Natalie Portman Not In ‘Thor:Ragnarok’ Says She’s ‘Done’ With Marvel

Natalie Portman - Thor

We recently discovered that the Warriors Three would be returning for Thor: Ragnarok which lead to the question of whether we’d be seeing other familiar faces as well. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Natalie Portman confirmed she would not be returning in her role of astrophysicist, Jane Foster, for the third installment in the Thor series, and as far as she knows she’s “done” with Marvel, and while she’s thankful for the experience and really enjoyed herself there is no immediate plans to return, but she’s open to reprise her role in the future.

“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 is unknown if Jane Foster’s absence will be addressed in the film. I for one would love to see Portman taking on the mantle of Thor in the future. Hopefully with the arrival of Captain Marvel we’re able to get more female lead films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. A-Force anyone?

Sound off below, do you think Jane Foster should return in the future or should Thor give Lady Sif a chance?

Marvel’s Thor: Ragnarok is directed by Taika Waititi, and it stars Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Idris Elba, Sir Anthony Hopkins, Tessa Thompson, Karl Urban, Mark Ruffalo, with Jeff Goldblum and Cate Blanchett. Thor: Ragnarok opens  in theaters November 3, 2017.

Source: WSJ

Heroic Staff

Heroic Staff

Heroic Special Activities Division Agent Trainee Program

  • Hinscher

    One of my biggest complaints with the Marvelverse.
    Supporting casts just “disappear” in movies. Jane Foster does a lot. She gets a name toss as “oh she safe” Then there is Pepper Potts who randomly is missing in movies with Iron Man in. I mean those two characters when they are around, Thor and Iron Man can’t spend 2 seconds without mentioning them or talking to them. Yet in some movies they seem to not even acknowledge they are alive.

    • Carl

      All of that makes sense though. They are civilians who can’t help much in the larger conflicts and have things of their own to do. Mentioning them is enough for me, I don’t want to see them.

      • Hinscher

        Who says they have to help? Just have them do what they do. Perry White was of zero help in BvS, he was just doing his job.
        They should have kept Jane Foster as a EMP, and then they could have had her going around saving people.
        Her job is so specific and weird in this universe. It’s like its sole purpose is to find Thor.

        • Carl

          I was ok with the change. Sure they could have had her jammed in as a cameo helping people but that’s the kind of forced crap they try to avoid.

          Every character doesn’t need to be in every movie.

        • Zarathos No Daimaōh

          i actually find it a problem to make characters appears just to appears when they have zero usefulness in the story . Especially when it involves big star supporting cast . I’m ok with seldom and once everywhile appeareances , or even break ups

    • SAMURAI36

      I’ll do you one better…. What about Betty Ross? Bruce put all that effort into her in the Hulk film, only for her to be totally thrown into Oblivion, & for them to throw Hulk into this totally ridiculous, unwarranted, & non-canonical relationship with BW, of all people.
      And since folks like to pretend that it’s okay of characters are at least mentioned, was Betty so much as mentioned, when Hulk & BW were playing handsies in AOU? Of course she wasn’t. So there goes that nonsense theory.

      • Axxell

        Why did Betty need to be mentioned? She never married Banner. Do you mention all your exes when you’re on a date?

      • Zarathos No Daimaōh

        In that very same example why force into the movie Betty Ross , if she is useless to the plot , and when even in the books , she is no longer part of some soulmate and destined coupling ? She and banner have not been together for years in books and are not even married in the mcu , she probably won’t get either the red she hulk treatment . Also ,do you guys even imagine the shape of the movie then ? Here we are in future avengers stuff or any future bigt ensemble movie like civil war , wasting at least 15 minutes showing off or name dropping characters that are inherently useless (even if otherwise cool) to those epic adventures and only work as a flame and pretty trophies for solo movies … so here we are with sequences with , separately and/or together Jane foster , betsy ross , pepper potts , whoever spidey will be with , hawkeye’s family (wich at least serve as a point , even if awkward) on top of other supporting cast that may actually serve a specific purpose in the plot ? No thanks

        • SAMURAI36

          In that very same example why force into the movie Betty Ross , if she is useless to the plot , and when even in the books , she is no longer part of some soulmate and destined coupling ? She and banner have not been together for years in books and are not even married in the mcu , she probably won’t get either the red she hulk treatment .

          It’s funny, how people always say that Marvel always honors the source material for their movies, when in all actuality, they do anything but.

          Also ,do you guys even imagine the shape of the movie then ?

          You mean, more forced and silly than they already are?

          Here we are in future avengers stuff or any future bigt ensemble movie like civil war , wasting at least 15 minutes showing off or name dropping characters that are inherently useless (even if otherwise cool) to those epic adventures and only work as a flame and pretty trophies for solo movies …

          Ummm, Hulk wasn’t even in Silly War, so I’m not sure of your point with that.

          But as I recall, they shoe-horned Pepper in AOU, by merely mentioning her. That didn’t steal “15 minutes” of screen time from that movie. They could have done precisely the same thing with Bruce and Betty. Especially when they forced this ridiculous new relationship on him with Black Widow.

