#barbieheimer spoilers

[nina208-journey-to-consistency]

oppenheimer thoughts (spoilers!)

initial thoughts (left the theater 2 hrs ago, these are v rough impressions):

- holy fuck that was good

- the scientists i studied are all here! go quantum mechanics :)

- the subtle acting all throughout the movie was tremendous

- it is such a beautifully shot film, love the color scheme decisions

- i wish some of the characters (the women) had more to do almost (it seems as if a lot of characters didn’t get a lot of dialogue and we don’t know much about them.)

- cillian murphy. that’s it, cillian murphy (amazing)

- i didn’t really feel like there was a specific heart to this movie, but more a weight and a ponderous thoughtfulness that is presented to the viewer due to the gravity of the situation

- i loved how it didn’t really paint oppenheimer as a “great man”. walking out of the theater it seemed like the movie was more about the phrase “actions have consequences” and how diff people lived with the impact of that

- the sound design and score of this movie is one of my favorite things

- i also like that it humanized science, almost. like, giant decisions were being undertaken by people who, at the end of the day, were uncertain about stuff but had to make decisions anyway. and highlighted the difference and common ground between politics and science (and how both can really affect people’s lives). as a scientist myself it made me think more about the actual impact of my work and the value of doing your due diligence (triple checking stuff, thinking about who you will serve, and what potential ripple effects there are) 

(but also that the decision had a catastrophic human toll. throughout this entire movie i couldn’t forget the fact that so many people’s lives and health (EVEN TODAY) are so horribly impacted by the atomic bomb. the movie seemed like it wanted to make the viewer confront that too which was good. but truly not enough. they just glossed over how los alamos was created as well as the impact in japan)

- it made me feel like i was at the trinity test site (the silence right when i didn’t expect it and the insane visuals made my jaw drop. then the reverberations i knew were coming still made me jump)

this is a movie i need to watch again and discuss before adding more detailed thoughts. had an incredible time :)

[strideofpride]

I’m sorry but it is very funny to me that conservatives choose Barbie to do culture war bullshit on when Oppenheimer is about the depravity of the US government/military and is incredibly sympathetic to the plight of American communists lololol

[noxequusart]

[nightmanatee]

no but Barbie seeming one of the only ones to not be interested in any sort of physical romantical intimacy??? Like weird Barbie was interested in Ken, literally said it to Barbie, Ken wanted to kiss Barbie, all Barbies were sexualised under patriarchy. But Barbie! Didn't want! Any! Of! That! What am asexual queen!!!

[6th-for-truth]

Gideon would find this Barbenheimer thing HILARIOUS, I'm certain of it. Stickers and a freakin tie dye t-shirt to celebrate!

Stickers here

Shirt here -- I also have a Ton of other TLT designs there that get 0 exposure on TeePublic's search, so feel free to look around!

[nonbinaryeye]

The correct order is to see Barbie first, Oppenheimer second.

Barbie reminds you how fucked up is society and Oppenheimer then calms you that mass destruction of it might be quite close-

[ceevee5]

Real life Barbenheimer.

[yandere-wishes]

Did anyone else get yandere vibes from Ken or was it just me??

[probablygayattorneys]

Happy Barbieheimer day to all who celebrate from me and @vaptainhammer

[thederpyhipster]

Think I Want to Twist the Plot This Time: Chapter 2

Summary: Barbie gets herself settled in The Dawn Club, but soon finds herself inexplicably drawn to the patron that walks in after her.

Preview:

Barbie tosses the old newspaper back into the trash and walks toward the club, her confidence building as she hears the familiar click of her heels on the pavement. Sure, her feet will tire a lot more easily now, but it's easily forgotten when that sound is so enticing. She's almost forgotten it; almost forgotten why she loved heels in the first place. Not that she thinks there's some real reason she's here other than she just let her mind wander for too long, but something about The Dawn Club, on this warm summer evening, tells her that whatever adventure she's looking for is in its walls.

Read it here:

fanfiction.net

Ao3

Wattpad

[mai-komagata]

barbieheimer

“Force is that which makes a thing of whoever submits to it. Exercised to the extreme, it makes the human being a thing quite literally, that is, a dead body. Someone was there and, the next moment, no one. [...] 

The force that kills is summary and crude. How much more varied in operation, how much more stunning in effect is that other sort of force, that which does not kill, or rather does not kill just yet. It will kill for a certainty, or it will kill perhaps, or it may merely hang over the being it can kill at any instant; in all cases, it changes the human being into stone. From the power to change a human being into a thing by making him die there comes another power, in its way more momentous, that of making a still living human being into a thing. He is living, he has a soul; he is nonetheless a thing. Strange being—a thing with a soul; strange situation for the soul! Who can say how it must each moment conform itself, twist and contort itself? It was not created to inhabit a thing; when it compels itself to do so, it endures violence through and through.”  ― Simone Weil, War and the Iliad

one movie turns a thing into a soul, another turns souls into things.

