Sounds good -

https://news.sky.com/story/natalie-portman-to-play-female-version-of-thor-in-upcoming-marvel-film-11767474

Natalie portman will do a good job and is my favourite actress but it does not matter, RIP MCU you are going down the route of the failed comics and have learned nothing.

 Formosa wrote:
Natalie portman will do a good job and is my favourite actress but it does not matter, RIP MCU you are going down the route of the failed comics and have learned nothing.

Considering how everyone held this attitude against Captain Marvel and it came to literally nothing I don't think this will be a problem.

 Formosa wrote:
Natalie portman will do a good job and is my favourite actress but it does not matter, RIP MCU you are going down the route of the failed comics and have learned nothing.

Wasn't Lady Thor one of the stronger "new" characters they introduced during that time frame? I'm currently making my way through the comics backlog on marvel unlimited and loving the new gen characters. Just finished secret empire.

It also stars Chris Hemsworth as Thor. And comes after Doctor Strange’s outing to the multiverse.

Unknot your knickers folks.

I assumed they were going to be playing with Alt universes.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Natalie portman will do a good job and is my favourite actress but it does not matter, RIP MCU you are going down the route of the failed comics and have learned nothing.

Considering how everyone held this attitude against Captain Marvel and it came to literally nothing I don't think this will be a problem.

funnily enough NO one held that view of captain marvel, everyone I saw comment on it was saying it will make a ton of money because it is after infinity war and before endgame and the marketing made people believe you needed to see Captain marvel to get endgame, which turned out to be a lie the only thing I was wrong about with that movie was how quickly it would hit that 1 billion mark, I expected it much sooner.

but this is not that, Portman is a class act and will do a solid job of whatever they throw at her, the problem is that IF they throw the comic universe at her it wont matter how good she is as the CU (comics universe) is bloody awful and failing hard, I have even cancelled my marvel unlimited sub and my paper subs this year it has gotten so bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

balmong7 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Natalie portman will do a good job and is my favourite actress but it does not matter, RIP MCU you are going down the route of the failed comics and have learned nothing.

Wasn't Lady Thor one of the stronger "new" characters they introduced during that time frame? I'm currently making my way through the comics backlog on marvel unlimited and loving the new gen characters. Just finished secret empire.

yeah its only been cancelled twice characters are not always the problem its the tits that write the characters and stories.... so bad

Yup.

I think, given how far out these films are, this is a result of the Fox acquisition, and the start of laying a path toward X-Men and F4.

We know now they’re actively working on those in some capacity. Could be the Thanos type link this time around is trying to get the multiverse back in order.

Can we talk about Portman as Foster and Foster as Thor on their own merits without the catastrophization that's already started and the inevitable shoehorning of 'pandering diversity' so the thread gets past page one?

Agreed? Awesome.

I like the idea of Foster as Thor and Portman is pretty consistently great. I'd be sad if Hemsworth goes, though. Totally game for him losing his powers and just hanging out as a badass normal playing games in New Asgard and getting a cameo now and again.

Isn't he now (not) the leader of the (As)Guardians of the Galaxy (This was great fun)

Like I said they might be lookng at Multiople Thors from different worlds or Jane as "new Thor"?

Is Thor actually now Odin as well?

whilst I still think Natty P is somewhat over-rated she's a miles above bland Brie so it'll be fun

now wheres my FF and more importantly the Surfer ?

 Formosa wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Natalie portman will do a good job and is my favourite actress but it does not matter, RIP MCU you are going down the route of the failed comics and have learned nothing.

Considering how everyone held this attitude against Captain Marvel and it came to literally nothing I don't think this will be a problem.

funnily enough NO one held that view of captain marvel, everyone I saw comment on it was saying it will make a ton of money because it is after infinity war and before endgame and the marketing made people believe you needed to see Captain marvel to get endgame, which turned out to be a lie the only thing I was wrong about with that movie was how quickly it would hit that 1 billion mark, I expected it much sooner.

but this is not that, Portman is a class act and will do a solid job of whatever they throw at her, the problem is that IF they throw the comic universe at her it wont matter how good she is as the CU (comics universe) is bloody awful and failing hard, I have even cancelled my marvel unlimited sub and my paper subs this year it has gotten so bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

balmong7 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Natalie portman will do a good job and is my favourite actress but it does not matter, RIP MCU you are going down the route of the failed comics and have learned nothing.

Wasn't Lady Thor one of the stronger "new" characters they introduced during that time frame? I'm currently making my way through the comics backlog on marvel unlimited and loving the new gen characters. Just finished secret empire.

yeah its only been cancelled twice characters are not always the problem its the tits that write the characters and stories.... so bad

"No one"

There's about a billion videos on YouTube speaking about the menace of Captain Marvel and claiming the film will bomb, is terrible and will collapse the MCU, and is part of the Cultural Marxist Post-Modern agenda or something.

Neo-Reactionaries have such thinly disguised views they might as well be holding up literal window panes.

"No one"

There's about a billion videos on YouTube speaking about the menace of Captain Marvel and claiming the film will bomb, is terrible and will collapse the MCU, and is part of the Cultural Marxist Post-Modern agenda or something.

Neo-Reactionaries have such thinly disguised views they might as well be holding up literal window panes.

nope., there are about a billion people SAYING that is what the you tubers are saying without having actually checked or even watched the videos because of the mouse and the access media, but this is not the place to talk about the brie bots so if you want to talk about it, PM me.

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Marvel-comics-make-Jane-Foster-female-Thor-Thor-isnt-a-position/answer/Johan-Torres


not sure how much of this we'll see .

...... .... not quite sure where we stand with regards to Venom et al in the MCU currently, think this might be a bit much.

nfe wrote:
Can we talk about Portman as Foster and Foster as Thor on their own merits without the catastrophization that's already started and the inevitable shoehorning of 'pandering diversity' so the thread gets past page one?

Agreed? Awesome.

I like the idea of Foster as Thor and Portman is pretty consistently great. I'd be sad if Hemsworth goes, though. Totally game for him losing his powers and just hanging out as a badass normal playing games in New Asgard and getting a cameo now and again.

My guess is that somehow the fragments of thors hammer from Ragnarok end up with Foster and either through magical means or just sheer dedication she manages to rebuild the hammer and become thor. Meanwhile, Thor has Stormbreaker and no longer needs his hammer, so he's just like "sure I guess my ex-girlfriend can be thor on earth while I'm off in space."

Has to be multiverse. Spesh with ‘What If?’ Thrown into the mix.

Buckle up peeps, the MCU is about to get mental, I reckon.

balmong7 wrote:

nfe wrote:
Can we talk about Portman as Foster and Foster as Thor on their own merits without the catastrophization that's already started and the inevitable shoehorning of 'pandering diversity' so the thread gets past page one?

Agreed? Awesome.

I like the idea of Foster as Thor and Portman is pretty consistently great. I'd be sad if Hemsworth goes, though. Totally game for him losing his powers and just hanging out as a badass normal playing games in New Asgard and getting a cameo now and again.

My guess is that somehow the fragments of thors hammer from Ragnarok end up with Foster and either through magical means or just sheer dedication she manages to rebuild the hammer and become thor. Meanwhile, Thor has Stormbreaker and no longer needs his hammer, so he's just like "sure I guess my ex-girlfriend can be thor on earth while I'm off in space."

Well Thor in the current MCu has one Hammer (when Cap A not borrowing it) ?

Slightly odd that there are plenty of Asgardians left and yet a Human may become another Thor?

did not see this posted up yet, Blade, now that is interesting.


Don't attach non wargaming images to dakka.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Has to be multiverse. Spesh with ‘What If?’ Thrown into the mix.

Buckle up peeps, the MCU is about to get mental, I reckon.

from 1978, ish.




https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/What_If%3F_Vol_1_10

Jane Foster found the hammer of Thor. After some instances of her helping in Asgard against Loki and an alien invasion, she was promoted to a goddess and the hammer was given to Donald Blake, as it was supposed to. Thor got involved with Sif and Jane Foster married Odin.

" Jane Foster married Odin."

.. bet that made for some fun family dinners ?

... Hopkins must be kicking himself.

Another race and/or gender swap. I suppose we'll see Korean teenage Thor and black Captain America/Spiderman/Ironheart from the comics soon too.

Won't someone think of the white men?

Well, Steve already handed the shield to Sam at the end of Endgame. So, yes, we will have Captain Falcon now.

I don’t mind characters like Jane or Sam who have already proven themselves picking up the mantle of a hero to keep that hero going. I DO have a problem with characters showing up out of nowhere, deciding being a hero would be fun, and retiring gramps because “reasons”. Into the Spider-Verse changed my opinion of Miles, so I accept him as a legit alternate Spidey. I won’t accept Khamala Khan, Iron Girl, or Cho-Hulk. Those three can get binned hard.

 warboss wrote:
Another race and/or gender swap. I suppose we'll see Korean teenage Thor and black Captain America/Spiderman/Ironheart from the comics soon too.

Would not bother me for the second - there is nothing about their basic characters that means they need to be or can't be white, black or blue......male or female.

Asgardians are aliens - same applies

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Won't someone think of the white men?

It is the menace of our time. If anyone needs a leg up, it’s blonde haired male actors. Particularly those called Chris. They just can’t break into the superhero genre.

be interesting to see if they have an justificaiton for Jane (as a Human) getting Asgardian powers etc - maybe its a legacy of when she had the red stuff in her?

I’m still thinking it’ll be a multiverse thing.

So basically ol'natty will pick up Thor's hammer and will be upgraded into She-Ra? That is the most Adora-ble thing since Lucas the Spider.

This is a Marvel movie I might actually go and see. I take it her friend is back for the ride too?

Did reds8n just red text warn Formosa for posting a non-gaming picture and then immediately post a non-gaming picture in his next post? The feth... ?

Anyway, Marvel's presentation showed off a lot of very interesting things. I still don't understand the Eternals in the slightest, so they're going to be the hardest sell (but not Salma Heyak - she does not look 52!). Doctor Strange could be interesting, especially with one of my fav characters (Scarlet Witch) in for the ride. FemThor is a bad idea and I don't trust Taika to do anything but try to rebirth Bathos, the 5th God of Chaos, but whatever, I more than happy to see more of Thor/Valkyrie (just wish Sif'd come back!). Black Widow could be very cool, what with Yelena Belova and Taskmaster in the mix.

Very excited about Falcon & Winter Solider, intrigued by Wandavision (especially if it does tie into the next Doctor Strange). Loki I can take of leave. What If sounds perfect (they'er doing an Agent Carter/Young Howard Stark/Howling Commando episode!!!). And then there's Blade... still not sure if that's a movie or a show.

