Tumgik
#if you ignore that the perspective of those colonized by asgard is completely ignored and thor films generally frame things biased
worstloki · 3 years
Note
Okay, take it from someone who figured out at seventeen that she had spent fifteen years being the scapegoat child in a very abusive and toxic family. (Long ask warning!)
Ragnarok is hilarious.
Ragnarok is also really, really problematic. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I did not get triggered watching Ragnarok. I did, however, get angry about the casual violence and how it brushed abuse and toxicity under the rug.
In the same way, I did get triggered by the first Thor movie. But I loved its feel, its storyline, its world building, and (mostly) how it handled Loki’s character development.
Ragnarok had Thor be a staggeringly awful brother. Thor’s a very classic golden child, and Ragnarok played that as if he was the noble older brother disciplining the wayward younger brother. Thor’s knee-jerk response to pain and being hurt is to turn around and hurt Loki worse, simply because he’s used to targeting Loki. However, Ragnarok also gave Thor some of, in my opinion, the funniest lines in the MCU. I found myself laughing almost every time Thor was onscreen.
Ragnarok played abuse off as, at best, a joke, and at worst, something deserved depending on characters’ actions. Loki, the scapegoat child and target, who was near-constantly abused and belittled by Odin throughout his childhood, was played as “he was a Bad Child, cartoonishly evil, so he deserves whatever he gets.” On the other hand, Thor, the golden child who was spared from most of the direct abuse as long as he met Odin’s expectations of perfection, was played as “he was a Good Child, and he is our hero, so everything he does to people is deserved.”
Ragnarok, to me, sent the message that people are innately good or bad. If you’re good, then you can do whatever you want to people and it’ll be okay, because that’s what heroes do. If you’re bad, then anyone can do whatever they want to you, and you deserve it because you’re bad. That is a TERRIBLE MESSAGE.
The bottom line here is that good and bad aren’t black and white. That goes double for Ragnarok- its characters aren’t as black and white as it showed them to be, and it isn’t a black and white movie, either. Ragnarok is a terrible movie in a lot of ways, but it does manage to be genuinely funny. You can like one part of something while hating the rest of it. There’s no “this movie is Good” or “this movie is Bad.” It’s always parts- “this part of the movie is good” or “this part of the movie is bad.” Ragnarok is funny- it’s a comedic masterpiece, but only when it isn’t making jokes or poking fun at something it should be taking seriously. But the movie has some deep problems, and if its creators had taken what they were making seriously, we’d all be a lot better off.
I agree! The movie is funny and light and wacky, BUT, it also writes over previous characterisation/development and presents quite a few harmful messages AND not everyone will find the same things funny!
There are quite a few types of humour and depending on what the old characterisation means to someone there is no obligation to like the changes. What people think of things is entirely up to them, and handling issues in one way or another works better for different people.
I think it's incredibly ridiculous that people take saying something is good/bad is a complete summation of every aspect of something, especially when the movie can multitask. It's not like integrity and entertainment are mutually exclusive factors anyway?? Some people prefer one or the other or both and it's literally not a big deal.
75 notes · View notes
kittyprincessofcats · 5 years
Text
I know I’m about to open a can of worms here, but... Can someone explain to me how the mind of a Loki-hater works? I just don’t understand? I mean, if someone just doesn’t like him or doesn’t care... fine, whatever, we all find different characters appealing. But what I don’t understand is the people who genuinely call him “a priviledged white murderboy” or compare him to characters like Kylo Ren (who is a priviledged white murderboy, just to be clear on that).
How can someone watch Thor 1, The Avengers, and Thor TDW and somehow come to the conclusion that Loki is a priviledged, sheltered, rich kid who never had problems and kills people for the lulz. HOW? Did they watch the movies with both eyes and ears closed? Did they only watch The Avengers and skip through half of Thor 1? Is it the misogyny (most of Loki’s fans are women so obviously they must only like him for his looks, “dumb fangirls” etc.)? Seriously, how do you watch these movies and miss out on:
- Odin being a dictator and colonizer who kidnapped Loki from his home country as a baby, changed his appearance with a spell to make him “pass” as Asgardian, stripped him of his birth culture and even raised him to consider his birth country evil
- Loki being neglected and not taken seriously his whole life, having his “feminine” interests mocked in Asgard’s partiachic society, constantly being made fun of by Thor’s friends, his own brother - who he adores more than anything - putting him down all the time, his father never acknowleding him
- Loki (who never wanted the throne in the first place) having to suddenly run a kingdom when his brother gets himself banished and his father falls into the Odinsleep, having to suddenly manage a war he didn’t start, dealing with Thor’s friends commiting treason, dealing with the revelation of his heritage and the feeling that he has to prove himself to Odin now. (Okay, to be fair, I think Frigga handing him control and telling him to make his father proud was a deleted scene, so the actual movie might make it look like he took the throne and planned all of this, but he didn’t. Think about it for one second: There’s no way he could have predicted the Odinsleep or Thor’s banishment. He looks shocked when both happen.)
