Anyone pretending like there is a contest between Barbie and Oppenheimer at the box office is kidding themselves. This isn’t a contest. Barbie will win. But if it was a contest, anyone who cares about movies at all, who cares about art at all, should be rooting for Oppenheimer. Movies like Barbie are all you’ll get until the end of time. Movies like Oppenheimer, however, are a species on their way to extinction. Unless, of course, it does well.
Rooting for Barbie is like rooting for McDonald’s to put the mom-and-pop burger joint out of business. Or for Starbucks to be the number one coffee spot in Portland. There is a big difference between familiar brands and taking risks with something wholly original. Then again, plenty of people prefer the Starbucks or the McDonald’s. Surely there is room for both these films. I don’t particularly wish to see the one taking the bigger risk take a fall.
There’s already a big grave dug for original films at the box office, especially large canvas summer movies like Oppenheimer. Failure just means they bury what used to be the greatest film industry in the world faster. Having nothing but movies like Barbie on offer is, to me, a catastrophe.
None of this happened overnight. 20 years ago or so, Hollywood adopted the fast food model to sell movies: fewer choices, familiar brands, and expectations met. But for most of that time, they aimed their franchises at what we used to call “13-year-old boys.” Most of the movies I took my daughter to see focused on the “one special boy” storyline, which remained mostly unchanged until around 2012.
Gradually, the familiar brands became more inclusive because the first generation raised exclusively on brands, Generation-Z, who imprinted on them, were all becoming more oriented toward social justice. It started around that same time as what would become “cancel culture,” Critical Race and Gender Theories, and the sudden rise of transgender ideology among girls.
This was the result of an entire generation coming of age online. Raised by helicopter parents, stuck inside and over-protected, they went online where a new society was colonizing the internet with social justice as its main influence. It ran counter to the fanboy/troll side of the internet — and that remains true today. But corporate America, the billionaire class, and now, even our government took the side of the “social justice warriors.” They had to. They have cast their lot with Generation-Z and believe the best way to win them over is to capitulate to the narrative they repeatedly demand.
That’s why you’re suddenly seeing identity politics in everything — from M&Ms to Hollywood blockbusters. It is both killing Hollywood and keeping it afloat at the same time. Barbie looks to me as the crowning achievement of both evolutionary lines. And to repeat, not that there’s anything wrong with that. I have no doubt plenty of people want to see Barbie and will have a great time with it and not think too much of it.
I always feel compelled to offer up some critical thinking when it has mostly vanished from all coverage on film sites.
“Woke Capitalism” means you can have it all. You can sell anything, make unlimited amounts of money off any brand, and as long as you signal your virtue, no one will come for you. But it also means eradicating truth and authenticity in storytelling. It means you can only tell one story. I have not yet seen Barbie, but I would be shocked if the story didn’t play out the same way — female empowerment, inclusivity, etc.
When you peel away the layers of pink, what you have is a movie about a Barbie doll franchise and one that has already done a good job of being inclusive. Does anyone expect this not to be a movie about not just female empowerment but intersectional empowerment? Mattel has been selling itself as a company in total compliance with the demands of Gen-Z. They introduced a transgender Barbie over a year ago. They also have Barbies in wheelchairs and differently abled in various thoughtful ways. They want to be as representative as possible.
So if you’ll notice, this isn’t that different from the DEI commitments across the board. See if you can guess, for instance, what company this DEI statement is from:
That company is Nestle:
While it’s true that in recent years, they’ve been trying to roll back the harm they’ve done to the rain forests and the environment, with identity politics or “woke” capitalism, they don’t really have to work that hard. It has become such an easy out for corporations to seek redemption and find absolution.
Hollywood hides behind identity politics to protect and defend the ways it has made ungodly sums of money off turning movies into fast food. And again, it’s not that big of a deal. If that’s how you want to spend your money and have some fun in the summer, by all means, do it.
But please do not ever become such easy lays that you do it with blind enthusiasm. Understand what kind of economic system your participation supports.
In 2020, shockingly, China had the number one movie at the global box office. True, COVID brought our film industry to its knees, but it was still shocking. For the next few years, Chinese movies did extremely well — making $900 million, $500 million — competing with our blockbusters for the first time in history.
American journalists called many of these films “State Propaganda,” and it’s hard to argue they’re anything but. In a Communist country they have to be. Do you think Stalin would have allowed any movie to play to the masses that was not in strict compliance with Soviet ideology? Not a chance.
What’s unusual about Chinese blockbusters now isn’t that they were made; it’s that they’ve now fully realized the results of raising whole generations to be enthusiastic participants in spending their own money to watch propaganda movies. Their money goes right back to the state.
I don’t really know exactly how production companies work in China, but I know one of their big hits, The Battle at Lake Changjin II was “led by the film office of the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party.”
But the thing is, we’re not really in a position now to criticize China because so many of our films have become nothing but propaganda, fortifying and amplifying a singular ideology in the past few years.
Just as the generations raised after the Chinese Cultural Revolution are now faithful and loyal good soldiers for the CCP and are helping them build their film industry, so too is Gen-Z now raised to be faithful and loyal to brands, now that those brands are reflecting the doctrine, which is also backed up by the current administration, along with all institutions and corporations.
All of this to say that if you are rooting for the franchise movie that is selling the mandated ideology, even if it’s super-fun and a great time at the movies, to defeat the kind of film that is much harder to make, much harder even to see anymore, well then you just might be the good soldier Hollywood is counting on for the foreseeable future.
Anyway, the movie that is going to beat both of them, and probably be the highest-grossing film of the year, is Mission Impossible 7 — which does what Top Gun Maverick did. It does not need to signal its virtue to justify its existence or success. It gives the people what they want. Is it a brand? Sure. But within those confines, it will bring in the largest audience because it wants to do nothing else but show them a good time. And there ain’t nothing wrong with that.
Finally, to make the point again: I’m not saying anything is wrong with Barbie. For a good many people it will be fun and satisfying, while also reflecting their worldview. Just don’t root for it to kill Oppenheimer, not if you care about the future of movies in theaters.
![2025 Oscars: Can a Late-Breaker Still Win Best Picture? [POLL]](https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/gladiator-350x250.jpg)
