Patty Jenkins Confirmed to Direct ‘Thor 2′

Published 4 years ago by , Updated August 3rd, 2013 at 9:02 am,

The search for Kenneth Branagh‘s replacement is at last over – and Patty Jenkins has emerged as the filmmaker that Marvel has deemed worthy of directing its fantastical comic book sequel, Thor 2.

Jenkins emerged as the frontrunner to helm the Thor followup about three weeks back. Game of Thrones series director Brian Kirk was being talked about as all but a lock for the job of directing Thor 2Β prior to then, but a deal between him and Marvel was never finalized.

While she doesn’t have an immensely long resume, Jenkins’ previous directorial efforts are all pretty solid. Case in point: she helmed episodes of Arrested Development and Entourage, sat in the director’s chair on the feature-length filmΒ Monster (which earned star Charlize Theron an Oscar), and received an Emmy nod for her work on the first episode of AMC’s The Killing TV series.

Marvel was undoubtedly quite taken with Jenkins’ work on the Killing pilot, seeing how it illustrated that she has a knack for handling ensemble casts and developing multiple narrative threads with equal quality. That likewise bodes well for her ability to handle Thor 2, which will feature many important characters – not to mention, a storyline that likely ties into both the Thor and larger Marvel cosmological movie universe, to some degree.

Here’s what Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige has said before, with regards to the plot of Thor 2:

“[It will] primarily be the journey of [Thor, as played by Chris Hemsworth], of he and Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and how the new dynamic with his father (Odin, played by Anthony Hopkins) is working out, as well as what are the broader stakes for The Nine Worlds.”

An important aspect of Thor’s character arc in the sequel will be that of his relationship with Loki (Tom Hiddleston) – who we already know will clash violently with his brother and several other superheroes in next year’s The Avengers. Hiddleston also previously indicated that the Thor sequel would also see his trickster (semi-)villain having to accept more responsibility for his previous, destructive actions.

That once again explains why Marvel selected to hire Jenkins for the Thor 2 directing job: she’s quite capable, when it comes to creating empathetic antagonists or dealing with complex character dynamics. Now we just have to wait and see how well she handles the additional responsibilities that come with calling the shots on a big-budget, effects-driven, fantasy adventure…

Thor 2 very recently saw its U.S. theatrical release date pushed back to November 15th, 2013.

Source: Marvel Studios

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. Nice. Not my first choice but I think she will do great. Plus I heard the same producers are coming back so that’s good news. I’m happy they are going forward with him and Jane I liked that aspect of te first movie but I can’t wait for a sequel. Thor was my favorite mcu

  2. more action, less cheesy dramatic love bs. full stop

  3. this better not be lovey dovey with some action sprinkled in.

    • That’s what I’m afraid of… πŸ˜‰

    • Agree times 3. I thought the earth parts of Thor were the weakest in the movie. I was hoping the sequel would be nearly all on Asgard or the other realms. I hope the producers are reading SR.

  4. How were the effects-heavy fight scenes in Monster?

  5. Great, Thor 2 is going to suck. Monster is horrible, a retarded movie sympathizing with a cold-blooded serial killer… Look up the facts behind Aileen Wuornos and then watch Monster. Tell me where did all of those boo-hoo feel sorry for Aileen Wuornos BS happened in real life because none of that crap happened. She killed men because she enjoyed it, she was cold-blooded and couldn’t care less about how many lives she took. I hate when movie makers side with the criminals…

    • Ken I’m with you 100%

    • Darn those Godfather and Pirates movies! Darn them all!!! And the Shawshank Redemption too!

      just kidding. I’ll have to check Monster out myself.

