• Rose Thorne(She/Her)@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I wish they would say why they’re “not thrilled”. Barbie, as a franchise, has a history of animated movies long before the live-action was a thing. I’m more surprised its taken this long, and hasn’t been a flood of “We’re redoing Barbie and the Three Musketeers with slightly better animation!” while the iron was hot.

    • gila@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      3 months ago

      There has been, Netflix have done a handful of different Barbie series with multiple seasons over the last decade. Doesn’t seem like the next one is substantially changing direction resultant from the film. Feels like the premise for this article was to just reaction-bait its stars.

      • Rose Thorne(She/Her)@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Ah, so that’s where they went. Makes sense. Probably a better market than the old “Direct-to-Video” releases they did.

      • atocci@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah gosh I remember these movies being on all the time as a child because my sister loved them. I still find myself quoting “lefting, leftaroo” on a pretty regular basis.

      • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think it’s like Avatar the Last Airbender, they don’t want the movie being made without the original creators. The live action on Netflix did a great job with the mood of the locations and hiring the actors, everything else is pretty bad. They don’t want to see all their work bastardized. I get it.

        • Davel23@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          they don’t want the movie being made without the original creators.

          So… Mattel?

          • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Did you see the movie? It wasn’t really showing Mattel in the best light. I was surprised they let it go through.

              • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                Avatar the Last Airbender was owned by Nickelodeon at the time of the movie, what’s your point? The creators of the movie Barbie rebranded it to what made tons of money.

                • Davel23@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  What’s your point? Mattel owns Barbie, they get to decide what to do with it or not. Greta Gerwig and Margo Robbie do not own Barbie, they have no say in what happens with it.

  • downpunxx@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s fun when the talent think they own a piece of intellectual and trademarked property

    • KnitWit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      Haha, exactly. Surprised it isn’t a live action ‘Barbie 2: Return to Kenland’ because marketing says a male lead polls better.

  • Korthrun@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Well of course not, they want as many of the sequel dollars as they can possibly get. What, they’re to share the hype with filthy animators?!