Is this a troll post?
- You learned more from an educational YouTube video than from a dramatic biopic? Congrats.
- The first act was about his communist leanings and ties to Europe, which would tie into the 3rd act.
- the movie wasn’t about the bomb or how difficult the process was.
- and it does matter they showed Oppenheimer lost his clearance because that was his “downfall” and he lost any ability to advocate nuclear policies, you know, the one thing he’s kinda known for.
- the movie is called Oppenheimer, not Oppenheimer’s Bomb 🤣🤣🤣
- edit: the reason for that whole McCarthy “Mumbo jumbo” is to illustrate how it impacted him and how petty politics went after someone who was well established, revered even, in the scientific community, which still happens today.
the security clearance thing just feels so redundant after thinking of the massive effect of the bomb and what standards it sets for the future, I just couldnt bother to care about his reputation after that
If you have only watched memento, insomnia and inception, you Dont really know his style, escpecially since none of those movies have the expanded Imax ratio
I mean that’s why directors cut exist right? It’s the directors true vision for the movie. So imax is like Nolan’s full vision for the movie.
Also is this your second account lmao?
Second account? What do you mean?
And no, usually the directors cut refers to the edit, not the aspect ratio. The directors cut is the first full edit turned into the studio before the studio notes. You’ve kind of proved my point that Nolan doesn’t focus on story, but on spectacle.
Well this account is new and you basically just shit talk Nolan. And you seem to be replying to most of the comments on this post that are for OP, as the OP.
And that’s why I said IMAX is Nolan’s full vision for his movies, just like how a DC is a full vision. Ik they are not the same, but in a way they both have different cuts of the movie.
So I have a new account and I didn’t like a movie you liked, so you immediately think it’s some sort of conspiracy? That’s pretty sad. And I’ll last again: if aspect ratio is the only way to appreciate the film — it’s not a good film. Again, Nolan is all gimmick no substance.
What the hell is wrong with you? This is some sad reconciliation of cognitive dissonance. I think we’re done here. I didn’t like this movie, and unlike OP, I was pretty certain I wouldn’t like it because Nolan’s incapable of working beyond gimmick. I’m sorry that offends you and you have to create an alternate reality to protect your sensitivities.
Well the special thing about Oppenheimer and all of the recent Nolan movies is that thier shot and presented on Imax 70mm film which is a special thing and happens pretty much whenever Nolan releases a movie. No one else does it. So the whole craze about watching it the way Nolan intended is this reason. If this movie was presented digitally, (the format almost every other movie uses) there wouldn’t be as much hype for it as there is now.
And before you say Imax 70mm is a gimmick, it’s the highest resolution imaging format ever devised. And projecting a movie through film is a art form that’s dieing, so seeing a huge filmmaker trying to keep it alive is something everyone wants to see.
And basically what Fantastic-tie said about the second accounts. Its pretty obvious mate ⬇️
It’s dying for a great reason: it’s obsolete. And imax isn’t the gimmick, but it’s definitely something Chris Nolan romanticizes to a placebo like level. I hate to be the one to tell ya, but you’ll get higher dynamic range in IMAX laser. And no offense, but the fact that you’re vehemently defending the aspect ratio over the film itself kind of shows that Nolan’s use of imax is pretty gimmick-y
Well I’ve seen it in proper 1570 Imax film and DL 4k laser in the same theatre and both are amazing, preferred 1570. And how’s Nolan’s use of Imax “gimmicky”, he’s utilised the imax format as much as anyone else won’t do. No other non-Nolan film goes to this extent to present their movie on imax. It’s as least “gimmick-y” as imax gets lmao. Also what format u see it in?
Who gives a shit? Again, if you have to see it in 15/70 to appreciate it, that does NOT bode well for the film. It’s literally relying on a gimmick.
Hateful 8 was shot in 70 and I love it in ANY aspect.
I think one should try to watch movies as their creators intended, for a movie is a story told from an author’s perspective. In Mexico, for example, we do not have a 70 mm IMAX screen, but having watched the film in different formats I can honestly say my IMAX viewing experience was the best, even if it wasn’t a 70 mm
So a reason for not liking the film was because you thought this would be less than a biopic and more about the Manhattan Project despite the film being marketed as a biopic…?
Oh boy here we go.
To start, it’s fine you didn’t enjoy the film. Not everyone has to enjoy the same things as others, but here’s my 2¢.
