Barbie trailer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My other half still hasn’t forgiven Maroon 5 for “selling out”.

No offense to Maroon 5 or your other half but Greta Gerwig making Barbie is like Martin Scorsese making a Marvel movie after Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. She is that talented, and Barbie is that bad compared to Ladybird and Little Women. She should have won an Oscar for her directing in Little Woman and and an Oscar for the Ladybird screenplay.

Maybe, but Gerwig has to play by different rules than Scorsese because it's a sexist industry.

My hope/belief is that Gerwig did Barbie in exchange for the ability to make a number of smaller, women-centric movies that she is truly passionate about. Either through an explicit deal with the studio or because the amount of money she will make on the backend from Barbie will fund other projects.

That's what George Clooney did with his Batman money and it's how he justifies having made it. A little different because he was an actor in that movie (and because I don't love the "passion projects" he made with that money -- he does not have Gerwig's vision or talent), but it's the same approach. The studio wants you to do the giant tent pole branded movie with the action figures (er, dolls)? Okay, then you will milk the bottomless pit of money they have for such films until you have everything you need to do EXACTLY what you want for the rest of your career.

I believe this is also why Chloé Zhao made The Eternals and why Phoebe Waller-Bridge co-wrote a Bond film. Taika Waititi made Marvel movies and that helps fund stuff like What We Do in the Shadows and Reservation Dogs. This is how it works. Hollywood only wants to spend money on this very narrow set of franchises that they know will be profitable and offer huge merchandising and overseas sales. Streaming has only exacerbated this. But a lot of artists will participate in that machine in order to be able to self-fund the work they really want to do. I will never criticize them for this. That doesn't mean I have to love the big-budget stuff they do, but I'm not going to get mad about it. They have to find a way to make movies, it's a hard art form to make without money. Even super low budget indie films will cost a few million just to pay for talent and locations. Let them make their money!

By the way, as these projects go, Gerwig does a lot with Barbie that impressed me in a way that those Marvel movies form Zhao and Waititi do not. It IS subversive in surprising ways, even if it skirts the line and also has a lot of the same old trite, big budget, brand-centric movie qualities. Barbie proves how talented Gerwig is, that she could make a movie based on a doll and it could still be as good as it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
My other half still hasn’t forgiven Maroon 5 for “selling out”.

At what point in time was Maroon 5 not selling out? I’m honestly asking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ladybird, Little Women, Frances Ha, Mistress America >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Barbie

It’s a shame the mindless masses are getting their first exposure to Greta Gerwig through this movie. She’s much, much better than this vapid overwrought tripe.

Margo Robbie approached HER, not the other way around. She was convinced to do this vs it being her brain-child. I think there’s a big difference between the two. Having said that, however, there are no “rules” saying she can’t choose to do something fun and blockbuster-type that still carries complex, layered messages. She’s casting a wider net and good for her!

What about this movie was complex? Just because you agree with its message doesn’t make it complex. It’s like a hawkish Republican in the 1980s saying Red Dawn is complex or saying Maverick is complex. When you have a main character going into a long screed about how difficult it is to be a woman there is no complexity about it at all. Obvious propaganda does not = art, no matter what side does it.

If this was all Greta Gerwig was capable of I wouldn’t be so critical of the movie. But she is way better than this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ladybird, Little Women, Frances Ha, Mistress America >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Barbie

It’s a shame the mindless masses are getting their first exposure to Greta Gerwig through this movie. She’s much, much better than this vapid overwrought tripe.

Margo Robbie approached HER, not the other way around. She was convinced to do this vs it being her brain-child. I think there’s a big difference between the two. Having said that, however, there are no “rules” saying she can’t choose to do something fun and blockbuster-type that still carries complex, layered messages. She’s casting a wider net and good for her!

What about this movie was complex? Just because you agree with its message doesn’t make it complex. It’s like a hawkish Republican in the 1980s saying Red Dawn is complex or saying Maverick is complex. When you have a main character going into a long screed about how difficult it is to be a woman there is no complexity about it at all. Obvious propaganda does not = art, no matter what side does it.

If this was all Greta Gerwig was capable of I wouldn’t be so critical of the movie. But she is way better than this.

