While doing fanfic orientated research on Loki’s weapons, I came across an ‘On Set With Tom Hiddleston' interview from the first Thor movie. While this interview is by no means new, it is - in Tom's typically detailed manner - an interesting read for anyone wanting to recap on the psyche of Loki (prior to his psychological meltdown), his fighting style, etc.
Some segments of Tom’s narrative I found particularly interesting, especially as the resulting movie didn’t really expand upon these areas of Loki’s psyche quite as well as they could have."Thor and Loki are a 2-man team and they’re both going to run Asgard when Odin steps down.” (Tom, Collider interview)
This notion of Loki running Asgard alongside Thor wasn’t shown to us in the finished movie, however it was hinted at in a removed segment of conversation between Frigga and Odin in the original Thor transcript:FRIGGA: Thor won't be alone. Loki will be at his side to give him counsel. Have faith in your sons.
- Original Thor transcript
This deleted segment between Frigga and Odin showed us that the value Loki’s family held for him was not of a ‘stolen relic’ as Loki believed himself to be, but as a trusted counselor to assist Thor in his rule.
Also in the interview was Tom’s description of Loki’s areas of expertise, part of which was his skill as a tactician:
"And Loki’s gifts are different in that he is sharper, he’s cleverer, he’s more interested in tactics and strategy." (Tom, Collider interview)
This part of Tom’s interview reminded me of how Loki’s skill for strategy was portrayed in a (deleted) Jotunheim scene from the original Thor transcript:LOKI Perhaps we should wait. (Thor turns back to his brother.) THOR For what? LOKI To survey the enemy. To gauge their strengths and weaknesses from a distance.
Again, it’s a shame that snippet of scene was not in the movie, as it portrayed the concept of Loki being a wise tactician with subtle clarity and gave us insight into the person Loki was before his circumstances took a turn for the worst.
Although we did get an idea of Loki’s skill as a strategist in the way that he carried out his plan to ‘fix the mess Thor made’, this only showed us the darker side of his stratagem.
Another important foundation stone of Loki’s persona was in the deleted scene where we see Frigga give Loki the kingship - much to his surprise and disbelief.
Perhaps this scene was removed so as not to paint Loki as too much of sympathetic (and somewhat accidental) villain. It’s far better for Loki to be the bad guy if taking the throne is seen as one of his inner machinations, than to realise it was given to him by his very mother.
But this is actually a really powerful and integral scene especially when Loki accepts Odin’s staff, Gungnir, and we see his expression settle into one of resolve. In this instant he knows what it is he has to do to ‘fix’ everything and make his father proud, and now he’s been handed the exceptionally powerful means to carry out the task.
It’s a real turning point for him as we see the way that being handed such power - however unexpected - begins to transform him.
The shame of these scenes being cut meant that much of the good aspects of Loki’s persona were removed, and this in turn prevented the wider audience from gaining a greater insight into the motivations of Loki, and of his dynamics within Asgard’s royal family.
Deleted scenes - they must be the bane of existance for those who don’t want to see Loki as anyone other than a scheming manipulative ‘evil villain’.
So anyway, there we have it. A random bit of (pointless) ramble from me, and perhaps food for thought for any new Loki fans out there who haven’t yet checked out the deleted transcript and movie scenes.
Oh, but back to Tom’s Collider interview for a moment, I can’t help but love this quote:
"And everything’s been dyed black and my skin’s been made paler than it normally is and so I’ve got black eyebrows and black hair and…just on my face mind you."
Sorry Tom, what was that again? Where else might we have suspected the hair dye to be…?
The mind boggles.
I’ll even add that the pre-coronation scene between Loki and Thor was significant as well. Because not only do you see that Loki loves Thor—that there is a very strong bond between the brothers—but it’s revealed that Loki is quite cognizant of his own jealousy and had learned to live with it.
He was correct (arguing later with Sif and the Warriors Three) that Thor wasn’t ready to be king yet. Unfortunately, he went about preventing this premature “passing of authority” in a rather drastic manner (which ultimately led to his own unraveling). But then again, we’ll never know if he actually tried to share his concerns with Odin and had those concerns dismissed, which in turn led to him taking more radical measures.