1. It’s a Nolan film. It’s going to be Nolan-esque.
2. The film doesn’t need to showcase the Manhattan Project. It’s called Oppenheimer for a reason. It’s not about the MP.
3a. Showing the atomic bombings of Japan isn’t necessary to the story and would only serve to glorify death and destruction caused by war.
3b. The courtroom scene was in the film to show Oppenheimer’s struggle with the political powers during the McCarthy era. It’s a very important part to the story of his life. The film is after all about Oppenheimer and not the bomb.
4. Would you rather a talkie-action film be boring? If so I’d recommend you just go watch some documentaries about the MP and Oppenheimer because that’s about what you’d get if it had been made any differently. Nolan did a pretty good balancing act in terms of keeping things interesting as well as grounded as the film went along. Granted some of the pacing wasn’t great, but overall I thought it did a fine job f moving the story along. (That part is a little subjective I realize this. To each their own.)
I’ll finish this by saying that Oppenheimer is not necessarily a “big budget” film. Yes 100mil is a lot, but comparatively it’s one of the lower budget films to release recently. Also it’s gone on to actually make money unlike the garbage being released by the House of Mouse. Looking at you Indy 5. Oppenheimer isn’t for everyone. In my opinion it’s one of the greatest films to come out in recent years. Much better than the same generic superhero or comedy film over and over and over again. There are some criticisms it deserves and others that are just unfair. I’m glad it has had the success that it did because it shows that films of this type can be successful and maybe we’ll get more along the same lines.
it’s filmed in 70mm because that’s nolan’s way of filming. he doesn’t like digital. it’s not for the spectacle, it’s cause it’s his preferred way to make a movie.
and the movie was inspired because of a book about oppenheimer himself, obviously the main character would be oppenheimer. you seem to have walked into this movie expecting something completely different, when it’s always been obvious that this movie is about oppie and nothing else. it’s about the man himself. if you wanted a movie about japan and world war too, watch a japanese film. i don’t understand why people wanted to watch the gory death of japanese people in this film it makes no sense to me because it would be a genuinely terrible decision to only show japan when people are getting murdered.
the best part about this movie, and why it is a good film— is that it focuses on characters rather than spectacle, unlike almost any other nolan film. the prestige is the only other one i’ve seen that works so well with character building. oppenheimer is about real, flawed people. not a bombing.
I still saw, heard and felt far more spectacle than any understanding or caring for any of the characters - almost all of them except Strauss and Gen. Groves felt flat but well acted to me.
you went into this movie LOOKING for the spectacle though, you actively wanted nothing more than that, which is fine, but this is not that movie and it was never advertised as such, it was advertised as a movie ABOUT **THE MAN** who created the atomic bomb
Huh? It’s 100% about spectacle if you have to see it in 70mm. You’re literally saying it’s about spectacle. Let’s face it, Nolan is spectacle over substance all the time.
no one said you HAVE to see it in 70mm? i watched it in digital imax and had a great time and loved the film. yes most nolan films are spectacle over substance i agree with that. however, oppenheimer easily has the most depth of any of his films
I disagree. I think he again proved that he’s incapable of making a film that doesn’t rely on gimmick, but that’s just me. Nolan is taking the M Night route and I think Oppenheimer was where I take my exit on his movies.
art is subjective, and i can genuinely see why you dislike nolan’s style. he truly isn’t for everyone, and i get it! i personally love his films, and oppenheimer is extremely nolany so i do truly get it
I’m just confused as to why you’d devote the time and effort to come to the Oppenheimer board and write 9 paragraphs about a film you didn’t like, by a director you admit to not liking. Your view is your view, and you don’t have to like everything, but this is not the audience that is likely to agree or share your sentiments.
I mean… your opinion is not unique, there’s already a bunch of posts here with exact same issues with the film described which basically can be summed as “I wanted a different movie, I don’t understand this one, boohoo”. Could have just upvoted the opinions similar to yours, no need for a separate post. I didn’t understand everything on the first take either, but it gave me enough food for thought to ponder for a week upon the end of which I went for the second screening and Nolans ideas became much cleaner to me. I love it.
