Randall Park warns Hollywood not to learn the wrong lesson from Barbie
He's right: Barbie didn't become a million dollar grosser just because it's a movie about a toy
Aux News Barbie
If there’s one thing absolutely everyone agrees on, it’s that Barbie was really good for the economy. It’s easily the highest-grossing film from a female director ever and currently sits at a $1.2 billion worldwide box office (via Box Office Mojo). The film—along with (cousin? sibling?) Oppenheimer—gave AMC theaters its highest revenue week since the chain’s founding back in 1920. Even Margot Robbie herself is reportedly going to walk away with a $50 million paycheck.
This is all well and good. When an interesting, non-franchise movie like this wins, we all win, right? True… if Hollywood actually understands why people were so drawn to it in the first place. And, according to Randall Park, they absolutely do not.
“I feel like, just in general, this industry is taking the wrong lessons,” the Ant-Man And The Wasp: Quantumania actor said in an interview with Rolling Stone. “For example, Barbie is this massive blockbuster, and the idea is: Make more movies about toys! No. Make more movies by and about women!”
To understand just how fully Mattel—and by extension the studios funding them—have missed the point, one need not look further than the toy company’s absolutely bonkers slate of upcoming programming, revealed to Variety late last month. Don’t worry though: it’s not actually about selling toys. It’s about “creating quality content” that just so happens to sell toys, per Mattel CEO Ynon Kreiz.
In addition to the now somewhat notorious Lena Dunham/Lily Collins Polly Pocket movie—not to mention J.J. Abrams’ Hot Wheels and the Vin Diesel-starring Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots, both of which we swear we didn’t generate in a randomizer—Mattel also has plans for Magic 8 Ball (it’ll “probably be a PG-13 thriller”), UNO, and Major Matt Mason (starring Tom Hanks) among many others.
“Successful movies lend themselves to more movies,” said Kreiz of the company’s ambition to “create film franchises.” Still, we can’t say we’ll be too surprised when View Master the movie (a real thing!) doesn’t exactly measure up to Barbie.
135 Comments
Million? Try Billion!You may want to do a quick edit to that lede paragraph …
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha“edit”
I mean, I’m glad he said it…but we all know this is exactly what’s going to happen. And then in 5-7 years, we’ll hear complaints from WB execs scratching their heads wondering why they just had a series of toy-based movies that flopped.
Battleship was a sure-fire hit! It had a ready-made catchphrase and everything.
This?
I was thinking of “Your torpedo has impacted my Zumwalt-class Guided-Missile Destroyer! (Since, as we all know, the US Navy hasn’t employed Battleships since the last millenium)“
What is “Rihanna’s acting career in one word?”
I remember laughing so hard at this when I saw the trailer for this crap!
Same, since it was based on the game.
I sat through that whole fucking movie and not once did Liam Neeson punch an alien and say “You sunk my battleship.”
How in the holy fuck they took battleship and stuffed it full of aliens instead of making it a tense naval battle movie (think an updated Hunt for Red October), I never will understand.
I mean this was a good movie but the Barbie Branding helped it alot and if it was made without the Barbie IP I don’t think people will go out to see it as much
Between Ouija, G.I. Joe, and the Transformers franchise, the cynic in me thinks it’s actually the critics and artists who are looking at this through vision clouded by romantic notions about the power of storytelling. It’s nice that Barbie was good, but that doesn’t appear to be essential in making a toy-based movie (or franchise) successful. I’m not even entirely confident it was more than a secondary factor in the success of the Barbie movie itself.
Instead of “making more movies by and for women”, why don’t we just make good movies that aren’t one dimensional political statements by untalented writers who equate representation with art being good?
To attain that goal, it would probably help not to mostly ignore contributions from half the industry though.
Right but no one is doing that or has ever done that. Every three months a new movie comes out that’s marketing campaign is like “FINALLY A MOVIE MADE BY A WOMAN”. It’s insulting, but I guess people like you eat that shit up.
