Patty Jenkins no longer directing "Thor 2"

[Iron_Stark]

Originally Posted by BigThor

That's what I'm saying, good grief talk about setting the bar too high.

I guess people want Thor 2: The Porno. Only Thor and Jane should get all the scenes together and have an occasional action sequence with Thor and the villain, and Jane in every shot being the damsel in distress.

They want a movie like that, I'm sure Vivid or someone already parodied that.

SHIELD took away from Thor and Jane's relationship.

Give me a break.

[Mysteryman]

While it is true That SHIELD didnt have any impact on Thor and Janes relationship ,
I disagree that they were a small part of the film .
They confiscated Janes equpment .
They captured and interrogated Thor .
Thor had to battle SHIELD to escape and had an extended fight sequence with one agent .
They encountered The Destroyer .
And wernt they in the background as Thor battled The Destroyer ?
Without SHIELD,
The only conflict with humans Thor would have had would be a couple of arguments with Jane and the bar fight,
Which we didnt see .
ironically the SHIELD agent with the least amount of screen time was Clint Barton.
Face obscured by a hood and not one arrow shot .
For me at least, that was Dissapointing.
It was nice to see Hawkeye ,
But I also wanted to see what he could do.

[BigThor]

Originally Posted by Iron_Stark

I guess people want Thor 2: The Porno. Only Thor and Jane should get all the scenes together and have an occasional action sequence with Thor and the villain, and Jane in every shot being the damsel in distress.

They want a movie like that, I'm sure Vivid or someone already parodied that.

SHIELD took away from Thor and Jane's relationship.

Give me a break.

I never knew there was so much Jane love, some people act as if she absolutely HAS to be a main character in every Thor film.

I've been a Thor fan for years and I was never all that crazy about her, Portman did a good job in the role in THOR but not every Thor film has to revolve around "the love interest".

[kedrell]

Now if Jane is in the sequel I'd recommend the writer's at least trying to tackle the one question that's always the big elephant in the room(especially in this case) in these fantastical genre's: Realistically speaking, how much of any sort of future could they have? That's not to say I would want the entire movie to revolve around that point but it should be raised.

[Mysteryman]

Wasnt there a storyline in the comics where Odin temporarily granted Jane Asgardian powers ?
I dont know if they would do that in the films,
but it would certainly be interesting to watch.

[Crimson King]

Yeah, I think he did it as a test...which she failed.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by BigThor

I never knew there was so much Jane love, some people act as if she absolutely HAS to be a main character in every Thor film.

I've been a Thor fan for years and I was never all that crazy about her, Portman did a good job in the role in THOR but not every Thor film has to revolve around "the love interest".

I don't think Jane has to be in "every" Thor film: just Thor 2. In fact, I'd prefer it if she drops completely out by the end of Thor 2 (not to be overtly ghoulish, but I want to see her kick the bucket).

But she *does* need to be in, again, Thor 2. That's because Thor 1, for better or worse, absolutely established that fact. You can't just set up Jane as the love of Thor's life, and have him looking all moony-eyed across the cosmos after her, and set up the Broken Bridge and all that and *not* bring her back in Thor 2 as a major character.

But what I *do* want to see is the love interest transition away from Jane to Sif, just as we all know happened in the comics. Have Jane die a hero's death, sacrifice herself for the love of Thor, yadda yadda yadda, and then free Sif up for Thor's dance card by the time Thor 3 rolls around.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Originally Posted by Iron_Stark

1st, Howard can suck it, there is no way in his own idiot mind that he thinks he can make more money and get top billing over Robert Downey Jr.

Again though, this was Marvel's fault, not Howards, they paid him more for the first movie than RDJ, if he was promised the same for the 2nd movie why should he just accept it, he even said it was in his contract. This is down to Marvel, not Howard, they went back on THEIR word.

To me, he was a much better Rhodey than Cheadle was as well.

Originally Posted by Iron_Stark

2nd, War Machine (the armor and how Rhodey got it) never should've been in the second movie. THAT was the problem in Iron Man 2. Look at the the prologue for Dark Knight Rises, look at the trailer, Bane is made to look like a badass and an actual threat in that movie. By the time that movie is released on video, Nolan will have taken a 3rd tier Batman villain and make him an unforgettable movie villain. Something Favreau couldn't accomplish with Rourke as Whiplash because of idiot fanboy demands for War Machine.

