tell ur dogs i said hi ok?
and you're cats too!
Reblogged
Sometimes I feel like such a fake fan. This has mostly to do with the fact that I prefer Loki's characterisation in Thor 1 and 2 over Avengers!Loki. I also always heavily insist it was not actually his true desire to conquer Earth or rule anything, mostly because that's the way the first movie was written. I even think that plot idea is a left over from when they wanted Red Skull to be the villain of Avengers (2012). Because to me it just never made sense that all of a sudden he'd want to rule this planet he considers a backwater. I know some people argue that after having been on the throne for a bit during Thor 1 he grew to enjoy it too much or something, but I just can't see it considering his state of mind during that movie?
I especially hate that comparison during the Stuttgart scene, even if I agree you should always stand up to oppressors (especially these days). It's just created takes like "Loki is explicitly a fascist", which is factually wrong (even if he wanted to do as he stated, that'd be absolute monarchy not fascism. But also since I personally believe he wasn't doing all of it of his own will. It's also a bit weird since the movie heavily implies Loki was both tortured and to some degree influenced and this comparison contradicts it. So which is it? Did he want this and is he a despicable dictator or is he a somewhat sympathetic (even if his actions are of course still horrible) guy who was kind of forced into doing these horrible things in order to survive. It feels like the movie tries to forcibly frame him into "wait we've shown him as to sympathetic, now we must show him as the worst evil ever to compensate so that the audience will applaud at his defeat" and it doesn't match his own subtext. What doesn't help is that a lot of this was probably supposed to have been revealed during the original plans for Infinity War and that never happened so we'll never know what the true intention was. Furthermore, I think the Stuttgart scene was mostly intended to be at least partially an act and that makes that comparison even more unlogical to me.
I think I'd have preferred it that they wrote his villainy differently, without bringing the whole "he's powerhungry" stereotype into it. I know, part of that is because of what they wrote him into later, which wasn't explicitly the fault of Avengers as a movie and I also know it's a huge thing in the older comics, but mcu!Loki was explicitly not written like that before that and I think they should've stuck with that. I mean after his character arc in Thor 1, if they truly wanted him as the villain, "if I couldn't be your equal that way, I'll be your equal through being your archnemesis" was right there along with all the angst that could come with that. They wouldn't have needed to write in the torture and stuff to make it make sense with his character.
Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy most of Avengers and I do enjoy Loki throughout the movie. It's just some of the discourse that surrounds it that bugs me to no end. I'm afraid that I'm woobifying him too much by claiming he isn't as villainous as Marvel wants to paint him, even though this is genuinely how I interpret the movie. It feels like people are claiming that I need to embrace this (in particular the Stuttgart scene) as his true personality in order to not be woobifying him, while I think that is not the case at all based on textual evidence and I'm so tired of it. Does that make me a fake fan?
I hope you don’t mind me commenting on this post, but something I often see people overlook is what Marvel’s true goals are when it comes to their movies.
Unfortunately, while the earlier productions in the mcu were filled with details, the franchise wasn’t built to withstand complex analyses in the long run. Why? Because their primary aim has always been to appeal to large audiences. In order to do that, the content has to be digestible to a wide range of viewers. Not everyone is interested in catching up on every film, nor do they all want to look for the possible complexities that could be found. Most people simply want entertaining superhero movies that are visually fun to look at and easy to follow.
Marvel is still a massive studio that prioritises revenue above all else. They achieve that by shocking their audience, by escalating storylines and character arcs, through flashy cgi and reboots etc. Take ragnarok or the series for example. Those are completely different in tone and their approach, which didn't follow the og intent.
Most mcu movies have different directors and creative teams and after a few years, the lack of consistent communication and continuity started to show. Maintaining the flow and coherence clearly wasn’t a top priority.
So, to label yourself as a fake fan for having your own interpretations and disagreeing with people who just watch these movies as just that, stereotypical superhero movies, is not fitting imo. If anything, that would be you implying that the label could apply to anyone who tries to read between the lines which many people in the new fanbase don't. It's the other way around, the consumers are closer to being a fake fan than those that take time to appreciate and actually think about what they're looking at.
Thanks, I think I needed that. And you're absolutely right. I think it's just that there are so many anti's and puritanists even on this site that keep seeing us as some kind of problem for liking the "villain" character and also lumping us fans all together. I guess I just started doubting my self too much because of it. I guess it's because I'm a bit too sensitive to criticism even if it's not directly aimed at me.
