WB's BARBIE THE MOVIE starring Margot Robbie (2023) 7 7

[drotto]

On 8/1/2023 at 10:51 AM, Zonker said:

This is an interesting point.  I'm not sure I completely agree.  Did the audience for a movie like for example Schindler's List go strictly for entertainment?

I guess it would depend on what counts as "entertainment." Instead, I'd say that people go to the movies for an experience they otherwise wouldn't encounter.  That experience could be what we normally think of as entertainment (e.g. the proverbial popcorn flick), but it could also be an experience of a previously unfamiliar bit of history, or a part of the world we haven't seen, or a point of view we may or may not agree with.  

I think there is room in films for both.  Sometimes you go to a film, and based the topic, star, etc. you know what you are getting going in.  You volunteered to have that experience.  What people get upset about is going into a film they feel should be neutral and then getting hit with messages. That is not what they signed on for.

 

As for Barbie, it kinda straddles the two sides.  Based on the most superficial knowledge of the IP and muxh of the marketing, many people think, it's just a toy movie.  Anyone who knows anything about the product know it has been a female empowerment product since the late 60's or early 70's, so some of the themes presented should be no surprise.  Also, if you listen to the actors promotion for the film, they were not hiding anything. I am not sure how any themes should be a surprise.

 

In the end the movie is making money and is doing well.  It has found a market, and they love the movie for what it is.  I think in this case many people on both side are over analyzing this film, and it's societal impact.

[Zonker]

On 8/1/2023 at 11:43 AM, drotto said:

I think there is room in films for both.  Sometimes you go to a film, and based the topic, star, etc. you know what you are getting going in.  You volunteered to have that experience.  What people get upset about is going into a film they feel should be neutral and then getting hit with messages. That is not what they signed on for.

 

As for Barbie, it kinda straddles the two sides.  Based on the most superficial knowledge of the IP and muxh of the marketing, many people think, it's just a toy movie.  Anyone who knows anything about the product know it has been a female empowerment product since the late 60's or early 70's, so some of the themes presented should be no surprise.  Also, if you listen to the actors promotion for the film, they were not hiding anything. I am not sure how any themes should be a surprise.

 

In the end the movie is making money and is doing well.  It has found a market, and they love the movie for what it is.  I think in this case many people on both side are over analyzing this film, and it's societal impact.

I will say I would feel bad for any parents who bring their pre-teen girls thinking this is a version of what they might otherwise see on Nickelodeon Saturday mornings.  But given the legs this movie has shown week over week, that must not be a big issue.  As you say, the themes of the movie were pretty well telegraphed in advance for any parents bothering to pay attention.

I'd also be interested to know how many people commenting in this thread have actually seen the movie, or are we just reacting to talking points we've picked up second hand?

[drotto]

On 8/1/2023 at 11:54 AM, Zonker said:

I will say I would feel bad for any parents who bring their pre-teen girls thinking this is a version of what they might otherwise see on Nickelodeon Saturday mornings.  But given the legs this movie has shown week over week, that must not be a big issue.  As you say, the themes of the movie were pretty well telegraphed in advance for any parents bothering to pay attention.

I'd also be interested to know how many people commenting in this thread have actually seen the movie, or are we just reacting to talking points we've picked up second hand?

I would agree with that point this is not a movie for 6 year old girls, they will not get any of the messaging, and they will not get the adult jokes. They will love Barbie worlds, but the rest is not for them.  It seems both sides agree on these points.  It is also why it is PG13.

[Straw-Man]

On 8/1/2023 at 10:54 AM, Zonker said:

I will say I would feel bad for any parents who bring their pre-teen girls thinking this is a version of what they might otherwise see on Nickelodeon Saturday mornings.  But given the legs this movie has shown week over week, that must not be a big issue.  As you say, the themes of the movie were pretty well telegraphed in advance for any parents bothering to pay attention.

I'd also be interested to know how many people commenting in this thread have actually seen the movie, or are we just reacting to talking points we've picked up second hand?

[sfcityduck]

On 8/1/2023 at 8:54 AM, Zonker said:

I will say I would feel bad for any parents who bring their pre-teen girls thinking this is a version of what they might otherwise see on Nickelodeon Saturday mornings.  But given the legs this movie has shown week over week, that must not be a big issue.  As you say, the themes of the movie were pretty well telegraphed in advance for any parents bothering to pay attention.

