OMG. I just discovered you're channel and this video was amazing. I loved your critic and I appreciate that you weren't afraid to go against the grain and point the movie's flaws. Dont get me wrong, I still like Thor: Ragnarok (it's very funny); but like you, my opinion of the film grew sour as I started noticing all the jokes that undermined to emotional beats of the movie. I also had this since of wrongness about the film that I couldn't full articulate until watching this video. Thank you, and I hope you're videos get more views. You really deserve them.
@@nerdydragonfan Thank you so much! Yeah, Ragnarok could have been really enjoyable as a standalone film for sure, but to conclude a series with nuanced character journeys in such a reductive, silly way doesn't sit right with me. I mention briefly at the end of the Ragnarok rewrite video I made that if they really wanted silly hijinks, I think they could have taken the Sakaar part of the film and used it as part of a separate Thor/Loki series. Like maybe the start of a Disney+ series following Thor and Loki on a "road trip" (the road trip thing makes more sense when I explain it in the video) where each episode is some new world they've gotten stuck on. Lower the stakes of the story, and let them just be silly, bickering brothers getting into mischief around the galaxy. It could be lighthearted good fun with enough separation from the film trilogy that it wouldn't have to undermine the more serious aspects of the characters' histories. Though they do already have so many Marvel Disney+ series. Not sure they need another one, but I would definitely watch a cheesy Thor/Loki road trip series.
I didn't even know there was a book. I found a Tom Hiddleston interview where he said having Loki betray Thor again and having Thor be one step ahead of him for once was actually his idea. He also knew Loki was going to die in the beginning of Infinity War by then, so he was thinking of that at the time. I don't like what Ragnorok or Infinity War did to Loki. I think he could have survived that film, made a contribution, and helped Thor out while still being a trickster.
To an extent, from one angle I can understand the appeal of having Loki betray Thor and Thor outsmart him. It /could/ work as a way to teach Loki, "Hey, this behaviour isn't going to keep working for you; it's not going to get you what you want in the end. Time to change." And it could also show a bit of growth for Thor too, if done well. But with how much this film and the characters are used to punish or malign Loki for one thing or another in every scene he's in, and knowing Waititi's feelings on Loki, it just comes across as malicious. Not to mention Loki's whole thing is supposed to be that he's cunning, but he engages in pretty stupid behaviour right before his betrayal. For example, going from saying, "I've lost favour with the Grandmaster and need to make a deal for safe passage off this planet to save my own skin" to saying "actually, after I help you, maybe I'll just stay on Sakaar, this place I just told you is now dangerous for me, this place I literally just made a deal with you so I could escape with my life." When I first watched the film, that discrepancy in Loki's motivation immediately had me raising an eyebrow, and I knew that either the script had consistency issues or else Loki was plotting something and had just made a huge slip. (And for no reason. He just offered up that comment unprompted.) So, no wonder Thor outsmarted him, I guess. In the book, Loki's comment about wanting to stay on Sakaar happens when Thor and Loki first reunite and realise they both made it to Sakaar. Thor wants to get off Sakaar with Loki, and Loki's like, "No thanks, I actually fit in here well. But good luck with your whole plan to defeat the champion thing." I felt placing that conversation earlier was much smoother for the story and better informed us of Loki's motivation. If they'd put that earlier in the film too, and allowed us more of a sense of just how much Loki really wanted to stay there and why...I'm not saying I would have liked Loki betraying Thor later, but at least I would have had more understanding and sympathy for why Loki was doing that, you know? And that's one of the big things about Loki's character in the MCU, he isn't just a trickster, he doesn't just do bad things for bad reasons, he's among the most sympathetic characters in the MCU.
@@raelynteaguewritesI always saw the part where Loki claims he lost favor with the grandmaster as pure lies. Although not a very good one since we just saw them sitting on a 10 foot couch together. Thor and Valkyrie should have easily seen right through that one immediately. Have you seen all of the Loki show yet? I'm mostly disappointed with how it went. It had a few good things in there here and there but just not enough to get me to like the show. Loki's almost unrecognizable to me.