New Marvel Rivals season looks cool. I love the Hellfire Gala theme. I really want that new Cloak & Dagger skin, it looks absolutely fabulous. I would've liked some more fancy outfits among the battlepass though, I mean what is punk!Squirrel Girl doing there? Also I heard a theory that they might make it a recurring event. Yes please, everyone needs a fancy outfit, maybe even multiple :).
Sometimes I feel like such a fake fan. This has mostly to do with the fact that I prefer Loki's characterisation in Thor 1 and 2 over Avengers!Loki. I also always heavily insist it was not actually his true desire to conquer Earth or rule anything, mostly because that's the way the first movie was written. I even think that plot idea is a left over from when they wanted Red Skull to be the villain of Avengers (2012). Because to me it just never made sense that all of a sudden he'd want to rule this planet he considers a backwater. I know some people argue that after having been on the throne for a bit during Thor 1 he grew to enjoy it too much or something, but I just can't see it considering his state of mind during that movie?
I especially hate that comparison during the Stuttgart scene, even if I agree you should always stand up to oppressors (especially these days). It's just created takes like "Loki is explicitly a fascist", which is factually wrong (even if he wanted to do as he stated, that'd be absolute monarchy not fascism. But also since I personally believe he wasn't doing all of it of his own will. It's also a bit weird since the movie heavily implies Loki was both tortured and to some degree influenced and this comparison contradicts it. So which is it? Did he want this and is he a despicable dictator or is he a somewhat sympathetic (even if his actions are of course still horrible) guy who was kind of forced into doing these horrible things in order to survive. It feels like the movie tries to forcibly frame him into "wait we've shown him as to sympathetic, now we must show him as the worst evil ever to compensate so that the audience will applaud at his defeat" and it doesn't match his own subtext. What doesn't help is that a lot of this was probably supposed to have been revealed during the original plans for Infinity War and that never happened so we'll never know what the true intention was. Furthermore, I think the Stuttgart scene was mostly intended to be at least partially an act and that makes that comparison even more unlogical to me.
I think I'd have preferred it that they wrote his villainy differently, without bringing the whole "he's powerhungry" stereotype into it. I know, part of that is because of what they wrote him into later, which wasn't explicitly the fault of Avengers as a movie and I also know it's a huge thing in the older comics, but mcu!Loki was explicitly not written like that before that and I think they should've stuck with that. I mean after his character arc in Thor 1, if they truly wanted him as the villain, "if I couldn't be your equal that way, I'll be your equal through being your archnemesis" was right there along with all the angst that could come with that. They wouldn't have needed to write in the torture and stuff to make it make sense with his character.
Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy most of Avengers and I do enjoy Loki throughout the movie. It's just some of the discourse that surrounds it that bugs me to no end. I'm afraid that I'm woobifying him too much by claiming he isn't as villainous as Marvel wants to paint him, even though this is genuinely how I interpret the movie. It feels like people are claiming that I need to embrace this (in particular the Stuttgart scene) as his true personality in order to not be woobifying him, while I think that is not the case at all based on textual evidence and I'm so tired of it. Does that make me a fake fan?
Reblogged
I commissioned @aanimatoryellow for Felannie and I love it!! Thank you Yellow!!
Felix looks so handsome with his hair down🥺🥺
Reblogged
With Cross' plot amnesia comes the hilarious idea that they just assume the things they can do in their Mimeosome body are just what a human is naturally capable of. Which, I think, should make for some very funny situations once they get a biological body.
"Whaddya mean I can't just jmp off the falls to the rock below without injury? I did it all the time before!"
"Why am I breathing heavy?! Do you mean people can't run across an entire continent without breaking a sweat?!"
"WHAT THE FUCK ARE PERIOD CRAMPS?!"
Potential comedy gold right there.
Reblogged
Okay, now we know that Loki will be in Doomsday, does ANYONE have any hopes that he will not be killed in the first fifteen minutes of the movie because the directors don't like his character/don't know what to do with him/it will show us that Doom is a serious villain/continue the list with other reasons listed during IW interviews?
Anyone hopeful? Because I'm not, not really.
Major spoilers for Xenoblade Chronicles X up to chapter 5 as well as Xenoblade Chronicles 3.
Okay so everyone actually has a robotic body and is actually still in stasis in the lifehold. I have to admit I didn't see that one coming. Classic Xenoblade twist. Reminds me of Origin and the whole recycling lifes thing in 3. But it does make finding the lifehold even more important, especially since it's running out of power. Also the Ma-non have annoying voices. They remind me too much of the chipmunks lol.
Reblogged galaxythreads
Your friends watching something for the first time and getting to that scene VS you, the knower.