Patty Jenkins no longer directing "Thor 2"

[Sgt.Pepper]

I'd love to see her return but given the situation, I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't.

 

[mclay18]

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

Truth be told, Natalie didn't do any promo rounds for Thor or Your Highness either but that was due to her pregnancy and wanting some time for herself before the baby arrived.

 

[cherokeesam]

That's a damn shame about Marvel alienating Portman. I'm glad they're trying to smooth over ruffled feathers, but I'm not sure how successful they'll be with the Game of Thrones direction.

The article is very revealing about the behind-the-scenes politics, though. I hope to god that some of you who keep saying that AB and me and some other "haters" now realize that we're *not* just making **** up....this bit says volumes about the current state of affairs at MS:

Sexual politics aside, Marvel has a reputation for calling its own shots. This is the company that offered Scarlett Johansson and Mickey Rourke a less-than-princely $250,000 for Iron Man 2 (that was negotiated up to something north of $400,000). The Disney-based studio has said in the past that it doesn’t mean to be disrespectful, just budget-conscious. But with certain exceptions — say, Robert Downey Jr. for the Iron Man series — the company is happy to lowball talent.
But as long as Marvel movies pull in those big global audiences (like $448.5 million for Thor), it has no reason to change course. “There’s a real arrogance,” says a film agent. “But in this environment where everybody’s struggling to stay employed, their behavior is amplified.” And agents can’t combat that. “We don’t have leverage,” he says. “The movies are the stars.”

 

[ElMariachi]

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...

I'm sorry but I prefer the scene where Thor tears through the SHIELD facility that ultimately ends in failure to any more scenes with Jane. Thor not being able to lift Mjolnir was the best scene in the movie. SHIELD wasn't even in the movie that much.

 

[gkokujin]

as much as i want to champion "what is right for Patti" etc...

what it boils down to is: This is MARVEL's CHILD.

Any director, male, female, gay, straight, purple, white, black has to make a movie in alignment with the vision MARVEL has for it. If they go against that, then adios amigo!


this happened before with the Fat Albert movie. Forrest Whittaker was onboard as the director and left because of Bill Cosby and he had "creative differences". Bill wanted the horrible cornball movie that was released, and Forrest wanted a more "throwback/realistic" movie.

 

[ElMariachi]

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.

I think it's safe to say that stars do not always know what's best for how movies are made. People want to jump on Marvel for this but they forget all the bold moves they made and that worked. They know what they are doing more than Natalie Portman and a bunch of internet fanboys.

 

[ElMariachi]

That's a damn shame about Marvel alienating Portman. I'm glad they're trying to smooth over ruffled feathers, but I'm not sure how successful they'll be with the Game of Thrones direction.

The article is very revealing about the behind-the-scenes politics, though. I hope to god that some of you who keep saying that AB and me and some other "haters" now realize that we're *not* just making **** up....this bit says volumes about the current state of affairs at MS:

Can you explain to me why you think Patty Jenkins is better than people who direct Game of Thrones? Monster was a good movie but c'mon, it wasn't THAT good. The movie holds a 82% on RT, barely above Thor, Cap, and Iron Man 2. People are mistaking a great performace by Theron for Patty Jenkins being Martin Scorsese. All she has been doing since that movie came out was a few episodes of Entourage and The Killing pilot.

And we didn't say you are making anything up. We all know that Marvel is cheap when it comes to talent and micromanages their movies. What we are arguing is if that is a bad thing. At the end of the day, Marvel continues to hire the top actors in Hollywood and gives opportunities to budding stars like Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Hayley Atwell, and Chris Evans. They continue to spend lots of money making their movies and hiring directors who Marvel is later praised for. Favreau, Branagh, Johnston, and most likely Shane Black and Joss Wheadon.

That reminds me. Why hasn't Joss Wheadon whined about anything? He might be the most creative person hired by Marvel and he is doing just fine. Instead of hating on Marvel, maybe you could try giving them credit for doing a good job managing their movies? I don't know why everybody always assumes Marvel is in the wrong. Especially when the people whining are people like Mickey Rourke, Ed Norton, and Terrence Howard. Actors who aren't really lighting up Hollywood, mind you. Natalie Portman might have a legit gripe about this Patty Jenkins thing but nobody here knows if she was even up to the job. Thor 2 is a much bigger project than an episode of Entourage. Thor and Loki aren't Johnny Drama and Turtle.

 

[ElMariachi]

as much as i want to champion "what is right for Patti" etc...

what it boils down to is: This is MARVEL's CHILD.