[giveway124]

Gift Card Giveway 2023

Participate in our exciting gift card giveaway for a chance to win big! Simply follow these steps:

Like and share our social media post.

Tag three friends in the comments.

Follow our page to stay updated.

Visit our website and sign up for our newsletter. By entering, you stand a chance to win one of several gift cards worth up to $100. Don't miss this opportunity to treat yourself or your loved ones with a fabulous shopping spree! Winners will be announced in one week. Hurry and join the fun now! #GiftCardGiveaway #WinBig #Freebies #ContestAlert

[helenaharperthinker]

Hey, guys!

Today is the world premiere of Barbie and Oppenheimer!

I know you were all looking forward to this moment.

Where I live the movies premiered on Thursday, but NO spoilers here!

I hope you enjoy and have fun with both movies.

Good Barbieheimer for you!

[ichisoarz]

Okay so today I participated in Barbieheimer together with some of my roommates and here are some of my hot takes (spoilers abound!):

Oppenheimer is not clear in what it wants to be; is it a biopic about a man who created the atomic bomb, is it a commentary on the US government regarding war, or is it a legal drama? It has elements of all three but not enough of each to satisfy me.

For all that the movie is a biopic, I feel that we spend an extremely limited time actually getting to know who Oppenheimer *is* as a person. What was his youth like, why is he disapproving of Jackie (his brother's wife), why does he continue to bring flowers to Jean, what motivated him to try to kill his professor? We get throw away lines such as "I was homesick", "I was going through a rough two-year period back then", and the sum-up of character traits when he is recruited by General Groves, but a lot of it feels distant, like Nolan just read the novel the film was based on and all the transcripts and did very little else to actually dive deep into the psychology of the man. A lot is implied or inferred of course, but I feel like so much of it is cold and unfeeling. The only good two moments of character work in my opinion were his breakdown after Jean and the whole sequence regarding Trinity, the rest feels very shallow to me personally.

Now when it comes to social commentary, the film puts itself in kind of a weird position. On the one hand it greatly criticises the US war mindset and its cruelty, which I greatly appreciated, but on the other hand it gives almost no sympathy or even acknowledgement of the victims of Oppenheimer's work. The Japanese were hardly mentioned and absolutely no mention was made of any victims of the New Mexico tests, only a throw-away like of returning the land to the natives. Now you might argue that talking about the victims is for a different movie to do, since this is a biopic about Oppenheimer, but to have almost no acknowledgement of the negative impact of his work and the people that he hurt feels weird. We spend a lot more time hearing about what a great scientist he was and much less time hearing about the devastating effects of the atomic bombs that's for sure. Like even a conversation with a survivor of testing in New Mexico that he comes across while riding, to humanise the harm he caused, that would have been great! It might be too unsubtle, but then again Truman's bit was not exactly subtle either.

Finally, the legal drama. I was fine with it when it was just the legal case regarding Oppenheimer, since it seemed to be an important part of his story, but I did not care for Strauss' part at all. To have one of the main climaxes of your story be Oppenheimer's hearing versus Strauss' while having basically the same thing happen in both, as well as Strauss' weird ass villain monologue, just did not work for me. Why did we go from an examination of Oppenheimer and the cruelty of the US war system, to some minister appointment hearing? I guess Strauss was cruel to Oppenheimer, but was this meant as some sort of karma lesson?? What was the point?

Besides those larger criticisms of the film, I also found the cuts of some scenes to just be kind of weird.

Moving on to Barbie, I really liked the movie for being a 2-hour commercial. It was fun, very self-aware (maybe a little bit too much at times), and it was gorgeously designed (set, clothing, cinematography). I have some slight issues with Barbie (much less than with Oppenheimer), but this is a hot takes post so here they are:

Obviously due to it being a commercial some things were treated in very specific ways. The Mattel guys being weird and kind of harmless in the end ("Why don't we just let things stay like this?" "Because I want to make girls' dreams some true!" Also the tickle thing) is quite obvious, along with all the things regarding the teenager.

Ooh boy the teen, poor girl. She made some very good points upon meeting Barbie, all of which immediately become less convincing when she ends it with calling Barbie a fascist. I mean the word does get used too often now by teens, but Barbie herself also only takes away fascist instead of the other very good points, sooo yeah. Also she very quickly approached Disney Channel levels of wholesomeness with her mom after going to Barbieland, she lost her style, lost her meanness and was mostly just smiling happily in the background. All of that felt kinda yikes to me lol.

Finally, I was not fully comfortable with the final resolution talk with Ken, the sheer amount of emotional labour Barbie was doing there when she herself is just discovering these things and him needing to be rejected several times from his advances all felt kinda yikes to me too.

Congrats on reading this big post if you made it this far, feel free to agree/disagree on anything, these are just my thoughts and opinions!

[denimbex1986]

'Barbie

When Barbie opens to a parody of 2001: A Space Odessey’s Dawn of Man scene (the one with the mad apes), a narrator with the voice of Helen Mirren tells us how big of a disrupter the Barbie toy-line was for little girls.

