Avatar

an inviolable sanctuary

@yume-no-fantasy / yume-no-fantasy.tumblr.com

Multifandom - anime, games, Marvel, random stuff.

The Purpose of Loki’s Death

The Purpose of Loki’s Death

Tom has mentioned during the ACE comic con panel that he has known about the scene for two years.

This was what Thanos said in this test footage: “I got the information that I need, and now I have to break your neck. It’s just the way it is.

For reference, here’s some stuff from the Avengers: Infinity War director’s audio commentary during the opening scene:

McFeely: We’re starting the script in December, say January of 2016. There’s no Ragnarok script. They’re in in various stages of development, and so the first scene of this movie changed a bunch. And until we figured out that they were gonna end on a trip off of a destroyed Asgard, we didn’t know where Thanos would find Loki.

Markus: We did know we wanted Thanos to come to Loki. And we would find him in any… We have drafts of him in any number of places.

McFeely: It establishes a vengeance story for Thor by taking out his brother and arguably, his best friend.

Joe Russo: Part of what we wanted to do out of the gate was to unsettle you as you’re watching the film. You’re sitting in the theatre thinking, “Most characters in the Marvel Universe have been safe for a decade.” And we wanted to knock you off-kilter and make the audience understand that the stakes were going to be significant and the cost was going to be very high in the movie.

Markus: And in that regard, this scene does away with a lot of things from the ongoing MCU. That was… The first MacGuffin from the first Captain America movie just got crushed and stuck into a glove.

Anthony: Bye bye, Tesseract.

Markus: And shortly, the villain from the first Avengers movie

McFeely: Right. Arguably the best villain in the MCU…

Markus: …will achieve a similar end.

Anthony: Aside from establishing… introducing Thanos as our lead and POV in the movie, this scene also heavily kicks off Thor’s arc in the film.

Anthony: The one thing that’s wonderful, one thing we all really responded to about Thor is where he’s left at the end of Ragnarok with the destruction of Asgard… And there’s something fascinating about exporing these people as you strip away who they are and their built-out identities, and find out what’s left. I think we’re going through a very similar process with Thor in this film, especially with this scene, we’re sort of completing the experience that Ragnarok brought to Thor in the sense that we’re taking away the rest of everything away from him.

McFeely: And remember, he (Thanos) had a relationship with Loki even if it was off-screen where he entrusted him with a duty in Avengers 1 and Loki failed, so...

Joe: He’s making him pay.

McFeely: Yeah. Thanos has a long memory.

Anthony: Yep. Fair enough.

Part of an interview with the IW screenwriters:

Stephen McFeely: Hemsworth came to set, and went, “You guys really need to understand that we are doing something different with Ragnarok.” And we knew they were changing it some, but it was so early in the process, so we flew [Ragnarok screenwriter] Eric Pearson and [director] Taika Waititi in and we had long conversations with them. There are at least a couple of jokes in there Taika himself said in passing that we thought were gold. They showed us a few scenes, so we knew that Thor was being re-toned. And we needed to embrace that.

Christopher Markus: But it was also the realization that even in the “funny” one [Ragnarok], his father and his sister die, and that he’s almost becoming comically unlucky at this point, and to follow that to its natural conclusions.

So in summary, Loki’s death scene was decided since two years ago and he mainly died for the following purposes:

  1. Set the tone for the movie by showing Thanos’ cruelty
  2. For shock value
  3. Give place to the new “best” MCU villain Thanos
  4. Fuel Thor’s motivation for revenge, to further Thor’s storyline and character development from where he left off in Ragnarok 

Evidently, none of the above reasons has anything to do with Loki’s arc and character development.

In terms of narrative, it was mentioned in the IW commentary that here Thanos was actually punishing Loki for failing to fulfill his duty in the first Avengers film, but IMO that’s just a load of crap. Thanos was already going to leave the ship; it was Loki who suddenly popped up with his butter knife. Also, what Loki was promised in Avengers was this: “You will long for something as sweet as pain.”

But how could death be worse than pain for Loki, when he had already let himself die twice before? (Just in case anyone wishes to protest that he faked his own death in Ragnarok, please read this first)

In TDW he even said this: “If I am for the axe, then for mercy’s sake, just swing it.”

Loki isn’t afraid and does not cower in the face of death, unlike what had been portrayed of his character in Ragnarok, which was just OOC af. Though I’m glad they rectified this part of his character in IW, the way he died was just too needlessly brutal and meaningless, and also stupid. If the writers truly meant for Thanos to punish Loki in the worst possible way like what was foreshadowed in A1, to be honest it would make more sense to kill Thor instead (just saying). But as it is, the directors and writers were just making excuses and don’t actually care.

