this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
192 points (83.1% liked)

World News

32352 readers
412 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Viewers are divided over whether the film should have shown Japanese victims of the weapon created by physicist Robert Oppenheimer. Experts say it's complicated.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Sure show the Japanese victims, but then you need to show why they were victims in the first place. So you need to show Japanese Imperialism that committed atrocities in Nanking and the attack on Pearl Harbour.

Maybe we could go further and show that Japanese Imperialism was driven by the existential threat of Western Imperialism, which does not in any way lessen the horrors committed by Imperial Japan.

Sometimes the whole story can’t be told in a single film. Not all of it is important to the message or topic the author, director and producers wish to send or examine.

[–] skulblaka@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly this. "Properly" covering the topic would require 18 movies covering several hundred years of history and containing both World Wars. Sometimes it's just out of scope for the project you're trying to make. It would be great for a podcast series or for a long series of documentaries, not so much for a single movie with a 180 minute runtime.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)

I agree with the experts. I mean ppl can have an opinion but I wasn't on the storyboard team so I have no clue whether that would even fit the storyline they were following and whether it would help the story in furtherance.

I get the opinion, I don't see why we need an article about it.

[–] lasagna@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At the end of the day, humans don't need weapons to display cruelty. We have popped many eyes with our thumbs over the eons.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›