Long, Not Terribly Coherent Fandom Post
I've been mulling this over for the last few weeks, trying to get my thoughts together. Probably, I won't be able to write down what is perfectly clear in my head, but here goes.
It seems I may not be mono-fandom any more, and it's all Shakespeare's fault.
Musings behind cut, with spoilers for the two Thor movies (should anyone care), and ( ( Read more... )
It seems I may not be mono-fandom any more, and it's all Shakespeare's fault.
Musings behind cut, with spoilers for the two Thor movies (should anyone care), and ( ( Read more... )
There's some really fantastic Thorverse fic, and then there are literally THOUSANDS of terrible stories, but if you want, I'm happy to send you some links.
Oh, yes please! Actually, wasn't it you that linked me to that rather good Jane Foster/Loki fic? Stupidly, I did not bookmark it on Ao3 and now I've lost it. I still like the idea of Loki and Jane (see icon), but also find Loki weirdly asexual. He's a very cerebral character - one reason why I find Thor/Loki fics hard to read. The sex just...I can't cope with it. If the story's good enough I expect I could grit my teeth and skim that bit, though.
and he seems very invested in Loki being a trickster, not out and out evil. But I know what you mean - I feel a bit nervous about the whole idea of the third Thor film because as far as I'm concerned, they left Loki in a fantastic place at the end of TDW.
This is true. Both Thor and Loki got what they wanted, and Loki-as-Odin's speech to Thor was probably the nicest thing Odin had ever said to him. Odd. But yes, I do fear that the only way is down after that. Loki must have done something nefarious to Odin and when Thor finds out about it he won't be pleased.
I agree Hiddleston has had a lot of input into how Loki as a character has developed. He does, however, think that Loki is a damaged psychopath, and that he's not as emotionally vulnerable as he used to be. This could well mean that they take the death of Frigga as removing Loki's last weakness, leaving him no reason to be anything but evil. Needless to say, I hope not. I do think Marvel now realise what a hot property they have in the character - as evidenced by the reaction Hiddleston got at SDCC, which - so I understand - precipitated the decision to go back and film more Loki scenes.
I'm so glad they did that. I watched the film last night and I'm pretty sure I can spot many of those scenes. Without them, Loki wouldn't have been in the film much at all (which is crazy, IMO), and wouldn't have had an emotional arc worth talking about.
Even as it is, it doesn't feel like enough - the limiting factor of film, as opposed to TV. There are clips - like the scene of Loki screaming in grief - which didn't even make it into the deleted scenes, let along the final movie. And I do wish they'd kept the little scene where Thor comes across Frigga just after she's been speaking to Loki. That really added to both their arcs.
Oh well. Also, because I don't have a blu-ray player, I bought the DVD, and you get no extras with that at all. I wouldn't know any of this stuff if not for...well, you know.
I want to read the Joanne Harris books very much. I just can't buy any books at the moment.
Re: Hollow Crown's Henry IV - they did cut out quite a bit of Falstaff stuff, but I, for one, am rather grateful for that simply because the version of Falstaff in these films is so dour and utterly lacking in charm. I only rarely got the sense that he had any love at all for Hal the young man, rather than for Falstaff and what Hal the Prince and Future King could do for Falstaff; just once or twice in both plays did I sense that he cared about Hal. Which makes Hal's "I know thee not!" a lot less heartbreaking for me.
I know what you mean. They made it seem like Hal was fonder of Falstaff and really wanted to see him come good rather than the reverse. You can infer that, of course, if you like, from the fact that Hal secured Falstaff a commission, but I've never seen it done like that before.
Reply
Leave a comment