Amy Schumer to play Barbie in live-action film

[Sidewinder]

Posted by: Matt McGloin, 12/02/2016 - 5:46pm

From the studio that brought you the female Ghostbusters bomb comes another great idea out of Sony: Amy Schumer will be playing Barbie in the live-action movie based on the classic Mattel doll.

Deadline reports 35-year-old Amy Schumer is in negotiations for the role. The Barbie movie is said to be rated-PG and will see Schumer playing Barbie: who lives in Barbieland, among all of the various Barbie characters beloved by doll collectors. In a fish-out-of-water story reminiscent of films like Splash and Big, Schumer’s Barbie gets kicked out, basically because she’s not perfect enough, is a bit eccentric and doesn’t quite fit the mold. She then goes on an adventure in the real world and by the time she returns to Barbieland to save it, she has gained the realization that perfection comes on the inside, not the outside, and that the key to happiness is belief in oneself, free of the obligation to adhere to some unattainable standard of perfection.

It's reported Mattel has approved the Barbie movie and signed off on the project. Barbie has generated $3 billion in sales for the company.

Similar to the female Ghostbusters reboot, if the movie fails, you can expect all the "internet trolls" and "misogynists" out there to take the blame.

MundaneMatt has the following to say, and more:

I think we all can agree that the best on-screen representation of Barbie came from the TOY STORY movies. Now it seems that Sony wants to double-down on identity politics by casting Amy Schumer to play Barbie from Barbieland in the live-action adaptation of BARBIE. Yes, this is going to be a movie...and yes its going to be a political minefield. Thanks Tom Rothman!

Comments?

[Crazedwraith]

They just need to get Aqua to do the sound track.

[madd0ct0r]

Some people hate Amy Schumer for some reason?

[Joun_Lord]

Meh, I don't care too much any way it goes, not exactly the target market either. Not a little girl (or boy) nor not an adult with nostalgia for 80s Barbie.

Still, nothing wrong with casting a "non-traditionally" attractive women (ie a woman not closer in build to a 13 year old boy but with tits). Barbie has a body no woman save that creepy plastic surgery chick from Ukraine could pull off. Having a curvier woman should be fine. Amy Schumer is a physically attractive woman so that should be fine just from that standpoint.

However I don't like Schumer as a person nor find her funny, even the stuff she allegedly stole. Her style of comedy would probably lend itself to more of a deconstruction or even a "take that" to the Barbie character.

I will say casting Schumer does give them an out if it fails. Schumer is a divisive comedian both for her style of comedy and politics, regardless of talent she is going to get haters on the movie just for being cast. Like Melissa MaCarthy her style of comedy does not appeal to everyone and may not fit the movie they were cast in. If the movie fails because of bad writing (looking at you reboot Ghostbusters) its entirely possible Sony will again blame sexism.

I'm sorry but sexism did unfortunately play a role in Ghostbusters (both ways actually) but it ain't what killed that movie. Terrible writing, dated special effects, flat characters, the 4 leads all trying to be Bill Murray, killing Bill Murray, thinking about suing Bill Murray, the worst villain like ever to the point they killed him off and replaced him with Christ Hemsworth as a still terrible villain, confusion to whether or not it was a reboot or sequel, the 4 main leads suddenly turning into acrobatic superheros in the last act, literally shooting the franchise in the balls, and fucking wonton. Sadly it could have been an excellent movie, if it had tried to be its own movie, not tried to hard to flip of fans and haters, and I dunno, had someone competent directing and writing it could have been fantastic. All that actresses are fantastic comedians, which was a problem in itself as again they were all trying to be Bill Murray, who did try their damndest to deliver with what they had to work with. Unfortunately what we had to work with was a movie that did not have a reasonable ratio of wontons to soup.

And unfortunately for fans of Barbie you are probably getting alot of soup too.

[madd0ct0r]

60 on meta critic and 72% on rotten tomatoes. It's not in the top films ever made, but there's a lot of other stuff that is worse. Meh. I'm still interested in watching it, but haven't seen a cheap DVD for it yet.

[Joun_Lord]

No, it wasn't the worst thing ever. All in all it actually wasn't terrible. It just wasn't very good either. It had good parts, a few great parts even (my sides left orbit during the part in the concert with the bird demon thingy on Patty's shoulders) but far more worse or MEDIOCRE!!!! parts. Its real crime was it didn't live up to the hype good or bad. And it just didn't live up to what came before.

