Designated Hero/Villain cleanup and maintenance

I agree. How on earth is encouraging the Kens to take their newfound ideology to its logical conclusion equivalent to outright psychological manipulation??? Also, the movie makes it quite clear that the situation will change and get better for the Kens? Hardly Status Quo Is God as is implied. Cut.

Edited by Paradoxic on Jul 26th 2023 at 4:24:38 AM

Cut. The Kens being treated as second class citizens is acknowledged as bad and turning the Kens against each others isn't really bad.

Edited by TotemGenitor on Jul 25th 2023 at 7:46:46 PM

Weird as I thought the film was pretty sympathetic to them for the most part. Even Ken isn't really depicted as evil or anything but just a child who doesn't really get this stuff.

Definitely Ken remains sympethetic through out and the Barbies treatment of them is still presented as wrong.

From YMMV.Barbie 2023

• Designated Villain: The Ken's. While Ken does become the Big Bad of the film, bringing his crew along to help him take over Barbieland with the introduction of the Patriarchy, they had entirely sympathetic reasons for wanting to switch positions and gain respect from the Barbies, who treated them as second-class citizens with no jobs, acknowledgement, or even homes. Worse yet, the movie only sort of acknowledges that they're sympathetic in their goal by having the Barbies tell them to find their purposes... only to reduce them to second-class citizens when they take over again, with meaningless jobs and the narrator snarking that "they'll one day have it as good as women in the real world," implying that, in the movie's opinion, they'll never truly be treated as the Barbies' equals or given a lot of the same opportunities. You'd think that if we're supposed to root for the Barbies and Barbieland in general, they'd immediately begin implementing more significant changes in their society and strive to make their world more equal than the real world, especially since they have the means to do so, living in a giant children's play-set where nothing matters, and that would be the movie's happy ending and message, but the audience is instead expected to accept that Ken's must settle for basically a slightly less bad situation than the one they were already in until the real changes begin to come. It's hard to imagine why viewers started rooting for the Kens in the end.

Basically same problem as the Designated Hero example, the film acknowledges that the Kens being second class citizens is bad. Cut?

Cut. It appears written mainly in response to and heavily builds off the Designated Hero entry (which has gotten mod approval to be cut).

I cut that when I cut the Designated Hero one with links to here because the film does acknowledge that the Kens are in the right about their treatment by the Barbies being bad.

Edited by Bullman on Jul 25th 2023 at 1:19:36 PM

Also voting for cutting. Ken never rises to the level of villain the way I saw it, Designated or otherwise.

I've never gotten to involved or invested in the articles on this site but I voiced my varying mileage and it isn't being allowed so I am defending it.

When Ken is in control of Kendom he does ask Barbie how it feels to be second to the Kens and that, knowing from his own experience, it doesnt feel great. So this is the film acknowledging that he wasn't well treated and perhaps does take away some from the Designated Villain angle.

I keep seeing people say the film goes out of its way to show how the Barbies admit they were wrong and apologise but I didn't get that and when I've asked where this happens I don't get a response.

With it established the Kens are second/lower class and it doesn't feel good for them the ending sees them with only one of them in the lowest level office in government—and they had to ask for it and were IMMEDIATELY told no to a seat on the council in the land they are native to.

While the Ken's patriarchy isn't a good thing I have argued that the film talks bout how Ken "Brainwashes the Barbies" but nothing that sinister actually happens. Ken says he merely explained patriarchy to them and Gloria likens it to a disease that the Barbies have no defence to. We don't even know if Ken had any malicious intent.

Ken seems to have conflated patriarchy with toxic masculinity, the former of which is better for the Kens while the latter makes him unhappy—which he admits in the end. But rather than go for a true feminists message and have the two be equal the film's message seems to be "matriarchy good, patriarchy bad, keep status quo of matriarchy," with the highlighted issue of the Ken's dissatisfaction with how things are acknowledged but then glossed over in the resolution.

Meanwhile the Barbies' tactics for overthrowing the Kens amounts to making them jealous after building them up to their happiest—this is from a society of self-powered and intelligent women but their strategy is just being stereotypical bad girlfriends (i can't think of a better term) who manipulate the men. True, they are in a dire situation, but is this the message that the film wants? Women can get their way by playing up gender stereotypes and emotional manipulation?

