User:Italianmagnolia/Barbie (film)

copied from [[Barbie (film)]]

1ST EDIT

Plot

"Meanwhile, Ken learns about patriarchy and feels respected for the first time."

^Is this the right way of saying this?

Times Magazine wrote, "Then Ken leaves Barbieland, a feminist utopia, and enters the real world, where men run, well, everything. In short, Ken discovers the patriarchy and decides to bring it back to Barbieland, establishing his own “Kendom" (Times).

Rewritten: Meanwhile, Ken's journey in the real world, away from Barbieland, a matriarchal utopia, discovers a world where men rule everything. In discovering the patriarchy, Ken decides to bring it back to Barbieland, establishing his own "Kendom" (Times). Note: This would likely be flagged for copyright infringement to the Times. But this is an example of how the section could be worded in order to remove bias.

WP:NOT Tone There are two things that can be done here: (1) Keep the sentence as is, with the risk of wrongly imposing tone. (2) Reword the sentence to add detail and clarify and eliminate the risk of tone issues.

2ND EDIT:

Production

"The idea of a live-action Barbie film had been in development at Cannon Films in the mid-1980s. Little is known about it, other than a promotional blurb (with the plotline centering around Barbie showing her owner how all her dreams could come true), and it is unclear how far into development it got before Mattel ceased working with Cannon, following the box office failure of Cannon's live-action adaptation of Masters of the Universe (1987).[38]"

^WP:NOT Notability. Wikipedia notability, specifically trivial mentions states, "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." However, it also states that this doesn't apply to content, but I still think since this paragraph is not backed by sufficient evidence and coverage, it should not be included because it is trivial. The information not being supported by a reliable source. WP:NOT Wikipedia Verifiability: The information cannot be verified, and fails to adhere to Wikpedia's verifiability policy. There are two things that can be done to resolve this: (1) Removal of the content that isn't supported by the source, since the content failed verification. The LA Times article does mention a Barbie movie in development. At the very least, there is some fact in that first sentence and that first sentence can stay. However, whether keeping the first sentence independently adds value to the overall page is questionable. (2) Research the claims made in the rest of the paragraph to see if the information is true, and see if you can find a reliable source that supports that claim. This is an option in order to preserve information that might be true and just needs a reliable source. And if you don't find any reliable sources, then the information should be removed because the content that isn't supported by a reliable source.

3RD EDIT:

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.

4TH EDIT:

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 thing being re-hashed.

5TH EDIT:

Article: "Religious interpretation and LGBTQ+ themes In some Muslim-majority countries, there were attempts to ban the film on moral grounds or for allegedly showing LGBTQ+ themes. Some of them were successful."

This seems out of place in the article. The rest of the section is organized by each country listed that has censorship. If the "Religious interpretation and LGBTQ+ themes" is an issue in a specific country, then it should be included under that country's paragraph. Otherwise, it belongs in another section entirely.

6TH EDIT:

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.

Existing Communication


 * Barbie is more intimidating than Buc-ee’s because there are people actively engaged in editing the article and I see a lot of the talk page has been archived recently. However, when I look at the original article before editing, there really are not that many changes. I am aware that they may be shocked by some of my bold edits.
 * There is controversy over whether to include, “right-wing backlash.” That is an interesting perspective, that may be more helpful to include than the long 400 or so words about Vietnam censorship? Something to consider.

WP In Context


 * Barbie (Film) is linked 500 times by other Wiki articles. The first sentence says "see list of Barbie filmsLinks to an external site."
 * Barbie (Film) article links "eponymous fashion dollsLinks to an external site." which actually takes you to the Barbie page. I had no idea what eponymous and I remember when I started this project in the beginning I did a deep dive on that word because I was trying to make sure that the word was being used appropriately because I was not familiar with it. I found that, basically, I'm 100% sure they are using it correctly regarding the way they are using it and 90% positive they are using it in a sentence correctly. Anyways, it is actually helpful to link this word because it is not a high frequency word and so linking it to Barbie makes sense. Essentially the point of including it is so the reader understands the film is under the "Barbie" character umbrella, as it were.

WP NOV

Barbie (film)
 * "a group of discontinued models who are treated like outcasts due to their unconventional traits" -There is archived talk about this sentence that was quite lengthy. It was discussed in length how the Barbie "outcasts" would be described within the article. Such as "disfigured"
 * archived language change: "critical acclaim" should be changed to "positive reviews" or "generally favorable reviews"

NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF REVISION OG: In December 2016, Amy Schumer entered negotiations to star in the title role with Winston's screenplay. Schumer helped rewrite the script with her sister, Kim Caramele.

In December 2016, Amy Schumer entered negotiations to star in the title role with Winston's screenplay; Schumer helped rewrite the script with her sister, Kim Caramele.

OG: In March 2017, Schumer exited negotiations, initially saying it was due to scheduling conflicts with the planned June 2017 filming. She revealed in 2023 she left the project due to creative differences with the film's producers at the time.

In March 2017, Schumer exited negotiations, blaming scheduling conflicts with the planned June 2017 filming start; in 2023 she revealed she left the project due to creative differences with the film's producers at the time.

OG: In August 2023, it was announced that Robbie would earn "roughly $50 million in salary and box office bonuses" as the star and producer of the film.

In August 2023, Variety revealed that Robbie would earn "roughly $50 million in salary and box office bonuses" as the star and producer of the film.

Reflecting upon the maximalism of Barbie, Gerwig said the "ontology of Barbie" was similar to what she perceived as Shakespeare's maximalism, which she enjoyed in his works. She grounded the film in what she described as a "heightened theatricality that allows you to deal with big ideas in the midst of anarchic play". ^They created a paragraph break because before it was a part of the previous paragraph and added more detail.

The ending of the film features Barbie saying the line "I'm here to see my gynecologist", with Gerwig describing it as a "mic drop kind of joke". She had chosen to include the line as she had wanted to instill confidence in younger girls, as she had been embarrassed about her body when she was younger.[

The 2nd sentence was added for more detail.

The film's main supporting cast includes America Ferrera, Michael Cera, Kate McKinnon, Issa Rae, Rhea Perlman, and Will Ferrell.

This entire graphic was added She also sought to use practical builds[clarification needed] and had to first film sequences in miniature models and then composite the footage onto the actual image.

^This edit has been on here since it was first published. Hair and makeup Ivana Primorac was the lead hair and makeup artist for the film.[92] This was originally a subheading but was put into the section “costumes.” Casting "Gerwig wanted her frequent collaborators Timothée Chalamet and Saoirse Ronan to make cameo appearances, but neither was available;" grammar: change "was" to "were"