Patty Jenkins Possibly Fired From Thor 2; Natalie Portman Not Happy

Published 3 years ago by , Updated June 10th, 2014 at 9:34 pm,

Thor The Dark World Jane Foster Natalie Portman Asgard 1024x575 Patty Jenkins Possibly Fired From Thor 2; Natalie Portman Not Happy

While movie and comic books fans may be eager to return to theaters for the upcoming Marvel Studios movies, the same cannot be said for returning to the production side of things for some of the talent involved in making them.

We learned last week that after signing on to direct Thor 2, Marvel Studios and Patty Jenkins parted ways, bringing the number of directors who’ve dropped from a Marvel Studios project due to creative differences up to three in the last year. That’s quite a lot for a studio that has only released five of their own movies so far.

Patty Jenkins (Monster) had signed on to take over for Kenneth Branagh in helming the Thor sequel in October but last week, we learned that despite having met with Marvel execs and cast members over dinner and having Tom Hiddleston describe her as “amazing,” she dropped out of Thor 2.

Days later, reports indicated that it was creative differences that knocked another director away from Marvel Studios, but Marvel was apparently still keen on having her direct a different project, one that’s rumored to be a non-sequel.

We know Marvel is now closing in on a new Thor 2 director and writer but in the meantime, the latest news from The Hollywood Reporter points towards Jenkins not just dropping out of the project, but Marvel having fired her. According to their sources, she was “fired without warning” and that the news made Natalie Portman, someone who was an advocate of Jenkins getting the job and therefore becoming the first woman to direct a big budget superhero movie, a non-happy camper. They explain that it was Portman who may have sold Marvel on hiring her but once hearing her ideas, felt “uncomfortable.”

According to more “sources” of THR, this news adds to Portman’s desire to take a break from acting to spend more time with her newborn son. She is however, contracted for multiple movies like all actors signed with the studio, so she has to play her part in Thor 2 regardless of her feelings towards Marvel. This has the studio working their hardest to have her involved in selecting a replacement for Jenkins.

We still don’t know the true reasoning behind Jenkins no longer having the job. Inside sources on both sides having some saying Jenkins didn’t have a clear gameplan for Thor 2 and this had Marvel worried about meeting the release date (which is still two full years away) while others say Marvel is confused themselves and they’re having their own script rewritten for the sequel.

What everyone does agree on is Jenkins’ positive attitude and respect for Marvel, so we can hope that results in her getting a chance to direct another one of the studio’s projects down the road. All of this uncertainty doesn’t bode well with the studio’s biggest and most ambitious movie ever in The Avengers debuting next summer.

After getting into rough (and widely publicized) financial negotiations with Mickey Rourke, Samuel L. Jackson, Terrence Howard and Scarlett Johansson, while having Kenneth Branagh and Jon Favreau both opt out of directing sequels for the studio, Marvel’s tight money management and strict guidelines remain a concern for their upcoming slate of films. The last thing they need is one of the most respected actresses in Hollywood down on them too.

Thor 2 hits theaters in the on November 15, 2013.

Follow me on Twitter @rob_keyes.

Source: THR

TAGS: Thor, Thor 2
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. This is amazing – thank you Rob for sharing this.

    I do not know what’s going on at Marvel, but the loss of so much great talent does not bode well for the studio’s grand plans. I fail to understand why they did not lock up Brannah and Strascynski over several pictures for Thor, and why the loss of Favereau was written off as the cost of doing business.

    I’m not enthused and if I were Portman I would be worried as well. I am.

  2. Why does it freakin’ matter if she would have been “the first woman” blah blah blah. Isn’t it more important to get the RIGHT director for the job? I don’t get why people care so much about the whole race/gender thing. I don’t think Patty Jenkins would have been a good director. Who cares if she would have been the first woman director of a big budget comic book movie??? But I understand Portman is a bit of an activist, so she’ll be the type to get all wound up over this… But here’s a crazy idea, instead of caring about hiring the first black director or the first woman director, let’s just focus on getting the CORRECT director that would do the BEST JOB. Hm, what a freakin’ concept…

    • The gender has nothing to do with the issues methinks.

