Gerwig's Barbie

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Crixus said:

After around, oh, I don't know, thousands of years of men being not just in charge of the entire world but also having a monopoly on representation in history, culture, entertainment and so on, you'd think a mere 2 decades of more focus on female representation wouldn't spark this level of panic. It also doesn't have to be either/or, in fact. 

Representation doesn't need to be 'revenge'. You'd think it would be pretty easy to get more representation in movies without one needing to put the other down. 

The Barbie movie seems very confused about what it's trying to say, but lets not forget it doesn't include a single man that isn't a complete moron, just because they are men. 

If it was just this movie you could kind of handwave it, but it's just a reoccurring pattern in hollywood movie making, where every strong independent woman can only become strong if men are depicted as weak and useless. 

[Crixus]

29 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Representation doesn't need to be 'revenge'. You'd think it would be pretty easy to get more representation in movies without one needing to put the other down. 

The Barbie movie seems very confused about what it's trying to say, but lets not forget it doesn't include a single man that isn't a complete moron, just because they are men. 

If it was just this movie you could kind of handwave it, but it's just a reoccurring pattern in hollywood movie making, where every strong independent woman can only become strong if men are depicted as weak and useless. 

I actually agree. I much prefer well-rounded portrayals of both and imo there is a lot of content out there that does exactly this. I haven't seen Barbie yet, (caveat!) but from what I've read isn't it meant to be a satire and send-up of patriarchy in terms of its damaging effects on both women and men? 

I would also add that there is a lot of indignation and hand-wringing online about the increased focus on female characters - most of which just seems juvenile and far-fetched. 

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, Crixus said:

I actually agree. I much prefer well-rounded portrayals of both and imo there is a lot of content out there that does exactly this.

Depends where you are looking, I do think there is a trend of portraying men and women in fairly limited ways which seems like it's trying to just be a reversal of older movies, but which is equally as damaging to both sexes. The trend for 'stroooong feeeemale leeead' characters, girlbosses without flaws, but who are almost written as traditional male characters played by a woman, up alongside weak and ultimately submissive men doesn't really help anyone, but it's been a common trope in the last few years.

6 minutes ago, Crixus said:

I haven't seen Barbie yet, (caveat!) but from what I've read isn't it meant to be a satire and send-up of patriarchy in terms of its damaging effects on both women and men? 

Without going into too many spoilers, it says some pretty weird things about the patriarchy, and men. It's a movie about plastic dolls so it's not very clever, but it tries to be, and also tries to say something about society. I personally don't agree with it's take or its conclusions.

10 minutes ago, Crixus said:

I would also add that there is a lot of indignation and hand-wringing online about the increased focus on female characters - most of which just seems juvenile and far-fetched. 

I agree there is a whole online industry centred around that topic, but they get given so much fuel as so many movies and tv shows do the same thing over and over.

[TheLastWolf]

4 hours ago, Raja said:

Completely nonsensical post here.

One would have to be completely insecure in their masculinity to feel this way about 'popular media representation'.

 

3 hours ago, Crixus said:

After around, oh, I don't know, thousands of years of men being not just in charge of the entire world but also having a monopoly on representation in history, culture, entertainment and so on, you'd think a mere 2 decades of more focus on female representation wouldn't spark this level of panic. It also doesn't have to be either/or, in fact. 

A life-long battle of defending gender equality against my cavemen peers and now this. Oh the sweet irony. No one I know personally has spoken and done more for such fringe causes (here) than me at the cost of things I'd rather not mention. So easy to raise the progressive placard where it's the norm. Try it where everything problematic is sacred. 

Never mind. I'm entitled to my opinion that a multi billion dollar capitalist entity justifying their objectification of women and setting unreal ideals through their decades long existence by hiring a genuine voice just to switch the spotlight onto demeaning an entire other sex. If you think that's born out of insecurity and panic that's your entitlement. Fair enough. By that logic that makes anyone fighting for any cause insecure, including the aforementioned feminists. Sitting in shallow judgment riles me up, sorry.

