Originally Posted by KalMart
Again....it's not about what the character was written to be. You could probably surmise her out to be more essential to the story, on paper, than Paltrow's Potts was to Iron Man. But the latter felt better, they made a cuter and more fun pair, and left something that you really wanted to enjoy watching develop more. I really didn't see Thor having that. Granted, that's a lot to measure up to with those two actors...but even still, Thor's felt pretty obligatory in comparison. Not necessarily terrible, but just there, regardless how important it was supposed to be. On the level of Connelly and Bana in Hulk, even though Thor was a better movie.
That's what makes her replaceable, in that despite the kinds of things you mention...it really wouldn't take much to overcome it with someone else of notable name and appeal. Have the next Thor movie primarily not take place on present Earth. There you go. If no Portman, maybe he and Johannsen's character may start spending a little more extra-mission time together in an otherworldly battle or something.
But she's Natalie Portman...of course they'll want her back...because she's Natalie Portman.
I disagree, Thor and Jane's relationship was left with them trying to find their way back to each other so they could start something, there was nothing like that in Iron Man, Pepper and Tony were basically in the same place in their relationship from Iron Man 1 - Iron Man 2, IMO Pepper would be far more easily replaced. Now granted the relationship between Thor and Jane did happen quickly but it was nowhere near as bad as the relationship in Ang's Hulk where Betty and Bruce were already broken up and both had alot of issues, most of the time they didn't even feel like they wanted to be around each other.