      • Woot, more bad examples that doesn’t really relate to what I have said. So much intelligence flowing through these comments…

        And just to point something out, while the Shawshank Redemption was a good movie in terms of writing, directing, and acting, if you REALLY think about the premise of the movie you’ll realize just how ridiculous it is. So he coincidentally was going to confront his wife who was coincidentally cheating on him (motive) on the very day and moment someone else was coincidentally murdering her while he coincidentally had a gun that matched the one used to kill her… Yah… I’m sorry, but in real life if someone was the spouse of the victim, was there at the crime scene, had a motive, and a weapon that could have been used (with today’s forensics they would have cleared that weapon since the barrel grooves wouldn’t have matched, but hypothetically before that), there’s pretty much a 99.99999% chance he did it. But because it was a movie, the circumstances are just so perfect, lol. Heck, according to Hollywood, everyone in prison are innocent, hahaha.

        • Damn. Why are u sucha cynical cindy. You complain and moan like no other all over screen/gamerant. You really need to come off that pedastool you think you live on and just be chill β€” for once.

          The Shawshank Redemption is based on a coincidence. Coincidences happen in life all the time. He drove to kill his wife and her liver but he decided against and left. Another man robs them and kills them. On his way home he threw his gun over the bridge. That gun was never found, thus he was never aquitted.

          The world is not all black and white. Good vs evil. There are some truly innocent people in prison but for the most part the system works β€” even more so if you have adequate representation.

          Dont be so condescending man. If you do this behind anonymity I would assume you do it real life. Don’t live life thinking your better than others. Adding haha’s and lol’s doesnt make it funny. It more so make you come off as an a**. All im saying man is just chill. Be easy. That’s my advice for you. But do as you please. I wont say another word about would do in the future. Best o luck.

          • Oh snap yo, I forgot we can’t have our own opinions. Please tell me next time what position I should take on the next issue. Thanks Ingur, you’re such a help. If I forget the rules again, just remind me. πŸ˜‰

    • Well put, I think some people just can suspend disbelief enough to see that it’s just a film for entertainment purposes, not a introspective documentary.

    • LOL, what is more hilarious is when people have trouble reading. Read the quote you just copied and pasted, didn’t I say that *I* hate when a movie sympathizes with criminals? Isn’t that kind of, I don’t know, my opinion. I know it’s a crazy concept, people having “different” opinions, yah, how weird, but I guess I’m a weird guy. πŸ˜€

      And FYI, the main issue here is that the real Aileen Wuronos was a cold-blooded serial killer without remorse. I know this because I’ve done a lot of research on her because, without getting too much into my personal life and my profession, I’m “interested” in the field of criminals and catching criminals, lol. But the movie basically invented all of these scenarios that basically made it look like she was somehow “driven” to commit these crimes because she was abused, basically a bunch of boo-freakin-hoo BS to make you feel sorry for her. Watch videos of her in court, see how much “remorse” she shows. Any tears from her were crocodile tears, but not according to this movie.

      And your other examples are just as, ah hem, “clever” as your initial point. I can tell you’re quite the genius.

      Godfather, the main characters are criminals, I don’t think they ever made it seem like they were the good guys, they are merely the subject of the movies. That, Goodfellas, and every other mob movie, they are the subjects, and often times you see a bunch of them getting “whacked.” Not exactly very flattering even though sometimes it seems so.

      Dexter is a serial killer without remorse, they never really try to hide that. The thing that makes him good in my eyes, is that he kills other killers. Honestly, as long as there’s some magical way of knowing that the person will stick to that code, I wouldn’t mind a vigilante/killer to really exist around here, I think we need it seeing how many killers are getting let go thanks to our awesome justice system. Leave it to the cops and agents to risk their lives apprehending them so the courts can set them free. Thanks idiots…

      Breaking Bad, don’t like that show.

      Cartman, a villain, in an animated show where everyone are cutouts… Um, not sure if I should even waste my time addressing this, it’s such a dumb example, but heck, I type fast, I’ll give it a go. I like the show, but hate Cartman. The funniest parts are when bad things happen to him. Alright, that was quite easy actually, next…

      Riddick, he’s a felon because they say he is, but if you watch the movies, where do you actually see him doing something we disagree with? Almost everyone he kills in both movies are people I kind of wanted dead anyway… And the rest of the time he’s helping to save good people… To me, he’s a good guy until I see otherwise…

