Patty Jenkins no longer directing "Thor 2"

[Alexei Belyakov]

*All* MS movies have $150 million dollar budgets. Or thereabouts. By design. Avi designated that number back in '06 or '07 when he first outlined the MCU. He said that they planned on producing 2 tentpole films a year with $150 million budget caps, and that eventually he planned to add on smaller films with $30 million budgets for off-season. (IM2 is the only one that was generously allowed to go over budget; and no one still has any solid numbers on The Avengers budget, but it would be safe to assume that Feige would give Joss carte blanche on that one).

And yes, Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman are big stars. So are Jeff Bridges, Mickey Rourke, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeremy Renner, Scarlett Johansson, and Samuel L. Jackson. What do they all have in common....? They're playing *supporting* roles. Marvel doesn't cast marquee for the leads, and that's intentional. (No, RDJ doesn't count....he's a superstar in 2011 as a *result* of IM, but in 2008, he was anything but.) TIH was the closest they came with Norton, and we saw the clash between studio and star almost immediately.

And I highly disagree that there's no big star out there who could play Thor. I could run down the short list of anybody's fancast and agree with at least a dozen choices, who could do the "300" regimen and bulk up to the necessary physicality in just a few weeks --- Hollywood does it all the time.

Marvel gambles on lesser-knowns and unknowns for the leads. It worked with RDJ and Hemsworth, both of whom have gone on to stardom. Evans....not so much. It's still early in his career, but so far, Cap hasn't served him any better than Torch did.

Some of you are misusing the term "popcorn movie." Just because a film is an actioner does not make it a lightweight throwaway. Spielberg and Lucas are just two examples of guys who can turn a genre movie into not just box office gold, but critical gold as well. All of the movies you listed were big budget box office bonanzas, but they also had deeper themes and stories that gave them resonance and longevity.

All so very true.

*Love your signature btw

 

[Adamantium Man]

Radical thought: How about we wait until Marvel announces their actual choice before we go accusing them of anything?

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Radical thought: How about we wait until Marvel announces their actual choice before we go accusing them of anything?

Radical Thought II: How about we don't embrace & defend every moronic decision Feige & the studio make and react appropriately concerned & disappointed?

 

[TheDragonator]

Yeah! Let's bash every decision made without knowing any of the context behind it whatsoever!

 

[kedrell]

Marvel gambles on lesser-knowns and unknowns for the leads. It worked with RDJ and Hemsworth, both of whom have gone on to stardom. Evans....not so much. It's still early in his career, but so far, Cap hasn't served him any better than Torch did.

I think 90%+ would disagree with you here, as would I. Evans became Steve Rogers every bit as much as the other two mentioned with their respective roles.

 

[TheDragonator]

I think 90%+ would disagree with you here, as would I. became Rogers every bit as much as the other two mentioned with their respective roles.

They meant as in he didn't become very popular as a result of those roles.

 

[J.Howlett]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/thor-2-natalie-portman-marvel-patty-jenkins-272978

This doesn't surprise me one bit. I knew the moment that Jenkins was hired, Portman was apart of her getting the job and that would ultimately lead to a performance from Portman that was very focused so that she could help shepherd Jenkin's vision and the pushing of more female directors in the industry.

When it was announced she got let go, I knew Portman would be a potential problem.

 

[ElMariachi]

Actually, both those movies have very pronounced philosophies which the directors intended for you to notice as you watched them (which perhaps you didn't).

TDK explored "good vs. evil" in an entirely new way, by asking the question how far would we go for an ideal? The Joker came to Gotham to ask Batman that very question [in a very explosive fashion] and made him see that even if you devote yourself to that ideal, the consequences of said devotion may make you rethink the whole thing altogether. It was a wonderful way of showcasing how the human being is essentially a prisoner of his own code, or of not being able to live by it.

"I wanted to see what you would do & you didn't disappoint. You let five people die."

Here's a man who's willing to kill innocents JUST to break another man's ideal, because The Joker is essentially disgusted by the idea of a man trying to "save" a society so corrupt that in his eyes deserves nothing more but to burn.

His message was "You wanna be good? You wanna fight for your community? I'll show you what happens when you try to be good. I'll show you how your community will repay your efforts - or better yet I'll prove to you they're not worth the sweat on your brow."

