• Barbie (US) 2023

    From william ahearn@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 22 21:48:49 2023
    Hey,

    If nothing else, see the first five minutes of this film. It's hysterical, especially for a film buff. The content will drive the MAGA crowd up the wall while they're stuttering "woke" the whole way and once again it will show their lack of knowledge
    about real history and film history.

    One could argue that this film slides a lot closer to the source material -- the story of a doll -- than most films based on novels. The film has a sly humor although maintaining this form of comedy is always difficult. All in all, worth seeing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Charles Packer@21:1/5 to william ahearn on Sun Jul 23 07:34:05 2023
    On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 21:48:49 -0700, william ahearn wrote:

    Hey,

    If nothing else, see the first five minutes of this film. It's
    hysterical, especially for a film buff. The content will drive the MAGA
    crowd up the wall while they're stuttering "woke" the whole way and once again it will show their lack of knowledge about real history and film history.

    One could argue that this film slides a lot closer to the source
    material -- the story of a doll -- than most films based on novels. The
    film has a sly humor although maintaining this form of comedy is always difficult. All in all, worth seeing.

    The New York Times reviewer liked the last line of the movie. What was it?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From william ahearn@21:1/5 to Charles Packer on Sun Jul 23 05:19:41 2023
    On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 3:34:09 AM UTC-4, Charles Packer wrote:

    The New York Times reviewer liked the last line of the movie. What was it?

    That would be a spoiler. I laughed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From william ahearn@21:1/5 to NoBody on Sun Jul 23 08:04:51 2023
    On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 10:35:34 AM UTC-4, NoBody wrote:
    On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 21:48:49 -0700 (PDT), william ahearn
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    Hey,

    If nothing else, see the first five minutes of this film. It's hysterical, especially for a film buff. The content will drive the MAGA crowd up the wall while they're stuttering "woke" the whole way and once again it will show their lack of knowledge
    about real history and film history.

    If that's your best argument to see it, it's garbage.

    You *have* to believe that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NoBody@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sun Jul 23 10:35:30 2023
    On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 21:48:49 -0700 (PDT), william ahearn
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    Hey,

    If nothing else, see the first five minutes of this film. It's hysterical, especially for a film buff. The content will drive the MAGA crowd up the wall while they're stuttering "woke" the whole way and once again it will show their lack of knowledge
    about real history and film history.


    If that's your best argument to see it, it's garbage.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan Smithee@21:1/5 to william ahearn on Tue Jul 25 19:53:36 2023
    On 07/23/2023 09:19 AM, william ahearn wrote:
    On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 3:34:09 AM UTC-4, Charles Packer wrote:

    The New York Times reviewer liked the last line of the movie. What was it?

    That would be a spoiler. I laughed.

    Yes, the last line *is* funny!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From T987654321@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 31 10:50:36 2023
    Grosses
    DOMESTIC (45.4%)
    $351,402,851
    INTERNATIONAL (54.6%)
    $423,100,000
    WORLDWIDE
    $774,502,851

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichA@21:1/5 to william ahearn on Sat Aug 5 02:49:12 2023
    On Sunday, 23 July 2023 at 00:48:52 UTC-4, william ahearn wrote:
    Hey,

    If nothing else, see the first five minutes of this film. It's hysterical, especially for a film buff. The content will drive the MAGA crowd up the wall while they're stuttering "woke"

    Revisionist history.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From T987654321@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 14 08:27:34 2023
    Grosses
    DOMESTIC (44.5%)
    $526,309,000
    INTERNATIONAL (55.5%)
    $657,600,000
    WORLDWIDE
    $1,183,909,000

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Anderson@21:1/5 to william ahearn on Thu Sep 14 13:41:30 2023
    william ahearn <[email protected]> wrote:
    Hey,

    If nothing else, see the first five minutes of this film. It's
    hysterical, especially for a film buff. The content will drive the MAGA
    crowd up the wall while they're stuttering "woke" the whole way and once again it will show their lack of knowledge about real history and film history.

