#barbie crit

[anarmorofwords]

Okay anyone else seen Barbie and is let down because they expected a truly revolutionary satire dismantling parts of patriarchy such as the cult of women's beauty and high contradictory expectations in an actually meaningful and substantial way and not one short monologue? and instead got a mainstream feminism lackluster "inspirational" adventure movie that paints patriarchy in a really naive and simple way and also operates on very binary views and ultimately is not half as deep as it promised to be?

[kerryweaverlesbian]

How come in the barbie movie none of the women get to do any violence. It's what I keep coming back to when i think about this movie. Allen throws a punch. The Kens do a dance sequence battle but they do also battle. If you have fights in the movie then why aren't women doing them. They didn't need Allen to psychically fight the Kens at the gate, but they did, which makes it stand out.

That and the complete lack of lesbians were really weird non-choices in this movie.

[undead-knick-knack]

[aishabellasbigblogofeverything]

No, but can we talk about how, despite allegedly being a "feminist" movie, Barbie 2023 actually mocks the idea of a female fantasy and Barbie being an inspirational role model for young girls?

It's so upsetting that not enough people bring this up, even the other haters of Barbie, but it needs to be addressed. Barbie was meant to provide an empowering fantasy for young girls. A lot of people have differing opinions on whether Barbie is feminist or not and what she represents. But at the end of the day, Barbie was designed to give girls a role model to see themselves in, to show them that they could pursue any career, that they can be the heroines of their own story, and reach their fullest potential. She was meant to tell girls that anything is possible. And the movie not only shits all over that, it makes that feminist message out to be something unrealistic and bad, and even worse, portrays it as something that oppresses men and makes THEM victims, because everything needs to be about men. And it's fucking disgusting. Allow me to explain how.

(spoilers for the Barbie movie below...I mean, if you even care, lol.)

We start out at the beginning of the movie with an introduction to the magical world of Barbieland that our well-known and universally familiar dolls live in. Barbieland is a feminist utopia, one that many women would be eager to live in. Women have all the power, are well-respected, can and do pursue any career, and support and uplift each other rather than tear each other down over their differences(aside from Weird Barbie, who they do apologize to in the end). They are happy and free in their female-empowering land, they don't fear the leers and catcalls from men as they walk down the streets, they dance together happily late at night, and they are confident in their bodies. There is diversity in the Barbieland. There is a plus-sized Barbie, a transfem Barbie, a wheelchair Barbie, and plenty of Barbies of color. The President of Barbieland is a Black woman. And none of these differences hold the Barbies back from being able to have power and they are not treated any differently from the other Barbies.

Femininity isn't seen as a weakness. Neither is expressing emotion, and in fact the fat Barbie even has a miniature speech about how she can balance her emotion with her logic and this makes her a smarter person, which the other Barbies support. It's a world where women are empowered and have unlimited potential to achieve their dreams and live freely without fear of their oppressors. Stereotypical Barbie isn't even afraid to reject Beach Ken's advances, she doesn't fear being stalked, raped, or killed by him for saying no. She just turns him down, and not only that, but she turns him down in favor of having girls' night, showing that in this world, girls support each other and value their female friendships over heterosexual relationships with guys(I'll touch on this point again later). I don't know about you, but that sure as hell does sound like a world that I dream of living in. Minus the fact that all the food and drinks are fake.

But the story doesn't frame this matriarchy as empowering, like they should. It portrays it instead as something ridiculous and far-fetched, something that the audience is meant to laugh at rather than support, which becomes more blatant as the movie progresses.

And then we get to the "real" world. Where men instead rule over women in a patriarchy, and we see Barbie experience misogyny for the first time. And this was the moment I started fully hating the movie, and realized it for the sloppy, anti-feminist mess that it is. The first part of the movie set in Barbieland was campy and fun and happy and feel-good, providing the exact type of feel that Barbie brings. But the moment she steps into the real world, everything becomes sad and hopeless and cynical.

And I get that the patriarchy does exist and women are oppressed by it every day, but the way the movie executed this was really overexaggerated and cringeworthy. They made it seem as if women are constantly and completely powerless in every aspect of life, like seriously they didn't even show ANY women in positions of power and the only women we did see with jobs besides a female doctor, were Gloria who works an office job at Mattel and Ruth who is already dead and is for all extents and purposes relegated to the fucking kitchen. They made the world out to be a complete and total dystopia where women aren't capable of achieving anything and the only two women of importance who are from the real world are Sasha and her mother Gloria, the former is portrayed as bitter, cynical, and constantly angry, the latter is portrayed as stressed-out, depressed, and somewhat suicidal with her thoughts about death. Is this all that the Barbie movie thinks that women can achieve in our world? Being miserable and frustrated with no hope of achieving our dreams and desires? With no power or satisfaction in our day to day lives? Is this all that this shithole movie thinks that women can amount to?

