Somewhat long post, so I put it all in a spoiler tag.Waitedalongtime wrote: ↑June 5th, 2023, 6:33 amIt's gonna be interesting seeing the balance between Oppy as this flawed character who is arguably the architect of his own downfall (as I commented in another thread, chain smoking gave him throat cancer) and also making him this persecuted and sympathetic character. No wonder Nolan called him the most "contradictory" (think that's the word he used) character he's ever tackled. Strauss indeed seems like the "villain" but it's interesting that he apparently did what he did illegally. So he broke laws and rules during this trial process?physicshistoryguy wrote: ↑June 4th, 2023, 9:50 pmI'd absolutely be onboard with such a thread should you choose to make one. My historical interests focus more on the big picture narrative and the sequence of events, so although I've noticed a couple things in the trailers (the security gate being too close to Los Alamos, CP-1 looking weird), I'd be very curious to see what you and others find. What you list may be "silly visual stuff," but it's the kind of stuff that's always interesting to find and compare with real history, and the more nitpicky, the better, haha (like, I think the stand-in for Stagg Field was filmed at Berkeley).Crysist wrote: ↑June 4th, 2023, 8:21 pm
Well, one exciting thing about following a film's production is kind of similar. You only see bits and pieces from very public filming locations. Not the soundstage work, the lesser-known locations, the effects work, all the post work -- even if you think you've seen too much there's still a lot more to it. I think we could be pleasantly surprised. For example, maybe we'll see more of Lawrence's work. I feel like all the "separation processes" are another thing that's hard to avoid in telling this, but I haven't read the book so I'm not sure the amount of emphasis is placed in it.
It's so... orderly. They all seemed so ready just at the right moment. And yet another massive effort. For all Strauss is likely to be portrayed as an antagonist, and even with the anti-Communist sentiments in various members of congress propelling terrible decisions, being wary of Russia in this particular way proved useful.
Also, regarding all this history, I was considering making a dedicated trailer analysis thread. There's a lot of cool details shown so far in the trailers, but most of the topics seem to fizzle out and instead they're just trading the high bitrate trailers and guessing cast. I think there's a lot of small details that attentive history aficionados must really like seeing in the trailers! Even though my own "analysis" so far has been limited to silly visual stuff:
"wow, they reconstructed the guardpost in the correct shape! even the replica Los Alamos has is entirely wrong!"
"is that field supposed to be Stagg field? it looks nothing like it!! my life is not complete without the gothic stands"
"why is the raised platform around the Chicago Pile shaped that way? that looks different from all the drawings/models/photos! plus the pile doesn't have as many bricks!!"
"the number of pieces of tape on the gadget as it's being lifted up is wrong! they forgot half of them! why?!"
"hey I read all those details about the sunscreen and the welder's glasses for the test, cool!!"
"the switches at the base of the tower!!" (someone else mentioned this to me because he played the Infocom text adventure game Trinity and remembered it)
lol
Personally, I don't think Nolan will spend more than a couple minutes, if any, on the separation/enrichment processes. As much as I'd love for him to show the reactors at Hanford and the racetracks at Oak Ridge, if the focus is on Oppenheimer then I doubt they'll appear (to the best of my recollection, he wasn't involved in the separation business besides endorsing Abelson's method of liquid thermal diffusion). And frankly, despite Strauss' role in pushing forward the detection programs, everything else that Strauss did pretty firmly and rightly secures his role as the film's villain. He was a very unlikeable person who pursued a personal grudge against Oppenheimer to an infuriating and illegal extent, as the book covers in detail. Of course it wasn't just Strauss - Oppenheimer had many enemies in the Air Force, AEC, and among other scientists like Teller and Lawrence - but, more than anyone else, Strauss was the architect of his downfall.
TV Spots
Posts: 285
Joined:
April 2023
Posts: 285
Joined:
April 2023
Very interesting; the fact that "we can end this war" and "they won't understand it until they've used it" are in the same scene is amplifying my gut feeling that this is portraying Oppenheimer's conversation with Teller, telling him off for supporting the Szilard petition.
