Talk:Oppenheimer (film)

The "making of" book is now available on Google Books with original hard copy pagination

The "making of" book Unleashing Oppenheimer by Jada Yuan is now available on Google Books with original hard copy pagination.

It was already available on Google Books in e-book form before the film was released. It was also available on Amazon Kindle as an e-book, and I've already read the book in the Kindle format. However, the e-book format does not have original hard copy pagination. At some point in the past three months (i.e., since the last time I checked), the publisher released a version on Google Books which appears to be based on the hard copy version.

I am way too busy with work right now. But at some point, someone needs to go through this WP article to fix the details about how the film was shot and add supporting citations to the Yuan book.

Contrary to the press coverage which incorrectly implied that the Oppenheimer production was largely a New Mexico-based film production, especially the interior scenes, the Yuan book reveals that significant portions of the film were shot in Los Angeles or near Los Angeles in Pasadena and Alhambra. For example, the Oppenheimer security hearing scenes were actually shot in the old C.F. Braun building in Alhambra. The scene where David Hill unsuccessfully tries to get Oppenheimer to sign a petition was shot in a Los Angeles hotel. Coolcaesar (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppenheimer now third highest grossing R

https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/highest-grossing-r-rated-movies-all-time/2900-5683/

"Deadpool and Wolverine" have surpassed both Joker and Oppenheimer, the question remains, however, should we change the article to say: "Oppenheimer was the second-highest-grossing..." or should we keep updating if new movies surpass Oppenheimer? R8cobra (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Challenging bad rewrite of film plot summary

Some anonymous IP editor drastically rewrote the plot summary so badly that it sounds like they watched a completely differently movie. The editor repeatedly misinterpreted minor tangents as key plot points and downplayed several key plot points.

I reverted that rewrite but the anonymous editor then reverted that.

Under WP policy, it is the editor disrupting the longstanding consensus of an article who has the burden to demonstrate why their revisions are proper.

Here is what is disastrously wrong with the current version and why the prior version was superior:

• The new version mentions Oppenheimer's work at Caltech, which is a tangent that is only mentioned once in passing in the film.
• The new version says "engage in activities of the Communist Party," which is the kind of thing that only a non-native English speaker would write. A native would write "involved in Communist Party activities."
• The new version inaccurately focuses on the petition which Oppenheimer refused to sign, which is a minor tangent (that was used by Nolan to set up the audience for the surprise that Hill came to testify against Strauss).
• The new version incorrectly states that Truman merely "ignored" Oppenheimer. The prior version (which I drafted) correctly summarized how Truman berated him and dismissed his concerns. Nolan has stressed in numerous interviews the importance of this scene, and it's also discussed as a "powerful scene" in the making-of book Unleashing Oppenheimer. The anonymous editor failed to grasp that Oppenheimer's brief encounter with President Truman was one of the most important events of his life. Miss that, you miss the entire point of the film about how Oppenheimer was a brilliant but deeply flawed man. Nolan hammered home the point he was trying to make with the line he gave to Strauss, which propelled Robert Downey Jr. to his first Oscar: "He wanted the glorious, insincere guilt of the self-important to wear like a fucking crown. Say 'No, we cannot go down this road,' even as he knew we'd have to." The point is that Oppenheimer wanted to be important in the sense of proximity to power, which he had tasted briefly by managing the Los Alamos Laboratory. But if he couldn't be actually important because he was too socially inept to win over the president, he could still pretend to be important by wearing his guilt like a crown.
• The new version emphasizes Oppenheimer's repeated visits to Einstein, when it is only the one that bookends the film which is truly important.
• The new version tends to overemphasize specific facts which were used as ammunition against Oppenheimer, and little details like where the bomb test was conducted and who played prosecutor at his security hearing, over a "big picture" view of his downfall. WP style is to summarize only the key points of a plot, not such minor details.
• There are about a dozen other typos and style errors but I don't have time to teach remedial English.