NP. And her success with this will allow her free rein on whatever project she chooses for the rest of her career. So, yay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone bummed they didn’t get together in the end?

I think they missed an opportunity for Barbie to realize how self-centered she was in terms of taking Ken for granted.

No, not at all bummed. “True love” isn’t the only answer to having a fulfilling life. Ken was an abusive stalker. He shouldn’t be rewarded for that. Barbie should have apologized and did, but she doesn’t owe him a relationship.

Huh? He was just an airhead dud.

And Barbie was a valid, self-centered, materialistic twit who completely lacked any awareness. But she seemingly grew throughout the movie…so why couldn’t his character grow?

He can, and did, I think. Doesn’t mean she should be his girlfriend.

+1. My daughter had a very good male friend who started seeing her as more than a friend about 6 months ago. She was honest with him that she did not return the feelings and they stayed very close. Recently he blew up at her and ended their friendship because (I kid you not) “she should have changed her mind by now.”

No one owes another person romantic feelings, even if that person is a wonderful friend. I think it was really important they didn’t get together and for Ken to understand that simply being someone’s friend or liking them obligated them to one day feel more.

I had a male best friend for six years who did the same thing. Doesn’t make him abusive. He was in love with me. He dated other women but always hoped I’d change my mind. He got pretty upset with me one night. It was pretty upsetting. And he was angry but he wasn’t harmful to me.

Life went on and we married other people. He’s a wonderful person and father of three. Not an abusive jerk.

I’ve been happily married 16 years. My husband and I saw Barbie together. We felt pretty sad that they chose for Barbie and Ken to not end up together. Felt like it it was a missed moment to show how men and women can develop understanding and evolve together.

Not really surprising though. This was made by Gerwig and Baumbach. I generally find both of their movies and takes on romantic relationships insufferable.

Putting Barbie and Ken together would have ruined the entire movie. Barbie was adamant that she did not feel that way about Ken. Honestly he probably only had feelings for her because he based his whole "life" on her. Idk, I really hate when movies feel the need to force a relationship as if the only happy ending is a partnered one. This seems a very old fashioned way of thinking that women need a man. Maybe Barbie is gay... she did like having girls night every night ;)
Barbie got her happy ending and Ken probably got his own in Barbieland.

Agreed. They were barely friends. No need for her to abruptly love him.

He was a hilarious character, but clearly the embodiment of how girls play with dolls. Ken gets thrown in the box with the Breyer horses 90% of the time. Barbie may be a caricature but at least the girls are invested in her and draw her out. Ken isn't an equal he's an accessory (and a low value one). Nothing wrong with little girls inhabiting that reality, so of course Barbie doesn't take him. As a girl emerges from that world, no need for baggage. At the middle school in the real world, there are also no guys (with lines).

LOL When I was a kid and playing with a friend, her mom would make her little brother play with us. So she'd give him Ken, tell him Ken is going camping, take him to the backyard. So we could keep doing what we wanted with Barbies aka the main characters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My other half still hasn’t forgiven Maroon 5 for “selling out”.

No offense to Maroon 5 or your other half but Greta Gerwig making Barbie is like Martin Scorsese making a Marvel movie after Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. She is that talented, and Barbie is that bad compared to Ladybird and Little Women. She should have won an Oscar for her directing in Little Woman and and an Oscar for the Ladybird screenplay.

Maybe, but Gerwig has to play by different rules than Scorsese because it's a sexist industry.

My hope/belief is that Gerwig did Barbie in exchange for the ability to make a number of smaller, women-centric movies that she is truly passionate about. Either through an explicit deal with the studio or because the amount of money she will make on the backend from Barbie will fund other projects.

That's what George Clooney did with his Batman money and it's how he justifies having made it. A little different because he was an actor in that movie (and because I don't love the "passion projects" he made with that money -- he does not have Gerwig's vision or talent), but it's the same approach. The studio wants you to do the giant tent pole branded movie with the action figures (er, dolls)? Okay, then you will milk the bottomless pit of money they have for such films until you have everything you need to do EXACTLY what you want for the rest of your career.