“Right but no one is doing that or has ever done that.”The tens of thousands of films made by men and the hundreds made by women would seem to put a hefty dent in that assertion.“Every three months a new movie comes out that’s marketing campaign is like “FINALLY A MOVIE MADE BY A WOMAN”.”Speaking of things that have never happened.“It’s insulting”Yeah, you guys really do tend to take this shit really personally.
You’re not an intelligent person.
You seem very emotional about this.
The things you think and say don’t matter.
Weird how my situation oddly mirrors yours.
Nah.
You’re right of course. You’re a pretty pink pony.
You’re extremely unfunny.
And you are a brave buffalo.
I feel bad for your parents.
We can’t all be problematic directir Luc Besson I suppose.
Yes. I’m a 65 year old french director. You’re a genius.
Oh come now, you don’t mean that.
I mean no, you’re a total fucking dumbass.
Wow, rent free huh?
Nah I was in Venice for the premiere of the film I worked on. I was also busy not using retarded, played out phrases to express myself.
No, you just came back over two weeks later to trade insults with a rando because you’re desparate for the last word. But yeah, you didn’t use played out phrases to express yourself so that’s a win. Douche.
Every three months a new movie comes out that’s marketing campaign is like “FINALLY A MOVIE MADE BY A WOMAN”.I would love some examples because looking at the last two years of blockbusters, I don’t think this claim holds water.
Every three months a new movie comes out that’s marketing campaign is like “FINALLY A MOVIE MADE BY A WOMAN”.Marketing campaign? Or general tone of blog coverage?The former? Hard to make a case for. The latter? Well, yeah, slinging takes is what blogs do. So that people like us will hopefully spend all day clicking/re-clicking the same article to fight with randos.
“that aren’t one dimensional political statements by untalented writers who equate representation with art being good”Is that a dig at Barbie, or just a non sequitur? In either case, it makes no sense. Try again.
Barbie was a great movie. Saying/believing that movies will be good again if we just let women make them, is both factually incorrect and stupid.
Why don’t you want more movies by and for women?
Because people are more than a box of demographic checkmarks.
Not sure he’s drawing the right conclusion here either. There are plenty of movies that are by / for certain people that still suck. The lesson is to make something clever, creative, fun, and/or moving, with plots that make sense, fully-formed characters and dialogue that doesn’t make the audience embarrassed for the writer. People have been anticipating Barbie for a long time because it had the opportunity to be something unique, or a complete trainwreck. Gerwig was obviously taking a full swing here so it probably wasn’t going to be anything in between.
That was what I came to say. It’s not like there haven’t been movies by and about women for decades. Barbie succeeded because of a combination of factors, some of which were in human control and some of which were not, and ‘Make movies by and about women’ is no guarantee of success any more than ‘make movies by and about physicists’ is.
Let’s also not ignore that Barbie’s marketing budget at the very least equaled and likely exceeded its production budget (~$150M). There was probably enough faith in the quality of the movie that they were willing to invest that much in the marketing, and a movie with a less talented/proven director wouldn’t have commanded as much. One of the things that Barbie tells us is Hollywood should support quality movies even if they’re starring and directed by women, which shouldn’t be seen as a detriment.
I have been utterly flabbergasted at the amount and the variety of product tie-ins Barbie managed to have. There was even an HGTV show competition about building a “real-life” Barbie dreamhouse. I imagine the conversation went something like this:
Minion: Sir, which of the 20,000 tie-ins should we approve?
CEO: Yes.
Minion: Sir?
CEO: Good meeting. You’re dismissed.
“Let’s also not ignore that Barbie’s marketing budget at the very least equaled and likely exceeded its production budget”Sadly that’s more the norm than the exception. Today most big budget movie’s have marketing budgets almost equal to the production budget. One I remember is Godzilla, not the 90’s one, I am not joking when I say I say no less that 15 commercial trailers while watching tv, and not like on a saturday when I am home all day, like between 5pm and 9pm it was like EVERY third commercial, so much so I changed the channel every time it came on, just because I was tired of seeing the same fucking thing.
By physicists? Other than the documentaries by (non-Succession) Brian Cox, I don’t think many physicists make movies.