But of all of them the one that is most interesting to me, and shot up in my list of anticipated films is Shang Chi. Up until now it's been like "Ok, he's a Kung Fu guy. Aiight. Big deal!". Seems like an odd choice for a movie outside of pandering to China. But now that the subtitle is Legend of the Ten Rings, the Ten Rings being an organisation that has been part of the MCU since Iron Man 1, and that it will involve the Mandarin (proper), I am in. I cannot wait to see more of this film.

Yep he did but I think if it's spoilered it's ok, not sure, an explanation would be nice though

Multiverse, hmm...is this going to be an adaptation of the God-Butcher story? Though that was same Thor all along, just different ages.

In general sense, I really don't like completely different characters adopting 'Thor' name just like that. Asgard might have someone else as God of Thunder (like Beta-Bill or Storm was), but Thor is Thor.

My knee-jerk reaction about the Eternals is that I don't care about it at all. I thought Gaiman's Eternal series was quite boring.

 Formosa wrote:
Yep he did but I think if it's spoilered it's ok, not sure, an explanation would be nice though

Isn't it that you can embed non gaming images but not upload them to the site since uploading adds them to the gallery system which is supposed to be wargaming only?

Backfire wrote:
Multiverse, hmm...is this going to be an adaptation of the God-Butcher story? Though that was same Thor all along, just different ages.

In general sense, I really don't like completely different characters adopting 'Thor' name just like that. Asgard might have someone else as God of Thunder (like Beta-Bill or Storm was), but Thor is Thor.

My knee-jerk reaction about the Eternals is that I don't care about it at all. I thought Gaiman's Eternal series was quite boring.

Of the Thor runs that I've read, which I'm sure is a miniscule number compared to some of the more invested MCU fans, the god butcher story is possibly my favorite. It really sets the stage for Lady Thor as well, so I'm holding out a slim hope that it's what they do. It really plays on Thor's responsibilities as a god which the MCU so far has not touched at all, so I'll acknowledge that it's a very, very remote possibility.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Isn't he now (not) the leader of the (As)Guardians of the Galaxy (This was great fun)

No-one knows anything about the plot of GotG3, so mebbe aye, mebbe naw. It's as likely that they leave Thor in a bar in the opening scene.

Lady Thor hummm...Perhaps they should use a body builder type instead of one that is 105 lbs of pure bone. That would probably hurt viewership though because tiny girls are prettier. In the end it's all about the money isn't it.

 Overread wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Yep he did but I think if it's spoilered it's ok, not sure, an explanation would be nice though

Isn't it that you can embed non gaming images but not upload them to the site since uploading adds them to the gallery system which is supposed to be wargaming only?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lady Thor hummm...Perhaps they should use a body builder type instead of one that is 105 lbs of pure bone. That would probably hurt viewership though because tiny girls are prettier. In the end it's all about the money isn't it.

They have Valkrie and too a lesser degree Sir for the that - we don't know what she appears like when she becomes Thor....

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lady Thor hummm...Perhaps they should use a body builder type instead of one that is 105 lbs of pure bone. That would probably hurt viewership though because tiny girls are prettier. In the end it's all about the money isn't it.

They have Valkrie and too a lesser degree Sir for the that - we don't know what she appears like when she becomes Thor....

I'm thinking more like Brienne of Tarth from GOT. That is not existing. Valkyrie is 5'4" and also tiny.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lady Thor hummm...Perhaps they should use a body builder type instead of one that is 105 lbs of pure bone. That would probably hurt viewership though because tiny girls are prettier. In the end it's all about the money isn't it.

They have Valkrie and too a lesser degree Sir for the that - we don't know what she appears like when she becomes Thor....

I'm thinking more like Brienne of Tarth from GOT. That is not existing. Valkyrie is 5'4" and also tiny.

For me Valkyrie has a good "physical presence" on screen, same as Black Widow and the chief bodyguard of Black Panther.

I do recall these arguments when the Wonder Woman actress was revealed and they were wrong then Aliens and Gods don't have to obey the rules, now how and why Jane is able to tap into the power will be part fo this question. IS she a mortal infused with godly power - does she look very different when is Thor - Banner/Hulk style?

They’re also Asgardian, and thus far, far stronger than humans. So build and stature basically means nowt.

Though as for Wonder Woman? It’s still my opinion that Gal Gadot is a terrible and incredibly wooden actress.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
They’re also Asgardian, and thus far, far stronger than humans. So build and stature basically means nowt..

Agreed - hence my interest in Jane's powers, although one of the weakerr parts of the last Thor film was how all "normal" Asgardians became weak and helpless.

Not All Asgardians can throw lightning around - only some are actual "Gods" I think - not sure how it works, how you get to have the powers - is it birth, confered upon you etc?

While I generally enjoyed the arc from Iron Man to Endgame (with FFH prologue) at this point feeling burnt out on the Marvel films and am having trouble rustling up interest in the new wave.

Lady Thor is one of the greater reinventions out of the Generations bunch. Definitely a story I'm happy to see get the big screen treatment.

I'm way more interested in the What If... announcement then Jane Foster Thor, because I haven't read any of the Jane Foster Thor comics yet. I guess I have like two years though. I've heard they're pretty good.

really surprised to see Natalie Portman come back though. I was sure she was gone for good.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm way more interested in the What If... announcement then Jane Foster Thor, because I haven't read any of the Jane Foster Thor comics yet. I guess I have like two years though. I've heard they're pretty good.

really surprised to see Natalie Portman come back though. I was sure she was gone for good.

I am all in on this idea of Lady Thor. I think it could be a pretty fantastic movie given the people involved. My only hang up is.... where has her character been this whole time? When did we even last see her? It should be like, a decade at least in the movie timeline?

Edit: Does this also mean Kat Dennings is coming back?

 Ouze wrote:

really surprised to see Natalie Portman come back though. I was sure she was gone for good.

How has her career been in the last few years? I honestly don't know. Because wasn't one of the major reasons she signed on in the first place because her career wasn't doing so well, and then she wanted out when her career was going well again?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

really surprised to see Natalie Portman come back though. I was sure she was gone for good.

How has her career been in the last few years? I honestly don't know. Because wasn't one of the major reasons she signed on in the first place because her career wasn't doing so well, and then she wanted out when her career was going well again?

That was a lot of the speculation, yeah.

But it isn't exactly like she needs to be doing things she wasn't happy with.

In her defense, I would also be skeptical of getting on board a big franchise if I was her. Probably didn't want another prequel thing happening.....

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

really surprised to see Natalie Portman come back though. I was sure she was gone for good.

How has her career been in the last few years? I honestly don't know. Because wasn't one of the major reasons she signed on in the first place because her career wasn't doing so well, and then she wanted out when her career was going well again?

That was a lot of the speculation, yeah.

But it isn't exactly like she needs to be doing things she wasn't happy with.

Maybe she left the MCU because she wasn't interested in playing the Damsel In Distress number 155 545, but is ready to come back to it in a role that is a bit more fun and involved. It's tought to keep top billing actresses still in their prime doing weak secondary cast jobs which mostly revolved into being a glorified prop and plot device.

I'm not a huge comic book fan and I must admit that the design for feminine Thor was way better then its regular masculine version. The former looked like a fairly cool superheroin while the later looked like an idiot out of a cheap community theatre play, but maybe that's just me. It's true though that she's a bit short for a classic superhero, but size never stopped Tom Cruise to play action heroes. At least, she's of average size compared to other American women unlike Cruise who is bellow the male average for size in the US. A few camera tricks and a good trainer and costume and she can look like a proper action hero.

Frankly, Foster Thor might be one of the better things to come out of the comics side of things lately.

Jason Aaron's run on "War of the Realms" was frigging great and he was part of the team that brought Foster Thor into being.

Also she has a wonderful "Oh Hel Yes!" pun at one point.

epronovost wrote:
It's true though that she's a bit short for a classic superhero, but size never stopped Tom Cruise to play action heroes. At least, she's of average size compared to other American women unlike Cruise who is bellow the male average for size in the US. A few camera tricks and a good trainer and costume and she can look like a proper action hero.

Yeah, I thought about that as well, but I bet it doesn't really matter. She's about the same height as Tessa Thompson, and Valkyrie worked fine. She's got a pretty slight frame but her power comes from literal magic, not her biceps, so whatever.

I guess I was mostly surprised she came back because I would consider her a fairly serious actress* and it seemed like maybe she thought comic book movies were beneath her, but maybe she thought just being Thor's long-term girlfriend was. I think epronovost is probably right. Maybe she thought she'd be tied up with Annihilation sequels that now seem unlikely to happen.

*Your Highness aside

Marvel/DC has been steadily getting less and less of my hard earned ££…Last thing I saw was end game which was surprisingly well executed (apart from two scenes that were very cringeworthy shoehorn). I went to see it more out of OCD than any expectation but was very happy.

To be honest what we really need is like 5-10 years of no superhero films. Of course that will never happen as its a money making machine so I'm not kidding myself there.

I would really like to see the sequel to Venom before anything else as well some some obscure heroes/anti heroes coming out from the shadows.

What I don't really want to see is yet another origin story for a new spiderman/iron man/ thor etc. So im not sure how I feel about another thor film about fem-thor/Portman-thor.
Can take it or leave it really.

We are not sure that the plot will be about portman taking over.

The movie right before thor 4 is Dr Strange and the Multiverse. It very well may be a Thor of another universe when we see Lady Thor. No sense getting upset about what might be before we have seen a single frame.

 Argive wrote:
To be honest what we really need is like 5-10 years of no superhero films.

'We' don't need any such thing. I'm more than happy for them to keep churning them out. If you're getting over it, you could just, you know, not watch them for 5-10 years...


And yeah, given that Hemsworth is still in this next movie as well, I would put my guess on Natalie-Thor being a multiverse crossover thing.

epronovost wrote:

Maybe she left the MCU because she wasn't interested in playing the Damsel In Distress number 155 545, but is ready to come back to it in a role that is a bit more fun and involved. It's tought to keep top billing actresses still in their prime doing weak secondary cast jobs which mostly revolved into being a glorified prop and plot device.

A lot of serious actors signed on to the MCU in the wake of The Dark Knight hoping to get a chance to pull off something similar to Ledger only to find themselves stuck in pretty stock character roles while the movies were mostly about establishing the heroes. Portman very much seems the type to reject the character she was stuck playing, particularly in Thor 2 but also the type to be lured back by a potential lead role.

 insaniak wrote:

 Argive wrote:
To be honest what we really need is like 5-10 years of no superhero films.