    One could argue that this film slides a lot closer to the source material
    -- the story of a doll -- than most films based on novels. The film has a
    sly humor although maintaining this form of comedy is always difficult.
    All in all, worth seeing.


    The opening sequence was brilliant, as you say, and the final joke worked
    as well. There were some funny bits in between, however this was a movie
    aimed not at me, but at little girls on one level and grown women on
    another. Apparently lots of them enjoyed it.

    And it’s nice to know corporate Mattel has a sense of humor.

    --
    Bill Anderson

    I am the Mighty Favog

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From william ahearn@21:1/5 to Bill Anderson on Thu Sep 14 11:30:55 2023
    On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:41:43 AM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:

    And it’s nice to know corporate Mattel has a sense of humor.

    What I like about the film is that it smoked the "Go woke, go broke" nonsense. Yeah, Bud Light made one of the worst marketing decisions ever that seemed to be inspired by Mel Brooks. There was a short-lasting glitch at Target and everything calmed down.
    The latest Indy Jones movie died not because it was "woke" but because it was a bad movie. And then there's Barbie -- that has been described as the "Wokest" Hollywood movie -- and instead of leaving a crater, it made hundreds of millions of dollars. Ya
    gotta love it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rec.arts.movies.current-films@21:1/5 to william ahearn on Mon Sep 18 13:21:36 2023
    On Sunday, 23 July 2023 at 00:48:52 UTC-4, william ahearn wrote:
    Hey,

    If nothing else, see the first five minutes of this film. It's hysterical, especially for a film buff. The content will drive the MAGA crowd up the wall while they're stuttering "woke" the whole way and once again it will show their lack of knowledge
    about real history and film history.

    One could argue that this film slides a lot closer to the source material -- the story of a doll -- than most films based on novels. The film has a sly humor although maintaining this form of comedy is always difficult. All in all, worth seeing.

    The world is awash in ugly lesbians trying to force dolls off shelves.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From moviePig@21:1/5 to Bill Anderson on Mon Oct 2 22:27:32 2023
    On 9/14/2023 9:41 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
    william ahearn <[email protected]> wrote:
    Hey,

    If nothing else, see the first five minutes of this film. It's
    hysterical, especially for a film buff. The content will drive the MAGA
    crowd up the wall while they're stuttering "woke" the whole way and once
    again it will show their lack of knowledge about real history and film history.

    One could argue that this film slides a lot closer to the source material
    -- the story of a doll -- than most films based on novels. The film has a
    sly humor although maintaining this form of comedy is always difficult.
    All in all, worth seeing.


    The opening sequence was brilliant, as you say, and the final joke worked
    as well. There were some funny bits in between, however this was a movie aimed not at me, but at little girls on one level and grown women on
    another. Apparently lots of them enjoyed it.

    And it’s nice to know corporate Mattel has a sense of humor.

    (Since it was fantasy writ large, I saw nothing actionable by Mattel.)
    While I appreciated the movie, I wish I had enjoyed it more, but it
    triggered my watch-checking tell. I agree that it seemed very audience-specific -- e.g., two women I watched it with were in hysterics
    over the foot-flattening, while I only chuckled. Compulsory viewing, regardless.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Anderson@21:1/5 to moviePig on Tue Oct 3 04:00:54 2023
    moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:
    On 9/14/2023 9:41 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
    william ahearn <[email protected]> wrote:
    Hey,

    If nothing else, see the first five minutes of this film. It's
    hysterical, especially for a film buff. The content will drive the MAGA
    crowd up the wall while they're stuttering "woke" the whole way and once >>> again it will show their lack of knowledge about real history and film history.

    One could argue that this film slides a lot closer to the source material >>> -- the story of a doll -- than most films based on novels. The film has a >>> sly humor although maintaining this form of comedy is always difficult.
    All in all, worth seeing.