So yeah, there's tons of philosophy in TDK as there is in X-MEN (with discrimination) for you to absorb whilst viewing them.

C'mon Alexei, you are giving audiences far too much credit here. And you can find philosophy in practically any movie. Few people left The Dark Knight with their minds altered. It's very much a popcorn movie. All well-written, well-acted, and well-directed popcorn movie but another summer blockbuster never the less. I'm not saying that TDK isn't the best comic-book movie but people need to stop making it out to be one of the best movies of all time. It's a stylish action thriller with great dialouge. I would probally compare it more to a movie like Collateral with Tom Cruise/Jamie Foxx. The problem with The Dark Knight is that it existed in a world that was unrealistic that it could never fully impact people. Gotham City was so overly corrupt and it's citizens too unlikeable that it's hard to relate. Inception and Presitge made me think alot more than TDK.


As for XMFC, it's just not THAT good. It's a good movie but arguments for it being a truly meaningful movie are ridiculous. What about XMFC made you think or changed your minds on something? The only reason people put it on a pedestal is that it took place during the stylish, cool 60's. The civil rights analogies in this movie were not as strong as people make them out to be. And the acting wasn't sharp enough either. Don't get me wrong, I liked Xavier/Erik but their relationship was rushed. To compare, I think the Kirk/Spock relationship in ST09 was far more dynamic and exciting when they came to blows.

 

[ElMariachi]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/thor-2-natalie-portman-marvel-patty-jenkins-272978

This doesn't surprise me one bit. I knew the moment that Jenkins was hired, Portman was apart of her getting the job and that would ultimately lead to a performance from Portman that was very focused so that she could help shepherd Jenkin's vision and the pushing of more female directors in the industry.

When it was announced she got let go, I knew Portman would be a potential problem.

Yeah, I was just about to post this. It sucks but in all honesty......oh well. Patty Jenkins may have been popular but being the first woman to direct a major superhero franchise is not enough of a reason to hire her. What has she done to get all this respect from people? It's not like she's James Cameron and can do a project every decade. Monster was a good movie but her t.v. resume (imo) isn't as good as Game of Thrones, Mad Men, Rome, Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, and Homicide. Alan Taylor might not be a sexy pick but he has worked on some of the greatest American t.v. shows of the past decade. That's a pretty comforting hire.

As for Portman, I really dont' care about her THAT much. Thor 2 should take place almost entirely in Asgard and be about his adventures in the 9 realms. We don't need Jane trotting along there. She was good in Thor but I want more of a sense of adventure. Jane and her Earth scenes weigh that down. If she is out after Thor 2, I don't care. Just look at how annoying Paltrow became in IM2. Love angles work in one or two movies. After that, they get obnoxious. Spider-Man being the greatest example. If not Jane, I'll be fine with Sif and/or sexual tension with Enchantress.

 

[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*

 

[J.Howlett]

Mariachi,

What I found interesting about the article is the fact that it reports that Jenkins had a clear vision of the picture that clashed with Marvel's....which is sort of my problem with the Marvel films in a nutshell. They are too many perimeters, it seems, for these directors that they can't even infuse Marvel's products with their own, unique vision of the film.

It's Marvel's way or the highway. And this notion that Jenkins was "moving too slow" is hogwash. The film doesn't hit until November of 2013. She had plenty of time.

And, I want Portman back because a major part of his arc is his relationship with Jane. It's unfinished and I want it finished....even if that means expanding Lady Sif. A love triangle would be just fine with me....That's how good Hemsworth's chemistry was with Alexander and Portman.

 

[ElMariachi]

Some of you are misusing the term "popcorn movie." Just because a film is an actioner does not make it a lightweight throwaway. Spielberg and Lucas are just two examples of guys who can turn a genre movie into not just box office gold, but critical gold as well. All of the movies you listed were big budget box office bonanzas, but they also had deeper themes and stories that gave them resonance and longevity. It's still too early to tell whether Marvel's films will have that same timeless quality.

As to whether the "popcorn" monicker should apply to Thor: I think not. Branagh gave the film enough maturity to elevate its story above the usual Bayformer boomage and boobage stupidity; but it's still a "safe" film that didn't push any boundaries or aspire to the higher standards that Branagh usually shoots for. To use a golfing analogy, Marvel layed it up in the fairway instead of gunning for the green. And so far, that's been their philosophy on every Marvel movie except TIH.

