Thor 4 - Love and Thunder

GNT

Moderator
Joined
May 18, 2000
Messages
70,324
Reaction score
22
It has just been announced, a 4th Thor film is in the works called Love and Thunder.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
72
Seems Portman is back. I def. think she saw Ragnarok at some point and was like, "Damn it! I wish I didn't bail," but she clearly had a terrible time on Dark World.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
72
I'm going to have a freaking heart attack by what they just announced...and confirmed. FF is coming. X-Men is coming. Shang Chi: Legend of the Ten Rings means REAL Mandarin, my theory was right! Black Widow! Dr. Strange Multiverse of Madness! MIND BLOWN!
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
8,623
Reaction score
2
Yeah, it's just so much awesome to take in all at once. Shame there was absolutely no mention yet of GOTG Vol.3, but at least we know it's coming.
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,732
Reaction score
37
I had heard about this a several days ago and was waiting for the official word. Hemsworth must have known about this when he was contacted about doing He-man, because the reason he gave for turning it down was that it's too similar to Thor. Yet he's returning to Thor. lol

I was thinking he might appear in GOTG 3, based on Endgame. Ragnarok went out on such a high note, that I hope it doesn't bite them in the backside doing a 4th. Especially since Portman is back, one of the reasons I thought made Dark World abysmal. IMO she just doesn't seem to fit into that world.

But we'll see.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
32
at first glance this premise seems utterly ridiculous.
how can a mortal (non-asgardian) be the asgardian god of thunder? that seems a bit far fetched.

but Taika Waititi makes 'far fetched' look normal. 'utterly ridiculous' is sort of, his thing.
so... I'm just gonna roll with it. I'm sure he'll make it work.


Dark World took itself too seriously. and Portman was basically just a damsel-in-distress.
it was kind of insulting, for an actress of her caliber. I can see why she quit.

--> giving her The Hammer is the sort of thing that would pique her interest and bring her back to the fold.
at the very least, her character gets to DO something....

....but I agree with MasterFett, she's not really suited for this kind of work. she did her best work in Black Swan. (IMO)
its going to be strange , watching her 'ham it up' in a Taika Waititi Thor film.

this is gonna be... weird. (hopefully in a good way).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
1,456
Reaction score
12
Personally, I would think Thor's presence would be necessary in GOTG 3, which I assume wasn't mentioned here because it was supposed to have already been in production by now anyway. Since Adam Warlock is supposed to be the main villain in that one, it would make perfect sense that the Guardians would need Thor's powers to help defeat him.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
72
at first glance this premise seems utterly ridiculous.
how can a mortal (non-asgardian) be the asgardian god of thunder? that seems a bit far fetched.

but Taika Waititi makes 'far fetched' look normal. 'utterly ridiculous' is sort of, his thing.
so... I'm just gonna roll with it. I'm sure he'll make it work.


Dark World took itself too seriously. and Portman was basically just a damsel-in-distress.
it was kind of insulting, for an actress of her caliber. I can see why she quit.

--> giving her The Hammer is the sort of thing that would pique her interest and bring her back to the fold.
at the very least, her character gets to DO something....

....but I agree with MasterFett, she's not really suited for this kind of work. she did her best work in Black Swan. (IMO)
its going to be strange , watching her 'ham it up' in a Taika Waititi Thor film.

this is gonna be... weird. (hopefully in a good way).

Thor history at Marvel is really complicated. I'm no Thor expert but I'll share what I DO know. For ages Thor WAS a mortal named Dr. Donald Blake, so that isn't really a brand new concept. It was really convoluted. He'd basically stomp his cane and transform into Thor. He also had these strange established rules that are long gone; things like if his hammer wasn't in his hands for a short amount of time, I don't remember that actual length but say like a minute, he'd transform back into Blake. It was always confusing as to whether or not he was like...possessed by Thor or he retained his consciousness in the body of Thor or what the heck was really happening. I don't remember it ever really being thoroughly explained. But I know eventually, I want to say writer Walt Simonson, decided to simplify it and just have Thor be...well...Thor. The whole Donald Blake alter-ego thing was ditched. You know, I don't really know what ever happened to Blake, if he just went off to do doctor stuff somewhere else and hang the hammer and helmet up, if he was killed off, or if he was basically just written out of continuity like he never happened.

