The Natalie Portman/Jane Foster Thread

[Gamma Burst]

I'm very happy she'll be back.

[herolee10]

Natalie Portman- Black Swan

Patty Jenkins- Monster



OMG! I got it! We're going to get a hot make out session between Jane and Sif to follow the tradition!



lol; j/k

[DarknessOfDeath]

^^ Very funny, herolee. I wish not.

[JB-the-Hunter]

The way they could fix the Jane issue with the movie taking place mostly in Asgard is to go all Alice in Wonderland with it. Thor is reunited with Jane after the events of the Avengers and she asks his to take her back with him to Asgard. She doesn't really have to be part of all the action, but she could hang around with Frigga I guess.

[DarknessOfDeath]

Here's hoping Rene Russo returns as Frigga. She was good but wasn't in it enough.

[04nbod]

We should change the thread title to the Official Thread for Nat/Jane Foster now its confirmed.

[DarknessOfDeath]

I agree. Change the title.

lol @ pic

[04nbod]

Throg makes everything hilarious

[Budspencer]

basing a new thor film just around her would not be that great since i thought the first film's romance was too convenient and rushed, there was no real challenge in them falling in love, he fell to earth and she started to love him right away which is just ridiculous if you ask me...thor needs to kick some serious behind in the next movie, thats what he needs to do!

[herolee10]

Originally Posted by Budspencer

basing a new thor film just around her would not be that great since i thought the first film's romance was too convenient and rushed, there was no real challenge in them falling in love, he fell to earth and she started to love him right away which is just ridiculous if you ask me...thor needs to kick some serious behind in the next movie, thats what he needs to do!

I don't think we'll have to worry about Jane Foster, let alone her romance with Thor, consuming his sequel; and we have to remember that Thor was powerless for a good part of his own film so that somewhat limited as to what he was allowed to do in the first film.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by herolee10

I don't think we'll have to worry about Jane Foster, let alone her romance with Thor, consuming his sequel; and we have to remember that Thor was powerless for a good part of his own film so that somewhat limited as to what he was allowed to do in the first film.

On the other hand, I don't think Marvel sought out (and got) Patty Jenkins just to direct a beat-em-up actioner. I'm sure Thor 2 will have plenty of good ol-fashioned hammer-smashin' and thunder-boltin', but the romance is probably going to be considerably more in-depth than the first movie. And it's likely to get more entangled, involving Sif and possibly even Enchantress (my first bet for primary villain this go-round).

[04nbod]

I'd rather they do it accurately and have the tension come from Odin and not Sif. Although I do think they are missing something if they don't have Odin summon Enchantress to lure Thor away before she snaps and tries to have Jane killed.

I think its kind of funny that people say the romance in the first one was too rushed. We saw that they were attracted to one another and a kiss. We didn't get promises of eternal devotion. I think people expected something bigger in a super-hero movie when they were purposely keeping it low-key.

There were hints that they were something special like when Thor and Jane just stare at each other when she finds him like they've found 'it'. And the chemistry between them was a lot more intimate than the writing. But it was all set up for expansion later on.

I want more of this though:



And I'd also like Nat to cut her hair and I want the scriptwriters to show more of Jane's wit.

[SuperSAINT]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...jenkins-272978

[TheDragonator]

*waits for Alexei to miss the part where it involves her wanting to be with her kid and only focus on that she's upset because the director was fired*

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by TheDragonator

*waits for Alexei to miss the part where it involves her wanting to be with her kid and only focus on that she's upset because the director was fired*

While the parties spun the Dec. 6 parting as an amicable split over creative differences, sources say Jenkins was fired without warning from a job that would have made her the first woman to direct a superhero tentpole. The news was out before anyone had told Portman, who had strongly urged Marvel to hire the director of 2003’s Monster (a film that won Charlize Theron her Oscar). According to sources, Portman had begun to question whether she wanted to continue acting at all right now -- possibly for several years -- because she wants to spend time with her baby boy, who was born in June. Portman was said to be re-engaged in Thor 2 because of Jenkins' involvement and especially proud that she would have played a role in opening the door for a woman to direct such a film. The Oscar winner is contractually obligated to stay with the project and Marvel is now said to be working overtime to smooth over the situation by including her in discussions about whom to hire as a replacement.

It's not about her "wanting to be with her kid." She urged them to hire Jenkins; they didn't like Jenkins' approach; they fired her unceremoniously and without warning in favor of a generic Game of Thrones director (any one of many, apparently, will do). Now, Portman is justifiably pissed. I don't think they're going to soothe her ruffled feathers by hiring a GoT director who's probably being commissioned to turn this into a swords-n-sorcery flick.

[Superhero 101]

I don't know why she's so pissed i think she's just overreacting

[mclay18]

Originally Posted by Superhero 101

I don't know why she's so pissed i think she's just overreacting

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!"

