I read somewhere that Einstein was a notorious womanized who completely sexually monetized his fame in America. He would invite women over, and greet them naked in a washcloth, which at some point would "accidentally" fall off, and if the lady reacts he would take his advance, if not, he would pretend like nothing happened and get dressed.
Considering the commercial success of Oppenheimer, an Einstein biopic is inevitable. I am curious to see just how much SEXO will it contain.
Oppenheimer is the worst movie I've seen since Tenet. I'm convinced that the people who voted for it as best movie at the Oscars never saw it. I laughed out loud in the theater like 5 times at how atrociously bad it was. And yes one of those times was the ugly Mexican b***h bouncing on his dick reading the Bhagavad Gita.
>How did it make so much $$$ then if it was so bad?
So Barbie was the best film of last year and Avengers Endgame is one of the greatest films of all time? Is this really the argument you want to make?
No, however if a movie is pure shit, people tend to not come back and spend money. See Marvels as an example. Also entertaining not necessarily the same thing as kino. Adam Sandler movies are entertaining to enough people that those b***hes nearly always make money. If Oppenheimer both sucked and was not entertaining ... how did it make so much money?
So Barbie didn't suck and was entertaining? The mcu as a whole is just great cinema?
Jesus christ you're a fricking moron. Look up "the lowest common denominator" and then frick off before you try to argue that popular=good ever again
>So Barbie didn't suck and was entertaining? The mcu as a whole is just great cinema? >Jesus christ you're a fricking moron
Ok, you fricking midwit, I am going to say this again slowly so you can process. Movies can be good (meaning high quality art), entertaining (meaning some large amount of people like it for non-artistic reasons) or both or neither. Barbie was not good but was entertaining (to women and gays) and so earned a shitton of money. MCU same, until recently where it has become neither. The original question is if Oppenheimer was neither, how did it earn so much money? Think before you type, I understand you can have hormonal rages from your HRT treatments.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>what are subjective opinions?
Christ. Never respond to me ever again
>How did it make so much $$$ then if it was so bad?
So Barbie was the best film of last year and Avengers Endgame is one of the greatest films of all time? Is this really the argument you want to make?
Nolan's insecure. It was his response to all the people who pointed out how asexual and sterile his films are. (Which isn't a bad thing btw, his films are bad for other reasons - mainly the terrible writing)
Because just talking about him fricking commie girlfriend would be moronic without actually seeing it. Considering that she was one of the main contention points of the prosecution it would be just moronic to never show their relationship.
With Nolan is always a hit and a miss when it comes to humanizing characters, conveying emotion and generating actual empathy for them. Despite his cool conceptual ideas most of his movies come out as frigid and sterile. Only a few actually manage to convey human warmth so an informed opinion says he was attempting to do just that.
I'd argue that pic related scene is actually one of the rare sex scenes in cinema history which actually adds to the narrative of the film and makes it even better.
The way Nolan executed that scene showing it all in that very room added a lot to the uncomfortable feeling which everyone in that room felt, as Oppenheimer basically had to confess cheating on his wife while his wife sits right behind him. 99% of directors would play that scene with the usual generic edited memory sex flashblacks, the way Nolan did it elevated the scene to something much more impactful, unironically. A prude autist like Nolan doesn't include these things for nothing.
Initially it's to show that Oppenheimer feels naked during the questioning. Then the sex starts and it depicts how uncomfortable it is for his wife and the rest of the people in that room in that very moment. It's meant to be awkward and uncomfortable, you're not meant to find it so hot you whip out your dick in the theater to jizz on the person in front of you.
>Oppenheimer basically had to confess cheating on his wife while his wife sits right behind him.
Americans and their puritanical notions. A wife should accept such indiscretions when a great man has granted her the privilege of sharing his life with her.
>hundreds of thousands of people annihilated in nuclear hellstorm
🙂 >man and woman have sex, the necessary and joyful act of maintaining the species >:(
He read that Stanley Kubrick made Dr Strangelove as a kind of joke about male virility (and lack there-of). It was something in the post-Kinsey zeitgeist of the day among intellectual/bohemian types (like "latent homosexuality").
