Is Natalie Portman finished with her Marvel scientist character Jane Foster?

Ms. Portman recently said of her time with Marvel films, 'As far as I know, I'm done.' The actress had previously starred in the 2011 superhero movie 'Thor' and 2013's 'Thor: The Dark World.'

Zade Rosenthal/Paramount Pictures-Marvel Studios/AP
'Thor' stars Natalie Portman (r.) and Chris Hemsworth (l.).

Actress Natalie Portman may be done with her portrayal of character Jane Foster, an astrophysicist, in the Marvel films about the Norse god Thor. 

Ms. Portman starred in the 2011 movie “Thor” and 2013’s “Thor: The Dark World” as Jane and said recently in an interview that unless she hears otherwise, she believes her time in the ultra-successful Marvel universe is finished. 

“As far as I know, I’m done,” she said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. “I mean, 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, but it was a great thing to be a part of.” 

It had previously been revealed that Portman was not appearing in the upcoming “Thor” movie “Thor: Ragnarok,” which will be released in November 2017 and stars Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Tessa Thompson, and Mark Ruffalo. 

When Norse god Thor arrives on Earth in the 2011 film “Thor” and meets Jane, Jane is working as an astrophysicist alongside Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) and intern Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). 

Portman has spoken previously about her pride over the fact that the Marvel films include a female character who is involved in science.

“It's really cool that Marvel ... is working on what they call STEM: science, technology, engineering and math,” she told CNN ahead of the release of “Thor: The Dark World.” “…Women are underrepresented in those fields so they are trying to encourage girls to study them more, because obviously there's no reason why they shouldn't be. And that's really exciting because that's exactly what you want with these kinds of movies. They're big and they're fun and if you can have a little bit of impact on a young girl seeing them and saying 'Wait, that's possible, too,' then that would be really cool.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.