Barbie Movie Discussion (Spoilers)

[schlaufuchs]

What so, is a minority existing in a story only not woke if their being a minority has no impact on the story and is never called attention to?

 

[Farm Boy]

Assuming that's true, is that so important it bears repeatedly mentioning? Do we need to talk about GI Joe, Action Man, and everything else built to glamourise the US military?

I'm trying to work out how important backstories are here. The Catholic Church has a ton, for example. A lot of it recent, even.

It's amusing when identity politics are a lens. Represent those hookers. Surely they do deserve it. I'm enjoying the moment, and I don't think it's mean.

Edit: I mean, it's not like I'm trying to throw stones those who would anoint the savor's feet? If we're staying with gospels, for now.

 

[RobAnybody]

Uh, you do know that there are lots of people out there who consider any sort of representation as woke, right?

Who's willfully ignoring what now?

I'm not "lots of people" (it's weird how Trump's "many people are saying..." tactic just became a normal thing for people to do).

Like this is specifically the problem with people who claim there’s more nuance to it. Because there’s never actual objective criteria for where the delineations actually lie. It’s all vagueness and disregarding obvious contradictions.

Honestly this is the clearest and most honest thing you’ve said about what wokeness actually means.

Also, & I'm still not sure if this OK or not, so if not, hopefully a Mod will delete this part & just understand that I don't know if linking to a closed thread (but not just for being really long & needing a new one of course) is OK, but I can't quote my post in it, & it's pretty long, so I'll risk linking to it - if I should just copy it & repost it I will), but I also gave a pretty in-depth response in one of "those" threads:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/do-woke-films-go-broke-from-lgbtq-news.684600/post-16481877

 

[Zardnaar]

What so, is a minority existing in a story only not woke if their being a minority has no impact on the story and is never called attention to?

More like if attention is called to it when it's irrelevant to the plot at the expense of quality.

Eg Broke Back mountain makes a lot of sense the overall story is about gay cowboys falling in love.

If they made say a Terminator movie the gender/sexuality etc is irrelevant to the main theme of the franchise (AI vs humans). Sarah Connor is a vadass for example who happens to be a women vs she's a vadass because she's a women if that makes any sense.

Or the easily removed lesbian kiss in Rise of Skywalker.

General audience may or may not go for the later. Depends on the genre, target audience, marketing etc.

 

[choxorn]

More like if attention is called to it when it's irrelevant to the plot at the expense of quality.

But that's at least to some extent going to be subjective, that is, "It's woke if I don't like it and not woke if I like it"

Eg Broke Back mountain makes a lot of sense the overall story is about gay cowboys falling in love.

Well if it's a love story at its core, why does it need to be a gay love story? It could be a cowboy and a cowgirl instead of two cowboys, why does the plot strictly need them to be gay? Why is it relevant in the case of Brokeback Mountain and not relevant in other cases?

If they made say a Terminator movie the gender/sexuality etc is irrelevant to the main theme of the franchise (AI vs humans).

Movies can and do have multiple themes, you know.

Sarah Connor is a vadass for example who happens to be a women vs she's a vadass because she's a women if that makes any sense.

It really doesn't make sense, no. Pretty much every female action hero I can think of is "a badass who happens to be a woman". Sometimes they're badass in some specifically feminine-coded ways or they use their femininity to be badass, but I don't know any who are "badass because she's a woman"

Or the easily removed lesbian kiss in Rise of Skywalker.

See I imagine everyone would agree with you that's bad, but you're saying it's bad because it's "woke" to put that in, most of us would say it's bad because it's Disney trying to score brownie points with some background gay characters so they can say "check out our representation and buy our products, gay people!" when it's something you can easily miss (I haven't seen that movie since it came out but I don't remember even seeing a lesbian kiss in it) and something they can just edit out when they want to release it in China or Russia or the Middle East. That to me seems like it's Disney being the opposite of woke, they're trying to keep whatever representation they put into their films at a minimum because if they don't then some governments will just ban the film.

 

[Kyriakos]

I am not at all sold on the idea that just because you present x in movies/tv/other, it will affect the general population to be more pro-x.
Often it is there to try to cause controversy and provide free publicity.
There's a reason why anyone, regardless of education, having a degree or not, even having any intelligence past close to below average, can post about 'politics'. The tragedy, of course, begins when some aspire to post scientifically about such topics, you then get the near-endless parade of parasitical pundits from left, center, right and their mimics in social media, all the way down to small forums.

 

[RobAnybody]

...most of us would say it's bad because it's Disney trying to score brownie points with some background gay characters so they can say "check out our representation and buy our products, gay people!"

