In my head, and given the breaking the fourth wall nature of the films, I thought it would have been interesting to have a scene in the next Deadpool (where he kills the Marvel universe) pleading with Iger and Fiege (or their stand ins) to let him make the film as he sees fit (hard R and everything). They dont relent, and he makes them two of his many, many victims. But yeah, that’s unlikely for a number of reasonsI saw Barbie tonight with my multi-generational family. We're all Deplorables. We all loved it.
I thought it was hysterical, and I enjoyed the rather emotional bits more than I'd normally admit to.
One thing I think applies to this forum is how willingly and openly Mattel was to poking fun at itself. It was even more blatant in the movie than it was in the trailers. Like when the President said that bad word towards the end and they bleeped it out with the Mattel logo; I laughed out loud at that, as did the entire theater.
I can't imagine current Disney and current Disney senior execs being willing to have a movie poke fun of them like Mattel obviously can. Can you imagine Bob Iger agreeing to have Will Ferrel play a bumbling and slightly evil yet still loveable version of himself? Can you imagine current Disney allowing someone to poke a bit of fun at them, to mock their core products and some of their big mistakes (Pregnant Midge = Rocket Rods, or Magic Earring Ken = KiteTails or Puberty Busty Skipper = DCA 1.0???)
Nope, wouldn't happen. Because current Disney is so gosh-darned serious and humorless about everything they do. But Mattel obviously isn't, and I have a newfound respect and admiration for Mattel for that. Disney would do well to learn a few things from Mattel and the huge success of this summer blockbuster.
Hey Disney, you're just a movie and theme park company selling plastic crap made in China, you aren't curing cancer. Lighten up a bit.
The discrepancy comes from the four Marvel films you show as being most profitable. Wikipedia offers a range of budgets for all four films - if we follow the claim back to its source, it’s a Forbes article discussing the fact that films shot at least partially in Britain are legally forced to be much more honest and thorough in the disclosure of their budgets, hence the higher numbers. Perhaps I missed something (does the article state these costs include marketing? I didn’t see if it did) but given the numbers reported to the British government, my numbers were accurate.Umm.. some of those are decidedly profitable by 'the rule of thumb.'
Also: Fast & Furious 6?!
View attachment 733663
The rule of thumb gives a snapshot of a film's finances at the end of its theatrical window. That's all.
Those who take it as the be-all and end-all are sadly ignorant of the film industry. So, yes, all that extra marketing is for the entirety of the life of the movie including post-theatrical pay windows. But it still tells us where the finances stand before the film dives into those other pay-windows.
So, as we've be going on and on with those who don't understand this, a financial loss in the theatrical window is not necessarily a financial flop, because the other pay windows can make up for that loss. But we have ideological haters who want to publicly flog Disney (or a particular movie for 'reasons') and use the 'rule of thumb' losses to proclaim "FLOP!!!!!"
Now certainly, there are some very large losses that will never be made up in other pay windows, and those movies are true *financial* flops that hurts the company's bottom line. (I emphasize 'financial' because the movie may have gotten great reviews by most who've seen it, and in that sense, it didn't 'flop' as a work of cinematic art.)
However, this snapshot in time of the rule of thumb is being misused by the ignoranti for their own purposes. That doesn't make the rule of thumb wrong. It has to be understood as inexact and incomplete. But it does capture in general, a moment in time.
I just take what Wiki says. And if it's a range, then average.
Reasonable, but there may be an argument for taking the higher number the studio released under penalty of law as the more accurate, especially given the impenetrability of Hollywood accounting. In any case, even without those four films the point stands.
So according to these movie threads racism and sexism both were solved in the 60's and 70's. One wonders why the social message in Barbie even occurred to someone.I didn't think it was all that serious. It would have been serious in 1964 when Barbie could only be a stewardess or a nurse, but by 1974 Barbie could be anything she wanted to be.
I did enjoy that the humorless and dour young girl Sasha, who wore all black early in the film and just spouted mindless DEI approved slogans about "patriarchy" finally came around and became kind and loving and supportive of her mother by the end of the film. That gave me hope that young people today will see that the sloganeering they've been taught is rather vapid and empty and mean-spirited.
Her mom also had that very well written speech about the trials and tribulations of being the perfect 21st century woman.
I also enjoyed that by the end the Barbies kind of gave the Kens a slight position of power, by maybe letting them be circuit court judges instead of actual supreme court judges. That whole insulting thing from the 2010's of "The Future Is Female" seems so sexist and dead-end to me, just as much as saying that only men should be in positions of power. Men and women both should be in positions of power if they have the merits and talents and put in all the hard work needed to get there, but not because they just happened to be born male or female.
Overall, I thought the social commentary was great. And said a lot and left people thinking. We don't want a world where the "Future is Female" any more than we want a world where the "Future is Male". We want a world that values everyone for whatever talents and strengths they have and can offer to others. I love that message.
I also found it interesting that they stayed completely away from any gay themes. I assumed they'd put it in there, but because Barbie and Ken are entirely non-sexual and don't even know what to do when they spend the night together, they avoided it. That was refreshing, to be honest. I expected some heavy gay character to show up, but they never did. Although with Alan...
