Patty Jenkins no longer directing "Thor 2"

[J.Howlett]

Very curious to see how this affects Natalie Portman's performance in Thor 2. Telling you right now, with Jenkins at the helm, Portman would've been this film's biggest cheerleader and she would've gone out "guns blazing", in terms of her performance.

One thing I know about her is that she into "radical choices". That's the main reason she took the part for the first film. Branagh was a radical choice and that intrigued her. Knowing her, Jenkins would've been even more intriguing prospect.

Not saying she's going to phone it in, but....

(Her comes the "well, Natalie wasn't that good anyway in Thor" responses...)

 

[Silvermoth]

Good on Patty for sticking to her guns though. So many directors will do anything once that big paycheque comes their way and I'm glad Patty did what she thought was right.

 

[Liam_H]

Well if Portman gets the same caliber of writing as in the first movie, it doesn't matter how she plays her part. There's hardly anything there.

 

[Herolee10]

Well personally, I'm just glad that they had announced awhile back that Natalie was confirmed alongside Chris and Tom so that regardless of what happened to Patty, Natalie is still signed on for the sequel since I hate major recasts.

 

[J.Howlett]

Liam,

Well, here's the thing; you can make a strong case that Natalie's character in Thor is probably one of the best portrayed female characters in this genre or any film that's more male oriented for the simple fact that her character has an outside story that doesn't deal with the male protagonist.

As much as I think the Dark Knight is a masterwork, Rachel's character is technically a trophy. She really wasn't in Batman Begins. She became that way. It's the same with Carol Ferris in Lantern. Blake Lively has no outside scenes in the film that doesn't involve sharing the screen with Reynolds. None. She has no story that doesn't deal with Hal and their past relationship. We get small hints of what her life is.

Natalie's character has a whole film that doesn't deal with Thor. The emergence of Thor supports her story but still, it's her own story. That's one of the more unique aspects of the film, despite the fact that's merely a solid film.

If you take out SHIELD, I do agree that we would've had more with Thor and Jane or maybe just Jane.

 

[BigThor]

Bottom line: I'd like a sequel to Thor that's even better than the first, if possible. If Marvel can do that, then I don't care who the director is.

Yeah I agree with you and for that very reason I'm not bother about Patty dropping out of Thor 2 at all.

There's nothing wrong with left field choices, but she was little too left field imo.

 

[04nbod]

I think what we had in the first movie was perfect. It was the perfect tone for a Thor movie. Anything deeper than that would muddle the character just like they did with Superman Returns. The only areas where I would like some better character writing is with the Warriors Three and Sif. The relationship with Thor, Loki, and Odin as well as Thor/Jane was the right fit.

You know, this isn't shocking to me. They used the exact same dynamics that sold Thor in his early years in the 60's and it paid off. Stan knew how to create simple yet compelling dynamics. When you consider that the Warriors Three and Sif weren't there in those earliest days its no wonder the writers had problems making them fit in a meaningful way. We are still missing Balder too and if we were going by the old Lee/Lieber dynamics it would have been him pleading for Thor.

 

[chamber-music]

Very few directors get 100% creative freedom on all their projects. Even with indie films, you still have financial investors to answer to.

This is still a business at the end of the day. Just saying.

Yep Clint Eastwood and Martin Scorsese have said even they don't get 100% creative freedom sometimes and they are extremely successful directors.

Well until recently WB had a biannual cash cow they could depend on, but they messed up Green Lantern.

WB had the Harry Potter money which is one of the most successful and profitable movie franchises of all time. They didn't care much about getting DC charaters of the ground when the Potter movies were making them tons of cash.

How about Lars Von Trier?

JK

Be hilarious to see a Dogma Thor film.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Another one bites the dust with Marvel? Looks that way, I know they said she will direct another super-hero film for them in the future, but they said the same with Louis Leterrier and still no sign of him doing so.

