The Natalie Portman/Jane Foster Thread

[CBMovie]

I didn't read any news if she signed a multi film contract like Hemworth.

She also took a semi-retirement from Hollywood this year since she's having a baby, with no date or year of when she'll be coming back to acting.

[04nbod]

She said she signed a contract for more Thor films at Comic-Con but didn't know if she would be asked back. I'm trying to get my head around how they can do it without the character of Jane and still have the storyline work. Not to mention losing the star power of Portman and a character that was very popular (not to mention one of few characters to have any development at all).

I hate recasts but would prefer them to replace her with Lizzy Caplan and just get on with the story if push comes to shove.

I'm also concerned that losing earth loses a big part of Thor's character. Its just as important as Asgard, if not more. We have seen no investment from Thor in this planet beyond his interest in Jane. Are we really going to go off to the realms without solidifying Thor's duty to humanity?

They are in the early part of setting the foundations of the character. To throw that all away to go play with dwarves and norns is odd and it could alienate the regular audience like GL did. It feels like they are rushing into what should be a third or even fourth movie as the second one.

[herolee10]

At this point, the ONLY way that I can see her NOT coming back is if Marvel Studios says so.

I just can't see her NOT coming back given where the first film left off. Both she and Earth are huge factors into Thor's development and to ignore both would just gain Marvel Studios criticism and such.

Well, all that depends on the Avengers. Again, I can't for the life of me understand how Thor can get back to Earth and not seek out Jane in that film.

There has to be a seriously great plausible reason as to why Portman isn't in the Avengers, considering where her character was at the end. I mean, she's working for SHIELD at the end of the film basically to find a way to get to Asgard.

She has to come back.

[Raiden]

I really hope Natalie Portman will be back, but since Thor 2 is scheduled for 2013 and if she intended to stay semi-retired due to her baby, I think Marvel Studios will have no choice but to recast Jane. They already did it for Rhodey and Banner, so I don't think they'll hesitate to do so.

[herolee10]

Originally Posted by Raiden

I really hope Natalie Portman will be back, but since Thor 2 is scheduled for 2013 and if she intended to stay semi-retired due to her baby, I think Marvel Studios will have no choice but to recast Jane. They already did it for Rhodey and Banner, so I don't think they'll hesitate to do so.

The difference between those situations I believe is that Portman is contracted to do several more sequels for Thor I believe, so she is contractually obligated to return.

[Liam_H]

Portman does not have to be in the Avengers, she's the main reason Thor wants to go back to Earth but there is a great threat with Loki and his army to deal with. Its like Banner wouldn't have to go see Betty once he gets on the team even though he wants to.

[04nbod]

Originally Posted by Liam_H

Portman does not have to be in the Avengers, she's the main reason Thor wants to go back to Earth but there is a great threat with Loki and his army to deal with. Its like Banner wouldn't have to go see Betty once he gets on the team even though he wants to.

Jane was set up as the one to bring him back at the end of Thor, 'She searches for you'. She was working with Selvig. If he is there where is Jane? She should be in it. A mention is the least they could do.

Natalie isn't semi-retired. She said she admired Audrey Hepburn's decision to quit when she had a family not that she would make that choice herself. She said that she would take each thing as it comes.

I hate recasts but if they have to recast her I'd go with this lady.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0135221/
I'd rather they recast than lose the role completely. Then we'll be stuck with Sif.

[Liam_H]

I actually enjoyed Sif far more than Jane in the movie. Not due to the actresses but because of how they were written. If for some reason Jane doesn't return in Thor 2 I wouldn't be too upset.

[herolee10]

Originally Posted by Liam_H

I actually enjoyed Sif far more than Jane in the movie. Not due to the actresses but because of how they were written. If for some reason Jane doesn't return in Thor 2 I wouldn't be too upset.

Lucky you; I wish I had that mentality, so that I wouldn't risk feeling any type of upset if the worst case scenario did happen.lol

Be that as it may, I think, regardless of how people may feel about the character, that Jane's importance to Thor was set up in a big way that it'd be irresponsible to not conclude that cliffhanger; I mean to ignore that part or to just say that they reunited off screen and broke up would be like spitting at the quality and time that they spent in establishing the connection between the two in the first film.

[04nbod]

Originally Posted by Liam_H

I actually enjoyed Sif far more than Jane in the movie. Not due to the actresses but because of how they were written. If for some reason Jane doesn't return in Thor 2 I wouldn't be too upset.

I get that people would like the girl with the sword vs the girl with the brain but its not like Sif had any character at all. All we know about her is that she is friends with Thor and is one of the few ladies in Asgard that likes to fight. She has no arc, she has no complexity, she has no dilemmas and Jaimie had no opportunity to show any range. Compare that to how developed Jane was and its not even close as to who is the better character. Jane was the leading lady, she was written as the leading lady. I don't want to lose all that, plus I'm hoping we will get some more of comic Jane's personality in the next one.

