Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Aldo, May 6, 2012.
I was looking more at Kat's face.
But I can appreciate her girls as well.
It just shows that Fandral has good taste.
Well, that was annoying in its own right. I mean, yeah, Mjolnir is hardly an easy word to say especially when the person who says it is from an alien plane that apparently has heavy Australian accents. But it was clearly not "Meow-Meow." But it was less than and just overall her character added nothing to the story or what was going on and was "comic relief" in sort of the same way CGI characters are in bad movies in 1990s, or Jar Jar Binks in Ep1 or like fucking Orko.
She's sitting there while Jane is out doing her life's work -something Darcy signed up to do- rolling her eyes and all "OMG, this is boring, can I turn on the radio?"
Then while checking on Thor in the hospital Darcy just flat-out says to the nurse that Jane hit Thor with the car. WTF?! Darcy?! Don't just come out and criminally implicate your fucking friend and boss like that!
And there's the whole "OMG, my iPod was, like, totally taken by those lame government guys. I has just download, like, some totally cool songs and aps. So lame." Jane: "Shit the fuck-up about yout iPod! I just lost my entire life's work!!!!"
Eric worked well as the "voice of reason" or the "straight man" between Jane's blind ambition and Darcy's lameness. A "wet blanket?" Sure. But that was his role in the movie.
And I don't deny that Kat Dennings is good looking. She certainly is. She can be funny too, what I've seen of "Two Broke Girls" I like. My problems isn't with Dennings it's the character I don't like which is how the character was written and directed. I've no problems with Dennings.
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.
I find those characters to be very annoying. They also tend to be very out of place compared to the rest of the cast.
Such characters can be vastly better handled than someone worrying over the loss of their iPod. (See: Winston in Ghostbusters.)
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.
I thought Darcy was great, so I welcome her back!
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.
Same here. Even if my iPod was the least important thing stolen, it was still my iPod, dammit!
If they have the character the exact same as in the original, I'll be so pissed.
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.
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."
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.
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.
She gives me boobs to look at. That's purpose enough.
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.
Separate names with a comma.