Thor: Ragnarok The Official News and Speculation Thread - Part 1

[Fosterson]

That isn't what he said.

That's exactly what he said. All this time he's been trying to prove how Jaimie Alexander is more popular than Natalie Portman.

 

[warriorking]

Let's be very blunt... No one has ever gone to a THOR film thinking, "Man... I can't wait to see Natalie Portman." That's obtuse and silly.

Not a large segment anyway, but some will, and that equates to
Her name is front and center on the posters as well as the artwork simply because of her name recognition, role importance and draw..
She has a considerable fan base that follows her to whatever the movie may be, Marvel knows this and that's why she was cast to begin with ..
I just don't see Marvel casting aside her role anytime soon....
But hey that's just my opinion, It means nothing in the Marvel scheme of things..
Lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that...and let the chips fall wherever they may...

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Let's be very blunt... No one has ever gone to a THOR film thinking, "Man... I can't wait to see Natalie Portman." That's obtuse and silly.

now I know you can'tbe serious. It's Natalie Portman, FFS. of course she draws people into the cinemas. She's not only a Academy Award winner but a major movie star since she was 12 years old. It's very, very silly to even think people don't go into the theatres because of her.

 

[Mike Murdock]

People go to movies (generically) to see her and I suspect there are those who went to see the first Thor movie because of her (and others because of Anthony Hopkins). But I'm doubtful there are that many people who went to The Dark World because of her (meaning they didn't care one way or the other about that Thor character, but they wanted to see a movie with Natalie Portman in it). By now, the movies rise or sink on whether you like Thor.

 

[Mjölnir]

You don't have to be the only thing people care about in a movie in order to be a draw though.

 

[The_Manhunter]

Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. I also love Tyler's soundtrack to TDW and have listened to it more times than I probably want to admit. I think it's criminally underrated.

Yep. The Asgard theme is absolutely epic. Loved his themes for Malekith and Thor as well. Actually listening to the score right now lol.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

And I'm telling you that Portman is infinitely more popular and more well-known than Alexander among the wider audience. The fact that Alexander is supposedly more of a "fan-favourite" is irrelevant. Portman is an Academy Award winner with a massive repertoire of impressive works under her belt. Alexander ain't got s*** on that.

You hard of hearing? I said I venture to think that after her outing as Sif in THOR, being featured in AoS and then, lets remember, she was being HIGHLY suggested by fans all over to be WONDER WOMAN, that she's more of a fan favorite than Portman. So... Whether you find it irrelevant or not IS irrelevant to what I was stating.

And you think there are people saying this about Jaimie Alexander?

Again, given the crap Portman gets among a nice slice of the fandom, right or wrong, then my statement about "fans" and Portman having equal or near equal footing with Alexander with them stands no matter how you try to twist it.

And, as I seem to recall I did state that if they actually do something with Jane in this film, if they move the relationship forward, if they make it interesting and compelling and build on it, that I will be happy to keep Jane around, or did I just imagine typing that out someplace? So... Someone is acting like a defensive "shipper" but it aint me. However, IF what we get in TR is a rehash of the handling of the Jane/Thor thing from TDW... Then I would rather they switch gears to Sif. The Asgard stuff is the more meaty material in Thor and it feels perfunctory to have Jane if you can't make the Earth based stuff compelling. Maybe if you go the route of talking about Thor actually being the son of Jord/Gaea then the connection to Earth doesn't have to be personified in the form of a mortal character? In any case... Since I LOVE the first Thor film and the Jane and Thor interactions there, which I would remind you is a somewhat unpopular view in many circles, I tend to feel that they stumbled badly with TDW, it's nonsensical and irrelevant RT scores and BO notwithstanding. As such... yeah they fumbled the ball badly to the point where I am VERY open to changing gears to Sif, which AGAIN MARVEL STUDIOS ITSELF IS BOTHERING TO HIGHLIGHT SIF'S FEELINGS TO THOR. It's a Chechov's gun dealie. In some fashion, that has to come into play. It's not simply some fans seeing it. They've taken the time over two films and in a TV show to lamp shade it.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

Let's be very blunt... No one has ever gone to a THOR film thinking, "Man... I can't wait to see Natalie Portman." That's obtuse and silly.

