Long, Not Terribly Coherent Fandom Post
Feb. 26th, 2014 12:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shapinglightI'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 (incomprehensible to many of you) stuff to do with old Marvel comics.
Well, not entirely Shakespeare's fault. Anyone who bothers reading my LJ has probably gathered that I quite like the two Thor movies, even though I'm less than enamoured of Avengers: Assemble and think Agents of SHIELD is dull as ditchwater. Not to mention, as a long-time Marvel comics reader, I've always preferred the X-Men to the Avengers.
However, since seeing the NTLive production of Coriolanus at the cinema back in January, I've found myself re-watching the original Thor movie again - and this time, instead of thinking, boy, this is a really bad film (which I thought the first time I re-watched it), I found myself thinking, actually, it's okay, isn't it. Not to mention I also re-watched the Avengers movie and found that less boring than I thought the first time.
And of course it's an easy leap from there to looking for fanfic and pics of Thor and Loki. In other words, to getting fannish about it all.
'Course, this isn't the first time I've got really, really interested in another show/film etc since the cancellation of AtS. I love Game of Thrones, for instance, and Ripper Street, and there have been other shows too (though some - notably Being Human) haven't stood the test of time. Then there's True Blood, which I was actually beginning to feel really fannish about last summer, until the last episode of season 6 stomped all over that and made me consider not watching the final season at all (in itself proof of true fannishness).
I think this is qualitatively different, though, in the sense that, unlike Game of Thrones (probably the best of the shows I just mentioned), the Thor movie-verse isn't all spelled out beforehand by a creator who keeps a tight rein on his work. Nobody knows what's going to happen in it next, just that there is going to be another Thor film (though not for a couple of years, and a lot can happen in that time, plus it will impacted by what happens in the second Avengers movie). It also contains various elements that I enjoy in the Buffyverse - the warring siblings thing between Thor and Loki, which echoes (or precedes by decades, if you include the Marvel comicsverse) the Spike/Angel relationship, plus the great on screen chemistry between Hemsworth and Hiddleston, and the injection of Jossian humour in the goings on of Jane Foster's gang of wacky sidekicks (I loved that dynamic in both movies, and the fish out of water aspect of Thor's interaction with them). Not to mention that Jane herself has been upgraded from wimpy nurse given to fainting and getting rescued a lot in the early Marvel Thor comics to maverick astrophysicist, who, despite still having to get rescued a lot (see the entire middle section of the second Thor movie) is no pushover, and is in fact a bit of a SFC without having to don a skin tight outfit and hit people.
And yeah, there's Idris Elba, and the fact that the cast is (mostly) made up of some very good actors, despite some of them (I'm looking at you, Sir Anthony Hopkins) phoning it in at times.
So, despite the movies not being great movies (adequate at best), they contain elements that make them for me the perfect storm (that's a pun) where making me fannish is concerned.
Bu-ut of course it's not that simple. The lack of content is problematic. Instead of seven seasons of BtVS and five of AtS, there's three movies (the Avengers only tangentially), and not likely to be any more for at least two years, probably longer. Of course, you could include the comics, but in my (very long) experience of reading Marvel comics, I'm wary of doing that because the rug can be pulled out from under you at any moment, as any Magneto fan could tell you. These stories have been ongoing since the 60s. These days, they reboot themselves every few years, and characters you thought you knew will suddenly change out of all recognition or revert to a past iteration (I'm afraid Magneto's about to do that - yet again). It all depends what stories people want to tell with them. I could invest in a partially redeemed Loki, for instance, as I have in the past invested in a partially redeemed Magneto, only to have my investment thrown back in my face when some comics writer comes along with an idea for that character which necessitates them being wholly evil. Then you wait four/five years or so and the whole thing comes full-circle.