I think you've hit on it. *That's* the point - it wasn't put in for any story reason, but just for, well, exactly what you said. I know I deleted a lot of your post, but thank you for engaging in the actual discussion. I mean that sincerely.

* which honestly belongs in its own non-Barbie thread, but we've seen where that leads

 

[Zardnaar]

But that's at least to some extent going to be subjective, that is, "It's woke if I don't like it and not woke if I like it"



Well if it's a love story at its core, why does it need to be a gay love story? It could be a cowboy and a cowgirl instead of two cowboys, why does the plot strictly need them to be gay? Why is it relevant in the case of Brokeback Mountain and not relevant in other cases?



Movies can and do have multiple themes, you know.



It really doesn't make sense, no. Pretty much every female action hero I can think of is "a badass who happens to be a woman". Sometimes they're badass in some specifically feminine-coded ways or they use their femininity to be badass, but I don't know any who are "badass because she's a woman"



See I imagine everyone would agree with you that's bad, but you're saying it's bad because it's "woke" to put that in, most of us would say it's bad because it's Disney trying to score brownie points with some background gay characters so they can say "check out our representation and buy our products, gay people!" when it's something you can easily miss (I haven't seen that movie since it came out but I don't remember even seeing a lesbian kiss in it) and something they can just edit out when they want to release it in China or Russia or the Middle East. That to me seems like it's Disney being the opposite of woke, they're trying to keep whatever representation they put into their films at a minimum because if they don't then some governments will just ban the film.

Bareback Mountain coukd totally be a normal heterosexual love story. It's hig thing is a gay lovestory though.

Woke is also subjective its like pictographs. You can see her ankles through to partial or full frontal nudity through to soft and hard core.

Depends on what offends you which can be culture etc.

What's offensive, annoying boring just eye rolling else varies on the individual.

 

[aelf]

I'm not "lots of people" (it's weird how Trump's "many people are saying..." tactic just became a normal thing for people to do).

So you're talking about your own personal definition of 'woke' and merely disagreeing with someone else's definition?

So what's all that drama about people who have their own understanding ignoring a definition that was supposedly explained multiple times? Can't people have their understanding on it based on other sources?

 

[Gorbles]

Quick check for the thread: how many folks are aware that the word "tokenism" already exists?

 

[Zardnaar]

Quick check for the thread: how many folks are aware that the word "tokenism" already exists?

Your point?

 

[Gorbles]

Your point?

It's a question; you answer it.

It describes a lot of the behaviour people are trying to attach to "woke" (which @choxorn described well as giant companies trying to score brownie points, but it's a wider-reaching thing than that). Which again brings us back to: so what does "woke" mean? What benefit is there to buying into conservative culture war-loaded rhetoric when we already have a neutral word that describes something perfectly?

 

[Zardnaar]

It's a question; you answer it.

It describes a lot of the behaviour people are trying to attach to "woke" (which @choxorn described well as giant companies trying to score brownie points, but it's a wider-reaching thing than that). Which again brings us back to: so what does "woke" mean? What benefit is there to buying into conservative culture war-loaded rhetoric when we already have a neutral word that describes something perfectly?

The tokenism is just one part though. And I've said woke like pornography is subjective.

Movie I referenced with also had other tropes like the girl boss thing with Rey. Note I don't think Star Wars sequels are a particularly big offender and a single tweak fixes that complaint (make her a Jedi Knight to begin with).

 

[Gorbles]

The tokenism is just one part though. And I've said woke like pornography is subjective.

Movie I referenced with also had other tropes like the girl boss thing with Rey. Note I don't think Star Wars sequels are a particularly big offender and a single tweak fixes that complaint (make her a Jedi Knight to begin with).

The tokenism seems to be the only part anyone can agree on. Which means, beyond that, it's not a useful term at all. Other than for people to signify "culture war" nonsense. So if you don't want to signify "culture war" nonsense (I'm assuming a lot of folks don't), there doesn't seem to be much of a point to using it, when we have a word that works just as well.

If you want to talk about Mary Sues (or Lukes), talk about Mary Sues. Someone else will want to talk about something different. Someone else will feel more strongly than you about Mary Sues. It's a range of opinion. Falling back to "woke" is just a lazy way of saying you're okay with the culture war baggage. Are you?

Leftists are told all the time that associations with "communism" or whatever are something to be avoided. Because there's "baggage". How come this baggage only ever extends leftwards, and not rightwards?

