Ok
Film Greta Gerwig's BARBIE (Margot Robbie/Ryan Gosling)
- Thread starter Salt Bailly
- Start date
The Twitter marketing got to me. Already booked tickets to watch this and Oppenheimer on Saturday
Welp, the synopsis has been posted on Wiki and it's already a culture war hell hole out there. Such fun...
It’s so mad the way lines are drawn about movies these days before anyone watches the fecking thing. There’s a significant number of customers who will love/hate it based almost entirely on which side of the argument they’ve been on Twitter for months before the film ever hits the cinema. Win win for the studios though. They earn as much money from hate watching as they do from any other kind of watching.
I was reading a thing a while ago about how studios are measuring what is and isnt popular. And it was about this company called Parrot Analytics, and they are the new gold standard of interpreting "engagement" in tv shows and movies. Instead of looking at viewer number, they look at social media. So the example used was Velma, a tv show thats been universally hated. I think at the time it was around 1.4 on RT. But to Parrot, its engagement numbers were going through 1200% increase on its release. So the show was considered not only a success, but a massive success. Even though, it didn't even crack the top ten in viewed minutes anywhere in the world. In fact Parrot had it being more popular than shows that were watched more. Shows like That 90s show on Netflix.
So, what was happening was that all the people who were moaning about it, were talking about it. And because they were talking about it, they were engaging with it. And in Parrots algorithm that means it's likely to drive streaming subscriptions. So even though it was hated by seemingly everyone, it got a season 2 renewal almost straight away. It's kinda funny, that the people who hated it the most are probably the very reason it got another season
. Of course that brings in another, far more serious question of how do we gauge shows. Could someone just create a few twitter bots and have them posting constantly about shows they like in order to see them gets more seasons? It seems really weird to me that how many people are watching isn't the gold standard for judging tv shows and movies anymore.I rewatched that the other night. I was confused the first time I watched (on a flight which didn’t help) it but it’s a fun little movie
Sequel has just been greenlit I think
Pinklit you mean?
Nice Guys Sequel, not Barbie
Pinklit you mean?
Could be the most important film of this century.
I don't follow the Hollywood and its productions at all, but the marketing for this and the Nolan movie has been quite extreme, don't really know why people are so hyped
I was reading a thing a while ago about how studios are measuring what is and isnt popular. And it was about this company called Parrot Analytics, and they are the new gold standard of interpreting "engagement" in tv shows and movies. Instead of looking at viewer number, they look at social media. So the example used was Velma, a tv show thats been universally hated. I think at the time it was around 1.4 on RT. But to Parrot, its engagement numbers were going through 1200% increase on its release. So the show was considered not only a success, but a massive success. Even though, it didn't even crack the top ten in viewed minutes anywhere in the world. In fact Parrot had it being more popular than shows that were watched more. Shows like That 90s show on Netflix.
So, what was happening was that all the people who were moaning about it, were talking about it. And because they were talking about it, they were engaging with it. And in Parrots algorithm that means it's likely to drive streaming subscriptions. So even though it was hated by seemingly everyone, it got a season 2 renewal almost straight away. It's kinda funny, that the people who hated it the most are probably the very reason it got another season
Woah. That’s equally fascinating and depressing.
The cinemas have stopped showing any other films other than these from tomorrow. Glad I got in for MI today before that happened
Well that’s just not true is it.
I wish it was, a love for true cinema
Peter Bradshaw stole my predictions and used them as his review.
It’s not got the best reviews from Stuckman and Jahns (who really didn’t like it at all) but seems to be getting a good reception in general. A bit amusing considering the whole “WHo iS tHIS MOvIE eVeN FOr?!” rhetoric from plenty of caftards earlier.
He seems like a nice enough dude, and I’ve not seen many of his reviews tbf, but I’ve always found Stuckman to be a really boring and bland reviewer. Like I said though this is based on not having seen many of his reviews, only around half a dozen or so videos of his, would you say he’s usually quite good at gauging films or nah?
Can't wait to stay away from this trash and feel superior because of it.
Although I do find it fascinating how some of the reviews are completely polar opposite.
Although I do find it fascinating how some of the reviews are completely polar opposite.
If it wouldn‘t have been for this very thread I wouldn‘t really know it existed - saw the poster yesterday and think it‘s hilarious. Won‘t watch it in the cinema most likely which is a bummer hope it works ob the telly as well (could be).
Here’s your cool guy member card, happy to have you on board pal!
…wait, sorry, I’ve just been informed you went to the cinema to watch the Flash. I’ll have to take that membership card back, sorry old sport
It’s funny to have people who seriously watch and enjoy Marvel movies trying to convince others this one has to be shit.
Plenty of not good films get good reviews these days. Movie reviewers get sucked into culture war, just like everyone else.
I’m not saying this is a not good movie, by the way. It’s possible it’s good. Although unlikely. Seeing as it looks so fecking shite. It won’t be getting any of my money, that’s for sure.