[cherokeesam]

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.

[herolee10]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

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.

Well I think the difference here is that neither Howard or Norton were signed on for more films I think after their performances in their previous films, whereas Natalie is already signed on for a sequel... so I'm guessing that Marvel wants to keep her.

Plus, unlike those two, from what I've read, there was no reported issues or tensions between Natalie and the director or the studio during her time filming Thor, whereas with Norton and Howard, there have been reports about some frictions between them and either the director or the studio or both.

[BigThor]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

It's not about her "wanting to be with her kid." She urged them to hire Jenkins; they didn't like Jenkins' approach; they fired her unceremoniously and without warning in favor of a generic Game of Thrones director (any one of many, apparently, will do). Now, Portman is justifiably pissed. I don't think they're going to soothe her ruffled feathers by hiring a GoT director who's probably being commissioned to turn this into a swords-n-sorcery flick.

But a film about Thor pretty much should be a sword and sorcery type flick.

[04nbod]

Originally Posted by BigThor

But a film about Thor pretty much should be a sword and sorcery type flick.

They shouldn't approach it like that. It could turn out like Dungeons and Dragons. They need to focus on who can bring out the best in the characters and the dynamics because no one is really going to be an expert in Thor's Sword/Sorcery/Sci-Fi/Super-hero genre. Its not the frost giants that made Thor, it was the character dynamics between the leads.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by BigThor

But a film about Thor pretty much should be a sword and sorcery type flick.

Again, that's where I respectfully disagree.
While writers like JMS have certainly got great mileage out of pushing the story entirely into Asgard and the Nine Realms, it's still an inescapable fact that Thor is a *superhero* and not a *fantasy* hero. That has always kept the character firmly rooted on Earth, in every decade. When you distance him from Earth and humanity, you distance him from his audience. It's harder for GAs to care about what goes on in other realms/dimensions, when the hero is supposed to be a superhero and Avenger who is a protector of mankind.

[batdude]

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!"

Oh, I wouldn't put it past Marvel to sue. I just question if we really need Portman or just another hot babe for the Enchantess. Is Kat Dennings obligated to return too?

[mclay18]

Originally Posted by herolee10

Well I think the difference here is that neither Howard or Norton were signed on for more films I think after their performances in their previous films, whereas Natalie is already signed on for a sequel... so I'm guessing that Marvel wants to keep her.

Yeah. She said she was signed for three Thor movies.

And it's not as if MS is the only studio that has an ironclad clause. Remember when Emily Blunt was originally hired as Black Widow/Natalie Rushman? She couldn't do both IM-2 and Gulliver's Travels not only because of scheduling conflicts but also because Fox exercised its contract on her to do GT only.

And remember, when J.J. Abrams finally agreed on a script for ST2, Paramount extended and exercised its options on the main cast members so they can't take any other gig during filming.

Originally Posted by batdude

Oh, I wouldn't put it past Marvel to sue. I just question if we really need Portman or just another hot babe for the Enchantess. Is Kat Dennings obligated to return too?

You'll have to ask Dennings herself. But usually for supporting characters, actors sign a two film contract (one is a sequel option).

[04nbod]

Originally Posted by batdude

Oh, I wouldn't put it past Marvel to sue. I just question if we really need Portman or just another hot babe for the Enchantess. Is Kat Dennings obligated to return too?

What? Seriously people, what? The sexist crap is just mounting. Women aren't interchangible for your gratification

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Again, that's where I respectfully disagree.
While writers like JMS have certainly got great mileage out of pushing the story entirely into Asgard and the Nine Realms, it's still an inescapable fact that Thor is a *superhero* and not a *fantasy* hero. That has always kept the character firmly rooted on Earth, in every decade. When you distance him from Earth and humanity, you distance him from his audience. It's harder for GAs to care about what goes on in other realms/dimensions, when the hero is supposed to be a superhero and Avenger who is a protector of mankind.

That is how I see it too. Distancing him from Earth as always been a problem with writers at Marvel. They really don't want to write the Thor Stan created they want to do Lord of the Rings or something. Every few years you get a writer who reminds everyone what Thor is meant to be like Gerry Conway, Dan Jurgens and JMS.

Even the writers who want to embrace the godly aspect of Thor only seem to concentrate on the physical. He's god of Thunder and god of Strength so Thor is always tested by power. Thor is also god of healing and his mortal form is a Doctor, but that doesnt seem to count because its too normal and requires writing Thor with a brain and they can't have that. He is the son of Earth, protector of the common man and dies defeating the Midgard Serpent but he's hardly ever written with any investment in Earth these days, its always Asgardian power struggles, Asgardian conspiracies and monsters from other realms attacking Asgard.