Barbie will make money. I went to the theaters to see Mission Impossible and the parking lot is swamped. All the high school and college aged girls have been filling th theater for days to see Barbie. Dressed in pink, all dressed up. Dragging their boyfriends, with super betas showing up to watch it on their own. I have ladies on Facebook who are posting all about it, mothers with daughters, random gals. They are showing up like it is Twilight.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (70)
sorted by:
But I will say this. My fiancé went and saw it while I went to see Oppenheimer. And she ended up loving the movie and thought it was funny. But she doesnt really keep up with the sort of things we do, and she is utterly convinced that Barbie was making fun of the Ultra-Feminist types, and that nothing about it was serious.
And from what I have gathered second hand from other people who went and saw it and dont normally like woke stuff, it sounds like that is the prevailing sentiment. Which I imagine is not the reaction the actors or film makers wanted.
Oppenheimer is propaganda. Oh noooos, the jewish guy who invented the nukes is upset and surprised that the nukes worked exactly as it was intended to work and killed people exactly as it was intended to?
Lol bullshit.
Oppenheimer was a millionaire from birth, educated in the best schools and a staunch communist. I feel zero sympathy for him.
The real propaganda is that it wasn't actually a jewish person who invented nukes. The point of movies like Opperheimer isn't to propagate what you just said, it's to propagate the idea that jews invented nukes and that nukes even exist in the manner in which we've been told.
as opposed to existing in a different manner?
You think nukes are a major reaction from an atom splitting that results in a massive blast that can cause massive damage and potentially destroy the whole earth if a nuclear war happens.
I'm saying this premise is false. What exactly is false and to what extent is unknown. Likely, the blast is not nearly as destructive as initially described, hence why governments "moved away" from big blast nukes and created "tactical nukes" because the tech can actually only create smaller explosions. The radiation of the blasts is also likely over exaggerated. It's possible, the mechanism of explosion isn't actually even possible in the first place and the bombs are simply more destructive regular bombs.
Something about nukes are highly deceptive though. Their existence doesn't add up to the way in which they've "been used" in the last century. But they make a great fear mongering tactic for governments to control the masses like a COVID-19.
Everything about nukes stinks.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Approved: I have no idea what him being jewish has to do with anything, or why saying that he was jewish (I have no idea if it's true), is an attack.
are you guys gonna go full patriots.lose and start censoring anything that refers to jews?
He didn't censor anything. He's responding to someone who reported it. Mods doing a fine job at the moment.
That's what I got from all the guys I know who went see it as well.
Its a full Starship Troopers and Mad Max Fury Road situation. Where the thing they are trying to say is bad they make look awesome and every guy walks away fucking loving it.
They didn't just fail to be propaganda, they had the opposite effect so hard they are unironically making people talk about the good things Patriarchy has done in those terms. Something unthinkable beforehand.
I have an issue with Starship Troopers being compared to fucking Barbie.
Starship Troopers saying 'war is bad' is only half the context.
Starship Troopers was both an anti-war film and a pro-war film at the same time. It was intentionally built that way which is part of what makes it so damn enjoyable, because it both stays true to the source material and expands it to ensure a complete film gets told.
That's why both the 'anti-war' crowd and the 'pro war' crowd can appreciate it at the same time, because it gives them both exactly what they want without sacrificing content or quality for the other.
It's an incredible screenplay based off an exceptional book and achieves on purpose what you are attributing to Barbie doing incidentally. Barbie only does one half, it is incredibly difficult to do both.
I don't know where you got this from. The director has openly stated his intentions many times, including openly hating the source material and considering literally everyone who doesn't share his delicate liberal sensibilities fascist Nazis. Verhoeven isn't known for being subtle or having "both sides" nuances. Its also a terrible adaptation by any metric, even ignoring the thematic one as he literally said it was too boring and "right-wing" before settling on lampooning it entirely because "Muh Nazis."
I've in fact, never seen a single person but him consider it remotely competent anti-war other than "it tried to be." That's why they had to invent the "asteroid was a false flag attack" theory. Because its the only way to make the film remotely start to work as one.
Heck even the original writer, who was trying to do a fair adaptation and grapple with the thoughts the book is meant to provide admitted the entire center third of the book was useless fluff meant to preach and cut it out, instead replacing it with his own experiences of women having no interest in him (how this is relevant to the rest of the story is a mystery). Which is why we have the god awful romance triangle to begin with, it was shoehorned in to reduce the politics and after many rewrites functioned as well as everything else they are trying to satirize.
It is incredibly difficult to do both, which is why a zealot like Verhoeven didn't even come close. All he did, much like he did with Robocop, was create a cartoonish evil so ridiculous that people skipped all his "deep" thoughts about America being Nazis and instead were awed by the cool shit.
That's why the Barbie comparison is apt. Because it so desperately wants to be one side of an argument, and in doing so becomes such a parody of itself that its opponents love it instead. All its missing is a good source material being ruined by shoving that message in.
You clearly haven't read the book. The movie is a parody. Sure, it's funny and a good movie, but it certainly tries to mock a decent book and its ideas. Not that the book's author had that much wisdom, but still.
I remember someone speculating that it could be mocking wokeness. How was Oppenheimer?
It is like a lot of Nolan historical movies (a la Dunkirk). I was expecting more about the Manhattan Project, but it is more about his life. And to that end, it jumps around a lot so you do need to be paying close attention. But if you are interested in the man, I do recommend it. And the parts where it did cover the Manhattan Project were interesting. And I do enjoy that they got the physics of a nuke right (which is rare in movies), where you see the blast long before you get hit with the shockwave. So there is an eerie quiet as you are watching the mushroom before everything gets blown over.
He had the one line all the normies know, but was otherwise was the least interesting person working on the project.
The normie line is apparently worth a movie, but if I had to pick a Los Alamos physicist, it would be Richard Feynman not Oppenheimer.
Im seeing Twitter discourse in our sphere speak of it as a tale of one man's crusade against the longhouse. Unsure how tongue in cheek this is or not.
Either way it's amusing that apparently the director and producers are so incompetent they apparently can't even do what they were set on doing.
edit: ex of discourse, RT'd by Lomez