'We' don't need any such thing. I'm more than happy for them to keep churning them out. If you're getting over it, you could just, you know, not watch them for 5-10 years...


And yeah, given that Hemsworth is still in this next movie as well, I would put my guess on Natalie-Thor being a multiverse crossover thing.

I like good superhero films, its a great time to be alive and they are delivering things I've wanted to watch as a kid.

I was going towards the 'quality over quanity' train of though. Personally think there's a bit of an over saturation of samesy hero flicks. I have a nagging feeling that as the older audience chips out due to slipping quality, they will cater more and more to younger viewers and the bar will be set lower with each film.

I would definitely like to see more very good superhero films.

Spiderman far from home was very not samey and great. Infinity war was also great and something we have never seen before. End game was good and also something we have never seen before.

There has been no slipping quality from marvel. If anything they have improved since kevin F took control away from ike pearlmutter.

 Argive wrote:
To be honest what we really need is like 5-10 years of no superhero films.

Why, exactly?

Notice how people never say wee need yeatrs w/o comedies, action flicks or horror?
only super heroe films

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
To be honest what we really need is like 5-10 years of no superhero films.

Why, exactly?

Am currently in year two of no superhero films. Standing back made me appreciate the original comics more.

She-Thor doesn't do it for me. While I'm sure the movie will do a billion in worldwide sales, it just makes me miss Thor.

While Lady Thor was about Odinson was going through some of the most interesting stories he has had in the last few decades as well. The one does not exclude the other.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lady Thor hummm...Perhaps they should use a body builder type instead of one that is 105 lbs of pure bone. That would probably hurt viewership though because tiny girls are prettier. In the end it's all about the money isn't it.

A. She was already cast as Foster.
B. It's magic and muscles are meaningless. Loki is orders of magnitude stronger than Cap... Danvers is on a different scale again...

I am very excited for more Thor- but especially for the implication here. Lady Thor is only the most famous other hammer wielder. I think this is just an elaborate setup for the first animated MCU movie, Thor 5-

Throg, Frog of Thunder!

If this is going to be a multiverse spanning thing, maybe they can work in my favorite Thor - Beta Ray Bill.

Well, we've seen him or at least one his species already immortalised by The Grandmaster in Thor Ragnarok?

I really hope that this is a sign of Marvel indulging in the more esoteric areas of their lore. I mean, Dr Strange and Ant-Man both nailed the respective visuals, and harnessed some of the potential.

Now the wider audience is accepting of Magic and the Quantam Realm? Who knows how far they could successfully take things?

OK, can one of you Thor guys check my work before I started reading the Jane Foster Thor comics backstory? The chronology is a... little confusing.

Thor - God of Thunder 1-24 (2012-2014)
Thor - Vol 4 1-8 (2014-2015)
Secret Wars (2015-2016)
Thors (2016)
The Mighty Thor Vol 3 (2017-2018)

Does that seem right? Anything important I'm missing? I don't want to dig too deep into tangentially related Secret Wars or Original Sin stuff if that is avoidable; want to avoid rabbit holes.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm way more interested in the What If... announcement then Jane Foster Thor, because I haven't read any of the Jane Foster Thor comics yet. I guess I have like two years though. I've heard they're pretty good.

really surprised to see Natalie Portman come back though. I was sure she was gone for good.

I am all in on this idea of Lady Thor. I think it could be a pretty fantastic movie given the people involved. My only hang up is.... where has her character been this whole time? When did we even last see her? It should be like, a decade at least in the movie timeline?

Edit: Does this also mean Kat Dennings is coming back?

How is she going to play Thor? She weighs about 20 pounds - like anorexic thin. I was surprised she could even lift the fake hammer.

 Ouze wrote:
OK, can one of you Thor guys check my work before I started reading the Jane Foster Thor comics backstory? The chronology is a... little confusing.

Thor - God of Thunder 1-24 (2012-2014)
Thor - Vol 4 1-8 (2014-2015)
Secret Wars (2015-2016)
Thors (2016)
The Mighty Thor Vol 3 (2017-2018)

Does that seem right? Anything important I'm missing? I don't want to dig too deep into tangentially related Secret Wars or Original Sin stuff if that is avoidable; want to avoid rabbit holes.

The new War of the Realms has a bit of Foster Thor.

Basically, if there's Jason Aarons involved you're on the right track.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm way more interested in the What If... announcement then Jane Foster Thor, because I haven't read any of the Jane Foster Thor comics yet. I guess I have like two years though. I've heard they're pretty good.

really surprised to see Natalie Portman come back though. I was sure she was gone for good.

I am all in on this idea of Lady Thor. I think it could be a pretty fantastic movie given the people involved. My only hang up is.... where has her character been this whole time? When did we even last see her? It should be like, a decade at least in the movie timeline?

Edit: Does this also mean Kat Dennings is coming back?

How is she going to play Thor? She weighs about 20 pounds - like anorexic thin. I was surprised she could even lift the fake hammer.

How does Tom Hiddleston play a guy that can no sell Captain America and shrug off experimental SHIELD weapons?

We live in a world where Keanu Reeves and Jim from (the bad version of) The Office are credible action heroes and where grown-ass adults pay good money to watch movies about magical fantasy beings, but for sure Portman's appearance being subjectively waify is what breaks suspension of disbelief.

Everything else is hyper-realistic, as fans of comic books have always demanded.

in a Universe of Magic Hammers and talking ducks and rodents moaning wee Nats isn't physically 'right' seems to scream 'the wrong kind of fun'

plus not having read the books but isn't the gist that Jane and the Thorette are separate incarnations so we could be looking at a CGI / mo-cap ala Banner Hulk

It's almost like people who can genuinely ACT are able to make all kinds of things believable.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
in a Universe of Magic Hammers and talking ducks and rodents moaning wee Nats isn't physically 'right' seems to scream 'the wrong kind of fun'

plus not having read the books but isn't the gist that Jane and the Thorette are separate incarnations so we could be looking at a CGI / mo-cap ala Banner Hulk

The reasoning for them being separate is because of something going on in the background:

 gorgon wrote:
It's almost like people who can genuinely ACT are able to make all kinds of things believable.

True.

Not relevant to Portman, but true.

 Frazzled wrote:


How is she going to play Thor? She weighs about 20 pounds - like anorexic thin. I was surprised she could even lift the fake hammer.

She'll probably go through a fitness program to build muscle and fill-out a bit. Its worth mentioning that Chris himself looked more like Tom Daily before he trained for the role of Thor.

Then again, Chris was much younger when he put on muscle and Nat would be doing it later in life, which is more challenging. But considering her resume, she seems a disciplined woman - and will no doubt be fully committed to that goal. Assuming she is to shoot in the second half of next year...she won't look like Meg Gallagher or Ronda Rousey but she can achieve the build of Daisy Ridley or Alicia Vikander.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
We live in a world where Keanu Reeves and Jim from (the bad version of) The Office are credible action heroes and where grown-ass adults pay good money to watch movies about magical fantasy beings, but for sure Portman's appearance being subjectively waify is what breaks suspension of disbelief.

Everything else is hyper-realistic, as fans of comic books have always demanded.

Not her appearance. How can she physically manage the role?

i think she's a great actress (perfect in Black Swan), I am just concerned how she is going to physically handle the requirements of that role. I (or my wife I should note more clearly who has more experience in this) don't think she's healthy. She gives off all the signs of an eating disorder.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
We live in a world where Keanu Reeves and Jim from (the bad version of) The Office are credible action heroes and where grown-ass adults pay good money to watch movies about magical fantasy beings, but for sure Portman's appearance being subjectively waify is what breaks suspension of disbelief.

Everything else is hyper-realistic, as fans of comic books have always demanded.

Not her appearance. How can she physically manage the role?

i think she's a great actress (perfect in Black Swan), I am just concerned how she is going to physically handle the requirements of that role. I (or my wife I should note more clearly who has more experience in this) don't think she's healthy. She gives off all the signs of an eating disorder.

Do you think it'll be significantly more physically demanding than Black Swan? She did most of her own dancing (though exactly how much of the complex stuff she did is disputed, she certainly did a lot) and ballet is hard.

If you do, why?

It's not as if she can't hit the gym and tone/bulk up.

I mean, look at The Machinist and Batman Begins. One made after the other, and those are two very different Christian Bales.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
We live in a world where Keanu Reeves and Jim from (the bad version of) The Office are credible action heroes and where grown-ass adults pay good money to watch movies about magical fantasy beings, but for sure Portman's appearance being subjectively waify is what breaks suspension of disbelief.

Everything else is hyper-realistic, as fans of comic books have always demanded.

Not her appearance. How can she physically manage the role?

i think she's a great actress (perfect in Black Swan), I am just concerned how she is going to physically handle the requirements of that role. I (or my wife I should note more clearly who has more experience in this) don't think she's healthy. She gives off all the signs of an eating disorder.

Not her appearance, but here's a load of subjective BS about her appearance.

Did you know Christopher Reeves can't really fly? *gasp*

If they go the angle of Jane Foster with Cancer turned into Lady Thor, why does her petite frame make her unsuited for the role? I'm confused because that sounds exactly how she should look.

-

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It's not as if she can't hit the gym and tone/bulk up.

I mean, look at The Machinist and Batman Begins. One made after the other, and those are two very different Christian Bales.

An eating disorder is not about "going to the gym and bulking up."

She's much worse after BS. I am not sure she could handle that role now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
We live in a world where Keanu Reeves and Jim from (the bad version of) The Office are credible action heroes and where grown-ass adults pay good money to watch movies about magical fantasy beings, but for sure Portman's appearance being subjectively waify is what breaks suspension of disbelief.

Everything else is hyper-realistic, as fans of comic books have always demanded.

Not her appearance. How can she physically manage the role?

i think she's a great actress (perfect in Black Swan), I am just concerned how she is going to physically handle the requirements of that role. I (or my wife I should note more clearly who has more experience in this) don't think she's healthy. She gives off all the signs of an eating disorder.

Not her appearance, but here's a load of subjective BS about her appearance.

Did you know Christopher Reeves can't really fly? *gasp*

Not appearance, health. Is English your second language?

You know absolutely nothing about her health and are using your subjective (and almost certainly ignorant) views about her appearance to leap, two-footed, to a conclusion that she is unhealthy.

Away and gak.

This thread is pretty much the epitome of the Dead Dove meme...

Doesn't anyone ever get tired of the constant barrage of all these superheros? 9/10ths of these films were bad, really, really bad. Cringy even.