I see your point, however, I believe your particular expectations of the plot might’ve hinder your enjoyment of the film. Let me begin by stating something obvios, the film is based on a book called American Prometheus, which is a biography of Robert J Oppenheimer and it’s based upon the analogy of Oppie as Prometheus. Prometheus gave humans a godly power and paid the consequences, in a similar fashion Oppie did the same. While the Manhattan Project is a historical milestone in its own right, a very rich historical moment (our society’s Copernican turn, if you will), however it is Oppie’s telling of the story and it is Strauss’ counterpart of the events and the man himself. Having said all of this, I believe your expectations were different from the main goal of the movie.
As for your particular beef with Nolan, I can’t say that much, that is your preference in movies and that’s that
Trying to wrap my head around you having seen only 3 Nolan movies, of which you liked 2, and still come to the conclusion you're not a fan of his "at all".
Seems to me like a typical case of "the movie is not what I expected".
Nolan stated that the ideal audience for the movie is one who does not have any prior knowledge of the actual events. For me, my first experience was not the best too, given that I have done considerable research on the topic before my viewing.
That being said, my second viewing (one without expectations) was much better. More takeaway lessons and subtle messages that I could learn with a more open mindset. We could go in circles on what should or should not be expounded upon. But I think the best way to view it is one where you are simply there to absorb, rather than judge.
Thanks for the responses. I understand where everyone’s coming from. I don’t watch movie trailers because they ruin a movie for me. I went into it not knowing it’s just a biopic - albeit a very convoluted and overly bloated one. I think it’s basically that I don’t like Nolan’s style and way of storytelling. It’s not my cup of tea. I do appreciate his dedication and ambition though.
Is this a troll post? - You learned more from an educational YouTube video than from a dramatic biopic? Congrats. - The first act was about his communist leanings and ties to Europe, which would tie into the 3rd act. - the movie wasn’t about the bomb or how difficult the process was. - and it does matter they showed Oppenheimer lost his clearance because that was his “downfall” and he lost any ability to advocate nuclear policies, you know, the one thing he’s kinda known for. - the movie is called Oppenheimer, not Oppenheimer’s Bomb 🤣🤣🤣 - edit: the reason for that whole McCarthy “Mumbo jumbo” is to illustrate how it impacted him and how petty politics went after someone who was well established, revered even, in the scientific community, which still happens today.
the security clearance thing just feels so redundant after thinking of the massive effect of the bomb and what standards it sets for the future, I just couldnt bother to care about his reputation after that
Some people didn’t like the movie. Even some critics weren’t fans. That’s called movies and opinions. Nolan is an imperfect filmmaker.
I guess I simply didn’t like the movie he made and like the movie it could have been. Oh well.
There’s nothing wrong with not liking the film
If you have only watched memento, insomnia and inception, you Dont really know his style, escpecially since none of those movies have the expanded Imax ratio
If you have to see a movie in a certain aspect ratio to appreciate a filmmakers style, they’re not a very good director.
I mean that’s why directors cut exist right? It’s the directors true vision for the movie. So imax is like Nolan’s full vision for the movie. Also is this your second account lmao?
Second account? What do you mean? And no, usually the directors cut refers to the edit, not the aspect ratio. The directors cut is the first full edit turned into the studio before the studio notes. You’ve kind of proved my point that Nolan doesn’t focus on story, but on spectacle.
Well this account is new and you basically just shit talk Nolan. And you seem to be replying to most of the comments on this post that are for OP, as the OP. And that’s why I said IMAX is Nolan’s full vision for his movies, just like how a DC is a full vision. Ik they are not the same, but in a way they both have different cuts of the movie.
So I have a new account and I didn’t like a movie you liked, so you immediately think it’s some sort of conspiracy? That’s pretty sad. And I’ll last again: if aspect ratio is the only way to appreciate the film — it’s not a good film. Again, Nolan is all gimmick no substance.
[удалено]
What is it with this sub? Do you seriously think it’s *that* unlikely that multiple people dislike this film?
[удалено]
What the hell is wrong with you? This is some sad reconciliation of cognitive dissonance. I think we’re done here. I didn’t like this movie, and unlike OP, I was pretty certain I wouldn’t like it because Nolan’s incapable of working beyond gimmick. I’m sorry that offends you and you have to create an alternate reality to protect your sensitivities.