      • @Rob

        No, I don’t mean Marvel firing her, I mean Natalie Portman being “unhappy” about it because she wanted them to have a woman direct Thor 2…

        • Nah, it’s not the woman factor that has her pissed, it’s that she was (reportedly) involved in getting Marvel to hire her and they fired her quickly without either of them knowing.

          But who knows the actual full story on that – so many “inside sources.”

          • @Rob

            I guess, but knowing Portman (not personally, but knowing how she normally is in these political matters) she definitely favored having Jenkins because of the whole gender thing. Plus, this line in your article also pointed in that being the reason why she’s upset of her departure: “someone who was an advocate of Jenkins being the first woman to direct a big budget superhero movie.”

            • Ah, I reworded to make it more clear.

          • On that note, I WISH I knew Portman personally, she’s a cute one, lol.

            • Ugh you want to know her because she’s cute, yet you don’t really agree with her politics or ideas.
              But gender is a non-issue, right.

      • I love how the staff of Screen Rant actually partake in the discussion boards. I’ve also noticed that Vic in particular is very good at defending his opinion 😉 is it possible to become a member of Screen Rant?

        • I’ve noticed that too. Screenrant is probably my favorite movie site. They don’t always get the scoop, but they usually get it right, and their movie talk is colloquial but professional.

  3. They must all follow the MARVEL plan.
    If not… they will be removed.

  4. What the hell are those turds at Marvel thinking? If they keep up this attitude people are just going to start loosing respect for them all together. Well I am excited to see Shane Black directing ‘Iron Man 3′ (‘Kiss Kiss Bang Bang’ is one of my favourite movies) I cannot imagine anyone other than Branagh directing ‘Thor 2′. He created that world and it truly added depth to the film. Asgard was rich and beautiful to look at and I’m worried that with a new directer they will try and change it up too much.

    I’m also someone who hates continuity issues; replacing Terrence Howard bothered me, and then Edward Norton which I know will bother me through ‘The Avengers’. Marvel should stick to doing one film at a time. I’d rather one amazing film every 2 – 3 years than 2 – 3 average films every year. Get back on track Marvel, you started off so well but no it sounds like the wheels are starting to come off. IT’S NOT ALWAYS ABOUT MONEY! QUALITY OVER QUANTITY!

  5. Well any director’s ‘creativity’ is going to have to keep in line with the known history of a specific character. Yes they may have their own ideas as to how something should be done, but then they still have to keep in mind that these character’s have been around for decade’s.

    How contraversial was the inclusion of Idris Elba as a prominent character up in Valhalla. Such a simple change brought about a lot of discussion.

    So any director is going to have to keep in mind they are bringing to life (and that’s already been done, this being a sequel) a well known character, they have to keep within certain boundries.

  6. Guess what people???? Marvel Studios don’t give a f**k, if you’re not in or with their plan, get out or wait for a Justice League film lol…

    • No. I don’t. I don’t care bceause these are Just movies, and if you didn’t like DareDevil and F4 then that’s your opinion. It’s not something to start an uprising over. Read back over your paragraphs/rant. It sounds like you’re enticing a riot. I for one love the X-series, and I’m sure a lot of people would back me up on that. So I would like to let you know that this isnt’ 1969, there are no troops in vietnam, no mass killings in cuba, and nothing this important enough to scream “Attica!” about. Basically, calm down.

    • Wolverine…drastically changed? Wha? You mean he’s NOT suppose to have adamantium claws and a healing factor?

  7. Interesting article, but I fail to see how the director of Thor2 has anything to do with boding well or not well with the release of The Avengers. Also, I dont think NP’s opinions should carry so much weight. Gwyneth Paltrow returned for IM2 and we got a mediocre movie, despite the quality of the actors involved.

  8. Hmm

  9. The end result of Marvel properties done by other studios does make it understandable why they want to keep a tight lid on their own movies. Working under the Disney umbrella also ensures that these productions are going to be done in a business-first manner, because the bottom line is making a profit.