It wouldnt have been a problem if Marvel didnt have this ridiculous cap if around 2 hours for their movie run-time's, if the movie had been 20 mins longer War Machine wouldnt have been a problem, and I dont think he was that big of a problem anyway, Shield and Black Widow took away from Tony's story more than Rhodey did.

[Iron_Stark]

Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON

Again though, this was Marvel's fault, not Howards, they paid him more for the first movie than RDJ, if he was promised the same for the 2nd movie why should he just accept it, he even said it was in his contract. This is down to Marvel, not Howard, they went back on THEIR word.

To me, he was a much better Rhodey than Cheadle was as well.

It all started with Avi Arad, he hired Howard long before Favreau and RDJ were hired.

Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON

It wouldnt have been a problem if Marvel didnt have this ridiculous cap if around 2 hours for their movie run-time's, if the movie had been 20 mins longer War Machine wouldnt have been a problem, and I dont think he was that big of a problem anyway, Shield and Black Widow took away from Tony's story more than Rhodey did.

Favreau had the 2 hour cap. He said it in many times that he would make the movie about as long as the original.

How did SHIELD and BW take from Tony's story? Besides the biggest problem with Iron Man 2 was Rourke getting very little screen time thanks to the unneeded War Machine subplot.

Did we really need a ridiculous play fight between Tony and Rhodey in the middle of the movie? Instead of getting an unforgettable action sequence we get a slapfight with corny music.

Then look at the end of the movie, War Machine hogs up most of the screen time, while Whiplash gets a 30 second fight scene in some bland generic suit that nobody even remembers what it looks like.

Speaking of hogging up, War Machine hogged up the advertisements, trailers, movie posters, money for suits and sfx, toyline, etc. while anyone barely heard a peep out of Rourke and Rockwell. They weren't even in the movie poster.

How is all of that SHIELD and Black Widow's fault? I don't blame Rourke for being upset and calling out Marvel and Favreau.

[BigThor]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

I don't think Jane has to be in "every" Thor film: just Thor 2. In fact, I'd prefer it if she drops completely out by the end of Thor 2 (not to be overtly ghoulish, but I want to see her kick the bucket).

But she *does* need to be in, again, Thor 2. That's because Thor 1, for better or worse, absolutely established that fact. You can't just set up Jane as the love of Thor's life, and have him looking all moony-eyed across the cosmos after her, and set up the Broken Bridge and all that and *not* bring her back in Thor 2 as a major character.

But what I *do* want to see is the love interest transition away from Jane to Sif, just as we all know happened in the comics. Have Jane die a hero's death, sacrifice herself for the love of Thor, yadda yadda yadda, and then free Sif up for Thor's dance card by the time Thor 3 rolls around.

You raises some very good points sir, I completely understand where you're coming from.

[BigThor]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

I don't think Jane has to be in "every" Thor film: just Thor 2. In fact, I'd prefer it if she drops completely out by the end of Thor 2 (not to be overtly ghoulish, but I want to see her kick the bucket).

But she *does* need to be in, again, Thor 2. That's because Thor 1, for better or worse, absolutely established that fact. You can't just set up Jane as the love of Thor's life, and have him looking all moony-eyed across the cosmos after her, and set up the Broken Bridge and all that and *not* bring her back in Thor 2 as a major character.

But what I *do* want to see is the love interest transition away from Jane to Sif, just as we all know happened in the comics. Have Jane die a hero's death, sacrifice herself for the love of Thor, yadda yadda yadda, and then free Sif up for Thor's dance card by the time Thor 3 rolls around.

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

I don't think Jane has to be in "every" Thor film: just Thor 2. In fact, I'd prefer it if she drops completely out by the end of Thor 2 (not to be overtly ghoulish, but I want to see her kick the bucket).

But she *does* need to be in, again, Thor 2. That's because Thor 1, for better or worse, absolutely established that fact. You can't just set up Jane as the love of Thor's life, and have him looking all moony-eyed across the cosmos after her, and set up the Broken Bridge and all that and *not* bring her back in Thor 2 as a major character.