But I guess that original Thor is sort of what inspired the Jane Foster Thor identity idea. It never really meshed with me. Back in my day, we had a female Thor. Her name was Valkyrie. I just see this as another pseudo-agenda driven ploy like the new Ghostbusters or Oceans 11. They never work out as planned, they feel like spoon feeding a sort of ethical diversity value instead of just having that be organic. A great case in point of how to and how not to do that is, say Ripley vs. the female Ghostbusters. The fact Ripley is female is never really in question. She just IS. Portman can be a phenomenal actress, but with these big blockbuster type movies, she always seems to be phoning it in. Especially in Marvel movies. I like Taika a lot too, I absolutely expected to HATE Ragnarok, it looked so goofy. But I ended up LOVING it! But the angle they're going with Thor is just bizarre. Honestly, I always thought Thor was an out there idea to begin with. A literal archaic Norse God fighting criminals in modern day New York. Wha? The more comic accurate character was clearly not resonating with audiences, he was always the weak link in the MCU for me, so they just basically adopted a "F*** IT" mentality with him. First they make him just a giant goofball, then make him basically more a cosmic character as opposed to Asgardian (he's literally going off with the Guardians now), then they make him a depressed fat alcoholic, which on paper should NEVER have worked. Yet it SOMEHOW did! He went from a clear lower-tier character, no one's favorite, to a crowd favorite. Now they're going the female Thor angle, one I don't like, but if done properly like Ragnarok (which like I said...I expected to hate) it's possible to work out. I just don't get how we're getting Jane Foster Thor BEFORE Beta Ray Bill. With the Thor and Avenger movies making Thor much more a cosmic entity, I just assumed that was the inevitable lead in to Beta Ray. Guess not...count me disappointed. Not to mention that Jane Foster is a totally bland and generic role in the MCU. No one particularly was asking for her return, no one seemed to miss her at all. How are they going to re-introduce her and somehow make her this HUGE presence now? And so help me God, if they bring back Darcy. Oh God...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
32
re: "how?" from what I can gather, Thor goes on a bender and becomes Unworthy (as we've seen) -- she picks up the hammer for herself and takes care of business, (because) he flakes out and drops the ball -- it falls upon his girlfriend, to heal his psyche and make him rediscover his own self-worth again. (this paves the way for "Hero Thor" to return, and replace "Alcoholic Thor" -- thus returning us back to the character's status quo again, after his "bender-arc" in endgame) -- in short: he's a Drunk, but she loves him anyways.. her Love rescues him.. hence the title).

orsomethinglikethat.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
72
I could potentially see that working. Still not a huge fan though. Even at best case scenario, it's not where I would have gone with the franchise. Like I said, growing up...we did have a female Thor. Her name was Valkyrie. Hah! Instead of tokenizing a pre-established male role, why wouldn't they just roll with the already established original female role that can serve a similar narrative purpose? A Valkyrie movie was, to me, the better way to go. Now I will say, some "tokenized" roles work. War Machine works, She-Hulk works, but personally I never cared much for copy characters that are just gender swapped, race swapped, or kid variants of other established and more iconic characters. It's why I much prefer the brand new and original "diverse" characters like Falcon, Panther, Storm, etc. They're their own unique thing instead of piggy-backing off the success of another more popular character. Like it's one of the reasons why I was never a big Teen Titans fan. Why would I read Kid Flash, Superboy, or Ms. Martian when I can read Flash, Superman, and Martian Manhunter? I guess they have their audience that that appeals to, but it's never really been for me.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
10,880
Reaction score
16
My question about Jane Foster Thor is going to be how she gains the mantle of Thor (which I guess is a mantle now, and not Thor's identity). If she just picks up Mjolnir and is found worthy, thus transforming into Thor, then that would beg the question of why Captain America didn't transform into Thor in Endgame. So, obviously the rules of Mjolnir are going to have to change (assuming that was how it worked in the MCU in the first place).