@@6thgraderfriends I was willing to buy into Loki losing favour with the Grandmaster because, although the Grandmaster hasn't directly threatened Loki yet, we know he's displeased and connects at least part of his displeasure at losing his champion with Loki (since he knows Loki is Thor's brother), because we know the Grandmaster is mercurial and bloodthirsty, and because Topaz was trying to get the Grandmaster to kill Loki with the melt stick. So even if the Grandmaster wasn't quite ready to turn on Loki yet, the threat of danger was still real. Not to mention the Grandmaster pitting Valkyrie against Loki in the hunt for Thor has parallels with Odin pitting Thor against Loki. And I could very much see, in a different version of the story, that being a moment of disillusion for Loki. Like, "Nope. Been there. Done the whole competing for Daddy's affection thing before. No thanks." So I could see him genuinely wanting to get off Sakaar at that point. But then, that's exactly why he shouldn't betray Thor to try to gain favour with the Grandmaster. I don't know. It's weird to me. I have seen all of Loki now, and I have...mixed feelings? This Loki is certainly a different Loki from the films, but I think I kind of got to a point where I gave up on seeing that Loki again and turned off my critical brain a bit. Like I said in the video, the move from film to TV and the fact it's another universe's Loki made it easier to separate the two versions of the character. That said, there's a lot in both seasons I think could have been handled better. For an ending that was all about making sacrifice for the sake of your friends, I would have liked to have believed a little more deeply in those friendships than I did. But the ending was also beautiful and poignant in a way, and focused on the emotionality of the moment, which is what I really hope for in a good story. I just wonder how much better it could have been if, again, I had believed more in the relationships he was sacrificing for. There's a Mary Sue article out there somewhere that summed up my feelings about the season two finale. That it was epic and beautiful, but that if that really does end up being the end of Loki's story in the MCU, that it falls into another issue the MCU seems to have: the mentally ill characters often need to redeem themselves through death. There was Iron Man. I haven't seen Wandavision or the 2nd Dr. Strange film, but from what I hear it seems like that's likely to happen for her. Loki's already done that once (or kiiiinda twice if you count the fact his fake death in TDW was originally supposed to be real). And while this TVA Loki doesn't physically die, it is a symbolic death, a social death. For a character whose never really had it good, I just want Loki to eventually end up in a place where he can not only be redeemed and be satisfied, but where he can also be happy. And I don't think the end of season 2 quite got us that happy part.
@@raelynteaguewritesYeah, Loki suddenly feeling so strongly about having friends is a stretch. It's the same problem Thor 1 has where we're supposed to believe that over the course of 3 days Thor fell in love and became worthy when he's ancient. By the end of the series, Loki has spent the most time with O.B., so if they became close that wouldn't feel too crazy, but they never show us that. Mobius is second, and they start off rough only to continue to argue in every scene. Sylvie is supposedly his love interest, but she almost never shows any sign of interest in him, making the entire relationship unbelievable from start to end. Loki barely even knows B-15 and Casey, never mind Victor. I also have so many questions about the ending. Can he see all the timelines? Can he intervene? How did he know an invisible staircase was going to lead him into a giant green vagina so he could become Yggdrasil? Did the people still alive in the void get sent back to their timelines? If they didn't, why not? Why didn't the temporal radiation instantly spaghettify him? So. Many. Questions. Knowing Marvel, we'll likely never get answers. Until you mentioned it, I never noticed how Marvel makes it so characters can only redeem themselves in death, like Black Widow. That means Bucky's future is in danger and he's also one of my favorites.
@@6thgraderfriends Yeah, the "death as redemption" trope /can/ have its place, but most of the time it doesn't work for me, because death isn't really a redemption. The character doesn't have to live their life proving that they've changed, they just have to make one, very final choice in an intense moment. And the fact that it's the characters dealing with mental illness Marvel keeps doing this to--that they've now done it multiple times to the same character--is a little uncomfortable for me. I know that in television it's never guaranteed you're going to get more seasons, so there's validity to them wanting to fit as much into each season as they can, but I just keep thinking about how a series gives you the time to slow down a little. It gives you a chance to delve a little deeper than a film has time for, and I wish more series were doing that rather than rushing through material. I think it would have been great for season one of Loki to focus on Loki and Mobius's friendship, on Loki working through some of his trust issues and bad habits, and only having Loki track down Sylvie as a cliffhanger for the finale. Season two could have then focused more on his relationship with her. Then, once you've got a more solid foundation for the relationships Loki most cares about, then season three could deal with the time slipping, etc. There definitely are a lot of questions regarding how everything works in the finale. I think the radiation not affecting Loki as much was supposed to be be because, as a god (or a frost giant, anyway) Loki is supposed to be more durable. Or something. But they're definitely inconsistent across the films and series with how tough Loki, Thor, etc are.
