THOR: LOVE & THUNDER's Russell Crowe On Actors Complaining About CBM Parts: Here’s Your Role, Play The Role
Related:

THOR: LOVE & THUNDER's Russell Crowe On Actors Complaining About CBM Parts: "Here’s Your Role, Play The Role"

Chris Hemsworth Says I Became A Parody Of Myself In Taika Waititi's THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER
Recommended For You:

Chris Hemsworth Says "I Became A Parody Of Myself" In Taika Waititi's THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Spidey91
Spidey91 - 10/4/2019, 4:14 AM
So, just how big you guys think the money truck they put in front of her house was?
LongMayHeReign
LongMayHeReign - 10/4/2019, 5:27 AM
@Spidey91 - Honestly, not that big. She probably saw the opportunity for a much more substantial role in the most popular franchise in history than she previously had and it was a no brainer.

Also they probably told her of the possibilities of future appearances and her taking over the franchise as the lead.
Spock0Clock
Spock0Clock - 10/4/2019, 5:40 AM
@Spidey91 - Do we know for a fact this isn't on her original contract? Her past comments always came across as "I'm done as far as I know", but if Marvel called her back she might still be on the hook.

In any case, I think Ragnarok really changed the landscape. Thor was always the most dysfunctional and lackluster of the Phase 1 solo franchises, but now it feels fresh and interesting. Plus Marvel has changed a lot in the last six years. And being asked to come back as a hero (rather than a love interest) and possibly a meaty role where she's fighting cancer has got to be pretty attractive for her.

But I do hope they're giving her some cash, too. And the potential for more appearances, because there is a lot of potential there.
Doomsday8888
Doomsday8888 - 10/4/2019, 5:02 AM
The way i see it, there's nothing worse than wasting a character/storyline's potential.
Dunno why they're in such a rush when it comes to Thor, but it is what it is i guess...
Spock0Clock
Spock0Clock - 10/4/2019, 5:33 AM
@Doomsday8888 - Waititi was apparently reading the Aaron run in 2015/2016 during the filming of Ragnarok, so the ideas have been rattling around his head for three or four years before actually getting started on production. Feige, too, has certainly been aware of this possibility (I know I have, and have been writing comments to that effect going back probably to 2017).

The way movies work is that once production starts, it's gotta go pretty fast (there are resources that need to be allocated and accounted for and entire teams of schedulers whose jobs are keeping it all on track). Just because we (and apparently Portman) weren't fully in the loop about these plans until this year doesn't mean it's rushed.
Doomsday8888
Doomsday8888 - 10/4/2019, 6:03 AM
@Spock0Clock
No, that's...that's not exactly what i meant.

I'm talking about Thor's different storyarcs.

I loved Ragnarok, and after i was done watching it, my mind went to picture all different kinds of scenarios where one could take Thor.
One without a hammer, lost an eye, lost Asgard, but he still managed to save his people, most of em at least, and...He was a King!
I thought they were going to build Asgardia or New Asgard either on Earth or somewhere else in the universe.

Heh. NOPE.
Thanos happened.
That purple ass mofo changed everything.
Killed all those Asgardians, killed Loki, Heimdall, no rainbow bridge, Thor had to Rocky Balboa his way to Thanos, got a new badass Hammer, got a new sexy and stinky ass eye, went aaaaaall BRING ME THANOOOOOOOOS on him!!!!

And you know, i was like...aigh...aight, this shit is not what i had in mind, but it's still hot af.

Then i thought a new trilogy with that kinda Thor, someone searching his place in the universe, a King...of nothing.
The last son of Asgard (heh), was something really cool to explore.
But then f*cking Endgame happened, and after those 5 years...we got a fat f*ck Thor.

Now...i get the point of all that...depressing storyarc, and hey, it's not like he wasn't a total badass in the third act, with that Viking look with dreadlocks and all.
Matter of fact, we learned that there ARE still some Asgardians, that they kinda DID build a New Asgard...on Earth, and at the end of the day...Thor kinda left everything to...i guess find his place in the universe, but the way they handled all that?
Not a big fan.
First of all, 90% of all that shit happens off-screen.
But when it comes to the rest...they straight out killed the potential of all those different storylines.

I mean, eventually, you could've ALWAYS get right here, with Thor, a new eye, hammer, even Jane as the Mighty Thor, but c'mon, slow down ffs!!!

This is like setting up the stage for All Star Superman, then changing the scenario to have something similar to Kingdom Come, just to end up with TDKR Superman.

All different, but awesome storylines, but none of them were properly...handled.

I hate that, and i'm experiencing something similar with the Superman comics...UGH!
Spock0Clock
Spock0Clock - 10/4/2019, 6:33 AM
@Doomsday8888 - Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, it does suck that movies don't seem to have the capability of translating 50 years of story into characters that will only exist on screen for ~10 hours, but it's kind of the nature of the beast.