Seeing the photos of Natalie Portman holding Thor's hammer, I can't help but notice how uncomfortable she appeared. Mjolnir looked like a comically oversized clown-hammer in her tiny, little hand and she seemed to be just waiting for someone to come and take it from her before her string-bean arm gave out.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
72
My question about Jane Foster Thor is going to be how she gains the mantle of Thor (which I guess is a mantle now, and not Thor's identity). If she just picks up Mjolnir and is found worthy, thus transforming into Thor, then that would beg the question of why Captain America didn't transform into Thor in Endgame. So, obviously the rules of Mjolnir are going to have to change (assuming that was how it worked in the MCU in the first place).

Seeing the photos of Natalie Portman holding Thor's hammer, I can't help but notice how uncomfortable she appeared. Mjolnir looked like a comically oversized clown-hammer in her tiny, little hand and she seemed to be just waiting for someone to come and take it from her before her string-bean arm gave out.
I was actually also thinking both these things. I always felt like Portman somewhat regretted joining the MCU. She just always seemed so...what's the word? Unenthusiastic! Like she doesn't put all her effort in or really take this very seriously. It's almost like she's embarrassed by the whole thing...so I really am shocked to see her return. But like said, it doesn't seem like much has really changed. She looks as uncomfortable as ever. Plus what WILL change, her becoming Thor, as you said, kind of doesn't make sense within the established film lore. They completely omitted Donald Blake from the films, but now they're going to use that lore to create Jane Thor? Huh? Like said, why wouldn't Cap have turned then? It just feels like they're going for the Jane Foster Thor to promote Hollywood's hip and modern diversity angle more than actually wanting to make the best story progression. A Valkyrie movie would have made so much more sense.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,732
Reaction score
37
Agreed, i'd rather they go with Valkyrie in some way.

Portman as Jane Foster Thor just seems ridiculous to me. I can't help but see "I can't believe I'm doing this **** right now" expression in almost every scene with her. It's almost the same as her "you've gotta be joking me right now" look from the PT.

IMO, she should have been one of people who disappeared in the blip. And came back recast.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
72
Agreed, i'd rather they go with Valkyrie in some way.

Portman as Jane Foster Thor just seems ridiculous to me. I can't help but see "I can't believe I'm doing this **** right now" expression in almost every scene with her. It's almost the same as her "you've gotta be joking me right now" look from the PT.

IMO, she should have been one of people who disappeared in the blip. And came back recast.
Exactly! She never seemed to enjoy doing these movies, which translated to her character not being particularly memorable or beloved. Little to no one seems to care or notice she was missing in Ragnarok. Portman is like two actresses. There's the Blockbuster Portman who's in Marvel and Star Wars, among her absolute worst work. Wooden, generic, phoned in. Then there's arthouse Portman who's phenomenal in things like Black Swan, Annihilation, and The Professional. You can really tell when she's doing a movie for a paycheck. It's almost like she feels pigeon-held into having to do projects she has no actual passion for. She clearly wants to do arthouse films or more cerebral stuff, but always seems to find herself involved in projects she just doesn't seem to put any real effort into. I wish she'd just stick to what she's good at. So now, I feel like we are stuck with a Jane Foster Thor movie coming that no one asked for and even the star has no enthusiasm for making. That doesn't bode well.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
7
I had heard about this a several days ago and was waiting for the official word. Hemsworth must have known about this when he was contacted about doing He-man, because the reason he gave for turning it down was that it's too similar to Thor. Yet he's returning to Thor. lol

I was thinking he might appear in GOTG 3, based on Endgame. Ragnarok went out on such a high note, that I hope it doesn't bite them in the backside doing a 4th. Especially since Portman is back, one of the reasons I thought made Dark World abysmal. IMO she just doesn't seem to fit into that world.

