|
I kept waiting for some demon core action and it never happened
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
C-Euro posted:That's the one I have! At least, it has rollerblades (maybe they all do?) Very jelly I could never find him as a kid Treasure him Love him
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 18:17
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:I think you have the movie end with Oppenheimer meeting Truman and cut out everything involving Robert Downey Jr and the clearance renewal stuff and the movie is much tighter and easier to digest. If the running time falls too short (gasp! under two hours?!) throw in ten or twenty minutes of some of the interesting Manhattan project stuff like the loving enormous buildings constructed at oak ridge or having to borrow all of the silver in the us treasury to build the coils for the enrichment machines. Yep. I’m forgetting whether the truman scene was before or after the gym speech, but that was another stand out “the movie should end now” moment, probably the best the film gets at portraying oppy as basically being on a different plane of existence in terms of guilt and horror. Pretty much everything in act 3 is a huge mess. Why is strauss’ aide being so uppity and getting so much screentime? who left that JFK line in? who okay’d the third act nude scene? who got drunk on the west wing and decided to portray oppy answering kangaroo court questioning a little more assertively as some sort of great verbal jousting triumph? You could literally feel and hear everyone in the theater growing restless haha
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:I think you have the movie end with Oppenheimer meeting Truman and cut out everything involving Robert Downey Jr and the clearance renewal stuff and the movie is much tighter and easier to digest. If the running time falls too short (gasp! under two hours?!) throw in ten or twenty minutes of some of the interesting Manhattan project stuff like the loving enormous buildings constructed at oak ridge or having to borrow all of the silver in the us treasury to build the coils for the enrichment machines. This is a good opinion. RDJ is a good actor and he's good in this but no one should care even the slightest about that character or if Oppenheimer was allowed to have a security clearance in 1954.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This is a good opinion. RDJ is a good actor and he's good in this but no one should care even the slightest about that character or if Oppenheimer was allowed to have a security clearance in 1954. It's difficult because sometimes it's hard to understand what the movie wants to be. The title is "Oppenheimer" not "Manhattan Project" so if it's a biopic then sure, tell the story of his security clearance stuff but.... it's just so boringly done. It's just not compelling in the slightest. That's probably what a lot of people were expecting going in too- everyone knows "he's the Manhattan Project guy" so the expectation is the movie would be a deep dive into the Manhattan Project and all its trials and tribulations. Compare it to "The First Man", which was terrific. Imagine if that movie was 40 minutes longer and had twenty minutes in the beginning with Armstrong going to flight school or dating his wife or w/e and then twenty minutes at the end with him as a doddering old retiree sparring with a character who wasn't introduced until three quarters the way through. It would suck all the air out of an otherwise great movie. Justin Tyme has issued a correction as of 18:44 on Jul 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
So is Oppy worth seeing in theaters or nah?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
the best movie featuring Cillian Murphy and a giant atomic bomb is still Sunshine
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 19:17
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsxmXiRw6d4
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:the best movie featuring Cillian Murphy and a giant atomic bomb is still Sunshine Sunshine rules
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:It's difficult because sometimes it's hard to understand what the movie wants to be. The title is "Oppenheimer" They want to show him loving with his ATOMIC dick! actually I don't know I heard that there is a trial in the later acts about some mcCarthy bullshit. I think He shoved his kid out the window and named an atom bomb tears in heaven. I don't know. I try hard to not know thingz. mazzi Chart Czar has issued a correction as of 00:28 on Jul 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 23:45
|
|
|
barbie was funny the Ken civil war/musical is completely unnecessary and probably the hardest I've laughed in years
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
J. Robert Oppenheimer, the American physicist, piloted the Manhattan Project to its completion of the first atom bomb. In the cinematically stunning and passionately observed film Oppenheimer, based on Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin’s Pulitzer Prize-winning biography American Prometheus, writer and director Christopher Nolan captures women and men realizing human destructive capability at its most terrible for the first time. Along the way, he tells the story of Oppenheimer’s journey from anointment as a heroic member of America’s elite to consignment to history’s doghouse. The film, though cluttered and in places reflecting customary creative license, is not the hagiography it might have been. It is admirably complicated. With virtuosic nuance, Cillian Murphy portrays Oppenheimer as a set of paradoxes—dutiful and self-indulgent, humble and arrogant, self-loathing and conceited, measured and impulsive, savvy