I actually agree with all your points. They really did all the characters dirty in this movie. I loved the movie but really wished they had kept true to the original story.
Thanks! It's all about the set-up and payoff for me. I think this could have been a perfectly fun film IF the other films didn't exist. But they do, and I loved those other films, and I don't feel this does them justice. Thanks for watching! ❤
Awesome video, you definitely deserve more views and subscribers than this! Also what are your thoughts on Loki’s journey and character progression in Loki season 2?
Thanks so much! To be honest, I think I'm still processing everything from season 2, so my opinion is likely to shift over time. I mentioned it in another comment, but I have mixed feelings. From a purely structural standpoint, I feel that both season 1 and season 2 felt a little like the writers couldn't decide which lane they needed to be in to find their exit. In season 1, for example, the first episodes got me completely on board for a Loki/Mobius, buddy cop-esque series, but before I felt they'd solidly established that relationship, the story took a hard turn into the Loki/Sylvie romance, and by the time I started getting on board for Loki/Sylvie, the season ended with their falling out. In hindsight, I can understand the reasoning behind some of the decisions the writers made, but the experience of watching it for the first time felt a little scattered. But nothing so bad I couldn't enjoy the show. But as for season 2... I was one of those who, although my critical brain had some questions about the logistics of it, was blown away by the ending. For me, it had that emotional punch, which is what I most want from a good story. But for a show that had Loki commit such a huge sacrifice for the sake of his friends and for the sake of the timelines, I really wish I could have bought into both those friendships as well as care about those other timelines a bit more than I did. But, something else I mentioned in another comment, as beautiful and epic the ending of season 2 is, I also think if this truly ends up being the end to this Loki's character journey, it has some negative implications I'm not entirely comfortable with. Loki is a character who is marginalized something like four times over, including being mentally ill. And the MCU has a bad habit of their mentally ill characters redeeming themselves through death (or through being cured, which has uncomfortable implications of its own). Even if we only look at Loki, then depending on how you want to look at it, he has already done this "redemption through death" at least once, arguably more. And now in Loki season 2, Loki doesn't physically die but does experience a social death, which is symbolically much the same. Again, looking at Loki's start in season 1 as a vainglorious, entitled villain who seeks the admiration of others, I understand from a logistical point that it makes perfect sense for him to become the opposite: a humble hero who makes a great sacrifice that most people will never know about, let alone admire or thank him for. And while there's a lot to that that's great storytelling, I also think the writers need to be cognizant of Loki being a marginalized character and consider what that depiction will represent to a of people. How utterly depressing it is for people who identify with characters like Loki to constantly see their fictional counterparts being punished by the narrative, for them to only be redeemed when they commit some sort of ultimate, permanent sacrifice. So, I guess how I feel about season 2 will depend on whether or not this is the last we see of Loki and whether or not he gets some sort of reunion with Thor, Mobius, or Sylvie. (Sorry about the long response, but I guess if you made it through my hour-long video, you know I can go on. Ha ha.)
I guess I'll also say that it seems pretty clear to me that the Loki writers are taking a lot of their cues for the character from his representation in Ragnarok, which I'm not thrilled with, nor does it really make sense for the character given that this Loki has never experienced the events of Ragnarok. But at the same time, it's also clear that this is the canon they've decided upon going forward, and so Loki fans like myself either have to find some way to reconcile themselves with this Loki so they can continue enjoying his part in the MCU, or else reject this new Loki altogether and not enjoy the Loki series/any future Loki depictions. For me, the fact that it is a different Loki has helped me be more forgiving of the discrepancies than I was with his iteration in Ragnarok, but I completely understand those Loki fans who just aren't interested in this variant. He certainly is a different character from the Loki I first connected with in Thor 1.
@@raelynteaguewrites Thank you for taking the time to respond (don't worry I read the whole thing lol)! I also thought the final episodes was incredible (especially the loki-mobius scene regarding purpose). Loki's sacrifice is huge and I believe was a perfect end to his journey (namely taking a throne not for glory or power, but rather taking on the burden so others might have a chance). But much like you I really hope this is not the last for Loki as the thought of him being stuck sitting on that chair at the center of the world tree forever alone (like He Who Remains) is just depressing and sad. He becomes like Atlas from Greek Mythology who was doomed to forever have the burden of holding up the sky, and I feel that isn't a very good ending long term for Loki, who I believe clearly deserve a much happy ending (imo). (sorry for the bad grammer lol)
@@dallinwalters6836 I can be a real sucker for tragic, mythic tales, so there's so much about the season 2 finale that should be right up my alley and was emotional and beautiful, but as you say, the fact that it's Loki and not some other character making the sacrifice kind of stings, because Loki never had it good. I agree, he does deserve a happier ending! At least eventually!