- Loki trying to destroy his birth realm in a desperate attempt to prove that he’s “not like them”, Loki being so desperate that he commits suicide when Odin doesn’t approve.
- No one in Asgard (except for Frigga) mourning Loki at all. Loki asking Thor “Did you mourn?” in The Avengers, because he knows they didn’t and he’s right.
- Loki being tortured by Thanos and forced to attack New York. How is that something people miss? Did everyone take their bathroom break during that scene where The Other threatens Loki? Did they conveniently ignore the after-credits scene?
- Odin telling Loki “Your birthright was to die” and acting like Loki should be grateful Odin didn’t murder him as a baby. Just in case you forgot: This was their first interaction after Loki’s suicide attempt. Odin found out his son - whom he drove to try and commit suicide - was alive, and the first thing Odin did was telling him he should have died and that he would have executed him for his crimes if it wasn’t for Frigga.
- Just to put this into perspective: When Thor started a war and killed hundreds of Frost Giants, Odin banished him to Earth without his powers for three days. When Loki tried to commit suicide, got tortured and attacked Earth and killed people because Thanos forced him to, Odin wanted to execute him, only agreed not to because of Frigga, then locked Loki up in solitary confinement for the rest of his life and didn’t allow Frigga to see him.
- Loki wasn’t even allowed to go to his mother’s funeral. Thor never even asks him why he attacked Earth, only visits Loki when he needs his help, refuses to comfort him about Frigga’s death and promises to lock Loki up again if he does help him. And people are blaming Loki for not telling Thor he was alive? Would you have told the man who promised to lock you up for the rest of eternity that you’re alive? I kinda doubt it.
- And even after all of that, Loki was merciful enough to only banish Odin to a care-home on Earth instead of killing him. (Friendly reminder that Kylo Ren murdered his father while his father was offering him a second chance. Odin never offered Loki any chances, straight-up wanted to kill him, and Loki still showed mercy. But sure, tell me more about how your comparison is totally appropriate.)
How do people watch ALL OF THAT, and somehow not end up at least admitting that Loki was treated unfairly? How do people watch these movies and say that he’s selfish when all he’s ever been doing is sacrificing himself for his family over and over again and getting nothing in return? HOW??? Someone explain this to me, because it blows my mind.
And sidenote - the whole “straight white murderboy” thing is such complete BS it makes me want to slam my head against my desk. 1) Loki’s not straight. He’s canonically bi/pan in the comics and queercoded in all of this movies. 2) Not even the “boy” part is true - Loki is genderfluid. 3) The “white” part is what really blows my mind when people use it as a reason to hate this character. Because first of all Loki’s entire story is about being a different race than the rest of his family and being treated like shit because of it. (Yes, I realize it’s “fantasy blue people racism”, not real-world racism, but it’s still an aspect of the character that - in the fantasy context - makes him the opposite of priviledged.) And secondly... all of the Avengers in A1 are also white? 5/6 of them are straight white guys? So who are we supposed to root for, according to these Loki-haters? In Star Wars, there’s POC heroes who get ignored by the fandom and I understand the frustration of everyone loving the white villain instead - but in the first(!) Avengers everyone is white? So who does tumblr think is a more deserving fave here??? I just don’t understand this logic even in theory??
