Can we plz talk about how Thor literally left Asgard without an heir? Right after it was attacked? Knowing that his father went reckless after his mother's death?
....
Are we sure that what Loki did in the end of TDW was a "bad" decision?

@jebbifurzz / jebbifurzz.tumblr.com
Can we plz talk about how Thor literally left Asgard without an heir? Right after it was attacked? Knowing that his father went reckless after his mother's death?
....
Are we sure that what Loki did in the end of TDW was a "bad" decision?
That is the role of poetry. To say what others cannot utter.
the last couple of episodes of supernatural season 5 are fun bc sam is all "hey guys i'm probably not even 27 years old yet and i'm asking for your permission to let me kill myself and damn my soul to eternal torment trapped in hell forever so that the world can be saved" and instead of literally anybody making any comment on how that's, like, kinda noble, like, wow sam that's pretty benevolent of you nice work! or anything like that, his family is just like "okay wait are you sure you're not too stupid, evil and/or weak to actually do it correctly?" i just think that's fun
just watched q who and uh. i think q might be gay for real
Ok but after having to listen to Valdo Marx on repeat for almost the entirety of episode 5, I feel you Jaskier. Fuck that guy.
Yes! At first, I was like ah, Valdo's not so bad. But gods, if I have to hear any more of that song from episode 5, I will reach into the screen and punch Valdo myself. I think what I hated most was how the lyrics were just the same contrived warning on infinite repeat. Like yes, we all get it, shit's about to go down on Thanedd, and everybody here has a hidden agenda. But somebody shut the stupid troubadour of Cidaris up now!
Okay, I always see this discourse about book Geralt being so much happier, kinder to Dandelion/Jaskier, and full of sunshine and rainbows somehow.
I am almost done with Baptism of Fire, and this just... doesn't seem to be the case? I mean, I will say that book Geralt talks more, and he expresses himself more eloquently. But he is super depressed and taciturn, and he yells at Dandelion to shut up like every few pages...?
So where is this discourse coming from? Or am I misinterpreting these things?
Thinking about it some more. “You might want to take the stairs to the left.” Might be more sarcasm than a suggestion anyway. Because we can clearly see in the shot immediately following that line that the stairs to the right are blocked by a bunch of prisoners and guards fighting. Kursed literally pauses to stare at them. And idk if there’s enough to claim good motives in this case, but you know who is fighting off to the right? Volstagg and Fandral so “you’re welcome” to them I guess for Loki sending the dude who has, mere seconds ago, demonstrated that he can literally turn guards into husks in seconds, the other direction. Everyone wants to blame Loki for “killing Frigga” but no one wants to mention that advising Kursed to take the other stairs (which he might’ve done anyway eventually) potentially saved 2 of his brother’s friends
I'm totally thinking of Orihime and Ulquiorra here, if their hands had been able to meet before Ulquiorra faded away.
This what I mean for as much as Thor might love Loki he doesn't actually care about his feelings.
I remember a shadow, living in the shade of your greatness. I remember you tossing me into an abyss, I who was and should be king!
What does Thor do when he hears this? Dismiss Loki's feelings and make it about himself. He's not concerned his brother feels this way. His brother tried to commit suicide right in front him and Thor essentially gaslights Loki when he finally airs his grievances.
The thing is I don't think this was accidental on the part of the creators. As far as Thor 2011 through TDW goes I think it's intentional that Thor's not being the brother he should be. That Loki's actions were coming from a place of real pain rather than purely selfish. But then Ragnarok happened and took everything at face value. Then story from there decided that yeah, Loki's problems are imagined slights.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what Loki's arc was supposed to have been in the show. He's narcissist (?) Who needs to learn to love himself (??) And so he falls in love with another version of himself (???) Which shows he can finally love someone other than himself (????) Because he's scared to be by himself(?????) Is it just me or does this not add up? Like they're trying to have two arcs for Loki that directly contradict each other.
lmao perfectly put.
the show’s “logic” is completely contradictory. they basically made an anti loki show that is a complete character assassination but pretended that they were gonna give the fans what they wanted. so they made a show about him calling himself a pathetic narcissistic loser but tried to pretend that was self love. also they can’t write.
the only consistent rule in the show is that everything loki does, says and is, is wrong and everyone who mocks or is cruel to him is in the right. so the tva is justified when they hurt loki. but also they are evil when sylvie fights them bc she’s a favored oc. but also mobius isn't to blame bc he’s another treasured oc.
number 1 most consistent message in the show is that Loki sucks and deserves to suffer
...the number 2 most consistent message is that fascism is good actually.