Not that including the comics wouldn't add interest. It would. Especially as the latest officially declared wisdom on Comics!Loki is that not only is his sexuality fluid but also his gender (so I suppose, if Tom Hiddleston wasn't available, they could have Girl!Loki in the third Thor movie, though they'd probably lose half their audience as a result. Girl! or Feminised! Loki seems pretty big in the Thor/Avengers fandom from what little I've seen of its fanfic, btw).
So, anyway, it's a problematic fandom. Either you include comics stuff and find yourself getting whatever that fandom's equivalent of being Jossed is every other year, or you don't and find yourself with very little content to play with.
Anyway, the upshot of all this is I probably won't write any Thor and Loki fanfic any time soon. I didn't start writing BtVS/AtS fanfic until canon was closed because I like to have the whole story in front of me, and this is a story which is going to remain open-ended for years. We'll see. I don't rule it out completely.
Don't be surprised, though, if I occasionally make posts about Thor stuff (along the lines of 'Which Buffyverse Character Does Loki Most Resemble?' etc, etc), or take more interest in Agents of SHIELD than its sheer dullness warrants because a Thor character is making a guest appearance). And if you're currently wondering, what on earth do you see in all this, It's badly written and the characters are cyphers? bear in mind that this is exactly how I feel about SPN and loads of people love that. It's what works for you. The Thor movies contain many elements that make them work for me in a way that all those other shows/movies just...don't.
Think I'll go and have another look at this months'![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
sb_fag_ends prompts now. See if I can write another ficlet before the end of the month. 'Cos I'm not leaving the Buffyverse fandom, just branching out a bit.
And to bring this post back to Shakespeare, where it (perhaps not so inexplicably) started, I re-watched the BBC's Henry IV pt 1 last night (part of their Hollow Crown season). I still think it's very good, though this time had much more of a sense of stuff missing. I dunno. It's a long time since I read the play.
The Buffyverse character I think Loki most resembles, btw, is Ethan Rayne.
ETA: On second thoughts, more like an amalgam of Ethan Rayne and Soulless Spike.
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 (incomprehensible to many of you) stuff to do with old Marvel comics.
Well, not entirely Shakespeare's fault. Anyone who bothers reading my LJ has probably gathered that I quite like the two Thor movies, even though I'm less than enamoured of Avengers: Assemble and think Agents of SHIELD is dull as ditchwater. Not to mention, as a long-time Marvel comics reader, I've always preferred the X-Men to the Avengers.
However, since seeing the NTLive production of Coriolanus at the cinema back in January, I've found myself re-watching the original Thor movie again - and this time, instead of thinking, boy, this is a really bad film (which I thought the first time I re-watched it), I found myself thinking, actually, it's okay, isn't it. Not to mention I also re-watched the Avengers movie and found that less boring than I thought the first time.
And of course it's an easy leap from there to looking for fanfic and pics of Thor and Loki. In other words, to getting fannish about it all.
'Course, this isn't the first time I've got really, really interested in another show/film etc since the cancellation of AtS. I love Game of Thrones, for instance, and Ripper Street, and there have been other shows too (though some - notably Being Human) haven't stood the test of time. Then there's True Blood, which I was actually beginning to feel really fannish about last summer, until the last episode of season 6 stomped all over that and made me consider not watching the final season at all (in itself proof of true fannishness).
I think this is qualitatively different, though, in the sense that, unlike Game of Thrones (probably the best of the shows I just mentioned), the Thor movie-verse isn't all spelled out beforehand by a creator who keeps a tight rein on his work. Nobody knows what's going to happen in it next, just that there is going to be another Thor film (though not for a couple of years, and a lot can happen in that time, plus it will impacted by what happens in the second Avengers movie). It also contains various elements that I enjoy in the Buffyverse - the warring siblings thing between Thor and Loki, which echoes (or precedes by decades, if you include the Marvel comicsverse) the Spike/Angel relationship, plus the great on screen chemistry between Hemsworth and Hiddleston, and the injection of Jossian humour in the goings on of Jane Foster's gang of wacky sidekicks (I loved that dynamic in both movies, and the fish out of water aspect of Thor's interaction with them). Not to mention that Jane herself has been upgraded from wimpy nurse given to fainting and getting rescued a lot in the early Marvel Thor comics to maverick astrophysicist, who, despite still having to get rescued a lot (see the entire middle section of the second Thor movie) is no pushover, and is in fact a bit of a SFC without having to don a skin tight outfit and hit people.