It's why I tend to like TV more than movies. There is often time to explore and breathe and journey down every weird dead end.
Doomsday8888
Doomsday8888 - 10/4/2019, 6:49 AM
@Spock0Clock
Don't get me wrong, it's not like you have to squeeze in every single story and if done well, i CAN accept something happenin' off-screen, but what they did with Thor was very interesting on one hand...but it still kinda left a bad taste in my mouth. :/
It's like they are constantly going zig zag with him, changing the status quo, in a span of...what? 2 years?
They did basically next to nothing with him in 10 years, 2 Thor movies, 2 Avengers movies and now that shit's ACTUALLY getting interesting with him, they....they don't want to stick with one storyline, they want to tell all kinds of stories and rather quickly, dunno why, really...

With everything we've seen, i doubt that a movie with Jane as Thor was necessary.

I'm gonna keep an open mind, man...but yeah, feels like a waste of damn good potential if you ask me...
Doomsday8888
Doomsday8888 - 10/4/2019, 6:52 AM
@MadKingCipher
Yeah but we didn't know that back then.
I mean, unless i missed something, i though they were all gone.
It's in Endgame that we learn that some of them survived.

Not like they did something interesting with them anyway...
Doomsday8888
Doomsday8888 - 10/4/2019, 7:00 AM
@MadKingCipher
Sure, i guess...
But seeing how they treated the warriors three and their deaths, it's not like they give too much importance to these Asgardians. :P

I knew that Sif was alive (if not snapped) and Thor could've made lots of lil Asgardian babies with her.:3
Spock0Clock
Spock0Clock - 10/4/2019, 7:23 AM
@Doomsday8888 - Yeah, Thor was mishandled for four movies, but even a character like Captain America or Iron Man which did get rigorous and effective characterization whizzed by way too fast.

The MCU is great (and I hope its continuity sticks around for another 20 years), but I'm also hoping that some other medium will become the default mechanism for big scale long form shared continuity storytelling.

You could do it best with some kind of animation, but they tend not to get the kind of profit to let them deliver the necessary spectacle. You could do it with video games, but the nature of AAA game development is such that each entry is sort of its own entity and having a 10+ year storytelling cycle means early entries become massively outdated.

Maybe streaming will solve that, and we'll get the proper medium for it, but maybe not. Whatever the "next MCU" is, though, I suspect it will address these shortcomings.
Doomsday8888
Doomsday8888 - 10/4/2019, 7:48 AM
@Spock0Clock
Huh...
Realistically speaking, all wishful thinking aside and considering everything, how long do you think they will keep this same continuity?
In other words, how long do you think they'll keep going forward, without their big guns like Tony, Steve etc?
Not to mention that...i guess they will eventually lose other actors in the upcoming years, right?
Sure the X-people alone can keep the boat afloat for many many years, but even as a long time X-fan, i'd hate to see the MCU as a synonymous for X-Men, you know what i mean?
Spock0Clock
Spock0Clock - 10/4/2019, 10:25 AM
@Doomsday8888 - I think it depends. If Feige stays in charge and they stick with doing movies and TV in the very traditional way that they've been doing it, I think optimistically, they'll probably look for some big anniversary to do a blow-out finale. (Maybe the 25th.) Get everybody back and just do one big self-congratulatory parade.

But, if Feige moves on (for whatever reason) or they start getting experimental with it, it can go a lot of different ways. There's some chance improved technology means they can start recreating actors flawlessly for relatively cheap, in which case, maybe we start getting a sort of "timeless" continuity. Like James Bond, but without true recasts because they will be using CG creations of these actors in their prime (and then slowly altering them in appearance and characterization to conform to the stories as they go).

That assumes traditional linear media continues to be the premier entertainment, but something more interactive may begin to overtake it. If it does, I think the MCU as we understand it will largely fail to adapt and get sidelined by history (assuming it lasts long enough anyway).

I tend to think this whole endeavor won't be around forever. Something will push it out of the big leagues, (maybe even another iteration of superheroes or even Marvel). It will be sad to see it limp along at the end, but it might if it stops being particularly popular. But worrying about problems for a franchise like this 10 years out is probably unnecessary. You look at your Star Treks and such and they always have booms and busts.
MyCoolYoung
MyCoolYoung - 10/4/2019, 6:50 AM
I really think Natalie is going to crush it and I'm excited to see how this all plays out. It's one of my most anticipated MCU movies
JustAChillFan
JustAChillFan - 10/4/2019, 7:47 AM
She is a great actress and usually is more locked in when she has more to work with. She was bad in the two Thor movies because she was given nothing to do and she wasn't invested in her performance. I hope she is more locked in now that she has far more to do because she is a fantastic actress.
MarkV
MarkV - 10/4/2019, 8:19 PM
I remain skeptical. I'm often wrong about these properties, so I will continue to make bad predictions I'm sure. But Natalie Portman was the worse aspect about Thor. This seems like a train wreck. The director is one of the best so likely I'm off base. But I'm not convinced.
FOLLOW ComicBookMovie.com
View Recorder