But what I *do* want to see is the love interest transition away from Jane to Sif, just as we all know happened in the comics. Have Jane die a hero's death, sacrifice herself for the love of Thor, yadda yadda yadda, and then free Sif up for Thor's dance card by the time Thor 3 rolls around.

You raise some very good points sir, I can see where you're coming from.

[04nbod]

Originally Posted by gkokujin

dropping Portman and using Lady Sif and Enchantress is the best idea ever...

the problem?

no "earth" connection...EYE don't give a *****, but the STUDIOS will think the general audience does.

The problems are multi-fold. Why would you drop the biggest name on your cast sheet? Why would you ditch the audience perspective? Why would you half the female cast and/or relegate them ALL to Thor's bed buddies? Why would you take away the variety of characters in the female cast? If all you have left is Sif and bring in Enchantress you have a female cast that is either like men or for the desire of men. Jane and Darcy are unashamedly there for women.

Originally Posted by Iron_Stark

I guess people want Thor 2: The Porno. Only Thor and Jane should get all the scenes together and have an occasional action sequence with Thor and the villain, and Jane in every shot being the damsel in distress.

They want a movie like that, I'm sure Vivid or someone already parodied that.

SHIELD took away from Thor and Jane's relationship.

Give me a break.

Erm what? Saying you want a relationship more developed is not the same as saying you want a rom-com or a porno. Also, I've never complained about the Shield parts. My only complaint is that the Asgard side of the plot is too heavy with characters who themselves don't get developed. They probably should have kept it to either only The Warriors Three or team up Sif with Balder.

Originally Posted by BigThor

I never knew there was so much Jane love, some people act as if she absolutely HAS to be a main character in every Thor film.

I've been a Thor fan for years and I was never all that crazy about her, Portman did a good job in the role in THOR but not every Thor film has to revolve around "the love interest".

I think its more that now they've started it, they should carry on in that direction. But I will say I do prefer Jane to Sif/Amora mainly because Jane and Thor contrast. Thor is a noticably different character around Jane. He's more well rounded with her, he has his life as Blake, he thinks more, his life isn't fighting/drinking/fracking as it seems to be in Asgard. He's a more worthwhile man. The story between them is also a lot stronger.

I can't really blame people who don't get Jane's character. Marvel are awful with her. She's a great character who never gets a story. People usually don't bother with Stan and Larry's Journey into Mystery which is a bit of genius. It shows a selfless, brave, funny Jane Foster who conveniently was forced to faint whenever Donald had to change into Thor (it was the silver age). The Jurgens run is basically forgotten now but he made the modern Jane. She was central to the first 50 issues with that where Thor was put back in a hospital setting as a mortal and went right back to basics. He played up the old sexual tension between them while using the spectre of (mostly absent) Keith Kincaid and Jake Olson's fiance to stop them acting on anything. JMS did an OK job too, having her give Donald a well deserved slap. All those versions really culminate in The Mighty Avenger which takes bits of all of them and you saw how well that was reviewed.

Originally Posted by kingmatte

Yeah, I think he did it as a test...which she failed.

There was a test, that he made impossible to succeed. She's locked in with the Lurking Unknown that we are told only Odin can control. So the tension is built up on the idea the monster will kill her. In fact, we later find out that he had already got Hiemdall to return Sif to Asgard in preparation before Jane had even arrived.

Its Jane that demands to be sent home afterwards and instead of sending her home Odin takes all her memories of Thor and drops her off in Keith Kincaid's office like a creepy pimp while he takes Thor's memories of Jane and ditched him with Sif.

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

I don't think Jane has to be in "every" Thor film: just Thor 2. In fact, I'd prefer it if she drops completely out by the end of Thor 2 (not to be overtly ghoulish, but I want to see her kick the bucket).

But she *does* need to be in, again, Thor 2. That's because Thor 1, for better or worse, absolutely established that fact. You can't just set up Jane as the love of Thor's life, and have him looking all moony-eyed across the cosmos after her, and set up the Broken Bridge and all that and *not* bring her back in Thor 2 as a major character.

But what I *do* want to see is the love interest transition away from Jane to Sif, just as we all know happened in the comics. Have Jane die a hero's death, sacrifice herself for the love of Thor, yadda yadda yadda, and then free Sif up for Thor's dance card by the time Thor 3 rolls around.

