#these movies should be the new barbenheimer

[strawberryscorp]

albus "five nights at freddy's movie" potter and scorpius "paw patrol- mighty pups" malfoy

[retrospectvve]

it is absolutely hilarious to me that the plot of never stop blowing up in canon is basically a huge disney channel crossover-esque movie between SIX different parodies of action movie franchises. a truly beautiful mish mash that i think we should bring into reality.

give me vin diesel in the new bond film who is also somehow working with ethan hunt of mission impossible in a diehard scenario. oh and dc's catwoman is also there with the big bad being marvel's kingpin please and thank you i think this could save cinema. HUGE! bigger than barbenheimer ever was

[ogdencollegerp]

SEPTEMBER 24TH - OCTOBER 7TH

THE INVESTIGATION

With the burning of the commons and THE POLLYANNA arrested - and implied to be G - it seems as if Ogden College has entered this year acting as if nothing is wrong. Despite THE TEACHER'S PET and THE SIREN both meeting their untimely demises, and THE GOLDEN GIRL no closer to being found than she was a year ago, the faculty and investigation seem to be trying their best to act as if that chapter is behind them. Plenty of students know that's not the case, G having texted them even after THE POLLYANNA had been carted off in cuffs, proving just how easy it is for them to be blamed for something they didn't do, leaving them with no answers and wondering two very serious things.... If they speak up....will they be next ?? And what did G have in store ??

OOC; don't forget - if your character wishes to report something officially, they may always do so in an ask to the main. If they saw something they think should be public, but don't want to be the one to report it to the authorities...don't forget they can always send an anonymous tip to the gossip blog.

CAMPUS NEWS

The Student Council is hosting a trip to an apple picking trip !!! On Sunday, September 30th, join them to a nearby orchard to pick up some apple goodies, be it the actual apples, or indulging in some caramel apples, or apple cider.

With the start of October, the annual hayrides kick off !!! Take a stroll around town before taking a hayride to enjoy the fall foliage.

ATHLETIC GAMES

CROSS COUNTRY MEET - Sunday afternoon, September 24th

MEN'S SOCCER - Thursday evening, September 28th

WOMEN'S FIELD HOCKEY - Saturday afternoon, September 17th

WOMEN'S SOCCER - Tuesday evening, October 3rd

MEN'S FOOTBALL- Friday evening, October 6th

SOCIAL EVENTS

CAMPUS MOVIE NIGHTS: BARBENHEIMER

WHAT: Bring a blanket and some lawnchairs and enjoy the movies of the summer with your classmates in the brisk fall weather - take advantage before it gets too cold !!! 

WHERE: The Quad

WHEN: Barbie on Wednesady evening, September 27th and Oppenheimer on Wednesday evening, October 4th

BIRTHDAYS

@jacqui-velazquez's 20th on October 3rd

[gbrogut]

Why Barbenheimer Is Good News for Cinema

Growing up, one of my favorite movies was Space Jam. My siblings and I would watch it over and over again, laughing at it as if it were the first time we heard the jokes. And, trust me, I could come up with a long list of "silly" movies that I learned to love.

When I grew up, I engaged in more "serious" films. For example, when I was in college, the teachers would make us watch Greenaway, Goddard, Kubrick, and so on, and we did enjoy it. Still, whenever a new blockbuster arrived at the local movie theaters, the immediate reaction would be, "Yikes, more Hollywood garbage."

I was taught there was elite Cinema and junk. But, nowadays, this distinction seems wrong.

The more movies I have watched, the more it grows in me the idea that a film's most important duty is to make us FEEL. 

To move us. 

After all, what kind of magic is this that, while we are in a dark room, surrounded by strangers, we detach from reality and connect with characters who are nothing but light on a screen?

It doesn't matter if it is a black-and-white movie. It doesn't matter if the screen is drowning in pink. It doesn't matter if the subject is depressive, gritty, violent, or sweeter than a lollipop.

What matters is Cinema and the stories it tells us. What matters is the magic we allow ourselves to feel.

I have had it with film snobs who wag their fingers at anything that doesn't line up with their sacred preconceptions. 

Enter Barbenheimer.

Social media has been filled with people who say they'll proudly watch both Barbie and Oppenheimer. The only point of disagreement seems to be which one should go first. 

But where there's barely any kind of debate is the fact that both films have excited moviegoers beyond belief.

People want to see Gerwig's film and bask in its promised pink delight just as much as they want to drown in the magnificent visuals Nolan will deliver.

Because, in the end, Cinema is Cinema. 

Sure, there are crappy movies and films that make us feel nothing and fail at the critical job of creating cinematic art. But we should never place the value of a film on whether it looks artsy or snobbish enough.

It is true we have yet to see the films. However, they have already rekindled people's passion for The Seven Art.

The gist of it all is that we love movies. We can appreciate the technical details and marvel at how a particular shot was achieved. But in the end, if you ask someone to explain their passion for certain films, usually their eyes will light up, and they'll say, I don't know, I just love them.

[frikatilhi]

9 people you’d like to get to know better!