Posts: 285
Joined:
March 2022
All interesting to read about, Strauss certainly sounds like a piece of work, I also wonder how much of this will make it into the film. I'm sure it'll have to streamline so in the process not everything will make it in, maybe in the process certain characters will come off better or worse morally than they did in reality. As long as it works for the film then that'll be what's most important and that moral balance with the main is the most important thing to get right since it's the crux of the movie beyond just the general events. The latest trailer even hints at this via it's that shot of Oppenheimer with that look and the fade into the firey explosion.physicshistoryguy wrote: ↑June 5th, 2023, 11:57 amSomewhat long post, so I put it all in a spoiler tag.Waitedalongtime wrote: ↑June 5th, 2023, 6:33 amIt's gonna be interesting seeing the balance between Oppy as this flawed character who is arguably the architect of his own downfall (as I commented in another thread, chain smoking gave him throat cancer) and also making him this persecuted and sympathetic character. No wonder Nolan called him the most "contradictory" (think that's the word he used) character he's ever tackled. Strauss indeed seems like the "villain" but it's interesting that he apparently did what he did illegally. So he broke laws and rules during this trial process?physicshistoryguy wrote: ↑June 4th, 2023, 9:50 pm
I'd absolutely be onboard with such a thread should you choose to make one. My historical interests focus more on the big picture narrative and the sequence of events, so although I've noticed a couple things in the trailers (the security gate being too close to Los Alamos, CP-1 looking weird), I'd be very curious to see what you and others find. What you list may be "silly visual stuff," but it's the kind of stuff that's always interesting to find and compare with real history, and the more nitpicky, the better, haha (like, I think the stand-in for Stagg Field was filmed at Berkeley).
Personally, I don't think Nolan will spend more than a couple minutes, if any, on the separation/enrichment processes. As much as I'd love for him to show the reactors at Hanford and the racetracks at Oak Ridge, if the focus is on Oppenheimer then I doubt they'll appear (to the best of my recollection, he wasn't involved in the separation business besides endorsing Abelson's method of liquid thermal diffusion). And frankly, despite Strauss' role in pushing forward the detection programs, everything else that Strauss did pretty firmly and rightly secures his role as the film's villain. He was a very unlikeable person who pursued a personal grudge against Oppenheimer to an infuriating and illegal extent, as the book covers in detail. Of course it wasn't just Strauss - Oppenheimer had many enemies in the Air Force, AEC, and among other scientists like Teller and Lawrence - but, more than anyone else, Strauss was the architect of his downfall.
Posts: 285
Joined:
April 2023
For sure; Nolan has to compress 45 years of one person's richly complicated life into a mere three hours of film, while being faithful to that life and the history surrounding it. I've always found it interesting to see how filmmakers take events I'm familiar with and adapt them to film or television, so I'm excited to see how Nolan does it here.Waitedalongtime wrote: ↑June 5th, 2023, 1:26 pmAll interesting to read about, Strauss certainly sounds like a piece of work, I also wonder how much of this will make it into the film. I'm sure it'll have to streamline so in the process not everything will make it in, maybe in the process certain characters will come off better or worse morally than they did in reality. As long as it works for the film then that'll be what's most important and that moral balance with the main is the most important thing to get right since it's the crux of the movie beyond just the general events. The latest trailer even hints at this via it's that shot of Oppenheimer with that look and the fade into the firey explosion.physicshistoryguy wrote: ↑June 5th, 2023, 11:57 amSomewhat long post, so I put it all in a spoiler tag.Waitedalongtime wrote: ↑June 5th, 2023, 6:33 am
It's gonna be interesting seeing the balance between Oppy as this flawed character who is arguably the architect of his own downfall (as I commented in another thread, chain smoking gave him throat cancer) and also making him this persecuted and sympathetic character. No wonder Nolan called him the most "contradictory" (think that's the word he used) character he's ever tackled. Strauss indeed seems like the "villain" but it's interesting that he apparently did what he did illegally. So he broke laws and rules during this trial process?