(Seriously, someone explain this to me? Is is because of the Hitler comparison in The Avengers? Because that honestly should be blamed on Joss Whedon being a shitty writer who can’t get a ‘character is evil’ message accross differently. Narratively, this comparison doesn’t fit at all. Or is it because people took the ‘Loki keeps betraying Thor’ line from Ragnarok and took it seriously instead of judging the movies by what actually happened? I tried to read posts where people explain why they hate Loki, and whenever they list all the “horrible things he’s done” half of them are things that never even happened? Like... “repeatedly betrayed his brother who trusts him” - NOT TRUE, “tried to commit genocide on earth” - NO HE DIDN’T??, “killed more people than anyone else” - FACTUALLY WRONG, “always fakes his death” - HE LITERALLY NEVER DID, “betrayed Asgard” - BITCH WHEN?, “only did one selfless thing in his life” - which one of them are you talking about, just wondering?, “freed Hela” - are we just making shit up at this point? he didn’t even know about Hela!, “caused Odin’s death” - why is anyone acting like that’s a bad thing and Odin didn’t deserve to die?, “facist dictator” - again: WHERE? Do any of you stupid Americans even know what facism is? Stop throwing around big words if you don’t know how to use them.)
Or is it just that people don’t actually know the movies, see a villain who has huge female fanbase and come to the “obvious” conclusion that it must be because those women are stupid and “like making excuses for bad boys”? Do people take Tom Hiddelston more seriously when he talks about Loki’s motivations and says he’s just misunderstood and not evil? Because this time it’s a man saying it?
33 notes · View notes
worstloki · 3 years
Note
please read the article 'How White Fandom is Colonizing "Character-Coding"' by Shafira Jordan and quit while you're ahead
Okay, so I read it and see the problem, and I’ll try to address all their points in order because I don’t wholly agree with the article. I know it’s a lot to read so I’ve put tldr; sections at the end of each :)
Misusing the Term Reinforces Negative Stereotypes for Marginalized People 
The article essentially argues that labeling characters which are villainous as POC-coded is bad because they’re not morally pure and doing so "reinforces the idea that people of color are naturally dangerous and not to be trusted.”
Which is fair as you don’t want all the representation to be of ‘bad’ characters, but I also don’t believe all representative characters have to be ‘good’ either as it would be equally racist to divide good/bad in such a way. Not that I would place Loki under ‘bad’ to begin with, but arguing that characters shouldn’t be labelled as POC-coded for reasons unrelated to what’s presented in the narrative or because they did bad things is :/ even if lack of good representation is a prevalent issue in current Western and influenced media. 
Ideally there should be a range of representative characters that fall into ‘good’, ‘bad’, and ‘anywhere in-between’ because variety and complexity in character types should, in theory, be treated as common practice (which can only happen with a multitude of representation!).
And a bit unrelated but... within the fictional context of Thor 1, all the Jotnar (sans Loki) are presented to the audience as ‘bad’ by default. They desperately want to get their Casket back to the point of attempting stealing it (from the ‘good’ characters), they fight the heroes and even when the gang and Thor (’good’ characters) are enjoying or going overboard with taking lives it’s inconsequential, Laufey wants to kill the opposing king (who just happens to be a ‘good’ character) and will resort to low-handed methods to do so, etc. The narrative itself is from the frame of reference of the ‘good’ and we only see warriors of Jotunheim though so we understand why it’s like this, because regardless of their race/experiences the narrative carries, even if it most definitely would be seen as racist from our real-life perspectives if the ‘monstrous’ race were presented by actual people of colour, even if it would make sense for the people on on different realms living in different environments to be different from each other, and realistic even for that to be the root of some conflict. 
tldr; not using a specific label to prevent negative presentations of the characters seems a bit strange to do when the coding would be based off the text, but with limited representation available I see why it would be done, even if I still believe minority-coding is free game to expand/interpret.
Improperly Labeling a Character as “POC-coded” Suggests the Experiences of All People of Color are the Same 
The article argues that labeling Loki as POC-coded “suggests that all people of color have the same experiences, when in reality, people of color come from different places, have different cultures, and have different traditions.” And while it’s true that the term doesn’t go into detail about which particular experiences (and these experiences can vary vastly due to diversity!) the appropriate measure would be to remove the umbrella term POC altogether as people of colour tend to also vary. But that’s also exactly why it’s an all-encompassing general term? It’s a way to denote anyone who isn’t “white” and has the associated cultural privilege that comes with the concept of white supremacy.  
And, obviously, in the fictional setting presented, the concept of white supremacy is not prodded at, but cultural supremacy is definitely one that makes recurring appearances, right next to the parts about Asgard being a realm built on imperialism with ongoing colonial practice. 
