Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I loved the movie I agrees the message was a bit heavy handed in places. But I interpreted that as necessary. Yes, some (most?) of the audience would understand a more subtle message. But not everyone would have Gerwig knew this movie would get picked apart. She wasn’t leaving room for error or misinterpretation about the intent. I am ok with that. There were still a lot of more subtle messages built in as well (Barbie and Ken’s relationship)

Fwiw, no one has said that Oppenheimer/Nolan talked down to or was condescending to the audience.

I haven't seen either movie yet (when school starts, DH and I will see both of them in the theater). People have had a lot of reactions to both movies, but only one was considered heavy handed.

Only one of them was heavy-handed and only one of them lectured the audience. Oppenheimer presumed its audience had more than one brain cell. Barbie didn’t.

I am the PP upthread who like it was a bit heavy handed. I totally disagree that the heavy handiness implied the audience wasn’t intelligent. I don’t think that at all. I just think this move was ripe for attempts to misinterpret it (see pp re: Barbie’s genitals) and they wanted to be explicit in a couple scenes about the primary points. It’s not like the whole movie was that way; in fact a lot of it was light hearted and silly.

Also Oppenheimer didn’t have some grand social message to get across.

Stupid phone, typos everywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I loved the movie I agrees the message was a bit heavy handed in places. But I interpreted that as necessary. Yes, some (most?) of the audience would understand a more subtle message. But not everyone would have Gerwig knew this movie would get picked apart. She wasn’t leaving room for error or misinterpretation about the intent. I am ok with that. There were still a lot of more subtle messages built in as well (Barbie and Ken’s relationship)

Fwiw, no one has said that Oppenheimer/Nolan talked down to or was condescending to the audience.

I haven't seen either movie yet (when school starts, DH and I will see both of them in the theater). People have had a lot of reactions to both movies, but only one was considered heavy handed.

Only one of them was heavy-handed and only one of them lectured the audience. Oppenheimer presumed its audience had more than one brain cell. Barbie didn’t.

I am the PP upthread who like it was a bit heavy handed. I totally disagree that the heavy handiness implied the audience wasn’t intelligent. I don’t think that at all. I just think this move was ripe for attempts to misinterpret it (see pp re: Barbie’s genitals) and they wanted to be explicit in a couple scenes about the primary points. It’s not like the whole movie was that way; in fact a lot of it was light hearted and silly.

Also Oppenheimer didn’t have some grand social message to get across.

Dd11, DH, and DS9 had a lot of fun the whole movie but I was pretty bored by the second half.

What is nice about this movie as opposed to other product placement movies or movies with this plot (which has been done in Elf and Enchanted right off the top of my head) is that it had ambition. It could have just been a goofy sweet movie but it aimed a lot higher. Did it fully 100% succeed? Not for me. But I appreciated that the artists that made it put that kind of thought and effort into bringing their vision to life, even if the results were a bit heavy handed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I loved the movie I agrees the message was a bit heavy handed in places. But I interpreted that as necessary. Yes, some (most?) of the audience would understand a more subtle message. But not everyone would have Gerwig knew this movie would get picked apart. She wasn’t leaving room for error or misinterpretation about the intent. I am ok with that. There were still a lot of more subtle messages built in as well (Barbie and Ken’s relationship)

Fwiw, no one has said that Oppenheimer/Nolan talked down to or was condescending to the audience.

I haven't seen either movie yet (when school starts, DH and I will see both of them in the theater). People have had a lot of reactions to both movies, but only one was considered heavy handed.

Only one of them was heavy-handed and only one of them lectured the audience. Oppenheimer presumed its audience had more than one brain cell. Barbie didn’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was only preachy for those who didn't like the message. Just like Fox News is preachy for those who don't agree with their message. Otherwise it's just fun on air banter and news, right?.....

Do you mean the message that while Hari Nef might be a Barbie in fake Barbie-land, Barbie only becomes a true woman after she gets female biology? That true womanhood is achieved by female reproductive status? That message?

Out if curiosity, are you the PP from up-thread who was convinced that anyone who didn’t like the movie was a Trump voter? I’m sort of fascinated by what it must be like to be so blindingly partisan.

WHAT???

People see things through their own lenses, obviously. That was not at all a message I got from the movie. Hahaha!

And where is that message wrong, exactly?

Anonymous wrote:While I loved the movie I agrees the message was a bit heavy handed in places. But I interpreted that as necessary. Yes, some (most?) of the audience would understand a more subtle message. But not everyone would have Gerwig knew this movie would get picked apart. She wasn’t leaving room for error or misinterpretation about the intent. I am ok with that. There were still a lot of more subtle messages built in as well (Barbie and Ken’s relationship)

Fwiw, no one has said that Oppenheimer/Nolan talked down to or was condescending to the audience.

I haven't seen either movie yet (when school starts, DH and I will see both of them in the theater). People have had a lot of reactions to both movies, but only one was considered heavy handed.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It was only preachy for those who didn't like the message. Just like Fox News is preachy for those who don't agree with their message. Otherwise it's just fun on air banter and news, right?.....[/quote]

[b]Do you mean the message that while Hari Nef might be a Barbie in fake Barbie-land, Barbie only becomes a true woman after she gets female biology? That true womanhood is achieved by female reproductive status? That message? [/b]

Out if curiosity, are you the PP from up-thread who was convinced that anyone who didn’t like the movie was a Trump voter? I’m sort of fascinated by what it must be like to be so blindingly partisan. [/quote]

WHAT???

People see things through their own lenses, obviously. That was not at all a message I got from the movie. Hahaha![/quote]

+1. That’s one hell of an interpretation. I took the ending to be a bit cheeky given the prior discussion over Barbie/Ken’s lack of genitals.

While I loved the movie I agrees the message was a bit heavy handed in places. But I interpreted that as necessary. Yes, some (most?) of the audience would understand a more subtle message. But not everyone would have Gerwig knew this movie would get picked apart. She wasn’t leaving room for error or misinterpretation about the intent. I am ok with that. There were still a lot of more subtle messages built in as well (Barbie and Ken’s relationship)

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was only preachy for those who didn't like the message. Just like Fox News is preachy for those who don't agree with their message. Otherwise it's just fun on air banter and news, right?.....

Do you mean the message that while Hari Nef might be a Barbie in fake Barbie-land, Barbie only becomes a true woman after she gets female biology? That true womanhood is achieved by female reproductive status? That message?

Out if curiosity, are you the PP from up-thread who was convinced that anyone who didn’t like the movie was a Trump voter? I’m sort of fascinated by what it must be like to be so blindingly partisan.

WHAT???

People see things through their own lenses, obviously. That was not at all a message I got from the movie. Hahaha!

Anonymous wrote:It was only preachy for those who didn't like the message. Just like Fox News is preachy for those who don't agree with their message. Otherwise it's just fun on air banter and news, right?.....

Yes. I agree with you.

Men are useless we all know that.

I think it’s clear that while people are going to see the movie, that doesn’t mean the movie is actually that great.

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.

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?