    The opening sequence was brilliant, as you say, and the final joke worked
    as well. There were some funny bits in between, however this was a movie
    aimed not at me, but at little girls on one level and grown women on
    another. Apparently lots of them enjoyed it.

    And it’s nice to know corporate Mattel has a sense of humor.

    (Since it was fantasy writ large, I saw nothing actionable by Mattel.)
    While I appreciated the movie, I wish I had enjoyed it more, but it
    triggered my watch-checking tell. I agree that it seemed very audience-specific -- e.g., two women I watched it with were in hysterics
    over the foot-flattening, while I only chuckled. Compulsory viewing, regardless.





    From what I have read, I’ve come to believe corporate Mattel supported the script 100%. At least this once it seems, the suits aren’t as stupid as
    they are generally presumed to be. I’ve also read that Mattel is now preparing movies for every toy in its product line, which will almost
    certainly end up disproving what I just said.

    Should I admit that I hit the fast-forward button there toward the end? I probably shouldn’t admit that. But it’s what I did. Didn’t miss the final joke though.

    --
    Bill Anderson

    I am the Mighty Favog

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From moviePig@21:1/5 to Bill Anderson on Tue Oct 3 11:58:49 2023
    On 10/3/2023 12:00 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
    moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:
    On 9/14/2023 9:41 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
    william ahearn <[email protected]> wrote:
    Hey,

    If nothing else, see the first five minutes of this film. It's
    hysterical, especially for a film buff. The content will drive the MAGA >>>> crowd up the wall while they're stuttering "woke" the whole way and once >>>> again it will show their lack of knowledge about real history and film history.

    One could argue that this film slides a lot closer to the source material >>>> -- the story of a doll -- than most films based on novels. The film has a >>>> sly humor although maintaining this form of comedy is always difficult. >>>> All in all, worth seeing.


    The opening sequence was brilliant, as you say, and the final joke worked >>> as well. There were some funny bits in between, however this was a movie >>> aimed not at me, but at little girls on one level and grown women on
    another. Apparently lots of them enjoyed it.

    And it’s nice to know corporate Mattel has a sense of humor.

    (Since it was fantasy writ large, I saw nothing actionable by Mattel.)
    While I appreciated the movie, I wish I had enjoyed it more, but it
    triggered my watch-checking tell. I agree that it seemed very
    audience-specific -- e.g., two women I watched it with were in hysterics
    over the foot-flattening, while I only chuckled. Compulsory viewing,
    regardless.





    From what I have read, I’ve come to believe corporate Mattel supported the script 100%. At least this once it seems, the suits aren’t as stupid as they are generally presumed to be. I’ve also read that Mattel is now preparing movies for every toy in its product line, which will almost certainly end up disproving what I just said.

    Should I admit that I hit the fast-forward button there toward the end? I probably shouldn’t admit that. But it’s what I did. Didn’t miss the final
    joke though.

    Re fast-forwarding/watch-checking, it's a bit odd that'd happen in a
    movie that I really did feel was consistently smart. ADD maybe...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Anderson@21:1/5 to moviePig on Tue Oct 3 20:12:05 2023
    moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:
    On 10/3/2023 12:00 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
    moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:
    On 9/14/2023 9:41 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
    william ahearn <[email protected]> wrote:
    Hey,

    If nothing else, see the first five minutes of this film. It's
    hysterical, especially for a film buff. The content will drive the MAGA >>>>> crowd up the wall while they're stuttering "woke" the whole way and once >>>>> again it will show their lack of knowledge about real history and film history.

    One could argue that this film slides a lot closer to the source material >>>>> -- the story of a doll -- than most films based on novels. The film has a >>>>> sly humor although maintaining this form of comedy is always difficult. >>>>> All in all, worth seeing.