Also trusting reviews for the movie is a big wacky. There was critics that were invested in it politically and would have gave it a good (or poor) review regardless of the quality. Looking at the audience score is I think a more accurate barometer with the movie at 52% on RT with the average rating 3.1 out of 5. Shows accurately it was a painfully average movie, would have been completely forgettable if it wasn't for its name and controversy surrounding it.

Personally I did not hate. Didn't love it but didn't feel like my childhood was raped or anything stupid like that and I might eventually get it in on DVD or Bluray or whatever just to have. Though I'll admit my tastes might not be normal because I think Ghostbusters 2 is a good movie despite there apparently being some big thing on the internet about how everyone hates it.

[General Zod]

Is there anyone but 12 year old girls who would actually care about a live action Barbie film? (Correction; 12 year old girls and Sidewinder.)

[Vendetta]

Is there anyone but 12 year old girls who would actually care about a live action Barbie film? (Correction; 12 year old girls and Sidewinder.)

Given that he linked to a MundaneMatt video, the people who can't stand the idea that entertainment media is made for people other than them are salty again. I mean they voted for Donald Trump to stop this sort of thing!

[General Zod]

Incidentally I liked the new Ghostbusters film. I'm just not sure who a live action Barbie is supposed to appeal to if not 12 year old girls.

[Sidewinder]

My problem is not the fact they're making a live-action Barbie movie. My problem is the fact they're rewriting a fictional character's history and "character" (personality, secular and religious beliefs, relationships with other fictional characters) to pointlessly promote the writer's own political agenda. See Jane Foster stealing Thor's identity ("Thor" is Thor's NAME, not a rank or title), efforts to make Captain America and the Falcon a gay couple, efforts to make Peter Parker (Spider-Man) "pansexual", falsely claiming Luke Skywalker is gay (Mark Hamill stated Luke's sexual orientation was open to audience interpretation, and did NOT confirm Luke was homosexual), retconning the personalities of 'Baldur's Gate' party members in 'Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear', etc.

[General Zod]

Am I the only one who thinks it's kind of hilarious that Sidewinder is really invested in Barbie?

[Sidewinder]

I'm not invested in Barbie. I am invested in other franchises that have suffered because some idiotic writer used them as "bully pulpits" from which they can spew political bullshit, specifically, the 'Transformers' franchise- see 'Beast Machines', 'Star Trek Into Darkness', and the examples I previously listed- and do NOT want to see more toy franchises used as "bully pulpits" for political bullshit.

[Sidewinder]

[Delete double-post.]

[Vendetta]

Sidewinder is revealing himself as one of the internet pissbabies who cannot deal with the fact that people not like him exist and that things which have changed a lot over time are changing more and in ways that distress and upset him because they remind him of the filthy Other.

The closest he probably got to Barbie was surreptitiously feeling up his sister's.

This is probably the closest he will ever get to a woman.

[Sidewinder]

Sidewinder is revealing himself as one of the internet pissbabies who cannot deal with the fact that people not like him exist and that things which have changed a lot over time are changing more and in ways that distress and upset him because they remind him of the filthy Other.

The closest he probably got to Barbie was surreptitiously feeling up his sister's.

This is probably the closest he will ever get to a woman.

You are a HYPOCRITE. You resort to personal attacks when you disagree with others opinions, revealing yourself to be a pissbaby yourself.

[Crazedwraith]

My problem is not the fact they're making a live-action Barbie movie. My problem is the fact they're rewriting a fictional character's history and "character" (personality, secular and religious beliefs, relationships with other fictional characters) to pointlessly promote the writer's own political agenda. See Jane Foster stealing Thor's identity ("Thor" is Thor's NAME, not a rank or title), efforts to make Captain America and the Falcon a gay couple, efforts to make Peter Parker (Spider-Man) "pansexual", falsely claiming Luke Skywalker is gay (Mark Hamill stated Luke's sexual orientation was open to audience interpretation, and did NOT confirm Luke was homosexual), retconning the personalities of 'Baldur's Gate' party members in 'Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear', etc.

Other than Jane Foster's Thor. None of that happened. Tilting at windmills.