I believe this is also why Chloé Zhao made The Eternals and why Phoebe Waller-Bridge co-wrote a Bond film. Taika Waititi made Marvel movies and that helps fund stuff like What We Do in the Shadows and Reservation Dogs. This is how it works. Hollywood only wants to spend money on this very narrow set of franchises that they know will be profitable and offer huge merchandising and overseas sales. Streaming has only exacerbated this. But a lot of artists will participate in that machine in order to be able to self-fund the work they really want to do. I will never criticize them for this. That doesn't mean I have to love the big-budget stuff they do, but I'm not going to get mad about it. They have to find a way to make movies, it's a hard art form to make without money. Even super low budget indie films will cost a few million just to pay for talent and locations. Let them make their money!

By the way, as these projects go, Gerwig does a lot with Barbie that impressed me in a way that those Marvel movies form Zhao and Waititi do not. It IS subversive in surprising ways, even if it skirts the line and also has a lot of the same old trite, big budget, brand-centric movie qualities. Barbie proves how talented Gerwig is, that she could make a movie based on a doll and it could still be as good as it is.

I see what you’re saying, but Greta Gerwig is a much more talented director than anyone on your list except maybe Chloe Zhao.

Christopher Nolan, who is half the director Gerwig is, made Batman, but those are legitimate good movies and don’t pale in comparison to his other work. Barbie is so dull and trite compared to Ladybird and Little Women by almost every criteria: direction, screenplay, performances, etc. It is a blemish in what was one of the most impressive debuts from a director in the past 10 years.

There are a lot of great directors who made commercial hits, but didn’t flop artistically to do so. The Departed and Wolf of Wall Street aren’t Taxi Driver, but they’re not so far beneath them that Scorsese should be embarrassed either.

Barbie is that bad relative to her other work in my opinion, but I have a very high opinion of her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ladybird, Little Women, Frances Ha, Mistress America >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Barbie

It’s a shame the mindless masses are getting their first exposure to Greta Gerwig through this movie. She’s much, much better than this vapid overwrought tripe.

Margo Robbie approached HER, not the other way around. She was convinced to do this vs it being her brain-child. I think there’s a big difference between the two. Having said that, however, there are no “rules” saying she can’t choose to do something fun and blockbuster-type that still carries complex, layered messages. She’s casting a wider net and good for her!

What about this movie was complex? Just because you agree with its message doesn’t make it complex. It’s like a hawkish Republican in the 1980s saying Red Dawn is complex or saying Maverick is complex. When you have a main character going into a long screed about how difficult it is to be a woman there is no complexity about it at all. Obvious propaganda does not = art, no matter what side does it.

If this was all Greta Gerwig was capable of I wouldn’t be so critical of the movie. But she is way better than this.

NP. And her success with this will allow her free rein on whatever project she chooses for the rest of her career. So, yay.

Ladybird made $79M and cost $10M. Little women made $219M and cost $40M. Greta Gerwig is not some struggling director who needs the money to fund her projects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My other half still hasn’t forgiven Maroon 5 for “selling out”.

No offense to Maroon 5 or your other half but Greta Gerwig making Barbie is like Martin Scorsese making a Marvel movie after Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. She is that talented, and Barbie is that bad compared to Ladybird and Little Women. She should have won an Oscar for her directing in Little Woman and and an Oscar for the Ladybird screenplay.

Maybe, but Gerwig has to play by different rules than Scorsese because it's a sexist industry.

My hope/belief is that Gerwig did Barbie in exchange for the ability to make a number of smaller, women-centric movies that she is truly passionate about. Either through an explicit deal with the studio or because the amount of money she will make on the backend from Barbie will fund other projects.

That's what George Clooney did with his Batman money and it's how he justifies having made it. A little different because he was an actor in that movie (and because I don't love the "passion projects" he made with that money -- he does not have Gerwig's vision or talent), but it's the same approach. The studio wants you to do the giant tent pole branded movie with the action figures (er, dolls)? Okay, then you will milk the bottomless pit of money they have for such films until you have everything you need to do EXACTLY what you want for the rest of your career.

