Does "Lucy" Fit the Fighting F**k Toy Archetype, and Other Reveletions...

Stunning Scarlet Johannson plays the heroine of this action-packed, sci-fi film, but does her role fit the "fighting f**k toy archetype" described in class last week? 

The documentary we watched in class, Miss Representation, said this in regards to the fighting f**k toy (FFT) archetype: 

"Women appear to be empowered. They are carrying the story, they're the action hero. But when you peel back a layer or two, you discover it's not really about their agency... Because even though she is doing things supposably on her own terms, she very much is objectified and exists for the male viewer."

After watching Miss Representation in class, I asked two female classmates whether they thought the movie Lucy resembled the FFT archetype, and we didn't share similar thoughts upon the answer. They both pointed to the idea that she's made to look sexy and badass for guys, and is thus another one of those movies. But despite her role being both beautiful and kickass in the film, I don't think she embodies that hollywood archetype. In fact, I think the archetype itself is a bit complicated to understand.

When I asked my two friends if by the sense that Lucy fits the FFT archetype, isn't Thor one too. I mean, Chris Helmsworths has got to be doing something with those dreamy arms and raging pectorals. But they said no, as for he isn't revealing enough and people don't watch Thor because he is attractive. Now I'm confused.

It seems that classifying a FFT archetype seems a bit arbitrary. One has to conclude that a character is made with a purpose of being attractive to the other gender and is objectified by doing so. I suppose judging a characters clothing can be used to conclude this. But what others might consider as objectifying could be different from what I think? Lucy has casual wear, which I think is aesthetically nice but not overly attractive. However, my female friends thought that she displayed the intention of being sexually attracting to men. This disparity leads me to believe that gender perspective plays a role in whether we see someone as a provocative being or FFT. How else is it that one person finds attractive Lucy as a FFT, but attractive Thor isn't one. 

While I like the name, I don't really care for the FFT archetype. While it is undoubtably present in some movies, considering someone as provocative is gender and personally biased. Furthermore, I think the archetype puts a negative aspect on some people. It essentially tells one that if they wear something that might be considered sexy, that they are being objectified.