The success of the movie is completely irrelevant in context to this discussion.
Just because you found it easy to follow along personally doesn’t mean that the person that you’re responding to is incorrect in this assessment of the movie.
You cannot prove that his opinion is wrong just because you like the movie.
I am asserting, in fact, that the movie had a convoluted and muddy plot, which it did because it was nonlinear. The plot was not handled well and it made the entire movie relatively difficult to watch. Your personal pontification on how much you enjoyed the movie is by definition anecdotal evidence which, as you stated demonstrably falls apart as evident.
The success of the movie is completely irrelevant in context to this discussion.
What? I bet you gave no thought to this sentence before you stated it. Of course it matters to this discussion. The entire rhetoric coming from both of you revolves around the alleged failures of the film’s methodology.
Just because you found it easy to follow along personally doesn’t mean that the person that you’re responding to is incorrect in this assessment of the movie.
I just explained the difference between subjectivity and objectivity and I’m not going to waste my time explaining how it applies to a claim of “bad storytelling” techniques again.
You’re just going to have to accept the fact that opinions are not accurate measurements of the efficacy of a methodology.
Let me try and make this very clear to you the plot and story of the movie was disjointed obtuse muddy and confusing because of the nonlinear structure of it. That is what I’m asserting I am stating it as fact that is objective.
I have cited several movies in previous comments that handle a nonlinear story structure much better than Oppenheimer did such as Reservoir dogs and Pulp Fiction.
Aside from your own personal anecdotal opinion about how much you found the movie to be easy to follow do you have anything to refute my statement?
Please look up the definitions to the $10 words you’re using in your $1 sentences.
That is what I’m asserting I am stating it as fact that is objective.
You’ve already made your opinion clear.
Aside from your own personal anecdotal opinion about how much you found the movie to be easy to follow do you have anything to refute my statement?
Already been over this in another comment where I explained why I thought Nolan’s use of these devices fit for Oppenheimer, this “conversation” was over a while ago. And best of all, Oppenheimer won an academy award for best director, best adapted screenplay, best editing- basically any criteria associated with your “critiques”. You don’t have to take my word for it, you can defer to much better film critics than either of us.
Please look up the definitions to the $10 words you’re using in your $1 sentences.
And best of all, Oppenheimer won an academy award for best director, best adapted screenplay, best editing- basically any criteria associated with your “critiques”. You don’t have to take my word for it, you can defer to much better film critics than either of us.
And Obama won a nobel Peace prize while bombing several Middle Eastern countries.
What the Academy Awards do is beyond useless. They can be disregarded completely as though they don’t exist.
Moreover, Oppenheimer is the kind of derivative schlock most modern film critics will praise because they got their masters in Spanish literature and they think they know what a good storry is.
The success of the movie is completely irrelevant in context to this discussion.
Just because you found it easy to follow along personally doesn’t mean that the person that you’re responding to is incorrect in this assessment of the movie.
You cannot prove that his opinion is wrong just because you like the movie.
I am asserting, in fact, that the movie had a convoluted and muddy plot, which it did because it was nonlinear. The plot was not handled well and it made the entire movie relatively difficult to watch. Your personal pontification on how much you enjoyed the movie is by definition anecdotal evidence which, as you stated demonstrably falls apart as evident.
What? I bet you gave no thought to this sentence before you stated it. Of course it matters to this discussion. The entire rhetoric coming from both of you revolves around the alleged failures of the film’s methodology.
I just explained the difference between subjectivity and objectivity and I’m not going to waste my time explaining how it applies to a claim of “bad storytelling” techniques again.
You’re just going to have to accept the fact that opinions are not accurate measurements of the efficacy of a methodology.
Let me try and make this very clear to you the plot and story of the movie was disjointed obtuse muddy and confusing because of the nonlinear structure of it. That is what I’m asserting I am stating it as fact that is objective.
I have cited several movies in previous comments that handle a nonlinear story structure much better than Oppenheimer did such as Reservoir dogs and Pulp Fiction.
Aside from your own personal anecdotal opinion about how much you found the movie to be easy to follow do you have anything to refute my statement?
Please look up the definitions to the $10 words you’re using in your $1 sentences.
You’ve already made your opinion clear.
Already been over this in another comment where I explained why I thought Nolan’s use of these devices fit for Oppenheimer, this “conversation” was over a while ago. And best of all, Oppenheimer won an academy award for best director, best adapted screenplay, best editing- basically any criteria associated with your “critiques”. You don’t have to take my word for it, you can defer to much better film critics than either of us.
Cute.
And Obama won a nobel Peace prize while bombing several Middle Eastern countries.
What the Academy Awards do is beyond useless. They can be disregarded completely as though they don’t exist.
Moreover, Oppenheimer is the kind of derivative schlock most modern film critics will praise because they got their masters in Spanish literature and they think they know what a good storry is.