Marvel need to be careful as their movies havent been that good that they cant become stale. Thor was the best movie for them since IM1 and Cap was a step down from Thor IMO. They obviously havent learned much from the rushed and interference filled production of IM2 which was the first Marvel sequel to not better the original.

Saying that, if Branagh returns, I will be a happy man, but I doubt he will, he pretty much said no to Thor 2 as soon as it was announced and it seems Marvel was a bit factor in that also. It'll be interesting to see who they get for this now.

 

[Destructus86]

To be honest...this wasn't a huge surprise for me. Based on her past films she just didn't seem right for this particular character. I'm sure creative difference was the reason too.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Saying that, if Branagh returns, I will be a happy man, but I doubt he will, he pretty much said no to Thor 2 as soon as it was announced and it seems Marvel was a bit factor in that also.

BS. He was commited to direct Italian Shoes (or however it is called) and simply had scheduling problems. IS is in post now, or will be in post soon, while T2 preproduction already started. If Branagh thought he could do two films at once he would have done it, but timing was definatly a problem. This has nothing to do with Marvel.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

BS. He was commited to direct Italian Shoes (or however it is called) and simply had scheduling problems. IS is in post now, or will be in post soon, while T2 preproduction already started. If Branagh thought he could do two films at once he would have done it, but timing was definatly a problem. This has nothing to do with Marvel.

Fair enough, although plenty of other directors have no problems doing more than one movie at once, look at Spielberg with Tintin and War Horse for example.

 

[Godzilla2000]

Well, I'm hoping that Kenneth Branaugh will have room in his schedule to direct this movie, or maybe Marvel could be patient and allow for room to allow Branaugh to commit to the project. He just has a knack for drawing out some pretty intense performances from his actors. I think a lot of it has to do with his background in Shakespearian theater and all in dramatic scenes from the Bard's works. If there is going to be any Loki/Odin confrontations, and logic tells me there will, Mr. Branaugh can most certainly guide such an emotionally driven scene. In fact in Thor when Odin banishes Thor that was a pretty powerful thing for all the actors involved. Imagine what Loki's humbling would be like if you could be there to see it being filmed with Kenneth Branaugh in the director's chair.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Why is it always "creative differences" when it comes to the Marvel films?

Because when you hire someone to do a job without overseeing how they're going to do it and they do a piss poor job, you get Green Lantern type results.


Whether people bad mouth Marvel and Feige (I've done it myself), they've made hits. They're 5 for 5, not one movie has been a flop or got universal bashing from critics.

This Patty Jenkins thing, sorry, I was never sold on her.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well, I'm hoping that Kenneth Branaugh will have room in his schedule to direct this movie, or maybe Marvel could be patient and allow for room to allow Branaugh to commit to the project. He just has a knack for drawing out some pretty intense performances from his actors. I think a lot of it has to do with his background in Shakespearian theater and all in dramatic scenes from the Bard's works. If there is going to be any Loki/Odin confrontations, and logic tells me there will, Mr. Branaugh can most certainly guide such an emotionally driven scene. In fact in Thor when Odin banishes Thor that was a pretty powerful thing for all the actors involved. Imagine what Loki's humbling would be like if you could be there to see it being filmed with Kenneth Branaugh in the director's chair.

Me too, I would love for Branagh to come back because what he did with the first movie is what made enjoy so much, I was actually very dissapointed to learn he wouldnt be directing Thor 2.

Because when you hire someone to do a job without overseeing how they're going to do it and they do a piss poor job, you get Green Lantern type results.


Whether people bad mouth Marvel and Feige (I've done it myself), they've made hits. They're 5 for 5, not one movie has been a flop or got universal bashing from critics.

This Patty Jenkins thing, sorry, I was never sold on her.

Please! So every director who has been left to tell his vision has put out GL level type movies? God the defense of MS is ridiculous sometimes. Nolan was left to his own devices on the sequel to BB and we got TDK, not to mention I could mention COUNTLESS other movies which turned out superb because the studio left the directors to deliver THEIR OWN vision.