and naïve, even brilliant and dumb—and thus a kind of stand-in for a mid-century United States unaccustomed to global power but embracing it as its destiny. The immediate stakes were also high, as the genocidal Nazi regime was working on an atomic weapon under the leadership of Werner Heisenberg, Germany’s greatest physicist and a pioneer of quantum mechanics. The drama is heightened by the fact that Oppenheimer revered Heisenberg as a graduate student in the interwar years and feared him as an adversary. Having leavened their task with the thought that they were simply inventing a “gadget” to end the war, he and his team confronted the horror of their work only after the bomb has been tested in July 1945, in Alamogordo, New Mexico, when he famously remembered a line from Hindu scriptures: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” In the event, of course, the Allies ended the war in Europe without the bomb. Although there is little doubt that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs hastened Japan’s surrender, historian Gar Alperovitz has argued they also essentially constituted the first step in the Cold War, dropped mainly to increase the United States’ leverage over the Soviet Union in shaping the postwar world order. That they certainly did do, which made it psychologically and politically difficult for the United States not to countenance nuclear weapons as legitimate tools of war, at least provisionally, and to develop ever deadlier ones. At first, this meant contemplating Hiroshima and Nagasaki as harbingers of future armed conflict. With harrowing images of nuclear explosions and aftereffects tormenting its protagonist, the film imparts how difficult it must have been for a conscientious scientist with intimate knowledge of nuclear war to live with that view. Deployed nuclear weapons are durably frightening, like a rack of Chekhov’s guns waiting to be fired. Implicitly, the film asks why, over the course of nearly 80 years, nuclear dread hasn’t produced greater alarm and more potent and open critiques than it has. The short answer is that nuclear deterrence has worked. Inchoate in the 1950s, the theory progressed from dangerously destabilizing “massive retaliation,” which left room for a pre-emptive first strike, through the counterintuitive concept of “limited nuclear war,” to “mutual assured destruction,” or MAD, which hinged more sensibly on a devastating second-strike capability that would foreclose a first strike. Though tantamount to hostage-taking, and conducive to arms races and capability overkill, it worked. Combined with a numbingly technocratic approach to force planning, effective arms control, and détente, MAD squelched fundamental debate about the utility and morality of nuclear weapons. Even near misses like the Cuban Missile Crisis were ultimately reassuring: Cooler heads had prevailed and would in the future. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan disrupted this sense of calm, proclaiming the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” Yet at heart he was a nuclear abolitionist. His fanciful Strategic Defense Initiative, known as “Star Wars,” whereby missile defense would supposedly render America invulnerable to nuclear attack, was at bottom protective rather than aggressive. He proposed mutual nuclear disarmament at his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik in 1986, but the meeting adjourned with no agreement. An acute sense of peril persisted due to Reagan’s dogged anti-communism. Abolitionist protests and the nuclear freeze movement gained traction. The world looked poised for a reinvigorated debate about nuclear weapons. In late 1987, however, moving forward from Reykjavik, the United States and the Soviet Union concluded the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. This was one of the great arms control accomplishments of the Cold War, eliminating all intermediate-range nuclear missiles. A reassuring vibe of nuclear self-control returned. Then, unexpectedly and fortuitously, the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended without a single nuclear bomb having been dropped in anger. The moment of maximum danger seemed to have passed. The fact that the Cold War stayed cold suggested that nuclear deterrence had become a refined and precise craft that had foreclosed actual use. Nuclear abolition yielded to the nuclear powers’ evolved assumption that knowledge and know-how could not be spirited back into the bottle and nuclear capabilities had best be left intact. Arms control agreements, an end to active targeting, and the United States’ unprecedented military and economic superiority seemed sufficient to lift the dread of self-annihilation. Some even came around to the view that it was all a charade anyhow—that nuclear war was so awful that, for all their high-tech posturing, military decision-makers were simply self-deterred. While Oppenheimer might have questioned the feasibility of deterrence, he believed in pursuing it. Oppenheimer stresses his undeniable mistreatment by those who had once exalted him and the terror of his guilt. Its more submerged revelation is that Oppenheimer was no nuclear abolitionist. He sought to use his prestige as the “father of the atomic bomb” to limit the potential destructiveness of war in more calibrated ways. First, he argued for international authority over nuclear power to regulate proliferation and arms races. Second, he opposed the development of the exponentially more powerful hydrogen bomb, known as “the Super.” Some of his fellow physicists, notably Edward Teller, strongly advocated the pursuit of the H-bomb, but Oppenheimer characterized it as a militarily useless “weapon of genocide.” Third, he believed the United States