Oppenheimer (2023) (1 Viewer)

[Rob W]

Didn't Nolan actually go back and "fix" Hardy's dialogue early in the process because he was so tough to understand?

I might misremember but I have some recollection that Nolan DID touch up Hardy's dialogue.

My recollection is that the trailer for the film started the complaints about Hardy's dialogue and Nolan may have factored that in to the final sound mix.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Didn't Nolan actually go back and "fix" Hardy's dialogue early in the process because he was so tough to understand?

I might misremember but I have some recollection that Nolan DID touch up Hardy's dialogue.

They released the opening “prologue” with Bane and the plane crash months ahead of the film, attached to IMAX 15/70 screenings of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. Some audience members complained that Bane’s voice was low in the mix, so they boosted it when the completed film was released.

But it’s still an example that not every line of dialogue is important and needs to be completely audible at all time. There’s very little exposition in what Bane says. Some of his dialogue in that sequence is spoken not only behind his mask, but also underneath a hood as he’s a prisoner being transported blindly. Some of the complaints about the audio completely ignored the context of the visuals - someone in that situation wouldn’t necessarily be completely audible. They’re in the cargo hold of a plane in flight; the CIA agent screams his dialogue to be heard over the noise. You even have the CIA agent that’s transporting Bane leaning close into him to hear him - why would the CIA agent do that if the character wasn’t meant to be difficult to hear? The point of the scene wasn’t to hear everything, the point was to see how this guy in a hood that the CIA completely misunderestimated had an army of fanatics willing to crash a plane and sacrifice themselves to achieve Bane’s objective.

 

[Rob W]

I know Nolan's excuse was that he didn't intend every bit of dialogue to be audible, but while realistic, it shatters the artificial world that has been created between the film and the audience. Every time there is a bit of dialogue that I assume should be clearly heard but isn't, it immediately takes me out of a film for a few seconds as I try and piece together what I think I've missed, and then creates more problems if I miss any more dialogue while I've left the world of the film trying to figure out what I missed originally.

That is not the same as obscuring dialogue or words obviously, by doing something like cutting off the end of a sentence with a crash or explosion to cut off dialogue. Something like that doesn't cause me to pause and wonder what I might have missed since the intent is obvious.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I know Nolan's excuse was that he didn't intend every bit of dialogue to be audible, but while realistic, it shatters the artificial world that has been created between the film and the audience. Every time there is a bit of dialogue that I assume should be clearly heard but isn't, it immediately takes me out of a film for a few seconds as I try and piece together what I think I've missed, and then creates more problems if I miss any more dialogue while I've left the world of the film trying to figure out what I missed originally.

To me it has the opposite effect, which goes to show that at the end of the day, much of how we perceive and react to art is an individual experience.

My wife is very much like that - if she misses something in a movie she’ll often turn to me and ask me what someone said, and I’ll respond with a brief summary of the gist of what they said, and she’ll want to know exactly what the dialogue was word for word, and I won’t know and she won’t understand why I don’t want to go back and listen to that part again, and I’ll be so into how the movie is making me feel and the journey I’m on that I won’t want to stop the train for anything. As easy as it would be for me to say I was right and she was wrong, I think it’s just a completely legitimate, subjective difference in how we like to receive information/art.

I tend to be more of a “vibes” viewer so artistic choices that concentrate more on how something feels tend to work for me easily.

 

[JohnRice]

To me it has the opposite effect, which goes to show that at the end of the day, much of how we perceive and react to art is an individual experience.

My wife is very much like that - if she misses something in a movie she’ll often turn to me and ask me what someone said, and I’ll respond with a brief summary of the gist of what they said, and she’ll want to know exactly what the dialogue was word for word, and I won’t know and she won’t understand why I don’t want to go back and listen to that part again, and I’ll be so into how the movie is making me feel and the journey I’m on that I won’t want to stop the train for anything. As easy as it would be for me to say I was right and she was wrong, I think it’s just a completely legitimate, subjective difference in how we like to receive information/art.

I tend to be more of a “vibes” viewer so artistic choices that concentrate more on how something feels tend to work for me easily.