I believe this is also why Chloé Zhao made The Eternals and why Phoebe Waller-Bridge co-wrote a Bond film. Taika Waititi made Marvel movies and that helps fund stuff like What We Do in the Shadows and Reservation Dogs. This is how it works. Hollywood only wants to spend money on this very narrow set of franchises that they know will be profitable and offer huge merchandising and overseas sales. Streaming has only exacerbated this. But a lot of artists will participate in that machine in order to be able to self-fund the work they really want to do. I will never criticize them for this. That doesn't mean I have to love the big-budget stuff they do, but I'm not going to get mad about it. They have to find a way to make movies, it's a hard art form to make without money. Even super low budget indie films will cost a few million just to pay for talent and locations. Let them make their money!

By the way, as these projects go, Gerwig does a lot with Barbie that impressed me in a way that those Marvel movies form Zhao and Waititi do not. It IS subversive in surprising ways, even if it skirts the line and also has a lot of the same old trite, big budget, brand-centric movie qualities. Barbie proves how talented Gerwig is, that she could make a movie based on a doll and it could still be as good as it is.

I see what you’re saying, but Greta Gerwig is a much more talented director than anyone on your list except maybe Chloe Zhao.

Christopher Nolan, who is half the director Gerwig is, made Batman, but those are legitimate good movies and don’t pale in comparison to his other work. Barbie is so dull and trite compared to Ladybird and Little Women by almost every criteria: direction, screenplay, performances, etc. It is a blemish in what was one of the most impressive debuts from a director in the past 10 years.

There are a lot of great directors who made commercial hits, but didn’t flop artistically to do so. The Departed and Wolf of Wall Street aren’t Taxi Driver, but they’re not so far beneath them that Scorsese should be embarrassed either.

Barbie is that bad relative to her other work in my opinion, but I have a very high opinion of her.

NP. Yeah, no. They are both extremely talented directors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ladybird, Little Women, Frances Ha, Mistress America >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Barbie

It’s a shame the mindless masses are getting their first exposure to Greta Gerwig through this movie. She’s much, much better than this vapid overwrought tripe.

Margo Robbie approached HER, not the other way around. She was convinced to do this vs it being her brain-child. I think there’s a big difference between the two. Having said that, however, there are no “rules” saying she can’t choose to do something fun and blockbuster-type that still carries complex, layered messages. She’s casting a wider net and good for her!

What about this movie was complex? Just because you agree with its message doesn’t make it complex. It’s like a hawkish Republican in the 1980s saying Red Dawn is complex or saying Maverick is complex. When you have a main character going into a long screed about how difficult it is to be a woman there is no complexity about it at all. Obvious propaganda does not = art, no matter what side does it.

If this was all Greta Gerwig was capable of I wouldn’t be so critical of the movie. But she is way better than this.

NP. And her success with this will allow her free rein on whatever project she chooses for the rest of her career. So, yay.

Ladybird made $79M and cost $10M. Little women made $219M and cost $40M. Greta Gerwig is not some struggling director who needs the money to fund her projects.

That’s…not how that works. Her massive success with Barbie will get any project greenlit from here on out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ladybird, Little Women, Frances Ha, Mistress America >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Barbie

It’s a shame the mindless masses are getting their first exposure to Greta Gerwig through this movie. She’s much, much better than this vapid overwrought tripe.

Margo Robbie approached HER, not the other way around. She was convinced to do this vs it being her brain-child. I think there’s a big difference between the two. Having said that, however, there are no “rules” saying she can’t choose to do something fun and blockbuster-type that still carries complex, layered messages. She’s casting a wider net and good for her!

What about this movie was complex? Just because you agree with its message doesn’t make it complex. It’s like a hawkish Republican in the 1980s saying Red Dawn is complex or saying Maverick is complex. When you have a main character going into a long screed about how difficult it is to be a woman there is no complexity about it at all. Obvious propaganda does not = art, no matter what side does it.

If this was all Greta Gerwig was capable of I wouldn’t be so critical of the movie. But she is way better than this.

It’s not perfect, for sure, and I thought the monologue could have been better - though I also think America Ferrera may have made significant changes to what Gerwig originally wrote.

But a lot of the movie is actually quite layered and thoughtful. For example, Allan is coded as queer. He doesn’t fit in with the Barbies; he doesn’t fit in with the Kens. But as a white man, he benefits from the patriarchy and is complicit in upholding it. His initial rebellion is just to flee, but he finally decides to act as an ally. Underneath that very funny spade fight scene is a nuanced look at one aspect of patriarchy.

