Thor: Love and Thunder

Natalie Portman picks up the mighty, heavy axe, much to her boyfriend Thor's disbelief...
 

collider.com/natalie-portman-thor-love-a...ghty-thor-interview/

Monty wrote:

Natalie Portman picks up the mighty, heavy axe, much to her boyfriend Thor's disbelief...
 

collider.com/natalie-portman-thor-love-a...ghty-thor-interview/

Any idea how they explain in-the-verse that she can pick it up and wield it like Thor. 

She started off as Thor's human girlfriend, the frail partner of a god.

Now she's a god too?  

Nice upgrade, but does it make comic-book sense?

Shadar

 

It reads as though Jane Foster (Natalie) in the film is gravely ill and Thor is deemed, and deems himself unworthy to wield the hammer. It is then that his girlfriend Jane steps in to raise the mighty hammer to a bolt of lightning from the Gods with what looks like a She-Ra - esque transformation.
​​​​​​
 

(There is a better image of her lightning bolt transformation, but the image file (.webp) won't read here.)

From what I have read online, Natalie Portman has built herself up from a skinny waif actress into a muscle carrying heroine to fulfill the role.
Perhaps similar to Lynda Carter's fitness workouts when she played Wonder Woman, but far more intense for Natalie to achieve her goal.

Let's not delude ourselves, you can go check out her interviews and photos from the premiere. Those are not her muscles, those are CGI

As for Shadar's point, no, it doesn't make any sense

just seen this in the cinema. not a bad film with a few alterations to the comic story line. the two end credit sequences were predictable but still enjoyable. nice if you just wanna go turn your brain off and watch a fun film once

Are there any good feats of strength moments from Jane?

I watched the film today at the cinema and I have to say it was disappointing. Halfway through I was thinking 'this is a blend between or cross between TV's Supergirl and a Disney production.'
There's a lot more of him than there is of her in the film, although he is the lead character in the title, so that can be justified I suppose. As mentioned earlier, how she gained her powers was never explained - It just sort of happened!
I went to see Wonder Woman 1984 two or three times and each time, the cinema was mobbed, packed out. I think there were a handful, possibly ten paying customers today for Thor.
When you start looking at your watch during the movie and thinking 'when is this going to end?' you sort of know that this isn't good.
I def don't recommend it.

 

Sorry…..you saw WW 1984……3 times?

Did you think it was good?

d_k_c wrote:

Sorry…..you saw WW 1984……3 times?

Did you think it was good?

Yes, I saw it at the cinema at least two or three times. There was always something new to pick up on Wonder Woman 1984, and I have watched it again on cable. It is more than likely the finest superheroine movie ever made.
Far, far better than the drivel I sat through today on thor.
 

I don’t think I can ever really like 84 but I get where you’re coming from ‘cause you get what you want you get two ladies fighting out with super powers. My problem is I can’t get over the fact that essentially she does the old Clockwork Orange with a dude because he’s possessed by the ghost of her ex lover who died. Pedro Pascal is doing a good job thou.

Check out set photos. Those are her arms. Just because she stepped down the training after the film, doesn’t mean it’s not her work. Look at Evans or Hemsworth at premieres. They’re pretty skinny compared to the movie.

i just watched the film. it was explained how or why she can pick up the hammer. its explained in a flash back part. dont want to give spoilers, the movie its self bla. ssve money and wait for digital release.

I think when it comes to taste in movies, stories, books ….it’s a great thing that there’s such diversity.

And there clearly is …… if people believe that ww84 was even remotely an okay film

I’ll just leave this here

On the topic of Natalie Portman and her arms, I love how people are jumping up and down saying those are CGI arms (because of some tracking dots seen in a BTS video).

Here's the thing from what I've seen and heard.  Natalie certainly put in the work to gain some mass and build (you can tell from the set photos).  Sure, she isn't going to have arms like Hemsworth, but I would be very surprised if a woman of her frame did tbh.

Also, she has said in at least one interview I've seen, that she DID have help from "Marvel magic" as she put it.  So shes not exactly saying that its all her to be fair.

I've still yet to see the film, but this was one topic that seemed to come up a lot with regards to it on the net. 

Look forward to seeing it.  But not expecting a huge deal after the fail of Dr. Strange 2 (which I was also hyped to see from the trailer, only to be bait and switched).

Yes, I saw it at the cinema at least two or three times. There was always something new to pick up on Wonder Woman 1984, and I have watched it again on cable. It is more than likely the finest superheroine movie ever made.

Personal taste aside, I have to completely disagree with you Monty.  WW84 is a terrible film, which does not make sense at all.  Terrible story, terrible acting, terrible directing.  I could write an essay on how bad this film was. The one good thing I can probably say about it is Pedro Pascal was great in it.

But if you like the film, enjoy.  Nothing wrong with that.   I would however argue to the death about it being a good film  

Peace.

/K
 

Ok, you are right, I was getting my Wonder Woman's mixed up
The earlier version featuring Gal Gadot fighting in the trenches and kicking off against armoured trucks was the Wonder Woman film I was thinking of.
Apologies.
​​​​​

Monty wrote:

Ok, you are right, I was getting my Wonder Woman's mixed up
The earlier version featuring Gal Gadot fighting in the trenches and kicking off against armoured trucks was the Wonder Woman film I was thinking of.
Apologies.
​​​​​

That makes sense. The first WW was pretty good and worth rewatches. The sequel was a bad example of trying to jam well-liked actors/characters back into roles they have left behind, not to mention 'sequel-ism' in all its worst ways.

If you are going to exploit the viewers' emotional response to Steve's death as a principal motivation for Diana in Movie 1, you can't cheat and bring him back in Movie 2 and squeeze that lemon dry a second time.

Not sure who came up with that bad idea, but it sure feels like a studio financial 'brainstorm' that got forced on the writers and director. At least I hope so, because Patty Jenkins has done some good work in the past, and I hope she will in the future. 

Whatever the case, it drained a lot of energy out of the franchise. 

As far as Love and Thunder, I'm happy waiting for it to stream... whenever. No hurry. 

In the meantime, I'm more interested in dreaming about a traditionally Asgardian male version ofThor and a young Kara Zor El crossover, where they are romantically involved. I think that could be a lot of fun and sexy as hell. But it will never happen -- unless in the pages of the SWM storybook. But that's why we write stories. 

Shadar

Spoiler warning and tags if you must, but is there an actual transformation in the movie between Jane and her Mighty Thor form?

algae2k wrote:

Spoiler warning and tags if you must, but is there an actual transformation in the movie between Jane and her Mighty Thor form?

Well... that's sad (and a waste!). I guess we need to cross our fingers for deleted scenes to emerge in a while.

HannWar111 wrote:

Are there any good feats of strength moments from Jane?
 

Not really. She wields Mjollnir and uses it to mow down rows of baddies. That’s about it. No other lifts/bends/ feats in the movie.