Originally Posted by herolee10

Lucky you; I wish I had that mentality, so that I wouldn't risk feeling any type of upset if the worst case scenario did happen.lol

Be that as it may, I think, regardless of how people may feel about the character, that Jane's importance to Thor was set up in a big way that it'd be irresponsible to not conclude that cliffhanger; I mean to ignore that part or to just say that they reunited off screen and broke up would be like spitting at the quality and time that they spent in establishing the connection between the two in the first film.

That would not be acceptable. Neither would Jane conveniently losing her memories, being the victim of Odin's crap or being shown to be less worthy than any other character. I've got my eye on you Marvel. That sexist crap don't fly no more!

[herolee10]

On a purely shallow note; dang, if their kiss in the last film is of any indication as to what a love scene between would be like, then I don't think all of Asgard would be able to contain the amount of heat emitting from that.haha

[Godzilla2000]

As an actress and as a person I really like Natalie Portman in a BFF way. I loved her portrayal of Jane Foster a lot. I don't think that she's consider being in another Thor movie as beneath her status despite winning an Oscar either. I'm sure she'll be back in some capacity in the future, but what I would like is for them to cast Donald Blake and have Jane go back to him. Thor and Sif should be paired up for obvious reasons, but as with the comics Raganarok should come to pass and leave Thor without Sif or Jane. I think it would be interesting to see Thor handle this loss of love with poise through the apparent death of Sif and to Jane by her falling in love with another man. Alternatively it would be interesting to see how Loki would handle things if he were to find love with another woman other than Sigyn, because as I seem to have gleaned from researching the characters in the comics he wasn't overly affectionate towards her. But I'm digressing! If Natalie does check out this forum from time to time, I would like to see her come back down the line when the little tot is old enough. She's such a wonderful person and I'm happy that she has herself a little family to prioritize above anything else!

[04nbod]

Originally Posted by Jinouga

As an actress and as a person I really like Natalie Portman in a BFF way. I loved her portrayal of Jane Foster a lot. I don't think that she's consider being in another Thor movie as beneath her status despite winning an Oscar either. I'm sure she'll be back in some capacity in the future, but what I would like is for them to cast Donald Blake and have Jane go back to him. Thor and Sif should be paired up for obvious reasons, but as with the comics Raganarok should come to pass and leave Thor without Sif or Jane. I think it would be interesting to see Thor handle this loss of love with poise through the apparent death of Sif and to Jane by her falling in love with another man. Alternatively it would be interesting to see how Loki would handle things if he were to find love with another woman other than Sigyn, because as I seem to have gleaned from researching the characters in the comics he wasn't overly affectionate towards her. But I'm digressing! If Natalie does check out this forum from time to time, I would like to see her come back down the line when the little tot is old enough. She's such a wonderful person and I'm happy that she has herself a little family to prioritize above anything else!

Donald is Thor and Thor/Sif is a recurring pain in the rear. What are your obvious reasons by the way?

Two reasons Donald is a dead end in the movie-verse:
-Jane was clearly over her ex boyfriend Donald
-Ex Boyfriend Donald was just an excuse to give Thor his secret ID as a joke.

Lets hope they don't deal with Thor/Jane the way the comics did. Write Jane for the benefit of Jane and what works for her character. Both times Jane 'broke up' with Thor it was random and just as excuse to get Thor with Sif. It was never about Jane. Heck, Jane getting married wasn't even about Jane. They broke Thor and Sif up and needed a reason Thor didn't go back to Jane.

Call me crazy but for once can the girl get some love and respect from a writer? We're doing so well, the movie, Earth's Mightiest Heroes, Ultimates vs Ultimate Avengers and The Mighty Avenger have all turned the tide for her. Don't ruin it now.

[Godzilla2000]

Originally Posted by 04nbod

Donald is Thor...

In the comics, yes. (Donald's also quite, uh, deceased thanks to Sigyn if my research is right.) In the movie universe I think it's safe to say they are two separate people at this point in time. Of course you should never say never because any good writer could figure out ways of writing out of any kind of situation. The thing that Thor comic book fans have to realize is that the movie universe is a totally different reality than the comic books. Yes, the writers can draw from the comics, but also the movies allow for a bit more freedom from convoluted continuities as well.

[Vartha]

Originally Posted by Jinouga

In the comics, yes. (Donald's also quite, uh, deceased thanks to Sigyn if my research is right.) In the movie universe I think it's safe to say they are two separate people at this point in time. Of course you should never say never because any good writer could figure out ways of writing out of any kind of situation. The thing that Thor comic book fans have to realize is that the movie universe is a totally different reality than the comic books. Yes, the writers can draw from the comics, but also the movies allow for a bit more freedom from convoluted continuities as well.

Don is a creation of Odin. The one in the Comics NOW is the original creation of Odin's.
When Odin died in volume 2 the spell that erased Don from everyone's memory and stuck Don in the Void of nonexistance ENDED bringing Don back to this plain.