And the worst part is how Barbie is derided and mocked for thinking that she has provided a female role model for women and girls. The start of the movie mocks Barbie for thinking that it solved all women's problems and completely advanced women's rights/feminism, even though Barbie/Mattel has never claimed that. Yes, she was meant to be a role model. But she was never portrayed as the be-all, end-all of feminism. Even people who look up to Barbie and were encouraged by her aren't naive enough to think that a twelve-inch tall plastic doll is enough to smash the patriarchy. The movie makes this up solely so they can tear down Barbie for something that it never claimed to do in the first place. When our main Barbie leaves to go to the real world, the other Barbies encourage her(as Barbies tend to do) by saying that they bet all the women in the real world will thank her for giving them rights. Which is obviously meant to be an overexaggerated and satirical jab at Barbie once again, for thinking that it has created feminism or whatever, and that sexism is over solely thanks to the Barbie franchise. Cute. Too bad no version of the Barbie brand has ever claimed that in the first place. Again, it's a ridiculous and false claim that only exists to further unnecessarily jab at Barbie and propel this backwards-thinking message.

And then when she gets to the human world she is mocked even more. Sasha and her friends laugh at her when she claims to be Barbie and asks them to thank you for inspiring them, and then when she says she loves and wants to help women, Sasha aggressively informs her that EVERYONE hates women. This movie actually has a pretty nihilistic view of womanhood, when you think about it. The Barbie world is portrayed as an empowering world where women can achieve anything that they set their minds to, and aren't held back by sexism, causing them to have full power, reflecting the female fantasy that Barbie was always supposed to represent. But that's just a fantasy land, and is portrayed as cheesy and superficial. When Barbie gets to the real world, she is confronted with the supposed "reality" of being a woman, and comes to realize that it's not actually about empowerment and being smart and capable after all, but about suffering and never having your voice respected, and never having any power and freedom but instead losing your idealism and optimism as you age, causing her to break down in tears upon realizing how stressful it is to be a woman and that she never actually empowered them like she hoped. Seriously, whose idea was it to make Barbie constantly crying and miserable and incapable of doing anything on her own? Is this the Barbie I know? No, it's a pathetic, nonsensical knockoff. I'm telling you, they were TRYING to tear Barbie down.

This is especially true when Gloria gives her entire speech to Barbie about how contradictory and painful being a woman is, ending it with "not only are you doing everything wrong, but also, everything is your fault!" Come on! What is this? It's such a painful and harsh message to try to send through BARBIE of all things, that the essence of being a woman is just pain, pain, pain and guess what else? More pain! How being a woman sucks because all you do is get hated by everyone and treated as an object worthy of scorn and ridicule. It's just so unnecessarily cruel, how they violently ripped away any feminist empowerment Barbie was meant to possess in favor of forcing her into a depressive world where women have no rights or value, and had the nerve to portray this as "realistic", because obviously more negative automatically means more realistic, right?

Rather than provide a middle ground where women face hardships and adversity but are still capable of rising above their struggles and finding the strength within them to make their voices heard and get what they want in society, they opt instead for a stupid false dichotomy: the world is either a stupid frivolous Amazon utopia wrapped in pink and glitter with girl power up the wazoo or a bleak, heartless, and grey dystopia where nothing good ever happens to a woman and only men can do anything important. And it portrays the second one as clearly more realistic and the "better" option. Which, in doing so, sends the message that a world where women rule and are respected and have power and are encouraged to have ambition and pursue any goal they want in life...is unrealistic and impossible, if not outright deserving of scorn. It's so miserable and aggravating. When Barbie said "the cognitive dissonance required to be a woman under the patriarchy" I had to resist the urge to roll my eyes. THAT'S how badly the movie annoyed me with its nihilistic and negative preaching. I watched the movie in two days and when I stopped watching it on the first day I felt such a frustrated, hollow feeling in my stomach. I felt so unsatisfied. Like, is this it? Is this all I can dream of having as a woman? All that praise this shitty capitalist crapfest received for being so feminist and eye-opening, ultimately led up to this? For real? So disappointing.

But that's not even the worst part. The worst part is when the movie introduces the KENdom, aka, when Ken brings about the patriarchy...and if the movie hadn't already been hot stinkin' ASS, this is when it would've REALLY started to drag, and where it REALLY reinforces the idea that women can never have any actual power and authority and must instead constantly suffer under the patriarchal status quo.

Ken comes back to Barbieland and introduces the other Kens and Barbies to the patriarchy and horses(ig no one told him that horses are a matriarchal animal, but whatevs), and within hours, revamps the world into a patriarchal hell, just like the real world(except it's portrayed as very childish and simplistic because the witers don't actually take the patriarchy seriously and think it's just "boys think girls have cooties".). And the other dolls instantly buy into it? First of all, am I really expected to believe that the Barbies, who have been established as champions of strength, power and dominance, and who have always ruled the Barbie world, would instantly and easily give in to Ken's brainwashing and allow all of their power to be ripped out of their hands, becoming the happy devoted sexy slaves of the Kens? You think they would casually be like "I for one, welcome our new male overlords!" and let the Kens have all the power? Am I really supposed to accept that shit? And am I also supposed to accept that the other Kens in Kenland, including the Asian one who competes with the white Ken over Barbie, would easily leap at the chance to oppress their female counterparts, rather than laugh at Ken for being silly and tell him to sit his ass down somewhere? Really? Don't piss me off.

