Talk:Barbie (film)

Barbenheimer Edit

This message also appears on the talk page for Oppenheimer

A section in the marketing/release section should be added for the film's viral "Barbenheimer" phenomenon. At one time it was just silly memes, but it has now turned in to a legitimate talking point about the film's release, with Barbie director Greta Gerwig and star Margot Robbie both commenting and promoting the trend, as well as actor Tom Cruise. It is a part of the film's release undoubtedly, there is no way around it. I will post my now-deleted section below, please check my references and sources for authenticity. BakedintheHole (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

=== "Barbenheimer" ===

Barbie is set to be released theatrically on July 21, 2023, the same day as Oppenheimer, the biographical thriller film about J. Robert Oppenheimer directed by Christopher Nolan. Due to the difference in tone and genre between the two films, many social media users across platforms such as Instagram and TikTok have taken to making memes and ironic posts about how the two films represent different audiences, or how the two films should be viewed as a double feature. The popularity of the trend comparing the two films led to the New York Times dubbing the phenomenon "Barbenheimer". Gerwig and Robbie have both promoted the connection, posting a photo of themselves attending Oppenheimer on the film's official Twitter account on June 30, 2023. Actor Tom Cruise also encouraged the cross-promotion, tweeting that he "love[s] a double feature, and it doesn't get more explosive (or more pink) than one with Oppenheimer and Barbie". BakedintheHole (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Trivial information about a brief social media flurry which will inevitably be forgotten about in a couple of weeks' time. Barry Wom (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would disagree, I think it has made a substantial impact on the cross-promotion of each film and has been embraced by the filmmakers, too. BakedintheHole (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's been added briefly in the marketing section (where it should be, not under its own section). Thank you. Mike Allen 15:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  I have added it back to the marketing section (without its own section), as “Barbenheimer” is now its own Wikipedia article. Users continue trying to delete the section on both the Oppenheimer and Barbie pages, I am adding them back to both and leaving a message warning against an edit war. BakedintheHole (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• I think there should be a short blurb here but then the new article deleted, that's quite excessive. Reywas92^Talk 13:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Nomination of Barbenheimer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barbenheimer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbenheimer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The Philippines has not banned the film

I've checked the latest news about the potential ban of Barbie in the Philippines, and I've seen their MTRCB body approve the movie for theatrical release. Here's the news article proving it. (It turns out the link stopped working as soon as I added it in this talk section. Oh well...)

One thing I don't know is how to add it in this Wikipedia article (mainly because I'm doing this in a mobile browser.) Could someone do this for me? Thanks in advance! green@grenier ~$ sign --now; sudo systemctl enable wptalk 12:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Error in Plot Summary

>Sasha inspires a depressed Barbie by acknowledging the inherent contradictions of American femininity.

This is incorrect. Gloria (the mother) gives this speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.83.70.31 (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Per IP above, there is an error in the plot summary. Please change "Sasha inspires a depressed Barbie..." to "Gloria inspires a depressed Barbie...". Many thanks 86.133.52.213 (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd also add that a small (but noteworthy) part of the ending has been missed in the Plot Summary.  Just before Stereotypical Barbie decides to go into the real world, the Barbies agree to stop excluding the Kens from the matriarchy of Barbieland. See it mentioned here https://www.vulture.com/article/barbie-ending-explained-transcending-corporate-ip.html

The movies jokes that it is tokenistic, but I think it is still worth mentioning because it shows that the Barbieland inhabitants had some character development too (not just Stereotypical Barbie and Beach Ken).

It could be mentioned like this?

"Ken laments that he has no identity or purpose without Barbie, to which Barbie encourages him to find an autonomous identity and inspires the other Barbies to include the Kens in their society." Gfoxwood (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Cast

How are you deciding who is Ken 1, Ken 2, Ken 3? 2001:8F8:172B:41ED:ACF0:D8FC:8AF5:B5CF (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"critical acclaim" should be changed to "positive reviews" or "generally favorable reviews"

The word "acclaim" only appears in the lead section and is not supported by the Metacritic source below in the article itself.

We use Metacritic to determine critical acclaim. If we look at other film pages where the lead section says that the film received "critical acclaim": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killers_of_the_Flower_Moon_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer_(film)

In both cases, CTRL+F'ing for "acclaim" shows two results: one in the lead section ("critical acclaim"), and one below in the article that acts as the source for that lead section claim ("Metacritic [...], indicating "universal acclaim").