    The opening sequence was brilliant, as you say, and the final joke worked >>>> as well. There were some funny bits in between, however this was a movie >>>> aimed not at me, but at little girls on one level and grown women on
    another. Apparently lots of them enjoyed it.

    And it’s nice to know corporate Mattel has a sense of humor.

    (Since it was fantasy writ large, I saw nothing actionable by Mattel.)
    While I appreciated the movie, I wish I had enjoyed it more, but it
    triggered my watch-checking tell. I agree that it seemed very
    audience-specific -- e.g., two women I watched it with were in hysterics >>> over the foot-flattening, while I only chuckled. Compulsory viewing,
    regardless.





    From what I have read, I’ve come to believe corporate Mattel supported the >> script 100%. At least this once it seems, the suits aren’t as stupid as
    they are generally presumed to be. I’ve also read that Mattel is now
    preparing movies for every toy in its product line, which will almost
    certainly end up disproving what I just said.

    Should I admit that I hit the fast-forward button there toward the end? I
    probably shouldn’t admit that. But it’s what I did. Didn’t miss the final
    joke though.

    Re fast-forwarding/watch-checking, it's a bit odd that'd happen in a
    movie that I really did feel was consistently smart. ADD maybe...




    For me it was simple: they were jabbering and I was tired of Weird Barbie
    and I had lost interest so I checked out. Maybe the movie was consistently smart, but it was inconsistently interesting to me.

    --
    Bill Anderson

    I am the Mighty Favog

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From moviePig@21:1/5 to Bill Anderson on Tue Oct 3 16:46:25 2023
    On 10/3/2023 4:12 PM, Bill Anderson wrote:
    moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:
    On 10/3/2023 12:00 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
    moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:
    On 9/14/2023 9:41 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
    william ahearn <[email protected]> wrote:
    Hey,

    If nothing else, see the first five minutes of this film. It's
    hysterical, especially for a film buff. The content will drive the MAGA >>>>>> crowd up the wall while they're stuttering "woke" the whole way and once >>>>>> again it will show their lack of knowledge about real history and film history.

    One could argue that this film slides a lot closer to the source material
    -- the story of a doll -- than most films based on novels. The film has a
    sly humor although maintaining this form of comedy is always difficult. >>>>>> All in all, worth seeing.


    The opening sequence was brilliant, as you say, and the final joke worked >>>>> as well. There were some funny bits in between, however this was a movie >>>>> aimed not at me, but at little girls on one level and grown women on >>>>> another. Apparently lots of them enjoyed it.

    And it’s nice to know corporate Mattel has a sense of humor.

    (Since it was fantasy writ large, I saw nothing actionable by Mattel.) >>>> While I appreciated the movie, I wish I had enjoyed it more, but it
    triggered my watch-checking tell. I agree that it seemed very
    audience-specific -- e.g., two women I watched it with were in hysterics >>>> over the foot-flattening, while I only chuckled. Compulsory viewing,
    regardless.





    From what I have read, I’ve come to believe corporate Mattel supported the
    script 100%. At least this once it seems, the suits aren’t as stupid as >>> they are generally presumed to be. I’ve also read that Mattel is now
    preparing movies for every toy in its product line, which will almost
    certainly end up disproving what I just said.

    Should I admit that I hit the fast-forward button there toward the end? I >>> probably shouldn’t admit that. But it’s what I did. Didn’t miss the final
    joke though.

    Re fast-forwarding/watch-checking, it's a bit odd that'd happen in a
    movie that I really did feel was consistently smart. ADD maybe...




    For me it was simple: they were jabbering and I was tired of Weird Barbie and I had lost interest so I checked out. Maybe the movie was consistently smart, but it was inconsistently interesting to me.

    I shall hold to the possibility that it was merely beyond our Ken.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From william ahearn@21:1/5 to moviePig on Tue Oct 3 15:35:51 2023
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 4:46:29 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

    I shall hold to the possibility that it was merely beyond our Ken.