But we'll see.
It's because portman is a terrible actress.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
72
I wouldn't say she's terrible, I think it's more a case of she's terrible in certain things. Jane Foster is easily one of the most forgettable characters in the MCU. No one really cared. I'm fairly sure Portman never really cared! So this really is somewhat baffling as to why they went this road when they already have someone who is, essentially, the equivalent of a female Thor, Valkyrie, and even ESTABLISHED HER as the ruler of Asgard in Endgame. I thought that was the CLEAR lead into a Valkyrie movie. So this, well, this just seems out of the blue. Now a lot of people are discussing the "woke" aspects of the MCU Phase 4 announcements, it's fairly controversial. But honestly, I like most of what has been announced. I like seeing Blade, Shang Chi with the REAL Mandarin, love that the solo Widow movie is shaping up to a Winter Soldier-like spy epic with Taskmaster, Dr. Strange 2 I'm a little worried about since the Multiverse can def. explode into misusing things majorly but I have faith as I'm thrilled it's confirmed basically a horror film with Scarlet Witch and Nightmare, I love that Falcon and the Winter Soldier is reintroducing Zemo IN costume, Eternals I don't really have much passion for though, and of course I'm stoked for Fantastic Four and X-Men so LONG as they keep them comic accurate. It means, eventually, Magneto, Doom, Surfer, Galactus, and Namor will more than likely also be introduced. Thor: Love and Thunder is about the only thing I'm VERY concerned about.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
7
She's just a bad actress. She's one of those actor/actresses that struck gold early on with a role and got a lot of hype.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
6,054
Reaction score
3
She just played Jackie Kennedy and I'd say that was pretty good. Honestly I don't think she knows what to do with the genre movies. Like, she takes them too seriously or something? They are supposed to be fun! That being said, she starred in a sci fi movie just this year that got good reviews.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
72
She just played Jackie Kennedy and I'd say that was pretty good. Honestly I don't think she knows what to do with the genre movies. Like, she takes them too seriously or something? They are supposed to be fun! That being said, she starred in a sci fi movie just this year that got good reviews.
Could be she takes them too seriously, but also could be not seriously enough. Like I said, she just always seems to phone in her roles in blockbuster-type films. But I do agree, she was very good in Annihilation, the sci-fi I assume you're referencing, but there's kind of a difference. While I wouldn't call in an Indie flick like some like Black Swan kind of is, which even that really isn't Indie, Annihilation def. has art-house qualities. It's much more akin to something like Bladerunner or Arrival than it is something like Star Wars or Independence Day. That's just what she seems to thrive in, more cerebral content. When it's popcorn flick she stars in, she just comes off like there's little effort put in on her part.
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,732
Reaction score
37
Exactly! She never seemed to enjoy doing these movies, which translated to her character not being particularly memorable or beloved.
Portman is like two actresses. There's the Blockbuster Portman who's in Marvel and Star Wars, among her absolute worst work. Wooden, generic, phoned in. Then there's arthouse Portman who's phenomenal in things like Black Swan, Annihilation, and The Professional.
She clearly wants to do arthouse films or more cerebral stuff, but always seems to find herself involved in projects she just doesn't seem to put any real effort into. I wish she'd just stick to what she's good at. So now, I feel like we are stuck with a Jane Foster Thor movie coming that no one asked for and even the star has no enthusiasm for making. That doesn't bode well.
Of her Movies outside of SW and MCU, I've only seen her in the Professional. And I thought that she did very well in that role. FF to her adult career, and I'm pretty much letdown. That one performance, for me, seems to be her one shining star. I think that because she was good in a few movies that, Hollywood just feels she'll work in anything. Or perhaps some people simply adore her no matter what and try to giver her work just because. To date her resume just doesn't support some of the casting decisions that have been made. I have no ill will toward her, but maybe she should just stick to certain movies. Not everyone is multi-talented.