I even think the rejection of matriarchy as a solution to patriarchy is a pretty pointed statement. There’s a whole feminist trope about how much better everything would be “if women were in charge.” When I was younger I bought into that somewhat. But it is a very simplistic and black-and-white worldview. Gerwig makes it clear that Barbieland isn’t a place of equality for the Kens or for Weird Barbie and the other discontinued Barbies.

At any rate, I’m a Gerwig fan and loved Frances Ha, Lady Bird, and Little Women. I think she did amazing things with this movie. It’s not just reaching the billion-dollar mark in less than a month. It’s the whole conversation that everyone is having. I said early in this thread that I thought Barbie would be a pop-culture phenomenon based on the trailer. I had no idea how big it would be.

[Anonymous]

But a lot of the movie is actually quite layered and thoughtful. For example, Allan is coded as queer. He doesn’t fit in with the Barbies; he doesn’t fit in with the Kens. But as a white man, he benefits from the patriarchy and is complicit in upholding it. His initial rebellion is just to flee, but he finally decides to act as an ally. Underneath that very funny spade fight scene is a nuanced look at one aspect of patriarchy.

Overt propaganda is not good art though. You’re making my point for me. Gerwig’s other movies are much more nuanced, politically complex (not “all cis men bad,” “men control 100 percent of all corporate boards,” etc), and just not as bland overall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone bummed they didn’t get together in the end?

I think they missed an opportunity for Barbie to realize how self-centered she was in terms of taking Ken for granted.

No, not at all bummed. “True love” isn’t the only answer to having a fulfilling life. Ken was an abusive stalker. He shouldn’t be rewarded for that. Barbie should have apologized and did, but she doesn’t owe him a relationship.

Huh? He was just an airhead dud.

And Barbie was a valid, self-centered, materialistic twit who completely lacked any awareness. But she seemingly grew throughout the movie…so why couldn’t his character grow?

He can, and did, I think. Doesn’t mean she should be his girlfriend.

+1. My daughter had a very good male friend who started seeing her as more than a friend about 6 months ago. She was honest with him that she did not return the feelings and they stayed very close. Recently he blew up at her and ended their friendship because (I kid you not) “she should have changed her mind by now.”

No one owes another person romantic feelings, even if that person is a wonderful friend. I think it was really important they didn’t get together and for Ken to understand that simply being someone’s friend or liking them obligated them to one day feel more.

I had a male best friend for six years who did the same thing. Doesn’t make him abusive. He was in love with me. He dated other women but always hoped I’d change my mind. He got pretty upset with me one night. It was pretty upsetting. And he was angry but he wasn’t harmful to me.

Life went on and we married other people. He’s a wonderful person and father of three. Not an abusive jerk.

I’ve been happily married 16 years. My husband and I saw Barbie together. We felt pretty sad that they chose for Barbie and Ken to not end up together. Felt like it it was a missed moment to show how men and women can develop understanding and evolve together.

Not really surprising though. This was made by Gerwig and Baumbach. I generally find both of their movies and takes on romantic relationships insufferable.

Putting Barbie and Ken together would have ruined the entire movie. Barbie was adamant that she did not feel that way about Ken. Honestly he probably only had feelings for her because he based his whole "life" on her. Idk, I really hate when movies feel the need to force a relationship as if the only happy ending is a partnered one. This seems a very old fashioned way of thinking that women need a man. Maybe Barbie is gay... she did like having girls night every night ;)
Barbie got her happy ending and Ken probably got his own in Barbieland.

Agreed. They were barely friends. No need for her to abruptly love him.

He was a hilarious character, but clearly the embodiment of how girls play with dolls. Ken gets thrown in the box with the Breyer horses 90% of the time. Barbie may be a caricature but at least the girls are invested in her and draw her out. Ken isn't an equal he's an accessory (and a low value one). Nothing wrong with little girls inhabiting that reality, so of course Barbie doesn't take him. As a girl emerges from that world, no need for baggage. At the middle school in the real world, there are also no guys (with lines).

LOL When I was a kid and playing with a friend, her mom would make her little brother play with us. So she'd give him Ken, tell him Ken is going camping, take him to the backyard. So we could keep doing what we wanted with Barbies aka the main characters.