    Waaaaay beyond. What you two -- and the rightwing wankers -- don't get is that Barbie is a comedy. Full out including the
    Ken material. It's an absolute hoot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Anderson@21:1/5 to william ahearn on Tue Oct 3 23:33:51 2023
    william ahearn <[email protected]> wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 4:46:29 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

    I shall hold to the possibility that it was merely beyond our Ken.

    Waaaaay beyond. What you two -- and the rightwing wankers -- don't get is that Barbie is a comedy. Full out including the
    Ken material. It's an absolute hoot.


    Of course I understand it’s a comedy. I just didn’t laugh as much as you did.

    --
    Bill Anderson

    I am the Mighty Favog

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From super70s@21:1/5 to Bill Anderson on Tue Jan 23 04:34:09 2024
    On 2023-10-03 20:12:05 +0000, Bill Anderson said:

    moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:
    On 10/3/2023 12:00 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
    moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:
    On 9/14/2023 9:41 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
    william ahearn <[email protected]> wrote:
    Hey,

    If nothing else, see the first five minutes of this film. It's
    hysterical, especially for a film buff. The content will drive the MAGA >>>>>> crowd up the wall while they're stuttering "woke" the whole way and once >>>>>> again it will show their lack of knowledge about real history and film history.

    One could argue that this film slides a lot closer to the source material
    -- the story of a doll -- than most films based on novels. The film has a
    sly humor although maintaining this form of comedy is always difficult. >>>>>> All in all, worth seeing.


    The opening sequence was brilliant, as you say, and the final joke worked >>>>> as well. There were some funny bits in between, however this was a movie >>>>> aimed not at me, but at little girls on one level and grown women on >>>>> another. Apparently lots of them enjoyed it.

    And it’s nice to know corporate Mattel has a sense of humor.

    (Since it was fantasy writ large, I saw nothing actionable by Mattel.) >>>> While I appreciated the movie, I wish I had enjoyed it more, but it
    triggered my watch-checking tell. I agree that it seemed very
    audience-specific -- e.g., two women I watched it with were in hysterics >>>> over the foot-flattening, while I only chuckled. Compulsory viewing,
    regardless.





    From what I have read, I’ve come to believe corporate Mattel supported the
    script 100%. At least this once it seems, the suits aren’t as stupid as >>> they are generally presumed to be. I’ve also read that Mattel is now
    preparing movies for every toy in its product line, which will almost
    certainly end up disproving what I just said.

    Should I admit that I hit the fast-forward button there toward the end? I >>> probably shouldn’t admit that. But it’s what I did. Didn’t miss the final
    joke though.

    Re fast-forwarding/watch-checking, it's a bit odd that'd happen in a
    movie that I really did feel was consistently smart. ADD maybe...




    For me it was simple: they were jabbering and I was tired of Weird Barbie and I had lost interest so I checked out. Maybe the movie was consistently smart, but it was inconsistently interesting to me.