Thor was the character that got me into the MCU. I watched the first Thor films more than any sane person should between the ages of 11-13. I spent years being a Thor 1 stan and defender before Love & Thunder made people switch up on it. I will say, it's strange being on both sides of loving the Shakespearean tone Kenneth Branagh brought to the start of the series while also loving the comedic kooky tone Taika switched to. I had truly believed he saved the character at the time, the same way Winter Soldier had saved Steve Rogers. Looking back now, although I still love the film deeply, it should've been one and done for Taika and Fiege still should've had someone watching production/filming. I believe that if Dark World and *especially* Thor's presence in Age Of Ultron hadn't been received so poorly by both audiences and Hemsworth himself, Kevin Fiege wouldn't have felt the need to take such a drastic turn for Ragnarok. It worked for a while, but it was a detriment in the long term.
Apparently the, "I can't look into the future, I'm not a witch." "Oh, then why do you dress like one?" "Hey." Scene was Chris Hemsworth's adlib, hence why Loki's response is lacking. As much as I love Tom Hiddleston and his acting, it looks like he's not great at improv. I say it's still the director's fault this scene falls flat though. Since Taika liked it so much, he should have gotten with Tom or the writers to have him say something snarky back, like "At least I don't look like a homeless person."
That's interesting. I know Taika and Chris have both talked about the improv aspect and suggested this version of Thor has adopted a lot of Chris's personality. And you could be very right about Tom's abilities with improv. I know he's made some wonderful, wonderful additions to the Thor films and Loki series, but I think a lot of that came out of having time to deeply reflect on the character and scene. The end result is worth it, but I don't think he was coming up with any of that on the fly.
OMG. I just discovered you're channel and this video was amazing. I loved your critic and I appreciate that you weren't afraid to go against the grain and point the movie's flaws.
Dont get me wrong, I still like Thor: Ragnarok (it's very funny); but like you, my opinion of the film grew sour as I started noticing all the jokes that undermined to emotional beats of the movie.
I also had this since of wrongness about the film that I couldn't full articulate until watching this video. Thank you, and I hope you're videos get more views. You really deserve them.
@@nerdydragonfan Thank you so much! Yeah, Ragnarok could have been really enjoyable as a standalone film for sure, but to conclude a series with nuanced character journeys in such a reductive, silly way doesn't sit right with me.
I mention briefly at the end of the Ragnarok rewrite video I made that if they really wanted silly hijinks, I think they could have taken the Sakaar part of the film and used it as part of a separate Thor/Loki series. Like maybe the start of a Disney+ series following Thor and Loki on a "road trip" (the road trip thing makes more sense when I explain it in the video) where each episode is some new world they've gotten stuck on. Lower the stakes of the story, and let them just be silly, bickering brothers getting into mischief around the galaxy. It could be lighthearted good fun with enough separation from the film trilogy that it wouldn't have to undermine the more serious aspects of the characters' histories.
Though they do already have so many Marvel Disney+ series. Not sure they need another one, but I would definitely watch a cheesy Thor/Loki road trip series.
I didn't even know there was a book. I found a Tom Hiddleston interview where he said having Loki betray Thor again and having Thor be one step ahead of him for once was actually his idea. He also knew Loki was going to die in the beginning of Infinity War by then, so he was thinking of that at the time. I don't like what Ragnorok or Infinity War did to Loki. I think he could have survived that film, made a contribution, and helped Thor out while still being a trickster.
To an extent, from one angle I can understand the appeal of having Loki betray Thor and Thor outsmart him. It /could/ work as a way to teach Loki, "Hey, this behaviour isn't going to keep working for you; it's not going to get you what you want in the end. Time to change." And it could also show a bit of growth for Thor too, if done well. But with how much this film and the characters are used to punish or malign Loki for one thing or another in every scene he's in, and knowing Waititi's feelings on Loki, it just comes across as malicious.
