Originally Posted by mclay18
Portman was happy to get to work with a good, different director -- and one who did a movie that blew people away. Also try to see it this way: People forget that once celebs have kids, most of them take a couple of years off or cut back on their workload to raise their children. (Like Tobey Maguire, Brangelina and Sarah Michelle Gellar.) That is perfectly fine and expected.
From what the THR says, Portman agreed to have the sequel option excised in her contract once Jenkins came on. From the looks of things, she probably would take some convincing to sign on for Thor 2 if it was anyone else but since it was a well-respected female director, she agreed. But what really riled her was that no one told her or any of the other cast members about Jenkins' removal before the news was made public.
Now since Portman is locked for Thor 2, she's contractually obligated to play Jane -- whether it's a cameo appearance, supporting or leading role. She's not the kind of person who can afford to get sued for tens of millions of dollars, if she stood her ground and said "Since Jenkins is out, I might as well be too!"
Which also means that, if Portman is contractually forced to play a role she doesn't want in a film she doesn't like for a director and a studio she doesn't agree with, you can damn well be sure that whatever role she plays will be phoned in; so you're almost *guaranteed* to have a sh***y performance for Jane Foster, with absolutely none of the chemistry from the previous films.
Seems to me that Marvel would prefer to just replace her, since they didn't have any problem at all replacing Rhodey or Banner.