I think that a popcorn movie is a big budget summer blockbuster. TDK was most certainly that. It may have been 'smarter' than say Transformers or Thor but let's not put this in the same category as Black Swan, Kings Speech, or Social Network. A movie that truly stands out in summer was Inception. That was a movie that made people think and could give audiences chills. It worked as a popcorn flick, Oscar bait, sci-fi, romance and action thriller. For this reason, it's Nolan's best movie and biggest success. He put a completely original idea out in summer and it was a monster success.

Thor was also a popcorn movie. Youre right that it was pretty mature in some scenes but it's pretty much at the same level as films like IM, Star Trek 09, etc. And I am happy with that. People want it to be like LoTR but that is never, ever going to happen. What I want for Thor 2 is a mixture of LoTR/Game of Thrones, Elder Scrolls, and Xena/Hercules/Conan. I want the quality acting/CGI of a great Hollywood fantasy, the sense of adventure in Skyrim, and the cheesy fun/humor of the latter/sword & sorcery.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/thor-2-natalie-portman-marvel-patty-jenkins-272978

This doesn't surprise me one bit. I knew the moment that Jenkins was hired, Portman was apart of her getting the job and that would ultimately lead to a performance from Portman that was very focused so that she could help shepherd Jenkin's vision and the pushing of more female directors in the industry.

When it was announced she got let go, I knew Portman would be a potential problem.

that's more than unfortunate.

 

[ElMariachi]

Mariachi,

What I found interesting about the article is the fact that it reports that Jenkins had a clear vision of the picture that clashed with Marvel's....which is sort of my problem with the Marvel films in a nutshell. They are too many perimeters, it seems, for these directors that they can't even infuse Marvel's products with their own, unique vision of the film.

It's Marvel's way or the highway. And this notion that Jenkins was "moving too slow" is hogwash. The film doesn't hit until November of 2013. She had plenty of time.

And, I want Portman back because a major part of his arc is his relationship with Jane. It's unfinished and I want it finished....even if that means expanding Lady Sif. A love triangle would be just fine with me....That's how good Hemsworth's chemistry was with Alexander and Portman.

We don't know what her vision was exactly. That's the problem with all this speculation. We don't know if it sucked or if it sounded great. I mentioned earlier all the great directors (much better than Jenkins) that pitched ideas for superhero movies. Guys like Cameron, Aronofsky, and Tim Burton with flat out terrible ideas for these characters. We also need to hear Marvel's side of the story. There is a reason Jenkins hasn't directed a major motion picture since Monster. We don't know if she was up to the task to make a movie as big as Thor in the timespan the studio demanded. It was an odd choice from the very beginning.

As for Jane, I would like Portman back for one more movie but after that I don't think she is needed. They need her, I suppose, for the love angle set up at the end of the first movie but I really hope they don't dwell on it. A sequel, anchored down by Jane, will suck in my opinion. The romantic drama gets tiresome in these sorts of movies. I hated Mary Jane halfway through SM2 and we all know that Pepper is wearing thin after her b---y attitude throughout IM2. I want them to focus more on Thor's relationship with Odin, Loki, and the Warriors 3. They lost out because of Jane in Thor and it was one of my few problems with that movie.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

*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*

this will soooooo happen.
but, to be fair, all major movie sites focus on that point atm

 

[J.Howlett]

Jane wasn't the problem with Thor. It was the inclusion of SHIELD that took away from Thor and Jane's budding relationship....

Take out SHIELD and the film doesn't change one bit, except you get more of Thor, Jane, Loki, Frigga, the Warriors 3, and Lady Sif...

 

[Raiden]

Yeah, I was just about to post this. It sucks but in all honesty......oh well. Patty Jenkins may have been popular but being the first woman to direct a major superhero franchise is not enough of a reason to hire her. What has she done to get all this respect from people? It's not like she's James Cameron and can do a project every decade. Monster was a good movie but her t.v. resume (imo) isn't as good as Game of Thrones, Mad Men, Rome, Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, and Homicide. Alan Taylor might not be a sexy pick but he has worked on some of the greatest American t.v. shows of the past decade. That's a pretty comforting hire.