FFS there were movies about whomen leads IN THE 50s! And before. All About Eve, How To Marry a Millionaire, Little Women, National Velvet to name a few. Before you get our panties in a bunch about “How To Marry a Millionaire”, it was satire and the joke was they all ended up with someone they never expected to be with, whether the guy had money or not. The 80s had action movies with strong female leads, Terminator and Alien. Working Girl, Nine to Five were fantastic movies about women and how we are treated in the work place. We didn’t need a movie about a plastic doll with big boobs to explain how badly women IRL are treated, how we are dismissed, judged by our looks, etc. But to say Barbie is the dawn of female empowerment movies is complete bullshit.
We didn’t need a movie about a plastic doll with big boobs to explain how badly women IRL are treatedIt seems we needed it to trigger the incels though.
I think two things can be true. Everything you said, for sure. But anecdotally, I’ve had three different women in my life say that Barbie was refreshing because there are basically no movies made by and for women. It may not be the sole reason, but it’s certainly a factor.
I’m sure that was additive to the experience, but to garner any meaningful measure of success the movie also has to stand on its own. Look at Bros from earlier this year. Complete flop, with the consensus the only thing about it that wasn’t stereotypical rom com was that it was a gay couple. Then the writer/director was upset it didn’t draw better.
I mean the movie still has to be good. Haven’t seen Bros so I can’t compare the two, but I don’t think we’d even be debating the merits of a movie “made by and for women” if the end product was garbage. My casual observation of the audience response to Bros was… it was fine. No one’s going to the mat for a movie they’re not excited about.
I think there was also a tremendous amount of curiosity throughout Barbie’s filming and marketing because of Gerwig’s involvement. It sounded like a ridiculous premise on its face but she’s earned the benefit of the doubt and so people were guardedly optimistic. Then when it did turn out to be good the market just exploded.
Your assessment of Bros is accurate. It’s not a terrible movie, I think it flopped due to poor marketing/a lack of flashy appeal. It was alright but not great—sorry to pit movies about underrepresented groups against one another, but I enjoyed Fire Island much more.
Cosign Fire Island! Pretty funny and a low key great Pride & Prejudice adaptation.
Bros is from 2022.
I’m surprised it’s taken this long to get a haunted Magic 8-ball movie.
Its one of those things that seems like it’d be a great youth or YA comedy-horror movie/series. Its a market a lot of companies don’t want to go in to, but the smaller scale stuff that does tends to do well. Kids like being scared.
It should also have Jack Black.
I’d explain why, but it’s unclear. Ask again later.
It’s never going to top the Magic 8 Ball episode of Review.
If craven merchandising + social consciousness is the formula then give me Power Wheels: Hands on a Hardbody. Tap into every kid’s first lesson in class war.
Mattel doesn’t care about who the movies are by and about, as long as those movies can tie into toys that they own.
Prescriptively speaking, he’s right.Descriptively speaking, Mattel already sees Barbie as a 2-hour toy commercial. Of course they’re going to try to make more 2-hour toy commercials.
They had pitch meetings with various writers before Barbie even came out because they were anticipating so much success. A lot of them sound like terribly bland ideas, and sadly the weird and wild ideas were already being put in the “no” bin.
Saw another article somewhere that they have a ridiculous number (like 60) of toy-based films already planned. I look forward to their 3-hour action-packed, but thoughtful, film version of Uno.
I don’t know, it was a pretty decent anime.
Even better version:
Holy SHIT do I need a high-stakes Uno thriller. Like, now.
To be totally fair, they see it as a two-hour toy commercial because, well, it is a two hour toy commercial in large part. It’s not just a toy commercial, of course, and it’s not fair to look at it purely through that lens, but let’s not act like they’re wholly wrong to view it that way. It’s like like everyone involved in this movie was hoping that people wouldn’t buy the plethora of merchandising this movie is based on and tying in with.
Oh, yes. Like Women Talking—more of that, please.
The funny thing is in the book it adapted, the main character is a man
In what world is movie based on a 70 year old toy line, where production has already started on a sequel, a “non-franchise” movie? Plug “Barbie” into IMDB and count the dozens of titles in this apparent non-franchise.I love Greta Gerwig and I’m glad Barbie was good but can we stop pretending its some little scrappy underdog production just because its a Mattel movie and not a Marvel movie.
