Talk:Barbie (film)

First non-franchise film to become highest-grossing film of the year since 1998
Is this worth adding? I think it is a massive accomplishment. It took 25 years for franchises to fall. 2607:FEA8:E366:A700:780C:1BB:8DD:436A (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You need to cite a reliable source stating that it's in any way notable. DonQuixote (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure Avatar wasn't a franchise when it did so in 2009. Technically, neither was first Harry Potter or even Alice in Wonderland in 2010. 117.212.238.20 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

[]== Barbie becomes the third "unique" movie in 100 years ==

At the box office, Barbie becomes the third "unique" movie in 100 years to break records and earn over $1.4 billion worldwide. Sa79261 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of CGI
There are several interviews from the crew stating that the film employs no CGI. However, there are some, including from Gerwig and those on the post-production team, who say they did use CGI (and lots of VFX), because of time constraints, to expand the sets. A few of them are referenced in this YouTube video (1:34 to 6:34), including Framestore (2), Post Perspective, Animation World Network, and this hour-long interview for ShotDeck, among others, which I think are worthy are being included in the production section, that is, I think it would be adequate if someone expanded the post-production section or corrected the language in "production" that mentions the absence of CG when there is CG. A person in Georgia (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The only part I see that mentions CGI is a specific instance (capturing mountains) where it was not used. Is there another section? glman (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I used VFX and CGI interchangeably (though similar but different). I meant them both, which those articles cover. "Framestore's work included ... approximately 1300 VFX shots." "All that evolved once we got into post, and Greta felt it would look more charming if, rather than it being a painted cyc, it was actually a 3D CGI placement of buildings. ... There are over 700 shots of Barbie Land, which are either entirely CG or needed a lot of additional CG work to finish the picture." "This final, predominantly CG, shot from the movie was brought to life by a team of visual effects artists. ... Sometimes we were making entirely CG shots." Your mention of the mountains is there, too, but also of the skies, and how they were employed to expand the set, which is a key component of the movie. "When Barbie is first driving out onto the open road environment and you have the big Barbie Land rainbow, all of that was essentially bluescreen. The sky, distant vista of Barbie Land and the mountains were created digitally from reference photography of the sets that were built. We created an entirely CG environment." A person in Georgia (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see now that you might have been referring to the Wiki article. I think the line "... Gerwig was quoted saying of the use of practical effects instead of computer-generated imagery (CGI)" gives off the impression that the rest of the movie also has no CG/VFX, heightened by the lack of a proper section covering it. A person in Georgia (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Only Gosling received widespread praise. Not Robbie/Ferrera
My issue here is, it currently has all three actors, Gosling, Robbie, and Ferrera in the top of the Critical Reception section images. But everyone agrees that it was Gosling who in particular received "widespread" praise and every single award nomination. The other two were only positively received but not acclaimed in particular. So, what even is the point of specifying who received acclaim if we're going to mention everyone??? Didn't his scenes and even "I'm Just Ken" also got special praise? From everyone alike? That's the definition of "universal praise." We know the others didn't even get nominated in certain award shows.

For instance, in the same section of Avengers: Infinity War, only Josh Brolin as Thanos is mentioned and not other 40 actors because everyone agrees he was surprisingly good. 117.212.238.20 (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The widespread praise is a summary of the sources in the "Critical response" section and that these reviews came before the awards season, so your argument about Robbie and Ferrera not nominated for awards does not work here. (Although I don't see quotes about Ferrera's performance, so I don't know where the "widespread praise" for her came from.)
 * (As to the Infinity War argument, he was singled out in the various reviews, therefore the caption and the lead paragraph were stated as such.) Jolly1253 (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't just discuss this after awards and nominations. I have been observing this since the film's release. And just like you mentioned about Josh Brolin, do you not see that everyone is singling out Gosling's performance here too? What even is the point of this little section if it's not accurate? Also, Gosling's mention has been unanimous in literally all reviews, not merely "various." Robbie's performance, in fact, is the only one that somehow have gained negativity from a few websites though not from most. But that doesn't mean she was criticized. Neither does it mean she was universally praised. Ferrera, like you put it so politely yourself, is irrelevant too. She's not even in a significant portion of the movie, afterall. I have seen people calling hers a "Razzie-worthy performance," of course wikipedia won't concern that opinion since they're not "officials." 117.212.238.20 (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Robbie's performance, in fact, is the only one that somehow have gained negativity from a few websites though not from most. Could you provide the "few websites" that you were referring to? I would like to take a look at those reviews.
 * I've read all the reviews that are in the section (excluding the paywalled ones), and it seems that Gosling's performance is mentioned more than Robbie's. The reason why I don't think Gosling is considered "singled out" is because Robbie is also mentioned with him (in some of the reviews). I agree that Ferrera might need to be removed from the images since she is not mentioned significantly in the reviews.
 * One additional point I want to add is New York Times' summary of the reviews (archived version because the original one was paywalled for me): Critics tended to be unified in their praise of the movie’s stars, however, celebrating Margot Robbie’s surprising emotional depth as the so-called stereotypical Barbie who embarks on an eye-opening journey outside of the meticulously manufactured dolls’ world, as well as Ryan Gosling’s deadpan comedy as a Ken who delights in his discovery of the patriarchy.
 * And could I request if any more editors revert your edits regarding the image, could you not revert it back? The material is considered contested and should not be reverted until the discussion is complete. Jolly1253 (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we need a more reliable source than "everyone agrees". Ferrera got an Oscar nomination just as Gosling did; that's an indication that the Academy, at least, didn't agree. —VeryRarelyStable 23:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Professional Writing
— Assignment last updated by Eaturvegeez (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Checking for concision and fancruft
Over the course of the next few weeks, I will be making bold edits. A couple things I am looking at right now include: fancruft language, organization, checking for relevancy such as the large section regarding censorship, a few grammatical errors, and more. I will not be adding content, only editing what is already there and keeping the article focused and concise. I will be editing in my sandbox before going forward with my bold edits. I organize my sandbox in a bulleted list by quoting the article, identifying the edit that needs to be made, and a short explanation. Italianmagnolia (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Readability
The United States and Canada and the Other Territories seem like a pretty exhaustive list. Instead of going on about how many ways Barbie beat other movies in these smaller categories, the most impressive large-scale accomplishments should be focused on. It is also not high in readability. Reading all those numbers confuses the reader. Italianmagnolia (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Repetition
I cannot count how many times "Barbenheimer" was explained. It only needs to be explained once and there on out I think it can be used as a term in later sections to avoid the entire idea being re-hashed. Italianmagnolia (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Nine-dash line controversy: Unwieldy WP Not:Notability
The "Censorship" section regarding Vietnam and the Nine-Dash-Line controversy has become unwieldy. This entire section is 1500 words which is exhaustive and overwhelms the article. The banning of a film can be articulated in the Wiki Page: List of Banned Films. In fact, Barbie is already mentioned under the corresponding countries. What should be done: (1) Keep the censorship section by giving a brief description of the issue and linking the Wiki page: List of banned films. And possibly linking the Wiki page: Nine Dash Line. (2) Since there is so much information regarding this controversy with Vietnam and other countries, it may be worth creating a new page. Refer to Wiki page: Notability to determine if the material is substantive enough for its own page. Italianmagnolia (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem unwieldy at all to me, in fact it seems short than most sections of the page. This issue relates directly to the movie, moving it to an unrelated article removes important context here. It's very well-sourced, well-written, and notable. glman (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Mention of best picture and widespread critical acclaim in the lead paragraph
Noticed this movie is being singled out by a couple of editors with unnecessarily restrictive language. My only guess is that it has to do with the fact that the movie was do divisive.