Any director, male, female, gay, straight, purple, white, black has to make a movie in alignment with the vision MARVEL has for it. If they go against that, then adios amigo!


this happened before with the Fat Albert movie. Forrest Whittaker was onboard as the director and left because of Bill Cosby and he had "creative differences". Bill wanted the horrible cornball movie that was released, and Forrest wanted a more "throwback/realistic" movie.

I said it early in the thread but it would be like WB hiring Chris Nolan or Quentin Tarantino to direct Goblet of Fire. It could be a great movie but it would be stupid to make something that doesn't fit with the other movies. Creativity isn't always a good thing when dealing with established characters.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

Nobody's saying Thor and Cap aren't successes. We're saying that compared to Iron Man, no other character in the franchise comes even close to duplicating the lightning in a bottle that RDJ captured.

You can say the same thing about the other major CBM producing studios. Batman, Spider-Man, X- Men... the studios that made them have yet to replicate their success with other characters. One might say Marvel has a leg up in that they have produced sucesses beyond their A franchise, unlike the other studios.

 

[cherokeesam]

Can you explain to me why you think Patty Jenkins is better than people who direct Game of Thrones? Monster was a good movie but c'mon, it wasn't THAT good. The movie holds a 82% on RT, barely above Thor, Cap, and Iron Man 2. People are mistaking a great performace by Theron for Patty Jenkins being Martin Scorsese. All she has been doing since that movie came out was a few episodes of Entourage and The Killing pilot.

Monster earned Charlize an Oscar, a Golden Globe, and a SAG. Jenkins won the Independent Spirit Award for Best New Feature Director. Jenkins and her script won several awards, and were nominated for many more. The most famous film critic of our time, Roger Ebert, named the movie not only the best film of 2003, but of the whole *decade.* Regardless of whether you or I agree with all that, it's pretty clear that Monster, Charlize, and Jenkins all have proven merit.

And speaking of Charlize: it's still speculation on my part, but I still wonder if part of the "package deal" Marvel was looking for was for Patty to woo Theron to the movie as Enchantress. And if so, and if that fell through.....well. Anyway. If Enchantress is going to be in this one, I'd hate to see them pass over Charlize, who is absolutely perfect for the role.

That reminds me. Why hasn't Joss Wheadon whined about anything? He might be the most creative person hired by Marvel and he is doing just fine.

That probably has a *little* something to do with the fact that he's, you know, *worked* for the Bullpen often. I wouldn't call him the most *creative* person hired by Marvel --- Branagh alone deserves more credit than that --- but he's certainly the most bona fide comic book geek.

Instead of hating on Marvel, maybe you could try giving them credit for doing a good job managing their movies? I don't know why everybody always assumes Marvel is in the wrong. Especially when the people whining are people like Mickey Rourke, Ed Norton, and Terrence Howard. Actors who aren't really lighting up Hollywood, mind you. Natalie Portman might have a legit gripe about this Patty Jenkins thing but nobody here knows if she was even up to the job.

I'd say Rourke, Norton, Howard and Portman all have plenty of cache (and cash) in Hollywood. Pretty enormous clout, as a matter of fact.

Thor 2 is a much bigger project than an episode of Entourage. Thor and Loki aren't Johnny Drama and Turtle.

It's also a lot bigger than an episode of Game of Thrones.

 

[BMM]

I don't see why we can't compare movies seperated by a decade. Thor, in 2011 was as big of a movie as Men in Black 2 was in 2002. Both movies were low top ten box office films. The difference in how successful they are is again splitting hairs in my opinion. Clearly, ticket price inflation doesn't match up but I don't think it's a stretch to say Thor is in the same league as franchises like Men in Black. We will see next summer, I suppose.

It isn't splitting hairs. It's the reality of the situation. Just because two movies are in the top 10 in their respective years does not make their successes interchangeable. To say that Thor, after one movie, is in the same league as an entire franchise, especially one as successful as the Men In Black franchise, is a stretch. If you are going to make a comparison between the Men In Black franchise and one of Marvel Studios’ franchises, Iron Man is the more apt comparison, not Thor. And, no, we won't see next year. Even if Men In Black III bombs, it doesn't negate the success of its predecessors in their heydays.

This summer season thing is absolute nonsense, in my opinion. Thor came out in early May before the actual summer season when everybody is still in school. I will never understand why May movies are lumped in with movies released after Memorial Day weekend. March and April are argubably filled with just as many big movies now as early May.

May movies are lumped in with the rest of post Memorial Day Weekend movies because they're studio tentpoles, and they're meant to be every bit as big and appealing to mass audiences as anything else released during the summer.