But I could go on ad nauseam. I do think you are correct, however, in that some of these scenes were removed because they would have made Loki too sympathetic. The film would have been less about Thor’s transformation and more about Loki’s self-destruction.
I do wonder how this story would have played out if it had been a true drama (rather that a film about comic book characters). Something that wasn’t constrained by needing to be family friendly, but allowed to be a contender for the likes of the Academy Awards. (There’s a fic here. Quick! Somebody write it.)
And this, aside from the criminal injustice done to Frigga (*SCREAMS INTO PILLOW*), is why I will forever and always rail and rage against the deletion of all those scenes. ALL THE CHARACTERISATION IS IN THE DELETED SCENES. ALL OF IT. FOR EVERYONE. Even Thor himself, jfc.
I can just picture the convo Branagh had with Marvel HQ (if only in his head): “Ken, you were supposed to direct a comicbook movie, not a Shakespearean tragedy! No Ken, you can’t make people feel more sorry for the villain than the hero, it’ll confuse their feels. Dammit Ken, make Hiddleston stop crying and turn Loki into a proper villain.”
(I found it particularly interesting to note that Loki’s "destroy everything" addendum to the Destroyer wasn’t in the original script.)
I haven’t watched the movie without breaks for the deleted scenes in AGES, and I honestly barely consider the end version canon anymore in my head. Healing stones FTW, yo.
I’ve been rereading The Silmarillion, and one of the first things to come back to me is how much I love dwarves. They’re cantankerous jewish engineers, so basically my people, and I will never forgive the stupid racist elves for writing them out of the narrative. There’s so much about their civilization that we don’t know, and I’ve been wondering what they eat. Dwarves have a complex society that exists completely underground. Underground means no light, and no light means no agriculture, which means no permanent settlements. I’m going to try to apply science to this situation (never a good idea with Tolkien) and figure out what was going on. There’s also a brief aside on the Moriquendi in the days of the trees, because they have a similar problem.
"…if you’d look at how he related to everyone — Coulson loves projects. Here is a guy who didn’t have people skills. So Garrett says, can you help this guy Ward round off some of the rough edges? So he comes onto the team. Coulson is now vested, because he’s got a project. Who is Ward’s greatest threat? May. What does he do? He seduces her. Who is the one unknown on the team? Skye. He becomes her S.O. How do you get everyone rally around and trust you? You jump out of a plan trying to save someone else. Now, he had a parachute. Let’s say he failed to save Simmons, he would’ve been fine. Everything he’s done has solidified how people feel about him over the course of the season."
"…what was the next thing he had to do after he saved Simmons? He had someone on the plane who was jealous of him: Fitz. And what did they do? They went on a mission together and they had a really good time together. And a bromance was started. And that took care of that." x
"…then in "Seeds," there’s a really nice moment where Skye is standing at the wall of valor, and we hear Coulson’s voice off-camera saying that the world is full of evil, pain, lies and death — and the camera pans and lands on Ward when he says "lies" and "evil."" x
God, I adore this scene. These eyes like “Mummy, what the hell is going on here D:” is sooo impressive.
And that split-second before the Einherjar drop down on one knee, and the way he reacts to them doing it, that says that his first thought was “oh god, they’ve come to take me away and put me down”. And Frigga’s ”you’re a good son” and “make your father proud”… Just - that sound you just heard? Is the sound of my heart shattering into tiny pieces. I don’t think there is anything that could convince me cutting this scene down so much was in any way a good idea.
WHY MARVEL STUDIOS SUCCEEDS (AND HOW IT WILL FAIL IF IT DOESN’T DIVERSIFY)
Guardians Of The Galaxy just enjoyed a very successful weekend at movie theaters, taking home around $94m, far in excess of expectations. The movie also stands at 92% positive reviews on aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes, joining all previous Marvel Studios movies in receiving predominantly favorable notices.
Marvel Studios is doing very well. In six years and ten movies, it has avoided both critical and commercial disasters, and frustrated naysayers who hailed the demise of the superhero movie at every step. Marvel’s rivals at Fox, Sony/Columbia, and Warner Bros, have enjoyed commercial success as well — but not with the acclaim, consistency, or proliferation of Marvel. So how does Marvel do it, and can they keep doing it?