The only way you could accept this series of unfortunate events as plausible is if you accept the fact that we're supposed to laugh at Barbieland for being a girl power feminist matriarchy in the first place. If we're meant to laugh at the women for being in power and at this imagined society for being so gynocentric and girl-positive, then of COURSE we're meant to laugh at them for getting their power ripped away that easily, as women could never hold power for so long realistically! Eventually the men would realize their true potential and make society work in favor of them! It's natural and inevitable! The Barbie movie said so!!! And so we watch as the intended "humorous" scenes go on and on, of the men happily running around, flaunting their muscles, and chugging down beers like it's going out of style, while the women happily submit to this newfound male authority, massaging men's feet and serving them drinks. Because obviously a matriarchy could never last long, women are so weak and fragile that any sense of power that they think they possess could easily be ripped away from them within a moment's notice. Peak feminism, everybody.

But it's cool, because eventually the Barbies prove me wrong. They DO get their power back, and establish their rights again. But how do they do it? Do they stage a coup and violently and angrily fight the Kens? Do they march for their rights, as real life feminists have done? Do they balance logic and emotion, as fat Barbie praised herself for doing in the beginning of the movie, and reason with the Kens that oppressing the Barbies is not the right thing to do? No, no, they...put on sexy skimpy outfits and pretend to be dumb bimbos so as to lull the Kens into a false sense of security and think that THEY are in control. And later on they let the Kens sing to them a song about how they want to control women, before turning them against each other by pretending to be in love with different Kens than the ones they were originally listening to. Are you kidding me? This is supposed to be a feminist revolution! But instead of actually using their genuine power to put the men back in their place, they instead use their feminine wiles and dumb themselves down so that the men can feel strong. It is literally leaning into the sexist trope that the only weapon women have, especially against men, is their sexuality, and that this is the only way that women can get their way. Despite this going against EVERYTHING that Barbie stands for! She is supposed to be a strong, smart, and capable woman who can do it all and look glamorous while doing it! She is NOT supposed to be a fucking femme fatale, vamp, or sex object!

So not only do they have their matriarchy easily ripped away from them, but they also are forced to abandon their actual female empowerment and instead conform to the patriarchal status quo to get ahead. By using their bodies, stroking men's egos, and allowing men to mansplain to them. Because the only weapons women are capable of using are the ones men gave us. Because women are just bodies. And this is portrayed as a GOOD thing. Seriously, two of the Barbies even high five each other as they trade Kens at the fireplace, as if to say, "go girl, you are doing it!" Like, seriously, are we supposed to see this as a girlboss moment? Because I sure don't. It's giving "weaponized femininity". It's giving "eyeliner so sharp it could kill a man". It's giving "men are visual creatures." It's giving "kill me with a chainsaw right fucking now because I'm done with this shit." Oh, and don't even get me STARTED on how the Kens have a violent manly war, while the women only get to flutter their eyelashes and use their sex appeal. Because men are strong, women are pretty. Of course.

And then the worst part in the entire movie, the part that really infuriated me and let me know that this movie was the antithesis of feminism, arrives...the Barbies get their matriarchy back and are in power again, and everybody cheers and is happy, except for Beach Ken, who runs away to go sulk. And then...Barbie...fucking apologizes to him. She apologizes to him for casting him aside and making him feel unwanted and unvalued, and even says outright, "not every night has to be a girl's night." Why the fuck, movie? Do you remember earlier in this post when I mentioned how Barbie blows off Ken to hang out with her female friends, because it's girls' night, and female friends matter more than a guy? Sisters before misters, and all that jazz? Well, fuck that. Near the end of the movie, Barbie ends up apologizing to Ken for having a girl's night all the time, as if she was a bad person for not seeing how much she owed him and not hanging out with him all the time when she simply didn't want to. Here we have a woman apologizing for putting her girl friends over a man. The man doesn't apologize for making women his and his brethren's personal slaves. The woman apologizes for making him feel the need to go there by not catering to him, by being too focused on herself to the point where she ignores him, by being so empowered and strong that she makes him feel overshadowed, dare I say, emasculated, and thus need to reassert his fragile, threatened masculinity.

Because this isn't a feminist movie, not really. This is an MRA movie. This is a movie that, rather than focus specifically on the women and their problems, brushes their problems under the rug so as to remind the audience that "men matter too" "men have issues too" "men also suffer under the patriarchy!" And other such claptrap. I don't understand why the fuck cishet Reddit incels/conservatives/right-wingers/other such reactionary groups hate this movie and think that it's anti-men when actually it is pro-men and aligns fucking PERFECTLY with their bullshit line of thinking. That feminism oppresses and victimizes men, that men are the REAL victims of sexism/oppression, that women being granted rights is ultimately more harmful to MEN, that women need to be nicer to and pacify men and apologize for having too much power, that we all need to be quiet and listen to MEN and their experiences more. And I FUCKING HATE that. MEN have been listened to ENOUGH. And I am SICK of being forced to include them and their viewpoints more. How about instead of centering the Kens, we focus more on the Barbies and exploring THEIR issues, and using THEM as templates to convey issues about misogyny? Instead of focusing on Ken and his issues and his unrequited love for Barbie??? Instead, it was made all about the Kens and how oppressed they feel because the women are at the top of the hierarchy, to the point where THEY got the fun little dance number near the climax, RATHER than the actual fucking BARBIES that this movie was NAMED after. Because last time I checked, this WAS the BARBIE movie. NOT THE KEN MOVIE!!!

