The Barbie doll from the Mattel toy company needs little introduction, though surprisingly basked in a tsunami of publicity for a theatrical film that just wrapped production for Warner Bros. Pictures. That the “Barbie “movie generated a spate of publicity in recent weeks is perplexing because it’s not scheduled for theatrical premiere until July 21, 2023.
An article in the Daily Beast by entertainment reporter Kyndall Cunningham noted the publicity burst with a story headlined “The ‘Barbie’ Movie Set Photos Have Gotten Out of Control.” The opinion article ran under a flag label “Overkill.” Cunningham believes the “Barbie” publicity images explosion is spontaneous and not a Warners’ planned campaign.
Indeed, very early publicity is reserved for movies based on unknown or little-known elements, and this long-lead publicity would simply introduce the foundation properties. No need for that with the Barbie doll! The blonde California-girl doll has been a best-selling toy since introduced in 1959.
Movie publicity erupting too early is counterproductive. Just look at “Snakes on a Plane” — the 2006 theatrical release that generated a bombast of publicity based on its provocative title long before opening in cinemas. When “Snakes” finally hit theaters, boxoffice was soft because the audience tuned out the New Line Cinema-distributed thriller as old news.
The “Barbie” movie is a live-action (not animated) adventure comedy romance starring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling — two youthful A-list actors. The Barbie character drives a pink Corvette — probably a product placement with GM’s Chevrolet. A 57-second video introducing the movie quotes Robbie saying of her character: “The role comes with a lot of baggage. But with that comes a lot of exciting ways to attack it.’”
Movies based on toys have a mixed record. Paramount Pictures has a hit multi-movie franchise with the “Transformers” films. But other toy and board-game adaptations became film busts including Lionsgate’s 2007 “Bratz: The Movie” and Universal Pictures’ big-budget “Battleship” in 2012.
On the current publicity burst, Gosling delivered a hilarious quip (perhaps pre-scripted by Warners publicity?) about his character Ken — the Barbie character’s pretty-to-look-at boyfriend. Gosling told “Entertainment Tonight” in a TV interview: “Ken’s got no money, he’s got no job, he’s got no car, he’s got no house. He’s going through some stuff.”
In a talk-show appearance with Jimmy Kimmel on NBC Television’s “The Tonight Show,” Gosling joked about his Ken character’s flat personality. “Nobody plays with Ken,” Gosling said of the toy doll. “He is an accessory. And not even one of the cool ones.”
Actually, that points to a both a void and an opportunity in the Barbie intellectual property. The Ken character is not distinctive as a Mattel toy; and Barbie is just active and pretty. But that also means they are empty vessels that the movie can flesh out next year … that’s an opportunity!
In an early push for licensed merchandise, Warner Bros. seems to have orchestrated a publicity blast in recent weeks giving a glimpse of Barbie fashion. News and entertainment media burst with dazzling brlght colors for a California beach look of “Barbie” images obviously hoping to spark an apparel trend (the movie wrapped principal photography in mid-July).
In earlier examples of movies triggering fashion trends benefiting official licensed film merchandise, the “Indiana Jones” movies had a slew of apparel in the safari-adventurer genre — think of Harrison Ford’s signature fedora hat. Other movie-fashion efforts did not work, such as a 1977 film adaptation of “The Great Gatsby,” which pushed a line of 1920s period apparel that fell flat. So did the “Gatsby” movie, despite its considerable star power with Robert Redford, Mia Farrow and Bruce Dern.
“Throughout history, movies ignited fashion trends with apparel that weren’t necessarily licensed,” notes the third edition of book “Marketing to Moviegoers.” “For example, Audrey Hepburn redefined femininity as embodying not only beauty but plucky self-reliance and a cool aloof when she memorably sashayed through 1961’s ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’ in a sleek Givenchy dress, oversized sun glasses, pearls, and an ever-present cigarette holder.” The late Steve McQueen wore classic American casual clothes that projected his macho persona, though the apparel was mostly off-the-rack and not specially-made movie costumes.
“Barbie” distributor Warner Bros. Pictures did not get back with any comment on the long-lead publicity strategy for the movie or its merchandise ambitions.
The “Barbie” movie is built around a toy franchise with history. One of the most memorable transformations of the Barbie doll was the mid-1980s kit for “Barbie is Now a Career Girl.” That career girl set has been reissued and anyone with that doll in original packaging in good condition can fetch nice prices on eBay these days!
Then, it was a big deal Barbie had a job (she didn’t just hang out on the beach all day) though the office outfit she wore was lacy pink and excessively ornate. But it marked the start of other versions ranging from being an astronaut to a rock music star.
Since most consumers probably think of the Barbie character only in terms of lounging around on the beach playing volleyball, the movie has an opportunity to paint a broader and more interesting persona.
Related content:
Leave a Reply