I assert that this is a direct result of Thor: Ragnarok. Those who don’t follow the Ragnarok discussions may think this is ridiculous, but really, it’s not. This was what I wrote on 20 Apr, before IW was released:

“…when you consider the fact that Thanos arrived right after he said that, and just minutes after he had told Loki ‘Maybe you’re not so bad after all’. It only proved Thor*’s opinion about Loki right–because of course Thor* can never be wrong–that Loki was just never-ending trouble. 

And what I’m worried about is that this will be taken into Infinity War and Loki will be made the scapegoat again.I don’t want Thor* to blame him again and make him feel like the only way he’ll be worthy of his brother’s love and forgiveness is to sacrifice himself to make up for his mistake of taking the Tesseract.”

I couldn’t believe this ended up being exactly what happened in IW, and I hated it so much. While the rest of the audience was laughing, my blood ran cold the moment Thor told Loki “you really are the worst brother”.

By now I think we can all agree that what Loki said—“I hereby pledge to you my undying fidelity”—was meant for Thor. If anyone’s not convinced, here:

‘Undying Fidelity’ was the title of the soundtrack that was playing from the instant Loki started saying ‘I, Loki, Prince of Asgard…’ to the moment Thor collapsed over his body.

Loki was crying when he said that. Assuming those were Loki’s tears (in character), then it was almost as if Loki had been prepared to die, as though his futile attempt at killing Thanos was deliberate. Why?!?!?! Just because Thor changed his mind about saying “maybe you’re not so bad after all” and told him he was the “worst brother”, so he wanted to prove his fidelity using his life??? It was foolish and OOC, is what I think. 

But then again, if we consider his character and their relationship in Ragnarok, it might not be that out of character after all… As a case in point, I’ve seen someone say this: 

If Loki couldn’t even trick Thor in Ragnarok, what makes you think he can outsmart Thanos?

In Ragnarok, his character was twisted and reduced to comic relief, his sacrifice and redemption in TDW was made to seem like a sham and a joke. A previously complex, multifaceted character was simplified into a misbehaving and terrible brother who would betray his only remaining family for the sake of money(?!). When the God of Mischief was asked whether he had a better idea than “get help”, he answered “no” as though it was supposed to be obvious. The graceful, regal, composed and witty prince of Asgard was played for a fool throughout most of the film. His brother criticized him in a way that made it sound like he had always been incorrigible, even though that’s definitely not true if you watched the previous films. Only when he compromised and became “good” on Thor*’s terms after listening to Thor*’s bullshit of a speech was he deemed redeemable.

In short, Ragnarok “put him in his place”, downplayed his powers, stripped him of his purpose, wits, importance and independence as a character, never gave him the equality and respect he wanted. 

The IW writers said this:

“…the first scene of this movie changed a bunch. And until we figured out that they were gonna end on a trip off of a destroyed Asgard, we didn’t know where Thanos would find Loki.”

“We did know we wanted Thanos to come to Loki. And we would find him in any… We have drafts of him in any number of places.”

But with how Ragnarok ended up, it became entirely too convenient. It made him too easy to kill off—they could simply make him sacrifice himself for his brother again, since his sacrifice in TDW was retconned into a faked death anyway. 

There wasn’t a need to think of an intricate plot for a character who no longer seemed important—they only needed to put the final nail in the coffin. Since it would serve all their purposes anyway, why not?

Loki was crying when he said that. Assuming those were Loki’s tears (in character), then it was almost as if Loki had been prepared to die, as though his futile attempt at killing Thanos was deliberate. Why?!?!?! Just because Thor changed his mind about saying “maybe you’re not so bad after all” and told him he was the “worst brother”, so he wanted to prove his fidelity using his life???

That suggestion about why Loki apparently deliberately sacrifices himself (to no useful purpose, btw – he knew he couldn’t actually hurt Thanos, and his death did nothing to help Thor’s situation) matches up exactly with @illwynd‘s analysis in this post: that what Ragnarok did to Thor and Loki’s relationship made Loki’s self-immolation the only place left for them to go.