I thought this would have died out by now.

Oh well, the genocide of science fiction will continue I guess...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
If they go the angle of Jane Foster with Cancer turned into Lady Thor, why does her petite frame make her unsuited for the role? I'm confused because that sounds exactly how she should look.

-

My friend just told me about this story this morning. I've never laughed so hard in my life.

I have Cancer! Give me Chemo!
Okay, It's helping.

Now I'm Thor, the Chemo is nullified.
And so is the Cancer!

Nope. Cancer stays.


It sounds abysmal. Is this what Comic fans consider as good?

 Excommunicatus wrote:
You know absolutely nothing about her health and are using your subjective (and almost certainly ignorant) views about her appearance to leap, two-footed, to a conclusion that she is unhealthy.

Away and gak.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Togusa wrote:
Doesn't anyone ever get tired of the constant barrage of all these superheros? 9/10ths of these films were bad, really, really bad. Cringy even.

Yes indeed. I've paid to see Venom and Deadpools. Nothing else in several years.

 Togusa wrote:
Doesn't anyone ever get tired of the constant barrage of all these superheros? 9/10ths of these films were bad, really, really bad. Cringy even.

I thought this would have died out by now.

Oh well, the genocide of science fiction will continue I guess...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
If they go the angle of Jane Foster with Cancer turned into Lady Thor, why does her petite frame make her unsuited for the role? I'm confused because that sounds exactly how she should look.

-

My friend just told me about this story this morning. I've never laughed so hard in my life.

I have Cancer! Give me Chemo!
Okay, It's helping.

Now I'm Thor, the Chemo is nullified.
And so is the Cancer!

Nope. Cancer stays.


It sounds abysmal. Is this what Comic fans consider as good?

Chemo is an unnatural, external poison in her body. Cancer is her body unwittingly destroying itself.

Personal experience made the series too hard for me to get through, but its definitely not poorly written.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm way more interested in the What If... announcement then Jane Foster Thor, because I haven't read any of the Jane Foster Thor comics yet. I guess I have like two years though. I've heard they're pretty good.

really surprised to see Natalie Portman come back though. I was sure she was gone for good.

I am all in on this idea of Lady Thor. I think it could be a pretty fantastic movie given the people involved. My only hang up is.... where has her character been this whole time? When did we even last see her? It should be like, a decade at least in the movie timeline?

Edit: Does this also mean Kat Dennings is coming back?

How is she going to play Thor? She weighs about 20 pounds - like anorexic thin. I was surprised she could even lift the fake hammer.

It's okay, she playing a god. It would have been fine if they cast a thin unbuff guy to play thor too. It's not immersion breaking at all. By this logic Michael Cera would have made a great Thor. Hollywood apologist are so dishonest.

Dont get me wrong I love Portman. Shes one the best actress in hollywood IMO. Shes just not the right choice for this roll. Only Keira Knightley would have been a worse choice.

 Frazzled wrote:

That's not even the right scene.

Eight year-olds, dude.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Doesn't anyone ever get tired of the constant barrage of all these superheros? 9/10ths of these films were bad, really, really bad. Cringy even.

I thought this would have died out by now.

Oh well, the genocide of science fiction will continue I guess...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
If they go the angle of Jane Foster with Cancer turned into Lady Thor, why does her petite frame make her unsuited for the role? I'm confused because that sounds exactly how she should look.

-

My friend just told me about this story this morning. I've never laughed so hard in my life.

I have Cancer! Give me Chemo!
Okay, It's helping.

Now I'm Thor, the Chemo is nullified.
And so is the Cancer!

Nope. Cancer stays.


It sounds abysmal. Is this what Comic fans consider as good?

Chemo is an unnatural, external poison in her body. Cancer is her body unwittingly destroying itself.

Personal experience made the series too hard for me to get through, but its definitely not poorly written.

You're telling me the Asgardians can't cure cancer?

If the answer is yes, that's absurd and bad writing.

Sure, why not? Jane Foster in the comics was Thor for a bit.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm way more interested in the What If... announcement then Jane Foster Thor, because I haven't read any of the Jane Foster Thor comics yet. I guess I have like two years though. I've heard they're pretty good.

really surprised to see Natalie Portman come back though. I was sure she was gone for good.

I am all in on this idea of Lady Thor. I think it could be a pretty fantastic movie given the people involved. My only hang up is.... where has her character been this whole time? When did we even last see her? It should be like, a decade at least in the movie timeline?

Edit: Does this also mean Kat Dennings is coming back?

How is she going to play Thor? She weighs about 20 pounds - like anorexic thin. I was surprised she could even lift the fake hammer.

Probably the same way Hemsworth can lift weapons made out of magical alien metal.

Say it with me now, mmmaaaaaaggggiiiicccc

 Togusa wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Doesn't anyone ever get tired of the constant barrage of all these superheros? 9/10ths of these films were bad, really, really bad. Cringy even.

I thought this would have died out by now.

Oh well, the genocide of science fiction will continue I guess...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
If they go the angle of Jane Foster with Cancer turned into Lady Thor, why does her petite frame make her unsuited for the role? I'm confused because that sounds exactly how she should look.

-

My friend just told me about this story this morning. I've never laughed so hard in my life.

I have Cancer! Give me Chemo!
Okay, It's helping.

Now I'm Thor, the Chemo is nullified.
And so is the Cancer!

Nope. Cancer stays.


It sounds abysmal. Is this what Comic fans consider as good?

Chemo is an unnatural, external poison in her body. Cancer is her body unwittingly destroying itself.

Personal experience made the series too hard for me to get through, but its definitely not poorly written.

You're telling me the Asgardians can't cure cancer?

If the answer is yes, that's absurd and bad writing.

I also like to reduce complex stories down to incorrect characterizations. Watch:

Imagine, posting on a Warhammer 40k forum and complaining about bad stories. As if superhumans in power armor would have any issue fighting space bugs. Lol Something something writing is bad

 Togusa wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Doesn't anyone ever get tired of the constant barrage of all these superheros? 9/10ths of these films were bad, really, really bad. Cringy even.

I thought this would have died out by now.

Oh well, the genocide of science fiction will continue I guess...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
If they go the angle of Jane Foster with Cancer turned into Lady Thor, why does her petite frame make her unsuited for the role? I'm confused because that sounds exactly how she should look.

-

My friend just told me about this story this morning. I've never laughed so hard in my life.

I have Cancer! Give me Chemo!
Okay, It's helping.

Now I'm Thor, the Chemo is nullified.
And so is the Cancer!

Nope. Cancer stays.


It sounds abysmal. Is this what Comic fans consider as good?

Chemo is an unnatural, external poison in her body. Cancer is her body unwittingly destroying itself.

Personal experience made the series too hard for me to get through, but its definitely not poorly written.

You're telling me the Asgardians can't cure cancer?

If the answer is yes, that's absurd and bad writing.

I mean, they've never shown the ability to do so. I don't think they've shown that Asgardians get cancer either, so...

Indeed.

Cancer is an odd thing. At the end of the day, it’s cells replicating uncontrollably. The genome gone haywire.

Hence, things which damage the cells, and force early replacement, increase the chance of that mutation kicking in, and it all going horribly, horribly wrong.

And interestingly, I understand it’s not the chemo that causes people to lose their hair, but the drugs that accompany it.

For those interested, Gunther Von Hagens did a really simple visual example of the difference between a benign and malignant tumour on Channel 4 several years ago. He had a Dolls house, a plastic bag, and some expanding cavity foam.

First, he attached the bag to the dolls house chimney, then squirted the foam down the chimney. The bag of course contained the foam. Thus, it could be removed relatively cleanly. That was the benign tumour. Next, the bag was removed, and the foam simply squirted down the chimney. It of course went everywhere, and got into everything. That was the malignant tumour. Removable, but not without causing far more damage, possibly life threatening.

Yes indeed. I've paid to see Venom and Deadpools. Nothing else in several years.

Quite enjoyed Venom - not a bad little film, I'd pay money not to have to watch anyhting related to Deadpool though.

Looking forward to Thor 4 and Natalie's return.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Yes indeed. I've paid to see Venom and Deadpools. Nothing else in several years.

Quite enjoyed Venom - not a bad little film, I'd pay money not to have to watch anyhting related to Deadpool though.

Looking forward to Thor 4 and Natalie's return.

They need to hurry up and make a sequel to Venom with Woody Harrelson as Carnage.

Nobody does crazy psychopathic mass murderer like woody does!

Well his dad really was a crazy hitman, so not that hard???

Dudes- do none of you remember Chris Pratt before he became Star Lord? He didn't look like he'd be capable of saving anything except room for seconds.



But after their marvel workout he looked superhuman. I'm sure they can do the same thing to Portman if the role requires it- but as far as I'm aware, Jane Foster is supposed to look really frail, then well, She-Ra into an Asgardian heroine. Especially given the director, this may be handled like Shazaam, with Portman doing the non-super stuff, and some stunt double doing the heroing.

Frankly, after how many years Disney's been doing this, I'm guessing their personal trainers just get sketches of what their charges are supposed to look like and then they deliver actors in similar shape.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Dudes- do none of you remember Chris Pratt before he became Star Lord? He didn't look like he'd be capable of saving anything except room for seconds.

As Star Lord he's just a guy in a fairly bulky coat. It doesn't matter much how 'fit' the actor is.

Are you suggesting they put Natalie Portman into a bulky coat? And give her a fedora? And maybe the hammer becomes a cane? And make her talk all old-timey, like saying "m'lady" and stuff?

I'd watch that.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well his dad really was a crazy hitman, so not that hard???

If that's true I did not know that! It explains a thing or two lol

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Are you suggesting they put Natalie Portman into a bulky coat? And give her a fedora? And maybe the hammer becomes a cane? And make her talk all old-timey, like saying "m'lady" and stuff?

I'd watch that.

I would too! She could have a sidekick, Kiera Knightley, they could solve crimes. They could live on 221b Ba.... I mean 42 Walloughby Way!

Yeah, that's the stuff!

 Argive wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well his dad really was a crazy hitman, so not that hard???

If that's true I did not know that! It explains a thing or two lol

Yep. Its true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Harrelson

 nels1031 wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well his dad really was a crazy hitman, so not that hard???

If that's true I did not know that! It explains a thing or two lol

Yep. Its true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Harrelson

"occupation: Hitman"
Daaaaaaaaaang! That's insane..
I never knew that.

Cheers.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Are you suggesting they put Natalie Portman into a bulky coat? And give her a fedora? And maybe the hammer becomes a cane? And make her talk all old-timey, like saying "m'lady" and stuff?