Metacritic's consensus is the source to use in this situation because it is the simplest and provides a directly quotable source "universal acclaim". In comparison, Rotten Tomatoes leaves too much up to subjective speculation, as there is no way to reliably determine at which % a Rotten Tomatoes score becomes "acclaim" as opposed to just "positive". Z8n (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't exclusively use Metacritic to determine a film's critical reception. The lead's summary of the film's reception should be determined by the totality of sources, not just Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes should be included among the sources that are used. The film has an 80% on Metacritic, and anything over 80% on that website is considered "acclaimed". So even if we were just going by Metacritic, the film is right on the edge of being considered "acclaimed". But again, Metacritic shouldn't be the only source used to determine the film's reception. On Rotten Tomatoes, Barbie has a 90% fresh score and an average rating of 8.10. And Rotten Tomatoes wrote this article about the film's reviews, which states, "the buzz on Barbie is exceptional." So I think that "critically acclaimed" is the best way to describe the film's reception in the lead. --Jpcase (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand that you are clearly passionate about the film and want to see it rewarded with the "critical acclaim" label, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We don't extrapolate or stretch the truth to make our desired narratives fit, and we especially don't make arguments such as, "Well it's 80/100 and that's close enough to 81/100, so can't we just call it even and say that it is?".

But let's break this down one one by one.

> We don't exclusively use Metacritic to determine a film's critical reception.

Didn't say that. What we do, however, is use Metacritic as a source to determine its eligibility under "critically acclaimed", for reasons that I already explained in detail above. I even provided two examples of such cases: Killers of the Flower Moon, and Oppenheimer.

If you could provide some examples of some high-profile film pages (i.e. not film pages with low awareness and low activity) that show otherwise, then that would be great.

> The lead's summary of the film's reception should be determined by the totality of sources, not just Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes should be included among the sources that are used.

Also already addressed. Metacritic is the simplest and provides a direct path of sourcing to the claim "critical acclaim". Keep it simple. If it can't be clearly and simply sourced in line with the methodology used on similar pages (e.g. Killers of the Flower Moon, and Oppenheimer), then it doesn't belong on an encyclopedia.

As I already said, Rotten Tomatoes leaves too much up to subjective speculation, as there is no way to reliably determine at which % a Rotten Tomatoes score becomes "acclaim" as opposed to just "positive".

> The film has an 80% on Metacritic, and anything over 80% on that website is considered "acclaimed". So even if we were just going by Metacritic, the film is right on the edge of being considered "acclaimed".

So end result being, it's not "universally acclaimed" by Metacritic. Saying "Well, it's close enough..." isn't acceptable. We don't fudge facts here to make our desired narratives fit.

> But again, Metacritic shouldn't be the only source used to determine the film's reception. On Rotten Tomatoes, Barbie has a 90% fresh score and an average rating of 8.10.

Already addressed above.

> And Rotten Tomatoes wrote this article about the film's reviews, which states, "the buzz on Barbie is exceptional." So I think that "critically acclaimed" is the best way to describe the film's reception in the lead.

Exceptional buzz cannot be equated to "critical acclaim". Z8n (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I never suggested that we should "fudge" the numbers because the Metacritic score is "close enough." If we were only using Metacritic as a source, then of course it wouldn't be appropriate to describe the reception as anything other than what Metacritic says. But we aren't using Metacritic as the only source. Like I said, we should be looking at the totality of sources. The Rotten Tomatoes score is incredibly high. I think it's very appropriate to describe 90% and an 8.10 average rating on Rotten Tomatoes as "critically acclaimed". And because the Metacritic score is right on the edge of what that website considers "universally acclaimed", I don't think that it should count against describing the film that way. We can't cite Metacritic directly to characterize the film's reception as "acclaimed". But when we take both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic together, describing the film as "acclaimed" seems perfectly reasonable. --Jpcase (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Every single point that you just raised has already been addressed, repeatedly.

Again, keep it simple. A Metacritic page for a film is a list of scores provided by critics. Therefore, when it says "universal acclaim", that directly allows us to chart a path from source to claim. It's a very simple system that allows us to cite it as a reliable source for "critical acclaim".

Now contrast this with your insistence that we also account for the Rotten Tomatoes score and average rating into this equation. By what metric does 90% and 8.10 average rating on Rotten Tomatoes count as "critical acclaim"? What is the threshold? And by what criteria did you decide on that threshold, when Rotten Tomatoes itself does not provide any such ruling?

Just to clarify, I am not saying that we should discount Rotten Tomatoes as a whole from the consensus blurb. Rotten Tomatoes is useful to describe exactly what critics are praising, e.g. "[...] for its direction, production design, costumes, music, and performances". But beyond that, using it as a measure of critical acclaim? No, because again, there is no standard of measure there. Z8n (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Metacritic doesn't have a specific measure for critical acclaim either. It has a measure for "universal acclaim", but not for "critical acclaim", which do not mean the same thing. The lead for this article currently says "critically acclaimed", which is just a way of saying that the film has been widely praised. That the film has been widely praised is clearly evidenced by both the Rotten Tomatoes score and the Metacritic score. --Jpcase (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Now you are just playing word semantics...not to mention that you also proved that you haven't been reading my comments.

I already pre(?)-addressed that argument in this paragraph above:

Again, keep it simple. A Metacritic page for a film is a list of scores provided by critics. Therefore, when it says "universal acclaim", that directly allows us to chart a path from source to claim. It's a very simple system that allows us to cite it as a reliable source for "critical acclaim".

"universal acclaim [on a page listing scores provided by critics]" = "universal acclaim [by critics]" = "critical acclaim".