      And Hannibal Lector, again, he was never really glorified to be a good guy in Silence of the Lambs. Sure he helped the FBI capture a serial killer, but it wasn’t because he wanted to help, it’s only because he was fascinated by the agent they put in charge of it. So again, another stupid, eh hem, I mean, clever example since it doesn’t have anything to do with a movie portraying a real-life bad guy as a good guy like I said, nor does it sympathize with him. He was a bad guy from the beginning to the end…

      Alright, let’s see what “clever” response you have now… At least you fooled one person, lol. Oops, I meant you have one person who have seen the light and realized how right you are… LOL πŸ˜‰

  6. They’ve got to be kidding. She’s done what, zero action scenes in her movies? Probably never read a superhero comic in her life?

    At least Branagh had some Shakespearean costume drama to relate to. And what are we hearing already. The Thor/Jane relationship is the most important aspect of the story.

    I know that sounds sexist but I’m going from her previous work. There are women directors out there who have done well with action movies but she’s not one of them.

    Let’s hope she surprises the hell out of everyone and turns out to be a top notch action director. But I wouldn’t bet the ranch on it.

  7. This is the WTF news of the year probably.

    Thor was good and the director was perfect. This just doesn’t make any sense. I’ve not been impressed by any of her work and Monster has got to be the most over rated film ever. Thor 2 will probably make IM2 look amazing.

    • IM2 was Amazing!!!!!

      What you talkin Willis!?

  8. I don’t evrn think Jane or Earth is necessary in the second film. I just want more Asgard, jealous Sif (in more ways than one), other realms, Echantress, Excutioner and (break it down. stop.) HAMMER TIME. That was a lil 80s pop culture at the end.

    I get the feeling Thor may take Jane to Asgard (in more ways than one) on some “Honeymoon I love you let me show you the galaxy” tip. I didn’t even see a chemistry between them. I saw a girl with a dirty kitchen and no love life, throw herself at the first acceptable mateable male body.

    As for Patty Jenkins β€” Marvel has yet again shown they go cheap when it comes to directors (in more ways than one). I don’t want a film about feelings and feeling sad for The Echantress because Loki toyed with her emmotions. I want smashing (in more ways than one), Baldur, more Hiemdall and the equivalent to Asgardian strippers.

    • I know neither has a long track record but I would much rather see Brian Kirk because of his work on Game of Thrones. One of the dopest shows out there. Still can’t believe Sean Bean died like that. If there was any a time I wanted s cheesy 80’s rescue scene β€” that was it.

      Anyways, I’ll give Jenkins (some) benefit of the doubt until I actually see the movie. Thor was just the film I thought could pull the awesome sequel that completely surpasses the first. That and Captain America. CA could be like The Godfather Part II of comic book movies set in the past & present. Just miss me with them lasers/flamethrowers and give me some Nazi’s.

      • This is what I dont understand…. (and its not totally at you Ingur you just happen to bring it to light.)

        I would assume the WRITING would trump the DIRECTING. Meaning (using Ingur) In Game of Thrones Ned Stark dies…. there is no way around it to tell the story as it was written he HAS to die.

        So if who ever is writing Thor2 if they say Thor dances the hustle wearing a pink tutu who is the director to make it any different?

        The director shouldnt be able to say no we are going to go with a purple tutu and he will do the cha cha instead…..

        The director should DIRECT Chris in the proper way to wear the tutu and dance the hustle in it…..

        I just dont understand the whole Hollywood thing…..

        • @Aknot

          I hear what you are saying. Jenkins is also a screenwriter so im sure she will put just as muchinout ibto the script as she is directing.

          I already have problems with the makings of the script. Portman is confirmed back β€” a character I thought was completely useless in the MCU. I know they wanna go back to Earth (which were the weakest scenes in Thor IMO), although Thor 2 may start on Earth directly after The Avengers. And the inclusion of the Echantress. Which gives me the feeling she may make a love triangle themed movie and an overtly sympathetic villianess who was manipulated into evil because she was heart broken.