Also, no, March and April are not filled with as many big movies as early May. There is a reason movie studios, especially Marvel Studios, go after those dates, and it isn't because they're interchangeable with ones in March or April. My Big Fat Greek Wedding, 300, Alice in Wonderland, and Fast Five are the only March and April movies in the last decade that have cracked the top ten that aren't childrens movies, of which there are three. That hardly seems as reliable as the likes of The Mummy Returns, Spider-Man, X2: X-Men United, Spider-Man 3, Iron Man, Star Trek, Iron Man 2, and Thor--all in the top 10, all released in the first week of May--not to mention the rest of the pre-Memorial Day releases--Shrek, Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, The Matrix Reloaded, Shrek 2, Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, The Da Vinci Code, Shrek the Third, and Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides--also all in the top 10.

I also don't buy this 3D argument. 3D was already known as an expensive gimmick long before Thor even came out. There were a few big 3D movies that came out before Thor too this year with Green Hornet, Rio, and Drive Angry. Some of the movies you mentioned actually looked like they would be worth watching in 3D. Green Lantern tanked, even though it looked like it could take advantage of the format.

Comparing Thor to Drive Angry, a movie that barely grossed $28 million worldwide, is silly. Thor is meant to be a big, must see movie. The others, save for possibly Rio, are not.

The first Transformers was actually a good movie and they have somehow maintained that audience through two awful movies. I don't think CGI sells anymore unless there is some crazy hype like Avatar or Inception.

The Transformers movies maintain an audience for the same reason they ever had one in the first place. People are paying to see larger-than-life, CGI robots beat the crap out of each other. Nobody watches the Transformers trailers and thinks, "I'm going to see that movie for the brilliant story."

You are right about this. I forgot that Apes wasn't in 3D. But I stand by what I said about it having some distinct advantages to offset the 3D argument by being a later summer movie with no competition and being apart of a suprisingly well liked franchise. That crappy Wahlberg one made decent money too.

How is it that my noting the advantages of earlier release dates is nonsense but your noting the advantages of later release dates is a legitimate excuse?

You don't just pick and choose either "domestic" or "foreign" numbers, you add them both together for the overall number and like I said 450 million and 585 million is not a gigantic difference.

I'm talking about people's perceptions. People talk about Iron Man so highly because they're probably associating it with more than a couple of unrelatable numbers found on boxofficemojo. It's because Iron Man is the first Marvel Studios movie, and it came out swinging, promising bigger things to come. It put Marvel Studios on the map in a big way, and it single-handedly helped turn Robert Downey Jr., the actor with a troubled past and questionable career, into a superstar over night. He was everywhere in 2008, and people couldn't mention him without mentioning Iron Man. As for performance, in some markets, big markets like the US, Iron Man absolutely trounced Thor. It makes sense why some people treat it in such high regard, even if, nominally, there isn't an astronomical difference between the two.

 

[BigThor]

I'm tired of all this "in the US" nonesense, becauses worldwide grosses are far more important than "domestic grosses" or "foreign grosses" since it's BOTH of them combined.

 

[jmc]

I'm not sure what other warning signs some people need. It's all well and good to bury ones head in the ground and ignore these reports, but at some point you have to acknowledge that all isn't that rosy at the studio in regards to their tactics. Folks, continual tactics like we've read are going to come back to haunt the studio, you have to see this.

 

[BigThor]

To be honest, in my opinion what goes on at Marvel is their business as long as they keep cranking out faithful comic book films they'll have my support. That doesn't mean I think they're perfect and I agree with everything they do, because I have a few grievances with some of the things they do myself.

Oh and I honestly couldn't careless about Natalie Portman returning as Jane Foster or Patty Jenkins leaving from the film.

 

[jmc]

It's attitudes like that which makes me wonder if there's any point in trying to reason with some. It's really sad that a studio has warped the perspective of some of their own fans. Maybe when Marvel do screw something up views will change.

 

[BMM]

I'm tired of all this "in the US" nonesense, becauses worldwide grosses are far more important than "domestic grosses" or "foreign grosses" since it's BOTH of them combined.

That's not my point, but okay.

It's attitudes like that which makes me wonder if there's any point in trying to reason with some. It's really sad that a studio has warped the perspective of some of their own fans. Maybe when Marvel do screw something up views will change.