My take on this is that Loki’s narrative features a struggle with identity after finding out he’s of a different race and was being treated differently his entire life and being Jotun was presumably a part of the reasoning even if he didn’t know it. He’s basically treated as of less worth for inherently existing differently. I do believe that racism is a common-enough POC experience, but that while Loki was born with blue skin he passes/appears white which is why I don’t say that Loki is a POC, just that he has been coded/can be interpreted this way. 
There’s also the entire thing with Loki trying to fit in and prove he belongs by trying to fit the theory and be The Most Asgardian by committing genocide (which ultimately makes no difference as he’s still not the ‘acceptable’ version of Asgardian), and the denial/rejection of his birth culture in destructively lashing out towards them (which even Thor is confused by because Loki isn’t typically violent), and the fact his self worth plummets and he is passively suicidal upon finding out he’s Jotun (internalized racism? general drop in self-worth after finding out he’s adopted and has been lied to? Bit of both?), but what do I know, I’m sure none of those are, at their base, common experiences or relatable feelings for anyone or decent rep because we see such themes on-screen presented wonderfully in different lights all the time. 
tldr; every set of experiences could be different, some types of discrimination could overlap, if you limit an umbrella term to only very specific circumstances then it’s no longer an umbrella term.
Suggesting that White Characters are Meant to be Seen as People of Color Ignores the Actual Characters of Color that are Present in these Stories
I don’t agree with most of this section, but that may just be the way the arguments are put together, which I don’t blame the author for.
“ Implying that Loki is a person of color completely ignores Heimdall and Hogun, the only Black and Asian Asgardians who appear in the movie. ”
Characters such as Hogun and Heimdall which are played by actual people of colour have smaller roles in the films and any prejudice they could face for being POC in-universe isn’t made apparent, while Loki at the very least comes to the realization that something he couldn’t change (race, parentage,) was having him treated differently his whole life and had to come to terms with it. The Vanir/Aesir are also both treated similarly on-screen, and Heimdall having dark skin isn’t plot relevant, whereas Jotnar are treated as lesser consistently and are relevant through the movie (breaking into the vault, Thor and co. attack Jotunheim, Loki’s deal with Laufey, the attempted regicide (and the successful one XD), destroying jotunheim, Loki saying he’s not Thor’s brother,). 
I also see including characters as POC-coded as... more representation? In all canon-compliant interpretations of the characters Hogun being Vanir is always explicitly mentioned because it’s a fact that just is, up to the appearance and even the world-building of Vanaheim in some fanworks use particularly East Asian culture as inspiration. I have never come across a Marvel fandom Heimdall interpretation where he’s not Black... but because these characters are more minor/side-characters of course they get less attention! 
“ In Loki’s fandom, Heimdall’s name sometimes gets thrown in to suggest that it was he all along who was the real villain due to his “racism” against Loki and the rest of the Jotun. It is, of course, ironic to suggest that somehow the only Black Asgardian to appear in the movie can oppress the privileged white prince. “
I... don’t know where to start with this. But the example of theorizing given in the article wasn’t suggesting Heimdall was bad or trying to explain his actions in Thor 1 by saying he is Black... and just looking at a character’s actions shouldn’t be done less or more critically because of skin tone in my opinion. Heimdall may have been trying to do what was best and protect the realm but if the audience didn’t know that Loki was up to dodgy things then the coding would be switched around because he was trying to spy and committed treason and then tried to kill Loki. People... can hold feelings towards others... regardless of skin... and suspect them... for reasons other than skin... although I do still have questions about whether Heimdall knew Loki was Jotun or not. (Even if I personally don’t think it’d make a difference to how he’d treat Loki?)
Some Loki fans have also suggested that because Jotuns have blue skin that this alone makes him a person of color (even if the audience is only allowed to see Loki in his true Jotun form for mere seconds of screentime). This, again, shows a lack of understanding when it comes to race. It doesn’t matter what skin color the Jotuns have. 
Race can differentiate between physical and/or behavioural characteristics!! Not being blue all the time doesn’t make him any less Jotun!! He’s got internalized stuff to work through and is used to being Aesir!! At least 1 parent is Jotun so even if Loki was passing as Aesir he’s probably Jotun!! (I don’t know how magic space genetics work for sure but Loki being Jotun was an entire very important jump-starting point in Thor 1!!). It’s a fantasy text and typically things like having different coloured skin indicates a different race or is sometimes if a species has multiple then is just considered a skin colour. That’s how coding works!! The Jotnar are very specifically the only race we see in the movie with a skin-tone not within the ‘normal’ human range, which alienates them to the audience from the get-go!! They’re an “other” and on the opposite side to the ‘good’ characters.
