Barbie v. Oppenheimer: YOU DECIDE

[trappedslider]

while barbie is based on a toy, here's the book for Oppenheimer

https://www.amazon.com/American-Prometheus-Triumph-Tragedy-Oppenheimer-ebook/dp/B000XUBEYS/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1690211445&sr=8-3

 

[CleverNickName]

 

[Ondath]

There is also one scene in the movie that didn't work for me but did for my girlfriend. A scene where one character does a monologue talking about all the contradictions women have to go through. I personally found it a rough scene, it came across as very preachy and expository. Ultimately I thought other aspects of the movie did it better by "showing not telling". However, my girlfriend found that scene powerful and she really "felt what she was talking about". So ultimately its a reminder to me that I'm not really the target audience here.

I agree that that scene probably doesn't resonate with people who didn't go through the experience of patriarchy. But (and I don't think you're saying this, it's just a relevant point that's been going around in my mind) I don't think the movie about the hardships of being a woman needs to keep in mind whether it'll resonate with people who are part of the group causing all of the issues it's exploring. It's a situation without a clear solution IMO: Asking a liberatory movement to police its tone or keep the feelings of its oppressors in mind is a veiled way of endorsing the existing oppressive structure, but psychologically this kind of messaging does cause people to dig in and get defensive (and I know this as someone who did dig in and become defensive towards feminists in my early teens, but saved myself from full-on misogyny kinda by luck) when they could be convinced. There's using optics to better convince people of your cause, and there's using optics as an excuse to refuse to give people equal rights. It's just hard to resolve, I dunno man.

Sorry if my message is out of line for the forum rules. It's just something I think a lot, and the movie obviously gave me a lot of food for thought.

 

[Ryujin]

Oppenheimer was tracking for ~$40 million until the whole Barbenheimer thing really took off.

This is a truly strange case wherein, for whatever strange synergistic reason, a mass culture phenomenon took off. Arguably, it had little to do with Oppenheimer, and a lot to do with the juxtaposition with Barbie.

Finally, the true irony of all of this is that the corporate backstory is that Nolan left Warner Bros., and apparently Zaslav "counterprogrammed" this by choosing a release date for Barbie that was the same as the one Nolan did ... purely to be a little petty. However, this strange pettiness apparently worked out well for everyone!


(To substantively respond, though ... I truly think it's much harder to put serious themes in an IP movie than it is to make a serious movie about the guy who headed the creation of the nuclear bomb. I mean ... you'd stumble on serious themes on that one just by accident.)

"Dying is easy. Comedy is hard."

 

[Ryujin]

I agree that that scene probably doesn't resonate with people who didn't go through the experience of patriarchy. But (and I don't think you're saying this, it's just a relevant point that's been going around in my mind) I don't think the movie about the hardships of being a woman needs to keep in mind whether it'll resonate with people who are part of the group causing all of the issues it's exploring. It's a situation without a clear solution IMO: Asking a liberatory movement to police its tone or keep the feelings of its oppressors in mind is a veiled way of endorsing the existing oppressive structure, but psychologically this kind of messaging does cause people to dig in and get defensive (and I know this as someone who did dig in and become defensive towards feminists in my early teens, but saved myself from full-on misogyny kinda by luck) when they could be convinced. There's using optics to better convince people of your cause, and there's using optics as an excuse to refuse to give people equal rights. It's just hard to resolve, I dunno man.

Sorry if my message is out of line for the forum rules. It's just something I think a lot, and the movie obviously gave me a lot of food for thought.

Ideally, media will resonate as much with the oppressor, as the oppressed. I think that's where Science Fiction excels.

 

[Mannahnin]

Ideally, media will resonate as much with the oppressor, as the oppressed. I think that's where Science Fiction excels.

Although there's still the capacity for the oppressor to completely miss the political message, or misconstrue themselves as the oppressed.

 

[Umbran]

Oppenheimer was tracking for ~$40 million until the whole Barbenheimer thing really took off.

This is a truly strange case wherein, for whatever strange synergistic reason, a mass culture phenomenon took off. Arguably, it had little to do with Oppenheimer, and a lot to do with the juxtaposition with Barbie.

I think it is not enough for there to be unnamable "synergy". Oppenheimer is, by report, really a good movie on its own merits. If it were an average historical thriller, the social synergy probably wouldn't have happened.

(To substantively respond, though ... I truly think it's much harder to put serious themes in an IP movie than it is to make a serious movie about the guy who headed the creation of the nuclear bomb.

Well, that'd depend on the IP. If the IP is that of a children's toy, maybe. Though Barbie's positioning makes it rather easier to do than, say, Hunrgy Hungry Hippos would be. And Real Steel might as well have been "Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots".

But, if the IP was instead, say, Grant Morrison's WE3, it is (literally) a different story. That'd psychically wound children worse than the Watership Down movie.

 

[Gradine]

Oppenheimer to me was a deft work of filmmaking that did a great job conveying an important historical event, but it did not land the emotional arc for me.

I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED I say that Christopher Nolan has once again failed to properly land an arc featuring actual human emotion.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED I say that Christopher Nolan has once again failed to properly land an arc featuring actual human emotion.

You put way too much focus on the emotional arcs of the characters.
-Nolan discussing Kubrick, probably.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think it is not enough for there to be unnamable "synergy". Oppenheimer is, by report, really a good movie on its own merits. If it were an average historical thriller, the social synergy probably wouldn't have happened.

Maybe. But tracking has gotten really good over the last decade. And the whole Barbenhiemer phenomenon (which greatly increased the overall awareness of the movie, as well as the desire to see it) was the primary driving factor behind the increase in the tracking numbers that saw amazing growth in the past three weeks.

There's actually been a fair amount of discourse in the industry about this, and why this type of unexpected viral phenomenon matters; I don't think anyone genuinely thinks the Minions: The Rise of Gru was the greatest movie in the history of ever (6.5 IMDB, 70% rotten tomatoes), yet the unexpected Gentle Minions phenomenon was certainly a major factor in the box office performance and caused it to significantly overperform expected numbers.

In other words, sure, it's a great Nolan movie. But it's also a biopic about a figure most people aren't familiar with. The gangbuster box office for opening weekend (as well as the many reports of theaters being fully sold out) is a reflection of the pop culture zeitgeist.