this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
43 points (83.1% liked)

Movies and TV Shows

24 readers
2 users here now

General discussion about movies and TV shows.

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:

::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::

Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!

Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [!thebear@lemmy.film](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)

Related communities: !entertainment@beehaw.org !moviesuggestions@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
admin@lemmy.film
43
Why Did ‘Barbie’ Bomb in South Korea? (www.hollywoodreporter.com)
submitted 1 year ago by realcaseyrollins@kbin.projectsegfau.lt to c/moviesandtv@lemmy.film
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A lack of cultural nostalgia attached to the toy and wariness of the film's feminist messaging may have kept the Korean audience away from the Hollywood mega-hit: "There is no real fan base for 'Barbie' in Korea.”

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The country’s gender debate is so stark that during the 2022 presidential election, Yoon Suk-yeol, of the conservative People Power party, ran a winning campaign while pledging to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, claiming that the ministry promotes reverse discrimination against men.

Crap like this is why the media has no reputation. The "Ministry of Gender Equality and Family" is 여성가족부 in Korean - which means Ministry of Women and Family. It is literally a pro-woman Ministry. This is fine and nobody I know voted for Yoon, but you have to understand it is literally a ministry dedicated for reverse discrimination. The fact the article wrote it this way is such a baffling lie to anyone who knows the subject.

[–] lasagna@programming.dev 20 points 1 year ago

Though there's no such thing as reverse discrimination. It's just good, old discrimination.

[–] Infinitenonblondes@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not sure The Hollywood Reporter would be anyone’s first place to learn about the internal politics of South Korea.

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would agree, if they didn't literally have an article titled "Why Did 'Barbie' Bomb in South Korea?"

[–] QHC@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just because a publication tries to tackle a topic doesn't mean they are qualified, or that we should use that as an example of why the entire industry of journalism should be written off.

[–] StunningGoggles@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

To be fair I generally feel this way about topics I'm actually knowledgeable on. I know the media tries to get it right and in this case it doesn't seem intentional. But it happens far too often and why would I assume it only happens on subjects I'm familiar with?

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

There is a huge debate in South Korea over feminism. I'm not Korean, but I've read a lot that Korean men do get special treatment from the government, colleges, and workplaces, but mostly for their mandatory military service. The argument seems to be that if women want the same treatment, they're free to sign up for military service.

[–] kamenoko@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Maybe the issue is compelling your citizens to join your military in the first place?

[–] firewyre@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This was an incredibly stupid thing to say when their only direct neighbor wants them all dead.

[–] kamenoko@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the threat is that large then it should be no issue to have a standing, regular army instead of forced conscription.

[–] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds fair to me.

[–] sock@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i also think blackmailing women into joining the military is a sustainable idea

[–] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

Oh, but I guess totally okay to blackmail men because they're disposable

[–] Gsus4@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago

Makes sense for a country still technically in a civil war, I guess.

[–] Stanwich@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So I went with my son and wife, I'm very open minded about things in general but for anyone to say this wasn't a movie about feminism and incels is a joke. I get it, men have movies that glorify masculinity all the time so I didn't mind watching it but to say All we care about is patriarchy and mini fridges and horses is a joke. Well made movie so I'll just chock it up to feminism getting a good jab in.

[–] icepuncher69@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

Imo it was trying to make you think about what just happened and how the fight was more of the classes rather than sexes, while presenting itself more as empowerment since thats what the brand sells, not revolution and empowerment implies keeping the status quo going, but the undertone definetly hints at the fact that the system in and of itself is wrong, not necesarily what group of people runs it.

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

All the Ken's care about are Patriarchy, horses, and mini-fridges, because they were given no rights or ideas of their own before Ken went to the real world, and he was only there for a few hours.

It's not a critique of men in general.

[–] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago

Any dude getting personally upset about the portrayal of the Kens is telling on himself

[–] Stanwich@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That would be an argument if they men in the real world weren't portrayed the same way. They shit on men in both worlds.

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

Some of the men were, others were shown to be normal. They really only showed a handful of real world men anyway, and Ken got all his inspiration from a few corporate suits (and honestly, a lot of male suits do act like that).