 

[Zardnaar]

The tokenism seems to be the only part anyone can agree on. Which means, beyond that, it's not a useful term at all. Other than for people to signify "culture war" nonsense. So if you don't want to signify "culture war" nonsense (I'm assuming a lot of folks don't), there doesn't seem to be much of a point to using it, when we have a word that works just as well.

If you want to talk about Mary Sues (or Lukes), talk about Mary Sues. Someone else will want to talk about something different. Someone else will feel more strongly than you about Mary Sues. It's a range of opinion. Falling back to "woke" is just a lazy way of saying you're okay with the culture war baggage. Are you?

Leftists are told all the time that associations with "communism" or whatever are something to be avoided. Because there's "baggage". How come this baggage only ever extends leftwards, and not rightwards?

Does extend rightward Godwin law eg over use for Nazi for example.

Star Wars is more useful as a point of reference the movies that outright bombed no one went to see eg Bros or Women King. Reys a boring crappy character but she's not the main problem the ST had.

They pretty much appealed to no one.

Would you go see a movie based on a biblical story eg Ten Commandments or Passion of the Christ type movies vs one that was actively preaching to you about biblical themes.

 

[Gorbles]

Does extend rightward Godwin law eg over use for Nazi for example.

I only ever see Godwin's law extended leftwards. "oh you, nobody's a real Nazi anymore, Godwin Godwin Godwin Godwin" (even though the creator himself has expressively said we can describe certain demographics as Neo-Nazis, but that's a fun tangent for another thread).

Would you go see a movie based on a biblical story eg Ten Commandments or Passion of the Christ type movies vs one that was actively preaching to you about biblical themes.

I wouldn't really care to see either. That's the thing about preferences.

If you think movies are preaching to you, then talk about that. Movies don't have to be woke to preach. It's not only "woke" things that are preaching to you. I used to watch NCIS, but that is most definitely preaching about the US military and the good it does in the US. Again, the word "woke" has no real use, other than for people who are invested in furthering "culture war" narratives.

I get it, it's a shortcut. But it's also the reason all these discussions keep going in circles is because you (and others), even when presented with a reasonable, neutral alternative.

Lots of people have said this to you in this thread. It's not that Barbie isn't "woke", it's that you don't feel you're being preached at.

 

[Zardnaar]

I only ever see Godwin's law extended leftwards. "oh you, nobody's a real Nazi anymore, Godwin Godwin Godwin Godwin" (even though the creator himself has expressively said we can describe certain demographics as Neo-Nazis, but that's a fun tangent for another thread).

I wouldn't really care to see either. That's the thing about preferences.

If you think movies are preaching to you, then talk about that. Movies don't have to be woke to preach. It's not only "woke" things that are preaching to you. I used to watch NCIS, but that is most definitely preaching about the US military and the good it does in the US. Again, the word "woke" has no real use, other than for people who are invested in furthering "culture war" narratives.

I get it, it's a shortcut. But it's also the reason all these discussions keep going in circles is because you (and others), even when presented with a reasonable, neutral alternative.

Lots of people have said this to you in this thread. It's not that Barbie isn't "woke", it's that you don't feel you're being preached at.

But that's the point.

I've been lurking on r/boxoffice since March and the D&D movie. Barbie was trending towards 50 od million then crept up to 70 million then 70-100 million then organically blew up online.

In 3 weeks it's hit a billion dollars. Why has it blown up (organically).

I suspect it's because it's very different from the typical "woke" Hollywood film. You know the one that even liberal groan at or the ones that appeal no no one and bomb hard.

It's a feist movie aimed at women (around 70% female weeken 1 iirc).

It's not inserting feminism into a movie aimed at say makes or older makes (eg 80s franchise).

It's also very clever with multiple interpretations and takes. Is Barbieland a Utopia or Dystopia. They have a female Mt Rushmire did they genocide the Native Barbie land people?

Are barbies the villains how much free will do the Ken's have? How much free will do the Barbies have?

It's also a satire. I wasn't offended when they mocked men thought it was hilarious. They just inverted the 1950s or whatever and turned it up to 11.

It makes you think imho vs preaching to you hell even the ending is somewhat ambiguous. "We're gonna change it its gonna take time".

My rake away was extremism is bad (Barbie and Ken land are both terrible) and it's gonna take time to change things.

Ymmv of course but I thought it was a very clever movie. It's more comparable to Blazing Saddles vs anything Disney for example has made.

 

[choxorn]

I think you've hit on it. *That's* the point - it wasn't put in for any story reason, but just for, well, exactly what you said. I know I deleted a lot of your post, but thank you for engaging in the actual discussion. I mean that sincerely.