I'd watch that.

Not really, no. I'm just saying the physique of an actor is pretty trivial once costuming and inevitable CGI is done.

Though obviously the hammer should be disguised as a walking stick.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Dudes- do none of you remember Chris Pratt before he became Star Lord? He didn't look like he'd be capable of saving anything except room for seconds.

Spoiler:

But after their marvel workout he looked superhuman. I'm sure they can do the same thing to Portman if the role requires it- but as far as I'm aware, Jane Foster is supposed to look really frail, then well, She-Ra into an Asgardian heroine. Especially given the director, this may be handled like Shazaam, with Portman doing the non-super stuff, and some stunt double doing the heroing.

Frankly, after how many years Disney's been doing this, I'm guessing their personal trainers just get sketches of what their charges are supposed to look like and then they deliver actors in similar shape.

It'll be interesting to see what the trainers can do with Portman, Chris Pratt is famous for his transformation, but he was still a dude in his late 20's or early 30's when he did that, and if he was reasonably fit under the fat he had during his parks and rec days it probably wasn't as hard for him as it will be for Portman, a woman in her late 30's. The older you get the harder it is and women are going to have a harder time than healthy men.

Christian Bale had an amazing transformation from The Machinist to Batman, but he was pretty buff before that and it's easier to go buff -> skinny -> buff than it is to go skinny -> buff. Also again a dude in his late 20's/early 30's. Also genetics plays a part.

io9 wrote up a good primer for which comics to read, if you want to get up to speed.

I am finished Secret Wars, so I guess I am at the midpoint, and they have been really good so far. The god killing stuff at the beginning of this was much darker than I expected.

Again, Christopher Reeves can't really fly. Geoff Wode couldn't pick up Thor's hammer, no matter how much he tosses his orb about.

You're seriously that stuck-on someone's appearance discounting them from appearing in a movie that doesn't even pay lip-service to reality?

Wonder why.

Mjolnir as an actual hammer made of steel would weigh over 500 lbs. No one is capable of picking it up and swinging it around as a weapon.

How bulky someone is means exactly nothing.

Right? That weedy little Pendragon kid would never have been strong enough to pull a sword out of a stone.

Fake news.

I remember everyone bashing Gal Godot's weight, and saying that they'd been better off casting muscle women like Gina Carano and other MMA/pro wrasslin'/bodybuilder types. (Even though the character hasn't been portrayed as a hulk for most of her history.)

Then Gadot puts just a little meat on her bones, gets a great costume, and suddenly...

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Again, Christopher Reeves can't really fly. Geoff Wode couldn't pick up Thor's hammer, no matter how much he tosses his orb about.

You're seriously that stuck-on someone's appearance discounting them from appearing in a movie that doesn't even pay lip-service to reality?

Wonder why.

You are the one focused on appearance Canadian. I said health as in is she physically capable of handling the role.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Again, Christopher Reeves can't really fly. Geoff Wode couldn't pick up Thor's hammer, no matter how much he tosses his orb about.

You're seriously that stuck-on someone's appearance discounting them from appearing in a movie that doesn't even pay lip-service to reality?

Wonder why.

You are the one focused on appearance Canadian. I said health as in is she physically capable of handling the role.

To be fair, you said that you thought she wasn't physically capable entirely on the basis of her appearance.

" no, you r".

Sterling.

I'm not Canadian, nor would it be relevant if I were.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
" no, you r".

Sterling.

I'm not Canadian, nor would it be relevant if I were.

Your flag is Canadian. I am sorry, I thought you were one of the Chosen ones eh!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Again, Christopher Reeves can't really fly. Geoff Wode couldn't pick up Thor's hammer, no matter how much he tosses his orb about.

You're seriously that stuck-on someone's appearance discounting them from appearing in a movie that doesn't even pay lip-service to reality?

Wonder why.

You are the one focused on appearance Canadian. I said health as in is she physically capable of handling the role.

To be fair, you said that you thought she wasn't physically capable entirely on the basis of her appearance.

Physical appearance of health not looks.
No biggie, I didn't exactly have any intention of watching the movie.

 gorgon wrote:
I remember everyone bashing Gal Godot's weight, and saying that they'd been better off casting muscle women like Gina Carano and other MMA/pro wrasslin'/bodybuilder types. (Even though the character hasn't been portrayed as a hulk for most of her history.)

Then Gadot puts just a little meat on her bones, gets a great costume, and suddenly...

If only she’d taken acting lessons.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
I remember everyone bashing Gal Godot's weight, and saying that they'd been better off casting muscle women like Gina Carano and other MMA/pro wrasslin'/bodybuilder types. (Even though the character hasn't been portrayed as a hulk for most of her history.)

Then Gadot puts just a little meat on her bones, gets a great costume, and suddenly...

If only she’d taken acting lessons.

She was great - different strokes I guess. I also recall many comic fans were SURE that Hugh Jackamn could never embody Wolverine in a physical sense.....

Whatever they do with Ms Portman they can't ruin the character more than they did with Lex Luthor in Bats Vs Sups. Marvel have made very few misteps so far and I donlt think they will repeat that kind of franchise killing mistake

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
I remember everyone bashing Gal Godot's weight, and saying that they'd been better off casting muscle women like Gina Carano and other MMA/pro wrasslin'/bodybuilder types. (Even though the character hasn't been portrayed as a hulk for most of her history.)

Then Gadot puts just a little meat on her bones, gets a great costume, and suddenly...

If only she’d taken acting lessons.

She did fine in the parts of the movie that had interaction (particularly the fish out of water cliche). It was only when the film degenerated into a half hour of slo-mo CGI crap that it fell apart, and I don't know what you'd expect her to do when left standing and directionless in front of a green shower curtain.

Yeah, I think criticizing her acting is something the smarmy interwebz kidz do, but basically every critical review I read thought she was solid in the role. I thought her chemistry with Chris Pine was quite good, actually. It was during the CGI-fest ending where things break down. And hers isn't even the worst performance in that battle. Thewlis -- who is a better actor -- chews every piece of digital scenery on the hard drive.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
I remember everyone bashing Gal Godot's weight, and saying that they'd been better off casting muscle women like Gina Carano and other MMA/pro wrasslin'/bodybuilder types. (Even though the character hasn't been portrayed as a hulk for most of her history.)

Then Gadot puts just a little meat on her bones, gets a great costume, and suddenly...

If only she’d taken acting lessons.

She was great - different strokes I guess. I also recall many comic fans were SURE that Hugh Jackamn could never embody Wolverine in a physical sense.....

I don't think he did, until Logan.. He always seemed way too small and not hairy enough to me personaly, I never liked him as wolverine. Maybe its because he wasn't allowed to be mean and brutal enough which wouldn't be his fault as an actor but what the studio wanted delivered. So I didnt like that particular depiction of wolverine rather than jackman..
In Logan he was playing an old man so it worked much better as I imagine he wouldn't be as jacked by that point. Not sure who would make a good wolverine tbh. Hard to picture all of those actor dudes with sideburns and chest hair

I don't think Portman is a good fit for the role. I just cant imagine her getting angry and show a mean face and be taken seriously. A hero needs to get angry and "Unleash fury" especially someone like Thor.
I just cant picture Portman pulling it off. Time will tell.

 Argive wrote:
I don't think he did, until Logan.. He always seemed way too small

This is the first time I've ever seen the complaint of Hugh Jackman's Wolverine being to small and, frankly, it has me questioning the world.

Same. If anything Jackman was too average to be Wolverine- too normal size, wrong posture, too clean-shaven and lacking in some of his more bestial mannerisms and traits (though that varies a fair bit by artist). But Wolverine was _short_ and also tended to hunch and crouch, and was often pictured with his arms posed in a fairly simian fashion


And I mostly remember Wolverine from Comics Code days, and his occasional violent killings were always off panel (and often retconed to actually not end in death), so his brutality in the films was relatively high in comparison.

 gorgon wrote:
I remember everyone bashing Gal Godot's weight, and saying that they'd been better off casting muscle women like Gina Carano and other MMA/pro wrasslin'/bodybuilder types. (Even though the character hasn't been portrayed as a hulk for most of her history.)

Then Gadot puts just a little meat on her bones, gets a great costume, and suddenly...

Gal Gadot is still almost head taller than Portman, no?
Any way, they can just glue her head into different body (digitally, that is...) so I am none too worried about that aspect.

Re: Jackman, isn't he like 20cm taller than Wolverine? I guess you could argue Wolverine should have relatively broader shoulders, though that is true for almost any comic book character.

Jack Reacher is 6'5", apparently nobody mentioned that to little Tommy Cruise.

There comes a point where this sort of discussion just seems.. petty.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Jack Reacher is 6'5", apparently nobody mentioned that to little Tommy Cruise.

Somebody should have though. I like most Cruise movies, but not his action movies, and part of it is that he simply does not have necessary physicality.

Voss wrote:
Same. If anything Jackman was too average to be Wolverine- too normal size, wrong posture, too clean-shaven and lacking in some of his more bestial mannerisms and traits (though that varies a fair bit by artist). But Wolverine was _short_ and also tended to hunch and crouch, and was often pictured with his arms posed in a fairly simian fashion


And I mostly remember Wolverine from Comics Code days, and his occasional violent killings were always off panel (and often retconed to actually not end in death), so his brutality in the films was relatively high in comparison.

You have put it much better than I did!
Jackman seemed too pretty and too small of frame. I didn't mean his height specifically.
Although I wonder how The Rock would look like with side burns and a leotard....hmmmm

Backfire wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Jack Reacher is 6'5", apparently nobody mentioned that to little Tommy Cruise.

Somebody should have though. I like most Cruise movies, but not his action movies, and part of it is that he simply does not have necessary physicality.

It was perfect for Legend. He spends a big chunk of his screen time in that film crouched, with his knees up to his chin, and often moves with one hand on the ground or wall.
He's basically an innocent man-child, halfway between human and faerie.

Any way, comics and cartoons exaggarate so much that it is pretty much impossible to exactly copy physical attributes or mannerisms drawn characters have.

Backfire wrote:
Any way, comics and cartoons exaggarate so much that it is pretty much impossible to exactly copy physical attributes or mannerisms drawn characters have.

He 100% got a spinal issue

That's a Space Marine chest, right there.

 Argive wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Any way, comics and cartoons exaggarate so much that it is pretty much impossible to exactly copy physical attributes or mannerisms drawn characters have.

He 100% got a spinal issue

He's got worse than that.

Am I missing something? Wolverine has always been a short guy.

