Good. The first movie was exactly what it needed to be. I have 0 doubts this would end up nothing more than a blatant cashgrab with a forced attempt at a second viral meme marketting.
Good. The first movie was exactly what it needed to be. I have 0 doubts this would end up nothing more than a blatant cashgrab with a forced attempt at a second viral meme marketting.
Greta Gerwig has never made a sequel, and considering the resistance that the studio has to making a sequel to one of the most successful movies of all time, I suspect it has more to do with...
Greta Gerwig has never made a sequel, and considering the resistance that the studio has to making a sequel to one of the most successful movies of all time, I suspect it has more to do with misogyny than with the notion that it's "just a cash grab".
Plus, people have no problem with male-coded movies making a ton of sequels (John Wick). The first Barbie movie was great. I have no doubt the second would be too, given half a chance. Which it won't be.
In what could be his final months running Warner Bros. Discovery, Zaslav has dug in and taken a stand against the team’s massive (but justifiable, per many sources) pay demands.
Perhaps I'm reading your comment wrong, but it seems you made an immediate jump to saying someone's post has more to do with misogyny just because they called it a cash grab?
Perhaps I'm reading your comment wrong, but it seems you made an immediate jump to saying someone's post has more to do with misogyny just because they called it a cash grab?
I think Drewbahr is saying the studio resistance is the source of misogyny rather than Vord's comment. And while you might be able to read said comment as misogynistic, personally I'd say it comes...
I think Drewbahr is saying the studio resistance is the source of misogyny rather than Vord's comment. And while you might be able to read said comment as misogynistic, personally I'd say it comes across more cynical of the movie industry and frequent artless sequels than anything. And while I do believe the creatives could make a great sequel, personally I have come around more to just letting things be without turning everything into a franchise to be milked until it collapses on itself. As unfortunate as it is, that is the route most sequel franchises go. I think John Wick is an excellent example of this. Not bad films, but the sequels cheapen the original's cultural weight and premise. So I personally hope Barbie stays as the sole Barbie film, and that creative energy gets spent making more new ideas a reality.
I don't follow too closely, but I feel that 3+ solo directorial movies inside a decade is quite prolific, sequels or not. And would Lady Bird and Little Women really benefit from sequels either?
I don't follow too closely, but I feel that 3+ solo directorial movies inside a decade is quite prolific, sequels or not.
And would Lady Bird and Little Women really benefit from sequels either?
She is prolific, and has quite a few great movies. She also isn't prone to releasing sequels. To insinuate that a well regarded director would be making a movie as a cash grab, when she has zero...
She is prolific, and has quite a few great movies. She also isn't prone to releasing sequels. To insinuate that a well regarded director would be making a movie as a cash grab, when she has zero history of doing so, is... Well, it's something.
Well, I meant the studio. I think part of the reason they can't come to terms is that she knows it so is making reasonable demands for a huge cut, knowing that she probably won't get creative...
Well, I meant the studio. I think part of the reason they can't come to terms is that she knows it so is making reasonable demands for a huge cut, knowing that she probably won't get creative control this time around and it'll probably be a relative flop.
Mattel wants this to happen bad. WB wants it bad. Creative team sounds like not so much, unless WB and Mattel will cough up the proper payment.
Letting successful teams make reasonable pay demands is a longer term risk to studio profits.
I just find it surprising that people are so quick to write-off the possibility that a sequel to one of the most successful movies ever made would just immediately be a cash grab, without any idea...
I just find it surprising that people are so quick to write-off the possibility that a sequel to one of the most successful movies ever made would just immediately be a cash grab, without any idea of the scope or intention of the movie.
I think it's mainly because Barbie tells a complete story. It's clear they got across the main message they wanted to convey, so it's hard to imagine what else a sequel could explore. Even sequels...
I think it's mainly because Barbie tells a complete story. It's clear they got across the main message they wanted to convey, so it's hard to imagine what else a sequel could explore. Even sequels that aren't meant to be cash grabs can fall short for various reasons.