Oh, and don't even get me STARTED on that shitty ass parallel the movie tries to pull between the Barbieland matriarchy and the real world patriarchy. The movie tries to make the claim that the Barbies being dominant and the most powerful in the Barbie world is just the same as men being dominant and the most powerful in the real world, because the Barbies oppressed Kens just like men oppress women in our world. It also tries to raise the point that the Kens felt insecure and overshadowed by the Barbies and were treated as second-class citizens, thus they installed the Kendom. AND I FUCKING HATE THAT comparison for two reasons. The first is that the Barbies never oppressed the Kens or treated them as inferior in any way. They were simply more important because...it's the BARBIE company. Not the KEN company. Barbies are toys meant to be sold to little girls to inspire THEM. So of course the women are going to be the ones in charge! Why is that such a bad thing?

And the second reason is because I haaaaate the dumb fucking trope of "matriarchy bad because woman oppressing man is just as bad as man oppressing woman!" that this movie and countless, endless other pieces of media also try to push. Like, do you know why female-dominated societies(particularly utopias/positively portrayed ones) are so often represented in media??? Because the world we live in is so heavily male-dominated in almost every society and culture, and has been this way for centuries!!! Sure, there are and have been a few matriarchal cultures in society, but they are few and far between. The overwhelming majority of the world is run by men! Sad but true! And this allegedly feminist movie is for real gonna sit down and tell me "okay, but we can't allow ourselves to dream of a world where women are the ones with positions of power and men are not the privileged ones"? Hell no, fuck that. This movie is giving multiple people, both men and women alike, the opportunity to argue that sexism against men is "just as bad".

But women should be allowed to dream of our matriarchy. We should be allowed to fantasize about a world where we are in charge. We should be allowed to dream about a world where we are protected, respected, and catered to, and can live freely and without fear and oppression, without being told to "think of the men." It doesn't mean that men should be abused, mistreated, or oppressed just like women are and have been. But then again, the Barbies didn't even do that either, like I said. This movie, in its shallow attempts to "critique" the matriarchy(lol) ends up reinforcing exactly why the two aren't comparable in the first place. When the Barbies were in charge, they didn't oppress the Kens or treat them as second-class citizens. They simply lived their lives, going about their day and having fun while pursuing awesome careers.

The Kens, on the other hand, actively oppressed Barbies when they were in charge. The second they were given power, they leaped at the chance to treat Barbies like garbage, the same way that they somehow believed that they had always been treated. They treated the Barbies worse than the Barbies ever actually treated them, to be quite honest. They were the real oppressors, not Barbies. It ironically enough sends the accidental message that the world actually IS better off with women in charge. Can you really blame the Barbies for taking their matriarchy back again(I certainly was happy when they did!)? But no. Instead, the movie expects us to sympathize with the Kens, after everything they've done, and tries to portray the idea of a matriarchy as "just as bad" as a patriarchy. And if that's not an EXCELLENT example of a false equivalence, then man, I don't know what is. Don't even get me started on the audacious slap in the face that was "the Kens will one day have as much power as women do in the real world." As if women got rights and seats in high office because they asked the men kindly? Barf.

And then at the end of the movie, Barbie of course leaves the false, silly matriarchal utopia to live as a boring ass regular human in the "real" world. She no longer gets to live in a world where she is fully liberated and empowered and not relegated to a lesser human being with lower status. She now must live in the "real" world, the hopeless, bleak, and oppressing real world where she will be faced with relentless misogyny and looked down upon by men and society. The movie could have had her form a bridge between the Barbie world and the human world, trying to mend the problems in both worlds while still staying true to who she is at her core. But instead, she is forced to say goodbye to her past life, abandon all her female friends and her old home, in favor of living in a world where she is denigrated to a second-class status in society. Because the female empowerment Barbieland trumped? Is a lie. Nothing short of a sweet, comforting lie designed to shield girls from the bleak and cynical realities that womanhood actually entails. Real womanhood is adorned with thorns at every corner.

But it's all right, because at least she gets to see the gynecologist! That's her ultimate ending. Not actually improving life for others and herself and making the world a more equitable place for women with the help of the other Barbies, as well as Gloria and Sasha. It's going to the gynecologist. Because having a vagina makes you a woman. Yay! Some people have tried to reclaim this as a trans metaphor, but I highly doubt a movie as shallow and lacking in intersectionality as this was aiming for anything near close to that. And it's a crying shame that this is what the movie thinks is an empowering and satisfying ending to Barbie's arc. How pitiful, sad, and pathetic.