If this discourse was happening on the main page then that would be right, that is a place for objectivity, but this is YMMV, which is a place for subjective opinions.

The articles could be included with the prefix "Some people view..." or something along those lines.

Thank you for your time.

Once again the Barbies are portrayed as in the wrong and the Kens are portrayed as sympathetic. The entire point of the plotline is that the Kens are stand ins for real life women. The film has Barbies appologize and activily notes things will get better. The them not having a voice at the end is specifically supposed to be a comment on how women in the real world don't. We aren't supposed to think it's a good thing.

The brainwashing thing it matter if "sinister actually happens" and "We don't even know if Ken had any malicious intent." because of the fact that he is not meant to be seen as a villain but rather just misguided and as much a victim of toxic masculinity as the brainwashed Barbies. And even then forcing a bunch of women to serve you and be objectified is bad no matter what. "matriarchy good, patriarchy bad, keep status quo of matriarch" is actively not the message as again the Barbies are meant to be in the wrong.

Also the Barbies aren't even "self-powered" or "intelligent women" the film makes a point that the Kens and Barbies aren't self aware and have the intelligence of children.

YMMV is not just a place for any opinion and even if it was the tropes still have objective rules.

I'm going to bow out of this debate as I think I have said everything I meant to and if we decide to re-add them I am fine with that.

Edited by Bullman on Jul 27th 2023 at 11:11:30 AM

I think the issue is the movie itself is really bad at showing that the Barbies were wrong. It treats the Barbies getting Barbieland back and doing nothing to even give the Kens homes as a straight happy ending, with a shrug that maybe one day Kens will have rights.

I don't really agree that the film treats it like that. The whole joke is that "Kens have as much power as real life women" it's not presented as in the right at all but rather a really bad dark joke about how things don't change overnight.

However, once again I bow out and what ever we decide is fine with me.

Edited by Bullman on Jul 27th 2023 at 11:13:22 AM

Isn't this covered better by Esoteric Happy Ending or another ending trope.

I think it could go on Esoteric Happy Ending.

I keep asking for people to tell me at what point do the Barbies apologise or admit that they treated the Kens badly but no one will say.

I get that the Kens are stand-ins for real life women but that falls flat on two counts: 1) that the Barbies, even after the revolution and its overthrowing, go for matriarchy rather than democracy or actual feminism even after seeing how the Kens are unhappy with it, and 2) while real life is a patriarchy through complex factors and is slow to change, Barbieland is more matriarchal by definition and it is seemingly easier to seemingly easier to change the political landscape of. They spontaneously offer Weird Barbie a high ranking job and then give her one of her choosing as sorry for treating her as weird with no issue, so it can be done, but the Kens, even when asking for a little representation, are immediately told no and given the bare minimum.

Weren't the Barbies proud of how they had solved sexism be being an example of the change they wanted in the world?

Typing that out I kinda get the double standard they are trying to make but it takes some thinking about. It still, to me, comes across as the Barbies discriminating against a minority that has made it clear they are unhappy. The voice over's comment on how they will some day be treated as real life women are just makes it seem like they are treated badly as karma for men's actions in the real world, which was never an issue before for the Barbie's treatment of them. It's just now they have a reason to treat them badly in the attempted revolution and the real world.

I'm swaying myself on this but it is hardly obvious and I wouldn't say the film goes out of its way to show it. The Barbies certainly aren't aware of the double standard they are showing despite most of the film being a lesson in sexism.

We still have no evidence Ken forced the Barbies into anything. I'm still waiting for definitive proof of brainwashing; the Barbies call it that but Ken just says he explained patriarchy to them. He said she said at best.

Even if it was brainwashing I'm not saying it was good. I just criticise the chosen way the Barbies beat the Kens; I suppose this is more on the writer's choice of method, that it sends a bad message.

The film goes out of its way at the beginning to characterise the Barbie society of self-powered and intelligent women with a brief scene in the opening montage of one Barbie making a debate on the free speech rights of cooperations and how she can even balance conflicting thoughts on the matter and another on how they are all encouraged to be supportive of one another. These are in the scene that is meant to characterise Barbieland.