People will never get on board with Sif if she starts creeping on Thor straight after Jane dies especially if Jane is set up as the love of Thor's life. Also, there is no incentive to kill her. We can talk about lining up with the comics but Jane never dies. I even think using Sif as a love interest at all would be ill advised. Nobody likes the third wheel. And no sane person ditches academy award winner Natalie Portman for Kyle XY's Jaimie Alexander. Not to mention, killing off the person who sees the plot through the audience's eyes is a no go.

And the Thor/Sif transition was never a good thing. The Sif/BRB transition was the best thing to happen to that character.

[BigThor]

I always thought Sif and BRB were pretty lame couple, I will always prefer Thor being with Sif over Jane.

*shrugs*

[Iron_Stark]

Originally Posted by 04nbod

Erm what? Saying you want a relationship more developed is not the same as saying you want a rom-com or a porno. Also, I've never complained about the Shield parts. My only complaint is that the Asgard side of the plot is too heavy with characters who themselves don't get developed. They probably should have kept it to either only The Warriors Three or team up Sif with Balder.

But how much development can one get from two people that are together for about two days?

Unless they're in a movie where they spend all of it together like Road Trip or in a movie where them having to bump uglies for the sake of the story like Terminator 1, there isn't much more development that you can get from them in this first movie.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Originally Posted by Iron_Stark

It all started with Avi Arad, he hired Howard long before Favreau and RDJ were hired.

Arad was the doing basically the same job Feige does now though, so again, its Marvel's fault, Howard had every right to expect everything he was promised and had in his contract.

Originally Posted by Iron_Stark

Favreau had the 2 hour cap. He said it in many times that he would make the movie about as long as the original.

The 2 hour cap was given by Marvel though, as it has on all of their movies, an extra 15/20 mins would have done IM2's story wonders, if TDK can be 2hrs 30 mins long, why couldnt IM2 be around 2 hours 15 mins long?

Originally Posted by Iron_Stark

How did SHIELD and BW take from Tony's story? Besides the biggest problem with Iron Man 2 was Rourke getting very little screen time thanks to the unneeded War Machine subplot.

Did we really need a ridiculous play fight between Tony and Rhodey in the middle of the movie? Instead of getting an unforgettable action sequence we get a slapfight with corny music.

Then look at the end of the movie, War Machine hogs up most of the screen time, while Whiplash gets a 30 second fight scene in some bland generic suit that nobody even remembers what it looks like.

Speaking of hogging up, War Machine hogged up the advertisements, trailers, movie posters, money for suits and sfx, toyline, etc. while anyone barely heard a peep out of Rourke and Rockwell. They weren't even in the movie poster.

How is all of that SHIELD and Black Widow's fault? I don't blame Rourke for being upset and calling out Marvel and Favreau.

The advertising has nothing to do with it though, the main problem is within the movie. At least 2 3rds of the Shield/Black Widow scene's werent even necessary, especially Black Widow's infiltration of Hammer industries and her fight scene, Jarvis could have just hacked WM but to create tension make it take him a long time. I couldnt accept that BW could hack into a system that Jarvis couldnt, so that whole fight scene wasnt needed.

The scene in the donut store also wasnt needed, Stark could have just uncovered his fathers stuff on his own and discovered the new element on his own. The medicine Shield gave Stark in that scene was pointless, as it didnt cure him. Shield telling him about the element made Tony look stupid when he is supposed to be a genius. I think the video left by Howard for Tony would have carried more emotional weight had he discovered it on his own, again Shield wasnt needed for this. Fury/Coulsen could have just paid Tony a visit while he is discovering the new element also, they didnt need to be in his house and life at point.

Remove all these scene's, it takes out a good 15/20 mins that could been used for Vanko and War Machine, Hammer's story IMO was pretty much covered in the finished film.

[Mysteryman]

Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON

Arad was the doing basically the same job Feige does now though, so again, its Marvel's fault, Howard had every right to expect everything he was promised and had in his contract.



The 2 hour cap was given by Marvel though, as it has on all of their movies, an extra 15/20 mins would have done IM2's story wonders, if TDK can be 2hrs 30 mins long, why couldnt IM2 be around 2 hours 15 mins long?