Telling someone who has known trauma around identity and belonging “who you are is as a person is inadequate and I will disown you unless you change to suit my standards” is… 
… What Loki needed was to be able to trust in Thor’s love for him: that it wasn’t just circumstantial. That he, as a person, mattered to Thor, and that Thor would be able to re-accept him after his transgressions and would continue to value him. …  But the above scene from Ragnarok, Thor’s ultimatum, would utterly shatter Loki’s trust in all of those things. …
And to me it is fitting, under those circumstances, that Loki would go and get himself killed kinda-sorta on purpose at the first opportunity as well. I mean, last time he was in a similar situation of having been rejected by those he cared about, he threw himself into an abyss. And this time he even got to continue to try to prove himself to Thor while doing it, just like one might feel compelled to do after such an ultimatum.

And the thing is… even if Ragnarok hadn’t done away with Loki’s cleverness and planning ability, it might not be completely OOC for Loki to basically commit suicide in order to prove to Thor that he was good now. After all, Thor* told him that his identity as “the god of mischief” wasn’t valuable; he needed to become someone different, someone straightforwardly heroic. Loki couldn’t trust Thor to trust him, so if he had made a serious effort to do what I think he should have done (and what I think he would have done if Joss Whedon had still been writing…) – namely, insinuate himself into Thanos’s team to “make amends” for his previous failure – he would have feared, rightly, that Thor just thought he was turning wickedly self-interested again, changing his colors to suit whichever way the wind was blowing. Ragnarok would have actually needed to reestablish their mutual trust in order for that gambit to work (as I touched on in this post). As it is… well, as illwynd pointed out, we saw Loki’s response to rejection in Thor 1, when his planning abilities were perfectly intact. (And as usual, anyone who  says that was not a suicide attempt, just an attempt to escape punishment, can piss up a rope).

@philosopherking1887 Unless his death was part of some elaborate plan (which I think is highly unlikely), this would be the only logical explanation. And like you said, it was only made possible precisely because of what happened in Ragnarok. Because Ragnarok resolved nothing, or should I say, none of the conflict between them from the previous movies.

What Ragnarok did was ignore what happened before, frame Loki as an incorrigible, terrible brother who needed to be taught a lesson by Thor, and the "resolution" was him compromising with Thor's standards--in other words, acknowledging that Thor has always been the better one, that from start he was never good enough and his merits had no value. And the only way he could prove himself worthy and deserving of Thor's love was to become "heroic" on Thor's terms. Unlike what so many people believe, they did not reach a mutual understanding--because Loki never got the equality he always wanted. Everything that Thor learned in TDW, the positive affirmation he gave of Loki at the end, Loki's sacrifice--all of those were thrown out the window in Ragnarok.

And the result of this was what happened in IW--Loki dying to prove himself... again.

The Purpose of Loki’s Death

Tom has mentioned during the ACE comic con panel that he has known about the scene for two years.

This was what Thanos said in this test footage: “I got the information that I need, and now I have to break your neck. It's just the way it is.

For reference, here’s some stuff from the Avengers: Infinity War director’s audio commentary during the opening scene:

McFeely: We're starting the script in December, say January of 2016. There's no Ragnarok script. They're in in various stages of development, and so the first scene of this movie changed a bunch. And until we figured out that they were gonna end on a trip off of a destroyed Asgard, we didn't know where Thanos would find Loki.
Markus: We did know we wanted Thanos to come to Loki. And we would find him in any... We have drafts of him in any number of places.
McFeely: It establishes a vengeance story for Thor by taking out his brother and arguably, his best friend.
Joe Russo: Part of what we wanted to do out of the gate was to unsettle you as you're watching the film. You're sitting in the theatre thinking, "Most characters in the Marvel Universe have been safe for a decade." And we wanted to knock you off-kilter and make the audience understand that the stakes were going to be significant and the cost was going to be very high in the movie.
Markus: And in that regard, this scene does away with a lot of things from the ongoing MCU. That was... The first MacGuffin from the first Captain America movie just got crushed and stuck into a glove.
Anthony: Bye bye, Tesseract.
Markus: And shortly, the villain from the first Avengers movie...
McFeely: Right. Arguably the best villain in the MCU…
Markus: ...will achieve a similar end.
Anthony: Aside from establishing... introducing Thanos as our lead and POV in the movie, this scene also heavily kicks off Thor's arc in the film.
Anthony: The one thing that's wonderful, one thing we all really responded to about Thor is where he's left at the end of Ragnarok with the destruction of Asgard... And there's something fascinating about exporing these people as you strip away who they are and their built-out identities, and find out what's left. I think we're going through a very similar process with Thor in this film, especially with this scene, we're sort of completing the experience that Ragnarok brought to Thor in the sense that we're taking away the rest of everything away from him.
McFeely: And remember, he (Thanos) had a relationship with Loki even if it was off-screen where he entrusted him with a duty in Avengers 1 and Loki failed, so...
Joe: He's making him pay.
McFeely: Yeah. Thanos has a long memory.
Anthony: Yep. Fair enough.