I'd also be interested to know how many people commenting in this thread have actually seen the movie, or are we just reacting to talking points we've picked up second hand?

Any parents who bring pre-teens to a PG-13 have no right to be surprised.

[sfcityduck]

On 8/1/2023 at 8:54 AM, Zonker said:

are we just reacting to talking points we've picked up second hand?

I've read that a lot of the political controversy about this movie - the stuff we don't want to talk about here - got started by political activists making panicky predictions about the movie's content without yet having seen the movie. Their comments on the content proved incorrect hysteria.  As did their predictions it would fail financially. The mantra "get **** go broke" has been further refuted by this movie's inexorable rise past a $1B+ gate.

On 8/1/2023 at 8:43 AM, drotto said:

I think there is room in films for both.  Sometimes you go to a film, and based the topic, star, etc. you know what you are getting going in.  You volunteered to have that experience.  What people get upset about is going into a film they feel should be neutral and then getting hit with messages. That is not what they signed on for.

Anyone going to Barbie volunteered for the experience they are getting.  Same is true for Marvel movies.  Marvel has been "preaching" at its readers for 60 years or so, and some fans have been complaining about that the entire time. Fans can vote with their pocketbooks, but that often is not enough to preclude what they don't like. Marvel long long ago took the position that it's job is NOT to be "neutral."

[drotto]

On 8/1/2023 at 1:14 PM, sfcityduck said:

I've read that a lot of the political controversy about this movie - the stuff we don't want to talk about here - got started by political activists making panicky predictions about the movie's content without yet having seen the movie. Their comments on the content proved incorrect hysteria.  As did their predictions it would fail financially. The mantra "get **** go broke" has been further refuted by this movie's inexorable rise past a $1B+ gate.

Anyone going to Barbie volunteered for the experience they are getting.  Same is true for Marvel movies.  Marvel has been "preaching" at its readers for 60 years or so, and some fans have been complaining about that the entire time. Fans can vote with their pocketbooks, but that often is not enough to preclude what they don't like. Marvel long long ago took the position that it's job is NOT to be "neutral."

Just 40 years ago Marvel was much more subtle about it, and did not have this tendency to go after fans. They would include things, but would not actively tell them, if you do not like it then leave.

 

Fans are voting with their pocket books, which is why X-Men 1 sold over 1 million copies and they are selling maybe 30,000 today.  I know there are many other factors, but it does play a role.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 8/1/2023 at 1:41 PM, drotto said:

Just 40 years ago Marvel was much more subtle about it, and did not have this tendency to go after fans. They would include things, but would not actively tell them, if you do not like it then leave.

 

Fans are voting with their pocket books, which is why X-Men 1 sold over 1 million copies and they are selling maybe 30,000 today.  I know there are many other factors, but it does play a role.

When it comes to Beat Me Over the Head vs Subtext, can't think of anyone smart+fun who would choose the former.

Edited August 1, 2023 by theCapraAegagrus

[sfcityduck]

On 8/1/2023 at 10:41 AM, drotto said:

Just 40 years ago Marvel was much more subtle about it, and did not have this tendency to go after fans. They would include things, but would not actively tell them, if you do not like it then leave.

 

Not at all true.  No subtlety at all.  Just proud disdain.

Sgt. Fury 6 from 1964 features Fury calling out a white soldier for being a “died-in-the-wool low-down bigot” for refusing to sleep in a bunk bed with a black soldier:

Stan's Soapbox from 1968 after assassinations of MLK and Robert Kennedy:

A fan wrote Stan in a 1969 letter column to complain about Marvel’s support for civil rights by stating “I’m not a racist, just a concerned Marvelite who doesn’t want his favorite comic company to be ruined by something that doesn’t concern you as comic publishers.” Sound familiar?  Stan's response:

“But, such matters as racism and inequality do concern us, Tim — not just as comic mag artists and writers and publishers, but as human beings. Certainly it’s never been our intention to portray all, or even most, white Americans as hard-core bigots or screaming racists. Maybe it’s just that we think that many people in the land of the free have too long turned their backs or averted their eyes to the more unpleasant things that are going on every day. Maybe we felt we could do something — even within the relatively humble format of what used to be called a ‘comic-book’ – to change things just a bit for the better. If we failed, let’s just say that we’d at least like to have it said of us that — we tried.”