The girls, who were happily playing with big, round, bald toys that looked like one-year-old babies, take one look at a giant, glamorous Barbie towering over their heads (Margot Robbie, wonderful in the film) and, as if blitzed by mob-mentality anger, smash their toy-babies to smithereens.

It might have sounded like a triumphant hurrah about breaking free from constraints on the screenplay penned by co-writers Greta Gerwig (who also directs) and her partner Noah Baumbach, but when you really look at it, the only idea it instils is that of rebellion and anarchy…and the buck doesn’t stop there.

The main idea of the movie is that Barbie (Robbie) travels to Los Angeles to find out why she, and in consequence, her perfect, plastic world — the literal incarnation ‘life is plastic, it’s fantastic’ lyrics from Aqua’s song Barbie Girl — has changed for the worse.

If the gist of the idea of Barbie leaving a make-believe plastic world for a real-life but still plastic one, don’t trigger alarms in your head, then I guess one is meant to enjoy this phantasmagorical fairytale that paints messages of accepting the mediocrity of life and male dumbness in bubblegum pink (the colour is everywhere, not that one minds it — Barbie’s world, and it’s branding, is pink after all)...

Barbie the film is an expert concoction of shrewd intentions. In its superficiality, it presents a perfect make-believe matriarchal world that is bright, sunny, inclusive and, well, perfect. On the other hand, it puts down men — or Ken, and his various versions played by many male actors. The Kens are shiny, shirtless, one-dimensional idiots, and their head (Ryan Gosling, fitting right into the role — who woulda thought), is the hero who turns out to be the villain...

The cake (ie. the production design) is pretty, but its creamy, fluffy exterior hides a number of statements children and families might not immediately pick-up on. A societally right rationale tries to patch things up by the end and everything, of course, turns out to be okay — but is it?

In the last frames, Barbie, who finally matures — Spoiler Alert! — leaves Barbieland forever for the real world. After becoming a ‘real girl’ (like Pinocchio, but not really), her first order of business is to visit a gynaecologist. How is this a kiddie film? But then again, with the themes at hand, was it ever one really?...

Oppenheimer

I haven’t read Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin’s biography American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer — about the man known as the father of the atomic bomb — so I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the overly dramatic, thriller-esque tone Christopher Nolan uses in Oppenheimer.

What I can vouch for is this: the film has excellent, if stationary, cinematography; precise, to-the-frame editing; and brilliant performances from Cillian Murphy, Robert Downey Jr, Josh Hartnett, Emily Blunt, Matt Damon and Florence Pugh (the film also stars Remi Malek, Casey Affleck, Kenneth Branagh, Matthew Modine, Dane DeHaan, Jason Clarke, Matthias Schweighöfer and Gary Oldman, in a packed house of actors).

The sound design, for once in a Chris Nolan film, is bang on the money — the sound effects and their mixing raises the emotion of the moment, and the dialogues are decipherable to the ears.

Yet, despite the goods, the film once again plays to Nolan’s high sense of self as an auteur of cinema. Is it a masterclass of cinema, in the way cinema used to be? Yes, but at the same time, it also bears Nolan’s stamp of doing things a tad bizarrely.

Oppenheimer’s screenplay (written by Nolan), for example, could have been linear — a story of a brilliant but conflicted man who goes through bad relationships, suffers political pressures, and worries about making a bomb that will take lives, and ultimately destroy the world. Yet it isn’t.

Jumping back and forth in time with mad fervency, we see the present (or as close to the present the film offers) in black-and-white, while the past and the future is in colour. Two segments of the story, set during the US Senate hearings of 1954 and 1959, are intermingled with Oppenheimer’s journey from Cambridge to Los Alamos, where he tested the nuclear bomb that decimated Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Could the film be interesting without the thriller-esque shenanigans? Sure — the story is, for all intents and purposes, a talking heads narrative. People extrapolate their thoughts and arguments in dialogue while sitting, standing, and sometimes while grimly pondering and not saying anything (their expressions, and the intercuts, are never subtle).

Exposition in midst of action is a great filmmaking tool, but excessive reliance on it doesn’t make characters memorable. Then again, that’s Nolan for you — a director who overshadows his stories to the extent that his characters become flat.

Take any of his leads, whether it is Bruce Wayne, Dom Cobb, Joseph Cooper, Tommy or the Protagonist (you may know them from Batman Begins, Inception, Interstellar, Dunkirk and Tenet). Nolan has a type, when it comes to leading characters: they are conflicted, stoic men in the middle of a grave dilemma. The prompt gives his actors the opening to deliver strong performances on barely-written roles, and Oppenheimer is no different.

One sees a lot of nominations this coming award season — some technical, some creative — for a good, if over-hyped film, whose viewing requires a proper guidebook, or a brief documentary on Oppenheimer’s life, to make full sense.'

[slimeboy-they-them]

Why does every goth girl have the most basic looking boyfriend. Like dude is out here looking like 🧍‍♀️