[Vendetta]

Sidewinder is revealing himself as one of the internet pissbabies who cannot deal with the fact that people not like him exist and that things which have changed a lot over time are changing more and in ways that distress and upset him because they remind him of the filthy Other.

The closest he probably got to Barbie was surreptitiously feeling up his sister's.

This is probably the closest he will ever get to a woman.

You are a HYPOCRITE. You resort to personal attacks when you disagree with others opinions, revealing yourself to be a pissbaby yourself.

No, I indulge in personal attacks because I can fuckwit. This board is where we mock stupid people. This thread demonstrates you are a stupid person, you don't have any investment in the actual subject, you just want to piss and moan about something being changed. That's stupid, that's what stupid people do.

Your link to a MundaneMatt video demonstrates that you are more than nominally interested in and attempting to propagate the outrage machine over things that have, despite their various other changes, predominantly been aimed at white males changing to encompass other or broader audiences. That is also what stupid people do.

Now fuck off back under your rock and wank yourself back to sleep.

[General Zod]

I'm not invested in Barbie. I am invested in other franchises that have suffered because some idiotic writer used them as "bully pulpits" from which they can spew political bullshit, specifically, the 'Transformers' franchise- see 'Beast Machines', 'Star Trek Into Darkness', and the examples I previously listed- and do NOT want to see more toy franchises used as "bully pulpits" for political bullshit.

So don't spend money on them. It's not as if you were going to anyway. Spewing a bunch of fake outrage isn't going to make it go away or change anyone else's opinions.

[madd0ct0r]

Also trusting reviews for the movie is a big wacky. There was critics that were invested in it politically and would have gave it a good (or poor) review regardless of the quality. Looking at the audience score is I think a more accurate barometer with the movie at 52% on RT with the average rating 3.1 out of 5. Shows accurately it was a painfully average movie, would have been completely forgettable if it wasn't for its name and controversy surrounding it.

Heh. I figured the ' votes of people on the internet caring enough to vote' otherwise known as the audience score was more likely to be skewed than the critics. I guess we're using different discounters.

[Joun_Lord]

Heh. I figured the ' votes of people on the internet caring enough to vote' otherwise known as the audience score was more likely to be skewed than the critics. I guess we're using different discounters.

Thats a very good point. I guess both are probably going to be biased. Though in this case I think atleast personally the audience score is relatively accurate. If people were pissed enough to try to drive down the score the score would be much lower. The average score is.....well average. I'm sure some who rated gave it a an extremely low score though I'm also sure some gave it an extremely high score (both could have been from genuine enjoyment or dislike or trolling) to cause it to even out.

The movie being average fits closer to the reviews from reviewers I trust. Whether this is the reality of it is hard to say which is why I watched it myself and agreed that it was average. Why eventually you gotta just break down and experience something yourself to know how it is. Probably shouldn't take that argument to heart if somebody is telling you how great meth is though.

[TheFeniX]

They already made a Barbie movie, it was called "Legally Blonde" and it was cliche and got mixed reviews, but fuck the critics: I liked it.

Still, nothing wrong with casting a "non-traditionally" attractive women (ie a woman not closer in build to a 13 year old boy but with tits). Barbie has a body no woman save that creepy plastic surgery chick from Ukraine could pull off. Having a curvier woman should be fine. Amy Schumer is a physically attractive woman so that should be fine just from that standpoint.

Being curvier with a bit of a baby face is not "non-traditionally" attractive outside any place but runway models who starve themselves nearly (and sometimes to) death. Even porn stars depict a wider range, realistic, and healthier body image than that cesspool of "beauty."

Still, Anna Faris more fits your description than someone like Amy Shumer and I find it ironic that you end up being just as concerned about looks by saying we should shift the other way, even though top billing ladies of the past 20 years have fit a wide range of body types. Compare J-Lo, Jolee, Jovovich, for just three.

On topic, this movie is probably going to be bad, so I wonder if Sony is just looking for more tax write-offs. Also, Mattel could be looking for something to get Barbie back into the collective consciousness, it is a toy line after-all. If it drums up interest in old and new toy-lines then the movie could lose a bunch of money and no one would care. EDIT: I have no idea how popular Barbie is as of 2016.

