space viking king lear

anonymous asked:

This may seem like a really, really stupid question, but I just saw the second Thor movie and *sigh*. Do you believe that Loki has the ability deep (and I mean *deeeep*), down to be good? I understand that he will never be "good" in the way that Thor and Jane and everyone else is, but, do you believe that he has the potential to be "less evil?" (I'm sorry if this is a jumbled mess, but do you see what I'm trying to say here?)

honestly, i doubt it?

the great thing about the entire thor franchise for me isn’t so much about good or bad - because the movies do an amazing job of showing the fact that someone can be good AND bad; thor is kind and generous AND he is brutal and bloodthirsty, jane is incredibly intelligent and ambitious AND her ambition often leads her to be insensitive and dismissive, odin tries to be a good king and a good father AND he is blinded by his pride, frigga is loving and brave and intelligent AND she often overlooks the crimes of her children and husband.

and loki exemplifies this more than anyone else - he’s ambitious and driven and intelligent and strategic and he loves his brother and his mother and his father and he is capable of diplomacy and he’s talented and witty and charming AND he’s petty and violent and bloodthirsty and narcissistic and childish and cruel. he’s all of these things and none of them. it’s not about evil. it’s about the fact that loki has his own ends - as does anyone else - and his ends are human and his ends are understandable, it’s rather method, i think, that people take issue with. (obviously. i hope everyone takes issue with genocide.) the great thing about him is that he never compromises what he does by what he SHOULD do, if that makes any sense. there’s really no way to put a moral compass on him, there’s no way to say that what he’s doing at any point is evil or not because he will always follow his own code, and sometimes that leads him to assist thor, sometimes it leads him to pull some of the shit he does in the movie. he’s always, always, beautifully narcissistically consistent. he’s always himself. i don’t think he can be any less capricious without compromising his character.

so what i’m really trying to say, is ‘fuck less evil’, enjoy the ride.

anonymous asked:

this is probably a bit of a loaded question - but what are the main changes that you would have made to loki's character in thor 2? in what ways did the director screw up loki's character/story and what would you have done instead?

i never got the impression that loki suffered that much out of thor 2 at all?

like, my main beef with the film was the fact that it managed to undercut every. single. arc. APART from loki’s. loki came out FINE. loki got exactly what he wanted and he got his full emotional range and he got his conclusive chapter of his fully formed arc; he was born to be a king and he got the kingdom he always wanted. the only thing you can say that he was denied out of thor 2 was that they undercut the emotional resonance of frigga’s death to him by having him go after the throne instead of malekith but then again, that’s more about fridging frigga for an emotional response that got cut than it is about being ~unfair~ to loki.

so my problem with the film is that instead of focusing on thor - i am still! annoyed! about the fact that they pretty much ended thor 2 at the same point as they did thor 1; thor thinks loki is dead! thor goes to earth and will definitely at some unspecified point find out that his brother is still alive leading to more angst! ugh boring - it… was pretty much Loki: The Sequel to Tom Hiddleston’s SDCC Appearance. which is just so BORING it’s so BORING and there’s a reason why thor 2 is the lowest rated phase 2 film. tony stark can pull the ‘im a new man’ move in every movie and get away with it (see: he makes this speech at the end of EVERY iron man film) bc rdj is the 'godfather’ of the marvel movies, and he’s got tremendous star power and the iron man films are still consistently marvel’s highest earning standalones. thor doesn’t have as much mainstream appeal as tony stark, doesn’t have cap’s modern relevancy, doesn’t have the pure weird of guardians of the galaxy, but the conclusion you draw is not 'the only thing good about thor is loki’. that is the absolute wrong way to go about it. 

see, the reason why the winter soldier worked out so well is because the russos took a character who didn’t have tony stark’s mainstream appeal - i mean, it was pretty obvious pre cap 2 that evans is probably the least liked avenger for casual viewers, i mean come on - and decided to invest in him. they wrote him in a way that was interesting and appealing without diminishing his inner goodness, they made him snarky! but not at the cost of his kindness. they made him relevant! but not at the cost of the character that was set up in the first avenger. granted, neither cap or iron man has a popular villain like loki, but jesus, jesus, JESUS, that only means you had to step up your hero, not give the bigger arc or the most emotionally resonant part to your villain.

also, it doesn’t help that thor 2 felt really incomplete and was tonally all over the place and also fridged one woman, made another woman eye up another woman in a hostile way despite romantic interest never being implied in the first film, and had jane foster passed out for like ¼ of her otherwise admittedly awesome role.

anonymous asked:

can i ask you a thing seriously? do you think thor will be a good boyfriend to jane? i ask this because i just watched the movie and i realized that while thor did spend a lot of time fighting to protect the realms once it was all over it didnt feel like he would go back to her and it seems he only did because she was in trouble. and her ending isn't very promising like she is literally waiting for him to show up again and i didnt like at all that it was implied she spent two years moping

and gave up her research, that it was darcy and selvig working while she didnt take baths and stuffing her face with icecream (which is awesome i love icecream) and god when she literally gave up her life to die with him at the end i almost puked because he IS A THUNDER GOD AND BEAUTIFUL NOBLE GENTLE GUY BUT YOU DONT JUST GIVE UP YOUR LIFE FOR SOMEONE YOU BARELY KNOW BECAUSE LIKE IT OR NOT THEY DONT AND I’M SO TROUBLED ABOUT THIS AND THE ENDING WITH HER WAITING FOR HIM ONCE AGAIN AND GAH HE HAS ALL HIS DUTIES AS PRINCE OF HIS KINGDOM AND PROTECTOR OF THE NINE REALMS AND WITH THE AVENGERS BUT WILL HE HAVE TIME FOR HER AND ALL HIS BAGAGE BECAUSE HE JUST LOST HIS MOTHER AND BROTHER (TWICE) IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME WITH NO TIME TO MOURN AND LOKI IS TRASH BUT SHE DIDNT OFFER CONDONLENCES TO HIM ONCE EVEN AFTER HIS BREAKDOWN WITH LOKI I HAVE SO MANY ISSUES WITH WHERE SHE IS LEFT AT THE ENDING I KNOW THERES THE SECOND AFTER CREDITS SCENE BUT I’M REALLY UPSET ABOUT EVERYTHING I’m so sorry to annoy you but its because i think Jane had such a beautiful potential in the first movie and to see them writing her like that just broke me (I’m not denying she was great at the ending with Eric’s machine thing but she did no science in the movie even that was Eric’s stuff that she figured how to use but still I’m upset

okay first of all, i think that thor would be an amazing boyfriend because thor is pretty much without flaw. and im also going to break this up into sections because it’s quite a wall of text, yo.

  1. thor only came back to jane after he realized she was in trouble.
  2. jane spent two years moping for him and is shown waiting for him again at the end of the film, and is hinted to have given up her research during the two years.
  3. jane was ready to die with thor.
  4. jane didn’t offer thor condolences.
  5. jane did no science in the movie until the end.

i can already tell this is going to get long, so let’s break it up.

Keep reading