Thanks for the tag, @ana-chronista!

three ships: Currently, Bojere duh. Previously, um, there are many to choose from but let's go with Steve/Bucky (MCU) and Steve/Danno (Hawaii Five-O) and leave my dark rpf past out of this one.

first ship: I'm not sure how I got into shipping exactly, because by the time Merry/Pippin came along it was not new to me. But it was the first big one, which very quickly lead to Monaboyd, which was the first huge one. Can't believe those guys are still friends after more than 20 years since meeting (!!!) and doing a play together soon (!!!) (man, if that was in Europe I'd be sooo tempted).

last song: Apart from last night's JO stream, Hyvää yötä ja huomenta by Don Huonot (it's for... reasons, ok?)

Luodinkestävää sydäntä Ei oo vielä keksittykään Turha pelätä laukausta Sillä yksinäisyys saman reiän nakertaa

last film: In the cinema, Barbenheimer. I don't get to go as much nowadays, but I used to see something around 50 movies a year at the theather (including festivals). Some day I'll go back to Midnight sun and Rakkautta & anarkiaa and spend my days watching four films in a row...

currently reading: Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux (physical book) and Miehiä ja mielenrauhaa by Marja Kangas (on audio), both are for book club. (If that one friend from book club who is a Käärijä fan and sometimes reads fic happens to lurk on Tumblr: if you saw this NO YOU DIDN'T) I used to read a lot, but since the kid and getting back into fandom I barely read any actual books /o\

currently watching: Kid shows on Yle Areena omg. When I need to turn my brain off, I tend to gravitate to trash reality, like Temptation Island Suomi, Selling Sunset or Love is Blind or the likes. We also watch Taskmaster UK a lot. Last finished show was Ted Lasso, which I kinda want to watch again soon. Shows that I should finish at some point: all the Star Wars stuff on Disney+, Daisy Jones and the Six, Community rewatch, Three Pines

currently consuming: Pepsi Max (always)

currently craving: Breakfast even though it's almost lunch time, forgot to eat this morning

No idea who's been tagged already and who's done it, so here are some random tags: @devotedlydarkcrown @maladroitoracle @reserved-fruit @cinder-rose @lumea-art @neppu @bambiesque @drugsforaddicts @izpira-se-zlato

[diamondeyes-deluxe]

I did Barbenheimer and it was overall a good double feature experience but I didn't like either movie quite as much as I thought I would, but I still did like both of them!

(Looong post, contains spoilers, rambling)

For Oppenheimer, I saw it in 70 mm which made it look really amazing, but I think might be the reason it sounded awful. There's a continuous score playing throughout most of the movie with very few breaks for silence, which influenced a lot of how I absorbed the movie. Much of the first like 45 minutes are vignettes of a younger Oppenheimer, but the continuous music, which never really broke for scene changes or anything, made them kind of muddle together in my mind? The first act felt very dreamlike and disjointed bc of this, to me. I also did not pick up on all the dialogue. Between the people talking rather quietly, and the music being so loud so, I honestly think that I was unlucky or something and saw a screening with pretty bad sound mixing.

I really liked some artistic choices and really disliked some others. The scene with the bleachers after the bombing? Amazing cinematography. The scene where he confesses to an affair and his wife is suddenly watching him have sex in the trial room? Beautiful, but also, felt completely out of place in the movie? Like seeing a cat in the ocean. I love cats, but that's not where they belong.

And then there's a lot of stuff that boils down to personal preferences and issues. Again, the sound mixing was eeeuuugh. There was a lot of sudden, jarring noises (yeah yeah its a movie about a bomb so I should have expected that). It was a very bad sensory experience. I spent much of the movie plugging my ears and wishing I brought earplugs because it was just. So. Loud. Also, I didn't know much or have much interest in this part of history, from an American pov. I love movies like In This Corner of The World or Akira, which are literally and metaphorically about the effects of war and the bombs from Japan's perspective, but I have a level of hesitance around American WW2 stories because of how many tend to be propaganda. Oppenheimer did not seem like propaganda at all, but again, i just didn't have context, beforehand knowledge, or any preinvestment to the people, time, and story the movie was about. And I got up to pee during the testing scene which I've been assured was probably the best scene in the movie so. That might have added to my disappointment.

Ok on to Barbie.

I liked it! It was fun. Of course a lot of the more serious emotional notes and themes hit me. I definitely think that this is something that suffered from being overhyped. I think I would have liked it more had the marketing not built it up to be this perfect movie.

The casting was great. The production and visuals of the movie were perfect. I liked the general themes. I think the movie could have benefitted from committing to an adult audience instead of trying to waffle between age ranges. Not so they could have more "beach each other off" or gynecology jokes, but so they could explore the deep themes like, just a taaaad bit more in depth?

I remember seeing gerwigs quote about how the movie is very much about, paraphrasing here, how there's a certain point in a girl's life where she goes from feeling like she can do everything to feeling like she can't do anything. That feeling was very palpable in the movie. We see the barbified version of life that is often young girls primary context for how life is, with the pink and the kindness and the high level positions in careers. To being objectified for the first time and having all these new emotions for the first time and confronting your own mortality. All these experiences are firsts for our girl! Just like when you're growing up and everything is new. It's super relatable. This creeping yet sudden realization that the world is not inherently safe or kind like you're led to believe as a child. The understanding that you can't do everything. It's so good.