The advertising has nothing to do with it though, the main problem is within the movie. At least 2 3rds of the Shield/Black Widow scene's werent even necessary, especially Black Widow's infiltration of Hammer industries and her fight scene, Jarvis could have just hacked WM but to create tension make it take him a long time. I couldnt accept that BW could hack into a system that Jarvis couldnt, so that whole fight scene wasnt needed.

The scene in the donut store also wasnt needed, Stark could have just uncovered his fathers stuff on his own and discovered the new element on his own. The medicine Shield gave Stark in that scene was pointless, as it didnt cure him. Shield telling him about the element made Tony look stupid when he is supposed to be a genius. I think the video left by Howard for Tony would have carried more emotional weight had he discovered it on his own, again Shield wasnt needed for this. Fury/Coulsen could have just paid Tony a visit while he is discovering the new element also, they didnt need to be in his house and life at point.

Remove all these scene's, it takes out a good 15/20 mins that could been used for Vanko and War Machine, Hammer's story IMO was pretty much covered in the finished film.

I am in complete agreement as far as the scenes that needed to be cut from IM2.
They were not needed at all.

[Crimson King]

Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON

It wouldnt have been a problem if Marvel didnt have this ridiculous cap if around 2 hours for their movie run-time's, if the movie had been 20 mins longer War Machine wouldnt have been a problem, and I dont think he was that big of a problem anyway, Shield and Black Widow took away from Tony's story more than Rhodey did.

Are you sure about that? Branagh said in an interview that he told Marvel what he wanted the movie to be and it was his choice that it came in at 1:45.

[Nave 'Torment']

Hmm... there's a lot of emotions flying around here. But anyway, first off I'll say that it's a shame that Jenkins is no longer a part of the sequel, I really believed she had the proper understanding of characterisation that would've made the sequel a powerful film on its own. I've been a huge Branagh fan since even before Thor, but to be honest I don't think he's the right one for a sequel. He's done an amazing job with the first film but for the sequel you really need to have a sort of Ridley Scott-esque approach to the Nine Realms and the very sci-fi savvy world that Marvel's Thor occupies. Branagh is a classicist, his portrayal of the Asgardians was perfect for the first film, but with a sequel where obviously the story continues and there is a strong demand for freshness, I can only think about taking the franchise towards a more science-fictional setting. Several fans suggested del Toro and Peter Jackson, I'm sure they can do a great job, but at this point it seems rather wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by 04nbod

They've barely done anything with Thor and Jane, they left it on a cliffhanger and they didn't show Thor doing anything with the Blake identity properly. How is that enough? Other than the Loki aspect nothing else was really done enough for me. Thor was a start, it needs to keep going on the path its begun because for me they are doing everything right. Using Jane and not Sif as lead, perfect. Using Blake as an ID and not a separate person or personality-spectacular. Using Earth for half the movie- ideal. In fact Thor is getting more right than Thor comics have in decades for me and I'm not entirely sure that was JMS' input.

I'm not that familiar with the history of the comics (though getting there, and coming close), but I have to agree with you with at least JMS run. I can see Sif in the lead, however, I can't really imagine the sequel without Jane at all. She was on the verge of something really spectacular at the end of the film - she was on her way to discover the hidden, invisible links uniting the Nine Realms, I'd love to see where that goes. I'm a big fan of Foster so yeah, definitely want to see her more. At the end of the day you can't really expect anyone to be dropped off completely, this was a movie built on character-dynamics.

But yeah, I'd love to see more of Sif as well.

Originally Posted by BigThor

I never knew there was so much Jane love, some people act as if she absolutely HAS to be a main character in every Thor film.

I've been a Thor fan for years and I was never all that crazy about her, Portman did a good job in the role in THOR but not every Thor film has to revolve around "the love interest".

Well, all female characters don't have to occupy the role of the love interest. Jane's got more going for her than just the dumb damsel (was she really in distress at all?) I'm more interested in the character, and yes, to see where Thor's relationship goes.

There's something thematically very resonant about the fact that a Norse God has an Earthly-Female as his companion. As a scientist, Jane is already a little above your average mortal babe - she's somewhat an embodiment of earth herself. And on that note, I keep remembering that Thor's wife in the Norse myths was, in fact, an Earth-Goddess (yes it was Sif but it's a different Sif).

