"But you have daughters Jim."

OPPENHEIMER is now one of the top 5 highest grossing R rated films of all time. Do you think it will reach $1 billion?

1. Joker: $1.08B
2. Deadpool 2: $785.8M
3. Deadpool: $782.6M
4. Oppenheimer: $777.2M
5. The MatrixReloaded: $741.8M#BoxOffice #ChristopherNolan #FilmTwitter pic.twitter.com/NKS4PnSK4a

— Matt Neglia (@NextBestPicture) August 28, 2023

LMCane said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

One scene that really left an impression on me was during the hearings when Groves was asked by the board if he would give Oppenheimer his security clearance by current (at the time of the hearing) standards.

Before Groves even answered, I knew where it was going - of course not. Probably very few of the people would have gotten a security clearance to work on the Manhattan Project. But desperate times called for desperate measures, so to speak.

Oppenheimer himself, based on the little I have read, seemed to have mental health issues that were more severe than what was depicted in the movie. He had questionable politics, questionable taste in women, and a difficult personality.

But he was a scientific genius who happened to be in the right place at the right time in history. As I said in a previous post, I'm sure this started out as a vanity project for him. He was driven by ego, to beat his colleagues in Europe to the punch.

What I think the movie tried to convey is that at some point he realized the project and its impact were bigger than his genius and his ego.

Academics are primarily concerned with their legacy. Many of his colleagues went on to do other things - even win Nobel Prizes - and their names weren't synonymous with the bomb. However, at some point, Oppenheimer realized that as director, his name and his legacy was going to be forever known as the father of the most destructive weapon ever created and used. And I don't think he was comfortable with that (honestly, who would be).

I think the movie wants us to believe that his opposition to the hydrogen bomb was some sort of atonement or penance for his work on the atom bomb and that post-war, he became some sort of scientific "influencer" of atomic policy (at least until his security clearance was revoked). I also think it wants us to believe that, whatever association he had with Communism, he did not commit treason. Also, it makes no sense that we would give information to rival colleagues that could allow them to "scoop" him. That's the worst thing that can happen to an academic researcher, which is what he was.

I too didn't come away from the movie "liking" Oppenheimer or even feeling sorry for him, but I don't think that's what Nolan intended. The movie did carry through with the martyr theme, but in the context of the movie, that's not a desirable characteristic (Kitty is angry at him for being a martyr).

What I did come away with is an appreciation and respect for the wide ranging impact that Oppenheimer and this project have had - on the academic fields of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, engineering, and the scientists who have built on his work, as well weapons, war, world peace, and the ethics and morality of it all.

The movie wanted us to believe that Oppenheimer died thinking his legacy was death and the destruction of the world. We all know that's not what happened (at least not yet), and I think in many ways the relative peace across the world of the last 75+ years is making us forget his name and his contributions.

This movie is really staying with me. There have been a lot of genius scientists who have made a lot of extremely significant contributions. But I'm inclined to view this one differently, not because of its larger impact, but because of what it required from Oppenheimer and his colleagues and what it left on their collective consciences. I can't think of a scientific development before or since that asked so much of the people who created it.

---

So well said, and spot on, IMO.

---

The Germans and British who invented poison gas?

the scientists who invented biological weapons?

the scientists who invented gunpowder and TNT explosives to be used in artillery shells?

the inventor of the Gatling and Maxim machine guns?

---

Except many of these things weren't discovered or invented by scientists or academics as Oppenheimer was. And none resulted in any sort of initiative comparable in size or scope to the Manhattan Project.

Gunpowder was discovered by Chinese monks back in the 9th century.

Neither gun was invented by a scientist. Gatling was actually a MD but never practiced. Maxim did not have any degrees and was an apprentice and draftsman. Both men considered themselves inventors but not scientists.

Alfred Nobel discovered/invented dynamite and was harshly condemned for it both before and after his death. Arguably, he didn't make this discovery with the focus of using it in warfare or for killing people. Considering explosives have a lot of other applications, this isn't really a fair comparison to Oppenheimer who, along with others, developed both the science behind the bomb as well as the bomb itself.

