The movie was about the man, not the bomb, which is why it focused primarily on a man, and not a bomb. The actual testing of the bomb was a small part of the movie and the real deployments of it were but a couple sentences. The movie Oppenheimer was never a movie about Hiroshima and while I think there needs to be more coverage in general about our impact on Japan by dropping those bombs, I think giving the movie Oppenheimer shit about it isn't reasonable just because the man worked on it. It covered everything from the his view point, and what he personally lived. He read about the bombs being used the same as everyone else, and it wouldn't have fit the movie to suddenly jump to Japan to show the impact of his work. It did however try to visualize the impact and eventual realization of what he had played a part in, in the visuals at the compound when he's giving the speech to the fanatical coworkers stomping their feet (which was very Aronofsky like imo)

It’s still true to say the movie lacked a cohesive story — it may have been “about the man” but it was an incoherent battery of spoken facts rather than a personal journey with growth and progression.

Would you prefer that we only get biopics about people who have storybook personal growth or would you prefer that more of the biopics we get are fictionalized? 'Cause that's the choice we have, if we act on your complaint.

People tell stories. They are not themselves stories. Most people, even really important, impactful people, were just doing something interesting, or putting one foot in front of another, or pursuing short-term goals.

My complaint is that it was boring, not that it wasn't storybook -- although come on the scenes with Einstein (and many others) were terribly storybook.

At some point I just closed my eyes and pretended I was listening to a radio drama, which is what it could've / should've been.

Some people don’t have personal growth just because time passes. Maybe that’s true for this person.