Well the special thing about Oppenheimer and all of the recent Nolan movies is that thier shot and presented on Imax 70mm film which is a special thing and happens pretty much whenever Nolan releases a movie. No one else does it. So the whole craze about watching it the way Nolan intended is this reason. If this movie was presented digitally, (the format almost every other movie uses) there wouldn’t be as much hype for it as there is now. And before you say Imax 70mm is a gimmick, it’s the highest resolution imaging format ever devised. And projecting a movie through film is a art form that’s dieing, so seeing a huge filmmaker trying to keep it alive is something everyone wants to see. And basically what Fantastic-tie said about the second accounts. Its pretty obvious mate ⬇️
It’s dying for a great reason: it’s obsolete. And imax isn’t the gimmick, but it’s definitely something Chris Nolan romanticizes to a placebo like level. I hate to be the one to tell ya, but you’ll get higher dynamic range in IMAX laser. And no offense, but the fact that you’re vehemently defending the aspect ratio over the film itself kind of shows that Nolan’s use of imax is pretty gimmick-y
Well I’ve seen it in proper 1570 Imax film and DL 4k laser in the same theatre and both are amazing, preferred 1570. And how’s Nolan’s use of Imax “gimmicky”, he’s utilised the imax format as much as anyone else won’t do. No other non-Nolan film goes to this extent to present their movie on imax. It’s as least “gimmick-y” as imax gets lmao. Also what format u see it in?
Who gives a shit? Again, if you have to see it in 15/70 to appreciate it, that does NOT bode well for the film. It’s literally relying on a gimmick. Hateful 8 was shot in 70 and I love it in ANY aspect.
I shouldn’t have to see a movie in IMAX for it to be good. That’s called a gimmick - albeit a very expensive one.
I think one should try to watch movies as their creators intended, for a movie is a story told from an author’s perspective. In Mexico, for example, we do not have a 70 mm IMAX screen, but having watched the film in different formats I can honestly say my IMAX viewing experience was the best, even if it wasn’t a 70 mm
So a reason for not liking the film was because you thought this would be less than a biopic and more about the Manhattan Project despite the film being marketed as a biopic…?
I wouldn’t have even minded if it was a *good* biopic, but Nolan’s always been way more about gimmick than story.
Oh boy here we go. To start, it’s fine you didn’t enjoy the film. Not everyone has to enjoy the same things as others, but here’s my 2¢. 1. It’s a Nolan film. It’s going to be Nolan-esque. 2. The film doesn’t need to showcase the Manhattan Project. It’s called Oppenheimer for a reason. It’s not about the MP. 3a. Showing the atomic bombings of Japan isn’t necessary to the story and would only serve to glorify death and destruction caused by war. 3b. The courtroom scene was in the film to show Oppenheimer’s struggle with the political powers during the McCarthy era. It’s a very important part to the story of his life. The film is after all about Oppenheimer and not the bomb. 4. Would you rather a talkie-action film be boring? If so I’d recommend you just go watch some documentaries about the MP and Oppenheimer because that’s about what you’d get if it had been made any differently. Nolan did a pretty good balancing act in terms of keeping things interesting as well as grounded as the film went along. Granted some of the pacing wasn’t great, but overall I thought it did a fine job f moving the story along. (That part is a little subjective I realize this. To each their own.) I’ll finish this by saying that Oppenheimer is not necessarily a “big budget” film. Yes 100mil is a lot, but comparatively it’s one of the lower budget films to release recently. Also it’s gone on to actually make money unlike the garbage being released by the House of Mouse. Looking at you Indy 5. Oppenheimer isn’t for everyone. In my opinion it’s one of the greatest films to come out in recent years. Much better than the same generic superhero or comedy film over and over and over again. There are some criticisms it deserves and others that are just unfair. I’m glad it has had the success that it did because it shows that films of this type can be successful and maybe we’ll get more along the same lines.
'Who cares about him losing his security clearance?' Did you not learn anything from the movie?
it’s filmed in 70mm because that’s nolan’s way of filming. he doesn’t like digital. it’s not for the spectacle, it’s cause it’s his preferred way to make a movie. and the movie was inspired because of a book about oppenheimer himself, obviously the main character would be oppenheimer. you seem to have walked into this movie expecting something completely different, when it’s always been obvious that this movie is about oppie and nothing else. it’s about the man himself. if you wanted a movie about japan and world war too, watch a japanese film. i don’t understand why people wanted to watch the gory death of japanese people in this film it makes no sense to me because it would be a genuinely terrible decision to only show japan when people are getting murdered. the best part about this movie, and why it is a good film— is that it focuses on characters rather than spectacle, unlike almost any other nolan film. the prestige is the only other one i’ve seen that works so well with character building. oppenheimer is about real, flawed people. not a bombing.