    I noticed a headline a few days ago that BAFTA ("British Oscars" if you
    will) snubbed this movie completely in their noms, I didn't investigate
    more deeply though since it has minimal appeal to me (might be worth it
    to turn down the sound and ogle Robbie for two hours, lol).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Your Name@21:1/5 to JG Rove on Thu Jan 25 14:59:54 2024
    On 2024-01-25 01:46:18 +0000, JG Rove said:
    On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 4:34:14 AM UTC-6, super70s wrote:
    On 2023-10-03 20:12:05 +0000, Bill Anderson said:>> > moviePig
    <[email protected]> wrote:> >> On 10/3/2023 12:00 AM, Bill Anderson
    wrote:> >>> moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:> >>>> On 9/14/2023
    9:41 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:> >>>>> william ahearn <[email protected]>
    wrote:> >>>>>> Hey,> >>>>>>> >>>>>> If nothing else, see the first five
    minutes of this film. It's> >>>>>> hysterical, especially for a film
    buff. The content will drive the MAGA> >>>>>> crowd up the wall while
    they're stuttering "woke" the whole way and once> >>>>>> again it will
    show their lack of knowledge about real history and film history.>
    One could argue that this film slides a lot closer to
    the source material> >>>>>> -- the story of a doll -- than most films
    based on novels. The film has a> >>>>>> sly humor although maintaining
    this form of comedy is always difficult.> >>>>>> All in all, worth
    seeing.> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> The opening sequence was brilliant, as
    you say, and the final joke worked> >>>>> as well. There were some
    funny bits in between, however this was a movie> >>>>> aimed not at me,
    but at little girls on one level and grown women on> >>>>> another.
    Apparently lots of them enjoyed it.> >>>>>> >>>>> And it’s nice to
    know corporate Mattel has a sense of humor.> >>>>> >>>> (Since it was
    fantasy writ large, I saw nothing actionable by Mattel.)> >>>> While I
    appreciated the movie, I wish I had enjoyed it more, but it> >>>>
    triggered my watch-checking tell. I agree that it seemed very> >>>>
    audience-specific -- e.g., two women I watched it with were in
    hysterics> >>>> over the foot-flattening, while I only chuckled.
    Compulsory viewing,> >>>> regardless.> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>
    From what I have read, I’ve come to believe corporate Mattel
    supported the> >>> script 100%. At least this once it seems, the suits
    aren’t as stupid as> >>> they are generally presumed to be. I’ve
    also read that Mattel is now> >>> preparing movies for every toy in its
    product line, which will almost> >>> certainly end up disproving what I
    just said.> >>>> >>> Should I admit that I hit the fast-forward button
    there toward the end? I> >>> probably shouldn’t admit that. But
    it’s what I did. Didn’t miss the final> >>> joke though.> >>> >> Re
    fast-forwarding/watch-checking, it's a bit odd that'd happen in a> >>
    movie that I really did feel was consistently smart. ADD maybe...> >>>
    For me it was simple: they were jabbering and I was tired
    of Weird Barbie> > and I had lost interest so I checked out. Maybe the
    movie was consistently> > smart, but it was inconsistently interesting
    to me.
    I noticed a headline a few days ago that BAFTA ("British Oscars" if
    will) snubbed this movie completely in their noms, I didn't
    investigate> more deeply though since it has minimal appeal to me
    (might be worth it> to turn down the sound and ogle Robbie for two
    hours, lol).

    The Brit Class system is the same as the Good Ole Boys system in
    Barbie. Of course Brits were snubbing. Men, Woo Yaa !

    Barbie isn't a British movie, so it shouldn't even remotely be able to
    qualify for the BAFTAs.

    It'a bit like the ridiculousness of "Britain's Got Talent" where they
    allow acts from other countries to enter. There are already "Got
    Talent" and knock-off shows in numerous other countries for non-British
    acts to enter in their own country.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From super70s@21:1/5 to Your Name on Thu Jan 25 06:59:16 2024
    On 2024-01-25 01:59:54 +0000, Your Name said:

    On 2024-01-25 01:46:18 +0000, JG Rove said:
    On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 4:34:14 AM UTC-6, super70s wrote:
    On 2023-10-03 20:12:05 +0000, Bill Anderson said:>> > moviePig
    <[email protected]> wrote:> >> On 10/3/2023 12:00 AM, Bill Anderson
    wrote:> >>> moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:> >>>> On 9/14/2023
    9:41 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:> >>>>> william ahearn <[email protected]>
    wrote:> >>>>>> Hey,> >>>>>>> >>>>>> If nothing else, see the first five
    minutes of this film. It's> >>>>>> hysterical, especially for a film
    buff. The content will drive the MAGA> >>>>>> crowd up the wall while
    they're stuttering "woke" the whole way and once> >>>>>> again it will
    show their lack of knowledge about real history and film history.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One could argue that this film slides a lot closer to
    the source material> >>>>>> -- the story of a doll -- than most films
    based on novels. The film has a> >>>>>> sly humor although maintaining
    this form of comedy is always difficult.> >>>>>> All in all, worth
    seeing.> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> The opening sequence was brilliant, as
    you say, and the final joke worked> >>>>> as well. There were some
    funny bits in between, however this was a movie> >>>>> aimed not at me,
    but at little girls on one level and grown women on> >>>>> another.
    Apparently lots of them enjoyed it.> >>>>>> >>>>> And it’s nice to
    know corporate Mattel has a sense of humor.> >>>>> >>>> (Since it was
    fantasy writ large, I saw nothing actionable by Mattel.)> >>>> While I
    appreciated the movie, I wish I had enjoyed it more, but it> >>>>
    triggered my watch-checking tell. I agree that it seemed very> >>>>
    audience-specific -- e.g., two women I watched it with were in
    hysterics> >>>> over the foot-flattening, while I only chuckled.
    Compulsory viewing,> >>>> regardless.> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>
    From what I have read, I’ve come to believe corporate Mattel
    supported the> >>> script 100%. At least this once it seems, the suits
    aren’t as stupid as> >>> they are generally presumed to be. I’ve
    also read that Mattel is now> >>> preparing movies for every toy in its
    product line, which will almost> >>> certainly end up disproving what I
    just said.> >>>> >>> Should I admit that I hit the fast-forward button
    there toward the end? I> >>> probably shouldn’t admit that. But
    it’s what I did. Didn’t miss the final> >>> joke though.> >>> >> Re
    fast-forwarding/watch-checking, it's a bit odd that'd happen in a> >>
    movie that I really did feel was consistently smart. ADD maybe...> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For me it was simple: they were jabbering and I was tired
    of Weird Barbie> > and I had lost interest so I checked out. Maybe the
    movie was consistently> > smart, but it was inconsistently interesting
    to me.
    I noticed a headline a few days ago that BAFTA ("British Oscars" if
    will) snubbed this movie completely in their noms, I didn't
    investigate> more deeply though since it has minimal appeal to me
    (might be worth it> to turn down the sound and ogle Robbie for two
    hours, lol).

    The Brit Class system is the same as the Good Ole Boys system in
    Barbie. Of course Brits were snubbing. Men, Woo Yaa !

    Barbie isn't a British movie, so it shouldn't even remotely be able to qualify for the BAFTAs.

    Be that as it may it still qualifies:

    "The British Academy Film Awards, more commonly known as the BAFTA Film
    Awards, is an annual award show hosted by the British Academy of Film
    and Television Arts (BAFTA) to honour the best British and
    international contributions to film.

    Most of the awards are open to all nationalities, though there are
    awards for Outstanding British Film and Outstanding Debut by a British
    Writer, Producer or Director. Only UK films are eligible for the
    categories of The British Short Film and British Short Animation
    awards."