It's such a shame, as well, because the Barbie movie could have actually had genuine critiques of the patriarchy and how it affects women without making everything out to be pessimistic and dreary, and without trying to center the Kens and coddle their male fragility. It could have discussed beauty standards and the expectations to always be conventionally attractive and perfectly presentable to a tee for women(something that Barbie has oft been criticized for, and with good reason, and has also been brought up in the movie too, but of course got dropped and barely mentioned again). It could have tackled gender norms and compulsory femininity, and showed Barbies who subvert or have complex/unique relationships with femininity(esp women of color and queer Barbies, who have different relationships to femininity than white and/or cishet women), even include some masculine/tomboyish/butch Barbies who aren't portrayed by the narrative as the butt of the joke. It could have used Weird Barbie to portray both of these messages and given her a more complex arc and concrete role in the narrative besides being just a comic relief character who gets called ugly all the time(by both other Barbies and herself, which is just sad, self-deprecation much?) and then at the end of the movie gets an apology thrown at her by President Barbie(and also, who was she before she became Weird Barbie? The movie doesn't say, and that is such a let-down, that we never get to know who she was before.).

They could have showed lesbian and sapphic and aroace Barbies, whose characters could be used to challenge amato/heteronormativity and compulsory heterosexuality. They could have explored what Barbie meant for women of color, trans women, fat women, disabled women, and mayyybe not? Cast a conventionally attractive white cis thin blonde woman as the main/regular Barbie? Especially if they were going to make that joke about how a woman who looks like that shouldn't be casted for a character who cries that she's ugly(which raises unfortunate implications as to what type of woman would be correct to cast in that role...but like every other genuine aspect of feminism in this movie, it gets forgotten about and erased as soon as it's brought up.) But they didn't do any of that. Because this is a white "feminist" movie written by a white woman and created in partnership with a capitalist company for one specific purpose: To sell toys.

Which wouldn't be as much of a problem if they didn't try to slap a feminist message on top of that, and then fail at delivering their message, hard, so hard in fact that they sideways-shuffle all the way into (trans)misogyny. For all the hype this movie gained(from the same people who will then turn around and silence genuine critique of the movie's shallow portrayal of feminism with "it's not that deep, it's just comedy, you shouldn't have expected Barbie to ACTUALLY be introspective and profound despite everyone claiming that it was!"), the actual contents therein gave us NOTHING to chew on. Just an empty parody of feminism that was more about the Kens than the actual Barbies, and portrayed suffering in silence and manipulating men with your looks as the ultimate pinnacle of womanhood.

I can't say I'm surprised. I'm just disappointed.

[nyxofdemons]

like i can appreciate the consistency of blitz truly having EVERY bridge to his past burned down for better or worse and it makes sense that would include barbie wire but man i really wish we got SOMETHING more interesting with them literally anything at all

[honshew]

heaven's eyes

my dm recently changed keva's home country lore to being inspired by cappadocia, turkey and the middle east, and yesterday i got the sudden itch to rewatch one of my favorite movies prince of egypt, and then this happened

[cinnamonmon]

✨💅🏻girlboss trio 💅🏻✨

[imjustlaughingalong]

After watching the barbie movie...it was okay. I can't help but think it'd be better if it had more scenes like the beginning or the "I'm just ken" scenes, babies doing barbie things & having fun, like life in the dreamhouse

[dingdangit]

ruining the high of seeing both Movies by going online and remembering about media illiteracy. dead dove do not eat i guess.

[dreamstar-moonlight]

Yeah FOR REAL.

I’ve had it with these "pjo tv" fans. If I see one more person defending that dumpster fire of a show with "it's a kids' show," I'm actually gonna scream. Since when did “for kids” become a synonym for “brainless rot”?Are y'all seriously so blind and deluded that you can't distinguish between quality content and a shameless cash grab? It's infuriating how one can stomach such a pathetic excuse for entertainment and have the audacity to defend it.

To everyone out here bending over backwards to defend this garbage just because your precious "Uncle Rick" is involved this time around—what’s with the hive mind? Need validation much? A desperate desire to fit in with the crowd?

Grow a spine. You're all parroting the same drivel without taking a single moment to actually sit down and objectively analyze what you're defending.

Sure, negativity is bad, but this level of toxic positivity is downright pathetic. Calling you blind would be an insult to the visually impaired, and even they see better.

WAKE UP.

Rick’s not your "uncle." He’s a cash cow. The Rick who wrote the original books out of love for his dyslexic son, Haley? He’s long gone. Now, he’s just cranking out low-quality, mediocre junk riding on the coattails of PJO—and you’re all partly to blame for this nosedive in quality. You’ve turned him into some untouchable deity and swallow whatever crap he dishes out.

GROW THE FUCK UP!

Or at least grow a pair of eyes and enough brain cells to realize that putting someone up on a pedestal and hero-worshipping them is is nothing short of idiotic and mindless. It's embarrassingly pathetic, making you look like you've got the critical thinking skills of a goldfish. You're not fans; you're mindless sheep, blindly following without a shred of individuality or intelligence.

And while we're on the subject, let’s tackle your pathetic defense of "it's a kids' show!", shall we? Enlighten me, what exactly qualifies as a kids' show?

Better yet, give me some names.

Starting with the classics—Tom and Jerry, Looney Tunes. Absolute staples of childhood entertainment. Ever heard of them? Of course, you have. These aren't just kids' shows; they’re household names around the globe.

