Barbie 2 has a big money problem and it couldn’t be more ironic

When I first heard the news of Barbie potentially getting a sequel, I thought, “Well, well, well, isn’t that just the most ironic thing you’ve ever heard?” 

I think it’s fair to say that any mention of the 2023 Greta Gerwig film throws you back into a vortex of pink, endless memes, and a certain Ken doll being nominated for an Oscar that made women band together and scream ‘seriously!’ 

Yet despite the chokehold it had on society, resulting in many achievements, like being the highest-grossing film by a solo female director and becoming the fastest Warner Bros. film to reach $1billion at the box office, getting a second film is proving more difficult than getting your hyper-masculine boyfriend to admit he actually did like the first film.

Now, of course, there are likely many reasons, and one that has been heavily reported is that Warner Bros. has put its foot down, rejecting Greta, Margot Robbie, Ryan Gosling, and other cast and crew members’ massive (but justifiable, according to sources) pay demands. 

Another reason, though, is possibly that the second film, which grossed $1.4billion globally, would have to be just as, if not more, commercially viable, and that could be harder than getting your hands on the 2010 Stefano Canturi Barbie, of which only one was made for public sale. 

Lightning striking twice, in the way Barbie did, is almost unheard of; it’s the kind of hunger usually reserved for franchises built to be part of a series, like Harry Potter, Twilight or The Hunger Games, where we as viewers knew we had to save a bit of fanfare for the next release. 

Barbie however, was as far as consumers know, only ever meant to be one film, and the cultural moment around it was, dare I say it, a once-in-a-lifetime alignment; Greta’s real critique of patriarchy smuggled inside a maximalist, hyper-pink studio blockbuster was genius; a marketing machine that dominated both digital and physical spaces months before release was ubiquitous; the Barbenheimer phenomenon quickly turned cinema-going into a communal, tribal event; and a press tour became content in its own right, from Margot’s era-referencing outfits to Ryan’s always meme-ready Ken.

That’s a lot to ask a sequel to repeat, and if history (Sex and the City 2) has proven anything, it doesn’t always go to plan, which is possibly why the money side of negotiations has become a very nitty-gritty point.

Latest reports claim that over the past three years, more than six offers have reportedly been rejected; the most recent, according to a studio source, was the highest Warner Bros. has ever offered a filmmaking team and its stars, described to Variety as ‘life-changing’ money.

Other reports claim Ryan is seeking around $20million to return as Ken, while the creative team is also looking for increased upfront compensation and backend participation – and between you and me, is that actually unfair, considering the original film’s more than $1bn gross?

Then there’s Margot. New reports last week allege the star was paid $50m for her role as lead actress and producer. If that’s the starting point, it’s possible she could be negotiating toward one of the highest salaries Warner has ever paid a female lead – a title that currently sits with Sandra Bullock, who was reportedly paid in the region of $70m for Gravity in 2013.

Which, side note, feels insane that the top salary for a Warner female-led film was negotiated 16 years ago and has not yet been beaten. 

To add more fuel to the fire, there’s a deadline attached, too. Contract requirements mean Warner Bros. is reportedly racing to close a deal by December; if they don’t, the rights revert entirely to toy manufacturer Mattel, and the studio loses the franchise and the money for good. They probably won’t want that, so they are now under pressure to fold before the clock runs out. 

It’s laughable really; a film that spent two hours skewering corporate desperation to keep a lucrative brand alive is now the subject of exactly that: a corporation scrambling to keep a lucrative brand alive, and ultimately, the whole situation feels rushed and money-hungry. 

The first film was quite literally interpreted by many as a critique of capitalist systems and commodification. Yet, because it has become a ridiculously lucrative enterprise, the machine and those involved in keeping it running now want more, and does that not say more than Barbie 2 ever could?