James Cameron sagt, Christopher Nolan habe mit „Oppenheimer“ einen „moralischen Polizisten“ herausgenommen – „es hat dem Thema ausgewichen“.

>On August 5, in time for the 80th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, the book “Ghosts of Hiroshima” will hit shelves, written by author Charles R. Pellegrino. The novel, as the cover announces, will eventually be a project for James Cameron — and he insists that he will be tackling the subject in a different fashion than Christopher Nolan did two years ago with his Oscar-winning “Oppenheimer.”

>Cameron actually told Deadline that he felt Nolan took “a bit of a moral cop out” because of “what he stayed away from” in his narrative.

>“He’s got one brief scene in the film where we see — and I don’t like to criticize another filmmaker’s film – but there’s only one brief moment where he sees some charred bodies in the audience and then the film goes on to show how it deeply moved him,” Cameron said. “But I felt that it dodged the subject. I don’t know whether the studio or Chris felt that that was a third rail that they didn’t want to touch, but I want to go straight at the third rail. I’m just stupid that way.”

>Nolan had insisted at the time that that was not the story he was trying to tell, and it may instead take a filmmaker like Cameron to do it. The “Titanic” director plans to heed the call.

>“OK, I’ll put up my hand. I’ll do it, Chris. No problem,” he said. “You come to my premiere and say nice things… I can’t tell you today what’s going to be in the movie. I’ve been making notes for 15 years and I haven’t written a word of the script yet because there’s a point where it’s all there and then you start to write. That’s how I always work. I explore around, I remember the things that impact me. I start to assemble ’em into a narrative. And then there’s a moment where you’re ready to write. And I’m not in that head space right now.”

If only the movie Oppenheimer was titled Fat Man and Little Boy or something like that.

I mean yeah it dodged the subject because Oppenheimer dodged the subject. We don’t see the devastation in Japan because Oppenheimer didn’t care that much about it, and if he ever did it was only ever in a hindsight sort of way. He wasn’t in Japan, his life wasn’t personally affected by the deaths and the fallout. All he has is his own cowardice and, at the absolute most charitable, regret for putting his own achievement before the lives and welfares of generations of Japanese people.

I’d be inclined to call Avatar a moral cop out in terms of making stories about indigenous struggles under the mask of blue cat people while also referring to the Lakota tribe as a “dead end society” that should’ve “fought harder”

Edit: like I said, he only cared about the plight of the japanese and what his creation put them through after it was already done. Any concerns he may have had before were outweighed by his want for achievement, and any concerns afterward were raised too late to make any meaningful change. I’ve read a book I know that he spent a chunk of his life afterwards campaigning against a continued arms race, that doesn’t change the fact that the idea of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people didn’t hold him back from building the bomb.

The thing is that points of view are central to the film: we never see anything that either Oppie (in color) or Strauss (in black and white) don’t see. Showing Hiroshima would have completely broken that key aspect of the film.

James Cameron shoot reshoot an historically accurate Titanic movie before criticizing another director’s choices.

https://screenrant.com/titanic-james-cameron-historial-inaccuracies-right/

But that wasn’t the subject of this movie James, the subject was Oppenheimer himself. I think showcasing it from his perspective of hearing about it and only imagining the monstrosity he unleashed was the absolute right thing to do. The look on his face when they see the damage in the projector scene, the horror like imagining of the ash and peeling skin in the town hall scene. I’m sorry but I think anyone who felt we had to see Japan get blown up is dead fucking wrong. To me you do that in a film from the Japanese perspective, or a film from both perspectives. But for this movie that would not have been the right decision.

I think it’s largely a personal take which he admits but i did find the “show the damage” stuff when it came out a little weird. the movie goes to lengths to show how distanced the us are from the attack (why else would he include the “my wife honeymooned there” line). why would we leave a POV that’s intentionally and historically distanced from the affects in order to show random shots of dead bodies or damage. that feels quite exploitative

the movie should have been titled „Near Zero“ and I will never shut up about it.

Sounds like Cameron should go write his own film on the subject

Avatar isn’t that good… so James Cameron can take a damn hike, or make his own version and “address” the elephant sized nuke in the room.

Until then he’s just being bitchy.

I didn’t read in the article when Cameron is releasing his movie about the development and use of nuclear bombs. 

Lmao so many butthurt Redditors in these comments.

I don’t really care what the creator of Avatar has to say about a truly great film. Jim sounds a little jealous actually.

While it is true that they don’t show it, by the time Einstein is involved, with the issue regarding the possible chain reaction, you know at that point that what Oppenheimer did was horrible, after that point he starts to hallucinate and the scenes suggest that he is questioning going further but at that point everything was on motion and if it wasn’t him, Teller would have done it either way. But the horror is displayed there in the „post test“ clarity.

The entirety of Avatar is a cop out.

Cameron wants to fully zoom in, fine. But saying Nolan “copped out” isn’t fair. We see the team go from celebrating like they won the Super Bowl, and see them sick with fear & regret for the weapon they made. Nolan knows the audience knows the pictures.

What he wanted fully displayed was Robert’s choice to urge restraint for the weapon, and his choice to bear the cross for their devastation.

It wasn’t screwing lead actresses that led to James Cameron being divorced twice – it was his superior moral authority.

Cameron is insufferable

Only redditors can criticize movies, not James Cameron!

I always thought that violence of Hiroshima is displaced onto those imaginings he has of his fiancé, specifically her suicide. She has the same radiation burns that someone in Hiroshima would have at one point. It’s precisely because he wasn’t there that the movie doesn’t show it

Really don’t need to hear this from the guy making 7 avatar movies.

Can’t remember the last Cameron movie that had any interestingly moral discussions. More just like CGI cash grabs with rehashed preexisting stories.

Even James Cameron criticizes movie plots? wtf even is this world?