Um. But then it kind of shifts.

I think the handling of Ken and the Patriarchy was very good and funny in individual parts, but putting those parts together and making it the central conflict felt pretty thin. I love how Ken latches on to "patriarchy" because he feels hurt by Barbie constantly rejecting him. I love that he has that emotional, reactionary reason to adopt a superficial idea of "men ruling, actually". I love how cartoonish the movies version of patriarchy is with it kind of being reduced to saloon doors and film buffs and horses. I love how he admits that he stopped even being interested in it once he realized it wasn't about horses, but felt like he had to continue since he already invested a lot into it.

But I felt this was kind of lackluster for a couple reasons? One is like, it got me thinking a lot about like, ok, we've seen young girl culture and like, Barbie and princess culture, we have a frame of reference for that right, but what is the culture for young boys? Trucks and horses and dinosaurs? Those aren't things you can aspire to, and even their human-ish role models in media are very often superheroes, right? There's still a level of unattainability there. Girls have fairies and princesses, but Barbie itself touched almost every girl's childhood in a significant way, and its very much about girl power and that "you can do anything!!" (In a career way) attitude. (It's girlboss feminism at the end of the day, but it is more realistic than superheroes.)

And like historically this came from decades of women *not* being able to do anything, at all. So it makes sense that this push for confidence and self determined identity and positive role models was never made in the same way for young boys, but, ah, has a void been created in this process? Do they have any healthy ideals to aspire to? It's easy to look at, yes, the patriarchy and think "men are doing well enough for themselves, they don't need anything else" but that's very surface level, isn't it? And isn't this very vacuum of healthy aspirations what causes boys to latch onto toxic identities that hurt boys and girls? Isn't that what Ken did? Aren't we leaving young boys behind?

Uh, so I found the resolution of "maybe it's Barbie and it's ken" not wrong but, just, I wanted a little bit more I guess?

Ah, and they "solve" the problems by, using the Ken's insecurities to turn them against each other so they can't vote and make it a full barbie-ocracy again? I don't know it felt mean spirited in contrast to what it had caused me to think about. But that's not to say I have any ideas on how it could have been handled better.

And then, the other reason it felt meh as a central conflict to me is like, patriarchy is definitely a big part of all of those complicated, new, bad feelings that come with growing out of childhood as a girl, but not all of them. Irrepressible thoughts of death are not men's fault. Of course they handled all of these things pretty well in the post-conflict scene with Ruth, but it just felt a little forgotten by the main plot for a while.

I think maybe it could have benefitted by making barbies "human girl" not an adult woman but an actual girl, since a lot of the feelings it was exploring are pretty tied to puberty and coming of age, and to maybe make that human a more prominent character? Because as it was they felt pretty sidelined.

Ok anyway though I had a good time at the theaters xx

[amberautumnfaebrooke]

idk you guys i think you may just not have a full grasp of the complexities of getting audiences to watch movies

i have seen a lot of posts reading some variation on "studios are going to learn from barbenheimer to release two DIFFERENT movies concurrently when they should be learning to release two GOOD movies," a take i find absolutely infuriating. like, just to begin with, people don't often... choose to make bad movies. movies are really really hard to make, and it's famously impossible to know whether anyone will like the damn thing until it's already basically done. if you're a studio exec and you're planning your slate for next year, do you go with the weird experimental movie made by an up-and-coming with few-to-no features under their belt? sometimes you end up with a gem, but at least as often it flops and ends up costing you a bunch of money. what about established directors who regularly give you good stuff? sometimes nolan will give you his most well-received work since the batman stuff, and sometimes olivia wilde will turn in don't worry darling and audiences will turn their noses up. "make good movies" is not actionable advice.

not that being a good movie is actually any guarantee people will see it. in my opinion, the best movie released so far this year is past lives, and i'm not alone in that. the reviews are unanimously glowing, the letterboxd for it is basically all overwhelming praise. and that movie made barely 10mil. how much have you heard anyone talking about that movie? how many people do you know who've seen it? it wasn't an especially limited release, it's probably still showing at your local amc.

now how many people do you know who have seen the dungeons and dragons movie?

that's not a dig on the d&d movie, i like the d&d movie! i'm just saying, the truth is, there are few sure bets in this business. the success of a movie is a combination of its quality, its marketing, pure dumb luck, and yes, i'm sorry, star power and brand recognition.

we've all seen and made a thousand posts about how hollywood has no new ideas. complaining about reboots and sequels has been a stale observation for decades. but i also haven't seen the "no sequels or reboots" crowd get as excited any anything this year as they have about across the spider-verse and barbie. two excellent movies! which, be really honest with yourself, you would have been less likely to have seen if you weren't already excited about the property! barbenheimer isn't just two good movies. it's two good movies audience members already have reference points for.

i think this is a really human reaction. there is so much media at this point in history, constantly competing for your attention, and you can't possibly pay attention to it. so, as a heuristic, you look for reference points. i don't pay attention to AAA video games in general, but you bet your ass that when they announce the last of us part 3 i'm going to take notice, because i connected so strongly with the second one, but if they released basically the same game with a different name i might not ever hear about it.