Here’s your cool guy member card, happy to have you on board pal!
…wait, sorry, I’ve just been informed you went to the cinema to watch the Flash. I’ll have to take that membership card back, sorry old sport
I blame that on my kids (but I secretly enjoyed it).
yeah @Sweet Square
I was reading a thing a while ago about how studios are measuring what is and isnt popular. And it was about this company called Parrot Analytics, and they are the new gold standard of interpreting "engagement" in tv shows and movies. Instead of looking at viewer number, they look at social media. So the example used was Velma, a tv show thats been universally hated. I think at the time it was around 1.4 on RT. But to Parrot, its engagement numbers were going through 1200% increase on its release. So the show was considered not only a success, but a massive success. Even though, it didn't even crack the top ten in viewed minutes anywhere in the world. In fact Parrot had it being more popular than shows that were watched more. Shows like That 90s show on Netflix.
So, what was happening was that all the people who were moaning about it, were talking about it. And because they were talking about it, they were engaging with it. And in Parrots algorithm that means it's likely to drive streaming subscriptions. So even though it was hated by seemingly everyone, it got a season 2 renewal almost straight away. It's kinda funny, that the people who hated it the most are probably the very reason it got another season
As well as broader questions about how the marketability of engagement, and the possibility to monetize social media activity, ultimately affects the meaning of what we do. If you write something, anything, about something, it's now worth something. If it's a bot doing it, same thing. The content is irrelevant, except through how it affects the scale of further engagement. Simultaneously, AI is offering a shortcut past the actual effort of writing something - which raises the question of what a social media post made by a person but written by AI and economically significant for a third party irrespective of content really is? Is that still a person having something to say conveying what's on his or her mind to other persons, so that they can interact? If not, then what is it?
We're being driven in the direction of very simple, fundamental questions now.
I blame that on my kids (but I secretly enjoyed it).
I was genuinely actually meant to watch it with the lad my mother is fostering as well
He ended up being ill though and eventually ended up watching Sonic 2 for (no lie) nearing at least the 20th viewing. You’re the lucky one!I was genuinely actually meant to watch it with the lad my mother is fostering as well
Sounds like torture!
The odeon near me isn't showing anything else, every screen has one or the other.
EDIT: Actually, you're right, I hadn't expanded the selection
Not if @Amar__ has anything to do with that!
"Plenty of films I don't like get good reviews these days"
Why is it unlikely it's a good film? Why is it unlikely a film made by a great director, with a great cast, would be good?
Because it's about a toy doll? And looks absolutely shite in every trailer I've seen? You have seen the trailer, right? They seem to get great hilarity out of Barbie having a foot designed to wear high heels. The whole thing screams of a less funny Lego movie rip off. Without any of the visual inventiveness that made it fun to watch.
Side note. Plenty of good films that I don't like get good reviews. I don't think I have particularly great taste in movies. Although I can usually tell the difference between a movie that's not to my taste and a movie that is just crap.
Last edited:
I can't tell you the amount of times he's DM'd me to talk about his favourite Taiwanese new wave era movies and ended with 'but it still wasn't as good as Black Widow'.
No, why would I watch a trailer? What am I going to find out from a trailer? It's marketing material and more often than not, not reflective of the actual film.
The bolded bit is ridiculous.
Morbid curiosity is the answer to your opening question. And if you don't think a film about a brand aimed at children is a reason to be at least slightly inclined to presume it's probably a bit shit then fair enough. That's where you and I obviously differ.
Normally I’d be convinced a movie like this would be pretty awful considering the subject material and I thought it’d be a fairly pointless production, but I really like Greta Gerwig so when I found out she was directing I went from thinking it’d be an absolute stinker to being interesting. I also think Gosling will be great as Ken, to look at and because I think he’s quite a funny comedic actor.
I did find the Guardian review a little off putting, specifically the part about the self awareness being a driver of a lot of the comedy, as that tends to grate on me. But I reckon I’m still likely to go watch this in cinema, albeit after Oppenheimer
I did find the Guardian review a little off putting, specifically the part about the self awareness being a driver of a lot of the comedy, as that tends to grate on me. But I reckon I’m still likely to go watch this in cinema, albeit after Oppenheimer
Out of curiosity, what's that based on? I feel like I'm missing something here. I dutifully watched Lady Bird after reading a glowing review and it was all a bit meh. Which is quite something when you've an actor as incredible as Saoirse Ronan in he lead role. This put me off watching Little Women. Should I have sucked it up and given that a go? Is there some other Greta Gerwig masterpiece I've missed?
Little Women is very good, and better than Lady Bird (which I liked). I would warmly recommend it.
The odeon near me isn't showing anything else, every screen has one or the other.
EDIT: Actually, you're right, I hadn't expanded the selection
Aye. No way that the film exhibitors would cut MI and risk the wrath of Big Little Tom.