          Added on by the fact that directors unfamiliar to comic books tend focus on one aspect of their liking instead of looking at the big picture. This is just a guess but I feel it will be the Echantress (who was confirmed for the sequel) fall from grace. Which reflects her previous movie credit Monster.

          • Directors want to write and writers want to direct, or something to that effect. And in the case of comic book adaptions at this point, most feel they have more creative vision then the folks who wrote and illustrated the material for years and helped create it.

          • Ignur gonna have to disagree. Portmans character was very very important to the film she helped shape thro in to who he would gorw in to. The only problem was that it was kind of rushed.

            I’d like to add that just because Earth was the weakest part of Thor doesn’t necesarily mean it will be the weakest of the sequel. Maybe they nail it this time. Earth certainly has a chance to be a strong part of the story it was just handled wrong in the first film. Some of the reasons it was so weak in the first was they were in some rinky dink small nothing town in the middle of no where. If they move the second to a big city of some sort it could really help the story. It also doesn’t help that they put all the good fight scenes in Asgard had they put something as epic as the frost giant fight or the loki fight on earth it people wouldn’t complain about the earth stuff as much.

            Also you have to think they were trying to spend roughly the same amount of time in each area if the sequel was mostly on earth than it would give them more time and effort to put in earth rather than split your attention.

            Natalie is a fantastic actress and her character is very important to the Marvel U and Thor him self.

            • @Daniel F

              Natalie is def great actress. No argument there.

              However, I still maintain my argument that she was uneccessary. Thor was genuinely nice to her and a gentleman from the begining. When he smashed the coffee cup, she asked him to stop and he did. Courtesy seemed pre learned.

              The biggest change from Thor came when he learned his father died. From that moment on there was a significant personality change. His exchange with Loki did more than Portman’s character ever did. Thir resigned to his fate. He knew that he was no longer a warrior and at that moment he started acting as such. First he helped in the kitchen serving food. Second he helped evacuate the town when The Giant Robot(?) came instead of fighting. Those two monumental moments for Thor came from Thor.

              To improve her character I would have made her a nurse or even better a paramedic. Risking her life to save people. This would teach Thor that saving people is just as important as fighting for the people. Maybe even more important. Playing off Mjolnir is a tool to destroy or to build and Thor would finally understand what his father meant. Making Asgard a warrior race and Thor meeting a person who dedicated her life to saving would have made a bigger cinnection to the story but also a reason to why he is so attracted to her.

              But as of right now I dont see the necccesity of her character. There was just no connection IMO and the sudden love for her felt factory. With that being said I don’t think that the small town set was even an issue. It could of worked even more for the film had Jane Foster run a small health clinic that is against insurance getting in the way of health care. She would be a local hero of the likes Thor could not understand b/c she never engaged in battle.

              • Ignur well I guess we will have to agree to disagree because I couldn’t possible disagree more. IMO Jane Foster absolutely has to be in the films.

        • Aknot sadly Director trumps writer on the power scale. The director can change parts in the script, move things around, cut things edit them slightly. What ever the director wants to a certain extent. The director ultimately is deemed The Film maker for a reason. The writer hand in a script in to some directors the script is god and to others is just a rough outline.

  9. As long as the movie is good, it works for me. I don’t care which restroom the director uses, as long as the movie has class!

  10. Thor was great, the best comic book movie of the year along with X-Men: First Class and Captain America: The First Avenger.

    Chris Hemsworth was thd right choice for Thor, he did a amazing job.

    I am sad that Kenneth Branagh isn’t directing to direct Thor 2, at least he maybe produce the film.

    I hope Patty Jenkins does a great job as the director of Thor 2.

  11. The delay of Thor 2 sucks, now I must wait 6 more months :(

    I will not judge until I see the movie I have faith that it will be good πŸ˜€

  12. I like how everyone keeps pulling the “she’s never done action” card. Well neither did any other director before they did there first action film, it’s perspective, and honestly I think its just to mask the fact that it’s a female and that they don’t like the idea of it.

    • What ever gets you up on your high horse.

      Of course it’s possible they simply don’t like the choice for what ever reason.

