Nolan's Oppenheimer

[BigFatCoward]

Honestly, I think it looks pretentious and dreary.  

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

Let it come out first ?

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

This Barbenheimer crapola is getting out of control. 

[Corvinus85]

 

[TheLastWolf]

This year is really something. Scorsese Villeneuve Fincher Coppola Scott Mann and all are waiting and we had the action genre renaissance and oooooooooo.

Booked my IMAX triple feauture tickets in the nick of time (waiting for sems to fuck off so MI7 included). And in the best seats recommended by Nolan. 

13 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

 

Maybe this thread should be renamed to you know 

Edited July 19 by TheLastWolf

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Madness.

Hey, those are my favorite seats. They also happen to be the seats that get sold last. 

[IFR]

On 7/17/2023 at 7:49 PM, IheartIheartTesla said:

There is also a fair bit of controversy around whether Heisenberg messed up the calculation for how much enriched uranium would be required as critical mass for a nuclear device (I havent bothered to follow it in recent years).

The Germans also messed up the calculation for the scattering cross-section of graphite, so believed that only heavy water could be used as a moderator for natural uranium. Which already posed a severe challenge for Germany, and when the allies sabotaged the Germans' heavy water supply, it essentially ended the Germans' vague hope of developing a bomb in any kind of timely fashion. By the time Germany was occupied, the Germans hadn't even managed a basic, functioning reactor. There was speculation that Heisenberg had sabotaged the program. Then again, many of the mis-calculations the Germans had made, the US and British scientists had also made, but had fortunately corrected them later.

I've linked to this article before, which examines the pursuit of the atomic bomb from the German perspective. It's very interesting so I'll pull it up again.

https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4362/2/1/2/htm

[TheLastWolf]

Surprisingly the geezers here at the certification board passed an 18+ rating with no cuts. Betrayal came in the form of makers who wanted a wider reach with the PG13 equivalent. Now got to sit through shitty no smoking popups and beeps and blurring. Just when Nolan returns to an R rated flick after decades. It's a crime to pixelate Pugh! At least no cuts in runtime.

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

Getting great reviews so far !

[Mladen]

Ladies and gentlemen, Nolan delivered!

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Surprisingly the geezers here at the certification board passed an 18+ rating with no cuts. Betrayal came in the form of makers who wanted a wider reach with the PG13 equivalent. Now got to sit through shitty no smoking popups and beeps and blurring. Just when Nolan returns to an R rated flick after decades. It's a crime to pixelate Pugh! At least no cuts in runtime.

What?  “Smoking popups; bleeps; blurring…”

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

Ser Scot It’s an Indian thing- on screen nude scenes and swearing is prohibited in india.So it’s all censored. Smoking can’t be shown without on screen disclaimers. Extended kissing scenes are also discouraged. We need to stand up and pay respect to our national anthem which is compulsorily played on screen before every film starts.Every English film has to have mandatory subtitles on screen.  Every film is mandatorily recut into two parts with a 15 minute intermission in between so hungry Indians can grab more samosas to munch on.

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What?  “Smoking popups; bleeps; blurring…”

Yes, we’re still living in the Victorian age here….

Edited July 19 by Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II

[Tywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Mladen said:

Ladies and gentlemen, Nolan delivered!

 

I'll always remind you guys, ignore positive reviews on things like RT right before the release. Movies, and especially big ones, are shown to friendly critics first. 

[Relic]

13 minutes ago, Mladen said:

Ladies and gentlemen, Nolan delivered!

 

Sweet summer child 

[Tywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

Ser Scot It’s an Indian thing- on screen nude scenes and swearing is prohibited in india.So it’s all censored. Smoking can’t be shown without on screen disclaimers. Extended kissing scenes are also discouraged. We need to stand up and pay respect to our national anthem which is played on screen before every film starts. Every film is mandatorily recut into two parts with an intermission in between so hungry Indians can grab more samosas to munch on.

Yes, we’re still living in the Victorian age here….

Damn, films in India must suck. No wonder the elaborate dancing scenes. 

Edited July 19 by Tywin et al.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'll always remind you guys, ignore positive reviews on things like RT right before the release. Movies, and especially big ones, are shown to friendly critics first. 

Who are the two critics that gave it a negative review?

[James Arryn]

10 hours ago, IFR said:

The Germans also messed up the calculation for the scattering cross-section of graphite, so believed that only heavy water could be used as a moderator for natural uranium. Which already posed a severe challenge for Germany, and when the allies sabotaged the Germans' heavy water supply, it essentially ended the Germans' vague hope of developing a bomb in any kind of timely fashion. By the time Germany was occupied, the Germans hadn't even managed a basic, functioning reactor. There was speculation that Heisenberg had sabotaged the program. Then again, many of the mis-calculations the Germans had made, the US and British scientists had also made, but had fortunately corrected them later.

I've linked to this article before, which examines the pursuit of the atomic bomb from the German perspective. It's very interesting so I'll pull it up again.

https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4362/2/1/2/htm

It is very interesting and informative, but inconclusive, and in such a way that almost every theory posited can find something here to support it. Want to believe Heisenberg was secretly sabotaging the nuclear effort? This can support that. Want to believe that Hitler/the Nazis were never enthusiastic about developing nuclear bombs, or indeed never even ordered their development? Yeah, this demonstrates that. Want to show Heisenberg did slow the process, but not to bring about German defeat but rather that given the lack of interest from Hitler et al and Germany’s technological situation, he did it as a bureaucratic short cut to prevent time and effort going down counterproductive cul-de-sacs. This says that. Etc. 