In Barbie's case, the fact the original film had such a strong message plays into my own skepticism. I've noticed a lot of the strongest media were made with a message or theme that's fully explored in the first installment. So the sequel has to try to emulate that, but often without having the exact same message or themes so as to avoid negating the first one's message or events.
Sometimes, there's an easy additional theme to explore in a sequel, but Barbie already explored gender roles, self determination, and identity very nicely. Maybe the sequel could focus more heavily on the identity aspect of Barbie than social commentary about gender, but... It's such a complete story and wrapped up all the plot ends, so a sequel truly feels unnecessary except for profit.
(And something tells me the studio might try to get more involved with the sequel because THEY just want it for cash grab purposes. And I've said many times now that it's executive meddling that tends to ruin creative projects the most.)
Or maybe the sequel could focus on other topics entirely! We simply don't know, and likely never will. And I, too, prefer well executed one-shot stories over drawn out, meaningless content. I...
Or maybe the sequel could focus on other topics entirely! We simply don't know, and likely never will. And I, too, prefer well executed one-shot stories over drawn out, meaningless content.
I agree that executive meddling often ruins creative projects, but like ... we have zero clue about what is even being discussed. And yet people are so, so quickly jumping to claiming it to be a cash grab.
Why? Isn't that a relatively common thing to happen? It doesn't always happen, maybe not even in the majority of cases, but in the case of a movie based on a hyper-commercial toy franchise, where...
Why? Isn't that a relatively common thing to happen? It doesn't always happen, maybe not even in the majority of cases, but in the case of a movie based on a hyper-commercial toy franchise, where the fact that the first one was not just a blatant cash grab seems like a bit of a miracle, this seems like a fair expectation.
Especially a toy franchise, that per the article, is about to reboot into the fashion-focused clothes+accessories nightmare that the first film was critiquing. Lightning can strike twice, but I...
Especially a toy franchise, that per the article, is about to reboot into the fashion-focused clothes+accessories nightmare that the first film was critiquing.
Lightning can strike twice, but I think a bit of cynicism toward two of the most manipulative industries out there is prudent.
Because per the article, the ongoing dispute is with the original team behind that wildly successful, unexpected first film. If/when it defaults to Mattel and becomes a different thing entirely,...
Because per the article, the ongoing dispute is with the original team behind that wildly successful, unexpected first film. If/when it defaults to Mattel and becomes a different thing entirely, then the cynicism is warranted and justified. But not until then.
I'm curious if this has anything to do with Gerwig being signed on to write and direct at least two Narnia movies for Netflix. She loves those books and early reports are claiming she had a $280m+...
I'm curious if this has anything to do with Gerwig being signed on to write and direct at least two Narnia movies for Netflix. She loves those books and early reports are claiming she had a $280m+ budget to make the first one, which is a dream for a fantasy project.
If she's not feeling particularly passionate about Barbie 2, I can see why she'd be hesitant to sign on, even if the money is tempting.
And if her goal is to adapt the entire Narnia series, then that makes her schedule a lot more difficult once filming starts on book 2, since you have to maintain a pretty steady production pace before the kids age out.
Good. The first movie was exactly what it needed to be. I have 0 doubts this would end up nothing more than a blatant cashgrab with a forced attempt at a second viral meme marketting.
Greta Gerwig has never made a sequel, and considering the resistance that the studio has to making a sequel to one of the most successful movies of all time, I suspect it has more to do with misogyny than with the notion that it's "just a cash grab".
Plus, people have no problem with male-coded movies making a ton of sequels (John Wick). The first Barbie movie was great. I have no doubt the second would be too, given half a chance. Which it won't be.
The studio isn’t being resistive. It’s Gerwig, Robbie, and Gosling. Warner Bros keeps increasing their offer but they keep getting rejected.
Perhaps I'm reading your comment wrong, but it seems you made an immediate jump to saying someone's post has more to do with misogyny just because they called it a cash grab?