True that bi characters in m/f pairings are valid, but like…
Are we just going to ignore the fact that tv writers in the last 10 or so years have figured out that they can continue to pander to homophobes and simultaneously get queer rep brownie points by never showing any actual queer content at all, having a character in 52 different m/f relationships, never once alluding to them being into same sex stuff… and then just giving a one sentence easily-edited-out vague confirmation of them being bisexual?
You guys are so starved for any confirmed queer rep at all that you’re perfectly happy letting film companies get away with this shit and it’s frustrating as hell honestly.
#like? I’m tired-#this is about the Loki show specifically but it applies to quite a few others as well#I see mfs on Twitter (and on here) all the time fighting to the death to defend Herron and Waldron etc over the bi loki thing#when like#babes???#WHAT bi loki thing??#if you had reached for an m&ms at the wrong time you would’ve missed the entirety of the show’s Bi Rep completely#it’s almost nonexistent#I’m begging young queer people to demand just a tad bit more#fucking please#antisylki#anti sylvie#anti loki series#queer representation via @musclesandhammering
yeah and also. re the loki show in particular. let’s look at how loki was characterized. in the show where they made him bi (with one vague line of dialogue) they also retconned his entire character and turned him into a pile of offensive stereotypes about queer men stacked on top of each other under a hideous beige trench coat.
like. suddenly in the show he’s bad at exercise and complaining about having to walk too much? despite being a an alien viking warrior prince from a warlike society? despite many previous canonical scenes where we saw him engage in physical exertion and demanding fight scenes with no problem? despite having gone toe to toe with Thor, who is probably the most powerful warrior in Asgard, and more than held his own? but no. suddenly in the show he’s weak and bad at sports. for no reason that has anything to do with his previous characterization in canon.
same with him going from being very minimalist in his movements and expressions to suddenly waving his arms and flailing around constantly like an overdramatic cartoon octopus on cocaine. same with him suddenly being extremely cowardly even tho before even when he was afraid one of his defining features was his refusal to show it. he was also previously characterized as being very quiet (in direct contrast to Thor’s brashness and directness - because remember they started out as foils) but suddenly the show wants us to believe he’s overly talkative.
And yeah sure. someone could happen to have these traits and also be queer. bc queerness is not a personality type. any type of person can be queer. but none of these character traits were ever associated with Loki’s original canon actions and characterization. and that to me does not seem like it deserves to be called good representation.
and that’s without getting into the whole bit where the whole plot revolves around how loki deserves to be beaten, dehumanized, tortured, assaulted, humiliated, and called names. not only deserves it, but that it is funny when this happens and the audience should laugh and his mistreatment. and we should cheer when loki hugs the person who called him a cockroach and subjected him to torture. that's what we're told by the show.
miss me with that. that’s not progressive. AT ALL. and Disney shouldn’t be able to get away with it.
Loki (during Ragnarok): So how is it you’re updated on the goings-on of Asgard?
Thor: I asked Heimdall and he told me.
Loki: *blinks* you have some sort of communication device?
Thor: no I asked him to help me see and then we did like a teleconference with his powers
Loki: ……..you’re telling me that, here, on this trash planet, outside the Nine - only accessible via wormhole- where time is practically nonexistent. Here, Heimdall can NOT ONLY see you, but also talk to you?
Thor: yes. And I can see him as well. Why are you looking so angry? What- no, don’t cry! Loki- come back!
Yes. I firmly believe that Heimdal could see what was happening to Loki when he was with Thanos. Or, you know, he completely didn’t think of searching for him, because he hates Loki.
(I don’t care that he half-assed welcomed Loki home in Ragnarok. I don’t even consider that trashfire movie canon. He was ready to chop Loki’s head off in Thor 1. Only because Loki had removed him from his job for treason. Heimdal has never treated Loki as a prince. I don’t think he even treated him as a person. Because who else would know the truth about Loki’s Jotun heritage, other than Odin and Frigga? Heimdal.)