Yeah. If Jane Foster returns, there's no way I wouldn't want Natalie Portman to return as well. Even though she basically just has googly eyes for Thor the entire movie, I like what chemistry is there. Also, I don't picture Marvel getting a more high profile actress or a particularly better one. Marvel dumping her isn't something I would like. Hopefully, they can smooth things over with her.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

To be honest, in my opinion what goes on at Marvel is their business as long as they keep cranking out faithful comic book films they'll have my support. That doesn't mean I think they're perfect and I agree with everything they do, because I have a few grievances with some of the things they do myself.

Oh and I honestly couldn't careless about Natalie Portman returning as Jane Foster or Patty Jenkins leaving from the film.

You "couldn't care less" about a solid director leaving or Portman being recast?

What do you care about?

Again, its as if people would be perfectly fine with Feige hiring his pool cleaner to direct THOR II. People would still run and see it just to watch Hemsworth throw the hammer.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I'm not sure what other warning signs some people need. It's all well and good to bury ones head in the ground and ignore these reports, but at some point you have to acknowledge that all isn't that rosy at the studio in regards to their tactics. Folks, continual tactics like we've read are going to come back to haunt the studio, you have to see this.

I personally dont think we needed another warning sign, there are alreadt plenty, but this is just the icing on the cake, whats the point in hiring good, high profile professionals if all they are gonna do is piss them off and dump them if they dont agree with them.

Favreau, Norton, Howard, Rourke and now possibly Portman all seemingly dont like working with the studio, eventually they arent going to be able to attract anything like the talent they have so far for their movies. This is just ridiculous management by Marvel, their films may be successful now, but if they keep churning out formulaic films, without the extra help from great actors and actresses, their stock is going drop FAST with the GA.

Yeah. If Jane Foster returns, there's no way I wouldn't want Natalie Portman to return as well. Even though she basically just has googly eyes for Thor the entire movie, I like what chemistry is there. Also, I don't picture Marvel getting a more high profile actress or a particularly better one. Marvel dumping her isn't something I would like. Hopefully, they can smooth things over with her.

Same here, I am still pissed off and find it REALLY jarring that Howard is no longer War Machine and Norton is no longer Bruce Banner. If Portman goes as well and they just re-cast the character, I may give up on this sequel altogether. Marvel really is getting ridiculous, how are we supposed to believe this is a shared universe when actors/actresses and directors are being change willy-nilly?

 

[04nbod]

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.

So all the men? I can see right through you from here.

No one lost out because of Jane, the Warriors Three lost out because the Asgard half was too crowded. The Earth half was just fine and was the only place Thor was allowed to show any character at all.

 

[jmc]

I personally dont think we needed another warning sign, there are alreadt plenty, but this is just the icing on the cake, whats the point in hiring good, high profile professionals if all they are gonna do is piss them off and dump them if they dont agree with them.

Favreau, Norton, Howard, Rourke and now possibly Portman all seemingly dont like working with the studio, eventually they arent going to be able to attract anything like the talent they have so far for their movies. This is just ridiculous management by Marvel, their films may be successful now, but if they keep churning out formulaic films, without the extra help from great actors and actresses, their stock is going drop FAST with the GA.

Not just with audiences but with the Hollywood system itself. You develop a reputation of being difficult to work with creatively and financially and no A-lister is going to want to work for you. The only reason things haven't fallen off the rails yet is because they've had some luck go their way, but eventually luck runs out especially if you continue to mismanage things.

 

[Adamantium Man]

Not just with audiences but with the Hollywood system itself. You develop a reputation of being difficult to work with creatively and financially and no A-lister is going to want to work for you. The only reason things haven't fallen off the rails yet is because they've had some luck go their way, but eventually luck runs out especially if you continue to mismanage things.

This is one case where we (the public) learned what's happening at Marvel. But if you know the first thing about the movie business, you know that stuff like this goes on everywhere, all the time. You say read the warning signs. Okay, so we do. Now what? Boycott Marvel movies? And, knowing that stuff like this happens everywhere, boycott movies altogether?

Marvel can do one wrong by me, that is make bad movies. Hasn't happened yet. With a project like that (and everywhere else), there always will be creative differences and resulting recasts. Audiences learn to roll with them. Meanwhile, we get the Avengers and Phase II. As others said, you need creative control for that. Some actors and directors will not be able to live with that, so they don't get hired. Simple as that.

Look, I realize that this is perfect fodder for the naysayers and detractors (and AB, whose posts I'm happy not to be able to read), so go have fun with it while it lasts. I'll take all this gloom and doom seriously when the first MS movie fails at the BO.