It was meant as a statement about about the girth being the issue and not the length... Sometime girth is more important than length

 gorgon wrote:
Yeah, I think criticizing her acting is something the smarmy interwebz kidz do, but basically every critical review I read thought she was solid in the role. I thought her chemistry with Chris Pine was quite good, actually. It was during the CGI-fest ending where things break down. And hers isn't even the worst performance in that battle. Thewlis -- who is a better actor -- chews every piece of digital scenery on the hard drive.

To each their own. Me? I found her delivery flat and devoid of emotion. I also don’t feel she showed any real screen presence in any of the three films.

But hey, just an opinion.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:But after their marvel workout he looked superhuman. I'm sure they can do the same thing to Portman if the role requires it-

With her vegan diet? I doubt it. You need certain raw materials to pull that sort of building off, and edamame won't cut it.

Mr Morden wrote:Whatever they do with Ms Portman they can't ruin the character more than they did with Lex Luthor in Bats Vs Sups. Marvel have made very few misteps so far and I donlt think they will repeat that kind of franchise killing mistake

And here I thought you'd go at least one thread without going on a Isenberg Luthor rant. And to call that performance franchise killing is severely disingenuous at best. They did worse with Flash's casting in those movies than they did with Luthor.




As far as them making this movie? As long as it's good cinema I don't care WHAT they do. I just assumed that given her... temperament in regards to being part of the MCU before would have fostered (heh) a recast. Didn't Hugo Weaving have some similar commentary about his part? Didn't they also get a different actor for Infinity War?

They did.

But at this point, we know precious little about how much screen time she’ll have, let alone screen time as Thor.

Remember, this follows ‘In the Multiverse of Madness’. Given Mysterio mentions a multiverse, and the destruction of the Infinity Stones? Who knows what’s about to break loose?

It could be a mere scene or two, as HemsThor travels through possible realities. Maybe this also links in to WandaVision.

We’ve very little information at present.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Well, Steve already handed the shield to Sam at the end of Endgame. So, yes, we will have Captain Falcon now.

I don’t mind characters like Jane or Sam who have already proven themselves picking up the mantle of a hero to keep that hero going. I DO have a problem with characters showing up out of nowhere, deciding being a hero would be fun, and retiring gramps because “reasons”. Into the Spider-Verse changed my opinion of Miles, so I accept him as a legit alternate Spidey. I won’t accept Khamala Khan, Iron Girl, or Cho-Hulk. Those three can get binned hard.

Ummmm...Khamala Khan didn't retire anyone so not sure where that comes from, in fact neither did the other two. I don't think unless you have always had a problem with She-Hulk that Cho is a big issue, and Iron Heart has moved on to be her own character with Tony back as Iron Man. (Miles took up the mantle in an alternate universe Spidey story: Ultimate universe after Peter was killed). People really need to calm down on "new characters" being introduced as filling in for old characters. It is not uncommon, and the old character almost always comes back.

Ahtman wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I don't think he did, until Logan.. He always seemed way too small

This is the first time I've ever seen the complaint of Hugh Jackman's Wolverine being to small and, frankly, it has me questioning the world.

He's certainly far smaller (in musculature) than any comics iteration, and significantly taller than most depictions, but if matching comic book builds is key then few superheroes are ever going to be played by people who aren't world champion bodybuilders, and there aren't many of those with great acting chops.

Just Tony wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:But after their marvel workout he looked superhuman. I'm sure they can do the same thing to Portman if the role requires it-

With her vegan diet? I doubt it. You need certain raw materials to pull that sort of building off, and edamame won't cut it.

It's certainly harder for vegans to get as big as people eating meat, but there are plenty ripped and muscular vegans out there.

Yolanda Presswood is more muscular than many women in action movies I can think of. Likewise Melody Schoenfeld.

Oh and there's a skinny weakling called Venus Williams, too.

Trying to find any website that wasn't fellating their veganism was difficult at best, so figuring out if they started their vegan lifestyle before or after starting their fitness regimen is kind of important. Also are they the outliers or the norm for people of that lifestyle? I ask as someone who honestly doesn't know much about it other than the people I'm exposed to at the university I live next to, which would definitely infer outlier to these three.

Yeah, but you can prove anything with facts.

Maybe don't "infer". Maybe research yourself and don't shift the burden to others.

Start with The Hench Herbivore.

No it wouldn't-that isn't how outliers work. They're fit people who are also vegan.

Any random college kids you see aren't necessarily either, and you don't have any reliable method of determining if they're fitness nuts, vegans or even actually college kids, just your preconceptions.

 Just Tony wrote:
Trying to find any website that wasn't fellating their veganism was difficult at best, so figuring out if they started their vegan lifestyle before or after starting their fitness regimen is kind of important. Also are they the outliers or the norm for people of that lifestyle? I ask as someone who honestly doesn't know much about it other than the people I'm exposed to at the university I live next to, which would definitely infer outlier to these three.

I mean someones build and veganism really don't have a ton of overlap. A vegan who is trying to get built will need to consume protien fats etc. It is harder to do it if you are vegan but it can be done. People's builds are based off a number of things including genetics. Natalie Portman has always been smaller, and would be regardless of diet.

 Just Tony wrote:
Trying to find any website that wasn't fellating their veganism was difficult at best, so figuring out if they started their vegan lifestyle before or after starting their fitness regimen is kind of important. Also are they the outliers or the norm for people of that lifestyle? I ask as someone who honestly doesn't know much about it other than the people I'm exposed to at the university I live next to, which would definitely infer outlier to these three.

I mean they're professional athletes and record holders whether they turned vegan prior to or during their professional careers. Serena Williams (who I wasn't aware of, apparently switched later than her sister after she found it useful) and Novak Djokovich are other examples.

They're outliers in the way that all professional athletes are, but it's not tough to be vegan and muscular. There are a lot of successful athletes that are vegan. There are plenty powerlifters and, specifically important for the discussion, bodybuilders that are vegan. There are lots of potential health problems associated with a vegan diet, but they are easily accomodated for if you can afford it. Building mass is not a problem.

Can Vegans be buff?



Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!

 Just Tony wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:But after their marvel workout he looked superhuman. I'm sure they can do the same thing to Portman if the role requires it-

With her vegan diet? I doubt it. You need certain raw materials to pull that sort of building off, and edamame won't cut it.

Mr Morden wrote:Whatever they do with Ms Portman they can't ruin the character more than they did with Lex Luthor in Bats Vs Sups. Marvel have made very few misteps so far and I donlt think they will repeat that kind of franchise killing mistake

And here I thought you'd go at least one thread without going on a Isenberg Luthor rant. And to call that performance franchise killing is severely disingenuous at best. They did worse with Flash's casting in those movies than they did with Luthor.

Yeah your so edgy and inaccurate - have a point.

Well at least my comment is about the thread topic - its not just whining, defending crap acting and directing or ranting about vegans.

Maybe think about an actual contribution to the thread next time mate.

Backfire wrote:
Any way, comics and cartoons exaggarate so much that it is pretty much impossible to exactly copy physical attributes or mannerisms drawn characters have.
[https://stuarte.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Rob-Liefelds-horrible-art-style.jpg]

Hey now, let's not bring Rob in to this. He's busy trying to avoid drawing feet, he won't have time to respond.

It isn't harder to source protein as a vegan - at least not in Britain, Canada or the U.S.. It is much cheaper than animal-proteins and freely available in almost any supermarket.

Plant-protein is also no-less accessible to the body than animal-proteins.

Both are simply myths that carnists like to toss off as a fact. Tons of world-class athletes purse a vegan or plant-based diet, but for sure it wouldn't work for an actor or a Fedora on a forum.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
It isn't harder to source protein as a vegan - at least not in Britain, Canada or the U.S.. It is much cheaper than animal-proteins and freely available in almost any supermarket.

Plant-protein is also no-less accessible to the body than animal-proteins.

Both are simply myths that carnists like to toss off as a fact. Tons of world-class athletes purse a vegan or plant-based diet, but for sure it wouldn't work for an actor or a Fedora on a forum.

It isn't that it is hard, it is that it takes sourcing at all. I've known plenty of vegans and vegetarians that don't do a good job of getting enough protien in their diet because they don't source it or seek it out. Most people that are not vegan don't really put a ton of thought into their diet, so needing to do so makes it harder. That said most vegans I know put more thought into their diet then those that are not.

In the end most actors are closer to athletes in watching their diet and exercise, then your average person.

A certain percentage of all kinds of people, everywhere, have shocking diets.

A person who eats exclusively from a McDonald's menu isn't an argument against carnism and a person who eats vegan or plant-based and is sickly isn't an argument against veganism/plat-based diets.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
A certain percentage of all kinds of people, everywhere, have shocking diets.

A person who eats exclusively from a McDonald's menu isn't an argument against carnism and a person who eats vegan or plant-based and is sickly isn't an argument against veganism/plat-based diets.

Hey I'm not arguing against it, just that being on any kind of diet takes more effort than not. Which honestly for anyone trying for a change in their body is going to be a thing anyway so veganism is not really relevant to whether Portman can bulk up for the role or not.

I'm a little confused, honestly. Like, is she just getting the powers of thor transferred to her? I think in the original comics the powers were transferred through nothing but the hammer, but that's not how the movies work so far.

Unless it's just a genderbent reboot, which doesn't make much sense as thor is going to still be in it.

Also, didn't the hammer get destroyed and they had to return the time traveled one?

So long as Portman doesn't come out and say "This movie's not for white guys' I don't see a problem.

In the end, that was the only real problem with Captain Marvel, as far as gender goes. Yes, the women of the story do pretty much everything with no significant help from the men, but we've seen plenty of other movies where the men do pretty much everything with no significant help from women and there's no comment at all. This is no different.

There IS a noticeable RACE issue in Captain Marvel - Nick Fury being used as token comic relief black guy, not quite the worst racist stereotype, but still noticeably bad - but that's neither here nor there with Thor.

There isn’t a race issue in CM. Samuel L. Jackson is awesome as usual. He’s not a hardened leader of SHIELD yet, but he believes in his job and he thinks outside the box. I think anyone suggesting SLJ getting used as a “token black guy” would get a serious stink eye and a “who the feth do you think you are” from SLJ himself.

You should watch the episode of Extras with Samuel L. Jackson in it.

 Vulcan wrote:
So long as Portman doesn't come out and say "This movie's not for white guys' I don't see a problem.

In the end, that was the only real problem with Captain Marvel, as far as gender goes. Yes, the women of the story do pretty much everything with no significant help from the men, but we've seen plenty of other movies where the men do pretty much everything with no significant help from women and there's no comment at all. This is no different.