I think Drewbahr is saying the studio resistance is the source of misogyny rather than Vord's comment. And while you might be able to read said comment as misogynistic, personally I'd say it comes across more cynical of the movie industry and frequent artless sequels than anything. And while I do believe the creatives could make a great sequel, personally I have come around more to just letting things be without turning everything into a franchise to be milked until it collapses on itself. As unfortunate as it is, that is the route most sequel franchises go. I think John Wick is an excellent example of this. Not bad films, but the sequels cheapen the original's cultural weight and premise. So I personally hope Barbie stays as the sole Barbie film, and that creative energy gets spent making more new ideas a reality.
I was referring to the studio and "cultural misogyny", not the OP.
I don't follow too closely, but I feel that 3+ solo directorial movies inside a decade is quite prolific, sequels or not.
And would Lady Bird and Little Women really benefit from sequels either?
Little Women actually has two sequels and one "continuation," which just sounds like another sequel.
She is prolific, and has quite a few great movies. She also isn't prone to releasing sequels. To insinuate that a well regarded director would be making a movie as a cash grab, when she has zero history of doing so, is... Well, it's something.
Well, I meant the studio. I think part of the reason they can't come to terms is that she knows it so is making reasonable demands for a huge cut, knowing that she probably won't get creative control this time around and it'll probably be a relative flop.
Mattel wants this to happen bad. WB wants it bad. Creative team sounds like not so much, unless WB and Mattel will cough up the proper payment.
Letting successful teams make reasonable pay demands is a longer term risk to studio profits.
I just find it surprising that people are so quick to write-off the possibility that a sequel to one of the most successful movies ever made would just immediately be a cash grab, without any idea of the scope or intention of the movie.
I think it's mainly because Barbie tells a complete story. It's clear they got across the main message they wanted to convey, so it's hard to imagine what else a sequel could explore. Even sequels that aren't meant to be cash grabs can fall short for various reasons.
In Barbie's case, the fact the original film had such a strong message plays into my own skepticism. I've noticed a lot of the strongest media were made with a message or theme that's fully explored in the first installment. So the sequel has to try to emulate that, but often without having the exact same message or themes so as to avoid negating the first one's message or events.
Sometimes, there's an easy additional theme to explore in a sequel, but Barbie already explored gender roles, self determination, and identity very nicely. Maybe the sequel could focus more heavily on the identity aspect of Barbie than social commentary about gender, but... It's such a complete story and wrapped up all the plot ends, so a sequel truly feels unnecessary except for profit.
(And something tells me the studio might try to get more involved with the sequel because THEY just want it for cash grab purposes. And I've said many times now that it's executive meddling that tends to ruin creative projects the most.)
Or maybe the sequel could focus on other topics entirely! We simply don't know, and likely never will. And I, too, prefer well executed one-shot stories over drawn out, meaningless content.
I agree that executive meddling often ruins creative projects, but like ... we have zero clue about what is even being discussed. And yet people are so, so quickly jumping to claiming it to be a cash grab.
Why? Isn't that a relatively common thing to happen? It doesn't always happen, maybe not even in the majority of cases, but in the case of a movie based on a hyper-commercial toy franchise, where the fact that the first one was not just a blatant cash grab seems like a bit of a miracle, this seems like a fair expectation.
Especially a toy franchise, that per the article, is about to reboot into the fashion-focused clothes+accessories nightmare that the first film was critiquing.
Lightning can strike twice, but I think a bit of cynicism toward two of the most manipulative industries out there is prudent.
Because per the article, the ongoing dispute is with the original team behind that wildly successful, unexpected first film. If/when it defaults to Mattel and becomes a different thing entirely, then the cynicism is warranted and justified. But not until then.
I'm curious if this has anything to do with Gerwig being signed on to write and direct at least two Narnia movies for Netflix. She loves those books and early reports are claiming she had a $280m+ budget to make the first one, which is a dream for a fantasy project.
If she's not feeling particularly passionate about Barbie 2, I can see why she'd be hesitant to sign on, even if the money is tempting.
And if her goal is to adapt the entire Narnia series, then that makes her schedule a lot more difficult once filming starts on book 2, since you have to maintain a pretty steady production pace before the kids age out.
What am I supposed to see after "Oppenheimer 2: This Time its Plutonium"?