A Hot Wheels movie is a great opportunity to become the global warming satire Don’t Look Up failed to be. Unfortunately JJ Abrams is not the person to helm such a project and we’re gonna get Cars 3 instead.
cant wait for all the windshield-flare shots…of course Abrahms would be on board. Comapny stooge
And all the dropped plotlines! “No, we aren’t going to explain any of the mysteries I’ve introduced; instead I’ll say it was all due to two feuding brothers for some reason!”
There was a Cars 3.
Wrong timeline dude.
Are there only two Cars movies in the Kelvin timeline or something?
There are 6, but the public doesn’t acknowledge part 3 where Lightning McQueen gets souped up by scientists who were brought to America by Operation Paperclip. It was a really complicated situation. Why, what happened here?
One of the very few good things about that timeline. Also, only three Indiana Jones movies and one Matrix one.
I LOVED “Don’t Look Up” because it satirized American culture and my theory is that’s why many disliked it. So I’m genuinely curious what you mean by, “a great opportunity to become the global warming satire Don’t Look Up failed to be.” How would you sugarcoat “global warming is happening because large democracies are obsessed with empty, false ‘positive’ thinking”?
“Make more movies by and about women, told well that are interesting and entertaining.”FTFY
Yeah, too late Randall. You know the studios are lining up toy-based crap movies from now until perdition.
Is it really that surprising (or distressing) that Mattel is making more movies about toys? That doesn’t tell you anything about whether Hollywood is going to make more movies by and about women or not. It tells you that Mattel is a toy company, so it owns a lot of IP for toys.
Yeah it’s like how everyone was groaning when Super Mario Bros. made a billion dollars, because now “Nintendo is gonna make Zelda and Metroid and Donkey Kong movies.” Well, yeah. They’re a video game company that owns a lot of video game IP. Mattel owns a lot of toy IP. They can either not make additional movies after making a billion dollars, or they can mine the rest of their IP.They’re not trying to bankroll David Foster Wallace adaptations.
Why not both? Like things like The Muppet Christmas Carol and Muppet Treasure Island where IP characters play roles as if they were actors. You could have a version of Infinite Jest with Mario as Hal Incandenza (hey, I’ve played Mario Tennis; they both like the game).
I would watch that.
Brilliant!
Nintendo’s ultimate goal is to create a Captain N movie.
“Successful movies lend themselves to more movies,” said Kreiz of the company’s ambition to “create film franchises.” Ah, yes. But if you completely diagnose what made the movie successful, you’ll struggle to produce a successful follow up. In this case, Park has somewhat diagnosed the problem, and he’s absolutely right–representation matters and it’s part of, but not all of, the reason why Barbie worked. Why was Barbie a hit? Not because it was about a toy. Rather, because it was a movie with ideas and a sense of purpose that engaged with that purpose in an entertaining and thought-provoking way. Is Polly Pocket going to be a well-executed movie of ideas? Is Rock-em, Sock-em Robots? Doubtful.
We already had a decent Rock-em Sock-em Robots movie, it just happened to be Real Steel.
But I think only part of its success was due to being a woman-directed movie about the evils of the patriarchy and what not. It was also a very funny movie about a popular toy, just like The Lego Movie. Can there be crappy toy movies? Sure. But there can also be funny movies about toys whether or not they have a “message”.
Why was Barbie a hit? Not because it was about a toy.I dunno if it’s quite that simple; Barbie had ideas and a sense of purpose, but they were ideas and a sense of purpose wrapped in a movie about one of the most famous toys on Earth, which gave them an immediate hook and saleability to a wide audience (not to mention the fact that, yes, the fact that Mattel and Warner Brothers viewed this as a potentially lucrative toy commercial almost certainly led to an increase in the resources and marketing budget allotted to it). There have been plenty of movies with ideas and purpose that have been perfectly entertaining and thought-provoking which failed to make a billion at the box office.
a sense of purpose wrapped in a movie about one of the most famous toys on EarthThis really can’t be discounted. Not to brush aside Greta’s amazing script, but it really helps when your IP has the same level of global name recognition as Batman or Star Wars.