there's that post where craig mccraken says he pitched cartoon network like seventeen original shows and they rejected everything until he suggested a powerpuff girls reboot, and everyone went "wow, the horrible studio execs are stifling creativity," and i just... i mean, are you really convinced you would watch those original shows? that your cousins would? that caitlin, a 32 year old single mom in michigan would put that on for her kids?

this isn't me saying "i don't care if movies are good" or "i'm glad they make so many sequels and reboots." this is me saying "you are not immune to branding" and "audiences have some share of responsibility for how things are" and "find a way to seek out media you're less familiar with."

i do that by seeing a movie in theaters once a week, but you can do it by giving yourself themed prompts when deciding what to watch, picking an album of the week, joining a book or movie club, or just asking friends for recommendations.

there is so so much out there that is exactly up your alley, that is weird and different and fresh, but the niche stuff won't come to you. you have to find it.

[batfamfucker]

Today's Mood Is: Waiting months to see Barbenheimer only to get to the day and realising going to the cinema takes energy. Processing two movies (One being three hours) takes energy. Knowing this happens with every new movie you're excited about so it sucks even more every time because you knew it was coming. You should have been prepared for it. Instead you're still disappointed because you convinced yourself it was gonna be different this time.

Today's Action: Taking my ADHD meds, giving myself some time to get mentally prepared before I get dressed. Check bus times. We're going to the movies even if I have to beat my own brain to do it. Barbie is today's priority if I cannot handle Oppenheimer. I'm still gonna nick one of my mum's trench coats to do it. I think she has one, I could be wrong. And something pink (I hope she has something like that too) since I was too broke to get something lmao.

[pinkeoni]

click for pretentious film bro ranting

Why do I see some barbie fans (especially on here) create this fake feud between oppenheimer and "film bros" that is honestly only happening from their side. Yes on the most extreme end there people like Ben Shapiro who say wild stuff about barbie and try to detract from it, but I see those kinds of people as not even having a voice in this conversation. Why are you trying to give them legitimacy? And furthermore, why are you grouping other film bros in with that crowd anyway?

It's the alleged "film bros" on twitter who were the ones that was championing barbie the hardest before most current fans even knew that there was a barbie film in the first place. It's because they keep up with film news and were excited that a new Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbauch feature. The film bros that these barbie fans so staunchly hate are the ones that created barbenheimer in the first place as a way to uplift cinema and to encourage more people to go to the theater. Now obviously barbie did better numbers because it's much easier to market a 90 minute film based on a famous toy line rather than a 3 hour historical film. I'm not saying that you had to have seen oppenheimer to appreciate cinema, and there are plenty of film bros who loved barbie and didn't want to see oppenheimer (I was actually just talking to my old film prof about this, who HATES christopher nolan) and there are plenty of film bros who saw oppenheimer and disliked/didn't want to see barbie, but from what I saw film bros were still encouraging seeing both regardless of how they felt because the point was to get more people back in movie theaters.

When any criticism (fair or unfair) is levied against the barbie movie it's fans will use the "cinema created by women for women should be seen as a important" as an argument against these criticisms, and while I agree with that statement, what angers me about their usage of it is that these specific fans do not actually give a shit about cinema created by women unless it is a multi-billion dollar blockbuster. I do think that Greta Gerwig grossing over a billion at the box office is a huge accomplishment, and I think it's a great film (I gave it 5 stars on Letterboxd and cried three times) but Barbie is far from the only female led project this year, and not even the only oscar contender led by a women. Tell me, did you see Past Lives? Are you going to see Bottoms? Did you know that Molly Gordon made her directorial debut this year? I saw a post that alluded to Barbie and Oppenheimer being the oscar leads this year 💀 I'm sorry, but as much as I love both of these films, if you think the only two oscar contenders of the year are barbie and oppenheimer then I'm going to safely assume that you do not watch movies. Let's wait until the new Martin Scorsese film drops before we start making our oscar predictions, shall we.

If these fans really cared about film then they would not be picking imaginary fights with oppenheimer fans. If these fans really cared about women in film then they would actually recognize and champion some of the many other films made by women this year that does not include multi-billion dollar blockbusters.

[luminouslumity]

THOUGHTS ON: BARBENHEIMER

Finally got the chance to see both (specifically, Barbie, Oppenheimer, and then Barbie again) and I'm glad I did! Watching them back-to-back was certainly an experience and I'm not even joking when I say they really made me think about life and all that it entails.

As someone who grew up on the old animated Barbie movies, I had a lot of fun watching the new film, especially when it came to all the doll jokes and references had me laughing more than once (Magic Earring Ken, anyone?). Kinda mad they didn't have any references to the animated movies though, or at least none that I'd noticed.

Speaking of Ken, wasn't sure about him being the villain at first, but I can see what they were trying to do and I thought it worked pretty well all things considered, that Kens have just as much of a right to live alongside the Barbies as the Barbies do them and not just in the shadows of each other. If this film is anti anything, I'd say it's anti-Patriarchy as well as anti-Matriarchy. Preachy, sure, but understandable. Really, I'm more annoyed with how this apparently went over so many people's heads even with how blatant it was; seriously, President Barbie even says the message of the film after the Kens fail, so how anyone could've misinterpreted it is beyond me! The only thing that comes to mind is when the Narrator says that the Kens will be treated just as well as women are treated in the real world, and to be fair, that statement alone can be interpreted in a lot of ways depending on certain factors, but I don't know, I feel like that should be a wake-up call more than anything.