I think the secret to Marvel’s success owes much to necessity. Marvel simply can’t afford to screw up the superhero movie business, because it’s the only business the studio is in. That sounds like a circular argument — it succeeds because it can’t fail — but I think Marvel’s singular focus forces it to be smart, ambitious, and innovative in ways that its rivals are slow to understand. Marvel Studios succeeds because it goes all-in.
Look at Marvel’s competitors and it becomes clear that superhero movies are not their sole priority. Fox has its Fantastic Four reboot and its X-Men franchise, but it makes plenty of other movies, including other franchises — Assassin’s Creed, Ice Age, Planet Of The Apes, Taken, etc. Sony/Columbia wants to build a universe around Spider-Man with Sinister Six, Venom, and perhaps Black Cat or Spider-Woman, but it also has the James Bond franchise, Jump Street, The Smurfs. DC’s parent company Warner Bros. is a beast, and it didn’t just make the Dark Knight movies; it also had Harry Potter, The Hobbit, The Hangover, and much more, including the new Godzilla. There are people at Warner Bros. who never have to think about Batman.
There is no-one at Marvel Studios who doesn’t have to think about Captain America.
This is a really interesting (I don’t necessarily agree with a couple of the more subjective things at the beginning) look at the more administrative/production process side of both the shared universe and the “why is this franchise entirely white men?” issue. It’s also really fucking depressing. It’s one thing to know, intellectually, that the shared universe rests on the shoulders of a bunch of franchises lead by young white blonde dudes (and RDJ) and another to see the numbers and the schedule and the facts all laid out.
The comments (which you shouldn’t read—don’t make my mistake) also seemed to me to reinforce what I’m starting to feel is the general vibe of Marvel Studios at this point—“We gave you ten great movies you loved. Why are you complaining? We took all these risks to build a shared universe of interconnected series with real consequences for the characters and you praised that and now, after all we’ve done for you, it’s not good enough? You liked it before, why are you getting greedy now?” It’s an argument structured around some truths—the studio took risks in a way that, while maybe not entirely new, was certainly new and fresh at the time. The movies built on each other, there was continuity and consequences and more-or-less did better by the (few) women characters than some franchises. It told a bunch of good, diverse (genre-wise, not talent-wise) stories. But there’s this prevailing attitude among the white dude fanbase that we should be happy with this plateau. That because we like these things, expressing frustration that there are zero headlining women and zero headlining people of color is rude or uncalled for, as if having issues with the future of the shared universe and the role of people who look like us invalidates any joy we take from the stories that already exist. If 44% of the GotG audience was women, then obviously women are perfectly happy and don’t need a woman-led movie, because it’s apparently an “either/or” situation.
It’s hard enough to deal with fans who take this position, but I’m starting to feel like it’s not just the fans, but the studio as well. Yes, the shared universe of Marvel was cool and innovative when it launched and yes, we’re really excited by it. But you can only be innovative and on the cutting edge like that if you continue to do more, to take new risks, to be more progressive. If you keep making the same movie—young white blonde dude named Chris comes to terms with his responsibilities and powers—you don’t get to keep saying you’re innovative and new and experimental.
I dunno. I’m a queer lady who really loves these movies (albeit not as deeply as some of you) and who is getting tired of being told by the internet and the executives alike that I should not only be happy with what I have, but not want anything more.
Natasha taking Bucky by surprise [Part 1]
#if bucky doesn’t compliment nat on her stealth skills in cap 3 i will protest #or just compliment her in general #like how badass she is #or how pretty her hair looks against the sunset #(⊙‿⊙✿) (via)
You know what, I really don’t care about Red Room. Like they’ve gone past the introduction of that at this point. What I want now is Bucky awkwardly complimenting Nat. I want her realizing she feels oddly protective of this man who tried to kill her, but who is her equal and who has a past so similar. I want Bucky watching Nat when she’s not looking. I want Bucky being cocky and confident like he used to be when joking with Nat, but then so out of his depth when he realizes he might not be kidding. I want Nat reassuring Bucky he’s not broken because SHE’S not broken. I want Nat comforting Bucky because he tries so hard to keep it together. I want them sparing. I want them picking on each other. I want them making out. I want her telling him she likes James better.