“Wow, one of the only movies to gross a billion dollars this year was a comedy, a genre that has been largely neglected as of late. There’s only one conclusion to take away from all this: moviegoers just can’t put down those entertaining Mattel products!”
To understand just how fully Mattel—and by extension the studios funding them—have missed the point, one need not look further than the toy company’s absolutely bonkers slate of upcoming programmingThese movies would’ve been greenlit well before Barbie’s release tho, wouldn’t they? I understand that they would’ve been canned if Barbie flopped, but they’d have been in the works for a while.
He was in Ant-Man 2, not 3.
He’s technically in 3 as well but only for a brief second and I don’t believe he has any dialogue. They show him having a meal with Scott as a friend at the beginning. Which was a good payoff to a joke from the 2nd movie and one of the few good parts about AM3.
When “Rocky” became a hit, they made a movie about a boxing kangaroo.
Matilda, 1978 staring Elliot Gould and Robert Mitchum! Nice.
Yeah, I knew. I just didn’t bother with the title! (It also features Roy Clark, but I bet you’re not old enough to know who Roy Clark is!)
I didnt recognize the name, but once I looked it up . . . Hee Haw!
Make more movies about toys!
I want Dino Riders: Put missiles on the dinosaurs!
I want Centurions: Power Extreme, Man ‘n Machine!
I want Visionaries: Knights of the Magical Light, with magical powers they fight!
I want Sectaurs…bug people, I don’t remember their tagline, they had antennae, and a cartoon with a battlecry as bad as “Cobra-la-la-la-la-la-la!”
I want those guys with the the zip lining battle armor around the mountains
MuthaFuckin’ MASK, Yes!
I am onboard for all of this. Let’s include Captain Power and whatever the hell those action figures with all the ropes and ziplines were called.
Remember, Captain Power’s gimmick was that it was interactive. Surely they can figure out a way to do that with more modern technology, create something halfway between a movie or show and a video game.
What were they called?
Had to go look it up, Sky Commanders. Honestly that name is mediocre enough to make me disinterested.
I don’t think it’s fair to call yourself Sky Commander if you can’t actually fly. I mean, the zip-lining mountain warriors was a cool toy concept. I don’t think I or my brother had any of these, but it looks like something Mom would forbid as soon as she saw us zip lining our “GI*Joes” from her good furniture. But if it’s not a flying vehicle or a winged person-being, it’s not flying, you’re not a sky commander.
Sky Commanders.(I also would have accepted “The reason I had a tangled mess in all of my toy bins as a kid.”)
Not to sound too cynical, but the lesson to take from Barbie is one in marketing. It was already destined to be a smash and a cultural phenomenon before anyone knew if it was any good or not. Obviously the fact that it is pretty good helps, but the idea that studios can just replicate its success by producing more of a certain type of movie is way off base.
well yeah, if more than half the men that saw it don’t get it, the hollywood execs won’t either.on the other hand, this should make “Bronies” very happy. I think the last time an adaptation of a toy made for girls was this huge was My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic. Any day now, we’re gonna get some kind of revival of that, just because it worked in. . . . what year was that?
I think the last time an adaptation of a toy made for girls was this huge was My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic. Any day now, we’re gonna get some kind of revival of that, just because it worked in. . . . what year was that?Well it started in 2010, but the most recent season aired in 2019. So, not that long ago.
I think the success is that it was well written, cleverly took on a social issue, in this case the patriarchal dynamic and without one iota of man bashing or revenge, and appealed to many people on many levels. Perhaps most importantly, it was something unexpected. I had no intention of seeing until friends went and related their experience. Then it became a must see. This film generated tremendous word of mouth marketing. Finally, its saying something on the big screen that women have been feeling for generations.
Flashbacks to 1989 when Batman was a hit.
“Kids love these comic strip movies – quick, greenlight Dick Tracy, The Phantom, and Brenda Starr!”
What’s nuts is that Brenda Starr was in production long before Batman 89 and even premiered ahead of Batman in Europe. I like to think Batman was riding on Brenda Starr’s coat tails.