Posts: 2148
Joined:
November 2012
Posts: 285
Joined:
April 2023
Okay, yeah, if there was any doubt before that Branagh was playing Bohr, that brief clip comes straight out of page 270 of American Prometheus:
"[Groves and Bohr] arrived in Los Alamos late on the evening of December 30, 1943, and immediately went to a small reception in Bohr's honor hosted by Oppenheimer. Groves complained later that 'within five minutes after his [Bohr's] arrival he was saying everything he promised not to say.' Bohr's first question to Oppenheimer was, 'Is it really big enough?' In other words, would the new weapon be so powerful as to make future wars inconceivable? Oppenheimer immediately understood the import of the question. For more than a year, he had concentrated his energies entirely on the administrative details related to setting up and running the new lab; but over the next few days and weeks, Bohr sharply focused Oppie's mind on the bomb's postwar consequences. 'That is why I went to America,' Bohr later said. 'They didn't need my help in making the atom bomb.'"
Of course, Nolan made explicit what Bohr was talking about instead of leaving it at just "is it big enough" but otherwise it hews pretty close. Seeing what I believe is Skarsgård's Bethe in the background makes me wonder how much Nolan will delve into the 1941 conversation between Heisenberg and Bohr, since Bethe was the one who famously looked at the drawing Heisenberg supposedly passed to Bohr and pronounced it to be a drawing of a reactor ("supposedly" because that drawing is a matter of some controversy). But given how tangential that conversation is to Oppenheimer's story, I'm curious if Nolan would include it at all, or if he would be trying to cram all the famous parts of the nuclear story into his film. However, I'm speculating beyond what we've seen in the trailers, so I'll just leave it at that.
Regarding the last screenshot, do we know who Damon's Groves is yelling at? My mind immediately goes to Ed Condon's (i.e., Haaskivi) dressing-down before his resignation, but I'm not that good at identifying actors from behind.
Posts: 94
Joined:
September 2022
Not sure if this one has been posted already but this file was just uploaded to the server:
https://anonymfile.com/XPgVX/oppen001-d ... 0dh264.mp4
https://anonymfile.com/XPgVX/oppen001-d ... 0dh264.mp4
Posts: 33
Joined:
February 2023
I do like the emphasis of Bohr's implied question with Cillian asking "To end the war?" and Bohr responding "To end all war". Not that the original lacks anything, but it could help show the excitement for what their work would bring. Did Bohr have a notably more ambitious view on the ramifications of their work? And, with his quote from the other trailer "You gave them the power to destroy themselves," did he have a more hardline stance against nuclear proliferation in the years after, even compared to Oppenheimer?physicshistoryguy wrote: ↑June 19th, 2023, 2:06 pmOkay, yeah, if there was any doubt before that Branagh was playing Bohr, that brief clip comes straight out of page 270 of American Prometheus:
Of course, Nolan made explicit what Bohr was talking about instead of leaving it at just "is it big enough" but otherwise it hews pretty close. Seeing what I believe is Skarsgård's Bethe in the background makes me wonder how much Nolan will delve into the 1941 conversation between Heisenberg and Bohr, since Bethe was the one who famously looked at the drawing Heisenberg supposedly passed to Bohr and pronounced it to be a drawing of a reactor ("supposedly" because that drawing is a matter of some controversy). But given how tangential that conversation is to Oppenheimer's story, I'm curious if Nolan would include it at all, or if he would be trying to cram all the famous parts of the nuclear story into his film. However, I'm speculating beyond what we've seen in the trailers, so I'll just leave it at that.
Regarding the last screenshot, do we know who Damon's Groves is yelling at? My mind immediately goes to Ed Condon's (i.e., Haaskivi) dressing-down before his resignation, but I'm not that good at identifying actors from behind.
Given the runtime, and compared to all the "original" scenes, I wonder how much of these bits that are directly from the book we'll get. Where those who read AP or know the history very well will go *LeoPointing.gif*
I think you're right, based on the glasses.