Okay, but as Gorbles said, "Tokenism" is an already existing word to describe that kind of representation (heck, I'd even say you could fairly describe it as "virtue signalling" even though I think that term is generally used far too broadly to be meaningful), and I all the time will see the "woke" label applied to representation that isn't shallow or easily removable, and even when it is the Disney type of representation, the people complaining about it often have a whiff of "I don't like this because there's a gay person in my media," not "I don't like this because it's bad representation"

Bareback Mountain coukd totally be a normal heterosexual love story. It's hig thing is a gay lovestory though.

Okay, but the writers still chose to make "gay cowboy love story" the big thing instead of "straight cowboy lovestory", and it almost sounds like you're saying they made "gay" the key part of that. So again, why exactly don't you think it was woke that they decided to make a movie where one of the main selling points was "they're gay" when you think gay representation is woke in other cases?

Woke is also subjective its like pictographs.

And I've said woke like pornography is subjective.

Woke is also subjective ... woke like pornography is subjective.

subjective

@RobAnybody @Narz @GenMarshall you know how Gorbles and Sophie and I keep saying we think the definition of woke is unclear because Zard (and others) keep defining it in ways that make it seem pretty subjective and self-contradictory to us? This. Right here. From Zard's mouth himself, directly saying that the definition is subjective.

Depends on what offends you which can be culture etc.

What's offensive, annoying boring just eye rolling else varies on the individual.

Which is just another way of saying "it's subjective"

Does extend rightward Godwin law eg over use for Nazi for example.

That's not "righties should avoid using nazi stuff because baggage" in the same way as lefty communism stuff is "baggage" though. Godwin's Law has to do with you (the royal you) saying something (of any political stripe, or even not political at all) and getting called a Nazi for it by others.

 

[Zardnaar]

Okay, but as Gorbles said, "Tokenism" is an already existing word to describe that kind of representation (heck, I'd even say you could fairly describe it as "virtue signalling" even though I think that term is generally used far too broadly to be meaningful), and I all the time will see the "woke" label applied to representation that isn't shallow or easily removable, and even when it is the Disney type of representation, the people complaining about it often have a whiff of "I don't like this because there's a gay person in my media," not "I don't like this because it's bad representation"



Okay, but the writers still chose to make "gay cowboy love story" the big thing instead of "straight cowboy lovestory", and it almost sounds like you're saying they made "gay" the key part of that. So again, why exactly don't you think it was woke that they decided to make a movie where one of the main selling points was "they're gay" when you think gay representation is woke in other cases?






@RobAnybody @Narz @GenMarshall you know how Gorbles and Sophie and I keep saying we think the definition of woke is unclear because Zard (and others) keep defining it in ways that make it seem pretty subjective and self-contradictory to us? This. Right here. From Zard's mouth himself, directly saying that the definition is subjective.



Which is just another way of saying "it's subjective"



That's not "righties should avoid using nazi stuff because baggage" in the same way as lefty communism stuff is "baggage" though. Godwin's Law has to do with you (the royal you) saying something (of any political stripe, or even not political at all) and getting called a Nazi for it by others.

It's more a badly done woke movie turn off even the people it's supposed to appeal to.

Older franchises are often noticeable. A woke reboot doesn't appeal to the original fans or new ones who don't care about the older ones.

Ultimately what's wokebis up to you. What's not subjective is a movies box office.

And there's a few tropes I'm noticing with woke movies that flop. I don't think get woke go broke is a hard rule but I onow what it means depending on who says it.

For example I think Snow White is gonna bomb hard. Not sure about Marvels but I would be more surprised if it passes a billion vs say Black Adam's numbers (400 million).

I suspect it will get a bit more than say TLM 600-800 million range but that's just a educated guess.

 

[choxorn]

And there's a few tropes I'm noticing with woke movies that flop. I don't think get woke go broke is a hard rule but I onow what it means depending on who says it.

Okay, but the problem with this is that there's movies with "woke" tropes that don't flop, the ones that do flop often have other reasons for their poor performance (you yourself pointed out there were other, bigger problems with the Star Wars Sequels, which didn't even do that poorly at the box office), and plenty of clearly non-woke movies flop as well. It's not even just that "get woke go broke" isn't a hard rule, it's that I'm not convinced it's even a soft rule or a trend or anything of that sort, because I haven't yet seen a consistent, objective definition of what counts as "woke" for "get woke go broke" that doesn't include a movie like Barbie (which very much didn't go broke), and if the reason for that is because it can't actually be defined consistently or in a non-subjective matter, it's meaningless as a rule because then you can just subjectively decide that movies you like or that did well aren't woke.