Barbie herself was also really interesting, though throughout the film, I found myself wondering if she was meant to be the Original Barbie with an upgraded look or just a random Barbie who's basically just an amalgamation of all the others (like she says, she's what everyone else thinks of when they think of the doll). Either way, this certainly adds a whole new layer to the relationship between her and Ken because keep in mind, when the film says that Ken was created for Barbie, they mean it literally.

Going into a bit of history here, Ken Carson was created in response to the backlash Barbie was facing two years after her own creation for the horrific crime of... *checks notes* being single. Since then, Ken has had a few jobs of his own, but it's still nothing compared to Barbie's—this even becomes a joke in the Life in the Dreamhouse series, where the Ken in that series worships the ground Barbie walks on. Probably literally. This man didn't even get his own car until 2012! Then there was the whole seven-year break-up incident because Ken apparently didn't want to put a ring on it (yeah, Barbie has in-universe lore and it goes hard!) so keeping all this in mind, it's no wonder Ken seems to be as attached to Barbie as he is in the film, all while also struggling with his own identity as an individual.

Yes, I probably am looking too deep into a children's film about dolls coming into the real world. This is my life now.

The Mattel scenes were definitely one of my favorite things about the film, especially with how dedicated the CEO is when it comes to his job and how he genuinely wants what he believes is best for everyone, but my favorite part are definitely the scenes with Ruth, which absolutely had me crying! And hey, glad to see I was at least partially right! She made an appearance, just not in the scene I thought it was going to be (also, apparently the sweet old lady on the bench isn't even Barbara, it's costume designer Ann Roth).

Narrators also tend to be hit-or-miss for me, but I thought it worked really well in this film! I especially loved how self-aware the story is and how if you're going to try and make Barbie look ugly, Margot Robbie isn't the way to go. And the cutaway to Depressed Barbie? Hilarious, but now I low-key want that to be a thing lol! And just the world in general was super fun!

Honestly, if I had any complaints about the film, it would absolutely be the pacing. Sasha in particular seemed largely unnecessary and her turnaround to at least tolerating Barbie happened way too quickly, even if she did only want to help for her mom's sake. It would've been nice if the film had had at least one or two scenes where she realizes that while the Barbie brand has its issues that deserve to be addressed, it's also not as bad as what she'd originally thought it to be. And also, it would've been great to just see more of this world in general; after all, Barbie and Ken only spend time in LA for less than a day, and even then, it's only for a few hours at most.

Basically, I wish the film had been longer, but what we got was still great.

As for Oppenheimer, I never really have much to say about biopics, but I love history in general and am always fascinated when it comes to warfare and all of the ethical questions that come with it. This is also the first Nolan film I've actually watched, so I knew this was going to be an interesting time, at least. Let me start by saying that the special effects with the bomb dropping and tense silence afterwards were beautifully done and I thought the use of black-and-white for some scenes and color for others was a really nice touch too, as well as the fact that the film went beyond just WWII and that we get to see Oppenheimer deal with the guilt he'd faced afterwards. I also always forget that Einstein would've still been alive during the time most of the film takes place, so his appearance was certainly a surprise, but a pleasant one nonetheless. I was also wondering in what context the "I am become Death" line would come up, so the fact that the film actually addresses that it comes from Sanskrit rather than suggesting it originated from Oppenheimer himself was such a great detail! Overall, a great film about a very complicated man!

[denimbex1986]

'This summer, theaters were drowning in blockbusters, whether it was “Asteroid City,” “Mission Impossible,” “Indiana Jones” or “Spiderman: Across the Spider Verse.” Yet no other blockbusters have caused the same commotion as what fans on the internet popularly nominated the “Barbenheimer” double feature, which, for all hardcore cinema fans, meant their entire calendar for July 21 was taken up.

Trying to capture the essence of what seems to be a marketing phenomenon that organically developed from two highly anticipated blockbusters has been an extremely challenging task for the media. “Barbie Land,” a pink paradise where women can literally be anything they want to be, was compared to Oppenheimer’s cold palette that embodies the grim picture of “death, the destroyer of worlds” in the middle of Los Alamos, New Mexico.

It is important to acknowledge the role that social media played in the success of both films. Once the release dates were announced, people quickly turned them both into memes and fans made posters and recolored sneak peeks from each movie to fit the other film’s aesthetic. Curious Refuge, a blog that has released several AI trailers including one for “Barbenheimer,” gained a lot of popularity among fans. The trailer combines the neutral beige aesthetic of “Oppenheimer” with hot pink and takes on the Barbie movie’s humor, giving us a snippet of what it would be like if the iconic doll added “Mother of the Atomic Bomb” into her infinite list of jobs and skills.

Additionally, both movies had relatively big names attached to them that helped attract fans. Many movie and TV show fanatics recognized most of the actors on screen and got excited to see some of them work together on these projects. A specific TikTok trend showed different clips of actors who made an appearance in “Oppenheimer” and paired them with the meme of Leonardo DiCaprio in “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.”