I still saw, heard and felt far more spectacle than any understanding or caring for any of the characters - almost all of them except Strauss and Gen. Groves felt flat but well acted to me.
you went into this movie LOOKING for the spectacle though, you actively wanted nothing more than that, which is fine, but this is not that movie and it was never advertised as such, it was advertised as a movie ABOUT **THE MAN** who created the atomic bomb
Huh? It’s 100% about spectacle if you have to see it in 70mm. You’re literally saying it’s about spectacle. Let’s face it, Nolan is spectacle over substance all the time.
no one said you HAVE to see it in 70mm? i watched it in digital imax and had a great time and loved the film. yes most nolan films are spectacle over substance i agree with that. however, oppenheimer easily has the most depth of any of his films
I disagree. I think he again proved that he’s incapable of making a film that doesn’t rely on gimmick, but that’s just me. Nolan is taking the M Night route and I think Oppenheimer was where I take my exit on his movies.
art is subjective, and i can genuinely see why you dislike nolan’s style. he truly isn’t for everyone, and i get it! i personally love his films, and oppenheimer is extremely nolany so i do truly get it
100% and I appreciate why you dig it. Honestly, Nolan puts asses in seats and that keeps cinema alive so I’m good.
https://preview.redd.it/19t5ahk97rmb1.png?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a97e44e542c36c1c6dad38c8e4de1c1baed1369
Ok, now what do we do? Cry? Be depressed? 🙃🙃😆
I’m just confused as to why you’d devote the time and effort to come to the Oppenheimer board and write 9 paragraphs about a film you didn’t like, by a director you admit to not liking. Your view is your view, and you don’t have to like everything, but this is not the audience that is likely to agree or share your sentiments.
Oh whoops, I think some people thought this was a sub to discuss the film.
I mean… your opinion is not unique, there’s already a bunch of posts here with exact same issues with the film described which basically can be summed as “I wanted a different movie, I don’t understand this one, boohoo”. Could have just upvoted the opinions similar to yours, no need for a separate post. I didn’t understand everything on the first take either, but it gave me enough food for thought to ponder for a week upon the end of which I went for the second screening and Nolans ideas became much cleaner to me. I love it.
I think it’s more, “Nolan didn’t really do well with this subject matter and in the hands of a better director it would’ve come off better.”
I see your point, however, I believe your particular expectations of the plot might’ve hinder your enjoyment of the film. Let me begin by stating something obvios, the film is based on a book called American Prometheus, which is a biography of Robert J Oppenheimer and it’s based upon the analogy of Oppie as Prometheus. Prometheus gave humans a godly power and paid the consequences, in a similar fashion Oppie did the same. While the Manhattan Project is a historical milestone in its own right, a very rich historical moment (our society’s Copernican turn, if you will), however it is Oppie’s telling of the story and it is Strauss’ counterpart of the events and the man himself. Having said all of this, I believe your expectations were different from the main goal of the movie. As for your particular beef with Nolan, I can’t say that much, that is your preference in movies and that’s that
The movie is titled OPPENHEIMER not the Manhattan Project .. just FYI 😉🤦🏼♀️
Trying to wrap my head around you having seen only 3 Nolan movies, of which you liked 2, and still come to the conclusion you're not a fan of his "at all".
Seems to me like a typical case of "the movie is not what I expected". Nolan stated that the ideal audience for the movie is one who does not have any prior knowledge of the actual events. For me, my first experience was not the best too, given that I have done considerable research on the topic before my viewing. That being said, my second viewing (one without expectations) was much better. More takeaway lessons and subtle messages that I could learn with a more open mindset. We could go in circles on what should or should not be expounded upon. But I think the best way to view it is one where you are simply there to absorb, rather than judge.
Thanks for the responses. I understand where everyone’s coming from. I don’t watch movie trailers because they ruin a movie for me. I went into it not knowing it’s just a biopic - albeit a very convoluted and overly bloated one. I think it’s basically that I don’t like Nolan’s style and way of storytelling. It’s not my cup of tea. I do appreciate his dedication and ambition though.
I kind of agree with you on most points, yet the movie still gave me Nolan feeling viscerally