YES. I would be reading the shit out of Bucky/Nat fic if I just felt like people could be bothered to actually write about the movie versions instead of 616 Bucky/Nat with Scarlett Johansson and Sebastian Stan’s faces. Seriously, screw MCU Nat and Bucky being in the Red Room together, I want to see them bond over missing each other there by a couple of decades but still being able to understand each other better than anyone else because of the wounds they share. I want to see them choose each other while in their right minds, as their own man and woman, with not the desperation of a shared hell but the determination to rebuild themselves better and happier to bring them together.
This version of Natasha is so much younger than comics Natasha, and the way I see it that’s part of her charm. She’s got so much left to discover and experience for the first time, and we’ll get to see her do it. She’s got all the self-possession but none of the decades of distance, putting her in a hugely dynamic stage of her life. It really disappoints me sometimes that people keep trying to write that out to make her more like 616 Natasha.
I’ve also grown pretty damn tired in general of MCU headcanons and characterisations that boil down to the literal opposit of what canon presents to us *cough* evil Asgardians *cough* drafted Bucky *cough* but that’s neither here nor there.
There’s so much about Bucky that I think MCU Natasha would like. He sees the grey like she does. He’s used to doing the dirty work. He’s laid back and loyal and protective. He’s terribly comfortable with women just like Nat is comfortable with men. They both have that raw streak of sexuality that’s just natural to them. They’ve both got swagger of the same kind, the kind that lets everyone know they know exactly what they’re doing. They’re evenly matched.
And this version of Bucky is so much younger. He LOOKS younger. He’s not grizzled and manly look like the comic version, he’s doe eyed and brittle and boyish looking. He’s handsome, but he’s also worn ragged. There could easily be an interest in Nat, but also an awareness that he’s been used and tossed out over and over. There’s also the urge for him to connect to SOMEONE. He’s been alone for so long it would make sense he would value someone who understood where he was coming from.
Natasha Romanoff thought of the day:
So, the MCU wiki timeline (which is a crazy conglomeration of so many details that it’s actually pretty hard to read) has Natasha’s birthday as November 22, 1984, which is extremely specific but matches what we learned onscreen in Cap 2.
It lists her as going into the Red Room program in July of 1995, when she’d be 10, which I absolutely consider canon. It says that within three years she’s excelling at everything, doing missions, got the nickname Black Widow, which, okay, sure, I’ll buy it. And it says that SHIELD decides she should be eliminated, and sends Clint after her, in January of 1998.
Now okay, I do not buy that! (Especially given that the wiki’s only citation is the Avengers movie, and I think I would have remembered that bit of information in Natasha’s brief backstory blip.) I do not buy that Natasha ended up working for SHIELD when she was thirteen years old!!! Personally, I’d move the date forward about eight to ten years; she’s been with the Russians her whole childhood, if it could be considered a childhood, and up into young adulthood, but she’s starting to get old enough to have thoughts about self-determination and other things existing in the world than what she knows. Everything fits.
But I’m thinking, right, what if it’s not complete bullshit? What if it’s not?
LOOK AT THAT SMIRK.
LOOK AT THE LIFT OF HER EYEBROWS AS SHE GLANCES BACK AT HIM. THE GRIN BEFORE SHE FOCUSES ON WHERE SHE’S RUNNING TO, TO FIND WHERE TO SET HER TRAP.
Nat is running for her life - only not really - and enjoying every second of it. There is no fear there.
She knows this game.
She knows whom she is playing with.
And now that she knows he doesn’t remember that she already knows all his moves, she can play him. Like Happy, like Stark, like Luchkov. Just like all men.
Do you think she’s pretty, Bucky? Come into her web, said the spider to the fly.
People have argued with me over this, but I still see that first one as having some defiance there. He knows they’re going to hurt him. He knows he’s beaten. He probably isn’t even really sure why he wants to fight them. I mean they’ve STILL sold him the line that he’s doing “the greater good” ON TOP of brain washing him (which goes to show just how much fight Bucky had in him to begin with). He shouldn’t have an opinion or a personality at this point.