A clear, direct link provided only by Metacritic, and not by Rotten Tomatoes. Z8n (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

...me disagreeing with you doesn't mean that I "haven't been reading" your posts. And just because you feel that you've addressed a certain point doesn't mean that you've addressed it in a way that I find convincing. When you say that we can "directly... chart a path from source to claim." It's not as simple as that. And it's not me "playing word semantics" to point it out. "Critically acclaimed" and "universally acclaimed" fundamentally mean different things. Saying that a film has to be "universally acclaimed" for it be described as "critically acclaimed" is just making up an arbitrary standard. Regardless, here's a Hollywood Reporter article saying "Both Barbie and Oppenheimer are getting overwhelmingly positive reviews". So based on that quote, I feel that we could describe the film's reception as either "overwhelmingly positive" or "critically acclaimed", which are synonymous descriptions. I prefer "critically acclaimed", because I feel that direct quotes typically shouldn't be used in an article's lead. --Jpcase (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

They absolutely do mean the same thing, as I clearly laid out in my previous comment. You are just making that distinction because it fits the narrative that you want to push, which is trying to discredit Metacritic as a reliable single source so that you can get Rotten Tomatoes included in there as well...which you mistakenly yet for some reason fervently believe would then allow Barbie to receive the 'critical acclaim' tag. So from start to finish, none of your arguments hold water, at any step of the way.

Third-party news articles are irrelevant here. The only source used in this scenario is the simplest and most direct one, which is Metacritic. Scouring the Internet to find sources that back up the narrative that you so clearly want to push doesn't magically make it true. Z8n (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Z8n @Jpcase Guys. Refresh yourself with MOS:FILMLEAD that discourages the use of ‘unauthoritative’ aggregators, especially MC which is algorithm based and mostly automated. To avoid WP:Synthesis we go with the one or two most recent and reliable sources that best summarize the press consensus— that Barbie has “shattered” box office expectations and has been met with “critical acclaim” per MOS:FILMLEAD. And, when in doubt, quote the sources ‘directly’ as I did here. Oppenheimer, for instance, is also being touted on its Wikipedia entry for being a box office hit, and exceeding expectations, with “widespread critical acclaim”- similar to the latest Mission Impossible Wikipedia page— per etiquette and precedence elsewhere. We shouldn’t waterdown this page because the minority making up the anti-woke, far-right crowd has an issue with this movie per WP:FRINGE and WP:Censor.

With opening weekend coming to a close, there are now more than enough legit citations (i.e. like Variety) that are properly and fairly supporting the content as it’s being reported here. Try not to be WP:Pointy about this. 216.200.84.231 (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

"We shouldn’t waterdown this page because the minority making up the anti-woke, far-right crowd has an issue with this movie per WP:FRINGE and WP:Censor."

Umm, what? What does this have to do with anything? So just because a film is receiving criticism from fringe lunatics, that means that Wikipedia should sacrifice its role as an encyclopedia and rush to its defense?

An encyclopedia is based on facts. And it is a fact that Barbie has not received critical acclaim.

Who are you and why are you posting from behind an anonymous IP address? Z8n (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Do not use duplicate bare refs, and do not cite refs that are not related to the specific information. Only Screen Rant states "critical acclaim". 90% on RT and 80 (not 90) Metascore do not mean "critical acclaim". ภץאคгöร 20:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros Untrue. Even so- One source is enough per MOS:FILMLEAD, and it’s clearly implied by the others, and we can list more if you require. RT and MC certainly make the case for critical acclaim.

Again, refresh yourself with MOS:FILMLEAD which says we should summarize the press consensus with ONE or two recent sources that best summarize the reporting. The movie is already a cultural phenomenon with box office and critical reception. The simple fact that you don’t like it ain’t enough.

Stop flirting with WP:FRINGE and WP:OR 2607:FB91:7B9:D49:457B:39E4:B30E:320B (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros This debate is not taking place at the Oppenheimer page or the Mission Impossible page, or several others just like it. And those films have “wide spread critical acclaim”. The movie is being reported as a box office and cultural phenomenon. I will simply include MORE citations that use this direct language as well. But even without it, it’s fine pet MOS:FILMLEAD and WP:V. Your ‘reasoning’ is WP:OR and your edits elsewhere are not consistent with regards your own logic. 2607:FB91:7B9:D49:457B:39E4:B30E:320B (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros Here is yet ANOTHER source reporting on “Barbie” receiving “critical acclaim” https://www.economictimes.com/news/international/us/barbie-vs-oppenheimer-at-box-office-who-won-at-the-preview-and-what-else-now/amp_articleshow/102024360.cms 2607:FB91:7B9:D49:457B:39E4:B30E:320B (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if you actually read the article you would've seen that I've used that one source per MOS:FILMLEAD. No, RT and MC do not state "critical acclaim", see WP: SYNTH. You insist adding unsourced reception summary and duplicate bare refs. I didn't write anything about not liking it. I'm not "flirting" with anything. Instead of calling editors "NPOV vandal", "troll", "Your WP:nothere to WP:censor", I recommend that you learn how to write better articles and learn about civility.