Nolan, being a tard autist, was trying to follow that lead. But that's not even beginning to be anywhere near his wheelhouse as an eternal Metagay. He's never been a "sex" filmmaker. He's all brain/mind puzzles. That's why the scene is so spastic in execution.
If she'd faked a really big orgasm, then it would have been a decent metaphor for the nuclear program. We're not in the era of "Everything long and tall is a penis and everything explosive is ejaculate and every red sports car is about a small dick" anymore, we're in the era of "Everything is a fake-orgasming, gold-digging, status climbing, penis-envying, eternally hungry, loveless vegana". And he fricked it up.
The movie's sub theme (it's point of satire), should have been that it was a giant hole (a money pit) that despite all the money and man hours thrown into it, never lived up to it's promise as either great peacemaker or a great free energy source. Just like le emancipated western woman.
He was showing Oppenheimer's life, and Oppenheimer had sex and affairs. He didn't NEED to show it, he didn't need to show the nuke going off either. He didn't even need to make the movie, but he did. So what
Personally I enjoyed seeing Oppy get some sloppy on his toppy
Bigger question, why was he so kind and revisionist about Oppy's excited passion about dropping the bomb on the Germans?
Based
Because we did
if he is up to bombing he needs to explode sometimes
I read somewhere that Einstein was a notorious womanized who completely sexually monetized his fame in America. He would invite women over, and greet them naked in a washcloth, which at some point would "accidentally" fall off, and if the lady reacts he would take his advance, if not, he would pretend like nothing happened and get dressed.
Considering the commercial success of Oppenheimer, an Einstein biopic is inevitable. I am curious to see just how much SEXO will it contain.
Albert Harvey Einstein
It's paramount to the AEC and FBI's suspicion of him being in league with the communists.
To weed out the zoomer audience
He wanted an excuse to put cuckquean stuff in a film.
>Why did Nolan think audiences needed to see Robert Oppenheimer having sex?
Because it's a movie about a physicist. You know, surefire boxoffice gold
so women would want to watch it
Because he is a von-trier-tier midwit who thinks grandiose thoughts like SEX is VIOLENCE
Give him the smirk and move along
To prove that not all israelites are autistic and gay. In this case, the guy was just autistic.
Oppenheimer is the worst movie I've seen since Tenet. I'm convinced that the people who voted for it as best movie at the Oscars never saw it. I laughed out loud in the theater like 5 times at how atrociously bad it was. And yes one of those times was the ugly Mexican b***h bouncing on his dick reading the Bhagavad Gita.
>Oppenheimer is the worst movie I've seen since Tenet.
How did it make so much $$$ then if it was so bad?
I have no idea it boggles my mind too. I assume it has something to do with the fact that most people are stupid lemmings.
Justin Bieber makes a lot of money and his music is shit and gay. Making money isn't a sign that something is good.
No, however if a movie is pure shit, people tend to not come back and spend money. See Marvels as an example. Also entertaining not necessarily the same thing as kino. Adam Sandler movies are entertaining to enough people that those b***hes nearly always make money. If Oppenheimer both sucked and was not entertaining ... how did it make so much money?
So Barbie didn't suck and was entertaining? The mcu as a whole is just great cinema?
Jesus christ you're a fricking moron. Look up "the lowest common denominator" and then frick off before you try to argue that popular=good ever again
>So Barbie didn't suck and was entertaining? The mcu as a whole is just great cinema?
>Jesus christ you're a fricking moron
Ok, you fricking midwit, I am going to say this again slowly so you can process. Movies can be good (meaning high quality art), entertaining (meaning some large amount of people like it for non-artistic reasons) or both or neither. Barbie was not good but was entertaining (to women and gays) and so earned a shitton of money. MCU same, until recently where it has become neither. The original question is if Oppenheimer was neither, how did it earn so much money? Think before you type, I understand you can have hormonal rages from your HRT treatments.
>what are subjective opinions?
Christ. Never respond to me ever again
>How did it make so much $$$ then if it was so bad?
So Barbie was the best film of last year and Avengers Endgame is one of the greatest films of all time? Is this really the argument you want to make?
>I have seen two movies since 2020
>tfw to smart and to contrarian 2 enjoy excellent blockbuster movies
Sad!