 

[cherokeesam]

This is one case where we (the public) learned what's happening at Marvel. But if you know the first thing about the movie business, you know that stuff like this goes on everywhere, all the time. You say read the warning signs. Okay, so we do. Now what? Boycott Marvel movies? And, knowing that stuff like this happens everywhere, boycott movies altogether?

Marvel can do one wrong by me, that is make bad movies. Hasn't happened yet. With a project like that (and everywhere else), there always will be creative differences and resulting recasts. Audiences learn to roll with them. Meanwhile, we get the Avengers and Phase II. As others said, you need creative control for that. Some actors and directors will not be able to live with that, so they don't get hired. Simple as that.

Look, I realize that this is perfect fodder for the naysayers and detractors (and AB, whose posts I'm happy not to be able to read), so go have fun with it while it lasts. I'll take all this gloom and doom seriously when the first MS movie fails at the BO.

Technically, TIH already did that with a $134 million domestic take on a $150 million budget.

But yeah, I agree with you that, while the warning signs are there, there's no sign *yet* that it's translated to actual box office failure. If Avengers fails, which I doubt it will, you can look for the proverbial crap to hit the proverbial fan. Still, I think this kind of domineering attitude towards lowballing talent and treating them like studio serfs is going to come back and bite Feige squarely on the ass within a matter of a few years or so. It's no longer an isolated incident here and there; it's becoming pandemic. And Hollywood *is* taking notice.

 

[roach]

if Avengers makes a ton of money and they continue to low ball afterwards I could see it being an issue

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Not just with audiences but with the Hollywood system itself. You develop a reputation of being difficult to work with creatively and financially and no A-lister is going to want to work for you. The only reason things haven't fallen off the rails yet is because they've had some luck go their way, but eventually luck runs out especially if you continue to mismanage things.

Exactly my point, if they keep letting stuff like this happen eventually all the great talent they have so far managed to attract will become a thing of the past. I have enjoyed all of the Marvel movies so far, but their scripts have all been elevated by the talent involved, non of the scripts have been fantastic.

This is one case where we (the public) learned what's happening at Marvel. But if you know the first thing about the movie business, you know that stuff like this goes on everywhere, all the time. You say read the warning signs. Okay, so we do. Now what? Boycott Marvel movies? And, knowing that stuff like this happens everywhere, boycott movies altogether?

Marvel can do one wrong by me, that is make bad movies. Hasn't happened yet. With a project like that (and everywhere else), there always will be creative differences and resulting recasts. Audiences learn to roll with them. Meanwhile, we get the Avengers and Phase II. As others said, you need creative control for that. Some actors and directors will not be able to live with that, so they don't get hired. Simple as that.

Look, I realize that this is perfect fodder for the naysayers and detractors (and AB, whose posts I'm happy not to be able to read), so go have fun with it while it lasts. I'll take all this gloom and doom seriously when the first MS movie fails at the BO.

Wait, so anyone who isnt completely happy with what Marvel Studio's is doing is a naysayer and detractor? I love Marvel, love their characters, have done since I was a kid, love the comics, and in regards to the movie studio, they have yet to make a movie below average, but at the same time they are yet to make an amazing movie either, they have all been formulaic. SO, see my point above, NON of these movies have had amazing scripts, they have been made better than what they are by the talent involved, if they continue down the road of pissing off the talent they do manage to work with, then eventually talented people wont want to work with them, and then the movies will really turn to ****.

 

[cherokeesam]

Exactly my point, if they keep letting stuff like this happen eventually all the great talent they have so far managed to attract will become a thing of the past. I have enjoyed all of the Marvel movies so far, but their scripts have all been elevated by the talent involved, non of the scripts have been fantastic.



Wait, so anyone who isnt completely happy with what Marvel Studio's is doing is a naysayer and detractor? I love Marvel, love their characters, have done since I was a kid, love the comics, and in regards to the movie studio, they have yet to make a movie below average, but at the same time they are yet to make an amazing movie either, they have all been formulaic. SO, see my point above, NON of these movies have had amazing scripts, they have been made better than what they are by the talent involved, if they continue down the road of pissing off the talent they do manage to work with, then eventually talented people wont want to work with them, and then the movies will really turn to ****.

Agree 1000%. Marvel are hiring sh** writers (Zak Penn and Don Payne must have permanent homes at MS), and they're going after "affordable" directors. The saving grace on *all* of their movies has been their actors....either they've hired proven talent for the supporting and/or villain roles, or they've given breakthrough roles to talent like RDJ and Hemsworth.

Once Marvel chases the talent away, they've got very little to fall back on in the way of directorial expertise and *no* talent in the screenwriting department.