Posts: 285
Joined:
April 2023
So Bohr is... complicated in this regard, and it's damn near impossible to explain his position without him seeming naïve, when everyone who knew him insisted he wasn't, but I'll try my best. This will undoubtedly be long, so I'm throwing it all into a spoiler tag.Crysist wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2023, 12:33 amI do like the emphasis of Bohr's implied question with Cillian asking "To end the war?" and Bohr responding "To end all war". Not that the original lacks anything, but it could help show the excitement for what their work would bring. Did Bohr have a notably more ambitious view on the ramifications of their work? And, with his quote from the other trailer "You gave them the power to destroy themselves," did he have a more hardline stance against nuclear proliferation in the years after, even compared to Oppenheimer?physicshistoryguy wrote: ↑June 19th, 2023, 2:06 pmOkay, yeah, if there was any doubt before that Branagh was playing Bohr, that brief clip comes straight out of page 270 of American Prometheus:
Of course, Nolan made explicit what Bohr was talking about instead of leaving it at just "is it big enough" but otherwise it hews pretty close. Seeing what I believe is Skarsgård's Bethe in the background makes me wonder how much Nolan will delve into the 1941 conversation between Heisenberg and Bohr, since Bethe was the one who famously looked at the drawing Heisenberg supposedly passed to Bohr and pronounced it to be a drawing of a reactor ("supposedly" because that drawing is a matter of some controversy). But given how tangential that conversation is to Oppenheimer's story, I'm curious if Nolan would include it at all, or if he would be trying to cram all the famous parts of the nuclear story into his film. However, I'm speculating beyond what we've seen in the trailers, so I'll just leave it at that.
Regarding the last screenshot, do we know who Damon's Groves is yelling at? My mind immediately goes to Ed Condon's (i.e., Haaskivi) dressing-down before his resignation, but I'm not that good at identifying actors from behind.
Given the runtime, and compared to all the "original" scenes, I wonder how much of these bits that are directly from the book we'll get. Where those who read AP or know the history very well will go *LeoPointing.gif*
I think you're right, based on the glasses.
Posts: 33
Joined:
February 2023
Wow! Thank you for all the information on Bohr! That is an amazingly particular set of philosophies. Sometimes it's concerning when you have so many characters whether all their personalities would show through, especially with historical figures. Trailers can't show everything, but those two opposing ends of his philosophy that go hand-in-hand with his affinity for paradoxes being the glimpses we see of his character seem perfect. I am glad they show through so strongly in the clips, being that those are the few we hear from him!physicshistoryguy wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2023, 3:51 amSo Bohr is... complicated in this regard, and it's damn near impossible to explain his position without him seeming naïve, when everyone who knew him insisted he wasn't, but I'll try my best. This will undoubtedly be long, so I'm throwing it all into a spoiler tag.
Yeah, one of the things I'm most excited in seeing is how Nolan decides to adapt decades of history into a three hour film. There are certain bits of history that will have to be depicted essentially word-for-word from the book, but there's going to be a lot of compression involved. There will be a lot of *LeoPointing.gif* but probably with more excitement and frantic hand gestures and such (I'll have to warn those sitting next to me in the theater at some point next month... ).
It's also interesting you mention his influence on Oppenheimer. Bohr has the most hard-hitting lines of the trailers, even more than Teller and others. He's the one highlighted with the scariest parts, like when things turn towards the meetings with Strauss. Him having that weight in the trailer makes me think that his and Bohr's relationship will be pretty key then!
Now, whether every other part of him and all the other characters are done similar justice... we'll see!! But it's a great sign.
By the way, I was curious what you thought of the characters alluded to in Dunkirk. For example, I think Branagh's was based on someone, but we didn't see much of him and he delivered a lot of exposition. Dunkirk did have a lot more focus on what the characters did in the moment, rather than focusing on the characters too much themselves. Oppenheimer seems like it has the potential for far deeper looks into the characters, seeing as they're real figures with dense personalities behind them. Are you anticipating that'll be the speed for all the historical figures? Or do you think they might be cut back to their few shining moments with Oppenheimer?
I bet the other character who might have a similar deep look, even as much as Oppenheimer, will probably be Strauss. He's shown in some isolated moments in B&W, so we might follow him a good amount on his own.
Hehe, it actually sounds like it'd be fun to watch the movie with someone who knows the history!! I find the reaction of the people around you to be one of the best parts! Getting collateral damaged by an excited history buff being excited would be worth it, so long as your gestures do knock your friends' popcorn out of their hands lol