Oppenheimer - thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but I cannot stand Emily Blunt. Very overrated actress. Smug, annoying and she has a horse mouth.

Don’t know about the horse mouth, but I agree with the rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely brilliant scientists. Can’t believe they were able to make the bomb decades before computers.

To be pedantic, they had computers. Lots of them. The machines was named after the women (many of whom were excellent mathematicians in their own right) who spent their days doing calculations.

[Anonymous]

It was one of the best movies I’ve seen in years. I was captivated from start to finish. Thoroughly enjoyed the history lesson, the set design, the classroom scenes, the wonderful ensemble cast. I was riveted and the three hours flew by. My husband fell asleep but that is not unusual.

I did read a bit about it before going and had no trouble following along. I do recommend reading a few articles first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In terms of scientific genius biopics, I think “A Beautiful Mind” is way better.

I very much liked A Beautiful Mind… but I completely disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Easily the best movie I've seen in years. I think Oscars for Cillian Murphy, Robert Downey, Jr., and Christopher Nolan are a lock. The acting is superb, the story is riveting, and it didn't feel too long to me at all.

To the PP who asked about nudity - yes, not full frontal, but breasts are shown for maybe 60-90 seconds of screen time total and there are a couple very brief sex scenes. I had heard it was a lot more, so I didn't take my 16yo son, but now that I've seen it, I would let him go. He might not want to sit next to me though!

To the PP who asked about Oppenheimer's personal life - it's not a huge focus of the story but it's not glossed over yet. He comes across as the genius he was, but very much as the flawed human he also was. A big plot point is how his arrogance and questionable personal life come back to haunt him in the early 1950s.

I think Oscar nominations are a lock, but Killers of the Flower Moon could be some SERIOUS competition for Oppenheimer!

Said to be Scorsese best movie. That’s saying something!

Killer of Flower Moon looks awful. I did read the book and hated it, so curious to see what they did with it. My guess is it will be tedious. And Leo - blech

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In terms of scientific genius biopics, I think “A Beautiful Mind” is way better.

Nah- both are good. I bet you haven't seen Oppenheimer yet.

Actually I did.

[Anonymous]

gratuitous sex scenes and nudity? that's all im hearing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie was outstanding. But then, I like thoughtful movies that leave me thinking about the subject when I leave the theatre. Great casting.

Is Richard Feynman featured in the movie and is he depicted with accuracy (ie being the most creative and thoughtful member of the team)?

He’s in it but not a huge role. Young and smiley.

Well that is just silly, especially if they make Oppenheimer more than a project manager. The brains were with the young guys, especially Feynman.

That's not correct.

The work Feynman did was crucial. What he did with Bethe stands out for example:

Efficiency of the device was particularly difficult to calculate because it depended on the evolution of the assembly in time, but a breakthrough came early in the project. One evening following Robert Serber's overview of efficiency in his April 1943 introductory lectures, Bethe and Feynman discussed efficiency and "the physical parameters which matter" since they did not know how to solve the complicated diffusion and hydro-dynamical equations for supercritical systems. "I think we guessed," Bethe later recalled, that the rate of decrease of multiplication during the expansion, assuming known beginning and endpoints of the expansion, would be proportional to the relative expansion. To fix the overall constant, Bethe and Feynman used Serber's result, as described in his lectures, for small excesses over the critical mass, a case that was relatively simple to analyze. Using this approach, Bethe and Feynman developed a formula for efficiency. This, according to the authors of the technical history of Los Alamos, was "the most brilliant example of theoretical problem solving" under the difficult conditions at the lab. Bethe and Feynman identified the crucial physical parameters in the calculation. Guided by their extraordinary physical insight and understanding of physics, they were able to use their limited knowledge of the phenomena and available data to produce a workable approximate formula for efficiency. As this feat shows, finding the best approximations to theoretical problems hinged on a talent for integrating and interpreting information in relation to a deep understanding of the laws of physics, a skill possessed only by the most talented scientists.

John Von Neumann was probably the most important. The bomb wouldn't explode without his calculations for the explosive lens.

He's also the one who basically did all of the theoretical physics to figure out that you don't detonate the bomb in the surface, but detonate in the atmosphere to inflict maximum damage.

If you read the biography of John Von Neumann, you'll read how his peers both in the Manhattan Project and at the Institute of Avanced Studies at Princeton we all intimidated by JvN's intellect. We are talking about some of the greatest minds in mathematics and physics who have ever walked the Earth. Peers like Einstein, Godel, Oppenheimer, etc. etc. were afraid of how smart von Neumann was. He was described by even those kinds of peers as being completely from a different planet and alien like. By the time he was 10 he could already speak like 6 languages and was doing advanced calculus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie was outstanding. But then, I like thoughtful movies that leave me thinking about the subject when I leave the theatre. Great casting.