Originally Posted by 04nbod

The problems are multi-fold. Why would you drop the biggest name on your cast sheet? Why would you ditch the audience perspective? Why would you half the female cast and/or relegate them ALL to Thor's bed buddies? Why would you take away the variety of characters in the female cast? If all you have left is Sif and bring in Enchantress you have a female cast that is either like men or for the desire of men. Jane and Darcy are unashamedly there for women.

I think its more that now they've started it, they should carry on in that direction. But I will say I do prefer Jane to Sif/Amora mainly because Jane and Thor contrast. Thor is a noticably different character around Jane. He's more well rounded with her, he has his life as Blake, he thinks more, his life isn't fighting/drinking/fracking as it seems to be in Asgard. He's a more worthwhile man. The story between them is also a lot stronger.

I can't really blame people who don't get Jane's character. Marvel are awful with her. She's a great character who never gets a story. People usually don't bother with Stan and Larry's Journey into Mystery which is a bit of genius. It shows a selfless, brave, funny Jane Foster who conveniently was forced to faint whenever Donald had to change into Thor (it was the silver age). The Jurgens run is basically forgotten now but he made the modern Jane. She was central to the first 50 issues with that where Thor was put back in a hospital setting as a mortal and went right back to basics. He played up the old sexual tension between them while using the spectre of (mostly absent) Keith Kincaid and Jake Olson's fiance to stop them acting on anything. JMS did an OK job too, having her give Donald a well deserved slap. All those versions really culminate in The Mighty Avenger which takes bits of all of them and you saw how well that was reviewed.

People will never get on board with Sif if she starts creeping on Thor straight after Jane dies especially if Jane is set up as the love of Thor's life. Also, there is no incentive to kill her. We can talk about lining up with the comics but Jane never dies. I even think using Sif as a love interest at all would be ill advised. Nobody likes the third wheel. And no sane person ditches academy award winner Natalie Portman for Kyle XY's Jaimie Alexander. Not to mention, killing off the person who sees the plot through the audience's eyes is a no go.

Really good post here - at least I think so. Especially by relegating the female cast to Thor's bed-buddies. But on that same note, I'd love to see more of Sif as Thor's betrothed, at least to some extent. That's her character isn't it? On the other hand, I don't want Jane to vanish away either. Damn it!

At least with Foster, Sif, and possibly someone like the Enchantress, you would have a strong female cast. How would you reconcile that by not focusing them as Thor's ogling gals? Yes, a more platonic Sif would work, but then you would be treating her with the same shaded characterisation that we got in the first film. And there's no saying that Alexander can't do a better job if she's given the role.

[BigThor]

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

Well, all female characters don't have to occupy the role of the love interest. Jane's got more going for her than just the dumb damsel (was she really in distress at all?) I'm more interested in the character, and yes, to see where Thor's relationship goes.

I never said all female characters were "love interest", but jane definately falls under that category. You don't have to be dumb to be a damsel all you have to be is "helpless", and yes she has more going for her than the average damsel but what did she really do in Thor that was of major importance (besides helping to humble him)?

There's something thematically very resonant about the fact that a Norse God has an Earthly-Female as his companion. As a scientist, Jane is already a little above your average mortal babe - she's somewhat an embodiment of earth herself. And on that note, I keep remembering that Thor's wife in the Norse myths was, in fact, an Earth-Goddess (yes it was Sif but it's a different Sif).

Alot of people say that bu it's not all that special to me, it's really no different than godlike Superman taking Lois Lane as his companion.

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by BigThor

I never said all female characters were "love interest", but jane definately falls under that category. You don't have to be dumb to be a damsel all you have to be is "helpless", and yes she has more going for her than the average damsel but what did she really do in Thor that was of major importance (besides helping to humble him)?

I understand that, I was simply reiterating the point in general not specifically to your comment. But Jane isn't exactly the typical damsel either - she wasn't all that helpless save for having her equipment stolen from her and then retrieved by Thor's Godly Awesomeness. That bit about Thor returning her book was less of a saviour's act and certainly didn't revolve around their relationship. If anyone, it's Jane Foster who "saves" Thor. The fact that she plays such an integral part on giving him this sense of normalcy and humanity is, I should say, rather important stuff. You can't get that with a warrioress like Sif. And besides Jane's love-affair with the Asgardian we still have a character who is on the verge of discovering the links between the Nine Realms. You don't just brush that character off like that, and I'm certain they won't.