[Gandalf]

My problem is not the fact they're making a live-action Barbie movie. My problem is the fact they're rewriting a fictional character's history and "character" (personality, secular and religious beliefs, relationships with other fictional characters) to pointlessly promote the writer's own political agenda. See Jane Foster stealing Thor's identity ("Thor" is Thor's NAME, not a rank or title), efforts to make Captain America and the Falcon a gay couple, efforts to make Peter Parker (Spider-Man) "pansexual", falsely claiming Luke Skywalker is gay (Mark Hamill stated Luke's sexual orientation was open to audience interpretation, and did NOT confirm Luke was homosexual), retconning the personalities of 'Baldur's Gate' party members in 'Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear', etc.

Are you always angry when fictional (not real/made up) characters undergo changes that make them better reflect the changes in the world around their publication?

[Joun_Lord]

]Being curvier with a bit of a baby face is not "non-traditionally" attractive outside any place but runway models who starve themselves nearly (and sometimes to) death. Even porn stars depict a wider range, realistic, and healthier body image than that cesspool of "beauty."

Still, Anna Faris more fits your description than someone like Amy Shumer and I find it ironic that you end up being just as concerned about looks by saying we should shift the other way, even though top billing ladies of the past 20 years have fit a wide range of body types. Compare J-Lo, Jolee, Jovovich, for just three.

I used "non-traditionally" in regards to what Hollywood idiots consider beautiful. Ya know, the idiots who recast Mae Whitman with some generic skinny blond as the President's daughter in ID Resurgence and only considered other skinny supermodel types. Because apparently Mae Whitman wasn't attractive enough. If your head hurts now its because you just slapped yourself in the forehead over how stupid that is.

Hollywood has other body types too but the standard is the skinny supermodel type which Schumer clearly doesn't fit.

And I'm not concerned about looks or think they should shift either way, I said Barbie's body type is unrealistic and having a curvier woman play her should be fine. They could have a skinny chick play her or a plus sized woman (whatever the Hollywood definition of plus sized is) because there isn't going to be any realistic way to find an actress who looks like how Barbie is supposed to look with the porn star sized bewbs, ridiculously tiny waist, long ostrich neck, gams that are long as frack, and a complete lack of genitals or nipples. Its not exactly going to effect much to have the lady playing her not look all that much like Barbie because no matter what she ain't going to look all that much like Barbie.

[TheFeniX]

I used "non-traditionally" in regards to what Hollywood idiots consider beautiful. Ya know, the idiots who recast Mae Whitman with some generic skinny blond as the President's daughter in ID Resurgence and only considered other skinny supermodel types. Because apparently Mae Whitman wasn't attractive enough. If your head hurts now its because you just slapped yourself in the forehead over how stupid that is.

Or she wasn't available. Or she didn't want the part. I have no idea on that particular case. That said, she's still just a supporting character.

She does lead in an "ugly duckling" movie "The DUFF" which is funny because Hollywood does like to try and pass off beautful women as "ugly" because they don't look like... I don't know. They mostly look the same to me. But they also tried to pass Rachael Leigh Cook off as ugly in She's All That by forgoing make-up and dressing her in overalls. Not Another Teen Movie lampooned the shit out of this.

Hollywood has other body types too but the standard is the skinny supermodel type which Schumer clearly doesn't fit.

Jennifer Lawrence is pretty hot in 2016. Have you seen her Mystique make-up? She also has a lot more of a baby-face than a lot of Hollywood A-listers and you can see her glamour shots photoshop the shit out of her because those guys operate in an alternate reality. Another actress continuing to dominate roles and photoshoots: Scarlett Johansson. The bare-ass shots of her in... shit, can't recall the movie, anyways, only two words to describe: Child. Bearing.

There is no Hollywood standard when it come to female body types and if there was "body of a 13-year-old boy with tits" is definitely not it. Milla Jovovich is the only actress with a large list of leads I can come up with that fits your description. And even with that, I assume some of her popularity is "she'll do nudity!"

[streetad]

Unless I've somehow missed a beloved cult Barbie film starring John Belushi in the defining role of his career, I'm not sure what this has to do with Ghostbusters?

I mean other than the fact that it sounds like they are treating the material in a tongue-in-cheek, 'Lego Movie' kind of a way, should I really care about this one way or the other?