At least in the first film that's kinda how it was, she was the biggest name in the cast along with Anthony Hopkins.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

That's exactly what he said. All this time he's been trying to prove how Jaimie Alexander is more popular than Natalie Portman.

Wow. Willfully obtuse is the name of the game, I see.

Not a large segment anyway, but some will, and that equates to
Her name is front and center on the posters as well as the artwork simply because of her name recognition, role importance and draw..
She has a considerable fan base that follows her to whatever the movie may be, Marvel knows this and that's why she was cast to begin with ..
I just don't see Marvel casting aside her role anytime soon....
But hey that's just my opinion, It means nothing in the Marvel scheme of things..
Lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that...and let the chips fall wherever they may...

now I know you can'tbe serious. It's Natalie Portman, FFS. of course she draws people into the cinemas. She's not only a Academy Award winner but a major movie star since she was 12 years old. It's very, very silly to even think people don't go into the theatres because of her.

Portman is in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM the type of actress that opens films to huge numbers. Simple thought experiment... Do you think that if history was different and that say, a lesser known talent of the time, say and Emily Blunt, had been cast as Jane, that THOR makes a dime less or more? Seriously... MCU fans, fantasy action fans, and the general audience were not making their decision to see THOR based on Natalie Portman's presence. That really is obtuse and silly thinking. If it had been Michelle Monoghan or Zoey Deschanel or the like... Yep would not have affected most people's choice to plunk down their dollars to see the film called THOR, not JANE, not MARVEL'S JANE AND THOR POWER HOUR. It was called THOR and it lived and died by the idea of seeing another Marvel super hero in live action, not Natalie Portman, who, good actor, bad actor, whatever, is not a name that has proven to be one that opens a film to blockbuster or ever respectable BO for a film like THOR that needed it to be such. Seriously take your fanboy glasses off and LOOK at her filmography. Look at what she's been in and show me the NON Star Wars films that broke the bank BO wise... Black Swan... OK... Probably more people went to see that because of Aronofsky and, well the girl/girl stuff, but fine... And before that? After that? She's a known quantity as an actress but PLEASE... She's not an actress that gets butts in seats and never has been. If so... JANES GOT GUN should make it's budget back in a week. Wanna bet it doesn't? Again... I liked her Jane in the first film. I feel she's a bit overrated as an actress but she's not bad by any means. But to say SHE was a big reason THOR made money is pretty obtuse thinking to me.

People go to movies (generically) to see her and I suspect there are those who went to see the first Thor movie because of her (and others because of Anthony Hopkins). But I'm doubtful there are that many people who went to The Dark World because of her (meaning they didn't care one way or the other about that Thor character, but they wanted to see a movie with Natalie Portman in it). By now, the movies rise or sink on whether you like Thor.

Like I said... Given the demographic and the Marvel brand as it was building up at the time... I don't think she was crucial at all to the BO of THOR. She's really never been that kind of star.

Now... These days it's rarely about star power anyway. Franchises and Directors have more pull. Look at the difference between Tom Cruise's EDGE OF TOMORROW and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 5. Even he had a hard time selling audiences on his high concept sci fi film (the second of TWO recent ones that didn't exactly light the cinema on fire) based solely on his being in it. He needed the combination of HIS name and the MI franchise (and producing one hell of an action film) to get MI the opening it had.

Getting a Hopkins or a Portman type isn't about the star power anymore of putting butts in seats. It's more about the sheen of legitimacy that they bring. But notice... I said TYPES. Slot out actors of similar stature and talent for Portman and Hopkins and I doubt the opening of THOR is significantly altered. Again... The draw is THOR not the actress playing his love interest, which let us remember... What is one of the most common (though I disagree with it) complaints about THOR? That the Earth bound stuff was not nearly as good and engaging as the Asgard stuff. Well... What actress was part and parcel involved in the Earthbound stuff?

