Talk:Oppenheimer (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Golden Globes

"Oppenheimer became the first film since Richard Attenborough's Gandhi (1982), and the tenth film overall, to win five Golden Globe Awards..."

I'm confused by this sentence. La La Land in 2017 won 7 golden globes, the record, so I feel like this too specific and will likewise mislead readers. I also don't have time to check if it is the 10th film to win 5 awards or 5 or more awards. Jamisonsupame (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree, confusing. I'm not sure what it is trying to say. Five is impressive but why don't we have this very sentence in every other movie with five awards... 2A02:1406:B:4060:D419:7DC3:AC37:7EAD (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It's sourced to Vanity Fair. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Well it's obvious to everyone it is not if the source words it like that. _La La Land_ also " [became] the first film since 1982’s Gandhi to take home a whopping five awards." But the went on to win two additional awards during the ceremony. What to do? 2A02:1406:B:3D6F:85D0:9D6A:76C9:D05B (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Ahh I see what you're saying. Vanity Fair says Oppenheimer is the first film since Gandhi to win 5 awards, as in exactly 5. Yeah, I agre, that sounds pretty trivial if 5 isn't the most number of wins a film has had. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly! They are trying to say exactly five but poor editing makes it sound like something else and need to for some reason discount a movie that won five and two more. 2A02:1406:B:3D6F:127:4850:C99C:BACA (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Removed InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Jungian psychology

I was just reading the Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion (2010) and I came across some passages about Jungian psychology that seemed to come right out of the film. This might seem obvious to others, but I only just noticed it. Has Nolan talked about incorporating Jungian psychology (in visual form, not just the dialogue) into certain scenes? Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Open Hollywood letter

I just read an article explaining how Hollywood (Barbara Streisand, Kristen Stewart, Bill Nye and more) signed an open letter warning against the threats of real-life nuclear war and delivered it at the Oscars. They cite Oppenheimer as an inspiration for creating this letter. Would this be a valuable addition to the wikipedia article? Just wanted to get some feedback on the idea, thanks! Animal's Side Of The Moon (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's WP:NOTNEWS unless it has significant media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Concur with IanMacm. Clearly a tangent of minimal relevance. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Plot abridging

the section "plot" isn't narrated in the same order the film is structured (which isn't cronological). Since the section is about the plot of the movie and not about the actual events, I think the section should be written as the movie goes. Chupafrutas (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The "Summary" section under "Reception"

The "summary" section didn't feel written from a neutral point of view. It expresses opinions of whoever wrote this section, like "It does a great job" and "The film does not focus on every single event, but relays enough information to be understood." There are also a number of sentences that add no useful information, such as "Accuracy can be difficult to achieve in a film about a difficult and complex time in the world." and "It is important for Oppenheimer to be honest and truthful." In my opinion, this section feels tonally out of sync with the objectivity of the rest of the article, and I think it ought to be either heavily edited or removed, as most of the new information in the section fits well into other sections anyway. 2603:8000:D300:348B:8524:3799:F2F7:FD67 (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. I've removed the section. It was added yesterday, and it looks like it was done as part of a school project. Furthermore, I suspect that it was written using a language model. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nnorton94, Etch05, KBhodges24 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by StevenB1208 (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

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)