Any objections before I revert this back to the longstanding version? Coolcaesar (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. It was the anonymous editor's burden to begin with to justify their edits. I have proceeded with the proposed revert. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Where is this consensus you speak of, other than you talking to yourself lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C1:C800:B1B9:9DE1:1D2C:F2B5:3C6C (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, not that I need to, here's debunking all your bullshit: - The plot mentions ONCE he took up a position at Caltech AND Berkeley, does not go off on a tangent anywhere like you are claiming. - Sounds the same to me. It's not native when you write it, and something else when somebody else does. - Again, does not go off on a tangent. It mentions the petition to show that scientists were against the test and use of the bomb on Japan. These are plot points leading up to the climax. How does this version FOCUS on the petition? - Talk about going off on a tangent! Truman, played by Gary Oldman, is in ONE scene exactly. Ignored is right. - You've not watched the film. Einstein appears more often than Truman, and it is repeatedly mentioned how Strauss never forgot that incident with Einstein. The fact that Einstein is IN the climax, and bookends the film like you said, should tell you this is not a tangent and warrants mentioning. - Again, you are arguing over trifles. Where the bomb test was conducted - the very bomb that put Oppenheimer on the cover of Time and which he is KNOWN for - is not important? Roger Robb, the prosecuting attorney, who is essentially a proxy for Strauss during the hearing, which makes up a third (or half) of the film, is not important to even mention? - Please go waste your time elsewhere then. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C1:C800:B1B9:9DE1:1D2C:F2B5:3C6C (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's take this step by step. First, your use of inappropriate language on this talk page and in your edit summaries is a violation of WP policy and implies a lack of interest in having a constructive discussion, as signaled by your remark, "not that I need to". No, you do need to explain your edits under WP policy, as the user seeking to disrupt consensus. Per WP:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Please review WP core policies, starting with WP:CIVILITY. Your edit summaries reveal knowledge of arcane WP terminology like "trolls" and "bans", and you also made a personal attack (again, in violation of WP:CIVILITY) in an edit summary based on criticism of me on my talk page. Casual WP users would not be familiar with such terminology and would not have thought to check my talk page. As a WP user with 20 years of experience, I've noticed that anonymous users who talk too much about bans usually turn out to have been the subject of bans in the past, which explains why they're not contributing under a username, because such users who edit under a new username after being banned under a prior username invariably draw CheckUser audits for uncivil conduct, and are then banned again for violating the policy against multiple accounts. Turning back to the article, you're clearly unfamiliar with the edit wars that convulsed this article in the year after the film came out, through which the WP community arrived at a consensus version of the film plot.

Second, you don't understand what is a tangent. As explained in the WP article on what is a plot, a "plot is the sequence of events in which each event affects the next one through the principle of cause-and-effect". The previous version merely mentions that Oppenheimer taught at both Berkeley and Caltech; the new version stresses that he started the physics departments at both universities. Caltech in general is a minor tangent because it does not significantly affect any subsequent part of the narrative. It only comes up briefly later because the film accurately depicts how Oppenheimer met Kitty while teaching in Pasadena, rather than Berkeley, but that point is not essential to the outcome of the plot. He could have met her anywhere in California and the film still would have made sense. It's easy for most viewers to miss that the film is cutting to a party at night in a Pasadena house, unless one listens very closely to the dialogue, because Nolan didn't use an on-screen title card or a Caltech establishing shot. Per MOS:FILMPLOT, a plot summary is "an overview of the main events" and not a summary of minutiae. The fact that Oppenheimer taught at Caltech is mentioned only to explain what Oppenheimer was doing in Pasadena when he met Kitty and therefore falls into the "minutiae" category.

Third, "engage in activities of the Communist Party" is the wrong style for a native English speaker because it is unnecessarily wordy and awkward. It also incorrectly implies that there is one communist party.

Fourth, the petition is a minor tangent because the film is a biopic focused on Oppenheimer's guilt, not a depiction of the beginnings of the anti-nuclear movement.

Fifth, you merely attacked the Truman scene as a tangent but you failed to advance any actual argument against why it is not one of the most important scenes in the film. Especially, as I pointed out, both Nolan and the official making-of book have expressly stressed its importance, and Nolan sprinkled clues throughout the film (one of which I quoted at length above) to hammer home that point. You didn't respond to any of those points. Here are direct links to the page in the making-of book stressing the power of the one scene in which Gary Oldman appears, and the page on which Thomas and Nolan talk about what goes wrong between Oppenheimer and Truman in that scene.

Sixth, I saw the film in a movie theater at the time of release. I also read the making-of book in hard copy at a bookstore (and then got the digital version for my Amazon Kindle app) and the screenplay (which is now widely available online as a PDF). The intermediate encounters with Einstein are of minimal importance. It's the 1947 encounter at IAS which is really important because of how it leads to the epiphany which the entire film is building up to. Nolan explained that he came up with it while in bed and then ran downstairs and wrote it down because he realized he had found the ending of the film.

Seventh, you're again focusing on the trees and losing sight of the forest. The bomb could have been tested anywhere where there weren't many people around, and in fact, that's why Bikini Atoll was selected for the fourth nuclear weapons test. Robb was merely a cat's paw for Strauss. As Kitty expressly points out in an outburst in the film, Strauss was behind everything. From Strauss's perspective, any lawyer willing to serve his objective of driving Oppenheimer out of government service would have been adequate.

I suggest reading the making-of book and the screenplay to understand what Nolan was doing before commenting further. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)