How about Scooby-Doo? Powerpuff Girls? Samurai Jack? Each one a masterpiece, cherished by kids and adults alike. These shows have stood the test of time and are just as popular now as they were when they first aired. Scooby-Doo churns out new content every year, with a Japanese version on the way. Powerpuff Girls is not just getting a comic revival but also a new show with the original creator, Craig McCracken himself at the helm.

Ben 10? Danny Phantom? Avatar: The Last Airbender? Tell me, is there a soul in the multiverse who hasn’t heard of Ben 10? The show grossed $8 billion, and is listed among the highest-grossing shows ever.

Danny Phantom is still beloved, continuing in graphic novels and a fan-made crossover with Ben 10 called "5 Years Later" by Kuro the Ink Tank. It's so popular that even the official creators and voice cast have taken notice and appeared on their YouTube channel.

And A: TLA? If you're unaware of this goldmine, you've been living under a rock. It has continued in graphic novels, fan adaptations, and is so loved across all age groups that new movies are being made, with an ongoing live-action adaptation that, by all accounts, outshines the Percy Jackson show in quality—even without the original creators involved.

And oh, how could I forget? The Barbie movies—yet another cornerstone of kids' entertainment. Her fairytale classics have enchanted kids for generations. and let's not kid ourselves—whole families could enjoy them too. Take it from me, a grown man; when I was a kid and a Barbie movie came on, my entire family would gather around to watch. The music? Phenomenal. It introduced me to Tchaikovsky and Beethoven, and it's directly responsible for me taking up music studies myself. The animation, for its time, was spectacular and still holds up with a nostalgic, ethereal quality.

The stories were super fun, magical, and relaxing. I’ll never forget how my grandfather passed away listening to "Written in Your Heart" from The Princess and the Pauper. The impact these Barbie movies—meant for children—can have on a person speaks volumes about their magic and the love poured into them.

Finally we have My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. The pinnacle of "kids' shows". This show took the world by storm, leaving everyone wondering why adults are head over heels for a show meant for 5-year-olds. It ran for 9 seasons (with a 10th in the comics), nearly 400 comics, novels, mangas, role-playing games, toys, merch of all kinds, flash games, and fan works of such a massive volume that there are specific fandoms for them—animations, PMVs, comics, you name it (ever heard of Fallout: Equestria, Equestria at War?) And guess what? Much like Ben 10, MLP: FIM MLP: FIM is listed among the highest-grossing shows of all time, raking in over $6 billion.

There you have it—these are kids' shows. What do they all have in common?

Epic storytelling that grabs you by the throat and doesn’t let go. Gripping, multi-dimensional characters who feel so real you cry for them, laugh with them, and feel every triumph and heartbreak like it’s your own. Their arcs wring emotions out of you that you never even knew you had. Creativity so wild and off-the-charts it makes you wonder, “How the fuck did they come up with that?”

Unforgettable stories that burn into your brain, living rent-free in your memory forever. Awesome action scenes that have you gripping the edge of your seat, teeth chattering, heart pounding. Fantastic world-building and immersive lore that you feel like you're right there, living in those realms.

And despite being labelled as "kids' shows," they transcend age, nature, color, gender, nationalities. People of all walks of life love them. Why? Because they’re actually GOOD. Truly good.

These shows don’t just entertain kids; they build massive, loyal fandoms that span all ages. Adults are binge-watching these shows, buying the merch, and diving into the lore because quality entertainment knows no age limit.

Now, tell me with a straight face that the Percy Jackson Disney show compares even remotely to any of these actual kids' shows I’ve just mentioned. Does it have even one-tenth of the elements these shows boast?

And it's not like Percy Jackson lacks these elements—it does, very much so—IN THE BOOKS.

But the show? Bland as unsalted butter. You can't get more vanilla than that. Stilted acting, lackluster writing, exposition-heavy narrative—basically everything OP pointed out. They even watered down the fun and exciting story into a dreary "I'm dying" snooze-fest.

So if you’re out here using “it’s a kids' show” to justify bad, lazy writing, you need to sit down and rethink your life choices.

Seriously, stop. Just STOP using that phrase as a free pass for mediocrity. You’re insulting the audience and the entire medium.

Kids deserve better. We all do. You don’t write “for kids” or “for adults”—you write a good story, period. Quality storytelling resonates with everyone, no matter their age. Focus on making something great, and the rest will take care of itself.

People using “it’s a kids show!” as a defense for the PJOTV show makes no sense to me for many reasons, and one of the reason is that if the show’s questionable quality is a result of it being for children, how then do you explain or justify the removal or weakening of so many elements that kids enjoyed about the books in the first place?

You know one thing kids like? Cool action scenes, and yet most of the action scenes in the show were pretty lackluster. They were over within seconds, and largely replaced by conversations and exposition.

You know one thing kids like? Cool outfits and cool costumes, yet the costuming for the characters, especially the gods, was extremely bland, uninteresting, and devoid of any charm or personality.

You know one thing kids like? Humor. And yet the humor in this show was also very lackluster, especially in the way of Percy, who’s supposed to be a funny, snarky, and witty protagonist, and yet this depiction of him was incredibly dry.

You know one things kids like? Relatability. And yet you watered down or even straight up excluded so many of the character’s relatable traits, especially the depiction of ADHD/dyslexia, Grover’s shyness and cynical yet funny remarks, or Annabeth’s crush on an older friend figure or hear tearing up when it was time to leave the dog, or her grabbing Percy’s hand when they first get in the Underworld because she was scared.