The conceit of the film is that Barbieland is a place in which all the positions of power and importance are, and always have been, held by women. When Barbie and Ken travel to the real world, they are therefore shocked to find how upside down things are (from their perspective). Ken takes to patriarchy immediately and imports it back to Barbieland, while Barbie is horrified at being belittled and ogled. I won’t say more, but as you can probably tell from this brief summary, the film is full of social commentary, and its critique of patriarchy is seriously meant, even if very humorously executed. It’s the kind of film that, if made by Disney, would be excoriated in these threads for making men look bad and/or dumb.
Just like smog was eliminated in early 80's. (see Flight to the Moon)
Made 1/7 of Barbie and 1/3 of Oppenheimer but managed to barely beat out Sound of Freedom in its fourth week of releaseHaunted Mansion just had Thursday Previews box office of 3 Million and change.
That doesn't track it to breaking even at the box office, but we'll have to see what happens by Sunday for its first full weekend.
View attachment 733782
No, I haven't been able to see it yet. I did just see The Little Mermaid and loved it! Looking forward to Barbie!
I’m really confused that that was your takeaway. As I noted in my previous comment, the whole setup is that Barbie lives in a world where women have always been on top and is shocked to find that the reverse is true in the real world. Yes, the movie presents Barbie as a symbol of female empowerment, but not one whose status maps onto the experience or her real-world counterparts. Quite the opposite.
I’m not talking about my or your experience of the real world or the Barbie brand. I’m talking about how the film itself presents them. And according to the film itself, Barbie has always been empowered in her own land while women in the real world continue to navigate against the tides of patriarchy. That’s simply what the story tells us, regardless of what you or I think.Perhaps because I am older than you, that's not the "whole setup" as anyone over age 60 saw it. We all remember the 1960's when Barbie was limited to being a stewardess, a nurse, or simply Ken's pretty girlfriend as her life ambitions.
Then the 1970's happened, and Barbie changed along with the rest of the world. That was 50 years ago.
Then the 1980's happened. Then the 1990's happened. And Barbie changed with the rest of us during those decades too.
Just out of curiosity, what year do you think it currently is?
The movie was oddly overly simplistic by pretending that Los Angeles of 2023 was some sort of Handmaiden's Tale alternate reality where men rule Century City and inhabit all the levers of power. And that 1980's Midwest frat boys somehow hang out in Venice Beach (which was suspiciously devoid of homeless meth addicts in the movie, and instead crawling with male chauvinist pigs circa 1978). In reality, the real Los Angeles of 2023 is a world where the current Mayor is a Black woman, women are doctors and lawyers and Millionaires, in a state that's had 3 different women Senators in just the past 10 years. And we all know that's the reality today.
And yet the LA of 2023 is also one where the mom drove the Chevrolet BlazerTM wildly around town while the dad sat in the passenger seat. Because in 2023 the dad doesn't have to drive the Chevrolet BlazerTM, he can just sit and babble his Spanish lessons at no one like a child. Because it's 2023 and that's what men do now, let their wives drive and control the situation and the movie's plot.
Again, it's not 1964, which is why Ken wasn't allowed to do just one appendectomy. He couldn't even get a clicky pen and a sharp thing from the real woman doctor in 2023 LA. Which made the movie hilariously funny. Which is why I enjoyed it. Because I laughed. Out loud.
So again I ask...
If you don't know that women and Barbie have been in powerful positions for decades, what year do you think it is?
I am a woman who worked in corporate America in the 80's, 90's and 00's. My experience was as you describe. I had many high level woman managers. I never felt my gender played any role in whether I moved ahead or not.Perhaps because I am older than you, that's not the "whole setup" as anyone over age 60 saw it. We all remember the 1960's when Barbie was limited to being a stewardess, a nurse, or simply Ken's pretty girlfriend as her life ambitions.
Then the 1970's happened, and Barbie changed along with the rest of the world. That was 50 years ago.
Then the 1980's happened. Then the 1990's happened. And Barbie changed with the rest of us during those decades too. Ken got an earring.
Just out of curiosity, what year do you think it currently is?
The movie was oddly overly simplistic by pretending that Los Angeles of 2023 was some sort of Handmaiden's Tale alternate reality where men rule Century City and inhabit all the levers of power because of gyms. And horses. And that 1980's Midwest frat boys somehow hang out in Venice Beach (which was suspiciously devoid of its real homeless meth addicts in the movie, and instead crawling with male chauvinist pigs circa 1979). In reality, the real Los Angeles of 2023 is a world where the current Mayor is a Black woman, women are doctors and lawyers and Millionaires, in a state that's had 3 different women Senators in just the past 10 years. And we all know that's the reality today.
And yet the LA of 2023 is also one where the mom drove the Chevrolet BlazerTM wildly around town while the dad sat in the passenger seat. Because in 2023 the dad doesn't have to drive the Chevrolet BlazerTM, he can just sit and babble his Spanish lessons at no one like a child. Because it's 2023 and that's what men do now, let their wives drive and control the situation and the movie's plot.
Again, it's not 1964, which is why Ken wasn't allowed to do just one appendectomy. He couldn't even get a clicky pen and a sharp thing from the real woman doctor in 2023 LA. Which made the movie hilariously funny. Which is why I enjoyed it. Because I laughed. Out loud.
So again I ask...
If you don't know that women and Barbie have been in powerful positions for decades, what year do you think it is?
Again, I’m talking about the film’s own handling of these issues, not what any of us has personally experienced.