should instead invest in lower-yield fission weapons of the kind tested in Alamogordo and used on Japan for tactical use, especially to offset the Soviets’ conventional military advantage in Europe. Despite the sophistication of Oppenheimer’s overall position, his stance against the H-bomb and the broader worry that he might inconveniently bring his reputational clout to bear on other areas of U.S. strategy led to his downfall. Several officials in the military-security bureaucracy, stoked by McCarthyist paranoia as well as personal resentment, brought him before a closed Atomic Energy Commission proceeding, which resulted in the revocation of his top secret code word security clearance. Ostracized by much of the defense intellectual elite he once bestrode, Oppenheimer died hollow and despondent at age 62 in 1967. Although credible evidence has emerged that he had secretly been a member of the Communist Party, the Department of Energy vacated the AEC’s action in 2022, having reviewed the records and judged Oppenheimer loyal. The success of deterrence notwithstanding, the present state of international security would make Oppenheimer nervous about its stability. Arms control is moribund: China has shown little interest, Russia has suspended its participation with the United States in the New START treaty on mutual nuclear force reductions, and Russia and the U.S. have invalidated the INF Treaty. Further, the United States has ended strategic ambiguity on Taiwan, indicating that it would defend the island against a Chinese attack in a conflict that could escalate to the nuclear level. All three superpowers are upgrading their nuclear arsenals. The Russia-Ukraine war has raised the nuclear specter more dramatically. Now that it is the West that has the conventional military advantage, the Russians have ostensibly embraced an “escalate to de-escalate” concept, publicly endorsed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, whereby they could use battlefield nuclear weapons to reverse tactical losses. Oppenheimer himself might have credited the military logic of this position. Yet Putin’s actions have reflected more restraint than his incendiary rhetoric suggests. Deterrence has worked as expected in Ukraine, confining the conflict to conventional means and geographically containing it. Nuclear peace, albeit a more fragile one, goes on. From this perspective, Nolan’s film is not a wistful lament about a better world that might have been. A planet without the hydrogen bomb would have been safer, but probably wasn’t achievable. Be that as it may in retrospect, Oppenheimer—ultimately recognizing that it takes time for humans’ ethics to catch up with their technical achievements—bravely deviated from the standard line and paid a price. Oppenheimer explores the difficulty of challenging cherished orthodoxies in trying circumstances, especially if undertaken by qualified scientists. Nuclear deterrence is one such orthodoxy, while skepticism about climate change and perhaps sanguinity about artificial intelligence are newer ones. With its spectacular images of nuclear destruction, a crucial question the film stimulates is whether MAD, stripped of arms control and regular diplomacy and under the pressure of a major war involving nuclear powers, can still work. In the end, Oppenheimer is about the danger of complacency. How widely it will resonate remains to be seen. While 1960s movies like Dr. Strangelove, The Bedford Incident, and Fail Safe ended with a nuclear strike as an existential coup de grâce, their successors of the early 1980s such as The Day After and Threads, spurred by Jonathan Schell’s ominous 1982 book The Fate of the Earth, upped the ante by looking as well at the grisly aftermath. Robust arms control followed by the Cold War’s abrupt end and America’s extended unipolar moment soon made them seem moot. But Oppenheimer rivetingly revisits the terrible origin story of nuclear weapons when their salience is rising, assaults on conscientious scientists are continuing, and America’s relative power is diminishing. At the very least, Nolan’s timing is perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 23:58
|
|
|
If this summer’s blockbuster based on a doll that promised “girls can do anything” has one defining message, it’s that actually it’s “literally impossible” to be the one thing every girl grows up to be: a woman. “It is literally impossible to be a woman,” America Ferrera’s human character preaches to the Barbies in a monologue the L.A. Times thought was so “powerful,” the paper reprinted it in its entirety. (For one character — the Gender Dysphoria Barbie played by male actor Hari Nef — Ferrera’s words are true: No amount of garish makeup or over-the-top dresses makes him “one of the girls.” But that’s not the monologue’s intended point.) Ferrera’s character inspires the Barbies to take back their world from the patriarchy (yes, really) with her riveting list of complaints about how being a woman is “too hard.” “You are so beautiful, and so smart, and it kills me that you don’t think you’re good enough,” she says to Margot Robbie’s despairing titular character. “Like, we have to always be extraordinary, but somehow we’re always doing it wrong.” Every woman has wrestled with the insecurities of being “good enough” at some point in her life. But is that really the legacy of womanhood? Being a woman is wonderful — something to celebrate, not complain about. Ferrera continues, frustrated that women “have to be thin, but not too thin,” “have to be a boss, but you can’t be mean,” have “to love being a mother” and also “have to be a career woman,” “have to never get old, never be rude, never show off, never be selfish, never fall down, never fail, never show fear, never get out