You know one thing kids like? Bold personalities. Yet, so many of the gods are missing the elements that made them bold and memorable, and they just seem like nothing more than a bunch of grumpy adults.

You know one thing kids like? Mystery and suspense. And yet every chance this show had to build some, it was killed on arrival by the insistence that the characters needed to know everything.

You know one thing kids like? Funny references and fun twists. The Underworld was supposed to be set up like airport lines. The entrance was supposed to be a record studio named DOA (Dead on Arrival). Chiron was supposed to be in a fancy Italian suit and shoes. Each of the cabins and thrones on Olympus was supposed to be uniquely constructed and colorful to depict each god’s domain. And yet all of that got eliminated.

You know one thing kids like? Places and adventures that feel grand and magical. And yet, when it was time to show off grandeur at the Lotus Casino, we took away all the sky diving and reverse deer hunter games and replaced it with exposition, and activities that don’t seem magical in the slightest. And we didn’t even get to watch the characters play and be kids.

So how, just how, do y’all get off saying that we should go easy on the show because it’s “just a kid’s story”, and yet the show neutered most of the elements that endeared kids to this story in the first place?

[undead-knick-knack]

[leohtttbriar]

at this point i've written four different pairings that feature nyota uhura (because i'm obsessed with her) and it's sort of interesting for me to think about the ways uhura's linguist-ness plays out depending on whichever barbie i've decided to make her kiss.

like with t'pring the linguist-ness is front and center because it's an obvious way to bridge divides between two aliens and also a fun way for me personally to explore where aliens might differ from each other because at last one character (t'pring) only says rational and/or well-reasoned things and at least one character (uhura) is aware of linguistic realities and is also good at lit crit.

with jadzia, the linguist-ness is sort of an answerable intelligence to jadzia's technobabble smarts and uhura's command over language is a specific tool for both penetrating jadzia's performance and validating the performance for what it is, which makes the way they talk to each other a fun reifying of the art of conversation itself.

with rand, uhura's mastery of linguistics is a mastery of 'people', at least the abstract idea of them, which reflects rand's role of administration and personality-wrangling and professionalism in tos, so it's less a conversation between two opposing themes, like with t'pring and jadzia, and more an expansion on the theme that exists in both the leader of people and the linguist--an attending to the details and a carefully constructed distance between observer and observed.

and with chapel, the linguist-ness is incidental, so it doesn't really interact with the story. they're simply friends and chapel, by the transformative power of typing the slash key, just thinks uhura is hot.

[steampunkforever]

There's a sentiment in low-quality media crit circles that basically boils down to saying "you would be all over this unlikable character if she was a man instead" or "your love of this pathetic male character betrays a misogynistic double standard because you don't act like this about women." Often I see this used to either defend their consumption of badly written media as praxis-- see: defenses of Rey's character as somehow empowering rather than admitting that the Star Wars sequels were badly written --or (even worse) as attempts to drag mature media subjects (people who got really mad about Barbie vs Oppenheimer) into mire of gender essentialism.

Of course this sort of thinking doesn't produce any art worth paying attention to. The answer is simple: leave behind playground gender politics and arguments over the female Ghostbusters and just watch better movies. Tár is one of those movies.

Lydia Tár is an absolute disaster. Born in a wet cardboard box. She's my little meow meow. She's a composer spiraling into a tormentous nightmare. She's driving a porsche. She's seeing things. She's bothering the neighbors. She's getting violent. She's a genius, she's perfect, she's losing control. I'm obsessed with her on a level this website reserves for Columbo and certain marionette-like actors. Todd Field wrote this for Cate Blanchett and no one else, and the gusto with which she carries the film on her shoulders is downright beautiful.

Though I will not discount the importance of representation (I've enjoyed too many movies about Italians to refute the beauty in finding shared experience through cinema), I'll note that when it comes to making meaningful art, representation should not matter. I'm not a mean lesbian conducting the Berlin Philharmonic, nor do I necessarily want to be considering the events that unfold in the film, but even for as supremely unlikable as Lydia is in this movie, she's a star you wish to follow despite her downfalls of her own making.

There's a moment early on in the film where Lydia teaches a class at Julliard, and is confronted by a student who dislikes Bach on the grounds that he is a white man and presumably misogynistic due to the bevvy of children he had with his wife. This student is a self-described "BIPOC pangendered" individual, and a bit of a strawman for the sort of intellectually dishonest reasoning that's permeated pop culture criticism. Lydia, and the film itself, use this character as a punching bag, reaming him out in front of the class for the admittedly ridiculous positions on artistic analysis that are increasingly being touted by the people who unfortunately matter to this sort of thing.

I will admit, this is a bit of a soapbox, but the movie keeps one foot on the ground, as the scene ends in Lydia stating the premise of her entire character: she wishes not to be judged for her womanhood or sexual orientation, but rather for her actions. For her art. What she has done, Lydia posits, is how she wants history to classify as who she is.