          But I’m guess that that pointless interaction was significant to the story, in your mind?

          Another issue I have with the Marvel films (one of many), is that Hulk (the film, less the character) gets treated as the stepchild of the MCU. It seems like they’d rather make you forget it ever happened (AOU), and/or have selective memory when it comes to it (Silly War). Either way, those are 2 missed opportunities to salvage that film (though I personally loved it, and it was one of the ONLY MCU films that I can actually stomach).

          so here we are with sequences with , separately and/or together Jane foster , betsy ross , pepper potts , whoever spidey , dr strange and others will be with , hawkeye’s family (wich at least serve as a point , even if awkward) on top of other supporting cast that may actually serve a specific purpose in the plot ? No thanks

          All those moments were completely pointless anyway. Like much of the MCU, romantic relationships are never done well. In fact, Bruce and Betty is the only one that felt like it had any gravitas to it.

          The Bruce/BW was completely forced (especially when she goes from guy to guy in the team); the Hawkeye family dynamic was absolutely forgettable, as is Hawkeye himself; Tony and Pepper seems like an abusive relationship; Steve and Carter feels like a a guy that’s pretending to like women.

          It all feels like it’s been written for children. Oh wait, it was.

      • Roc Ferguson

        Having hulk in the thor movie is a push closer to planet hulk and wwhulk….. the movie rights are very jumbled up still.

        • SAMURAI36

          More like that terrible “Hulk vs” cartoon that they put out years ago. In fact, I’m betting that Marvel is hoping folks would’ve forgotten about that (like they are banking on with the Hulk film).

          Based on what’s been released thus far, it sounds like that’s the general premise, with some cosmetic stuff from Planet Hulk thrown in to appease the fans.

  • Carl

    Good news! I have had enough with Jane Foster. She was fine in the 2 movies but I don’t want Thor tied down to Earth because of her. I wonder how they will address it in Thor 3. The got rid of Pepper nicely in Civil War.

  • Pingback: Natalie Portman Not In ‘Thor:Ragnarok’ Says She’s ‘Done’ With Marvel | ePeak.info()

  • Dennis

    Thor doesn’t need Jane Foster to make a story

    • Veronica

      sure don’t, but she is avery good supporting character.

      I wish people would stop ‘x characters doesn’t need x character’ ’cause we know it

      • Zarathos No Daimaōh

        True , but if there is no purpose to the character in the plot and movie , don’t add her just to go “hey guys remember her ? She exists!!!”

  • Origami Rose

    Shes more of a Vertigo girl anyway. Lol.

  • Cinephilia Lovegood

    This isn’t news. Kevin Feige already confirmed that she wasn’t in Ragnarok many months ago, but she was so horrible as Jane Foster that I am rejoicing once again anyway. She’s obviously an incredibly talented actress, but she could not have been any more wrong for that part. I almost liked her more as Padme. Almost.

    • Axxell

      She’s not a bad actress; she just couldn’t be bothered after Marvel parted with her buddy Patty Jenkins.

  • She is a great actress but her success with genre films has been really spotty and she has found it underwhelming (No one should ever have to say “younglings” on screen. ever… Ever.) She proved she could rock a shaved head in V so cancer sick Jane Foster becoming Thor would be a great way to carry to the big screen and I would love to her do that but they haven’t gvien her much to do in the Thor movies so I can see her not coming back. I also miss Pepper in Marvel movies and both of their absences in Ultron was suspect. That said, can have to give these actresses something to do to keep em around….

  • Pingback: Thor’s Portman Believes She’s ‘Done’ With Marvel()

  • Pingback: Thor’s Portman Believes She’s ‘Done’ With Marvel | TMC()

  • I’m disappointed. I relate to Jane Foster so much and it would have made sense to stick with a scientist and a leader, not just romantically but in terms of story.

  • SAMURAI36

    I seem to recall, that Portman was disgruntled with Marvel. Interesting that this didn’t get mentioned in this watered down story.

  • Steve Steve

    When they took out Thor’s secret identity it really made the Jane Foster character superfluous. They don’t have a professional/personal relationship so they don’t seem to belong together. Also, Thor 2 did the character a terrible disservice. Her entire character exists to pine after Thor, making her completely uninteresting.

    Good riddance to the character, but should Marvel have an interesting idea down the road, I’m sure Portman could bring a great performance.

  • louace

    Man
    The phase 3 is looking so bad…
    I can’r get excited for any of the
    they all look mediocre at best ( like most of the MCU movies with few exceptions)
    Spider-man cast got me turnoff fot the whole thing
    Doctor strange looks like a Batman begins/inception rip-off
    Thor Ragnarok (you know, the end of the worlds) is directed by the guy who wants even more comedy in it
    The only upcoming MCU films that are worth waiting for are Avengers and Guardians
    Of that is just my opinion so don’t freak out!!!

  • Pingback: Natalie Portman Is Probably Done With The Marvel Cinematic Universe | Goliath()

  • Pingback: Thor's Portman Believes She's 'Done' With Marvel – U.N.I.C. TIMES()

  • BlubberNugget

    She was boring anyway. Good riddance! Unneeded character.