of line.” “It’s too hard!” she concludes. “It’s too contradictory and nobody gives you a medal or says thank you! And it turns out in fact that not only are you doing everything wrong, but also everything is your fault.” The speech reportedly moved the “entire set” to tears, according to director Greta Gerwig. Women and magazines raved online about how “the monologue outlines the challenges women face under the patriarchy.” On the surface, the speech is basically asking for a participation trophy for the chore of being a human being. While some of the expectations Ferrera bemoans are specifically feminine — like being thin or pretty — others are simply part of being human. (Gerwig acknowledged in an interview with Variety that the speech wasn’t just applicable to women: Men “have their own speech” and their own “twin tightrope” to walk.) Striving for the golden mean between bossy and a pushover, or between vain and gluttonous? No, you don’t get a “medal” for being a self-disciplined adult. In another sense, though, Ferrera is right that you can’t be good enough. Humanity has the knowledge of both good and evil: We were created for perfection but are banished from it by nature of our own sin. Left to our own devices, we will always fall short of what we were created to be. Frustration with our own failures, misplacement of self-worth, blame for others — the sincerely felt emotions that Ferrera’s monologue gives voice to are all a result of that disconnect. But instead of railing against “the patriarchy,” the way out of Hopeless Expectations Barbie’s world is — to repurpose the girlboss mantra — to lean in to what we were created for. Underneath all the layers of pink paint and patriarchy quips, Substack writer Robin Jean Harris extracted that very point from “Barbie.” “Gerwig is meeting women where they are: exhausted with impossible standards, ashamed at never measuring up, and totally disoriented from reality,” she wrote on Twitter. “Within that framework she is saying something really refreshing, something essentially conservative: the path to reorientation is your design, and design is given, not self-made.” At the movie’s ending, Barbie goes on a walk with her creator, Ruth Handler, who explains what the doll’s purpose is and helps Barbie realize her desire to live in the real world. I’m not sure if that’s the message Gerwig intended or not — truth has a habit of slipping through sometimes — but it’s nevertheless the right one. Only by understanding our design, programmed to love and reason and create and sacrifice, in the orderly image of our Creator, can we understand what it means to be human. It also makes sense that women would feel more conflicted, discouraged, and confused than ever by the expectations of a society that doesn’t even recognize what a woman is. If understanding our telos as created beings is the first step to making sense of our fallen reality and our fallen souls, then it’s no wonder a society that rejects that design in favor of untethered “self-discovery” would leave women and men alike feeling lost. As Harris notes, modern feminism “just gave women more ways to fail,” because “it did not give women anything real to ground to, or orient their womanhood to.” Rather, it rebelled against what were perceived as social constructs of manhood and womanhood, insisting the sexes were not merely equal but interchangeable and rejecting fundamental elements of our design like basic biology. In doing so, the post-feminist mindset made a mockery of masculine men and feminine women; you’ll find plenty of that in “Barbie.” In the final scene, Barbie makes her debut as a real-life woman named “Barbara Handler.” It’s suggested that this is somehow the climax of Ruth’s vision for the doll, as Ruth approvingly responds to Barbie’s request to become human that “I always hoped for you like I hoped for [my own daughter].” Does “Barbie” fully grasp the underpinnings of the movie’s own message about what it means to be human? Who knows — that’s a lot to ask from a doll.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 23:59
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:(For one character — the Gender Dysphoria Barbie played by male actor Hari Nef — Ferrera’s words are true: No amount of garish makeup or over-the-top dresses makes him “one of the girls.” But that’s not the monologue’s intended point.) jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
[Pop Culture] I haven't seen the movie, nor do I intend to but are all the kens played by gosling
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 00:29
|
|
|
It's kind of funny that an article that includes an unironic usage of the phrase "in the image of our Creator" contains more actual analysis than any other right-wing Barbie critique posted ITT thus far (in that most of them are just like "it's woke and I don't like that  ") but yeah it has some truly unhinged poo poo in itThe one where a guy took like a thousand words to say "I won't see this movie, even though my daughter wants to, because there aren't any black people in the trailer" was pretty funny though (not right-wing though)
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 00:30
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:(For one character — the Gender Dysphoria Barbie played by male actor Hari Nef — Ferrera’s words are true: No amount of garish makeup or over-the-top dresses makes him “one of the girls.” But that’s not the monologue’s intended point.) Which shitsucking bigot wrote this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 00:30
|
|
|
I want to say Matt Walsh or a Matt-Walsh-like due to the particular blend of transphobia and Christianity being shoehorned in where neither has a particular place