Biological weapons is a pretty broad term. Their use dates back to 1500-1200 BC. There were scientists who worked on weaponizing anthrax, botulism, and some other nasty bugs during WWII, but the war was over before any of them could be used. Most of the work in this area was actually done my the Japanese Army, but their implementation was really crude (like dropping bombs full of plague infected fleas). Since there hasn't been any real significant use of these weapons (outside of what the Japanese did), I wouldn't consider this a fair comparison to Oppenheimer, either.

Fritz Haber, a German scientist who won the Nobel Prize (for the production of ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen), did do a lot of pioneering work in the use of chlorine and other poisonous gases specifically for use as chemical weapons. Ironically, he was Jewish and was forced to resign his positions in 1933 once the Nazis came to power. It's documented, however, that he really had no remorse about developing these weapons, supposedly claiming they were more humane than firearms. He died in 1934 before he saw his work used to exterminate millions of his fellow Jews. The Nazis carried out a lot of disgusting and grotesque "science", but I would argue that's an entirely different discussion.

Quote:

---

The Nazis carried out a lot of disgusting and grotesque "science", but I would argue that's an entirely different discussion.

---

I'm so glad that stuff could never happen today.

Philip J Fry said:

---

Cliff.Booth said:

---

In the multiple quick shots of Oppy's commie girlfriend dying am I tripping or in one shot was there a gloved hand holding her head under water?

---

Not tripping. I saw it too.

---

Yeah, I saw that and thought, WTF. Don't recall anything else implying she was murdered, but I've slept a bunch since I saw it.

Finally saw it. Thought it was an outstanding movie. Really well done. Lots to unpack and discuss philosophically.

The shocker for me was how poorly the science and bomb were portrayed, and how underwhelming the visual effects were, after reading about it

Honestly that was a huge let down, there is so much that could have been explored, even with the same limited run time.

Didnt hurt the movie for me. Loved it. But that part of it was actually bad.

Ps- the boobs werent that bad either. Not sure why that is being made such a big deal. Has anyone ever actually met a hot commie?

Oppenheimer fever might be slowing down, I just checked the Lincoln Square IMAX tickets for two weeks from now and only 90% of the seats were taken instead of the usual all of them

— Sylvian (#1 Skinner of the Flower Moon) (@TheAlexSylvian) September 1, 2023

In WW II were were fighting Nazi Fascists. While I abhor both extremes of the political spectrum, I honestly would rather live under communism than the Nazi regimes if that were my ONLY choice.

3rd Generation Ag said:

---

In WW II were were fighting Nazi Fascists. While I abhor both extremes of the political spectrum, I honestly would rather live under communism than the Nazi regimes if that were my ONLY choice.

---

I sure as hell wouldn't. Communism killed more people and caused more misery in general.

And fascism involves strong government control over private entities. We are already closer to that than to communism. Both involve heavy government influence over our lives. It's bogus how fascism got characterized as "right wing". Hell the z natively stands for socialism.

I know the ends actually meet. But Fasists to me are worse. I don't want either one. I made that clear, but I do consider Germany worse than Russia. I do know abou thte Gulags. However communism was going to self destroy and it did. The major reductions in production with there was no incentive to produce meant that over time simply did not work. It was just a matter of time.

I think Hitler would have gladly ruled the world and brough his brand of hatred to everyone.

3rd Generation Ag said:

---

I know the ends actually meet. But Fasists to me are worse. I don't want either one. I made that clear, but I do consider Germany worse than Russia. I do know abou thte Gulags. However communism was going to self destroy and it did. The major reductions in production with there was no incentive to produce meant that over time simply did not work. It was just a matter of time.

I think Hitler would have gladly ruled the world and brough his brand of hatred to everyone.

---

I think you have it backwards.