I have been looking up, and even quoting in some of my posts, the What Goes Where on the Wiki page when trying to reason why these views have a place on the YMMV.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/WhatGoesWhereOnTheWiki

That is more Esoteric Happy Ending then Designated Hero because again they aren't meant io be in the right.

That has very little to nothing to do with being a hero or villain. Again that is more Esoteric Happy Ending or They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot.

Which the film acknowledges is false.

Two things:

1) Again that is not meant to be the Barbies in the right.

2) I didn't read it like that at all and even then that doesn't change the fact that the Barbies are meant to be in the wrong with said treatment.

I disagree since most people online get it and the film activity says it at the end and again the Barbies and Kens are basically children and so they aren't aware of anything.

No. They are definitely brainwashed since they are forced to dress for them and serve them. Like that is clearly brainwashed. It doesn't matter how he did it he did.

No again the film goes out of its way to portray them as unaware of how thing really work and the scene that you mentioned is a joke scene.

At this point it is best to wait for more opinions.

Edited by Bullman on Jul 27th 2023 at 12:15:06 PM

Miraculous Phi Sat Someone did add Esoteric Happy Ending, but I commented out the entry because the wording veered rather close to violating Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment. You're welcome to reword and add it back if you'd like, though I'd suggest waiting until an agreement's reached.

Edited by Paradoxic on Jul 28th 2023 at 3:13:09 AM

The Barbies as a whole didn't apologize, by the way. Barbie apologized to Beach Ken for having taken him for granted as an individual, but the other Barbies didn't apologize. The Kens as a whole still have less rights than pets in Barbieland (the pets at least have houses).

Edited by PhiSat on Jul 27th 2023 at 11:17:10 AM

Hmm maybe I misremembered there on the appology. I appologize there.

But the film still otherwise protrays the Barbies as in the wrong for. Does it stick the landing no but otherwise the point of the Barbies being in the wrong is pretty clear at least to me.

Honestly again it is more Esoteric Happy Ending or honestly They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot.

Either way let's wait for more opinions and if we decide to add it back I'm cool with that.

Edited by Bullman on Jul 27th 2023 at 12:38:26 PM

I'll stand by saying the Barbies don't count as Designated Heroes, nor do the Kens count as Designated Villains. UU and US also wouldn't come into play here since all of this was quite by design.

From YMMV.The Good Doctor:

I don't think Han counts as a Designated Villain. It's fairly obvious throughout the series that Han's distrust of Shaun is motivated first and foremost by his prejudice against autistic people and autism as a whole, as is his pigeonholing of Shaun into Pathology based solely on Shaun’s Disability Superpower (and not factors like “does Shaun have the relevant training” and “can Shaun handle the work”). The reasons he lists off for not trusting Shaun in surgery come off as fishing for reasons to back up/reinforce his judgement in the aftermath, as opposed to informing his judgement in the first place (hence why they come off as Jerkass behaviour). Just as a broken clock being right twice a day doesn't mean the clock isn't broken, that the reasons Han lists happen to be valid doesn't cancel out the prejudice motivating his decision and treatment of Shaun. This entry also glosses over Han's nasty treatment of other characters, which is a red flag imo. I propose we delete this entry, as the Villain Has a Point entry in his character folder and Unintentionally Sympathetic entry in YMMV already covers it (not to mention the heavy dose of Unfortunate Implications underlying this particular example).

Edited by Paradoxic on Aug 30th 2023 at 11:36:06 PM

Yeah cut that.

It has been cut. I've also gone and cut the corresponding example (as in "identical word-for-word") on DesignatedVillain.Live Action TV.

Edited by Paradoxic on Aug 31st 2023 at 2:00:41 AM

From No Country for Old Men;

• Designated Hero: Llewelyn Moss is far from heroic; he accidentally causes the deaths of innocents as Chigurh hunts him down. On top of that, he's nothing more than a common thief.

Given Moss's status as a Deconstructed Character Archetype of the typical western action hero, along with him being clearly Wrong Genre Savvy (and also the film's Black-and-Grey Morality), I'm fairly certain this is misuse.

It's almost impressive when someone misses the point that badly.

Though it's more likely that they simply have no idea how the trope is supposed to be used. Cut.

Edited by ArthurEld on Sep 25th 2023 at 10:19:31 AM