Beloved Thor Franchise Actor Talks Avengers: Doomsday Return
Why Valkyrie Still Matters in the MCU
A Marvel star addressed questions about a possible return in Avengers: Doomsday ahead of the film’s release. The Thor franchise star spoke about her connection to the character and her experience in the Marvel Cinematic Universe without confirming her involvement.
Tessa Thompson discusses Valkyrie’s return prospects in Avengers: Doomsday
Tessa Thompson has not confirmed whether she will appear in Avengers: Doomsday. When asked directly on The Playlist’s Bingeworthy podcast, she responded, “Oh, [I’m] not able to confirm anything.” Thompson refused to confirm or deny her role in the Marvel film now shooting in the U.K.
Thompson spoke more openly about her enthusiasm for playing Valkyrie and working within the Marvel Cinematic Universe. “I just love the character so much that I would always be interested. For sure.” She praised the MCU’s collaborative nature, saying, “This is the coolest thing about hanging out inside of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: all the incredible people that you get to play with… all the amazing directors… and all of the incredible talent.”
She emphasized the creative opportunities within the franchise: “There are so many tonal spaces you can go to inside of a Marvel movie. You can explore drama and comedy, and there’s so much to do.” While discussing a possible return for Valkyrie, Thompson also referenced a past hope for a romantic arc involving Captain Marvel, stating, “She’s single. She’s ready to mingle… I wouldn’t be mad at it, for sure.”
During the same podcast, Thompson noted her connection with His & Hers co star Jon Bernthal. She clarified that they did not discuss their Marvel roles on set. She said, “We never ever did that… except towards the end of shooting,” noting that Bernthal was preparing for a return to The Punisher.
Thompson also discussed the Creed franchise and her ongoing interest in continuing the story. “We love those films so much… I think there’s still more to say if audiences want to show up.” She explained that each new installment begins with a character based exploration: “We always start from ‘Where are they now?’ and ‘Where do we want to see them go’?”
Although Thompson did not offer confirmation about Avengers: Doomsday, her comments make it clear that Valkyrie remains close to her heart. Fans of the character have followed Valkyrie’s journey from Thor: Ragnarok through later MCU appearances, where she grew from a fierce warrior into a leader with responsibility and depth. Her evolution has made her one of the more layered characters in the franchise, which helps explain why audiences continue to ask about her future.
The secrecy around Marvel projects is nothing new. Actors are often unable to confirm casting details long before release, even when rumors are widespread. Thompson’s careful wording fits within that tradition. By neither confirming nor denying involvement, she leaves the door open while respecting the studio’s tight control over spoilers. For fans, that silence often becomes part of the excitement.
Her remarks about the creative freedom inside Marvel films also highlight why many actors return to the franchise. The ability to move between humor, action, and emotional storytelling within a single project is rare in big budget filmmaking. Thompson’s description of the MCU as a place where many talented people come together suggests that the environment itself plays a major role in keeping actors engaged.
Beyond superhero films, Thompson’s continued interest in Creed shows her commitment to character driven storytelling across different genres. She has repeatedly emphasized starting each sequel by asking where the characters are emotionally and where their journeys might lead next. That same thoughtful approach is what made her portrayal of Valkyrie resonate with viewers. Whether in sports dramas or fantasy blockbusters, her focus remains on growth, identity, and human connection.
As anticipation builds for Avengers: Doomsday, Thompson’s comments serve as both a reminder of Marvel’s secrecy and a reassurance to fans who hope to see Valkyrie again. While no official confirmation has been made, her genuine affection for the character suggests that a return would be more than welcome. Until the film’s release, audiences are left with speculation, excitement, and the knowledge that Valkyrie still holds a special place in the actress’s career.
Tags:
Marvel
Tessa Thompson
Valkyrie
Avengers Doomsday
MCU
Thor Franchise
Celebrity Interviews
Superhero Movies
Film News
Creed Franchise
About the Creator
Dena Falken Esq
Dena Falken Esq is renowned in the legal community as the Founder and CEO of Legal-Ease International, where she has made significant contributions to enhancing legal communication and proficiency worldwide.
Keep reading
More stories from Dena Falken Esq and writers in Geeks and other communities.