Not to mention Loki's whole thing is supposed to be that he's cunning, but he engages in pretty stupid behaviour right before his betrayal. For example, going from saying, "I've lost favour with the Grandmaster and need to make a deal for safe passage off this planet to save my own skin" to saying "actually, after I help you, maybe I'll just stay on Sakaar, this place I just told you is now dangerous for me, this place I literally just made a deal with you so I could escape with my life." When I first watched the film, that discrepancy in Loki's motivation immediately had me raising an eyebrow, and I knew that either the script had consistency issues or else Loki was plotting something and had just made a huge slip. (And for no reason. He just offered up that comment unprompted.) So, no wonder Thor outsmarted him, I guess.
In the book, Loki's comment about wanting to stay on Sakaar happens when Thor and Loki first reunite and realise they both made it to Sakaar. Thor wants to get off Sakaar with Loki, and Loki's like, "No thanks, I actually fit in here well. But good luck with your whole plan to defeat the champion thing." I felt placing that conversation earlier was much smoother for the story and better informed us of Loki's motivation. If they'd put that earlier in the film too, and allowed us more of a sense of just how much Loki really wanted to stay there and why...I'm not saying I would have liked Loki betraying Thor later, but at least I would have had more understanding and sympathy for why Loki was doing that, you know? And that's one of the big things about Loki's character in the MCU, he isn't just a trickster, he doesn't just do bad things for bad reasons, he's among the most sympathetic characters in the MCU.
@@raelynteaguewritesI always saw the part where Loki claims he lost favor with the grandmaster as pure lies. Although not a very good one since we just saw them sitting on a 10 foot couch together. Thor and Valkyrie should have easily seen right through that one immediately.
Have you seen all of the Loki show yet? I'm mostly disappointed with how it went. It had a few good things in there here and there but just not enough to get me to like the show. Loki's almost unrecognizable to me.
@@6thgraderfriends I was willing to buy into Loki losing favour with the Grandmaster because, although the Grandmaster hasn't directly threatened Loki yet, we know he's displeased and connects at least part of his displeasure at losing his champion with Loki (since he knows Loki is Thor's brother), because we know the Grandmaster is mercurial and bloodthirsty, and because Topaz was trying to get the Grandmaster to kill Loki with the melt stick. So even if the Grandmaster wasn't quite ready to turn on Loki yet, the threat of danger was still real.
Not to mention the Grandmaster pitting Valkyrie against Loki in the hunt for Thor has parallels with Odin pitting Thor against Loki. And I could very much see, in a different version of the story, that being a moment of disillusion for Loki. Like, "Nope. Been there. Done the whole competing for Daddy's affection thing before. No thanks." So I could see him genuinely wanting to get off Sakaar at that point. But then, that's exactly why he shouldn't betray Thor to try to gain favour with the Grandmaster. I don't know. It's weird to me.
I have seen all of Loki now, and I have...mixed feelings? This Loki is certainly a different Loki from the films, but I think I kind of got to a point where I gave up on seeing that Loki again and turned off my critical brain a bit. Like I said in the video, the move from film to TV and the fact it's another universe's Loki made it easier to separate the two versions of the character. That said, there's a lot in both seasons I think could have been handled better. For an ending that was all about making sacrifice for the sake of your friends, I would have liked to have believed a little more deeply in those friendships than I did. But the ending was also beautiful and poignant in a way, and focused on the emotionality of the moment, which is what I really hope for in a good story. I just wonder how much better it could have been if, again, I had believed more in the relationships he was sacrificing for.
There's a Mary Sue article out there somewhere that summed up my feelings about the season two finale. That it was epic and beautiful, but that if that really does end up being the end of Loki's story in the MCU, that it falls into another issue the MCU seems to have: the mentally ill characters often need to redeem themselves through death. There was Iron Man. I haven't seen Wandavision or the 2nd Dr. Strange film, but from what I hear it seems like that's likely to happen for her. Loki's already done that once (or kiiiinda twice if you count the fact his fake death in TDW was originally supposed to be real). And while this TVA Loki doesn't physically die, it is a symbolic death, a social death.
For a character whose never really had it good, I just want Loki to eventually end up in a place where he can not only be redeemed and be satisfied, but where he can also be happy. And I don't think the end of season 2 quite got us that happy part.
