Discussion YMMV / Barbie2023

I've seen this on tumblr, so I'll say go for it.

I agree honestly.

Thank you! I keep bringing this up but no one sees it but me lol

I don't think it is the most controversial as most general audiences like and so do most fans. Plus Sound of Freedom is still way more controversial.

I'm not sure about controversial but I think a lot of people are a bit shocked because they assumed it was going to be a straightforward family movie based on the toy line and instead it went into existential topics and social commentary with some more mature humour sprinkled in. With Oppenheimer people pretty much went in knowing what to expect.

I don't think the Kens count. For 1 brainwashing people is more than just designated and even then Ken is not meant to be a villain but a misguided character who the film treats as in the right about wanting to better which is what most of your entry is about and it is specifically said that he did this. That said if others say it was okay then I am fine with it.

Broken Aesop is not YMMV so can't go on the YMMV page regardless of if it is accurate.

But it's never even explicitly said he brainwashes them. 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.

I didn't pick up on any part where the Barbies admitted they had treated the Kens badly, apologise, and the closest I saw to them resolving to be better was giving them the lowest position in government they could. If I missed something please point it out to me.

Isn't that this is being discussed enough for it to be put under Your Mileage May Vary? This would be an entry based on opinion, and cannot be proven true or false. These examples appear to have the semblance of an objective trope, except they require a significant judgment call to decide whether, how and to what degree they exist in a work.

On a related note, why isn't Broken Aesop YMMV? Where can I find out what is and isn't YMMV?

I mean brainwashing to be your maid and objectified is pretty bad no matter the intention.

The Barbies definitely appologise to them and the film makes it clear that the kens have a point.

It's not that it's not being discussed. It's just that while YMMV is subjective they still have rules. So for instance the film pointing out that the Barbies are meant to be wrong in the treatment of Ken means they can't be Unintentionally Unsympathetic in the treatment of Ken because the film doesn't want them to be.

To be clear I think there is something there to trope but I'm not sure what trope it is.

I really don't know why it isn't YMMV but YMMV.Home Page is a list of what is YMMV.

But we don't know he told her to be his maid, we never have anything more to go on for what happened in that period between Ken returning and Barbie returning other than what Ken says and what he says is that he just explained patriarchy to them. The Barbies call it brainwashing but that's still just what they call it and not necessarily what actually happened.

The objectification of the Barbies could be put down to Ken not understanding the difference between toxic masculinity and the patriarchy, which is what it sounds like when he talks about how unhappy he was having to constantly act macho. This could also be a trope in YMMV.

Again, I didn't pick up on any part where the Barbies admitted they had treated the Kens badly and apologise. Can you please point out where this happens?

It's impossible to say objectively whether these themes are actually present in the work; the writers/directors may have objectively not intended them, but that's neither here nor there. It is subjective. An item falls under YMMV if people often disagree about it.

To be honest, Bullman has been deleting all the entries about questioning how the sympathy of the public may drift from the Barbies to the Kens.

The fact that there are many people (In this wiki, and in other pages) that feels the same is an indicator. There is Unintentional Simpathy, Unintenional Antipathy, some characters feels as designated heroes, and designated villains, and the ending is bittersweet at most.

I didn't delete because I disagree that they are sympathetic, I find the Kens more sympathetic than the Barbies too but I don't think that is unintentional and the clean up threads agreed with me at the time. I will be totally fine with re-adding them if that is what we decide.

Well seeing as YMMV is a place for where opinions vary why not let the articles of various people's mileage vary stay?

If we decide to re add them, I am fine with it. Nothing to do now but wait for more feedback.

I would also say it's not a case of Unintentionally Unsympathetic, because it's very much done deliberately and with intent. Likewise, I don't think the Kens count under Designated Villains, because we're not really meant to see them as villains at all. It's really just Stereotypical Ken who takes on the role of the antagonist, but the other Kens are basically just following him (and his rival) like lemmings. It's more of a bit about how people can be easily swayed into things as damaging as toxic masculinity and the patriarchy.

Ken never quite rises to villain status, Designated or otherwise.

This is getting difficult as this debate is now on multiple places but I have posted a rebuttal to the article's removal on the long term/perpetual thread.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16258694170A46696400&page=7#159

My post reads:

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.

I responded there. I'm going to bow out if 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.

Yeah same.