    Problem at this point though may be there is added pressure on the success of these films, and it is leading to more micro-management. The first Iron Man made allot more money then I think anyone imagined it would, and the film didn’t come across forced because of it. The minute the “Avengers Initiative” became viable the whole game changed, and things like this are going to be the result. Marvel clearly has a game plan and there is not going to be allot of room for improvisation. The proof of how well this set-up works will come when the ticket sales are tallied.

  10. I had the impression Branagh always planned to leave Thor after the first movie… after doing that movie, he was done with it. I don’t think Marvel really had a choice in the matter.

    Tom Hiddleston, from observing his twitter messages and con appearances, seems like the kinda guy to say good things about everybody he comes across. He just seems to love people in general.

    But to be honest I was scared of this person taking over the Thor franchise – I could see Natalie Portman being frustrated because I’m sure she expected a much better role for her character in the movie as a result – but honestly, I’m not looking for a movie about Jane Foster. I’m looking for a movie about Thor.

  11. Maybe Patty Jenkins is going to direct a Black Panther movie? Since Marvel wants her on a different project.

  12. “bringing the number of directors who’ve dropped from a Marvel Studios project due to creative differences up to three in the last year.”

    That’s simply not true (and only a bunch of old rumors). The ACTUAL number of directors who’ve officially dropped out due to “creative differences” are only ONE (Jenkins).
    Like I’ve said MANY, MANY times, Branagh and Favreou left because of other projects and scheduling conflicts – and I believe Branagh’s contract may have had something to do with it as well (but neither of them left because of “creative differences”) — you guys said so yourself in previous articles (what you’re doing now, bashing Marvel Studios and neglecting to mention that these are only rumors is freakin’ ridiculous IMO)

    This is what YOU (Rob Keyes) wrote about Favreou about a year ago:
    “On Twitter he confirmed that he had dropped out of the director’s chair on Iron Man 3 so he can focus on Magic Kingdom”
    –All the rumors about him leaving due to “creative differences” was bogged down a loooong time ago.

    • Yeah. Screenrant is pretty good about getting things straight, but the Marvel Studios controversy thing has caused some confusion here too. I’m a fan of this site, but I’ve been a little frustrated with the stories on that matter as of late.

      • Yeah, (and trust me, I’m one of the biggest SR supporters out there — I recommend this site to EVERYONE – even my friends that aren’t interested in movies), but with the last few articles concerning Marvel Studios, I’ve kinda been getting the feeling that they’re ignoring the actual, official story (the truth, that they’ve reported on themselves), and just written these rumors in the form of false-facts to get more readers or something…
        I’m just REALLY disappointed about what’s been written in these last few articles is all…

  13. Don’t really care about Thor or the sequel anyway but Marvel needs to get their ish straight.

  14. Lets see one of the most weakest links in a weak SuperHero movie. Portman. Again it (APPEARS) to be a case of people to big for their britches.

    You were hired to act. Shut your face and act. If you did not want the job of acting in a Marvel movie or want time off tough, you should not have signed the contract.

    IF it comes to light she was dismissed because of other reasons (her sex, religious beliefs, etc.) then I will support you. However for what ever reason it appears she was not working out with regards to differences in opinions on how characters/plot/etc were supposed to go.

    /rant off

    • ^Yup.
      Same goes for Jenkins (as you’ve said before as well): she is payed to direct. NOT change the movie the way she thinks it should be. It is (sorry, was) her job to take the script and make it work on film (maybe change a thing or two here and there to make things fit), but she was definitely not payed to take Marvel’s vision/script, throw it in the trash and do whatever the hell she wants (which is, I suspect, what Jenkins was busy doing in the few weeks on Marvel’s payroll)
      -I have nothing against Jenkins (Monster was great), but I was skeptical about the whole thing from the start (I just don’t think she’s right for a movie like ‘Thor’). Hopefully Marvel will still get her to direct in other flicks (something a little darker and edgier perhaps.)

