• mechoman444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    7 months ago

    Oppenheimer was not as good as it was made out to be.

    The plot was muddy and jumped around between multiple time periods and the dialogue was confusing at shit.

    Cinematography and acting was beyond amazing though.

      • mechoman444@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Of course. And in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction it works extremely well. But here not so much. Unfortunately.

        • stonedemoman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          But here not so much.

          Completely disagree with this opinion. The title of the movie is Oppenheimer. It would stand to reason that the film would include an introspective character study into the incredibly conflicted mind of a tortured physics genius.

          In other words, it’s bloody obvious that the narrative was going to get dense.

          The nonlinear storytelling was a deliberate device used to build suspense regarding the two contradictory imperatives tearing at the man’s morals, and I never once found the setting of any particular scene unable to be deduced by context.

    • Muscar@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      This is like someone saying a book is bad because they don’t understand some of the words.

      All the things you mentioned were specific choices made, not failures.

      • Sawzall@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Regardless, the plot was a chore the first time through and that’s not great storytelling. That has nothing to do with ‘not understanding words.’ I enjoyed the film, but it was certainly overhyped. Christopher Nolan is amazing, but this isn’t his best work from a storytelling standpoint.

        • stonedemoman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Regardless, the plot was a chore the first time through and that’s not great storytelling.

          I can disprove your assertion without even getting into the philosophy of storytelling simply via the fact that my first viewing of Oppenheimer was not laborious whatsoever. Nolan’s choice to dive into a more esoteric narrative of physics was my favorite part of the film.

          • mechoman444@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            You can’t prove the other person’s opinion on the movie is wrong just by saying you personally liked the movie.

            I wasn’t confused because I had a hard time understanding the plot or science behind it it was confused because the plot was convoluted. It jumped around from time period to time period and often I wasn’t sure when anything was even taking place.

            The only reason I was able to understand and keep up with the plot is because I already have a good understanding of that time period the science and the Manhattan Project in general.

            And I’ve said it a dozen times and I’ll say it again just because someone likes something doesn’t make that thing good! People like shitty music, I like shitty music but it’s still shitty music!

            • stonedemoman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              You can’t prove the other person’s opinion on the movie is wrong just by saying you personally liked the movie.

              Calling the first viewing of the movie a chore and the film’s storytelling bad was not an expression of opinion, but rather a pontification. It’s an attempt at declaring objective fact that is so demonstrably wrong that it falls apart even given anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately. you seem to be doing much the same in your comments. Your personal feelings about the movie have nothing to do with whether the movie was a success or failure.

              • mechoman444@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                The success of the movie is completely irrelevant in context to this discussion.

                Just because you found it easy to follow along personally doesn’t mean that the person that you’re responding to is incorrect in this assessment of the movie.

                You cannot prove that his opinion is wrong just because you like the movie.

                I am asserting, in fact, that the movie had a convoluted and muddy plot, which it did because it was nonlinear. The plot was not handled well and it made the entire movie relatively difficult to watch. Your personal pontification on how much you enjoyed the movie is by definition anecdotal evidence which, as you stated demonstrably falls apart as evident.

                • stonedemoman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  The success of the movie is completely irrelevant in context to this discussion.

                  What? I bet you gave no thought to this sentence before you stated it. Of course it matters to this discussion. The entire rhetoric coming from both of you revolves around the alleged failures of the film’s methodology.

                  Just because you found it easy to follow along personally doesn’t mean that the person that you’re responding to is incorrect in this assessment of the movie.

                  I just explained the difference between subjectivity and objectivity and I’m not going to waste my time explaining how it applies to a claim of “bad storytelling” techniques again.

                  You’re just going to have to accept the fact that opinions are not accurate measurements of the efficacy of a methodology.

                  • mechoman444@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Let me try and make this very clear to you the plot and story of the movie was disjointed obtuse muddy and confusing because of the nonlinear structure of it. That is what I’m asserting I am stating it as fact that is objective.

                    I have cited several movies in previous comments that handle a nonlinear story structure much better than Oppenheimer did such as Reservoir dogs and Pulp Fiction.

                    Aside from your own personal anecdotal opinion about how much you found the movie to be easy to follow do you have anything to refute my statement?

                    Please look up the definitions to the $10 words you’re using in your $1 sentences.