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 00:34
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:Definitely! I had that one! I chewed on it a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 01:51
|
|
|
Is this a Barbie assigned Ken birth or amab Ken situation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 02:01
|
|
|
QUEER FRASIER posted:christopher nolan was like hmm whats the modern american equivalent of being chained to a mountain and having a bird eat your liver every single day for all of eternity, how can I convey that level of torment?? And he went with spending a few days in a small meeting room having a bunch of guys ask you trick questions like "so hypothetically would you not not, not not not not, not not agree that the russians having a bomb is not not not not not a danger??" ngl he’s right on the money there
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 02:36
|
|
|
I’d be begging for the birds to eat my liver after the first hour of questioning
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 02:36
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7tOAGY59uQ
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 05:02
|
|
|
I finished grinding through the end of Twin Peaks season 2 and watched Fire Walk With Me. What a waste of time. Once the mystery of Laura's murder is resolved there's just nothing left of interest. A bunch of bullshit soap opera crap. The writing drastically devolves, the acting even becomes over the top like the directing changed severely. Twin Peaks season 1 and 2 would be seriously improved by just trimming it to anything to do with Cooper and jettisoning the rest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 08:11
|
|
|
starkebn posted:I finished grinding through the end of Twin Peaks season 2 and watched Fire Walk With Me. this is a pretty universal opinion tbh
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 08:27
|
|
|
starkebn posted:I finished grinding through the end of Twin Peaks season 2 and watched Fire Walk With Me. watch the return now
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 08:39
|
|
|
RandolphCarter posted:watch the return now Yeah, we plan to
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 08:52
|
|
|
Unlike other masculinist directors — absolutely Zach Snyder, sometimes David Fincher, absolutely Quentin Tarantino, most of Clint Eastwood — Nolan does not dislike women.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 09:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/EmmaTolkin/status/1685064419330699264?t=Na_-miOxqBen4lckx79_rQ&s=19
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 09:18
|
|
|
are you loving making GBS threads me lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 09:23
|
|
|
I feel like JRR would be a good hang. I'd love to get his opinion on something like Avatar or The Matrix
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 09:31
|
|
|
La Louve Rouge posted:Unlike other masculinist directors — absolutely Zach Snyder, sometimes David Fincher, absolutely Quentin Tarantino, most of Clint Eastwood — Nolan does not dislike women. lol, every time gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/EmmaTolkin/status/1685064419330699264?t=Na_-miOxqBen4lckx79_rQ&s=19 Apparently so many people got tricked the impersonator had to do an apology video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmsF-oJdsE0
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 09:38
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Yeah, we plan to ngl if you thought the rest of the show past finding out who killed laura palmer is "bullshit soap opera crap" you're probably not gonna like the third season let alone wished they just focused on agent cooper being a cool fbi guy solving cases lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 11:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jenn0wow/status/1684592290902298624
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 12:48
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Yeah, we plan to god i wish i could watch that for the 1st time again, it's so fuckin good
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
La Louve Rouge posted:Unlike other masculinist directors — absolutely Zach Snyder, sometimes David Fincher, absolutely Quentin Tarantino, most of Clint Eastwood — Nolan does not dislike women. Most of Clint Eastwood hates women
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 14:56
|
|
|
Nobody should ever say "maybe people like good movies" ever again because it shows a total inability to understand money. Playmobile didn't make enough money on their film. That's it. Movies only get made if they are profitable. Here are the made for home CGI Barbie movies. There are 40. https://www.imdb.com/list/ls033255925/ Edit: Movies only get made if they are profitable or made by a crazy person (more crazy people plz) mazzi Chart Czar has issued a correction as of 15:59 on Jul 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 15:52
|
|
|
loquacius posted:Most of Clint Eastwood hates women The part of him that made Bridges of Madison County didn't
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
La Louve Rouge posted:Unlike other masculinist directors — absolutely Zach Snyder, sometimes David Fincher, absolutely Quentin Tarantino, most of Clint Eastwood — Nolan does not dislike women. Snyder made the feminist masterpiece Sucker Punch
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
mazzi Chart Czar posted:Nobody should ever say "maybe people like good movies" ever again because it shows a total inability to understand money. What people like to see is one determining factor in profitability, what a weird post
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2023 17:38
|
|