      Once again Aknot, I find myself strangely agreeing with you 😉
      –Only disagreement: even though Portman was a weak link in ‘Thor’ (IMO), I still don’t think ‘Thor’ was a weak superhero movie.

      • I agree, the reason we have gotten so many badly transitioned films are due to directors thinking their vision of the stories and characters being better than long running comic book sales. The X-Men movies being a prime example, the last one was crap compared to the lore that was laid out in the comics.

        Directors are hired to do a job and Disney doesnt stand by while someone tries to gamble with $300 million of their money. Maybe now we can get some legitimate films faithfully based on the source material.

  15. Portman is an overrated actress (in my opinion) anyway, just recast her with someone a bit taller and fitter. She was good in Leon and has been living off that ever since.

    • @ChrisRicerBoy

      Uhhh, what does it matter if she’s tall or not?? Portman is a good actress because, you know, SHE CAN ACT. Not because she’s tall or not, as if that even matters…what a stupid criteria to base judgment on, seriously, lol. And if you mean fit as in muscular, don’t think I want to see that… Because it’s not like Natalie Portman is fat, she’s slim, which in my opinion is fit for a woman…

    • In the words of Lois Griffin (from Family Guy): “That Natalie Portman just thinks she’s sooo much better than everybody else.” 😉

      She’s nice to look at and kinda-a-good-actress-some-of-the-times (no denying that), but I agree, she’s pretty overrated.

      • I don’t think Portman is overrated. But, her opinions like many other Hollywood actors, are sometimes abit overblown. Just because you are an actor doesn’t mean you know how the world works.

    • Mods, just delete this other comment that’s still “awaiting moderation.” I don’t feel like waiting the few days until it’s cleared, by then the conversation would be long dead… I’m not posting from my phone now so it should go through fine.


      Uhhh, what does it matter if she’s tall or not?? Portman is a good actress because, you know, SHE CAN ACT. Not because she’s tall or not, as if that even matters…what a stupid criteria to base judgment on, seriously, lol. And if you mean fit as in muscular, don’t think I want to see that… Because it’s not like Natalie Portman is fat, she’s slim, which in my opinion is fit for a woman… But I’m not agreeing with any position she might be taking about this. I couldn’t care less about her personal opinions, just think she’s a good actress. And she’s super cute too, which doesn’t hurt in my opinion… lol

      • Cant work out whether that is an insult or not here?!? What the hell is a Ricerboy? I am sure you mean well lol….. The good thing about these sites is everyone has an opinion and mine is that this this lady is too short compaired to her leading men (Thor is a good example, she looked like his young daughter) and in England – fit (when talking about a person you fancy) means easier on the eye and not a muscle bound freak you see in the fitness magazines. Pepper Potts from Ironman, now that a proper woman, not a girl who ruined Starwars (for me).

        • @Chris

          LOL, sorry, whenever I see things like “Type R” I think about the ricers that think their little Acura’s are the fastest things on the road, lol. Anyway, the way a woman looks is all subjective. I think Natalie Portman is plenty attractive. And sorry, but George Lucas ruined the Starwars prequels, oh, and the whiney Anakin Skywalker. You can’t blame Natalie Portman when the script was just terrible… Her lines were cheesy, but she didn’t write them, so…

          • I suppose your right with starwars but I didn’t like her in Thor at all!! And yes, I do have a Honda (Acura for you guys), it is a civic type r 2005 bought new and I love it. Don’t be surprised when the name changes to ChrisGTR as I’m investing in the Nissan GTR next year. Anyway, TheAvenger has this spot on IMO and you really don’t need to be a good actress to get an Oscar, ahem ahem (Halle berry) ahem!

            • @ChrisHasToBeJapaneseToBeGood

              Hey, trust me, I’m the last person to care what the oscars have to say. Read my other comments on here about the Oscars. I like her based on what I’ve seen of her performances and that’s it. If you’ve seen Black Swan you’ll see, she was excellent in that film. Oscar or not. I liked her performance before all that mess.