It should not come as a surprise that these films became the event of the summer. Besides the obvious advantage of modern-day media, these two were beyond movies being premiered on the same date — they were two original screenplays by critically acclaimed directors.

Pentex production, a YouTube channel dedicated to making video essays about movies, put similarities between the two features in a nutshell. Both films had an amazing theme working not only behind and on the screen, but all the way from the pre-production with Oscar-nominated directors/screenwriters and backing from two of the biggest studios in the business. Similarly, each film revolves around an extremely noteworthy character that has had significant repercussions in history.

All of these allowed for an overlap in the audiences’ demographics which provided an even bigger discussion before and after the premieres. Greta Gerwig made it clear from the first “Barbie” preview ever released, which depicted a parody of “2001: A Space Odyssey,” that “Barbie” wouldn’t just be a chick flick, but a film that everyone should enjoy.

On one hand, there’s “Barbie.” The film went beyond what anyone could have expected based on what has been made with past adaptations of “Barbie.” Gerwig used the absurdity of Barbie Land to make a self-aware film that addressed a greater issue without losing the comedy that the ideas of a Barbie living today facilitated.

Then there’s “Oppenheimer,” which, to quote the director, Christopher Nolan, revolves around “the most dramatic situation ever.” With a stellar soundtrack, Nolan helps the viewer mimic the tension of this historic time and utilizes the gravity of the plot’s topics — war, the atomic bomb and the probability of the end of the world — to produce a film that quite literally leaves you shaking.

It’s unfair to compare one to the other because they both shine in their own way, making an excellent use of their resources to emphasize what, from the start, were strong storylines. Both directors did an amazing work that leaves the audiences thinking about moral, social and interpersonal dilemmas that encourage a greater reflection once you leave the theater.

Part of what really worked for this double feature was that at its core, they both deal with the lifelong question about men and the power they hold in society. Barbie works with it in a very clear-cut sense, but “Oppenheimer” equally questions the place of men, focusing on scientists and the repercussions of their power even when one does have the best intentions.

What made it especially captivating was that it went beyond an everyday movie experience. People were hyped and planned entire outfits to spend what felt like more than a day at the movie theater. In a way, the other aspects of fashion and social media discourse were more anticipated than the films themselves.

According to Variety.com, as of Aug. 14, 2023, on the fourth weekend upon its release, “Barbie” has made over $526.4 million in the U.S. and Canada box offices while “Oppenheimer” is reporting around $264.3 million. Both films have broken various records. Additionally, Insider.com reports that “Barbie” now holds the record for the biggest opening weekend for a female director in history, surpassing the $1 billion mark in early August — making Greta Grewig the first female director to ever hit that mark, and around that same time, “Oppenheimer” became the highest-grossing Nolan movie internationally.

With the occurrence of an event such as “Barbenheimer,” it leaves the industry wondering if something similar could ever be successfully replicated, especially considering how much of it was possible thanks to both films’ organic appeal.'

[kylesvariouslistsandstuff]

MUTANT MAYHEM Stuff

I finally saw this big deal of an animated movie... As always, review is on Letterboxd.

Yes, I've heard that they got a sequel lined up already. Though with the writers and actors strike going on, I don't expect work to begin on it any time soon. This means, to me, that it'll be here in 2026 at the earliest, should these dingus CEOs keep it up in being dinguses. But all I know is, I'm ready for more!

It seems like Paramount Animation, after so many years of false starts, might have something going. Yes, it may be with a recognizable superhero-action comic book-based IP that's been adapted into movies **multiple** times... And I mean MULTIPLE... You have the early 1990s live-action movies, you have the 2007 animated movie (remember that?), you have the two Michael Bay-produced movies where the turtles look like tanks, and now this movie. In addition to what seems like a gazillion TV show adaptations going all the way back to the classic late '80s Saturday morning series.

So far, the $70m-costing movie has made about $100m worldwide. It admittedly hasn't had the greatest start. It even opened below MEG 2, which goes to show where the moviegoing public's priorities are at the moment, post-Barbenheimer. But I see a leggy run for this, similar to that of the first SPIDER-VERSE, which only opened with a fairly meager $35m. I guess most of the public made the 2014 TMNT movie open so big because live-action just a lot of audiences them a way in to such an outlandish concept. I remember some "Why is there a cartoon Spider-Man now?" reactions to SPIDER-VERSE Uno when that was coming out in 2018, especially after three big live-action iterations that came out back-to-back. It makes me curious to see how TRANSFORMERS: ONE opens next summer, if it does come out next summer that is.

Paramount Animation, if that's even a thing anymore (for that logo or name does not show up in the opening logo rollout), has a weird future ahead that seems very IP-reliant. They recently demoted UNDER THE BOARDWALK to a Paramount+ release, and it seems like book adaptation THE TIGER'S APPRENTICE is still on for a January release despite no trailers or images or any kind of promo being out there at the moment. Or for a while even, before the strike. Following that are things that have been done as big movies before: Transformers, The Smurfs, PAW Patrol, etc. We have plenty of 2D AVATAR: THE LAST AIRBENDER movies on the horizon, too, which is great! But at the same time, coupled with Paramount CEO Tim Robbins' recent comments on making original animation for theaters, this studio's slate is just... Franchises. Now, if these future entries do what MUTANT MAYHEM did, that's cool and all... But at the same time, new stories are always welcome, because when some franchises run out of juice... You'll need something new to start another one? I don't get Hollywood.