Unfortunately for Lydia, she's an awful person who takes advantage of those around her, cheats on her wife with her own students in relationships that may be consensual but are certainly wrong, and ultimately deserves the blacklisting from the industry that she receives. Not relatable at all, and for sure to turn off the guys who walked out of Promising Young Woman complaining that Carey Mulligan's character hated men.

Yet Tár takes this human trainwreck and crafts a psychological drama the simply doesn't let you look away. Watching Lydia Tár experience the ultimate #WomanMoment as she spirals into insanity makes you understand all the awards this movie won. This is a great film, and like the main character, deserves to be judged for what it does rather than who it stars, though Blanchett's performance as Tár will keep me obsessing over this movie for a long time.

[fancylala4]

Hi! I see where U reblogged my tangled crit posts 👀

I dont hate it, it just doesnt hit as well as it should. I prefer the barbie version. And I prefer Disney Rapunzel with ROTG Jack because not only they the same age but i find the parallels a bit more fascinating.

I remember seeing a arrow toy Rapunzel themed at Target, just recently I found out she was going to use a bow and arrow beforehand XD much much cooler than a frying pan!

Which begs to question! Why is the franchise so off with its girl characters? Gothel's entire motivation is staying young, Cass ended up a mess, Ariana is underwritten. And Rapunzel barely has another girl her age to hang out with. It's just Cass.

I get it. I disliked the movie at first because of the movie itself and how badly it was written but I started to hate the movie because of the rabid, racist fans and how badly they treated patf just to prop this movie up back in the day. The fandom is still pretty bad from what I seen.

The Barbie version is one of the best adaptations of rapunzel I have ever seen. It’s so good and it holds up perfectly well today except for the animation of course. If you get a chance, you should check out rapunzel’s revenge. It’s a great rapunzel comic and Disney took elements from that version as well.

I definitely agreed that Jack Frost and rapunzel would make a good couple. I liked them way better than him and Elsa and definitely would be way better than creepy dream.

Oh I saw that now in stores and I wonder why they made it when Merida is right there. I did hear that the series writers wanted her to have the bow and arrow but Disney didn’t like that idea. Probably because they wanted her to be helpless and didn’t want her to be taken seriously with a weapon. I remember looking at some Lego sets and I saw that rapunzel had a bow in a set for the series. So I think that rumor was true. Yeah, I would like the bow and arrow way better than that dumb frying pan. I guess it doesn’t matter since rapunzel wasn’t shown as a threat with the frying pan and it was more Flynn’s weapon in the movie.

Yeah, it’s so weird how this franchise is targeted towards little girls and all the female characters in it is just off and can be really offensive. Gothel is a walking outdated stereotype of many, rapunzel has no flaws, gets overshadowed in her OWN movie and couldn’t even drive the plot of the movie! It’s hard to believe this movie was made in 2010, it belongs in the 50s.

I have limited knowledge of the series characters but is cass the one who they made a villain and has blue hair like she’s some anime character? If so, It’s bad because I think I seen people say that she’s a villain because of how she looks and they turned a friendship into a bitter one just in a sake of something dumb. Do the writers think that girls have to be catty to each other or else it’s unrealistic? It’s a weird choice for a franchise targeted towards little girls. Ariana is the queen, right? I think I reblog a post about cultural appropriation in the movie and they mentioned her name. But really? They could have had a good plot point about rapunzel and her getting used to a good mother after what she’s been through. But they thought it was better just to focus on the king, have him be even more abusive to rapunzel than gothel was (reading her diary, following her everywhere and locking her up in a fucking tower after she just got out of one!!) and say that it’s ok because he’s doing it because he loves her.. I also “love” how the queen basically did nothing about this and just say supportive things rapunzel behind the king’s back like that means anything. Disney really needs to hire women for this franchise because this is just embarrassing and sad in this day and age.

[uninformedartist]

im sorry all of the other crit blogs are saying this was one of the ““better” eps but…for me it was just so…unpleasant. like even for helluva boss raunchy comedy standards it just felt gross. but i feel like an outlier

Yeah. Me aswell actually. I thought this would be a better episode, one the would explore Blitz's past, his relationship with his sister, have Moxxie and Millie shine on their own without Blitz but nope. It was a Blitz pity party fest how he's trying to help Barbie but she's rude, resentful and wants nothing to do with her dispte her having good reason to resent him. Nope lets absolutely destroy Barbie as a character, make her Versosika 2.0, a bitchy person who resents Blitz and add her being a groomer like Versosika being a sexual assaulter. Lets make a pointless shallow arc of giving Millie some "character" even though the whole arc of her feels forced and the cherry on top Barbie JUST so happens to be at the same camp M&M are doing a job at so that brings Blitz there too since he's looking for Barbie.

The episode was unpleasant in every aspect the world of helluva boss feel small since Blitz has to be included in every scene where he's not needed, have Barbie be in idk paris or something getting drugs why did it have to be at the exact camp they had a job at and where M&M were too.

It is the outlier, no excuse for the disgusting "comedy" in this episode, a grooming scene/themes, an incest joke, fetishising galore, playing on the audience's feelings to have sympathy for an abuser etc this entire episode is the pinnacle for everything helluva boss truly is and what its creators and die hard fans stand for/want to see/view as funny.