[Godzilla2000]

Originally Posted by Vartha

Don is a creation of Odin. The one in the Comics NOW is the original creation of Odin's.
When Odin died in volume 2 the spell that erased Don from everyone's memory and stuck Don in the Void of nonexistance ENDED bringing Don back to this plain.

Well, if Odin is God in the movie Universe, aren't all living things his creation now? Sorry but I'm a bit of a Theologist.

[Vartha]

Originally Posted by Jinouga

Well, if Odin is God in the movie Universe, aren't all living things his creation now? Sorry but I'm a bit of a Theologist.

well yes and no lol Don wasn't really born compared to other humans is what I'm saying.
Even the Adam and eve of norse belief were "grown".

[04nbod]

Originally Posted by Jinouga

In the comics, yes. (Donald's also quite, uh, deceased thanks to Sigyn if my research is right.) In the movie universe I think it's safe to say they are two separate people at this point in time. Of course you should never say never because any good writer could figure out ways of writing out of any kind of situation. The thing that Thor comic book fans have to realize is that the movie universe is a totally different reality than the comic books. Yes, the writers can draw from the comics, but also the movies allow for a bit more freedom from convoluted continuities as well.

All we have is a name. Dr Don Blake, Jane's Ex Boyf may not look like the Don we know at all.

I completely understand the movieverse Thor is different and that's why I asked for your obvious reasons as to why you want Thor/Sif. I think we've all come to terms with the fact Happy and Pepper are not going to happen, Favreau doesn't even look like Happy, Jane's not going to be a Doctor, Odin isn't a malevolent hole and Thor isn't going to get a magic secret ID and practice medicine. They are doing a decent job at streamlining the movieverse into the central, most powerful relationships and tensions in the comics. The next one for Thor is clashing with his father over Jane and her mortality.

As for whether Jane's in Thor 2. The interview on the front page with Stellan seems to confirm her involvement in Thor 2. If Marvel are talking to Stellan's agent about Selvig, then Jane can't be far behind.

[Vartha]

Originally Posted by 04nbod

All we have is a name. Dr Don Blake, Jane's Ex Boyf may not look like the Don we know at all.

I completely understand the movieverse Thor is different and that's why I asked for your obvious reasons as to why you want Thor/Sif. I think we've all come to terms with the fact Happy and Pepper are not going to happen, Favreau doesn't even look like Happy, Jane's not going to be a Doctor, Odin isn't a malevolent hole and Thor isn't going to get a magic secret ID and practice medicine. They are doing a decent job at streamlining the movieverse into the central, most powerful relationships and tensions in the comics. The next one for Thor is clashing with his father over Jane and her mortality.

As for whether Jane's in Thor 2. The interview on the front page with Stellan seems to confirm her involvement in Thor 2. If Marvel are talking to Stellan's agent about Selvig, then Jane can't be far behind.

Not to mention if they follow what's been in the Ulty universe, then it is highly likely that the Absence of Balder in the movie as well could mean Blake and Balder are one in the same.

[04nbod]

Originally Posted by Vartha

Not to mention if they follow what's been in the Ulty universe, then it is highly likely that the Absence of Balder in the movie as well could mean Blake and Balder are one in the same.

DRAMA-RAMA VARTHA!

[Godzilla2000]

I guess the gist of what I'm trying to say is that the Hero shouldn't always get the girl, and of course Thor would handle it in as decent and mature a way as possible.

[sgaana]

Originally Posted by Vartha

Not to mention if they follow what's been in the Ulty universe, then it is highly likely that the Absence of Balder in the movie as well could mean Blake and Balder are one in the same.

I've been hoping for that, really. It would be a neat way to get Balder into the continuity, and perhaps explain why this is a "brother" that Thor never knew he had. (Odin hiding Balder on Earth?)

It would also explain why Don's clothes fit Thor so well, if Don is also secretly Asgardian! (It also, when you think about it, says a lot about the fact that Jane has a "type".)

[Godzilla2000]

Originally Posted by sgaana

I've been hoping for that, really. It would be a neat way to get Balder into the continuity, and perhaps explain why this is a "brother" that Thor never knew he had. (Odin hiding Balder on Earth?)

It would also explain why Don's clothes fit Thor so well, if Don is also secretly Asgardian! (It also, when you think about it, says a lot about the fact that Jane has a "type".)

Plus how would Loki react to finding out that Thor has a legitimate younger brother and that he'll be even more unimportant to Odin in the scheme of things what with him being just the offspring of a Frost Giant king whom Odin adopted. Talk about feeling even more insignificant than he already does. Really, it makes you side more with Loki considering all that Odin should have done and should have told him about his lineage. I'm betting that Odin never complimented Loki on his mastery of magic, instead focusing on Thor's physical abilities when what Odin should have done was praise Loki and try to get him to use his magic for good. But I'm just letting my imagination get carried away again!

[TheCorpulent1]

Originally Posted by Vartha

Not to mention if they follow what's been in the Ulty universe, then it is highly likely that the Absence of Balder in the movie as well could mean Blake and Balder are one in the same.

What, now? That's idiotic.