I just gotta say Randall Park seems like a good dude. His take may not be 100% accurate (as others have pointed out there’s more nuance than Women=Good Movie), but I think his heart is in the right place. This film wouldn’t have worked without Gerwig and Robbie at the front, so calling for more of that in Hollywood seems like a smart idea.
I will assume from my personal experience that an UNO movie will likely be the loudest, most violent film ever made.
Didn’t they already do that with Highlander? Even had the bitchin tagline — “There can be only one!”
Maybe I’m being obtuse, but basing a movie on existing IP, whether it’s a toy, game, cartoon from the 80s, YA book series, comic book, breakfast cereal, etc., even if you have an original story and hire a bona fide auteur to make it… it’s still a franchise movie.
Randall Park ever turns gay I’m first in line. That’s my man 😍
See, this is what I appreciate about growing up with cinema in the 70s: filmmakers had to have ideas, and grow characters and stories out of them, rather than just trying to make a movie out of a board game or toy. If Barbie is as good as I hear, great. But like the incessant string of remakes over the past 20 years, movies based on product is mostly the worst.
“Or you’ll do what, exactly, Park?”~ Hollywood.
I would watch a Hot Wheels movie. The first hour – a bunch of drivers laboriously push their sleek but engineless cars up a hill. The second hour? they coast down. Fast, though!
He’s right that the got the wrong lesson from Barbie… and if the director was male the lesson would be “make anything else he wants to make.” I don’t think they’re quite saying that about Ms. Gerwig.
She expressed interest in doing a new set of Narnia movies and that’s exactly what she is doing next.
Oh, that’s some good news!Personally I hope she does The Silver Chair. The last set of those movies stopped before that one, and it was my favorite of those BBC tv ones (and it’s often my favorite of the books, but that varies year to year).
“When an interesting, non-franchise movie like this wins, we all win, right?”When the bar for mainstream American cinema has gotten so low that we’re calling a fucking Barbie movie “non-franchise.”
Years ago I saw a tweet (can’t find it now) that said something like: The process by which Hollywood makes sequels is like someone eating a potato chip and saying “This would be even better if the next bag was ALL SALT!”
If you take both Park and Hollywood’s interpretations and mash them together you probably get to the truth. So if Barbie was just a movie that didn’t tie in to the toy franchise, probably would have done well, but not like it has. You take the original Amy Schumer Barbie movie, and most likely would’ve flopped.They took a beloved (I’m still surprised by how many women love Barbie toys that much because it’s not as prevalent as Sanrio stuff) nostalgic toy, paired it with great writing/directing/acting in a story about/for women, tie them all up with megastars, and it’s a nice recipe for success. You start picking out elements of that, and your risk of a flop becomes bigger as you remove each of those elements.
He has the wrong conclusion also. It should be: Make good movies that the public wants to watch.
Let’s be honest. The success of the movie has almost nothing to do with the fact that it is female helmed. It’s also not because it’s a movie about toys in general.It was successful because the Barbie brand is huge and carries a ton of nostalgia and because it was marketed well and knew what demographic they were targeting.Nobody cares if it’s a man or a woman who writes or directs or produces a movie. Nobody. They want good movies.
Just don’t overdo franchises, otherwise the content gets watered down. Speaking of watered down, look at Pirates of the Caribbean. Great trilogy, but then got very crappy after that. Wish more franchises would know when to stop like Back to the Future.
Personally, I welcome the gritty live action adaptation of Ants in the Pants.
On some level, you’ve gotta feel sympathy for the Mattel execs.I’m sure even they know that Barbie’s success is not repeatable for their other properties (“I liked that movie because it was based on a toy!” said zero people leaving the Barbie screenings), however, if they DON’T respond by churning out more toy movies, the shareholders will revolt because they’re “leaving money on the table.” So then they’ll lose their jobs.However again, when those movies inevitably bomb or languish in costly development, they’ll lose their jobs anyway. They’re fucked either way.Of course, they’re all executives of a major corporation so they’re definitely all terrible people anyway. So fuck them. Enjoy the Barbie high until it comes crashing down, ya rich fucks.