Part of an interview with the IW screenwriters:

Stephen McFeely: Hemsworth came to set, and went, "You guys really need to understand that we are doing something different with Ragnarok." And we knew they were changing it some, but it was so early in the process, so we flew [Ragnarok screenwriter] Eric Pearson and [director] Taika Waititi in and we had long conversations with them. There are at least a couple of jokes in there Taika himself said in passing that we thought were gold. They showed us a few scenes, so we knew that Thor was being re-toned. And we needed to embrace that.
Christopher Markus: But it was also the realization that even in the "funny" one [Ragnarok], his father and his sister die, and that he's almost becoming comically unlucky at this point, and to follow that to its natural conclusions.

So in summary, Loki’s death scene was decided since two years ago and he mainly died for the following purposes:

  1. Set the tone for the movie by showing Thanos’ cruelty
  2. For shock value
  3. Give place to the new “best” MCU villain Thanos
  4. Fuel Thor’s motivation for revenge, to further Thor’s storyline and character development from where he left off in Ragnarok 

Evidently, none of the above reasons has anything to do with Loki’s arc and character development.

In terms of narrative, it was mentioned in the IW commentary that here Thanos was actually punishing Loki for failing to fulfill his duty in the first Avengers film, but IMO that’s just a load of crap. Thanos was already going to leave the ship; it was Loki who suddenly popped up with his butter knife. Also, what Loki was promised in Avengers was this: “You will long for something as sweet as pain.”

But how could death be worse than pain for Loki, when he had already let himself die twice before? (Just in case anyone wishes to protest that he faked his own death in Ragnarok, please read this first)

In TDW he even said this: “If I am for the axe, then for mercy’s sake, just swing it.”

Loki isn’t afraid and does not cower in the face of death, unlike what had been portrayed of his character in Ragnarok, which was just OOC af. Though I’m glad they rectified this part of his character in IW, the way he died was just too needlessly brutal and meaningless, and also stupid. If the writers truly meant for Thanos to punish Loki in the worst possible way like what was foreshadowed in A1, to be honest it would make more sense to kill Thor instead (just saying). But as it is, the directors and writers were just making excuses and don’t actually care.

I assert that this is a direct result of Thor: Ragnarok. Those who don’t follow the Ragnarok discussions may think this is ridiculous, but really, it’s not. This was what I wrote on 20 Apr, before IW was released:

“...when you consider the fact that Thanos arrived right after he said that, and just minutes after he had told Loki ‘Maybe you’re not so bad after all’. It only proved Thor*’s opinion about Loki right–because of course Thor* can never be wrong–that Loki was just never-ending trouble. 
And what I’m worried about is that this will be taken into Infinity War and Loki will be made the scapegoat again.I don’t want Thor* to blame him again and make him feel like the only way he’ll be worthy of his brother’s love and forgiveness is to sacrifice himself to make up for his mistake of taking the Tesseract.”

I couldn’t believe this ended up being exactly what happened in IW, and I hated it so much. While the rest of the audience was laughing, my blood ran cold the moment Thor told Loki “you really are the worst brother”.

By now I think we can all agree that what Loki said—“I hereby pledge to you my undying fidelity”—was meant for Thor. If anyone’s not convinced, here:

‘Undying Fidelity’ was the title of the soundtrack that was playing from the instant Loki started saying ‘I, Loki, Prince of Asgard…’ to the moment Thor collapsed over his body.

Loki was crying when he said that. Assuming those were Loki’s tears (in character), then it was almost as if Loki had been prepared to die, as though his futile attempt at killing Thanos was deliberate. Why?!?!?! Just because Thor changed his mind about saying “maybe you’re not so bad after all” and told him he was the “worst brother”, so he wanted to prove his fidelity using his life??? It was foolish and OOC, is what I think. 

But then again, if we consider his character and their relationship in Ragnarok, it might not be that out of character after all... As a case in point, I’ve seen someone say this: 

If Loki couldn’t even trick Thor in Ragnarok, what makes you think he can outsmart Thanos?