I don't think he managed to get rights to remake parts of that Barefoot Gen anime movie
Nolan's insecure. It was his response to all the people who pointed out how asexual and sterile his films are. (Which isn't a bad thing btw, his films are bad for other reasons - mainly the terrible writing)
Thus says the Lord:
>Whoever can be trusted with small things can also be trusted with big things.
A man that cannot be trusted to be faithful to his wife cannot be trusted to be faithful to his country.
finally some cuckquean content
hack stuff
Because just talking about him fricking commie girlfriend would be moronic without actually seeing it. Considering that she was one of the main contention points of the prosecution it would be just moronic to never show their relationship.
people won't sit through a 3 hour movie about a scientist without a little naked florence pugh
— Albert Einstein
Because when I see a person, the first thing I think of is how they frick!
i'm also a woman
Sex is normal and movies display several actions and scenes as their creators see fit
you will never be a real human
With Nolan is always a hit and a miss when it comes to humanizing characters, conveying emotion and generating actual empathy for them. Despite his cool conceptual ideas most of his movies come out as frigid and sterile. Only a few actually manage to convey human warmth so an informed opinion says he was attempting to do just that.
I'd argue that pic related scene is actually one of the rare sex scenes in cinema history which actually adds to the narrative of the film and makes it even better.
The way Nolan executed that scene showing it all in that very room added a lot to the uncomfortable feeling which everyone in that room felt, as Oppenheimer basically had to confess cheating on his wife while his wife sits right behind him. 99% of directors would play that scene with the usual generic edited memory sex flashblacks, the way Nolan did it elevated the scene to something much more impactful, unironically. A prude autist like Nolan doesn't include these things for nothing.
Initially it's to show that Oppenheimer feels naked during the questioning. Then the sex starts and it depicts how uncomfortable it is for his wife and the rest of the people in that room in that very moment. It's meant to be awkward and uncomfortable, you're not meant to find it so hot you whip out your dick in the theater to jizz on the person in front of you.
What about the scene where Pugh sits on his dick and he says "I am become death, destroyer of worlds"?
That's a cheap scene and an example of a bad sex scene
>Oppenheimer basically had to confess cheating on his wife while his wife sits right behind him.
Americans and their puritanical notions. A wife should accept such indiscretions when a great man has granted her the privilege of sharing his life with her.
She already knew about it and tolerated it, it was other people knowing that bothered her.
Hey anon
Stop
This is an >Oppenheimer BAD and >Nolan BAD board
Think before you post
>actually discussing films
>hundreds of thousands of people annihilated in nuclear hellstorm
🙂
>man and woman have sex, the necessary and joyful act of maintaining the species
>:(
It's kind of important for the character. Oppy's obsession with getting that sloppy caused him a lot of trouble
he finally got corrupted and fully joined illuminati
hence why he won oscar
he made the israelite movie for them and included sex scenes which he never has done before
Because Nolan is a fricking hack.
He read that Stanley Kubrick made Dr Strangelove as a kind of joke about male virility (and lack there-of). It was something in the post-Kinsey zeitgeist of the day among intellectual/bohemian types (like "latent homosexuality").
Nolan, being a tard autist, was trying to follow that lead. But that's not even beginning to be anywhere near his wheelhouse as an eternal Metagay. He's never been a "sex" filmmaker. He's all brain/mind puzzles. That's why the scene is so spastic in execution.
If she'd faked a really big orgasm, then it would have been a decent metaphor for the nuclear program. We're not in the era of "Everything long and tall is a penis and everything explosive is ejaculate and every red sports car is about a small dick" anymore, we're in the era of "Everything is a fake-orgasming, gold-digging, status climbing, penis-envying, eternally hungry, loveless vegana". And he fricked it up.
The movie's sub theme (it's point of satire), should have been that it was a giant hole (a money pit) that despite all the money and man hours thrown into it, never lived up to it's promise as either great peacemaker or a great free energy source. Just like le emancipated western woman.
He was showing Oppenheimer's life, and Oppenheimer had sex and affairs. He didn't NEED to show it, he didn't need to show the nuke going off either. He didn't even need to make the movie, but he did. So what