And in actuality, WB meddled A LOT with GL, there is a whole different cut of the movie out there on the cutting room floor. Interfering with movies gets you Green Lantern, the FF movies, X3, Wolverine, Clash Of The Titans, etc. NOT interfering with them gets you The Terminator, Terminator 2, Gladiator, TDK, Inception and countless, countless quality movies.

I just dont want Thor 2 to turn out like IM2 which was a BIG step down from IM1.

 

[cherokeesam]

Because when you hire someone to do a job without overseeing how they're going to do it and they do a piss poor job, you get Green Lantern type results.

Except for TDK. And Batman 89. And XMFC. And Raimi's Spider-Man series. And Donner's Superman series. And Singer's X-Men. And a relatively infinite number of movies outside the superhero genre.

Whether people bad mouth Marvel and Feige (I've done it myself), they've made hits. They're 5 for 5, not one movie has been a flop or got universal bashing from critics.

True, no MS movie is a certified flop, nor has any of them been bashed by critical consensus; but it *is* true that Marvel have so far only managed to strike Top 10 superhero gold with Iron Man; *not* Cap, Thor, or Hulk. IM 1 & 2 are the only ones in boxofficemojo's Top 10 superhero films; Thor sits at #15, Cap at #17, and TIH at #24.

So the "Marvel Studios/Kevin Feige formula" has been good for one certified blockbuster franchise; and even it worked best because Favreau was given free rein (at least in the first film). The tight leashes on Johnston, Leterrier and Branagh have yielded less favorable results.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Cherokeesam, you are right on point. Marvel's only truly successful franchise is the Iron Man franchise & massive studio interference ruined the quality of the second film & drove off Favreau. Its gonna take a hell of a whole lot more though, for people here to wake up & smell the coffee than Patty Jenkins leaving. Some of these defenses of Marvel are just insulting to the medium. There are posters here basically saying directors in the MCU are supposed to be drones that bring nothing to the table. Jesus. Truly great films require creative minds behind them. None of the producers at Marvel Studios (I'm looking at you Kevin Feige) have a creative bone in their body. They can keep treating the talent like disposable diapers for now but eventually the formula that began with IM2 will dry up because the fans will finally say "NO" to mediocre CBMs from what they thought was the perfect studio to adapt CBMs. Now come the "Marvel Studios can do no wrong" rants.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Because when you hire someone to do a job without overseeing how they're going to do it and they do a piss poor job, you get Green Lantern type results.

WB heavily meddled in Green Lantern's development; especially editing.

You would've done better to cite Superman Returns since Singer had full creative vision.

Except for TDK. And Batman 89. And XMFC. And Raimi's Spider-Man series. And Donner's Superman series. And Singer's X-Men. And a relatively infinite number of movies outside the superhero genre.

Burton only got to do his thing in Batman Returns (and boy was it glorious). B89 was a studio film through and through.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

It will only be a matter of time until Alexei will come here and tell anyone how Kevin Feige is the the devil incarnate.

edit: wow, I got ninja'd by AB himself. I shouldn't take 20 minutes to post. Stupid dinner!

 

[mclay18]

Whyshould they? They're making Benjamins hand over fist. What incentive is there for them to truly offer creative freedom? They've tried it twice with Hulk. Didn't work.

There's more than one way directors can have creative input, even with Marvel's caveats and mandatory inclusions. Even with Marvel Studios' input, Thor is very much a Kenneth Branagh film.

And MS wasn't involved with the 2003 Hulk movie like they are now. Universal and Ang Lee messed that up by themselves.

Very curious to see how this affects Natalie Portman's performance in Thor 2. Telling you right now, with Jenkins at the helm, Portman would've been this film's biggest cheerleader and she would've gone out "guns blazing", in terms of her performance.

Absolutely. That's why when Jenkins came on the production, I thought "Natalie would love to work with her". And I think Portman would've been very enthusiastic about the whole thing.