@@raelynteaguewritesYeah, Loki suddenly feeling so strongly about having friends is a stretch. It's the same problem Thor 1 has where we're supposed to believe that over the course of 3 days Thor fell in love and became worthy when he's ancient. By the end of the series, Loki has spent the most time with O.B., so if they became close that wouldn't feel too crazy, but they never show us that. Mobius is second, and they start off rough only to continue to argue in every scene. Sylvie is supposedly his love interest, but she almost never shows any sign of interest in him, making the entire relationship unbelievable from start to end. Loki barely even knows B-15 and Casey, never mind Victor.
I also have so many questions about the ending. Can he see all the timelines? Can he intervene? How did he know an invisible staircase was going to lead him into a giant green vagina so he could become Yggdrasil? Did the people still alive in the void get sent back to their timelines? If they didn't, why not? Why didn't the temporal radiation instantly spaghettify him? So. Many. Questions. Knowing Marvel, we'll likely never get answers.
Until you mentioned it, I never noticed how Marvel makes it so characters can only redeem themselves in death, like Black Widow. That means Bucky's future is in danger and he's also one of my favorites.
@@6thgraderfriends Yeah, the "death as redemption" trope /can/ have its place, but most of the time it doesn't work for me, because death isn't really a redemption. The character doesn't have to live their life proving that they've changed, they just have to make one, very final choice in an intense moment. And the fact that it's the characters dealing with mental illness Marvel keeps doing this to--that they've now done it multiple times to the same character--is a little uncomfortable for me.
I know that in television it's never guaranteed you're going to get more seasons, so there's validity to them wanting to fit as much into each season as they can, but I just keep thinking about how a series gives you the time to slow down a little. It gives you a chance to delve a little deeper than a film has time for, and I wish more series were doing that rather than rushing through material. I think it would have been great for season one of Loki to focus on Loki and Mobius's friendship, on Loki working through some of his trust issues and bad habits, and only having Loki track down Sylvie as a cliffhanger for the finale. Season two could have then focused more on his relationship with her. Then, once you've got a more solid foundation for the relationships Loki most cares about, then season three could deal with the time slipping, etc.
There definitely are a lot of questions regarding how everything works in the finale. I think the radiation not affecting Loki as much was supposed to be be because, as a god (or a frost giant, anyway) Loki is supposed to be more durable. Or something. But they're definitely inconsistent across the films and series with how tough Loki, Thor, etc are.
I actually agree with all your points. They really did all the characters dirty in this movie. I loved the movie but really wished they had kept true to the original story.
Thanks! It's all about the set-up and payoff for me. I think this could have been a perfectly fun film IF the other films didn't exist. But they do, and I loved those other films, and I don't feel this does them justice.
Thanks for watching! ❤
Awesome video, you definitely deserve more views and subscribers than this! Also what are your thoughts on Loki’s journey and character progression in Loki season 2?
Thanks so much!
To be honest, I think I'm still processing everything from season 2, so my opinion is likely to shift over time. I mentioned it in another comment, but I have mixed feelings.
From a purely structural standpoint, I feel that both season 1 and season 2 felt a little like the writers couldn't decide which lane they needed to be in to find their exit. In season 1, for example, the first episodes got me completely on board for a Loki/Mobius, buddy cop-esque series, but before I felt they'd solidly established that relationship, the story took a hard turn into the Loki/Sylvie romance, and by the time I started getting on board for Loki/Sylvie, the season ended with their falling out. In hindsight, I can understand the reasoning behind some of the decisions the writers made, but the experience of watching it for the first time felt a little scattered. But nothing so bad I couldn't enjoy the show.
But as for season 2... I was one of those who, although my critical brain had some questions about the logistics of it, was blown away by the ending. For me, it had that emotional punch, which is what I most want from a good story. But for a show that had Loki commit such a huge sacrifice for the sake of his friends and for the sake of the timelines, I really wish I could have bought into both those friendships as well as care about those other timelines a bit more than I did.
But, something else I mentioned in another comment, as beautiful and epic the ending of season 2 is, I also think if this truly ends up being the end to this Loki's character journey, it has some negative implications I'm not entirely comfortable with.
Loki is a character who is marginalized something like four times over, including being mentally ill. And the MCU has a bad habit of their mentally ill characters redeeming themselves through death (or through being cured, which has uncomfortable implications of its own). Even if we only look at Loki, then depending on how you want to look at it, he has already done this "redemption through death" at least once, arguably more. And now in Loki season 2, Loki doesn't physically die but does experience a social death, which is symbolically much the same.