There IS a noticeable RACE issue in Captain Marvel - Nick Fury being used as token comic relief black guy, not quite the worst racist stereotype, but still noticeably bad - but that's neither here nor there with Thor.

Loved Cap Marvel.

I don't think it idid or indeed should matter what colour the out of his depth Gov Agent was - a younger Everett K. Ross could have been there and done the same stuff. Was the latter character in Black Panther a problem? Not to me.

Isn;t the whole point - It could have been white/black./man/woman in the role and been the same. Its not like they got SLJ to do a jar Jar Binks comedy routine.

Guess I must’ve hallucinated Monica and Maria Rambeau.

 Vulcan wrote:
So long as Portman doesn't come out and say "This movie's not for white guys' I don't see a problem.

In the end, that was the only real problem with Captain Marvel, as far as gender goes.

That wasn't a problem with the film, either. That was a comment specifically directed at wanting more diversity at press events and wasn't " not for white males" even by the broadest stretch.

There isn't even a reason to bring it up here at all.

 Vulcan wrote:
So long as Portman doesn't come out and say "This movie's not for white guys' I don't see a problem.

In the end, that was the only real problem with Captain Marvel, as far as gender goes. Yes, the women of the story do pretty much everything with no significant help from the men, but we've seen plenty of other movies where the men do pretty much everything with no significant help from women and there's no comment at all. This is no different.

There IS a noticeable RACE issue in Captain Marvel - Nick Fury being used as token comic relief black guy, not quite the worst racist stereotype, but still noticeably bad - but that's neither here nor there with Thor.

but isn't saying daft clickbaity YT buzzy things part of the standard MCU contract for lady hero's these days ?

Starting to think there is degree of engineered Ersatz wokeness that the squeaky wheels are either too stupid to spot or are, more likely, happy to play along with for the clicks, see Batwoman trailer which did its best to hide the 'its just like all the other Ceedubs' via this method

Anyone see the movie Evolution?

There was one black male character in the movie. His entire role was to have every. single. awkward and embarrasing thing in the movie happen to HIM instead of to a white character.

Nick Fury played the same role in Captain Marvel. His whole purpose was to be the butt of every joke so none of the other characters would have to suffer the indignity of being laughed at.

What SLJ wanted or expected or even performed in of the role is irrelevant. The film that hit the screen made him token comic relief black guy. Whether done in the script, by the actor, or in the editing room is irrelevant.

SLJ plays hardened badass in future films, gets lighter film before he goes grimdark, has fun with role, internet knight decides “token black guy role” for one of the most badass actors out there. Did I get everything, or did I miss something?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
SLJ plays hardened badass in future films, gets lighter film before he goes grimdark, has fun with role, internet knight decides “token black guy role” for one of the most badass actors out there. Did I get everything, or did I miss something?

Just that different people can apparently see different things in a movie.

 Vulcan wrote:
Anyone see the movie Evolution?

There was one black male character in the movie. His entire role was to have every. single. awkward and embarrasing thing in the movie happen to HIM instead of to a white character.

Nick Fury played the same role in Captain Marvel. His whole purpose was to be the butt of every joke so none of the other characters would have to suffer the indignity of being laughed at.

What SLJ wanted or expected or even performed in of the role is irrelevant. The film that hit the screen made him token comic relief black guy. Whether done in the script, by the actor, or in the editing room is irrelevant.

Wow thats nothing like I saw in Evolutuon - which is a wonderfully fun comedy imo

Pretty much everyone is laughed at in the show, yeah bad things happen to Orlando Jones but so do they to other people. Seann William Scott is repeatedly laughed at by the others - including Jones, and Jones also takes the piss out of Julieanne Moore's character a fair bit

Again I never thought about the colour of his skin when I watched the film - and it would have made no difference if he was white for me.

but if thats what you saw in the two films fair enough

 Vulcan wrote:
Anyone see the movie Evolution?

There was one black male character in the movie. His entire role was to have every. single. awkward and embarrasing thing in the movie happen to HIM instead of to a white character.

Nick Fury played the same role in Captain Marvel. His whole purpose was to be the butt of every joke so none of the other characters would have to suffer the indignity of being laughed at.

What SLJ wanted or expected or even performed in of the role is irrelevant. The film that hit the screen made him token comic relief black guy. Whether done in the script, by the actor, or in the editing room is irrelevant.

Kinda like how Finn in the current Star Wars Trilogy has been turned into something of a joke character. He did maybe two heroic things in both movies combined and in each they had comic results. One with the tie fighter and Poe and the 2nd with the heroic sacrifice turned into the 'lulz not really' from Rose Tico. I feel bad for Rose's actress and all but man Rose just really bugged me preventing that heroic sacrifice which should've led to everybody in the Resistance dying. God i hate Rose for that. She's the Jar Jar Binks of the New Trilogy.

-------

As far as Thor goes i don't fully care about the movie. Two thors could be interesting since Hemsworth Thor is off with the Guardians of the Galaxy. The main marvel series i feel most interested in now are Deadpool, maybe Ant-Man (haven't seen any but i liked him in 'The Avengers' movie) and GotG. I'm not sure what else to go for. Scarlet Witch could be interesting and maybe Black Widow.

Also before i get hit with any -isms (which is highly likely) i'd like to say that i don't like Brie Larson as Captain Marvel. I heard the character is supposed to be kind of emotionless but it just sucks as a main character. I mean lots of people can have charisma or personality or something to make them like-able in any form. With her at least in acting she seems boring and emotionless and not very expressive. It's like somebody took Hillary Clinton, Ben Stein and Al Gore and mixed their charisma into one entity.

I'd imagine Natalie Portman would probably do a significantly better job than Brie's Captain Marvel. Yes i know Captain Marvel put butts in seats or at least got ticket sales. For what it's worth Transformers and the Star Wars Prequels also made a ton of money. As i've heard from others how much a movie sells doesn't equal quality. Of course money is the end goal so i guess they got what they wanted. I honestly think it's more the brand at this point (Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, etc.) but maybe the general public is willing to see big dumb action movies and quality is a lesser concern. That said Justice League did poorly, as did ghostbusters (2016) and from what i heard Ocean's 7 so maybe Brand isn't everything. I dunno i guess we'll just have to wait and see.

-------

For what it's worth i try my best to avoid putting criticism into a movie i don't want to see esp. if politics is involved in some shape or form. I made an exception this time because i fell for the political bait i guess but throwing my 2 cents in while remaining only slightly political is probably the best route.

Sounds fun, I can't wait to see what my favorite director does with this. As we don't really have a strong cast anymore from the previous films as Hulk is gone, Loki is missing, and Thor and Valk are the only real people left of the original Re-avengers. Having someone who thor has known come back to him but being different is really nice and a nice hand-off. There always has to be a Thor. And having a new character that has new paths is really nice and fun.

Plus I hope they go with her original run of jane foster, or a mix of both to flesh out the character. MCU can walk that fine line.

I am really hoping we see Mutants come out in STrange's series or the arrival of new villains and characters.

I want to see Jane foster in costume and I want my little nieces to have someone they can look up to.

I think with Tati directing will hopefully be another successful sequel.

Plus I would love to know who the thor villian will be and I hope. I REALLY HOPE, that it is someone that everyone has been waiting for : Midgard Serpent, Maybe the return of Hela? Maybe Seth? Maybe Mephisto? Fafnir? Who knows at this point I am up for any villian that is interesting and has a unique aesthetic that makes them different from the others. I would love to see thor finally come to terms and become the king we all want him to be, and for Jane to take the mantle of thor.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I'm a little confused, honestly. Like, is she just getting the powers of thor transferred to her? I think in the original comics the powers were transferred through nothing but the hammer, but that's not how the movies work so far.

In the comics, there is the person (Thor Odinson) who has traditionally held the office of Thor, which is granted to those worthy enough to lift Mjolnir. In the comics something happens to cause Thor to become unworthy, at which point he can no longer lift the hammer himself, and the office of Thor is briefly vacant. Jane Foster is worthy of lifting Mjolnir, and when she does so, assumes the office and power of Thor - typically referred to as The Mighty Thor. Thor Odinson continues to exist, still has the powers of an Asgardian, and his adventures run parallel to Janes - he wieled the axe Jarnbjorn, which he had before he gained Mjolnir during this time period.

In the comics, here are other people who have proven worthy of lifting the hammer as assuming the powers and office of Thor, so there is nothing new or unusual about this; an alien was able to wield the hammer and gain the power of Thor back in 1983, as have others.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Unless it's just a genderbent reboot, which doesn't make much sense as thor is going to still be in it.

It's not at all. They are two distinctly different people who approach what they do in very different ways. If they follow the comics, what would make sense would be Jane lifting the hammer, becoming The Mighty Thor, and acting as Thor while Thor Odinson goes across the galaxy with the GOTG, doing Thor Odinson stuff.

But it works differently in the MCU for sure though - neither the VIsion nor Steve Rogers became Thor when they lifted the hammer, to what I saw. So, I don't really know what they are going to do. Your next point makes it even less clear as to how this is going to actually happen, logistically:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Also, didn't the hammer get destroyed and they had to return the time traveled one?

Mr Morden wrote:Yeah your so edgy and inaccurate - have a point.

Well at least my comment is about the thread topic - its not just whining, defending crap acting and directing or ranting about vegans.

Maybe think about an actual contribution to the thread next time mate.

Oh, you mean the part of my post you cut when you quoted me?

 Asherian Command wrote:
There always has to be a Thor.

The line is hilarious to me now. Sure, “There must always be a Thor.” was a nice little catchphrase the first time. Then original Thor got his hammer back and Jane lost the power. Then Valkyrie died, and she’s like “There must always be a Valkyrie.” and takes that name up instead. I’m waiting for down the line when she’s pouring gasoline over her head, “There must always be a Ghost Rider.”

I am curious how the movie will do this story. No hammer to pass off. Thor recovering from his depression and still feeling worthy. Will Nat play Lady Thor, or only Jane? In the comics is a whole body transformation so the two parts could easily be two different actors. I hated the first eight issues of Lady Thor, but it got much better after that and her side appearances have been good.

 Just Tony wrote:

Mr Morden wrote:Yeah your so edgy and inaccurate - have a point.

Well at least my comment is about the thread topic - its not just whining, defending crap acting and directing or ranting about vegans.

Maybe think about an actual contribution to the thread next time mate.

Oh, you mean the part of my post you cut when you quoted me?

