Hacker News Reader

Comment by tinco | Hacker News Reader

As someone with an interest in the history of physics as I'm sure many people here are, I didn't much like the film either. I liked the renditions of the different physicists and the overall arc of the story, but more like I'd be interested in a documentary.

What's impressive about the movie is that they managed to create drama, artistry and tension in what's fundamentally something you can't really make a movie about because in the end it's just a story of some physicists that successfully accomplished something without anyone really opposing them in any material way.

I think that's laudable and interesting. But if you would judge the movie just based on its entertainment value, I don't think it would score very high. The Barbie movie, which I just saw 2 weeks ago on my TV was clearly a better movie on I'm pretty sure every aspect, and you could tell it was in the first minute.

View on HN

> What's impressive about the movie is that they managed to create drama, artistry and tension in what's fundamentally something you can't really make a movie about because in the end it's just a story of some physicists that successfully accomplished something without anyone really opposing them in any material way.

Feynman made it way more interesting in his book without needing to create fake villains! You could make a whole movie about his shenanigans alone.

Feynman has a blink-and-you'll-miss-it appearance in the movie. During one of the successful tests, there's a brief shot of a cheerful guy playing the bongos.

He was also the guy in the car that told Teller that the windshield stopped UV. Teller's response was "what stops the glass?"

Feynman's role in the actual project was pretty limited too. He was not one of the major figures.

> The Barbie movie, which I just saw 2 weeks ago on my TV was clearly a better movie on I'm pretty sure every aspect, and you could tell it was in the first minute.

This is wildly subjective, different people watch movies for very different reasons.

>The Barbie movie, which I just saw 2 weeks ago on my TV was clearly a better movie on I'm pretty sure every aspect, and you could tell it was in the first minute.

And I have the exact opposite view! hah

The Barbie movie felt like a series of clips to me. Not a coherent movie. I also dislike musicals, so maybe personal.

Also despite Oppenheimer being about The Manhattan Project, The Barbie movie felt "too american" for me with weird Twitter references to "The Znyder cut?". (How will that reference age in 2 years?)

Oppenheimer just feels like expertly crafted cinema. I truly got lost in it and the story. The first 20mins felt like 1h in a good way. Truly masterful.

They did pretty good given that Barbie got the higher number of views/sales as well as the videos floating around of people who did the whole "Barbieheimer" tour who just surfed TikTok on their phones during the film (because of how bored they were I presume).

If this is how the general public reacted to a movie like Oppenheimer, its impressive how well they actually did viewer wise.

People on TikTok will not have the attention span for a film like Oppenheimer.

Good point. However that is a substantial portion of the American audience.

I am aware and it is awful. I do hope intelligent movies like Oppenheimer continue to be made.

Calling Barbie a better movie because it's easier to watch is something I didn't expect to witness on HN.

There's many definitions of "better movie". Being easier to watch is conceivably one of them.

Setting aside whether "easier to watch" is somehow beneath an HN reader, your parent said "more entertaining" not easier to watch. The primary goal of the movie industry is obviously to entertain.

(Well, the primary goal is to make money, but they do that by entertaining people.)

Nah, I don't think so. Every time I've seen something criticized or praised for its "entertainment value" it's been code for less challenging, simpler, easier to watch. It's fine if you like that, but you can't call a tropey, confused toy advertisement better because it has dancing instead of court scenes, come on. I guess it's unfair to expect much artistic sophistication in tech circles. In tech terms it's like dogpiling about Firefox having telemetry on by default and recommending Chrome as a better alternative without any justification.

The Barbie being an easier to watch movie than Oppenheimer is a take I didn't expect to see on HN. I'm pretty sure a lot of people on here were a lot more uncomfortable watching the Barbie movie than they were watching Oppenheimer.

I suspect a lot of people even plain didn't see the Barbie movie because they were more comfortable watching a movie that skirts over criticising American fascism/authoritarianism of the 40's and 50's, than watching a movie that treats modern American culture without kid gloves.

Now America was fascist and authoritarian in the mid-post WWII era?? Are you guys competing for biggest contrarian or did I accidentally step into a neomarxist forum?

America wasn't fascist, it had fascism. For example in the form of McCarthyism. I don't support Marxism or Communism. I just think the ruthless persecution, group think powered selective reading of the constitution and bullying tactics of empowered individuals constitute to enough of the qualities to be labeled fascism.

If you've got a scale that goes from equal rights direct democracy on the left to dictatorial fascism on the right, then America was not quite fascist in the sense that they still had indirect partly represented democracy. But the way minorities, other-gendered, other-lifestyled and the politically deviant were denied representation and other basic rights it was definitely on the fascist side of the spectrum.

I see what you mean and how that ties into Barbie, although this worldview is definitely rooted in neomarxist revisionism. But I don't have the time and energy to derail this any further so I'll leave it at that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com