Again, looking at Loki's start in season 1 as a vainglorious, entitled villain who seeks the admiration of others, I understand from a logistical point that it makes perfect sense for him to become the opposite: a humble hero who makes a great sacrifice that most people will never know about, let alone admire or thank him for. And while there's a lot to that that's great storytelling, I also think the writers need to be cognizant of Loki being a marginalized character and consider what that depiction will represent to a of people. How utterly depressing it is for people who identify with characters like Loki to constantly see their fictional counterparts being punished by the narrative, for them to only be redeemed when they commit some sort of ultimate, permanent sacrifice.
So, I guess how I feel about season 2 will depend on whether or not this is the last we see of Loki and whether or not he gets some sort of reunion with Thor, Mobius, or Sylvie.
(Sorry about the long response, but I guess if you made it through my hour-long video, you know I can go on. Ha ha.)
I guess I'll also say that it seems pretty clear to me that the Loki writers are taking a lot of their cues for the character from his representation in Ragnarok, which I'm not thrilled with, nor does it really make sense for the character given that this Loki has never experienced the events of Ragnarok. But at the same time, it's also clear that this is the canon they've decided upon going forward, and so Loki fans like myself either have to find some way to reconcile themselves with this Loki so they can continue enjoying his part in the MCU, or else reject this new Loki altogether and not enjoy the Loki series/any future Loki depictions.
For me, the fact that it is a different Loki has helped me be more forgiving of the discrepancies than I was with his iteration in Ragnarok, but I completely understand those Loki fans who just aren't interested in this variant. He certainly is a different character from the Loki I first connected with in Thor 1.
@@raelynteaguewrites Thank you for taking the time to respond (don't worry I read the whole thing lol)! I also thought the final episodes was incredible (especially the loki-mobius scene regarding purpose). Loki's sacrifice is huge and I believe was a perfect end to his journey (namely taking a throne not for glory or power, but rather taking on the burden so others might have a chance). But much like you I really hope this is not the last for Loki as the thought of him being stuck sitting on that chair at the center of the world tree forever alone (like He Who Remains) is just depressing and sad. He becomes like Atlas from Greek Mythology who was doomed to forever have the burden of holding up the sky, and I feel that isn't a very good ending long term for Loki, who I believe clearly deserve a much happy ending (imo). (sorry for the bad grammer lol)
@@dallinwalters6836 I can be a real sucker for tragic, mythic tales, so there's so much about the season 2 finale that should be right up my alley and was emotional and beautiful, but as you say, the fact that it's Loki and not some other character making the sacrifice kind of stings, because Loki never had it good. I agree, he does deserve a happier ending! At least eventually!
Thor was the character that got me into the MCU. I watched the first Thor films more than any sane person should between the ages of 11-13. I spent years being a Thor 1 stan and defender before Love & Thunder made people switch up on it. I will say, it's strange being on both sides of loving the Shakespearean tone Kenneth Branagh brought to the start of the series while also loving the comedic kooky tone Taika switched to. I had truly believed he saved the character at the time, the same way Winter Soldier had saved Steve Rogers. Looking back now, although I still love the film deeply, it should've been one and done for Taika and Fiege still should've had someone watching production/filming. I believe that if Dark World and *especially* Thor's presence in Age Of Ultron hadn't been received so poorly by both audiences and Hemsworth himself, Kevin Fiege wouldn't have felt the need to take such a drastic turn for Ragnarok. It worked for a while, but it was a detriment in the long term.
"Exactly 0% of my school pals will be surprised by this"
Where's the lie? 😂
I just keep thinking about how my super villain alter ego that I made in my comics about us was basically just Loki in a silver cape. 😂
Apparently the, "I can't look into the future, I'm not a witch." "Oh, then why do you dress like one?" "Hey." Scene was Chris Hemsworth's adlib, hence why Loki's response is lacking. As much as I love Tom Hiddleston and his acting, it looks like he's not great at improv. I say it's still the director's fault this scene falls flat though. Since Taika liked it so much, he should have gotten with Tom or the writers to have him say something snarky back, like "At least I don't look like a homeless person."
That's interesting. I know Taika and Chris have both talked about the improv aspect and suggested this version of Thor has adopted a lot of Chris's personality.
And you could be very right about Tom's abilities with improv. I know he's made some wonderful, wonderful additions to the Thor films and Loki series, but I think a lot of that came out of having time to deeply reflect on the character and scene. The end result is worth it, but I don't think he was coming up with any of that on the fly.