Alot of people say that bu it's not all that special to me, it's really no different than godlike Superman taking Lois Lane as his companion.

Not... exactly. Lois and Clark have a different dynamic altogether. And the mythological echoes are actually important for the entire movie if you think about it, that's something mild-mannered Clark Kent / world-saving Superman doesn't share with Lois: he's already deeply connected with Earth thanks to his upbringing and Smallville. With Jane, she literally becomes the strongest connection Thor has with Earth. Even with the comic-book approach of Thor's mother being Gaia, you still need Jane Foster to let Thor connect with the world of mortals, at least initially. Which is why I can understand if we don't see her in his second coming in The Avengers, or at any rate, why I will accept it as a fan.

But back to Patty Jenkins: would it be sexist of me if I say that she should do Wonder Woman now that Thor 2 is off the charts? I mean, I'm sure she had a grand tale about Gods and Mortals planned up that Marvel Studios wasn't open to (or some variation of that tale). So why not WB instead?

[Nave 'Torment']

@ AVEITWITHJAMON

Those are excellent points regarding IM2! The scenes with SHIELD were fun I guess but they were really pushing it. And Nick Fury's hamming up in the donut store kinda seemed...well, suitable for the tone of the film, but definitely not for the character. But oh well. At least we got a fun 'Marvel Universe' feel on-film like we do in the other medias.

They were using Fury and SHIELD like a deus ex machina, and that's not something to be proud of. I understand the inclusion of Black Widow, but she needed more scenes with the commie baddie to do her character justice. Hopefully, Marvel's other sequels won't be as cumbersome - Thor and Cap Am transitioned brilliantly, as will the Avengers, so on a broader sense of it all I'm actually glad that these films are interconnected. That's been unheard of in the genre (and we all know that Clooney's movie, let alone his one-liners, don't count).

[04nbod]

Originally Posted by BigThor

I always thought Sif and BRB were pretty lame couple, I will always prefer Thor being with Sif over Jane.

*shrugs*

And you are free to believe that. I know I assert my opinions very factually but that comes from getting told you don't have to say 'I think' because the fact you are saying it means you think it.

I think we've discussed how I believe Sif was never written well beyond the Simonson run and a big part of that was getting out from Thor.

Originally Posted by Iron_Stark

But how much development can one get from two people that are together for about two days?

Unless they're in a movie where they spend all of it together like Road Trip or in a movie where them having to bump uglies for the sake of the story like Terminator 1, there isn't much more development that you can get from them in this first movie.

I don't think there was that much more to be done. Maybe 2 or 3 more alone scenes. I know some were cut but didn't appear in the deleted scenes package on the Blu Ray because we see them filmed in the special features.

I think this second movie should develop it deeper. Set up Odin's opposition. Maybe set up Sif as Odin's preferred partner for Thor while keeping it platonic or setting up that they used to be together in their youth. But it should remain Odin who is the problem and not Sif.

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

Well, all female characters don't have to occupy the role of the love interest. Jane's got more going for her than just the dumb damsel (was she really in distress at all?) I'm more interested in the character, and yes, to see where Thor's relationship goes.

Jane was not in distress at all in Thor. She is the one who demanded to stay when the destroyer came to attack the town which is the moment for me Movie Jane and Comic Jane clicked. She doesn't like to be left behind and is frustrated by her powerlessness. In the end I would say Thor was in distress as he was trapped and she was going to find him. Which is also like Stan's Thor who as Donald was constantly a damsel.

There's something thematically very resonant about the fact that a Norse God has an Earthly-Female as his companion. As a scientist, Jane is already a little above your average mortal babe - she's somewhat an embodiment of earth herself. And on that note, I keep remembering that Thor's wife in the Norse myths was, in fact, an Earth-Goddess (yes it was Sif but it's a different Sif).

Exactly. Jane as love interest fits the spirit of the myth that Sif has vacated in Marvel's version. Thor was also god of the common man and would take the hard working souls of the poor into his halls so it does make sense he would be with an average woman. A goddess doesn't fit Thor.

The original premise of the arrogant god getting humbled as a disabled mortal man only goes so far. It could be very easy for Thor to think that because he has the spirit of a God he can triumph. The fact he falls for a mortal woman who his father says is not good enough is perfect because then he can campaign for her and show Odin that she is worthy despite the fact she wasn't a goddess born. That is what I mean when I say that their story is stronger. She accents Thor's character journey like every good supporting character.