And yeah, there's Idris Elba, and the fact that the cast is (mostly) made up of some very good actors, despite some of them (I'm looking at you, Sir Anthony Hopkins) phoning it in at times.
So, despite the movies not being great movies (adequate at best), they contain elements that make them for me the perfect storm (that's a pun) where making me fannish is concerned.
Bu-ut of course it's not that simple. The lack of content is problematic. Instead of seven seasons of BtVS and five of AtS, there's three movies (the Avengers only tangentially), and not likely to be any more for at least two years, probably longer. Of course, you could include the comics, but in my (very long) experience of reading Marvel comics, I'm wary of doing that because the rug can be pulled out from under you at any moment, as any Magneto fan could tell you. These stories have been ongoing since the 60s. These days, they reboot themselves every few years, and characters you thought you knew will suddenly change out of all recognition or revert to a past iteration (I'm afraid Magneto's about to do that - yet again). It all depends what stories people want to tell with them. I could invest in a partially redeemed Loki, for instance, as I have in the past invested in a partially redeemed Magneto, only to have my investment thrown back in my face when some comics writer comes along with an idea for that character which necessitates them being wholly evil. Then you wait four/five years or so and the whole thing comes full-circle.
Not that including the comics wouldn't add interest. It would. Especially as the latest officially declared wisdom on Comics!Loki is that not only is his sexuality fluid but also his gender (so I suppose, if Tom Hiddleston wasn't available, they could have Girl!Loki in the third Thor movie, though they'd probably lose half their audience as a result. Girl! or Feminised! Loki seems pretty big in the Thor/Avengers fandom from what little I've seen of its fanfic, btw).
So, anyway, it's a problematic fandom. Either you include comics stuff and find yourself getting whatever that fandom's equivalent of being Jossed is every other year, or you don't and find yourself with very little content to play with.
Anyway, the upshot of all this is I probably won't write any Thor and Loki fanfic any time soon. I didn't start writing BtVS/AtS fanfic until canon was closed because I like to have the whole story in front of me, and this is a story which is going to remain open-ended for years. We'll see. I don't rule it out completely.
Don't be surprised, though, if I occasionally make posts about Thor stuff (along the lines of 'Which Buffyverse Character Does Loki Most Resemble?' etc, etc), or take more interest in Agents of SHIELD than its sheer dullness warrants because a Thor character is making a guest appearance). And if you're currently wondering, what on earth do you see in all this, It's badly written and the characters are cyphers? bear in mind that this is exactly how I feel about SPN and loads of people love that. It's what works for you. The Thor movies contain many elements that make them work for me in a way that all those other shows/movies just...don't.
Think I'll go and have another look at this months'
sb_fag_ends prompts now. See if I can write another ficlet before the end of the month. 'Cos I'm not leaving the Buffyverse fandom, just branching out a bit. And to bring this post back to Shakespeare, where it (perhaps not so inexplicably) started, I re-watched the BBC's Henry IV pt 1 last night (part of their Hollow Crown season). I still think it's very good, though this time had much more of a sense of stuff missing. I dunno. It's a long time since I read the play.
The Buffyverse character I think Loki most resembles, btw, is Ethan Rayne.
ETA: On second thoughts, more like an amalgam of Ethan Rayne and Soulless Spike.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-02-26 01:43 pm (UTC)Really? It makes a lot of sense! (Since now I've read only comparisons with Spike, but just because they are both very beloved by the fandom and, maybe, because they're both the underdog, I guess)
It's nice to see you involved with Thor and Loki because I'm also fannish about them. I don't care much about the other Avengers, even if Natasha is really cool, but I'm pretty involved with the Norse Bros Saga. They are interesting.