Granted, Portman will be contractually obligated to do Thor 2 no matter which director comes on and gets the ball rolling. But a good or unorthodox pick will give the actors incentive to work better and have fun.

 

[BigThor]

To be honest...this wasn't a huge surprise for me. Based on her past films she just didn't seem right for this particular character. I'm sure creative difference was the reason too.

I agree, I understand left field choices sometimes but she didn't have anything to suggest she was poperly suited for Thor.

They say Branagh was left field for THOR, but atleast he had a shakepearan background which Thor shares alot of common themes with.

Well, I'm hoping that Kenneth Branaugh will have room in his schedule to direct this movie, or maybe Marvel could be patient and allow for room to allow Branaugh to commit to the project. He just has a knack for drawing out some pretty intense performances from his actors. I think a lot of it has to do with his background in Shakespearian theater and all in dramatic scenes from the Bard's works. If there is going to be any Loki/Odin confrontations, and logic tells me there will, Mr. Branaugh can most certainly guide such an emotionally driven scene. In fact in Thor when Odin banishes Thor that was a pretty powerful thing for all the actors involved. Imagine what Loki's humbling would be like if you could be there to see it being filmed with Kenneth Branaugh in the director's chair.

I agree with this as well, I would be overjoyed if Branagh was able to return and improve on the first film's foundation with THOR 2.

 

[Thor_Odinson]

Well, I'm hoping that Kenneth Branaugh will have room in his schedule to direct this movie, or maybe Marvel could be patient and allow for room to allow Branaugh to commit to the project. He just has a knack for drawing out some pretty intense performances from his actors. I think a lot of it has to do with his background in Shakespearian theater and all in dramatic scenes from the Bard's works. If there is going to be any Loki/Odin confrontations, and logic tells me there will, Mr. Branaugh can most certainly guide such an emotionally driven scene. In fact in Thor when Odin banishes Thor that was a pretty powerful thing for all the actors involved. Imagine what Loki's humbling would be like if you could be there to see it being filmed with Kenneth Branaugh in the director's chair.

I also agree with this. I hope to see Branagh possibly come back to direct Thor 2.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

I agree, I understand left field choices sometimes but she didn't have anything to suggest she was poperly suited for Thor.

They say Branagh was left field for THOR, but atleast he had a shakepearan background which Thor shares alot of common themes with.

If anything, the choice of Jenkins was an indicator what the theme or the plot of the movie was. MS always contracted directors that had a certain strength, fitting a particular point of the movie in question. Like Leterrier and action movies, Johnston and lighthearted 30ies/40ies period pieces, Favreau and comedies, Branagh and shakspearean dramas. Black's strenght was as obvious as those. I believe, when Thor 2 comes out and you know what the movie is about you'll say "Oh, THIS is why they wanted Jenkins!"...

 

[SuperSAINT]

Sorry if this got posted else where on this thread, but the Hollywood reporter got a quote from Patty on this subject...

"I have had a great time working at Marvel," Jenkins told The Hollywood Reporter in an exclusive statement. "We parted on very good terms, and I look forward to working with them again."

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Liam,

Well, here's the thing; you can make a strong case that Natalie's character in Thor is probably one of the best portrayed female characters in this genre or any film that's more male oriented for the simple fact that her character has an outside story that doesn't deal with the male protagonist.

As much as I think the Dark Knight is a masterwork, Rachel's character is technically a trophy. She really wasn't in Batman Begins. She became that way. It's the same with Carol Ferris in Lantern. Blake Lively has no outside scenes in the film that doesn't involve sharing the screen with Reynolds. None. She has no story that doesn't deal with Hal and their past relationship. We get small hints of what her life is.

Natalie's character has a whole film that doesn't deal with Thor. The emergence of Thor supports her story but still, it's her own story. That's one of the more unique aspects of the film, despite the fact that's merely a solid film.

If you take out SHIELD, I do agree that we would've had more with Thor and Jane or maybe just Jane.

100% agree.