              And the Nissan GTR? Really? That must be one of the most boring looking cars for that price. For that price, I’d get myself a Porsche. I don’t care if the GTR might be faster, the Porsche is much better craftmanship and they make corners like they are on rails, lol. Just my opinion… But I guess you’re one of those who only look at Japanese cars huh? Don’t limit your scope, you are missing out on a lot of great stuff out there, including the UK and the USA. Seen the new 550hp Jaguar? Gorgeous car…

      • No there are a few of us that do not think Thor (or Cap for that matter) was all they could have been. Enjoyable? Great to see them on the screen? Heck ya.

        However over all they were…. lacking. Its hard to put a finger on what exactly was lacking but they jsut did not have the pizazz of IM or the POW of Hulk.

    • to continue off topic, there are massive differences between the motors you mention there, a fully loaded remapped GTR I can get for around £50k, a decent Porsche here in the uk will be £100k plus, the jag is a beautiful car but in the UK, it’s an ‘old mans’ car IMO. The only car to consider is an M3 BMW and I would certainly have one but even they and £80k fully loaded. you get more ‘go for your dough’ out of the land of the rising sun.

      Anyway, I have now seen black swan so can not comment there and I probably would have been more enthusiastic about it if Ms Portman was not the lead. Not that I intentionally abound movies with certain stars in it, I will just wait for the movie to be on Sky TV, usually 8 months or so after cinema release.

      • @Chris

        Really? A Porsche will cost 100k pounds? (I don’t know where that symbol is on my keyboard, don’t think I have it, lol). Wow, that’s pretty expensive. In the USA, they go for anywhere from like $70k for the Cayman up to like $100k-ish. Of course the special models like the GT2/GT3 will be much more… But yah, if the GTR is that much cheaper, then I’d say that’s a good choice for you. Definitely has the speed and performance, I was just never a really big Datsun/Nissan fan, and I really do think the new GTR’s styling is just boring as hell (my opinion of course). And I don’t care what labels the Jaguar has, the new 550hp XKR-S is a GORGEOUS car and if I had the money it would be in my garage… 😀

        Yah, over here, a GTR costs about the same as a BMW M3 and a lower model Porsche. Out of those three, I’d get a Porsche hands down. But for me, after Motor Trend showed that a $35k 2011 Mustang GT can match the BMW M3 on a track course, I’ll never waste my money on the BMW. Or that the Boss 302 version mops the floor with a $100k Audi R8 on a track course, yah, I think I’ll get that instead if I had the money. But right now, I don’t, so it’s all nothing but a pipe dream, lol. Maybe in a few years, but right now money is tight.

        And I don’t know what your tastes are in movies so I cannot say for sure if you’d enjoy Black Swan or not, but her performance in it was excellent. Especially considering that she didn’t know ballet dancing prior to filming that role…

        • Ooh, I stand corrected, the MSRP for a Cayman R (which is the best Cayman) is only $66k. Not too bad. It’s not as fast as the GTR, but you have to drive it to know what I mean. I’ve driven the regular Cayman before, and boy, for a little car with only 265hp, that thing moves, it’s light, mid-engine, and has an awesome suspension. The Cayman R is 330hp, would love to take that for a spin… Over here, between the Cayman R and the cost of a GTR, is like a good $20k. I think with that much worth in upgrades I can get a Cayman R to beat the snot out of a GTR. 😛

          • Again its all about tastes, I’ve done a track day driving a Caymen S which is fairly quick but the Lambo LP640 I drove that day made it lood pedestrian!! You have to remember that our road system is not blocks like in the states so we have to corner – the ony Porsche I would consider is the GT3 but that here would be approx $200k and I would go for either a Lambo or a Ferrari at that price – the GTR is AWD so I wont be leaving the road. Plus, here in UK – a Caymen is about the same price as the GTR, there is only one option – the Datsun.

            My last comment was from a cell phone and I think I have the Worlds first dislexyic Siri!! What I ment was I have not seen Black Swan yet and will when on TV, heard its a good movie but also heard that other actress’s could have done the movie and probably better as the script was sound and the direction was solid.