Edited August 1, 2023 by TheLastWolf

[TheLastWolf]

2 hours ago, Crixus said:

@TheLastWolf, I know you're Indian (hello, fellow South Asian!)

Hello there!

2 hours ago, Crixus said:

and I've seen my share of Bollywood movies - isn't it a welcome change to have female characters who aren't relegated to sexy-sari-rain-dance sequences?  

I daresay you'd have seen more of that than me. I was sick of them from the start. And Bollywood is just the leader in quantity and not quality of Indian cinema just by sheer population of Hindi speakers. There are a lot of other language industries with undiscovered gems hidden by this heap of garbage that makes it out west. 

And what Barbie did was just make the water invisible and replace the saris with miniskirts and dresses. Why do the Nobel prize winning Barbies have to be stunning model like beauties with, again, the unrealistic figure expectations and dressing sense? That's not the feminism I subscribe to. 

[Heartofice]

Just now, TheLastWolf said:

And what Barbie did was just make the water invisible and replace the saris with miniskirts and dresses. Why do the Nobel prize winning Barbies have to be stunning model like beauties with, again, the unrealistic figure expectations and dressing sense? That's not the feminism I subscribe to. 

To be fair to the movie, it does attempt to criticise itself by highlighting these issues. That sarcastic teenagers first reaction to seeing barbie is one of disgust for what its done to feminism, and there is that whole rant about unrealistic expectations put on women. The movie does seem to relinquish any responsibility of this from Barbie however, and is able to instead point to a nebulous boogy man named The Patriarchy, which can be blamed for all the world's problems. 

I guess it is in someway clever that the movie manages to look like it's critical of mattel and barbie, whilst also passing the blame over to just.. men.

[Crixus]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Depends where you are looking, I do think there is a trend of portraying men and women in fairly limited ways which seems like it's trying to just be a reversal of older movies, but which is equally as damaging to both sexes. The trend for 'stroooong feeeemale leeead' characters, girlbosses without flaws, but who are almost written as traditional male characters played by a woman, up alongside weak and ultimately submissive men doesn't really help anyone, but it's been a common trope in the last few years.

 

Here too, I agree. I'm not a fan of simply subbing a male character for a female one - for instance, all the stuff about a female James Bond etc. I rather agree with those who say it would be far more interesting to create an original female character in that space. I think a large part of this trend over the last decade or so is cynical money-grabbing on the part of networks and studios, and an uninspiring lack of originality. I also don't think 'strong' character necessarily = physically strong. When I think of kickass female characters, I think of Ellen Ripley, or Laura Roslin from BSG, for instance. A character can be superhumanly strong (like Buffy), but should also be layered, complex and multi-dimensional - and this goes for male and female characters. 

Out of curiousity, what are some 'flawless' female characters you've seen in entertainment? I can't think of any, but maybe I'm fairly limited in my viewing! 

[TheLastWolf]

17 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

To be fair to the movie, it does attempt to criticise itself by highlighting these issues. That sarcastic teenagers first reaction to seeing barbie is one of disgust for what its done to feminism, and there is that whole rant about unrealistic expectations put on women.

Calling yourself out weakly before anyone does is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

17 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The movie does seem to relinquish any responsibility of this from Barbie however, and is able to instead point to a nebulous boogy man named The Patriarchy, which can be blamed for all the world's problems. 

Voila. One thing they got it right was when Ken gets answered, we disguise it better now.

[TheLastWolf]

Come to think of it, it did make a pretty buck and continues to rake in the moolah while we debate on...

And this about the matriarchy

Spoiler

And Allan's treatment? And getting cellulite is natural, not bad. The heels... even if sarcastic, stupid af quest for its political message

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by TheLastWolf

[Heartofice]

2 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Come to think of it, it did make a pretty buck and continues to rake in the moolah while we debate on...