Finally... Guys, seriously... Would you all use the Google and put in Natalie Portman films. Look at everything from 2000 to the present NOT WITH THE WORDS STAR WARS IN IT, and tell me if this is an actress that brings with her the guarantees of a hug opening weekend/week? If you are honest you can't make that argument in the least.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

At least in the first film that's kinda how it was, she was the biggest name in the cast along with Anthony Hopkins.

See above. Put any other actress with a similar background and quality into that part and... Nope, not a dime more or less. I don't think any significant slice of people that saw that film made their decision to see it based on Portman. The post credit for IM2 factored WAY more into it than Portman as Jane, and given how people feel these days about Tom and Chris I dare say THEY are what gets butts in seats for these films for sure. If they ejected Jane I doubt that suddenly there's this massive drop off in BO. But ya'll obviously are invested in the idea that Portman is akin to Tom Cruise or Jennifer Lawrence or something for what ever reason so any criticism backed up by the logic of her filmography and the box office intake and the common sense idea that a film about THOR from MARVEL STUDIOS is what drew people to see a film called oddly enough, THOR... Yeah, it's a no win scenario I guess.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

See above. Put any other actress with a similar background and quality into that part and... Nope, not a dime more or less. I don't think any significant slice of people that saw that film made their decision to see it based on Portman. The post credit for IM2 factored WAY more into it than Portman as Jane, and given how people feel these days about Tom and Chris I dare say THEY are what gets butts in seats for these films for sure. If they ejected Jane I doubt that suddenly there's this massive drop off in BO. But ya'll obviously are invested in the idea that Portman is akin to Tom Cruise or Jennifer Lawrence or something for what ever reason so any criticism backed up by the logic of her filmography and the box office intake and the common sense idea that a film about THOR from MARVEL STUDIOS is what drew people to see a film called oddly enough, THOR... Yeah, it's a no win scenario I guess.

I completely disagree, post credits are just for fans since the GA rarely even understands them. Natalie was at the peak of her popularity with Black Swan which was HUGE, they could have cast an unknown in the role and save themselves some money but they decided to cast Natalie because she is a box office draw and because big names give credibility to big blockbuster movies especially one who just won an Oscar.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

You hard of hearing? I said I venture to think that after her outing as Sif in THOR, being featured in AoS and then, lets remember, she was being HIGHLY suggested by fans all over to be WONDER WOMAN, that she's more of a fan favorite than Portman. So... Whether you find it irrelevant or not IS irrelevant to what I was stating.


Again, given the crap Portman gets among a nice slice of the fandom, right or wrong, then my statement about "fans" and Portman having equal or near equal footing with Alexander with them stands no matter how you try to twist it.

your argumentation is deeply rooted in a fan bubble, sadly. and it looks like you're unable to break out of it and look at this movies and their draws from the perspective of a non-comicbook-reading-audience. your view is also highly US-centric, since - outside of fan-circles - only a very small number of people outside of the US know who exactly Jamie Alexander is. Sifs role in the Thor movies was too small that most non-fans even remember her, certainly not by name.

 

[eeffos]

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but I just saw this on Deadline
http://deadline.com/2015/10/thor-ra...n-australia-government-incentives-1201590391/

Hemsworth even had a comment in the article about filming in Australia.

 

[Fosterson]

Just want to point out that the reason the box-office returns for Portman's movies are often not very big is that she usually only does tiny movies with miniscule budgets that don't have much wide appeal. Therefore, comparing her with Tom Cruise is extremely unfair since he does nothing but massive action flicks that have huge mainstream appeal.

