OPINION: Could ‘Barbenheimer’ ever happen again?

Last weekend, both “Wicked” and “Gladiator II” released, two major big-budget blockbusters with wildly different audiences looking to take advantage of the upcoming holiday weekends.

Some outlets predicted the two movies, both offering counterprogramming to each other, might spark the same phenomenon which had lifted two studio movies from last year, “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer.” The event, nicknamed “Barbenheimer,” was one of the largest box office successes in the post-pandemic. In just one domestic weekend, the two films made $310.8 million, the fourth-largest weekend in North America ever.

The irony of “Barbenheimer” is how the original move by the studios to land the movies together was out of pettiness rather than strategic scheduling. Director of “Oppenheimer” Christopher Nolan had almost all of his films produced by Warner Bros. across three decades, but, after the pandemic plan of Warner Bros. to release their theatrical slate simultaneously on HBO Max, Nolan jumped ship to Universal to direct “Oppenheimer.”

Warner Bros., who rearranged their schedule following the pandemic, placed their long-gestating “Barbie” project on the same weekend as “Oppenheiemer,” almost assuredly to blow up the box office that weekend. “Barbie,” with one of the most notable marketing blitzes in recent memory, would take the crown from a blockbuster director who had been making event films like “The Dark Knight,” “Interstellar,” and “Inception” for almost his entire career.

“Barbie,” in contrast, had what looked to be a relatively smooth ride to theaters after obtaining a creative team with Greta Gerwig as director. Big-budget comedies typically require a unique edge, and for a movie which would need to be explicitly feminist, there’s no better option than the director of “Lady Bird” and “Little Women.”

Against all odds, “Barbie” manages a complicated legacy of a toy doll to be humanistic while managing all sorts of satire, from suited capitalists who don’t have a creative bone in their bodies to the horse-loving Kens who are happy to talk to you about their analysis of “The Godfather.”

This existential edge also applies to “Oppenheimer,” a three-hour procedural analyzing J. Robert Oppenheimer’s life through a distinctly critical lens as he’s being judged for security clearance. Following a pandemic where our lives had to be rebuilt in isolation, there’s no better time for two movies which tackle such personal topics.

The point here is, both of these movies were made by well-proven creative teams with general audience appeal, tackled existentialism in entirely different ways and were simply great movies. My final semester of college in fall 2023 had my film classes filled with freshmen who were inspired by the two, something which was exciting to see continue since my own implanted inspiration coming from 2019′s “Parasite.”

So now, how should we view “Glicked” or “Wickiator?” First step would be coming up with a better name, preferably one which doesn’t sound like it’s describing a rotten plate of food. Here’s the issue: one of these movies is not like the other.

“Wicked” is performing phenomenally, and is an amazing musical adaptation. The movie triumphs with two amazing leads in Cynthia Ervio and, surprisingly, Ariana Grande, vibrant and sprawling sets and a roaring choreography. I couldn’t be happier. I had confidence ever since learning Jon M. Chu was directing, who had directed the wildly underappreciated “In the Heights” adaptation.

But, “Gladiator II” did not fill me with the same appreciation. Ridley Scott, despite being one of the most prolific directors in Hollywood with “Alien,” “Blade Runner” and, well, “Gladiator,” is still a director with a wildly uneven filmography, especially in the 21st century.

“Gladiator,” the original, for all it does well is a product of its time. The massive epic which rallies behind a never-better Russell Crowe as a flawless hero feels somewhat out of touch today. The Hollywood tradition of overindulgence for a product like “Gladiator” doesn’t exactly feel right, perhaps owing to more self-awareness gained after the 2008-09 economic crash.

What’s disappointing in “Gladiator II” is this continuation of a dying Hollywood tradition. The movie appears epic and grand at best but bloated and wasted at worst. It doesn’t help “Gladiator II” being notably weaker than its Best Picture winning predecessor. The political conspiracy persisting around the gladiatorial games drags the film down, especially with a shockingly appalling depiction of mental illness.

Unfortunate for “Glicked,” but not uncommon. These kinds of counterprogramming attempts, where studios place major films alongside each other, wasn’t invented by “Barbenheimer.” This happens every week. Good and bad movies aren’t new either.

What makes the phenomenon so interesting is how for one weekend, two film studios made two very good, very different non-sequel films (although Barbie certainly receives a fair amount of branding) and a general audience flocked to it. It’s a filmgoers dream of what theatergoing could be, what if “Barbenheimer” was every week?

As someone who almost always watches at least two movies in theaters per week, I can say tonal whiplash is just a part of theatergoing. You should always try to see the comedies and family-friendly films first; bawling your eyes out and then heading to the circus isn’t the best mental exercise. But, once a week, I get my dosage of emotions. Every week, to me, is “Barbenheimer.”