And this about the matriarchy

That is a good article. The problem I have with the movie is that it seems to be have a complex message in there, but it's quite confused and doesn't always stay coherent in what it's trying to say, or makes it quite hard to grasp it's actual message.

Even if the 'matriarchy' and the 'patriarchy' in the movie were seen as bad.. it was mainly for one sex, while actually the other sex was having a great time (and actually the female barbies didn't mind the patriarchy either), and it's not clear that the answers formed by the end of the movie actually seem very much better. It all seems rather nihilistic. It's not a movie with any kind of answers or point, it just seems to be a series of complaints that life is hard. 

 

[Relic]

23 hours ago, Myrddin said:

You joke, but I've heard nothing about DR. No good, bad, or anything. Nothing. Granted, I was in no hurry to watch it, as I've all but forgotten when happened in the previous few installments and wanted to rewatch first, but damn. Top Gun sequel makes bank and Tom's prize franchise just sizzles out?

That's a shame, I quite enjoyed it for what it was. Then again, i went to see it on a steaming hot day, on an imax screen, so it was escapism on every level. It's certainly not a "serious" movie, which is fine. Much better than the marvel garbage I've been subjected to in the last decade. It's a bit too long, would be my biggest gripe.

Asbfor the topic on hand, pretty fucking hilarious that a movie about a shitty plastic toy is getting this much attention. Clown world. 

Edited August 1, 2023 by Relic

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

9 to 5

McG’s Charlie’s Angels (1 & 2)

That Austin Powers movie where the female lead defeated a henchman by showing him her bewbs. 

Somehow the sky is still above us.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Um, Wow!

 

[TheLastWolf]

And damn, Google shows pink sparkles when you search Barbie, where is the mushroom cloud for Oppenheimer...?

Spoiler

Just looked up the insane box office differences, poor MI7

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

On 7/18/2023 at 5:47 PM, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

This time next week, male, forty-something YouTubers and Twitter clowns will be raging about a Barbie movie that’s “feminist” and “woke” and ignores the source material.

i fucking can’t wait.

ETA: And and, Ken is an “emasculated dumbass” who just makes Barbie look good. 

Moar! MOAR! Sweet merciful Jesus, yes! Justify my love, fuckers.

Oh, and spoilers probably. 

[Zorral]

These men sure put in a lot of time to talk about a doll that doesn't matter to them (or do they all have secret Barbie Doll stashes?). 

Well, for decades scientists, even male scientists have been saying plastic is one of the greatest threats to Our Way Of Life On This Planet!

Wasn't it fun to see all those Brandon Sanderson novels behind the splutter sprayers? 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Zorral

[Aemon Stark]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

These men sure put in a lot of time to talk about a doll that doesn't matter to them (or do they all have secret Barbie Doll stashes?). 

Maybe they're all a bit more like Waylon Smithers and his Malibu Stacey collection than they let on?

 

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

These men sure put in a lot of time to talk about a doll that doesn't matter to them (or do they all have secret Barbie Doll stashes?). 

Well, for decades scientists, even male scientists have been saying plastic is one of the greatest threats to Our Way Of Life On This Planet!

Wasn't it fun to see all those Brandon Sanderson novels behind the splutter sprayers? 

That guys commentary on Super Mario Brothers was pure cringe.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

19 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

And damn, Google shows pink sparkles when you search Barbie, where is the mushroom cloud for Oppenheimer...?

  Reveal hidden contents

Just looked up the insane box office differences, poor MI7

 

Barbie’s domestic box office is currently outpacing GotG V3, which is completely insane. Oppenheimer might be Nolan’s highest grossing film, depending on the legs.

[TheLastWolf]

6 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Barbie’s domestic box office is currently outpacing GotG V3, which is completely insane

Shite like the Ritchie live action Aladdin made it past 1 billion. Let Barbie have her day. But even before the release, sneaky Google started with those sparklers. Oppie wants his mushroom cloud now.

7 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Oppenheimer might be Nolan’s highest grossing film, depending on the legs.

Slow and steady