      By the way not “everyone” is pulling the action card. In fact very few people have even mentioned the action issue. Most people have brought up a lack of movies on their resume. Some people are concerned that her only real film is something they hated.

      Also lack of action films is plenty of reason to be concerned. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they are veiling some sexist bs.

      This is about people being concerned. Lack of action experience clearly means that she is unproven and it’s absolutely a good reason to be worried. Sure everyone starts some where, but it doesn’t mean that everyone not experienced will be great. It’s something that absolutely needs to be worried about if you want the movie to be as good as it can be.

      You are actually one of maybe two people to even pull a female card yours just happens to be reverse sexism. People have legit concerns and you turn it around on them to act as if you are some kind of savor to the women of the world. In fact if you look through past films news updates of a none action experienced male director being picked for a film people still bring up that as a concern yet it’s a male. Hmm. People in fact brought up that very concern when the director for the first Iron man film was announced. It certainly wasn’t about him being a female was it.

      • I don’t see any problem with her resume, yes she has done one movie big deal. She obviously has skill if they signed her on. Jon favreau only directed crappy movies before ironman and look how that turned out. Just wait till the movie is released to see how it goes. Even directed with a good resume doesn’t make them a good directed (m night shamalayn)

      • It’s funny, but I’ve been noticing that Studios are looking at a lot of gambles lately. Joe Johnston has a reputation for hit and miss, Favreau (as you mentioned) was a gamble and may be considered a gamble again now that IM2 and Cowboys & Aliens didn’t meet expectations (I actually liked IM2).

        There’s Kenneth Brannagh, who many people were worried about before Thor came out, Marc Webb (I think it was you and I who had a fun conversation about that). But anyway, I think that what all of this has caused me to do is worry less. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by all of the MCU films. I wasn’t blown away, but Marvel Studios’ work has been solid.

      • Daniel,

        I was actually referring the response on a broader basis not confined to just this section of commenting. Futhermore, most of the “whatever reasons” you spoke of a superficial and really hold no ground. Everyone has to start somewhere.

        • Sully

          Actually the reasons hold plenty of ground.

          Yea everyone starts some where doesn’t mean their start is gonna be good. This is a reason to be worried. I’ve seen you your self get worried about director and writer choices despite not knowing how that person was gonna do on that film. Yet the choice is a women and suddenly you have to jump up and defend the choice to pretend you are above everyone else.

          People are expressing LEGIT concerns for the film very well deserved. She has a small resume with no experience in this area. Is it possible it could be fantastic ? Yep. Is it equally if not more possible she could do a terrible job and ruin the film? Yes. Is it more likely that she will do terrible than it would be had they picked and experience well respected film maker for the film? Yes. Doesn’t mean she will ruin it, but the odds are not in her favor.

          People have the right to worry.

    • It has nothing to do with the director having eggs instead of sperm. I would have the same concerns if the director was George Clooney. Like Ignur Rant said, let’s see more Hammer Time, and less cuddling time.

      • Naaaahhhh, you’re crazy John… πŸ˜‰

    • Yes they started somewhere but it wasn’t on an A list multimillion dollar successful franchise film. They got some experience on some B movies or independent films first. You don’t let an inexperienced director “learn their craft” on this type of picture.

      • I understand where your coming from. As much as I loved thor, I’m sick of sequels. Tho I think thor is one of the few movies in need of a sequel because it didn’t have the action that other superhero movies do. But id like some new ideas for once

      • Thandrale,

        That’s not always correct, lots of directors have jumped right in to the big seat numerous times. You’re gonna tell me that there isn’t one director who didnt start in B-Movies or Indie flicks?

  13. Er… screenrant, it’s kinda been confirmed a few weeks ago that Jenkins would direct (it was Skarsgard who let it slip first if I’m not mistaken).

    Anyway, I’m VERY nervous that Thor 2 was pushed back (it gives me a feeling that it’s going to suck…)

    I’m really not in the mood to see a love story – I want more action this time round.

    Branagh was a wonderful director and did a TRULY GREAT job with Thor 1, seeing Marvel let him slip through their fingers is a huge disappointment.

