All of this is correct. Thor Odinson was shocked when he finally discovered that it was Jane – he had made at least one other (incorrect) guess as to her identity. And, though she wore a helmet with a mask that covered her upper face, Jane-as-Thor also had blonde hair, whereas Jane-as-Jane is a brunette (and, at that time, she was bald, due to the effects of chemotherapy). And, of course, she was also like a foot taller, and far more muscular, as Thor. 
I like Portman and think she could do well in the role. Her previous Thor movie appearances certainly weren’t her best work (check out Cold Mountain, V for Vendetta and Black Swan for that, IMHO), but I thought she did all right. Unless the reviews are gawdawful, I’ll probably see the film.
Heh. That was exactly the actress I was thinking of, too: Gwendoline Christie - Wikipedia
Just one more service we offer.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought Natalie Portman left the MCU.
I’m not sure I want a “quitter”, unless she’s locked into a multi-film contract (which I’m sure she would be?
No, we’re nitpicking a press release etc that has been written. Do try to keep up. 
if people are unhappy wait until they hear George Lucas is the director/writer. 
Uh huh. Sure. I bet they’re right onto that.
Portman did start her career out by playing the part of a bloodthirsty assassin, and did a fairly good job of it.
Obviously, that hasn’t been the sort of role that she has played since then but, then again, I don’t know that she has really stood out in any role since then either. (I would place Black Swan on the shoulders of Darren Aronofsky and Satoshi Kon, not Portman - no offense to her.)
It does indeed seem to be that the character, in the comics, is in fact a waif at the start.
My guess would be that they will or already have filmed her as she is now and that she’ll then go into hiding from the paparazzi for six months, bulking up, and they’ll film the rest of the film, using camera angles and other tricks (ala the Hobbits in Peter Jackson’s films) to make her seem larger compared to other people than she actually is for all the dramatic/close-up shots. And, of course, for action scenes they’ll just go full CGI and make her whatever size they want.
Height is really the key constraint. But height is also purely a function of how close you are standing to the camera. Muscle is easy to add - if you’re willing to do the filming in two chunks. I imagine that they have that ability.
I’ll be interested in seeing how well she does at “god-like”. I would expect that just seeing herself looking like this will go a fair ways towards helping herself get into the mood.
They will inverse what they did with Chris Evans for the first Captain America.
She did sign a 3-film contract, but they didn’t specify in advance which three they would be.
According to this article, she did a couple lines of voice-over in Endgame, got into the credits, and may have satisfied the 3-film contract requirement, but they did leave the door open for her to make a third movie.
Too expensive. Much cheaper to hire a fitness coach and put the camera closer to her than everyone else.
Certainly, they could afford going full special effect for every scene with her. But, why do so when you could spend the money more effectively on other things?
Clearly you don’t know how Marvel does things. They will digitally replace an entire costume for thousands of shots if it isn’t quite shiny enough.
I mean, I know that her and Thor probably banged in the first two movies, but I don’t see the need to stress that. 
Maybe, just maybe, Taika Waititi is smart enough to think that “the power of Thor” and “hopped up on 'roids” are not synonymous, and will give us a female Thor played by Natalie Portman more-or-less exactly as she is as Jane Foster.
Chris Hemsworth didn’t get any less ripped when he was trapped on Earth, unworthy.
As I understand, the comic had Fostor-Thor looking “hopped up on 'roids” to where Thor-Thor didn’t recognize her. With the comic being the primary justification for this whole story line.
Yes, I know. Marvel comics also have evil invading Skrulls, so let’s just say the MCU isn’t wedded to what’s comics canon. It’s entirely possible to follow the storyline without the visuals.
I’m not worried about the visuals. If they want to make her looked bulked up, modern special effects techniques are well up to that task. Or they could go the waif-fu route, which doesn’t make any sense in real life, but hey, comic book movie.
I’m worried about Portman’s performance, not her size. She can’t be a good Jane-Foster-as-Thor, if she can’t even be a good Jane-Foster-as-Jane-Foster.
For comparison, Tessa Thompson isn’t exactly huge, either, but she was great as Valkyrie.
She’s not Thor, she’s Lady Thor.
Can we just merge this thread with the “Lady 007” thread?
Why?
And I hope they get a cool, sophisticated spy- that happens to be female- to take over the 007 number, that looks great. It would also be cool to see Jane wield the power and Hammer of Thor.
But the names are a different thing.
Literally all we have to go off here is a headline. It’s easier to say “Jane Foster will become Thor,” than it is to say “Jane Foster will get the powers of Thor. She obviously won’t become the actual Thor since Chris Hemsworth is still in the movie. I know it’s a little confusing since unlike Iron Man or Captain America, Thor is both his real name and his superhero name. (Although remember when he used to be Donald Blake?) The movie hasn’t even been written yet. She might not even get a superhero name. In fact, that’s a pretty common part of MCU movies to not give superhero names right away. Did you notice that they never actually name ‘Valkyrie’? We don’t know her name. They just say she was a Valkyrie. Oh no, this headline has now taken up enough space that we’ve run out of room for an actual article.”