• stonedemoman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    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 story’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 effectiveness of a methodology.

    • mechoman444@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.