Their dynamic kinda echoes the Spike/Angel one, true, but to me it echoes mostly the Buffy/Faith one (And, yes, there are things in common with both couples)
Funny thing is that I was madly fangirling all the year and now I'm more clam and fangirlish again about the Buffyverse. XD
no subject
Date: 2014-02-26 02:23 pm (UTC)Well, there aren't exact comparisons, of course. Loki has some Spike-like traits too, notably the emotional vulnerability, the volatility and the inferiority complex. There's also a trickster/truthteller element to Spike's characterisation, especially pre-soul and in AtS season 5. But when he gets his soul, the chaos-bringer aspect of him is toned down a lot, whereas that's the core of Loki's personality and why investing in any kind of Loki redemption story (more than happened in the second Thor film anyway) is probably to be on a hiding to nothing. That's why I think he resembles Ethan in some respects. Maybe Loki's more a fusion of Ethan and Spike combined.
As for Thor, though there are some Angel-like aspects to his personality, he's a much nicer person than Angel with none of Angel's complexity. He's just an all-round sweetheart, basically. He's so eager to believe the best of people that someone like Loki can just twist him around their little finger.
Funny thing is that I was madly fangirling all the year and now I'm more clam and fangirlish again about the Buffyverse.
That could have been because you were waiting for the film to come out. It's out now. We know what happened, and until the next one comes out there's not a lot more to say, unfortunately. There'll always be stuff to say about the Buffyverse.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-26 04:37 pm (UTC)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. I do think it's a good sign for Loki that apparently Tom Hiddleston has an enormous input into the character's characterization (like the fight scene on the dark planet was kind of his idea, because he wanted to make sure people knew Loki could be a badass, etc.) 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 :P (However, I have done a thing I have NEVER done before and bought some of the comic books because I think the story sounds interesting there!)
And although it's not MCU, I'm going to shill yet again for Joanne Harris's fantastic Runemarks and Runelight (because her Loki is brilliant!) and I'm eagerly awaiting the "adult" Gospel of Loki (I had to order it from the UK because it hasn't come out in the US yet :{)
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.
ETA: I'm pretty sure Tom Hiddleston is contractually obligated to be available at least for two more films (I've read - I can't remember where, or I'd source it, but it seemed reputable and knowledgeable - that he's contracted for five films, and he's so far been in three of them.) From the gushing they do on the TDW extras, I think MCU's TPTB are WELL-AWARE of what he brings to the movies, both in terms of talent and in terms of attracting fans. (They went back and added in a bunch of extra Loki stuff in TDW, for example, after the film was shot last year!)
no subject
Date: 2014-02-26 05:04 pm (UTC)That being said, oh my, of course it cannot go on forever, you being solely a Buffy/AtS fan and Hiddleston is impossible not to like/admire.
I came into this fandom in 2011. Especially 4 writers immediately attracted my attention and they which were Shylahmask, you, Whichclothes and Spike's evilbint. Only you are still around in the fandom now which smarts a bit but that's what happens when I find something fantastic more than a decade too late. You should do whatever you want to do, write about whatever inspires you. Your post are never dull, so even though I'm not going to become a Thor fan, I'll probably read every post just the same.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-26 06:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-26 07:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-26 07:39 pm (UTC)I think I will make an except for SHIELD to see Sif. :D And Thor 2 was just released in the states, so I should be getting that from Netflix soon. Yay.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-26 07:54 pm (UTC)The new Marvel movies have exceeded my expectations. I'm still iffy on the first Thor movie, though I liked the second one a bunch. I liked the Iron Man ones, Captain America, and Avengers a whole lot, though I never did follow these comics. X-Men was more for me, as well. (I did read some of the early-80s "Iron Man falls apart" comics, though.) I don't plan to start now.