Both Loki and his birth father, Laufey (Colm Feore), are played by white men, and it is impossible for a white man to successfully play a character of color. 
The specification of men here bothers me, but yes, you don’t get ‘white’ people to play characters of colour if it can be avoided. (And it can be avoided.)
This also connects with the previous point made that people of color come from various places. There is nothing specifically about the Jotun that could be traced to any specific person of color, and even if there were, there would be no way for white men to portray them without being disrespectful.
This is where arguments about the definition of coding and how specificity/generalizations and do/don’t come in. I know I’m subjective and lean towards the more rep the better, but while I agree ‘white’ people wouldn’t be able to respectfully play a POC I don’t think that rule should have to carry over into fantasy-based fiction. I know texts reflect on reality and reality can reflect within texts, but if contextually there is racial discrimination and there are similar ideas which resonate with the audience’s own experiences I’d say it’s coded well enough to allow that.
tldr; Thor 1′s narrative revolves mainly around Thor and Loki, of which race is kinda kinda a significant theme in Loki’s part of the story. Not so much explored with less-developed side characters such as Heimdall and Hogun, even though their actors are actual people of colour. 
How Much of this is Really Well-Intentioned?
In the fantasy space viking world Heimdall and Hogun don’t face any on-screen prejudice and their appearance is not mentioned (which is nice, for sure! good to have casual rep!) but adding on to the roles they play in the narrative the explicit fantasy-racism in the movie isn't aimed at Asian/Black characters, but towards the Humans -to a lesser extent- and the Jotnar, including Loki, who only just found out he comes under that bracket.
The article mentions how fandom space toxicity often “reaches the actors who portray the characters,“ which is true, and it’s shameful that people have to justify their roles or presences are harassed for the pettiest things like skin tone/cultural background, but I don’t see coding characters as removing the spotlight from interesting characters such as those which are actually POC, rather expressing a demand for more rep, since well-written complex characters which are diverse are often absent/minor enough in the media, and therefore can get easily brushed aside in both canon and fandom spaces.
tldr; It’s obviously not a replacement for actual representation, but, if a character is marginalized and can be interpreted as coded, even if they would only be considered so within the context of the textual landscape, I don’t see why spreading awareness through exploring the coding as a possibility for the character shouldn’t be done, even if the media is being presented by people who are ‘white’ or privileged or may not fall into the categories themselves, as long as it’s done respectfully to those it could explicitly represent.
#please don’t patronize me by asking to quit while i’m ahead#it doesn't help anyone#so anyway i've summarized my opinion on the coding thing here for the many anons whose answers could be answered in this ask alone#i think i covered everything?#the article started out okay but I found it kinda :/ in places even though there were valid concerns#I do believe that in-universe context and creators of the media should be taken into account#and that if marginalized themes can be touched on by non-marginalized groups then... great? fictional texts can help people understand#i do also think that rep being presented should if not on-screen have people working on the product to support and ensure it's done well#the world is cold and harsh and cruel and i just wanted a desi Loki AU but here we are#I've got to try and summarize how I think Thor 1 presents Loki's part of the narrative well with POC-coding there because of fantasy-racism#even if the POC-coding is ignored the themes of racism are far too apparent to ignore#loki spends the entire film being a multi-dimensional character and having an entire downfall fueled by grief and a desire to be loved#I don't think attaching a label to such a character would be a negative thing... but perhaps for casual watchers it'd be a bit :/#apparently not everyone takes into account the 1000+ years of good behavior around that 1 year of betrayal/breakdown/identity crisis/torture#MetaAnalysisForTheWin#MAFTW#ThisPostIsLongerThanMyLifeSpan#TPILTMLS#AgreeToDisagreeOrNot#ATDON#poc-coding#yes i ignored everything not about loki in the article what about it#hmmm I know people are going to disagree with me with what should and shouldn't be allowed#I know some people are okay with it but some don't like the poc-coding thing#and that's fine#completely understandable#makes me uncomfy to talk about fictional space racism in comparison to real life but I do think that lack of rep is why coding is important#for some people coding is all that they get#but also!! @ifihadmypickofwishes suggested the term racial allegory and I do believe that is also suitable here!! so I’ll try using that too#rather than poc-coding even though I still believe it applies
141 notes · View notes