After years of negotiating, it seems to be like a sequel to Greta Gerwig’s “Barbie,” starring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling, goes to remain within the field, by no means to be performed with. In accordance with Selection, regardless of the reported “life-changing” sum of money being supplied to the crew that turned the primary live-action theatrical outing for America’s best-selling trend doll into the highest-grossing movie of 2023, life in plastic just isn’t so improbable for “Barbie 2.” Warner Bros. has about 4 months to place a “Barbie” sequel into energetic growth, or else the rights revert again to Mattel. This additionally signifies that something associated to Gerwig’s movie is not going to be permitted for use as a baseline for one more live-action “Barbie” film, and whoever companions subsequent with Mattel must absolutely reboot the property.
Given the movie’s monetary success and demanding accolades (learn my glowing evaluation right here), a sequel movie appeared inevitable. Whereas it could clearly be in the very best curiosity of shareholders to duplicate that success, I am not satisfied {that a} movie as singular because the live-action “Barbie” must develop into the most recent sufferer of pointless franchising, contemplating there are already 44 CGI-animated “Barbie” movies (“Barbie & the Diamond Fort” hive, rise!) and a number of CGI-animated collection (to not point out video blogs and different short-form content material). Mates of Barbie have loads of Barbie tales to get their repair, and the story of Robbie’s titular Barbie had the proper ending. There isn’t any want for a “Barbie 2,” and I am not satisfied a sequel would have the ability to recapture the magic of the primary movie regardless.
Barbie would not want a sequel movie
I’m a little bit of a “Barbie” historian, and I’ve devoted numerous hours to understanding the fandom, historical past, and cultural affect of the Barbie doll throughout all mediums. So after I say that Greta Gerwig’s “Barbie” was lightning in a bottle, I am coming from a spot of adoration and immense respect. Whereas “Barbenheimer” weekend allowed for “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” to develop into field workplace behemoths (one thing else the trade has been desperately attempting and failing to duplicate), the explanation that “Barbie” outperformed Chris Nolan’s eventual Finest Image winner has much less to do with the PG-13 vs. R score of the 2 movies and extra to do with the very fact “Barbie” was the primary time in a really, very very long time {that a} studio-backed blockbuster was prioritizing audiences past males aged 14-49. Even individuals who finally hated “Barbie” went out to see it simply to see what the fuss was about, or to realize perspective on the continuous discourse across the digital water cooler concerning the movie’s introductory, simply digestible themes of feminism.
“Barbie 2” must seize the baton from the primary film and run with it, which suggests diving into pricklier discussions surrounding feminism. Whereas I consider Gerwig may simply deal with that materials, I am much less satisfied that the typical moviegoer — who spent months debating whether or not or not America Ferrera’s monologue within the movie went too far or not far sufficient — would get on board with a film a couple of Barbie who bought her want to be an actual lady now having to take care of the actual patriarchy that plagues all of society, and never simply the form of patriarchy Ken realized about from observing tech bros strolling round Century Metropolis in Los Angeles and watching “The Godfather.”
Authentic tales are thriving — allow them to thrive
Whereas “Barbie” was primarily based on present IP, the story that Greta Gerwig and co-writer Noah Baumbach crafted was an authentic tackle the character and undoubtedly led to the movie’s success. Some properties, like “Spider-Man,” for instance, can justify a franchise. “Barbie” wasn’t written to be a serialized story, so forcing it to develop into one essentially strips her of her distinctive affect. The entire accusations lobbed in opposition to it of being “an inexpensive cash-grab” will develop into true, as a result of there isn’t a cause for a “Barbie 2” to exist past being profitable, and one other field office-breaking 12 months just isn’t assured. Is it actually value sullying the enjoyment of the primary movie by risking a potential “Joker: Folie à Deux” scenario?
Audiences are hungering for authentic movies, and Warner Bros. hit it big final 12 months with authentic hits like “Weapons,” “Sinners,” and “One Battle After One other.” Positive, the latter was loosely primarily based on a guide, however there have been so many adjustments made that calling it an adaptation can be incorrect. Whereas “pay disagreements” have been publicly declared as the explanation for the shortage of a sequel’s ahead momentum, I am secretly hoping this can be a manner for the artistic crew to keep away from making a film that they do not need to make by making egregious monetary calls for that Warner Bros. Discovery CEO and dwelling “Roger Rabbit” villain David Zaslav would by no means agree to satisfy. Selection famous that if David Ellison’s quest to amass Warner Bros. goes by way of, a supply claims “I guess this is able to be the primary deal he makes.” Given Ellison’s emotions on range, fairness, and inclusion initiatives, nobody ought to need a “Barbie” sequel beneath his tutelage.
Barbie’s already out of the field. You may’t put her again in and ask audiences to play along with her by another person’s guidelines. Sorry, shareholders. Possibly it is simply that nobody desires to play with you.