As for Portman, I really dont' care about her THAT much. Thor 2 should take place almost entirely in Asgard and be about his adventures in the 9 realms. We don't need Jane trotting along there. She was good in Thor but I want more of a sense of adventure. Jane and her Earth scenes weigh that down. If she is out after Thor 2, I don't care. Just look at how annoying Paltrow became in IM2. Love angles work in one or two movies. After that, they get obnoxious. Spider-Man being the greatest example. If not Jane, I'll be fine with Sif and/or sexual tension with Enchantress.

From reading the article, it does seemed like Marvel hired Jenkins due to Portman's recommendation, and didn't realize how far apart they both are when it comes to their common vision for the movie. Although I think it is Marvel's fault for hiring her in the first place, and they now faced the wrath of an unhappy Portman, I think Marvel should ultimately hire a director who has a better rapport with them if they want to ensure a successful film.

 

[Herolee10]

Well Portman is still obligated by contract to return for Thor 2, though it will definitely be a easier road for Marvel if they try stay on her good side since it'd be a shame to add another good actor to the list of actors that Marvel has ended ties with on a sour note.

 

[Raiden]

Well Portman is still obligated by contract to return for Thor 2, though it will definitely be a easier road for Marvel if they try stay on her good side since it'd be a shame to add another good actor to the list of actors that Marvel has ended ties with on a sour note.

I too hope that Marvel will try to appease Portman and maybe consult with her before they select their next director, instead of just taking her for granted because she is obligated to appear in Thor 2. If she's happy, it will only help not hurt the Thor 2 production.

 

[Herolee10]

I too hope that Marvel will try to appease Portman and maybe consult with her before they select their next director, instead of just taking her for granted because she is obligated to appear in Thor 2. If she's happy, it will only help not hurt the Thor 2 production.

Well I read elsewhere that Marvel are working overtime in trying to appease Portman by doing what you just mentioned and consult with her now in getting her input for Jenkin's replacement.

 

[mclay18]

Well Portman is still obligated by contract to return for Thor 2, though it will definitely be a easier road for Marvel if they try stay on her good side since it'd be a shame to add another good actor to the list of actors that Marvel has ended ties with on a sour note.

Marvel could just choose not to exercise Portman's sequel option, if there's still friction between them when the final director is picked. That said, the fact that MS is working overtime to keep Portman in the loop about who's directing and so forth is telling that they want her back for Thor 3 as well.

But letting Jenkins go, without notifying the actors prior, is just bad form. It isn't a rare occurrence in Hollywood nowadays, but that's low. I can understand why Portman would be pissed.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Well I read elsewhere that Marvel are working overtime in trying to appease Portman by doing what you just mentioned and consult with her now in getting her input for Jenkin's replacement.

eh, i doubt her performance will suffer for it at all, not like it was all the riveting in the first one..and I really liked the first one.

 

[Herolee10]

Marvel could just choose not to exercise Portman's sequel option, if there's still friction between them when the final director is picked. That said, the fact that MS is working overtime to keep Portman in the loop about who's directing and so forth is telling that they want her back for Thor 3 as well.

But letting Jenkins go, without notifying the actors prior, is just bad form. It isn't a rare occurrence in Hollywood nowadays, but that's low. I can understand why Portman would be pissed.

True, and truth be told, I just want her back because I enjoyed her chemistry with Chris and I HATE major recasts since it takes me out of the universe that was established prior before that. It's bad enough that they had to recast Bruce Banner and Rhodey.

Plus, like some have said, if Marvel Studios keeps making it a habit of alienating their stars, especially the good ones, then they could reach a point where a lot of A listers won't want to work with them due to their track record.

eh, i doubt her performance will suffer for it at all, not like it was all the riveting in the first one..and I really liked the first one.

True, but if there's still a good amount of friction between them, then she could be like Ed Norton and not even promote the film after it's finished

 

[Sgt.Pepper]

That's sad considering the fact that Portman was enthusiastic about the idea of working with Jenkins.

I know that Marvel is consulting with her on Jenkins' replacement, but I wonder if she has any desire to work on the next sequel (that's if it's successful enough to warrant it, of course).

 

[Raiden]

That's sad considering the fact that Portman was enthusiastic about the idea of working with Jenkins.

I know that Marvel is consulting with her on Jenkins' replacement, but I wonder if she has any desire to work on the next sequel (that's if it's successful enough to warrant it, of course).

I think it all depends if Marvel is successful in wooing her back to their good side, and if not I can see her bolting after Thor 2.