    • Sorry, when I said “confirmed” it was incorrect: we KNEW Jenkins would direct, but there WASN’T an official press release (i.e. it wasn’t confirmed, but it was common knowledge).

  14. if this movie is a love story I will flip out. I haven’t waited this long for a movie about Thor to get a freaking love story.

    I want violence.

  15. The worst part of Thor 1 was Jane/Natalie Portman. I would’ve cast Evangeline Lilly, saved a few million and had a better movie.

    For Thor 2 I want a real battle, like when Thor fought Juggernaut, they destroyed about 5 city blocks. HELL YEAH!

    • Thor vs Hulk…c’mon Avengers!!

  16. Major WTF news here. I don’t wanna see more love story. Now its part 2, I wanna see Thor smashing through hordes of trolls, dark elves, demons and whatever other Asgardian creatures there are.

    • …and watch The Warriors Three plus Sif take on a pack of wild & libidinous asgardian exotic danseurs.

  17. Lots of people (including myself) are already praying this isn’t going to turn into some love story, but looking at how Thor 2 will most likely play out… that’s probably the direction it’s going to go:
    Because you have Thor and Foster who want to be together and then you have the Lady Sif and the Enchantress who (in the comics) are also hot for the hammer wielding god: and I don’t think anyone can argue that THAT doesn’t have the words “Rom-Com” written all over it…

    But, that said, I do see Aknot’s point: Jenkins isn’t writing the movie (although, you can bet your money she’s WILL make some SERIOUS changes to the script) but while there is still someone else writing the thing, Jenkins will only have a limited space to work with. I doubt the producers (and whoever is writing the movie) will allow Jenkins to change the entire genre of the movie that much… BUT then gain, I can tell you from personal experience, that woman do have the ability to persuade us guys to do pretty much whatever they want… πŸ˜‰ :(

  18. Here is a list of accomplished female directors and none of them really fit the bill for Thor 2 but one or two of them would cetainly be up to the task with this type of big budget fare..

    Kathryn Bigelow
    Nancy Meyers
    Penny Marshall
    Catherine Hardwicke
    Nora Ephron
    Mary Harron
    Betty Thomas
    Sophia Coppola
    Anne Fletcher
    Julie Taymor

    Considering ~ 5% of Hollywood directors are women it is going to be a rather short list.

    The female directors listed above are known mostly for dramas and romantic comedies so I am not suprised to find that there aren’t any women out there who have handled this type of tentpole release before..I guess ya gotta start somewhere.

    This is a male driven story so can a female director push this evelope and make a good sequel to Thor?

  19. I’m not too excited about Thor getting moved to November. I think of Marvel films as more summer, big budget fair rather than heavy dreading Fall fair.

    Ditto on the announcement of director. Why no Kenneth Brannah? It’s not like he did anything wrong, in fact he should be rewarded for a great film.

    Can anyone explain why this happened?

    BTW, I’m only somewhat excited about Lone Ranger. POTC4 proved Depp needs better supporting characters (see Sleepy Hollow) and even then it’s a crapshoot if his role works and the film itself works (see Alice in Wonderland).

    I agree with several posts on here about Disney’s possible loss of faith with Thor. Not sure why it’s happened, other than scheduling, but it sends a confuising message about their intentions. Granted Harry Potter was released in November and did very well – but Thor is not as well-recognized. Hopefully, Avengers will hit the mark and generate some real buzz for IM3 and Thor.

  20. Hmm

  21. HOLY CRUD!!!!! NOV 2013?!?!?!?!! BY THE GODS do they WANT to kill me? I looooved thor. :) I mean seriously. ITs bad enough that i have to wait for like 7 more months JUST for the avengers. AHHH I need some ACTION.

  22. They should bring in the Greek myth characters like Hercules and Zeus like they did in Thor and have Thor andhercules battle but enchantress andloki are behind the scene cause sing war.

  23. Great beat ! I would like to apprentice at the same time as you amend your website, how can i subscribe for a weblog site? The account helped me a applicable deal. I have been a little bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided bright transparent idea