But yeah, this is looking to be Paramount Animation's first theatrical score in a while, after a slew of movies like SHERLOCK GNOMES and WONDER PARK and PAWS OF FURY: THE LEGEND OF HANK.

The other day, I watched sections of RANGO... One of my all-time favorites! Gore Verbinski's film through and through, weird as fuck throughout, it was released by Paramount all the way back in 2011, and despite not making back its budget theatrically, Paramount leadership were so impressed with the movie - and also upset that DreamWorks wasn't going to renew their distribution deal with them - that they founded Paramount Animation in 2012. Like, RANGO's the reason that all took off! And yet, I don't see Paramount greenlighting something like that today. Or most studios, for that matter. How did it even get greenlit in the mid-2000s is my question?? I feel like we're lucky to even have it. And that the thing managed to make over $100m domestically alone.

Anyways, I see MUTANT MAYHEM doing quite well for itself. They already have sequels and TV show lined up, so we shall what that entails. In the mean time, it's cool that we even got such a dynamic and neat new take on this property, in animated movie form. Another win for mainstream feature animation. And for interesting big budget studio cinema in general, really. Much like SPIDER-VERSE, BARBIE, GUARDIANS VOL. 3, and a few others, it shows that filmmaker-driven unique takes on classic properties are much more desirable than workmanlike network TV-lookin' franchise movies.

[rebeccalouisaferguson]

Hello. Regarding DR1 box office we know it won't be a billion $. I would want to know if they'll blame lack of IMAX screens. Or maybe they'll turn inwards and see that DR1 story-line was not as tight as they thought. I know everyone expected it to be another major hit from TC but something didn't feel right with DR1 audience. I know the budget was huge but that shouldn't be a problem, not with how critics and public acknowlegde TC - the last movie star. So something else was in the wrong doing.

Hi! I think it's the combination of factors really.

It's a Part One of the seventh film in the franchise. It was never gonna be a big hit no matter the story just because it's a two partier and general audiences would rather watch Barbie or Oppenheimer or Sound of Freedom where you don't need to have watched 6 other films to get the grasp of the story. I know McQ always says that it's not necessary to watch other films in the franchise but imagine yourself a casual moviegoer you'd probably think if that's a seventh film i need to watch at least one-two that were made before that. I've seen ppl on Twitter doing either rewatches or just starting to watch films in the franchise to "prepare" for DR1.

The release date. They were in the tight spot obviously with the strikes looming hence the actors not being able to promote the film if they postponed it to a later date. But it did release basically in the most crowded month of summer with as you mentioned loosing IMAX screens just a week after being in the theaters. Whoever set this release date obviously overestimated the new Indiana Jones movie (same demographic as DR) and underestimated Barbie and Oppenheimer. Females showed up for Barbie and Oppenheimer got those older male audience that goes in the theater once a year (not saying just them for either movie but you get what I'm saying about the target viewer).

The WOM. In case of DR1 the WOM was not as overwhemingly positive as for Fallout and RN. Even though the critics favoured it there were bits here and there (and quite seizabe amount of articles about THAT plot) that indicated it's a good movie but maybe not a great movie. As you said the story not as tight as the previous two-three films hence the WOM.

The promotion. "Barbenheimer" had much more loud promotion than DR1 even though all the promo was cut short due to the strike. DR1 is still circulating those 3 clips with the stunts (the motorbike jump, the train crash and the fiat chase) on social media that they released well several months ago. The stunts always worked for them but I think going in the most crowded month their promo strategy should have been more creative (don't ask me how, they have people for that:).

That being said the movie is still doing fine, in the Mission film numbers, tracking a little behind RN in global BO. So going against many factors not all of them related to the story the film is still making money and will break even.

[angie-j-kay]

Okay, here are my takes from Barbenheimer, and the messages the movies seem to be pushing:

Spoilers under the cut.

Oppenheimer:

If you're autistic, have anxiety, or are generally sensitive to loud scary noises, be warned that this might set you off. This was very much a horror movie, disguised as a historical thing. Also, Christopher Nolan music is Christopher Nolany. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

The great horror wasn't that the people involved were monsters, it was that they were just people. ANYONE handed enough fear and desperation risks becoming this. Yes, even you.

If the monster feels really, really bad about it after, is he still a monster? (Answer: YES, but you still paid to see this movie so now you're culpable too.)

A discussion of how responsible scientists are for what the powerful and cruel do with their inventions.

Ian Malcolm in the first Jurassic Park movie was right. "You were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn't stop and think if you should!"

Hey, it's that actor I had such a crush on when I was 14 and wow, he got old, and OH SHIT I'M OLD TOO... It doesn't matter which actor I'm talking about, MOST of them were that actor to someone or other.

Florence Pugh has nice tits, and Robert Downey Jr. should play more villains. Also, David Krumholz is slowly turning into Alfred Molina.

Spoiler alert: BOOM.

Men suck.

Barbie: This one's gonna get me SO MUCH HATE, because y'all love Barbie, but I'm gonna do it anyway.