Almost every other 2024 Oscar nominated movie has mention of a "best picture nomination" in the "lead" of their respective wikipedia articles. That also includes oscar nominated movies in 2023 and before.

Popcorn blockbuster movies like the Dune remake, TopGun Maverick and Avatar 2 also mention "best picture nomination" in its lead paragraph. Marvel's "Black Panther" is a good example of this. It is because they are WP:NOTABLE. Some popcorn blockbuster films like this may receive multiple nominations, mostly for technical awards, but it's even rarer that they are nominated for best picture of the year, let alone a film that was this influential and divisive, about "Barbie" dolls no less.lol

The movie also received acclaim and awards across the board, as in "widespread", so it is most certainly a movie that "received widespread critical acclaim". 208.46.64.50 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Nyxaros Inviting you to discuss the reasonable contributions I have made to the article. Asking that you explain yourself before you remove them again. It feels like you have a double standard here. Would you also be okay removing mention of "best picture" from the lead paragraphs of the wikipedia articles on the Dune remake, or any other movie you fancy for that matter? Why are you singling this movie out?? Thank you. 208.46.64.50 (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Some tweaking of sections to cut down on point-of-view pushing
Compared to other wikipedia entries about movies, some folks are giving Barbie a hardtime with convoluted passive-aggressive framing. These are mostly written in a more objective neutral fashion than this. Following the form & ettiquette of those other more cogent examples. Letting the NYT review summarize the overall critical reception clearly stacks the deck suggesting a mixed reception that isn't true. Muddling and burying as a form of synthesizing. Moving the NYT review where it is appropriate & makes sense.See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbie_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215012885 Other changes and trims to follow. 2601:280:CB00:903C:7580:40A2:4539:C4B6 (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

"Barbillion"
Is this noteworthy in a Wikipedia article? A made-up word by Warner Bros marketing? Seems rather silly to include a nonsense word. Feudonym (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2024
“Change The Kens indoctrinate the Barbies into submissive roles, such as agreeable girlfriends, housewives, and maids. Barbie arrives and attempts to convince the Barbies to be independent again. When her attempts fail, she becomes depressed. Gloria expresses her frustration with the conflicting standards women are forced to follow in the real world. Gloria's speech restores Barbie's confidence. to

The Kens exert their influence over the Barbies, mmaking them into submissive roles like compliant girlfriends, homemakers, and domestic servants. Barbie intervenes, striving to rekindle the spirit of independence among the Barbies. Despite her earnest efforts, she finds herself faced with resistance, leading to a deep sense of despondency.

Gloria, feeling the weight of societal expectations pressing down on her, passionately articulates her frustration with the double standards that women encounter in the real world. Her impassioned speech serves as a beacon of empowerment, reigniting Barbie's inner strength and resolve. With renewed confidence.” Westkayla (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The previous wording is grammatically better. Drowssap  SMM  19:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Movie poster is tiny - can someone upload a bigger version?
When I click on the movie poster, it doesn't enlarge. I just get an absolutely miniscule image that you need a microscope to see. Can someone upload a larger version? MisterZed (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * , since the film poster is a non-free image, Wikipedia keeps such images small as part of being a free encyclopedia. It's only used for identification here. If you want film poster images, I think another website is best. IMP Awards is one such website. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not small, though, it's tiny. It's barely more than 300 pixels high. Why can't it be say, 600 pixels? Wouldn't that still be considered "small"? Also, in the past I remember such images on Wikipedia being larger. MisterZed (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They may have tightened it over the years. WP:IMAGERES says 250 x 400 pixels, for example. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)