Still, Black Swan made over 500 million dollars worldwide on a budget of just 13 million. It therefore made made more money than Thor, Cap TFA or TIH at a fraction of the cost. Not bad for a movie where they couldn't even afford a medic on the set. And I don't think that this can be attributed to the Portman/Kunis action, since you can easily pirate that stuff online

 

[warriorking]

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but I just saw this on Deadline
http://deadline.com/2015/10/thor-ra...n-australia-government-incentives-1201590391/

Hemsworth even had a comment in the article about filming in Australia.

Just about to post that as well...
Things are moving along..
Should get cast commitments soon...

 

[JtheDreamer]

Just want to point out that the reason the box-office returns for Portman's movies are often not very big is that she usually only does tiny movies with miniscule budgets that don't have much wide appeal. Therefore, comparing her with Tom Cruise is extremely unfair since he does nothing but massive action flicks that have huge mainstream appeal.

Still, Black Swan made over 500 million dollars worldwide on a budget of just 13 million. It therefore made made more money than Thor, Cap TFA or TIH at a fraction of the cost. Not bad for a movie where they couldn't even afford a medic on the set. And I don't think that this can be attributed to the Portman/Kunis action, since you can easily pirate that stuff online

Then where is the boost in the Thor films?

I mean what are we talking about here. People saw Black Swan because it was getting huge buzz and was a good film.

 

[Fosterson]

Then where is the boost in the Thor films?

I mean what are we talking about here. People saw Black Swan because it was getting huge buzz and was a good film.

What do you mean? Regardless of what you think of the quality of the Thor films, they still made a ton of $$$$$. In fact the combined gross of the two Thor movies is higher than the combined gross of the two Cap movies.

Also, I never said that Portman's name alone is enough to make up for a movie simply not being good (I don't think any actor's name can do this). But what is undeniable is that having her name and face on the poster is a huge boon for the studio. Despite what some on this forum like to believe, Portman is a very beloved actress with a lot of fans and a very impressive CV.

 

[Mike Murdock]

My question is what's the number of people who wouldn't have seen the film but decide to see it because Natalie Portman is in it. This is different from whether a movie that actually provides a useful opportunity to Portman to act (like Black Swan) is popular. Clearly people like seeing films that feature Portman. But Thor is not that. The question is whether there are people who don't care about seeing Thor movies but watch them anyway (obviously, if they would have seen it anyway, than Portman's not the reason they go).

 

[JtheDreamer]

What do you mean? Regardless of what you think of the quality of the Thor films, they still made a ton of $$$$$. In fact the combined gross of the two Thor movies is higher than the combined gross of the two Cap movies.

Also, I never said that Portman's name alone is enough to make up for a movie simply not being good (I don't think any actor's name can do this). But what is undeniable is that having her name and face on the poster is a huge boon for the studio. Despite what some on this forum like to believe, Portman is a very beloved actress with a lot of fans and a very impressive CV.

Not based on the premise you gave .... if Portman was able to generate a $500 million movie on a $13 million budge, this implies serious influence over the GA.

We didn't see that kind of performance-to-budge in either Thor films. Let's not forget the second one's boost can be attributed to post-Avengers influence and China's blood-lust for American blockbusters.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

But then I ask the question again: Why bother hiring high profile actors in a movie when they could get a cheaper cast for it?

 

[jaqua99]

Jesus Christ lol

 

[TeeKay]

Jesus Christ lol

I know right?

 

[warriorking]

We need some more News soon because the natives are getting a bit restless...

 

[Fosterson]

Once again, I never said that Portman's name is enough to make up for a movie not being good. Also, the Thor movies would probably still have made a good amount even without her. But having her there is still a bonus for the studio. And I would argue that Portman is still a much bigger name than either Hemsworth or Hiddleston overall, since neither of them have much of an established body of work outside the MCU (yet).

 

[Fosterson]

But then I ask the question again: Why bother hiring high profile actors in a movie when they could get a cheaper cast for it?

Exactly, on that basis they might as well have cast a random 70 year-old in the role of Odin lol.