I'm fannish about lots of things, including Shakespeare, but not to the point of writing for most of them. Unless I'm crossing them over with Buffy characters. But I did write an Avengers/Pulp Fiction ficlet, so I guess I'm not a purist.
My advice? Do what you enjoy! How original.
My sister-in-law and I have Opinions about actors/characters which intersect and diverge, depending. She thinks the characters of Sherlock, Loki, and Ichabod Crane (on Sleepy Hollow) are all engaging and fascinating, but only Tom Mison (Ichabod) is really attractive. I agree on the first point, but think Tom Hiddleston is dishy, too. That said, I'd be ALL OVER girl!Loki. We don't have enough ladies as agents of chaos! (This reminds me of how much I love girl!Spike when people go there.)
no subject
Date: 2014-02-27 01:07 am (UTC)I'm coming to believe that everything interesting in the world is ALL SHAKESPEARE'S FAULT.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-27 02:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-27 12:59 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-27 12:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-27 08:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-28 01:12 pm (UTC);) Aww, Hemsworth - or Thor at least - is a total sweetheart.
Not my type, though. Have to admit. Thor is a bit like Angel. He needs other characters around him to make him interesting.
you being solely a Buffy/AtS fan and Hiddleston is impossible not to like/admire.
Well, as I said, I don't know if that's really changed. There are lots of other shows I love. I did get very fannish about GoT, for instance, when it started, and still love it - but the fact that the story is already written makes it more difficult to get invested. You could invest in a particular 'ship, for instance, only for someone who has read the books to tell you you're wasting your time because one of the characters ends up dead, or something.
I'm glad you like my posts. I will still be posting about Buffyverse stuff too. And hopefully writing some ficlets, if nothing else.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-28 01:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-28 01:18 pm (UTC)Well, I'm familiar with a lot of the old stuff (as detailed in that Marvel Loki Wiki I linked you to) and I'd say it isn't related to earlier arcs either.
Though Loki does have a history of abruptly switching sides, and not always for purely evil reasons (usually self-serving, though).
I hope you enjoy Thor 2. It's not a great movie or anything, but pretty good for Thor and Loki fans (and Jane Foster/Gang of Wacky Sidekicks fans - oh, and Thor/Jane fans, all of which I am).
no subject
Date: 2014-02-28 01:25 pm (UTC)Yep. We must both have a type - though of course it's all bound up in who plays the character too. Loki played by someone else (like Spike or Ethan played by someone else) just wouldn't be the same.
I was very iffy on the first Thor movie the second time I saw it (too busy trying to follow what was going on to have much of an opinion the first time, except that I did finally get what the Loki thing was about), but this third time I enjoyed it a lot. Evidently, when you get truly fannish, your critical faculties take a hammering (heh, another pun!). I haven't seen the second two Iron Man movies, or the Captain America one. The difference is that now I want to. ;) Better subscribe to Netflix, I suppose.
I'm fannish about lots of things, including Shakespeare.
Me too -including lighthouses and - of course - birds.
That said, I'd be ALL OVER girl!Loki. We don't have enough ladies as agents of chaos! (This reminds me of how much I love girl!Spike when people go there.)
I doubt there'll ever be Girl!Loki in the movies, but the comics are another matter. In fact, the writer of the current Loki series has specifically said he'll go there.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-28 01:30 pm (UTC)I hope you enjoy it. I thought it was excellent.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-28 01:32 pm (UTC)Well, considering that show's been running for about a century and I've still to get the attraction, I don't think that's very likely. ;)
Pretty sure I'll always love BtVS/AtS the best anyway.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-28 01:34 pm (UTC)You're quite right, of course. Spike just wants to be loved, Ethan wants to cause chaos. Loki actually wants to be king of Asgard (though I'm still not really sure why).
There should be an Ethan & Loki fic, I think...
I bet there's some out there somewhere.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-28 08:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-28 08:57 pm (UTC)