In Ragnarok, his character was twisted and reduced to comic relief, his sacrifice and redemption in TDW was made to seem like a sham and a joke. A previously complex, multifaceted character was simplified into a misbehaving and terrible brother who would betray his only remaining family for the sake of money(?!). When the God of Mischief was asked whether he had a better idea than “get help”, he answered “no” as though it was supposed to be obvious. The graceful, regal, composed and witty prince of Asgard was played for a fool throughout most of the film. His brother criticized him in a way that made it sound like he had always been incorrigible, even though that’s definitely not true if you watched the previous films. Only when he compromised and became “good” on Thor*’s terms after listening to Thor*’s bullshit of a speech was he deemed redeemable.

In short, Ragnarok “put him in his place”, downplayed his powers, stripped him of his purpose, wits, importance and independence as a character, never gave him the equality and respect he wanted. 

The IW writers said this:

“…the first scene of this movie changed a bunch. And until we figured out that they were gonna end on a trip off of a destroyed Asgard, we didn't know where Thanos would find Loki.”

“We did know we wanted Thanos to come to Loki. And we would find him in any... We have drafts of him in any number of places.”

But with how Ragnarok ended up, it became entirely too convenient. It made him too easy to kill off—they could simply make him sacrifice himself for his brother again, since his sacrifice in TDW was retconned into a faked death anyway. 

There wasn’t a need to think of an intricate plot for a character who no longer seemed important—they only needed to put the final nail in the coffin. Since it would serve all their purposes anyway, why not?

Avatar

“I think there’s both those two things [within Loki]; there’s someone who loves to start a fire and listen to the screams and someone who’s also trying to find acceptance in his own heart.”

The terrible interpretation of Loki’s character in Thor: Ragnarok

Things that Thor: Ragnarok director Taika Waititi said of Loki:

  • “Not to really wanna humiliate Loki all the way through the film, but because he was most definitely over-powered for a lot in the other films in terms of presence and his story, and kind of overshadowed (…) a little bit… This one, it was just nice to kind of switch it around, after all the shitty things that Loki’s done in the last few films…” (Source: Empire Film Podcast)
  • “space orphan”
  • “someone who tries so hard to embody this idea of the tortured artist, this tortured, gothy orphan”
  • “…this little emo goth hanging out by himself. He was like the kid in Harry Potter [Malfoy].”
  • has been trying to kill Thor his entire life

A number of significant ways in which Loki’s character was retconned in Ragnarok:

1.

Tom: Loki’s death on Svartalfheim was written as a death, and Chris and I played that scene for real. That was meant to be sort of that he redeemed himself. He helped save his brother and helped save Jane Foster, but he, in the process, sacrificed himself.

Ragnarok!Thor: You FAKED your own death

2.

TDW!Thor: Loki, for all his grave imbalance, understood rule as I know I never will.

Ragnarok!Thor: And what do I find, but the Nine Realms completely in chaos. Enemies of Asgard assembling, plotting our demise, all while you, Odin, the protector of those Nine Realms, are sitting here in your bathrobe, eating grapes.

3.

Tom: The best thing about Loki is that if he is afraid he won’t show it. He’s been highly trained through the experience of his slightly traumatic life to shield his fear. 

Loki in all other films:

Gagnarok!Loki:

Bonus:

“You’re a screw up, so whatever.”

Besides,

Thor 1 –

Thor: You are a trickster.
Loki: No, I’m more.

TDW –

Thor: You are a trickster.
Loki: No, I’m more.

Ragnarok –

Thor: You are a trickster but you could be more.
Loki: ……

(via twitter)

Avatar
lokiloveforever

Just when I think I could not hate that movie more. @yume-no-fantasy , I had never seen those Waititi quotes before. He makes me want to puke. He doesn’t know the first thing about Loki’s character, and he doesn’t care. I wish he’d just keep his stupid mouth shut. As a matter of fact, Loki was a tortured character, yes, and he wasn’t trying to be. He didn’t choose any of the things that happened to him. He was lied to and used. He was seen as less in the eyes of the people he loved the most.

And yes, he was artistic. Tom Hiddleston and Rene Russo together pictured Loki and Frigga having this sensitive, artistic relationship. Frigga’s magic was her art, and it was undervalued and unappreciated by those around her accept for Loki, who was affection starved and gladly took anything that was offered him. He loved her because she loved him, and he respected an appreciated the art she was kind enough to share with him!

And no, he did not try to kill Thor all his life. He loved and adored Thor, wanted to be just like him, wanted to be accepted by him and Odin. He wanted to be seen as worthy.