The most interesting thing about positing that Heisenberg was stalling is the customary assumption that he wanted the allies to win the race. There’s virtually nothing to show that that was a motivation. And his commentary doesn’t support it, and we have to theorize that he was just not speaking the truth…before or after the war…for reasons which are pretty entirely supposition. Given that the scientists working on Manhattan also overwhelmingly and bitterly protested the way their work was used, imo the Occam answer is that Heisenberg had similar moral conflicts and would have similarly slow-walked any bomb program. The difference might just have been that America was fully committed to the weaponization aspect in a way that the Nazis never were, and that that direction overrode the potential for individual scientists to manage things as Heisenberg might have. 

But the part of all of these that we ought to really pay attention to is the recurrence of retrospective justification as a primary motivation for much of the allied/American research and commentary on the issue in the time since. (That being stated openly as motivating ‘research’ would normally make any conclusions derived thereof highly suspect to say the least.) Similar motivations are evident in a lot of aspects of this discussion, and one of the reasons I find parroting the company line on the matter as though it were settled history frustrating. Especially because virtually any actual effort to look past the slogans makes any researcher aware that there is nothing about the evidence that remains that should lead to any level of certainty, let alone that post-applied explanation that just so happens to be the one that frames the choice to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in a heartbeat seem akin to a kind of hard truth ~ altruism.

So when people confidently assert that the reason they dropped atomic bomb(s) on ~ 700,000 civilians was to save lives, the only information that supplies is that their confidence must be based on ignorance or bias. I’ve read more than the average person on aspects of this, though again to be fair that was much less about the actual development programs, there I have some understanding but probably not much more than most, but the area that was within my focus is still overpopulated with unknowables or similar. For example I can say with something close to confidence that the recorded communications/journals/etc. relevant to the decision to drop the bombs on cities do not support the now-agreed consensus that it was a life saving excercise, but that doesn’t mean I can state with any confidence what was THE motivation, or that no one was considering that aspect, or w/e.
 

I can say that if it was a primary motivation, it was mostly left out of what was put on paper by the people involved, much more often contradicted by same…ie people were generally for or against it’s use on civilian targets, or indeed just for or against the prioritization of the weaponized aspect, little discussion was given to the ~ Ozymandian calculation it has settled on since in at least American general opinion. But even that doesn’t prove no one was thinking it. And there are other darker motivations which are much more documented, but even there ‘motivation’ was often framed within dialogues that themselves held certain things to be understood, and there’s no way of knowing to what degree the ‘kill a million to save three’ or w/e was in the back of their minds. But I can say that that’s where the most evidence of saving lives being the priority lies, in that which cannot be shown on paper to be true.
 

And there’s a lot of evidence that flies in it’s face. Most evocatively with regards to the way the Japanese were discussed. To short hand it, meshing the current belief with the records kinda leaves you with a ‘We need to prioritize saving those @#$%@*&@#$@ing @#$%@#*#ers lives’. Even forgetting all the much-more evident concerns about the Russians, revenge, demonstrating power, ROI, etc., in order to believe the saving savage barbaric sub-human lives by killing tons of them idea, you also need to reconcile yourself with the official position of the USAF re: bombing Japan generally or in specific, as stated on many occasions, in writing and on film, by Curtis LeMay, the man in charge of it and subsequently the top AF official for several decades/administrations since: to kill as many Japanese as possible. Not Japanese soldiers, nothing like that, just as high of a headcount as possible. His premise was simple: less Japanese, less material of potential resistance, ergo kill as many as possible as quickly as possible. 

He admits it as a war crime, btw. How does that line up with the ~ altruistic motivation now agreed upon as ‘truth’? And conversely, how easily does it line up with less elevated motivations?

Edited July 19 by James Arryn

[Tywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Who are the two critics that gave it a negative review?

Idk. I almost never check RT. The reviews are bias and typically have the level of writing you'd expect from a freshman who just took their first film class. 

[polishgenius]

Chris Stuckmann loved it, but he also said the soundmix drowned the dialogue and he only understood 70% of the lines. At some point somebody's got to have a word with Nolan about that.

[TheLastWolf]

47 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Damn, films in India must suck. No wonder the elaborate dancing scenes. 

Fucking RRR

49 minutes ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

Every film is mandatorily recut into two parts with a 15 minute intermission in between so hungry Indians can grab more samosas to munch on.

Yes, we’re still living in the Victorian age here….

Hey, anything other than popcorn and soda should be banned. Ok, maybe not coffee and tea. Samosas are good. Shit, the puffs are nice. Did I mention the fries? Also fruit milkshakes and icecreams...

52 minutes ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

Ser Scot It’s an Indian thing- on screen nude scenes and swearing is prohibited in india.So it’s all censored. Smoking can’t be shown without on screen disclaimers. Extended kissing scenes are also discouraged. We need to stand up and pay respect to our national anthem which is compulsorily played on screen before every film starts.Every English film has to have mandatory subtitles on screen.

Yes, we’re still living in the Victorian age here….

Correction, there have been gratuitous violence and nudity and swearing without censoring, trust me. Just not anything remotely mainstream. Indies that slipped in to become cult classics. And the anthem thing is all but forgotten with the elections in ancient history. And where was my fucking subs when I needed it in Tenet?

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What?  “Smoking popups; bleeps; blurring…”

Oh boy