 

 

[sfcityduck]

On 8/1/2023 at 10:41 AM, drotto said:

Fans are voting with their pocket books, which is why X-Men 1 sold over 1 million copies and they are selling maybe 30,000 today.  I know there are many other factors, but it does play a role.

The differences between the comic market in 1963 and today are due to a lot of factors, but concern about the content of X-Men, a not so subtle agenda against bigotry and racism, isn't one of them.

[sfcityduck]

On 8/1/2023 at 10:47 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

When it comes to Beat Me Over the Head vs Subtext, can't think of anyone smart+fun who would choose the former.

That's exactly how I feel about certain political media outlets in the U.S., so we have that in common.  Yet, they still get big viewerships even after they are determined by courts to have lied or admitted wrongdoing with massive settlements. Maybe all those folks aren't "smart+fun" but I doubt it. In my experience, folks from all over the political spectrum and interests can be quite "smart+fun," even those who find "preachy" things interesting.

[Gatsby77]

On 8/1/2023 at 1:41 PM, drotto said:

Just 40 years ago Marvel was much more subtle about it, and did not have this tendency to go after fans. They would include things, but would not actively tell them, if you do not like it then leave.

 

Fans are voting with their pocket books, which is why X-Men 1 sold over 1 million copies and they are selling maybe 30,000 today.  I know there are many other factors, but it does play a role.

That's laughable hogwash.

First, both Marvel & DC have been progressive for 50+ years.

See the Neal Adams Green Lantern run -- overtly dealing with racial injustice, teen drug use, religious cults, political villains, and more. Subtle it was not.

Second, the lower print runs today vs. 1993 has precisely zero with progressive narratives in superhero books.

The primary decline in print comics since then is due to the rise of video games and smart phones - literally *nothing* to do with storylines or content.

[theCapraAegagrus]

Nothing to see here. Don't look behind the curtain.

[revat]

I would say, there are very few secrets today about what is in media, especially movies (understandably tv shows might have different content episode to episode).  With the lightest, fastest search you can get a reasonable idea if any given movie is something you are comfortable with your kids watching (or even if it might/might not be your personal cup of tea).  With so many media choices, if you're not sure about or there's a chance you'll be abnormally mad about it afterwards, just don't let your kids watch it (or wait a few weekends so you can talk to other like-minded parents about it first)

If you're the kind of person who gets mad about being blindsided by movies your kids watch FOR ANY REASON, then do you own bit of research first.

I liked the movie fine, but I question what age a child would enjoy the movie more than what age would appropriate in terms of content.  It moves fairly fast but its not a short movie, and many of the jokes seem like they'd be enjoyed more by adults (not that they're racy, just not funny to kids).  Some kids might get distracted or bored in some parts.

[sfcityduck]

On 8/1/2023 at 11:26 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Nothing to see here. Don't look behind the curtain.

Not an argument. Not even cogent. Who's the Wizard of Oz?

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 8/1/2023 at 2:27 PM, revat said:

If you're the kind of person who gets mad about being blindsided by movies your kids watch FOR ANY REASON, then do you own bit of research first.

Luckily I've only seen a handful of people bemoan the content for age, because for some reason they didn't heed the PG-13 rating. Seems like most people are taking this dutiful approach.

[drotto]

On 8/1/2023 at 2:30 PM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Luckily I've only seen a handful of people bemoan the content for age, because for some reason they didn't heed the PG-13 rating. Seems like most people are taking this dutiful approach.

Distinctly remember seeing Deadpool, and a friend of mine turned to me and asked if they were a bad parent for allowing their 11 year old to watch the movie.

[Gatsby77]

My mom got in some *serious* trouble for taking the 14 year-old daughter of a good family friend to see Thelma & Louise back in 1990 or whatever.

He was mad pissed about the supposed "feminist indoctrination" of that movie.

[troydivision1]

My local Regal isn't doing well...
Guess what it is on Sunday mornings?
If you guessed a church then you guessed right.
I'm going there this weekend to see Princess Mononoke.
I'll snap a pic and update this post with it.

[Gatsby77]

So apparently Barbie was originally budgeted at $100 million - but the final budget (before P&A expenses) came in at ~$145 million.

(AKA half of Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning Part 1's $290 million.)

And I see that supposedly Robbie and Gosling both got paid $12.5 million - but I'm curious about:

1) What Gerwig got paid; 

2) What type of gross points (if any) Robbie, Gosling and/or Gerwig received;

3) Particularly Robbie's total base comp - since she's the star & a producer.