; it doesn't make me feel like I have anything to prove.

So if the root of the wank is coming down to the negativity making you feel less valid or less vindicated bc "your" Loki matches the show but is being called ooc by a lot of other fans, like, maybe take a step back and consider not taking it personally? Maybe really think about why the fact that negativity exists bothers you so much? Bc I mean, at the end of the day, it's not like Tom Hiddleston himself is going to descend from the clouds with a choir of angels singing and acknowledge any one of us as The One True Fan Who Has The Best Interpretation Ever of Loki. So what actual difference does it make if (we agree or disagree that) he's ooc or not?

Ultimately I'm just saying, there is definitely wank that is ruining the fandom atmosphere and the show in general, and it's not coming from those who are posting their negativity and criticism of the source material.

*Disclaimer that this is how I am perceiving and interpreting things today and possibly in general, but I'm not necessarily saying that my perception is factual to what is actually happening. I don't know what is happening. This is the guess that I've come up with in order to reconcile the fandom discomfort I feel, discomfort which is ruining the show for me, and where it's all coming from.

** Second disclaimer that I have unfollowed those who were participating in the wank, if I was following them in the first place, to the point that it made me uncomfortable, and obviously this post doesn't apply to everyone bc there is a certain amount of just being tired of it that I understand, so if we're mutuals, this doesn't apply to you regardless of where you stand on the wank.

*** Third disclaimer that said fandom environment is what makes me feel like I have to add disclaimers on every fucking thing I say, partly bc people read what they want to read and partly bc I have very debilitating anxiety regarding being misunderstood.

[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.

[theapathetickat]

crona + food headcanons

(TW: There is some discussion of Crona’s childhood trauma considering starvation was a huge part, but I tried to focus more on how they heal from it and things they discover outside of it)

-Crona doesn’t waste food unless it’s an absolute sensory nightmare to eat, and it helps that Ragnarok’s stomach(?) is basically a bottomless pit so if even they can’t finish it, he has almost zero pickiness.

-However, Crona is not a big fan of carbonated drinks. sparkling water especially is a hell beverage.

-They have a hard time tolerating super spicy food too, yet Ragnarok loves the stuff. He tends to put a lot of hot sauce on his helping when Crona cooks.

-When Crona was finally allowed to actually cook and create things in the kitchen, they tended to just put stuff together if they think it’s gonna taste good regardless of established culinary convention. This has led to new food combo discourses amongst their friend group.

-The first time Maka asked if they’d like to share her bag of chips Crona thought about the resulting emotion they got from that for at least 3 business days.

-When Crona does start internalizing that it’s ok (thanks to support and therapy) and that they don’t need to weigh whether or not they deserve to eat based on whatever’s happened or anyone’s approval, they decide that They Are Not Going To Let Anyone Take This Away From Them Anymore. 

(Though refusing something they dislike but can still physically tolerate is a whole new ballpark when it comes to figuring out what to unlearn from their past in order to do that comfortably. Unless it’s something made of rabbit, they’re swearing off of eating that for personal reasons)

-They have a hard time tolerating being hungry for very long after they get used to having consistent access to food, their body and brain are just like Nope I Don’t Want To Go Through That Again. they end up bringing a lot of snacks for missions and road trips and stuff to keep this feeling staved off. (The snacks were Tsubaki’s idea because Crona brought it up to her once)

-Crona tends to prefer snacks that aren’t aggressively flavored. Plain chips are fine for them, thank you very much. 

-However, they’ll eat potato chips dipped in ketchup but they’d prefer not to have ketchup flavored chips (it’s completely different, trust me)

-They’re not always a fan of Certain Foods Touching Other Foods on the plate but they feel worse about bringing that up so they just feed the bit that’s too messed up to Ragnarok

-Someone asked Crona what their favorite meal was and they just said “any of them.”

-Basically I think they’d exist on this continuum between figuring out a new love of all things food for themself and handling sensory preferences and past issues concerning it

[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

[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

[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.    

[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

[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.