I am glad we agree most of your statement was purile and pointess.

s far as Thor goes i don't fully care about the movie. Two thors could be interesting since Hemsworth Thor is off with the Guardians of the Galaxy. The main marvel series i feel most interested in now are Deadpool, maybe Ant-Man (haven't seen any but i liked him in 'The Avengers' movie) and GotG. I'm not sure what else to go for. Scarlet Witch could be interesting and maybe Black Widow.

I'd imagine Natalie Portman would probably do a significantly better job than Brie's Captain Marvel. Yes i know Captain Marvel put butts in seats or at least got ticket sales. For what it's worth Transformers and the Star Wars Prequels also made a ton of money. As i've heard from others how much a movie sells doesn't equal quality. Of course money is the end goal so i guess they got what they wanted. I honestly think it's more the brand at this point (Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, etc.) but maybe the general public is willing to see big dumb action movies and quality is a lesser concern. That said Justice League did poorly, as did ghostbusters (2016) and from what i heard Ocean's 7 so maybe Brand isn't everything. I dunno i guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Movies and performance is subjective - Far rather watch more Black Panther, Cap Marvel or Avengers than Guardians and never want to see Deadpool. However the (As)Guardians could be more fun

One of the constant defences of the (a film you mentioned before Just Tony starts whining) Last Jedi was that it made money so I would agree with you to a point....however many big Dumn movies" are often better written for their audiance than those that critics spend so much time and effort aclaiming.

I think Natalie Portman is a great opportunity and looking forward to seeing what they give her to work with beyond a big hammer

 AduroT wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
There always has to be a Thor.

The line is hilarious to me now. Sure, “There must always be a Thor.” was a nice little catchphrase the first time. Then original Thor got his hammer back and Jane lost the power. Then Valkyrie died, and she’s like “There must always be a Valkyrie.” and takes that name up instead. I’m waiting for down the line when she’s pouring gasoline over her head, “There must always be a Ghost Rider.”

Man, if that got us the Ghost Rider movie this city needs, I'd be totally game for that. I don't understand how such a awesome character can be so consistely and abjectly bungled.

 AduroT wrote:

I am curious how the movie will do this story. No hammer to pass off. Thor recovering from his depression and still feeling worthy. Will Nat play Lady Thor, or only Jane? In the comics is a whole body transformation so the two parts could easily be two different actors.

I have been doing a big think about this since the news dropped. Using a different body for Thor as opposed to Jane Foster would work well from a storytelling perspective: someone stereotypically buff as Thor, like Katee Sackhoff, and then Natalie Portman just portrays Jane Foster. Visually, this is the most accurate to the comic.

Realistically though there is no way you shell out A-list-oscar-winning-actress-money just to have her do voiceovers for most of the movie; not when you can have her do the whole role and CGI up her emaciated cancer ridden scenes. And when has the MCU cared about slavish devotion to the comics?

 Ouze wrote:


But it works differently in the MCU for sure though - neither the VIsion nor Steve Rogers became Thor when they lifted the hammer, to what I saw. So, I don't really know what they are going to do.

They didn't in the comics either. I can't speak to the more recent stuff, but the first time Cap picks up the hammer was in a really random fight (may well have been against mole people or something), that was basically built around having that moment, and the ostensible plot was pure gibber.
Edit: it wasn't mole people. It was 1988 and some Egyptian gods popped up to punch Thor in the face, conveniently in the Avengers Mansion. Cap smacked some people around with it and gave it back to Thor in the space of a couple pages.

Generally the people who 'became Thor' (at least in the early days) didn't just pick up the hammer and swing it around (even the Hulk does that at some point, iirc). They take some action to channel the power (usually slamming an end of its 'false form' on the ground) in a very He-man sort of way (long before there was a He-man).

 Vulcan wrote:

Nick Fury played the same role in Captain Marvel. His whole purpose was to be the butt of every joke so none of the other characters would have to suffer the indignity of being laughed at.

Thinking of moments that made me smile in CM, I'm coming up with:

--The "Captain Trouble" nickname for the kid.
--Various fish out of water jokes aimed at Carol and the Skrull characters.
--The jerk at the internet cafe getting his motorcycle trashed.
--The resolution of the final confrontation between Carol and Yon-Rogg.
--The nerf gun gag in the fight on the space station.

Seems like a bit of a reach to say that Fury was the only character to have jokes made at his expense (he got some laughs from being serious in the face of absurd situations, or from his own dry humour, but that's not the same thing).

 Mr Morden wrote:
Sounds good -

https://news.sky.com/story/natalie-portman-to-play-female-version-of-thor-in-upcoming-marvel-film-11767474

Female Thor? She better hit the gym and get her hands on some steroids to do the role justice. Another option would be cgi but then they could do a cartoon and don't bother at all with the movie.

Again. This seemingly pencilled in to follow, and italics for affect Dr Strange in The Multiverse of Madness.

Now, us Nerds are aware of the Multiverse concept from Marvel. It’s been a staple for Marvel and DC for a long time. A way to reinterpret, without a retcon. A new strand for new writers and artists to explore.

Who knows what that bodes for the MCU? Right now, with regards to MCU Jane Foster and Mjolnir, all we know is that Natalie Portman is back, Mjolnir is back, and the two will be together. In some capacity.

We don’t know Jane Foster is becoming Thor. We don’t know what Jane Foster wielding Mjolnir actually means. We don’t know that there won’t be two Thors, or that this must mean the end of Chris Hemsworth tenure.

We don’t even know to what extent the previous comic versions will inform the film. The MCU is very clearly it’s own multiverse reality from the comics.

So. Chill. No conclusions to be jumped to as yet.

Well we do know that given her comments on working with marvel that they must have thrown an ungodly amount of cash at her, or more likely she gets star billing with hemsworth reduced to comedy sidekick duty.

I went back and checked, because I don't remember there being the *attitude" that other people seem to remember around the time she announced she wasn't returning.

The actual quote goes thusly..

As far as I know, I’m done. I mean, I don’t know if maybe one day they’ll ask for an Avengers 7 or whatever, I have no idea. But as far as I know, I’m done. It was a great thing to be a part of.

Not exactly the petulant huff people seem to think. It's tough to read it without emphasis, but heavily implying she might be open to return in the future and calling it a great thing to be part of isn't exactly definitive. Given her failure to appear in End Game it might be easier to attribute a negative context, but that could easily be explained by scheduling conflicts or the fact that she has a young family.

Going purely by what has actually been said by Portman, I think there's every chance she might have been quite happy to return, and any other read on the situation requires a certain amount of assumption.

Backfire wrote:
Any way, comics and cartoons exaggarate so much that it is pretty much impossible to exactly copy physical attributes or mannerisms drawn characters have.

To be fair...... Liefield suck!

Portman seemed serious about intending to bulk up for the part, so I think they're more likely to use a body double for normal Jane than for the Thor version.


God that Liefeld art. In fairness to the guy, he's improved immeasurably since, but I'll never really wash the "parody" version of that image from my mind's eye.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Sounds good -

https://news.sky.com/story/natalie-portman-to-play-female-version-of-thor-in-upcoming-marvel-film-11767474

[image removed]

Female Thor? She better hit the gym and get her hands on some steroids to do the role justice. Another option would be cgi but then they could do a cartoon and don't bother at all with the movie.

We only had five pages of this conversation so it's good you dived in with the same take.

It's magic.

Backfire wrote:
Any way, comics and cartoons exaggarate so much that it is pretty much impossible to exactly copy physical attributes or mannerisms drawn characters have.

I thought Cris did an amazing job getting into shape for the role myself!

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Sounds good -

https://news.sky.com/story/natalie-portman-to-play-female-version-of-thor-in-upcoming-marvel-film-11767474

Female Thor? She better hit the gym and get her hands on some steroids to do the role justice. Another option would be cgi but then they could do a cartoon and don't bother at all with the movie.

Why is that not a problem for Mark Ruffalo/Hulk - he is fantastic in the role, but is a problem for Natalie/Thor

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Sounds good -

https://news.sky.com/story/natalie-portman-to-play-female-version-of-thor-in-upcoming-marvel-film-11767474

Female Thor? She better hit the gym and get her hands on some steroids to do the role justice. Another option would be cgi but then they could do a cartoon and don't bother at all with the movie.

Why is that not a problem for Mark Ruffalo/Hulk - he is fantastic in the role, but is a problem for Natalie/Thor

Don't know his points but i'm guessing it's because The Hulk is a kinda cowardly scientist that turns into a huge muscled mutant that is cgi. For Female Thor i suppose they could have her gain muscles when she grabs the Hammer. I'm not really a Marvel Fan or a comics fan in general but perhaps if they had a bulked out version of her after she grabs the Hammer and less muscled for before. Not sure if cgi would make it look super fake or how they'd do it. I suppose we could wait and see.

I do find it kind of funny to think about whenever someone talks about some 110 lbs, 40+ years old woman beating the crap out of dudes twice her weight though or throwing them like it's nothing (people even mention sarah connor's actress not being physically built or in peak physical condition like she was in T2 and Arnold is just old now even if he is still fairly strong). I mean she's not an MMA fighter and i shouldn't expect her to be but at least Gal Gadot had military and physical training and was believable. I might actually make the point Gal Gadot was practically a god-send to play as wonder woman. I don't think i can imagine any other person as wonder woman anymore.

The difference in my opinion and the one you're commenting is that i think she should at least get CGI muscles in this movie or it'll look awkward for her to carry an over-sized hammer outside of warhammer 40k. I think CGI or a bit of strength training would help. CGI is infinitely better than it used to be.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I went back and checked, because I don't remember there being the *attitude" that other people seem to remember around the time she announced she wasn't returning.

The actual quote goes thusly..

As far as I know, I’m done. I mean, I don’t know if maybe one day they’ll ask for an Avengers 7 or whatever, I have no idea. But as far as I know, I’m done. It was a great thing to be a part of.

Not exactly the petulant huff people seem to think. It's tough to read it without emphasis, but heavily implying she might be open to return in the future and calling it a great thing to be part of isn't exactly definitive. Given her failure to appear in End Game it might be easier to attribute a negative context, but that could easily be explained by scheduling conflicts or the fact that she has a young family.

That and what she could make in a real role, rather than 5-10 minutes of screentime as a backup continuity character in Endgame... I wouldn't blame her for not wanting to do that.
Some of the people who did that in Endgame are newer faces who still have to put the work in. She's not really in that situation anymore, and is well aware that Hollywood can be hard on actresses that take bit parts too often, and leans toward sidelining people early if the machine of casting can get away with it. Holding out for a main character role is good business.