    - Wikipedia

    It'a bit like the ridiculousness of "Britain's Got Talent" where they
    allow acts from other countries to enter. There are already "Got
    Talent" and knock-off shows in numerous other countries for non-British
    acts to enter in their own country.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Your Name@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 26 10:05:44 2024
    On 2024-01-25 12:59:16 +0000, super70s said:
    On 2024-01-25 01:59:54 +0000, Your Name said:
    On 2024-01-25 01:46:18 +0000, JG Rove said:
    On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 4:34:14 AM UTC-6, super70s wrote:
    On 2023-10-03 20:12:05 +0000, Bill Anderson said:>> > moviePig
    <[email protected]> wrote:> >> On 10/3/2023 12:00 AM, Bill Anderson >>>> wrote:> >>> moviePig <[email protected]> wrote:> >>>> On 9/14/2023
    9:41 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:> >>>>> william ahearn <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:> >>>>>> Hey,> >>>>>>> >>>>>> If nothing else, see the first five >>>> minutes of this film. It's> >>>>>> hysterical, especially for a film
    buff. The content will drive the MAGA> >>>>>> crowd up the wall while
    they're stuttering "woke" the whole way and once> >>>>>> again it will >>>> show their lack of knowledge about real history and film history.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One could argue that this film slides a lot closer to
    the source material> >>>>>> -- the story of a doll -- than most films
    based on novels. The film has a> >>>>>> sly humor although maintaining >>>> this form of comedy is always difficult.> >>>>>> All in all, worth
    seeing.> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> The opening sequence was brilliant, as
    you say, and the final joke worked> >>>>> as well. There were some
    funny bits in between, however this was a movie> >>>>> aimed not at me, >>>> but at little girls on one level and grown women on> >>>>> another.
    Apparently lots of them enjoyed it.> >>>>>> >>>>> And it’s nice to
    know corporate Mattel has a sense of humor.> >>>>> >>>> (Since it was
    fantasy writ large, I saw nothing actionable by Mattel.)> >>>> While I >>>> appreciated the movie, I wish I had enjoyed it more, but it> >>>>
    triggered my watch-checking tell. I agree that it seemed very> >>>>
    audience-specific -- e.g., two women I watched it with were in
    hysterics> >>>> over the foot-flattening, while I only chuckled.
    Compulsory viewing,> >>>> regardless.> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> From what I have read, I’ve come to believe corporate Mattel
    supported the> >>> script 100%. At least this once it seems, the suits >>>> aren’t as stupid as> >>> they are generally presumed to be. I’ve
    also read that Mattel is now> >>> preparing movies for every toy in its >>>> product line, which will almost> >>> certainly end up disproving what I >>>> just said.> >>>> >>> Should I admit that I hit the fast-forward button >>>> there toward the end? I> >>> probably shouldn’t admit that. But
    it’s what I did. Didn’t miss the final> >>> joke though.> >>> >> Re >>>> fast-forwarding/watch-checking, it's a bit odd that'd happen in a> >>
    movie that I really did feel was consistently smart. ADD maybe...> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me it was simple: they were jabbering and I was tired
    of Weird Barbie> > and I had lost interest so I checked out. Maybe the >>>> movie was consistently> > smart, but it was inconsistently interesting >>>> to me.
    I noticed a headline a few days ago that BAFTA ("British Oscars" if
    will) snubbed this movie completely in their noms, I didn't
    investigate> more deeply though since it has minimal appeal to me
    (might be worth it> to turn down the sound and ogle Robbie for two
    hours, lol).

    The Brit Class system is the same as the Good Ole Boys system in
    Barbie. Of course Brits were snubbing. Men, Woo Yaa !

    Barbie isn't a British movie, so it shouldn't even remotely be able to
    qualify for the BAFTAs.

    Be that as it may it still qualifies:

    "The British Academy Film Awards, more commonly known as the BAFTA Film Awards, is an annual award show hosted by the British Academy of Film
    and Television Arts (BAFTA) to honour the best British and
    international contributions to film.

    Most of the awards are open to all nationalities, though there are
    awards for Outstanding British Film and Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Producer or Director. Only UK films are eligible for the
    categories of The British Short Film and British Short Animation
    awards."

    - Wikipedia

    That's why I said "shouldn't qualify" rather than "doesn't qualify". :-)

    It's the British awards, so *should* be for Britsh entertainment only.
    American movies and TV shows already have multiple awards of their own,
    as do many other countries - even here in New Zealand they have their
    own crappy awards (once known as the GOFTAs, Guild of Film and
    Television Arts).



    It'a bit like the ridiculousness of "Britain's Got Talent" where they
    allow acts from other countries to enter. There are already "Got
    Talent" and knock-off shows in numerous other countries for non-British
    acts to enter in their own country.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)