I'd seriously like to know who's in charge of casting sometimes, and how they let this stuff slip by. While at SW under GL I can forgive because he's not the best at getting performances out of people.
That was 15+ years ago. If she cannot deliver better facial expressions by now, someone should have noticed.


Also, it still seems like Disney struggles to hire nobody's for some of these roles. Angelina Jolie? Out of all their casting announcements, not too many are what I'd consider unheard of.
Going forward with less recognizable characters, i would have thought that saving casting budget would be in order. By casting more unknowns. On the flip side maybe having Box Office stars is the only thing that will draw people in to watch the Eternals. It seem to work for Inhumans.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
32
I have -zero- interest in 'Eternals'. it's not a comic that I ever read as a kid,
I have no investment in the characters, I could literally take it or leave it.
but.. X-men? Fantastic Four? they had me at hello.:p I'm already on board.

honestly, why even bother with Eternals? was this planned before the Fox buyout?
if so, then CANCEL those plans. FFS.... "Xmen... Fantastic Four..." HELLO!! :p these should take TOP priority.

comparatively speaking, who gives a **** about Eternals? why is this even going forward? there are bigger fish to fry.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,732
Reaction score
37
Because I think those movies are further off than they would like, and need filler. Due to contractual obligations those characters cannot be used until a certain time, right?

The early part of Phase 4 to me is meh, at least what's on tap so far for 20/21. So if something isn't announced by beginning of 20 for something I follow, then the next few years will be a wash.
Sure I'll probably watch Falcon & Winter Soldier, but may wait until Blu-Ray and just buy it. GOTG3 looks to be a few years away.


Personally I'd rather see a Movie about the Starjammers than the Eternals. But that's just me. Also haven't heard anything on the future of Deadpool, or X-Force/X-Factor.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
72
I agree with nearly every word you guys said. I have little to no interest in Eternals. When I don't know much of anything about a Marvel comic book, that SAYS something. That is obscure obscure! I can sincerely say, I know little to nothing about them. I've been researching them and frankly, I've come to a similar conclusion: It feels like Inhumans Plan B, as they didn't work out for a film and the TV show was botched, they seem to share a lot in common. Then secondly, I feel like this is being pushed simply just to beat out DC doing New Gods, because they're entirely what Eternals is to Marvel. I mean Kirby made both and frankly, since in the 70's he was flip-flopping between Marvel and DC all the time, it would appear he started ripping off his own ideas. But honestly, it's the one I'm least interested in. It's not necessarily the one I'm most worried about, I just don't really care. Plus there's the fact that outside of three characters, literally every role has been gender swapped, race swapped, or both. Literally 75% of the cast does not reflect their comic character. While that can work successfully, come on. When it's THAT extreme, that seems more a gimmick than actually choosing the right actors for the part. When I saw Kumail Nanjiani on the casting list, I was so confused. Surely that's a joke. Now I understand comedians can do serious roles, he was incredible on the new Twilight Zone, but this is Marvel we're talking about. No two ways about it, he'll be an obnoxiously comedic character.

Just like I'd have much preferred a Valkyrie movie as opposed to a Jane Foster female Thor movie, I ALSO agree I'd MUCH prefer a Starjammers as opposed to Eternals. Starjammers has a LOT of staying power. Firstly, you can intro them in Guardians. Then you can intro them to X-Men. Then you can cross over all three! Lots of potential there. FAR more than with Eternals if you ask me, but I assume they're being introduced to have some sort of role in What If and a multiverse being introduced?

And honestly, I'm not going to lie...but I did make a joke that went over fairly well. With how obscure Eternals is, what's next? Devil Dinosaur? ...but of course, it won't be a T-Rex. That's toxic masculinity. It'll now be a Triceratops because DIVERSITY. I couldn't help myself. =p

With Guardians, I get its delay. There was that whole James Gunn lynching that, really, should have been the first sign of the MCU getting a bit too "woke agenda" and less "let's tell the best story possible." But like I said, I still see a LOT of potential good movies in the Phase 4 announcements too.
 
Last edited:
Top