Did Leonardo da Vinci paint a nude Mona Lisa? I may have just solved this centuries-old mystery
It is one of the most tantalising – and entertaining – puzzles in art, stretching from the Louvre to the Loire via, well, Norfolk. And our critic thinks he has just worked it out
By Dena Falken Esqabout 14 hours ago in Geeks
Trump’s Attacks on Iran
Tensions between the United States and Iran have once again drawn global attention, fueled by renewed political rhetoric from former U.S. President Donald Trump and an increasingly fragile Middle East landscape. While Trump is no longer in office, his influence on American foreign policy discourse remains strong, especially regarding Iran. His recent statements and past actions continue to shape how the situation is discussed, both domestically and internationally. The ongoing Iran situation cannot be understood without revisiting Trump’s long-standing approach to Tehran—one defined by pressure, confrontation, and a belief that economic and political force could reshape Iran’s behavior. As events unfold in the region, Trump’s attacks on Iran, primarily through rhetoric and policy advocacy, have reentered the conversation at a time when stability is already uncertain. A History of Confrontation During his presidency, Donald Trump positioned Iran as one of the primary adversaries of U.S. foreign policy. His decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, marked a turning point. Trump argued that the agreement was flawed, claiming it failed to permanently prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and did not address Iran’s regional influence or missile program. Following the withdrawal, the U.S. imposed sweeping economic sanctions under what the administration called a “maximum pressure” campaign. These measures significantly affected Iran’s economy, targeting oil exports, banking systems, and international trade relationships. Trump consistently framed these actions as necessary to protect U.S. interests and global security. That confrontational posture remains central to Trump’s public messaging today. Rhetoric That Resonates Trump’s attacks on Iran in recent speeches and interviews have focused less on diplomacy and more on strength. He often portrays Iran as a destabilizing force in the Middle East, accusing its leadership of funding proxy conflicts, threatening U.S. allies, and undermining regional peace. This language resonates with segments of the American public who favor a hardline approach to foreign policy. At the same time, critics argue that such rhetoric escalates tensions rather than easing them. Words from influential political figures carry weight, especially when they echo previous policies that brought the two nations close to direct confrontation. Even without immediate military action, strong language can affect markets, diplomatic relations, and public perception across the region. The Current Iran Situation Iran today faces a complex set of challenges. Economic pressure from sanctions continues to strain daily life for many citizens, while internal political dynamics remain tense. Regionally, Iran is involved in multiple theaters through alliances and influence, making it a central player in broader Middle Eastern conflicts. Against this backdrop, Trump’s renewed focus on Iran adds another layer of uncertainty. While the current U.S. administration may pursue different strategies, Trump’s voice amplifies debates about whether negotiation or force is the more effective path forward. Supporters of Trump argue that his tough stance kept Iran in check, claiming that pressure limited its resources and influence. Opponents counter that the approach isolated the U.S. from allies and reduced opportunities for diplomatic solutions, leaving the region more volatile. Global Reactions and Diplomatic Concerns International responses to Trump’s attacks on Iran have been mixed. Some U.S. allies in the Middle East view his rhetoric favorably, seeing Iran as a shared threat. Others, particularly in Europe, remain cautious, emphasizing the importance of dialogue and multilateral agreements. Diplomats warn that escalating language can undermine ongoing efforts to stabilize the region. Even symbolic threats or aggressive statements may provoke responses that spiral beyond control. In a region already marked by conflict, restraint is often seen as a necessary component of effective diplomacy. Political Strategy at Home Trump’s focus on Iran is also tied to domestic politics. Foreign policy strength has long been a cornerstone of his political identity. By highlighting Iran as an adversary, Trump reinforces his image as a leader unwilling to compromise with perceived threats. This strategy plays well among voters who believe the U.S. should project power globally. However, it also raises questions about long-term consequences. Critics argue that consistent confrontation without clear diplomatic off-ramps risks entrenching hostility rather than resolving underlying issues. What Comes Next? The future of U.S.-Iran relations remains uncertain. While Trump’s attacks on Iran currently take the form of rhetoric and policy advocacy rather than direct action, their impact should not be underestimated. Political language can shape expectations, influence decision-makers, and affect the behavior of nations. For Iran, continued pressure may harden positions within its leadership, reducing incentives for compromise. For the United States, balancing strength with diplomacy remains a delicate challenge—one that will define its role in the Middle East for years to come. Conclusion Trump’s attacks on Iran reflect a broader debate about how powerful nations should handle long-standing adversaries. Is pressure the path to peace, or does it deepen divisions? As the Iran situation continues to evolve, the consequences of words spoken today may shape realities tomorrow. In a world already facing uncertainty, the need for measured dialogue, strategic thinking, and global cooperation has never been greater. Whether confrontation or communication ultimately prevails will depend not just on leaders, but on the choices they make in moments of tension.
By Saboor Brohi a day ago in Geeks
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.