illwynd:
Hey anon sorryyyyy this has been sitting in my inbox for a few days, life’s been weird and crazy (for everyone else, the post being referenced is the one about Thor 1 being a chick flick)
It is the most baffling thing, the way some folks interpret both those films these days, and I have no idea why it has caught on since that interpretation is… pretty obviously flawed, if you think about it for even two seconds. Are folks just repeating the opinions of people who didn’t understand Thor to begin with and assuming it’s right because the previous movies weren’t such a financial success? Are they dismissing everything that isn’t their shiny new fave because clearly there can be only one good piece of content ever? Is it just trendy to bash the previous movies? I really don’t know, and it makes me sad, because, goddammit, Thor was always awesome, long before Ragnarok (and in fact Ragnarok eroded many of his best traits). Thor was and is awesome in ways that those same folks should appreciate, yet they don’t seem to want to bother.
I mean ok, i’m not gonna tell anyone how to do fandom, and different strokes and all that, and if Ragnarok Thor is your fave, well, you do you. But you might want to give the rest of canon another chance if you had been just dismissing it out of hand, because there is a reason the fandom has been here the whole time.
(Also I was thinking today of doing a feminist analysis of all three Thor movies and I am still tempted because there are so many aspects that aren’t generally acknowledged and I think it makes for quite a different picture of all of them but I don’t have the brain or time to get into it right now. still, definitely thinking about it.)
(Also, I am just really baffled by the people who think they’re better Thor fans because they only like him in one movie where the characterization is, undeniably, radically divergent from all other characterizations. I mean. wut.)