Is Richard Feynman featured in the movie and is he depicted with accuracy (ie being the most creative and thoughtful member of the team)?

He’s in it but not a huge role. Young and smiley.

Well that is just silly, especially if they make Oppenheimer more than a project manager. The brains were with the young guys, especially Feynman.

I mean it is true Oppenheimer wasn't the smartest, but he was a leader. Someone had to corral all of the big brains to work on the project efficiently, because without leadership nothing gets done. CEOs don't get paid big bucks because they're the smartest, they get paid the most because they go out and find the smartest and make decisions. Oppenheimer was critical. Brains without leadeship and direction is worthless.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of Bethe, Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe could not comprehend von Neumann’s incredible intellect: “I have sometimes wondered whether a brain like von Neumann’s does not indicate a species superior to that of man.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie was outstanding. But then, I like thoughtful movies that leave me thinking about the subject when I leave the theatre. Great casting.

Is Richard Feynman featured in the movie and is he depicted with accuracy (ie being the most creative and thoughtful member of the team)?

He’s in it but not a huge role. Young and smiley.

Well that is just silly, especially if they make Oppenheimer more than a project manager. The brains were with the young guys, especially Feynman.

That's not correct.

The work Feynman did was crucial. What he did with Bethe stands out for example:

Efficiency of the device was particularly difficult to calculate because it depended on the evolution of the assembly in time, but a breakthrough came early in the project. One evening following Robert Serber's overview of efficiency in his April 1943 introductory lectures, Bethe and Feynman discussed efficiency and "the physical parameters which matter" since they did not know how to solve the complicated diffusion and hydro-dynamical equations for supercritical systems. "I think we guessed," Bethe later recalled, that the rate of decrease of multiplication during the expansion, assuming known beginning and endpoints of the expansion, would be proportional to the relative expansion. To fix the overall constant, Bethe and Feynman used Serber's result, as described in his lectures, for small excesses over the critical mass, a case that was relatively simple to analyze. Using this approach, Bethe and Feynman developed a formula for efficiency. This, according to the authors of the technical history of Los Alamos, was "the most brilliant example of theoretical problem solving" under the difficult conditions at the lab. Bethe and Feynman identified the crucial physical parameters in the calculation. Guided by their extraordinary physical insight and understanding of physics, they were able to use their limited knowledge of the phenomena and available data to produce a workable approximate formula for efficiency. As this feat shows, finding the best approximations to theoretical problems hinged on a talent for integrating and interpreting information in relation to a deep understanding of the laws of physics, a skill possessed only by the most talented scientists.

John Von Neumann was probably the most important. The bomb wouldn't explode without his calculations for the explosive lens.

He's also the one who basically did all of the theoretical physics to figure out that you don't detonate the bomb in the surface, but detonate in the atmosphere to inflict maximum damage.

If you read the biography of John Von Neumann, you'll read how his peers both in the Manhattan Project and at the Institute of Avanced Studies at Princeton we all intimidated by JvN's intellect. We are talking about some of the greatest minds in mathematics and physics who have ever walked the Earth. Peers like Einstein, Godel, Oppenheimer, etc. etc. were afraid of how smart von Neumann was. He was described by even those kinds of peers as being completely from a different planet and alien like. By the time he was 10 he could already speak like 6 languages and was doing advanced calculus.

He was truly brilliant and particularly capable across many fronts but Feynman had one thing almost none of them had (and admittedly this is outside of the MP) - he could teach and explain on a level beyond almost anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of Bethe, Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe could not comprehend von Neumann’s incredible intellect: “I have sometimes wondered whether a brain like von Neumann’s does not indicate a species superior to that of man.”

Ooh lord

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but I cannot stand Emily Blunt. Very overrated actress. Smug, annoying and she has a horse mouth.

Let’s see what hiy look like

[Anonymous]

A brave topic and Nolan has skill, very few will watch a Biopic much less a film 3 hrs long.

[Anonymous]

I was nervous about it being 3 hours, I sometimes have a hard time sitting through 2 hours. But it didn’t feel long at all, fast moving storyline, lots to think about, interesting characters. I’d say worth seeing in a theater bc you’re forced to get off your phone and pay attention and it’s a movie you don’t want to just half watch

Totally agree. I just saw it and feel like I need to see it again. There is a lot to unpack.