My biggest issue with Ragnarok's "anti-imperialism" is that Loki's backstory is just forgotten. The way Odin raised him could very easily become an allegory about the way the US and Canada treated too many of their Indigenous people: kidnapping children, denying them any information about their heritage, teaching them that their culture was savage. "Kill the Indian, save the man" rhetoric. But this kind of thing is never addressed, Loki's heritage is never going to be addressed by Disney or their creators.
I think Ragnarok came out before most mainstream media was really talking about the horrors of residential schools. At the same time, now that it is more well-known, I don't think it would be very appropriate for Disney to do anything with that. Or maybe it would be? Idk, seems like people stopped talking about it fairly quickly (I don't blame anyone for that- there's so much other stuff going on in the world too.) I don't have a concrete opinion on who should be making stories about this, but I know that history in my own family definitely informs my thoughts on Loki.
Yup. TR claims to be anti imperialist but is it though? is it really? bc I don't think so. What exactly is anti imperialist about it?
Thor finds out that Asgard was imperialist? He already knew that! He was raised to believe in that. From the time he was a child he was saying he wanted to slaughter all the Jotnar. Bc that was the type of view and behavior that was encouraged. Asgard is an imperialist warlike monarchy without democracy and with values that glorify war and conquest. In TDW Thor puts down rebellions.
Ok well what about in TR? Maybe it retconned that. Nope! In TR the "bad" thing Loki does while ruling in disguise as Odin is end Asgard's imperialist policies by ceasing to control the affairs of subordinated realms and regions and focus more on the arts than on war. Not sure how portraying those things as "bad" is anti imperialist.
Also. Loki is a victim of Asgardian imperialism. He was taken from his people and taught to hate his own species. And the message of the movie is that he should just get over it and be grateful to the people who did that to him.
When Thor tortures Loki into submission towards the end of the movie it is portrayed as justified. And Loki gets redeemed by accepting that torture and then obediently rushing to aid Thor (if the character in TR can even really be called Thor, bc for all Thor's flaws he would never torture a helpless victim for fun, and especially would never do something like that to Loki). Like the message is that the victim of imperialistic cultural genocide can earn "redemption" by ceasing to question his kidnappers and must instead learn to embrace their viewpoints and loyally serve them.
ALSO. The movie ends with Thor being likened to Odin and gaining strength thru learning to be more like him and leaning on his advice. Thor being visually likened to Odin in the end is presented as positive.
And Loki's whole backstory as the most visible major character who is a victim of Asgardian imperialism is mocked and sidelined.
HOW TF IS ANY OF THAT ANTI IMPERIALIST? If anything the messaging is PRO imperialist. Saying "yeah imperialism is a thing that happened" is not inherently anti imperialist. Many imperialist societies say this bc they don't view it as a bad thing. The Romans proudly boasted of their Empire. That didn't make them woke.
Acknowledging imperialist actions is only progressive if the context also includes acknowledging those actions were wrong. If the actions are being openly acknowledged because they aren't even considered shameful that's not anti imperialist....
Okay, you know, ever since I've watched Endgame for the first time, I had a question which I really want to get an answer to:
Who the hell decided that an alcoholic with huge anger issues, who has been a slave trader for longer than half of asgardian population is alive, and who also was only taught to be a warrior, which also means that she doesn't know ANYTHING about ruling, is a perfect choice to be in charge of Asgard?
I get that there was no better options: Thor admitted that he wasn't going to be a decent king in TDW, and he had depression in Eg, and Loki was dead, but why do movies pretend that Valkyrie was a GOOD choice? The ONLY one? - Yes. But definitely not good.
"I don't like that Loki is so bitter to Thor"
...Idk, if I was mocked and humiliated by my brother and his friends all my life, had to listen to him swearing to murder my entire species since he was a kid, was mind controlled&tortured and he didn't notice, was visited by him only when he needed my help to save his girlfriend who likes to touch dangerous stuff for some reason, was left on an empty planet bleeding because he didn't check if i was alive or didn't even bother to give me a funeral, was told that he would rather leave me on a planet ruled by a maniac and then tortured by him, I would probably be bitter too.
Probably. Just a bit.