Really good post here - at least I think so. Especially by relegating the female cast to Thor's bed-buddies. But on that same note, I'd love to see more of Sif as Thor's betrothed, at least to some extent. That's her character isn't it? On the other hand, I don't want Jane to vanish away either. Damn it!

It does often seem like Sif is defined by Thor which isn't a good thing. I think the movie could do wonders for her. Its already given her a more likable personality, same with Odin.

At least with Foster, Sif, and possibly someone like the Enchantress, you would have a strong female cast. How would you reconcile that by not focusing them as Thor's ogling gals? Yes, a more platonic Sif would work, but then you would be treating her with the same shaded characterisation that we got in the first film. And there's no saying that Alexander can't do a better job if she's given the role.

I would pit Jane against Enchantress, bigging up Science vs Magic and making Enchantress the romantic threat with Odin on the sidelines trying to manouvre Jane out of the way and perhaps exploiting Sif's loyalty to do it. But I would prefer if Sif were kept at a distance, perhaps saying that she and Thor dated in the past.

[Son of Coul]

Jane has to be in Thor 2 but I'd kinda like to see her die.

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by 04nbod

And you are free to believe that. I know I assert my opinions very factually but that comes from getting told you don't have to say 'I think' because the fact you are saying it means you think it.

Hmm... I tend to do that a lot...

Exactly. Jane as love interest fits the spirit of the myth that Sif has vacated in Marvel's version. Thor was also god of the common man and would take the hard working souls of the poor into his halls so it does make sense he would be with an average woman. A goddess doesn't fit Thor.

I cannot reiterate how much I agree with this! I think that the decision to make Jane an astrophysicist, or more generally a scientist, rather than a nurse actually works on a deeper level. As a scientist she is immediately more connected with the phenomena of nature around her, it enhances that spirit of the 'earth-goddess' and infuses it with the idea of mortals looking at deities through these phenomena. As a scientist her relationship with Thor immediately makes it strikingly reflective of an Earth-Asgardian relationship, especially if you consider that Earth is more or less a world of science now instead of mysticism. It's almost poetic.

The original premise of the arrogant god getting humbled as a disabled mortal man only goes so far. It could be very easy for Thor to think that because he has the spirit of a God he can triumph. The fact he falls for a mortal woman who his father says is not good enough is perfect because then he can campaign for her and show Odin that she is worthy despite the fact she wasn't a goddess born. That is what I mean when I say that their story is stronger. She accents Thor's character journey like every good supporting character.

The theme of Thor's humility is, as you've said, only powerful to an extent. It essentially becomes cumbersome if someone like Jane isn't involved. And that part of Jane not being accepted into Asgard was, if I'm not mistaken, a big part of the early comics right? It was understandably absent from the first film but I do think that from the way the movie ended, that story should have some important element in the sequel.

It does often seem like Sif is defined by Thor which isn't a good thing. I think the movie could do wonders for her. Its already given her a more likable personality, same with Odin.

I would pit Jane against Enchantress, bigging up Science vs Magic and making Enchantress the romantic threat with Odin on the sidelines trying to manouvre Jane out of the way and perhaps exploiting Sif's loyalty to do it. But I would prefer if Sif were kept at a distance, perhaps saying that she and Thor dated in the past.

I would fall in love with the franchise anew if this happened! Science vs. Magic? Okay, you've won. I want this to happen now. And it also gives Sif's platonic characterisation from the first movie a good amount of respect as well. They would have to address Enchantress' magic being another form of advanced scientific equipment though, and the possible logical disputes that arise from that. Imagine an objective Jane around Asgard telling them how their statuses as gods are not only outdated on Earth, but that their self-aggrandisation is muted because technology is no longer considered magical. I think that, to some extent, the Asgardians do believe in their own myths, a scientist walking in there and explaining them away, a mere mortal at that, makes for good entertainment.

The idea of a mortal on Asgard alone has almost limitless thematic potential.

Originally Posted by Son of Coul

Jane has to be in Thor 2 but I'd kinda like to see her die.

Only if it involves a trip to Hel. With the Nine-Realms explored some more.