Everyone hates nazis except german nazis. They were never going to take over the world and even if they had, they'd have mellowed out, cause it was going nowhere.

It was just plain old socialism with an extra 'we hate jews' added on

Communism is actually dangerous, and has actually destroyed our country and the entire brilliance of western civilization.

Evil leaders can always use it to rile up useful idiots. 'Follow me, i will make your poor-ass-world more fair' is attractive to the masses, who are too dumb to realize that the only outcome is the new rich boss, same as the old boss, only the whole pie shrinks to nothing and you end up starving or in a gulag. That corrupt bull**** is universal and you can rile up poor people to serve your needs anywhere on earth.

Communism brought you the end of the enlightenment and the new dark age we are entering. The only escape is to be evil and crooked enough to defraud your way into the private megayacht club running all this woke commie bull*****

Anyway, the irony is, the us was right to revoke his clearance. Sad as that is. It would have been irresponsible not to do so.

Welp I've been checking the dallas 70mm imax this whole time waiting for open seats and now I see it's been replaced by Jawan this weekend. So it sells out every show for 6 weeks and then is just gone

I saw it in regular imax. For the life of me, I can't figure out how 70mm would've made it any better/different. Most of the movie is dialogue heavy. Only one scene of the bomb exploding, which while awesome, I didn't think was as amazing as it had been built up to be. So a 90 second clip of the movie requires 70mm imax? I don't buy it.

Yeah, I think this was not really the movie to see in IMAX. Most of it was indoors with very little sequences that lent themselves to such a wide, huge screen.

Still one of the best movies ever made IMO.

IMAX isn't just for large-scale, VFX-heavy blockbusters.

First of all, true, 1.43:1 IMAX gives you more picture vertically than any other theatrical projection/presentation. You see parts of the image/frame that you'll never see again, not even on home release.

Secondly, 70mm IMAX is a sharper, crisper, more natural image than even laser IMAX. It has more contrast, deeper colors, darker blacks, etc. When the sound in our 70mm IMAX screening dropped out about two-thirds of the way through, they switched to laser IMAX, and I had the rare opportunity to compare each, in the same theater, within minutes of each other, and the 70mm IMAX was noticeably better. I likened it to 4K HDR vs regular 4K.

Is any of it necessary for a movie like Oppenheimer? No. But for quality freaks like me, if you want the absolute best presentation, clearest possible image, most contrast, etc, 70mm IMAX can't be topped.

That, and, personally, I don't care if all I'm looking at is someone's face, that face still looks more awe-inspiring and cinematic on an IMAX screen than it does on a regular screen.

a movie begging for the Linkin Park treatment https://t.co/dWrtisWydQ pic.twitter.com/gGK94FAwR8

— Corey Atad (@CoreyAtad) November 9, 2023

I didn't order the 4K UHD disc because it would have arrived the day after I left for Thanksgiving, and I didn't want it sitting on my porch that entire time. I should have just had it mailed it to my parents' house, but I never thought in a million years that it would sell out... everywhere. Late last week I tried to order it through Amazon, so it would arrive back at my house when I did, but it was sold out there, at Best Buy online, and Walmart online. So then I thought surely copies would be available in person in my random, North Texas hometown, since "no one buys physical media anymore," but I drove to Best Buy, Target, and our two super Walmarts and they were ALL sold out. Never seen anything like it...

Universal Pictures Home Entertainment says it is “working to replenish” sold-out stock of ‘Oppenheimer’ 4K Ultra HD discs at major retailers in time for the runup to the holidays (click photo below for story) https://t.co/79pWp02T9Q

— Deadline Hollywood (@DEADLINE) November 28, 2023

Maybe the most impressive thing about OPPENHEIMER selling out on disc and out-selling BARBIE in VOD is that the biggest audience is actually young people (18-24), shredding the idea younger audience members prefer franchise slop over serious dramas or darker subject matter https://t.co/iBr6Kiq1Ki

— Brendan Hodges (@metaplexmovies) November 29, 2023