            • Lots of spelling mistakes again due to a nasty hangover!!

            • You have to remember that Porsche intentionally made the Cayman fairly underpowered, they are only 300hp cars, not like Lambo and their V12’s or anything like that. They did that because they didn’t want them to compete with their 911 line. But the Cayman is mid-engine, while their other cars are rear-engine. So in terms of weight distribution, the Cayman SHOULD be better, if only they put a more powerful engine in it. I personally would never invest any money in a Lambo. Out of every performance car maker, I’ve seen them break down more often than anyone else. And I don’t mean little things, but major things, like once I saw one split its block, all the while losing to another car too, just to make it more embarrassing… I’ve seen another have a major break down on the highway just cruising… Another one decided to have ABS problems while on the track where it would just lock up the wheels at random… Not good… (Or maybe it was its traction control acting up? Not sure). I’m sure they are fast and fun to drive, just for me, even if I had the money I wouldn’t invest it on one…

              I’m surprised you’re even thinking about the GTR in England though, the streets are not exactly wide there, the GTR is like a tank on those roads, lol. I’ve been to London before, a Ford Focus is like a touring car for the UK, lol.

              • and that’s why I love my CTR, low of fuel (or gas as you guys call it lol), reliable, quick and fits on our small roads. If I upgrade, I’m keeping it.

                Surprised about your thoughts on the Lamborghini, my friend has one (it’s a bright orange merculago LP640) and he had had no troubles (apart from parking the beast) and if you ever get the chance to drive one take it with both hands, it made me feel like a kid again. Also people look in like your a movie star or something. And the noise it makes is something else. If I ever hit the lottery that’s the first thing I would buy!!

  16. Natalie Portman is one of the most respected and applauded actors of current Hollywood. They just don’t “give” out Oscars you know. I would hope that any concerns she may have would be an alert to a studio that to have great movies you have to have happy talent behind them. It appears that some stars in the Marvel fold are not that happy with Marvel’s micro-management

    • Yah they do just hand out oscars, have you seen the star wars prequels? Jake Lloyd, Nataie P, and Haden C acting ruined those movies. You and I could have done a better job!!!

      • P.S. I’d still stoink her. lol

    • I don’t care much for who got an oscar and who hasn’t. I like Natalie Portman and disagree with those here who say she’s “overrated.” I’m sure they think Angelina Jolie and Megan Fox are good actresses… Anyway, but you can’t go by Oscars either. Half the time, yes they give them to those who earned them with great performances. The other half they give it to someone decent that they know will rant about something political that “the academy” agrees with. It’s their way of making a political statement without making a political statement… Kind of annoying. Same with any award show. Like when Dixie Chicks won 5 grammy’s in a year where they had a lackluster album that was outsold by several other Country albums, their lead singer isn’t even that great of a singer, they’re just good at picking hits to record, and no real hits that really went and stayed in the number one spot. But coincidentally it’s the same time they talked badly about George W. Bush. Hm, what a coincidence…

      So yes, sometimes they do just give Oscars out to those who don’t deserve it. But not saying anything against Natalie Portman. I like her as an actress, but think she, like so many other celebrities, should just keep her political opinions to herself…

    • An Oscar does not make you “respected and applauded” ….

      It means you did a good job, better then everyone else that year (yeah…) in the job you were supposed to do.

      Its just like sports and MVP’s etc. except with sports you at least use hard data to compile a reasonable and accurate decision.

      Where as the Oscars are just a few peoples opinions.

    • “They just don’t “give” out Oscars you know.”

      To this, I respond with: Halle Berry. And just because you’re an Oscar-winning actress doesn’t mean you’re the be-all, end-all and should be consulted on every studio decision. I doubt Portman was involved in the planning sessions between Marvel and Jenkins and as the article said, there’s a lot of indication that Jenkins didn’t have a clear plan for Thor 2 which means she may not have been right for the film.