I'm in basic agreement with Josh. I try to take a certain, fundamental approach to movies. I presume the filmmakers, especially someone like Nolan, have put more thought and effort into making them than I put into watching them. So, I go with it. As long as my system is set up and calibrated properly (many aren't) I can be rather certain I am seeing and hearing what is intended. Yeah, Tom Hardy likes to mumble. It's part of who he is as an actor. If that isn't desired, someone else probably would have been hired for the role. Check out the movie Lawless. It's perfect for the character he's playing. So, I prefer to give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt that they are creating the result they strive for.

One exception, occasionally, is heavy accents. On very rare occasions I will resort to turning on the subtitles. It's quite rare, though.

 

[SamT]

I didn't like this very much. Too disjointed. Mixing scenes from different times where they have their own specific feelings and emotions doesn't work. Overall no sense of wonder, bad use of effects and many other things. 6/10.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

I didn't like this very much. Too disjointed. Mixing scenes from different times where they have their own specific feelings and emotions doesn't work. Overall no sense of wonder, bad use of effects and many other things. 6/10.

Damn, I feel like I've read a bunch of posts from you lately saying you didn't like the movie. Genuinely sorry for you.

 

[mskaye]

I didn't like this very much. Too disjointed. Mixing scenes from different times where they have their own specific feelings and emotions doesn't work. Overall no sense of wonder, bad use of effects and many other things. 6/10.

 

[SamT]

Indeed, mixing too many unrelated stuff is not a good thing. Eating salad, desert and the main course at the same time is not going to taste good.

Damn, I feel like I've read a bunch of posts from you lately saying you didn't like the movie. Genuinely sorry for you.

Thank you. How many has it been? 2, 3? I wouldn't worry if someone posted only 2-3 posts.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Finally caught this. It was Ok. Fascinating to see so many historical scientific figures in one movie. Nolan's insistence on playing with time in his movies detracted from the actual events in this IMO. Also, the totally gratuitous sex scenes felt totally discordant with the rest of the movie.

My least favorite Nolan movie to date.

 

[Rob W]

Also, the totally gratuitous sex scenes felt totally discordant with the rest of the movie.

Gratuitous ? They didn't bother me at all - in fact, if in reality Oppenheimer was the womanizer he's portrayed here it made him a fully-rounded character rather than deifying him.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Gratuitous ? They didn't bother me at all - in fact, if in reality Oppenheimer was the womanizer he's portrayed here it made him a fully-rounded character rather than deifying him.

No they didn't bother me either. However, I found them unnecessary as his womanizing was plainly evident.

 

[Tino]

There was only one sex scene. And I think one scene with nudity. That doesn’t seem gratuitous to me.

Ymmv of course.

 

[jayembee]

In Alien, virtually every scene with Yaphet Kotto shows him chewing food. Would that qualify as "gratuitous eating"?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

In Alien, virtually every scene with Yaphet Kotto shows him chewing food. Would that qualify as "gratuitous eating"?

And since he alludes to cunnilingus, we get sex scenes as well!

 

[TravisR]

The lack of sex or nudity in many mainstream movies today has made it that some audience members now reject any sex or nudity in a movie.

 

[Wayne_j]

Discussion with Neil Degrasse Tyson and Brian Greene about Oppenheimer and the accuracies of the film. They thought it was pretty accurate.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

The lack of sex or nudity in many mainstream movies today has made it that some audience members now reject any sex or nudity in a movie.

That sounds very revisionist. It's not like there used to be lots more sex and nudity in a long history of previous mainstream movies afterall.

I wouldn't argue it's particularly gratuitous or anything in this film, but it's certainly also debatable whether at least some of it was unnecessary though...

_Man_

 

[Tino]

it's certainly also debatable whether at least some of it was unnecessary though...

Who’s to say other than the filmmakers that it was unnecessary? Obviously Nolan thought it was necessary.

 

[Carlo_M]

Who is the arbiter of what's necessary, though? To oversimplify, historically the U.S. has been more restrictive in their views of nudity on camera, but gratuitous in its depiction of graphic violence, whereas other countries the trends are reversed (or both are restricted).

To me, part of his personality was as a womanizer. As such, I found nothing gratuitous or unnecessary with regards to the brief periods of nudity (1-2 minutes? of a 3 hour film).