So Waititi admits that they were out to get Loki in Ragnargok, as a little payback for upstaging Thor in the other movies. You know, a character is only as good as the actor playing him, so you can’t blame Loki or Tom for being a better actor and being more committed to his role than others. It was CH who kept bitching about being bored and not liking Thor the way he was. That’s on him, not Loki or Tom.

I wish this movie didn’t exist. But what the hell, look at what Marvel did to Loki after that.

@lokiloveforever Honestly his words make me fume. Both his and CH's. I would say he knew very well that Loki didn't become a "tortured artist" by choice, which is precisely why he twisted it as such, making light of Loki's hurt and grievances intentionally, portraying them as something imagined and made up so that the audience wouldn't sympathise with Loki's predicament. And I think that's worse than ignorance.

What Marvel did to him in IW was merely an extension of what they did to him in TR, really.

The terrible interpretation of Loki’s character in Thor: Ragnarok

Things that Thor: Ragnarok director Taika Waititi said of Loki:

  • “Not to really wanna humiliate Loki all the way through the film, but because he was... most definitely overpowered Thor a lot in the other films in terms of presence and his story, and kind of overshadowed him a little bit… This one, it was just nice to kind of switch it around, after all the shitty things that Loki’s done in the last few films…” (Source: Empire Film Podcast)
  • "space orphan"
  • "someone who tries so hard to embody this idea of the tortured artist, this tortured, gothy orphan"
  • "...this little emo goth hanging out by himself. He was like the kid in Harry Potter [Malfoy]."
  • has been trying to kill Thor his entire life

A number of significant ways in which Loki's character was retconned in Ragnarok:

1.

Tom: Loki's death on Svartalfheim was written as a death, and Chris and I played that scene for real. That was meant to be sort of that he redeemed himself. He helped save his brother and helped save Jane Foster, but he, in the process, sacrificed himself.

Ragnarok!Thor: You FAKED your own death

2.

TDW!Thor: Loki, for all his grave imbalance, understood rule as I know I never will.

Ragnarok!Thor: And what do I find, but the Nine Realms completely in chaos. Enemies of Asgard assembling, plotting our demise, all while you, Odin, the protector of those Nine Realms, are sitting here in your bathrobe, eating grapes.

3.

Tom: The best thing about Loki is that if he is afraid he won’t show it. He’s been highly trained through the experience of his slightly traumatic life to shield his fear. 

Loki in all other films:

Gagnarok!Loki:

Bonus:

"You're a screw up, so whatever."

Thor: Killed people of Jotunheim because he was called a "princess" and nearly led Asgard into war because of his immaturity, arrogance and hotheadedness

Odin: Punished him by banishing to Midgard to learn his lesson and become better; he can come back to become king of Asgard once he proves himself worthy 😊

Loki: Killed people of Earth because he had turned mad and villainous after returning alive from an abyss that he fell into and was presumed dead, where he likely experienced unimaginable horrors that broke him and possibly had his mind manipulated by Thanos (A little background: He had let himself fall into the void out of despair, as Odin had denied him approval even after he tried so desperately to prove himself a worthy son. This was shortly after he had been hurt and devastated over learning that his whole life had been a lie, that he was actually adopted and was in fact the abanboned son of Asgard's enemy, one of those horrible monsters that he had heard so much about in bedtime stories and Thor had been so excited about slaying since they were children. He only ever sought to be Thor's equal--for years he was made to feel inferior, to feel like he was living in the shade of Thor's greatness, because of Odin's blatant favouritism towards Thor and also as a result of growing up in a society with a culture that honoured warriors and scorned magic users like him--but then he just found out that from the onset he was never meant to be Thor's equal in the way he believed he had the right to be.)

Odin: Told him his birth right was to die as a child, punished him by condemning him to life imprisonment and would have sentenced him to death if not for Frigga

Odin in Thor: Ragnarok :

"I love you, my sons"
Avatar

Большие кошки тоже любят коробки.

“big kitties also love boxes”

Avatar

oh my god he is so happpy

Avatar
coolcatgroup

I love cats so much

Avatar
coolcatgroup

Here’s some more big cats in boxes

Avatar
socialist-tomfoolery

Okay buddy at least one of these is a giraffe

Avatar
Avatar
I had the privilege of donning Captain America’s costume. I’m pleased to say it fit like a glove. (laughs)
Chris Evans - I take my hat off to him. He was so game. I put his costume on and I did a crude impression of Captain America and then later, he watched me do it. And so that performance that you see, is Chris Evans doing an impression of me doing an impression of him.
- Tom Hiddleston, Thor: The Dark World Commentary