      Jenkins hasn’t been blackballed from Marvel. Portman’s upset is probably more because she was looking forward to working with Jenkins than it is that Marvel was trying to tie Jenkins’ hands.

  17. If Natalie Portman is upset with certain changes, I have no problem with her character being recasted.

    • “if the woman is a capable director which she obviously is then let her do her job.”

      What makes her a capable director? Define capable director. Heck define director.

      I could probably be a capable director (just bare with me) on a 1800’s period piece about the purchase of Alaska by the Americans from Russia. However that does not mean I would be a capable director on a few (very few) television shows, (3 episodes over 2 shows) one movie that I also wrote based on real life events carried by the lead actress.

      So she has ONE movie under her belt. That makes her a capable movie director?

      I believe in taking a chance however Marvel/Disney wants people they can lead and make sure that THEIR properties get handled correctly.

      Or maybe as the article states they want her for something else…. (I think she would be better suited for the canceled Runaways…..)

    • That’s a very simplistic view.

      Yes, she’s a capable director (more than capable). But that doesn’t mean she’s right for Thor. Just because you’re a good storyteller doesn’t mean you’re good at telling every kind of story. Yes, some are, but that tends to be rare.

  18. Yay, comment awaiting moderation again, thanks IP address…

    • Wow, you are just on a roll these days. 😀

      • Oddly, it has nothing to do with what I say and all to do with my IP being similar to someone they are trying to block. I won’t say more than that, Vic has already emailed me regarding this. It only does that to me when I try to post from a certain device…

  19. Natalie Portman was great on Thor. And Thor still looks great with repeat viewings. I watched it 10x in theaters (mostly IMAX), and I bought the DVD and still enjoy it immensely each time I watch it. Can’t say the same for Dark Knight (even if I am such a fan of Batman). I just forward the film to the Joker scenes and skip Bale’s ham acting except at the very last scene when Commissioner Gordon is explaining to his son why they have to chase Batman. And about the Patty Jenkins, probably for the best. She didn’t seem right in the first place. Hope they find someone great and will keep Natalie Portman happy.

  20. they should replace portman too. she was terrible

  21. I think a lot of the people complaining about this haven’t actually read the articles they’re complaining on.

    Jenkins was taken off Thor 2, but both her and Marvel are still keen to work together. Isn’t it more likely that she wasn’t a good fit for Thor 2, but instead her and Marvel are trying to find another project to work on? Seems like that’s what’s happening. In addition to Thor 2 and Iron Man 3, Marvel is also pursuing SHIELD and (rumored) Black Panther and Doctor Strange. Jenkins is probably a very likely contender for one of those (my money is on SHIELD).

    As far as Branagh, I don’t think there’s ever been any indication that he planned to do a Thor sequel. And Favreau doesn’t seem to have any bad blood towards Marvel since he’s a producer on Avengers, he’s been very supportive of Black directing Iron Man 3, he said he wants to reprise his role as Happy Hogan, and he’s said he’s the one who opted out of directing Iron Man 3 so he could direct The Magic Kingdom (and, as anyone with any knowledge knows, Disney is in charge of both properties).

    A lot of the talk of ill will seems to amount to people wanting juicy gossip more than actual truth. “Creative differences” doesn’t mean that someone’s getting screwed over, anyone who’s worked in any sort of creative medium will tell you that creative differences happen all the time and it’s not always because one side is right and the other is wrong.

    The only real splits have been Howard and Norton. And while I’m sad to see Norton go, Cheadle was a vast improvement over Howard so I’m not complaining in the least about that change.

  22. Here’s how things are:

    Branagh likes to do a lot of things, often switches between types of projects. He’s a film actor and film director, and then went a directed/starred in a great TV show. It’s not all that surprising that after a huge undertaking like Thor, he wanted to do something totally different. There’s no bad blood between him and Marvel.

    Favreau is the same: he likes to work on a variety of things, after working on Iron Man 1 & 2 for so many years, it’s not a shock at all that he wanted to get away from it. It doesn’t mean he and marvel had a spat or that there’s bad blood.