Thor 2 -Movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2013

[Trekker4747]

Aldo wrote:

---

I'll repeat what I said to Admiral Young on Facebook. Darcy is the "everyman" character. The one that represents the audience, so she can ask the questions that most of us are thinking.

Such characters can be vastly better handled than someone worrying over the loss of their iPod. (See: Winston in Ghostbusters.)

[JD]

I didn't mind Darcy, so I have no problem with her being back. I can see where some people could find her annoying though.

[RoJoHen]

I thought Darcy was great, so I welcome her back!

[Aldo]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Such characters can be vastly better handled than someone worrying over the loss of their iPod. (See: Winston in Ghostbusters.)

This is the key part we disagree on. I found that scene to be funny.

[Admiral James Kirk]

Aldo wrote:

---

This is the key part we disagree on. I found that scene to be funny.

So did I. I like the contrast between the cosmic and the mundane. Besides I'd be bitching if I lost my iPod.

[RoJoHen]

Admiral James Kirk wrote:

---

Besides I'd be bitching if I lost my iPod.

Same here. Even if my iPod was the least important thing stolen, it was still my iPod, dammit!

[Dream]

JD wrote:

---

I didn't mind Darcy, so I have no problem with her being back. I can see where some people could find her annoying though.

If they have the character the exact same as in the original, I'll be so pissed.

[Trekker4747]

Dream wrote:

---

If they you the character the exact same as in the original, I'll be so pissed.

Exactly.

[Admiral_Young]

Darcy maybe the "everyman" character in the movie, but she was pretty much pointless IMO. I'm a Kat Dennings fan. I established that in the first film thread. I just thought her entire character was pointless comedic fodder. From reading the early draft of "Thor" it seems they created her character and took all the funny lines they had given to Jane originally and instead gave them to Darcy. I am curious about how they're going to "expand" her character though.

[Trekker4747]

I don't completely buy the idea of her being the "everyman" character as there's a lot going on in this movie that isn't explained to us by her. In fact the only thing her "everyman" character prompts an explanation for is what an Einstein-Rosen Bridge is. Otherwise she's just a clueless, self-minded, person rolling her eyes in the background and occasionally calling her boss out as a criminal.

"Everyman" characters serve much more of a purpose in explaining the plot to the audience. As I mentioned above, Winston in "Ghostbusters" is a great example of an "everyman" character. Our three heroes are all scientists with doctorates in specialized fields of study who designed this equipment and study this stuff. Sure, some things get explained to Peter (a doctorate in psychology rather than the more obscure things everyone else is specialized in) but Winston holds no doctorate and some things are explained to him, vicariously getting explained to the audience.

Darcy? Not really much. "Everyman" characters can also give the audience someone to latch onto in a movie with fantastic characters we can't easily relate to. I'm not sure Darcy fits this role either because I doubt many audience memebers are easily going to relate to a selfish, snarky, twenty-something girl.

I think her character isn't our "Everyman" and more our "lame comic relief."

[Admiral_Young]

Yeah. That is what mostly annoys me about her function in the film. She's there for comedic fodder and nothing more. Perhaps she was meant to be the "everyman" character but I think this was shifted onto Dr. Selvig and Jane really more than Darcy.

[Dream]

The problem I have with her character is that she is so unimportant to the plot. Take her away and script works fine. Being so unfunny only makes her worst.

[Trekker4747]

Dream wrote:

---

The problem I have with her character is that she is so unimportant to the plot. Take her away and script works fine. Being so unfunny only makes her worst.

This is true as well, she serves no real purpose in the story.

[Admiral James Kirk]

She gives me boobs to look at. That's purpose enough.

[Dream]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

This is true as well, she serves no real purpose in the story.

Unless of course for those people that think it was somehow important that Darcy shot Thor with a taser and made him yell out funny sounds...

One of the things that bothered me about Thor was the silly humor. In Iron Man, it was mostly Tony making jokes, but with Thor they spent too much time trying to be funny at his expense like with the taser and getting run over by the car thing.

The movie also REALLY should have started with Odin's narration about the shared history of Asgard and Earth. You start with your strongest material, NOT with Darcy complaining in a van and asking to turn on the radio.