OK that's hilarious.
There's probably a Ken in Barbie land not "Beaching" and out in the woods somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But a lot of the movie is actually quite layered and thoughtful. For example, Allan is coded as queer. He doesn’t fit in with the Barbies; he doesn’t fit in with the Kens. But as a white man, he benefits from the patriarchy and is complicit in upholding it. His initial rebellion is just to flee, but he finally decides to act as an ally. Underneath that very funny spade fight scene is a nuanced look at one aspect of patriarchy.

Overt propaganda is not good art though. You’re making my point for me. Gerwig’s other movies are much more nuanced, politically complex (not “all cis men bad,” “men control 100 percent of all corporate boards,” etc), and just not as bland overall.

I think you’re taking a position without wanting to dig into some of the nuance, and without stepping back and realizing how significant it is that people are even having these conversations about Barbie

I think your standards for Gerwig are impossibly high, and wonder if you apply them to every film and director, but let’s agree to disagree. Many of us find a lot of complexity and enjoyment in the movie, and surely that’s okay, just as you find it bland and disappointing.

No one can argue with the data, though: by the numbers, Gerwig has made an extremely successful movie, and reached a milestone for women directors.

[Anonymous]

I didn’t like the movie at all but am actually thrilled that Gerwig has smashed records.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone bummed they didn’t get together in the end?

I think they missed an opportunity for Barbie to realize how self-centered she was in terms of taking Ken for granted.

No, not at all bummed. “True love” isn’t the only answer to having a fulfilling life. Ken was an abusive stalker. He shouldn’t be rewarded for that. Barbie should have apologized and did, but she doesn’t owe him a relationship.

Huh? He was just an airhead dud.

And Barbie was a valid, self-centered, materialistic twit who completely lacked any awareness. But she seemingly grew throughout the movie…so why couldn’t his character grow?

He can, and did, I think. Doesn’t mean she should be his girlfriend.

+1. My daughter had a very good male friend who started seeing her as more than a friend about 6 months ago. She was honest with him that she did not return the feelings and they stayed very close. Recently he blew up at her and ended their friendship because (I kid you not) “she should have changed her mind by now.”

No one owes another person romantic feelings, even if that person is a wonderful friend. I think it was really important they didn’t get together and for Ken to understand that simply being someone’s friend or liking them obligated them to one day feel more.

I had a male best friend for six years who did the same thing. Doesn’t make him abusive. He was in love with me. He dated other women but always hoped I’d change my mind. He got pretty upset with me one night. It was pretty upsetting. And he was angry but he wasn’t harmful to me.

Life went on and we married other people. He’s a wonderful person and father of three. Not an abusive jerk.

I’ve been happily married 16 years. My husband and I saw Barbie together. We felt pretty sad that they chose for Barbie and Ken to not end up together. Felt like it it was a missed moment to show how men and women can develop understanding and evolve together.

Not really surprising though. This was made by Gerwig and Baumbach. I generally find both of their movies and takes on romantic relationships insufferable.

Putting Barbie and Ken together would have ruined the entire movie. Barbie was adamant that she did not feel that way about Ken. Honestly he probably only had feelings for her because he based his whole "life" on her. Idk, I really hate when movies feel the need to force a relationship as if the only happy ending is a partnered one. This seems a very old fashioned way of thinking that women need a man. Maybe Barbie is gay... she did like having girls night every night ;)
Barbie got her happy ending and Ken probably got his own in Barbieland.

Agreed. They were barely friends. No need for her to abruptly love him.

He was a hilarious character, but clearly the embodiment of how girls play with dolls. Ken gets thrown in the box with the Breyer horses 90% of the time. Barbie may be a caricature but at least the girls are invested in her and draw her out. Ken isn't an equal he's an accessory (and a low value one). Nothing wrong with little girls inhabiting that reality, so of course Barbie doesn't take him. As a girl emerges from that world, no need for baggage. At the middle school in the real world, there are also no guys (with lines).

LOL When I was a kid and playing with a friend, her mom would make her little brother play with us. So she'd give him Ken, tell him Ken is going camping, take him to the backyard. So we could keep doing what we wanted with Barbies aka the main characters.

OK that's hilarious.
There's probably a Ken in Barbie land not "Beaching" and out in the woods somewhere.

LOL his job is "camp"