They told me it was an empowering movie for women and girls to watch. I went through the whole thing, and was rather insulted by this claim. Yeah, the idea of "women can be whatever we want" was repeated over and over, but the actual movie showed very little of that. Only the DOLLS got to be what they wanted, not the "Real Women."

Barbie not having a vagina is played for laughs, and the first thing that happens when she becomes a Real Woman (Yes, this is a plot point.) is... going to the gynecologist, with her new vagina and uterus. The Mattel board meeting actually had a man ask "I'm a man with no power, does that make me a woman?" How Tumblr hasn't caught the transphobia there is beyond me.

Ha ha, pregnant Midge! Loved that!

Feminism is important, because the patriarchy hurts... Ken. And the other Kens. Look, I get that this plot point was aimed SOLELY at the men who were watching this movie, trying to force them to imagine the role reversal and see how awful it is, but it doesn't change the fact that the main plot point of a supposedly feminist movie was clearly targeted at men. Like... come on.

Why is Will Ferrel here? You could have replaced him with a broken lamp in the corner and the movie would have been just fine.

I can't think of a single time that Barbie invited Ken's company. He pursued her, and she tolerated him because that was just sort of her role and she felt she had to. He respected none of her boundaries, just constantly tried to push past them. Then when he went full incel to the point of violence (Yes, I count brainwashing and enslavement as violence and you should too.) and she defeated him, he threw a screaming, public, self-hatred tantrum until SHE was apologising to HIM and consoling HIM, just a few minutes of screen time after a rant about how unfair it is that women are held responsible for men's bad behavior.

Ruth - "I can't let you become a real woman without you understanding what that means." Ruth - shows a montage of babies and motherhood, with some random crap tacked on the end in hopes that we won't notice that.

Being vocally angry about the patriarchy, racism, and enforced femininity is for dumb, angry teenagers with daddy issues who don't know anything about anything, and growing up into REAL feminism involves pink dresses.

The Velveteen Rabbit walked so that Weird Barbie could somersault while doing the splits.

I did cry when Barbie saw the old woman for the first time and called her beautiful. That was nice.

The boy bands of the early 2000s are finally explained.

The only way out of the patriarchy is by women talking to each other and working together, then... men saying they're sorry and totally promising never to do that again. Because that always works.

I mean, the movie wasn't terrible. It just wasn't made for feminists. It was made to get men angry enough to go see the movie so they'd have something to make angry podcasts about, in hopes that a few of them would start to think about what garbage they're spewing. Also, to sell toys, Hummers and Birkenstocks.

Also, I'm not sure this was Greta Gerwig's fault. This whole thing reeks of studio meddling.

OH, and men suck.

[maybesimon]

spoilers for barbenheimer

is this how dutch sounds to you guys???? wtf???

women and christopher nolan: the madonna-whore complex played straight. (like, bonus point, you tried, for having 1 female scientist there and then her having two scenes: one where its like 'im a Women in STEM' and two where 'oh reproductive systems'. its not as if he had that much to work with i guess (i don't know, can't imagine there were many female scientists at los alamos)).

also, the dutch was just gibberish. i couldn't understand a word, which is a funny experience in a theatre full of dutch people?

interesting how he can keep the tension even tho like, everyone knows that the bomb did actually go. very very strange to imagine that there was a world before the nuclear bomb, there was a time, not so long ago where we didn't even know about quantum....

very unsure about how i should actually feel about the guy and everything. very frustrated by people who keep saying that 'we need to think about what we're unleashing on the world' with new technology. it doesn't matter what we think, if power/money wants it built, its going to get built (if not for this war, then for the next), and if we don't do it, someone else will. if it's possible, it is necessary (if its for war). i hate it so much and i don't want to be part of it. we can think about it forever, it doesn't fucking mean shit if you cannot withhold the labor that is necessary to build it (and there will always be fools with more arrogance than sense to make it, and there the devil gets you because if you build it, at least you can keep some control, or control over the next round... right! right? (cue the scene where the army's driving away with the bombs. like you stupid fucker what did you expect? you build a bomb that kills thousands and give it to them and throw you away... dumb assholes all of them. they didn't even attack a military target. it wasn't even on the nazi's which, imo would be justified, or the arms race was).

argh, anyway. then i took a train for an hour to have dinner and watch barbie with two friends, and it was funny and we had laughs and i didn't even think about the atomic bomb. barbie was like, the friendzone boy gets to implement patriarchy, and it hits all the relevant topics and such. its Not That Deep but it was funny. but i didn't really like the central climactic de-programijng part (even though it worked well with the themes&tones of the movie), i don't think that the Problem of Womanhood is that women are expected to be everything all at once! its that there are systematical and structural barriers for both men and women, and we didn't get there in the end (not even in perfect Barbie land). but thats a small note that i just didn't really like, i thought the tone was really well dome.

anyway, these were my thoughts and im going to read American Prometheus

[mistlekissy]

I’ve done the Barbenheimer… why did no one tell me Oppenheimer was 3 hours?! No human should be forced to sit still for 3 hours just starring at a screen, but there are so many hot men to see so it was ultimately ok 😃

idk what this new 3h movie trend is tbh, the only movie that should be 3h is this is us part 2