And yet that first gif. The way he keeps his eyes up. The way he pulls his mouth back almost in a snarl. Clearly no one bothered to pay attention to the facial expressions of “the asset”, because if they had I think they’d realize he wasn’t quite as empty as they thought he was. There’s a little bit of Bucky in that first gif. And it’s an ANGRY Bucky.
Janet van Dyne, a founding member of the Avengers and the person who gave it its name, appears to have been erased from the MCU. Not in the roster when Avengers came out back in 2012, Jan was set for another opportunity to be a part of the team when Marvel announced Ant-Man. Unfortunately, from the announcements yesterday, Jan van Dyne was not even mentioned but someone else was: Hope van Dyne, later corrected to “Hope Pym”, Hank Pym’s daughter.
At best, Jan will either be a mention or a cameo or an easter egg. She will not be a part of the team she founded, she will not be a superhero. She’s either been swapped out for Hope Pym, who might take up the mantle because Marvel Studios thinks women are interchangeable, or she will be an easter egg at most.
Janet van Dyne, the heart and soul of the original Avengers and of every Avengers team she’s been on throughout the years, has been erased from the MCU.
If that seems like a fucking shitty thing for Marvel to do to you, we’re tweeting out in the #JanetVanCrime hashtag. you can join us and stand up to yet another fucking erasure of a female character. Keep an eye on the #janetvancrime tag on tumblr for panels, livestreams, and links. Please don’t stay silent about this.
for every credit I want to give Marvel, they turn around and do this crap
as bad as making Victoria Hand a ‘woman in a refrigerator’ since while I never liked how she viewed Coulson or the team, I feel like she was created to be a plot point to a male’s story (hence the women in refrigerators reference)
what the hell, Marvel?
Okay I just want to defend Marvel for a moment. 20th Century Fox owns the X-Men, just like they own the rights to the Fantastic Four, which is why they’re making a reboot like Sony did for Spiderman or they’d lose the rights and those would go right back to Marvel central so they could be included in the franchise.
That being said, whenever Marvel makes a reference to ‘mutants’ they have to acknowledge and pay tribute to the X-Men franchise, currently owned by 20th Century Fox. That’s why in AoS they call potential superpowered people ‘gifted individuals’ when they clearly just have mutant powers.
Another note, in the movie release date thing that’s been spreading around tumblr, they show the title card for “The Inhumans” in 2019, which is essentially Marvel’s reboot of mutants so they can start using that to explain superpowers again.
Jan was originally a mutant with the power to change size, Marvel cant acknowledge the existence of mutants without paying for it. Jan isnt going to be an Avenger.
It’s simple when you think about it.
a) two mutants, wanda and pietro, are starring in the upcoming film, avengers: age of ultron. they are mutants. they are being called miracles.
b) janet van dyne is not a mutant in the 616, earth prime, first comics universe. she is a mutant in ultimates.
c) what are you even talking about
d) are you saying they can’t do size changing heroes because that is LITERALLY WHAT ANT-MAN IS
You also have to remember that in order to have Jan, you have to have Hank. And he’s not a very nice person, what with him beating his wife and all.
Most of the MCU has been more based on Ultimates, in terms of how they got their powers, even if they then went for more 616 personalities. In Ultimates, Hank Pym developed his “Pym particles” by studying Janet’s mutation. He got them from her.
We may not be able to have mutants in the MCU, but the presence of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch shows that the studio is willing to work around that. Make her part alien. Give her a lab accident. Make her a fucking genius scientist like she was in Ultimates, and have her develop her own goddamn superserum. Saying Janet requires Hank is like saying Tony requires Steve. It’s nice to have them. There is no requirement.
Janet Van Dyne was a founding Avenger. She named the team. She is a prominent, important female superheroine with actual super powers, who could have been played by an Asian actress (again, Ultimates), giving us a woman of color in a position of FUCKING AWESOME. Saying “oh, we can’t have her without Hank, and we can’t change his character to have him not be a wife-beater, so we can’t have her” is not just uncool, it’s wrong.
Page 1 of 45