@ariesbbz What evidence shows Nolan intended an Iraq War allegory? Isn’t that your interpretation rather than an objective fact? Given the film’s focus on nostos, trauma and leadership are plausible readings too, why is yours the only valid one?
@RekietaLaw A historical description isn’t a historical fact. Ancient texts can record myths, beliefs or traditions, but describing a myth doesn’t make the events historical. Historicity requires independent supporting evidence, not merely an ancient written account. Fuck sake.
@TheIllegit@thedialogist Your taste is subjective. claims about this film’s quality should be weighed against the evidence. Strong box office, critical acclaim and audience praise don’t prove everyone MUST like it, but they outweigh your opinion when assessing its broader merit. Bellend.
@KeenanPeachy If you thought it was that bad, why do you think so many critics and audiences reached the opposite conclusion? Could some of what you’re describing like acting, dialogue, tension, humour, even the music come down to taste rather than objective flaws?
@_jawnlocke@breakingyoun How is it completely fallacious? What evidence shows Nolan lacks understanding of humour and emotion rather than simply favouring a different style? And on what basis are you predicting that the masses will turn on him? Absolute shite talk.
@TheChrisLambert If Oppenheimer is closer to an MCU film than There Will Be Blood, what specific cinematic qualities make it so? Are you judging Nolan on what Oppenheimer aims to do, or against films with completely different artistic goals?
@chrispykin69337@JemappelleEve Oppenheimer’s haunted face after Trinity. no bomb is visible but consequences are. That expression captures scientific triumph, responsibility, and irreversible danger.