[–] Uprise42@artemis.camp 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

My biggest issue with it was honestly the ending. They make it clear that Barbie world is just reversed where the men are treated poorly by the women. Which is fine. The analogy makes as much sense as it needs to for the point it makes.

But at the end they have the change to use that point to illustrate where they would like to see the world go. They could have said “wow we were assholes and our poor treatment of men encouraged this entire shit show. We’re going to treat men as equals now” but instead they simply gave them slightly better benefits than they had before and still expected to be able to treat them like crap. It would’ve been nicer to see them illustrate more equality between the genders and the results it had on the regular world.

[–] Cylusthevirus@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

but instead they simply gave them slightly better benefits than they had before and still expected to be able to treat them like crap.

Gee, think that might have been yet another pointed joke or are we all deeply invested in the lore of Barbie World now?

[–] Uprise42@artemis.camp -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can see the joke, but that wasn’t the timing for it. This was a statement movie through and through, and while it does paint what has been done in the past to women this happened at the end of the film. For a statement film then end is a call to action, not a silly one liner. That joke was better reserved to happen closer to the middle or beginning. The ending should be reserved for an analogy for how things should be.

[–] realcaseyrollins@kbin.projectsegfau.lt -1 points 1 year ago

Yeah the way they wrote that made it seem like the people behind the movie were okay with that decision

[–] icepuncher69@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

I think it was intentional, like the undertone is that its all fucked in the end and both sides are wrong in their own way, and it tries to make you think about whatvyou just saw, specially after they make clear that barbie is unsatisfied about all stuff that happened and rather turn into a real person to maybe find meanning, and the gynecologist line is kinda like a middle finger to reality. The power fight betwen sexes while not pointless in a societal way, its rather unfulfilling in a personal level, like stuff doesnt really change as long as the angle is still in the fight of the sexes, and both sides are capable of the same shit while in power, and its more fault of the hierchical sistem in itself (capitalism) rather that if men or women are running it. But ofcourse its not gonna be upront about it since the barbie brand sells empowerement to women, not revolution, nd empowerment means perpetuating the status quo, just under new mannagement. In its self aware angle the movie kindda remminded me of deadpool, and while i like most of the humor, i get why some people wouldnt like it that much for that (besides the "ugh feminism" croud of dumbasses) the only scene where i think it was cringe was the one where they say "note to the filmakers margot robie cute blah blah blah", it felt very tryhard. Or at least thats my take on it

[–] Axium@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

they simply gave them slightly better benefits than they had before and still expected to be able to treat them like crap.

Or as the movie puts it: "Eventually you'll have the same rights women do in the real world"

Did you actually watch the movie? Returning to oppressing the Kens was literally the point to mirror the equal rights movement irl.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly my takeaway from this. Alright, so you're not for equality, you just want the inequality to favor you. It was the most disappointing part of the movie for me.

[–] Cylusthevirus@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How did you miss the point of that line as hard as you did?

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which point is that? That the writers are incapable of subtlety or that the writers believe the viewers are incapable of noticing it? Or is the point that they're saying things that they absolutely don't believe and not that a reversal of roles doesn't constitute an improvement?

[–] mrpants@midwest.social 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bro it's that the inequality that the Kens are supposed to accept is just how it is.

I think we both get that and I think it's a great illustration. It actually hurt to hear that line as a guy.

But that's the whole point of it. If it hurts to hear that as a man about a fictional character in a movie how much does it hurt to hear that in your real life?

The movie is not advocating for switching to matriarchy. When Barbie gets liberated she doesn't leave Ken behind and tries to help him in his own liberation. Unfortunately other Barbies don't understand this and are happy to have their power back while doing minor feel good policy changes for the Kens. This is how the world actually works in a lot of instances. The movie is demonstrating quite pointedly how the world is so that we can see and feel it.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Um yes, I saw the movie. That was a point they raised throughout, showing the inequality in both Barbie world and the real world. If you didn't get it before the finale, I don't think one more quip was going to turn the lights on for anyone. So what was the excuse for having the narrator condoning treating the Kens as poorly as women have been treated in the real world?

[–] mrpants@midwest.social 5 points 1 year ago

To demonstrate a point more saliently than intellectually. That line hurt on purpose and it's a good thing. It gets through better.

I do hope my fellow dudes can handle the tiniesr bit of pain for a learning opportunity.