Talk:Oppenheimer (film)

Filming

Keep an eye out for Monday, that's when it might begin filming. Rusted AutoParts 02:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

We're hearing that he'll be on UC Berkeley campus with a film crew tomorrow. 128.32.74.143 (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Billing block

@Rusted AutoParts: Sometimes, for films with large ensemble casts, the billing block in the infobox is reduced to just the lead. Take Knives Out 2 and Asteroid City as examples where the purpose is to avoid repeating information. Should we do that? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the edit. Special:Diff/1073423801 Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Casting section

Seeing if anyone else feels we should look at doing something with this section so it’s not just a glut of names, and since we can’t assume Nolan won’t keep adding names until the end of time, perhaps we either abolish the section, just have the names sourced via the cast list, or restructure the way the section is written, with only a couple of names for example. Rusted AutoParts 05:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: I agree, abolish #Casting (except for the first few lines). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

First sentence

Here, per WP:LEAD (e.g., MOS:FIRST), I rewrote the lead section so the first sentence introduces the notable context for this film. The previous version named Oppenheimer, the focus of the film, but did not explain about him until the end of the first paragraph. Similarly, Murphy's portrayal as Oppenheimer was introduced this late. This new version explains about Oppenheimer upfront, as well as indicating upfront who portrays him, before getting into details of less-notable context like the production companies. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is it A rated? 223.178.80.48 (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it because of naughty Videsh scenes? 223.178.80.48 (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you delete the A rated scene? 223.178.80.48 (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Jack Quaid's role

He is listed as portraying Feynman but in the citation next to him no mention of who he plays can be found. TheCroggster (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding about the full title book in lead

Even if I appreciate about their edit, I saw that someone is edit warring about the full title book in lead. Can we please stop wasting their time, as it is not yet, until the billing block is available soon. LancedSoul (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The billing block should not matter. The common name for the book is American Prometheus, which is sufficient for the film article. Not to mention the subtitle is redundant in identifying the biography as being about Oppenheimer. We already do that here. The subtitle is more for book shopping purposes, and we don't need to worry about that here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like someone is edit warring again. Its unclear what the subtitle of the book came from billing block on posters and the end of the official trailer. LancedSoul (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't read this talk page earlier. However I do believe the subtitle should be included, as the description of the trailer clearly shows it. I think the "common name" is simply for the article's title, not necessarily how it should be put in other articles. Think Detective Pikachu (film), the title of the movie is clearly Pokémon: Detective Pikachu, but many simply like to call it by the former especially as that's what the games were called, but if the title had to be mentioned in some other article it would generally be as the latter version. IAmNMFlores (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm late, but since the billing block is now available, we do now have subtitle. See here: https://assets.gettyimages.com/bf-boulder-whitelabelbucket-getty-prod/p83rf4nzhg676c69qpb639/v/1109991157/original/386651id1_OPR_Final_27x40_1Sht_RGB.jpg LancedSoul (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I say we do add the subtitle. IAmNMFlores (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2022

My suggest is to follow the actors billing that is in the poster (Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr. and Florence Pugh; in that order). AKetchum (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The cast listing is currently based on the most recent press release from Universal, not the poster. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Writing credit

@IAmNMFlores: Please discuss here instead of repeatedly reverting with long-winded edit summaries. Firstly, as I have explained twice, Template:Infobox film states to use the |screenwriter= parameter instead of the normal writer field if films divide writing credits between screenplay and story writers. Because this is not the case for Oppenheimer, |writer= should be used instead. Secondly, the official press release from Universal credits Nolan as Written and directed by, not Screenplay by. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with you. We should go with exactly how someone is credited. On the official website it says "WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY CHRISTOPHER NOLAN" I think the whole "written for the screen" is a marketing term that's being used because it's already based on a work. Using the written for field in infobox makes the most sense here. Mike Allen

1. You misunderstood the parameter's wording. In the old days, they used to put both screenplay and story credited writers in that parameter and instead put the parentheses "(story)" or "(screenplay)" next to the name. The "story" and "screenwriter" parameters were made after, so that notice is to say not to mix them into the "writer" parameter anymore. Not to mention it disputes this quote from WGA screenwriting credit system: A "Screenplay by" credit may also be used, when the writers for the story and screenplay are different, or in similar circumstances to a screen story credit (either if the work is not mostly original, or in addition to the screen story credit).

2. Press releases have a record of paraphrasing when in paragraph form. For instance, Warner Bros. Pictures, like with Teen Titans Go! To the Movies and Black Adam, would just put "from a screenplay by..." which is not accurate to the final credits. They are also not the final say.

3. If you see WGA screenwriting credit system, they are the true final say on how the writers are credited as, and they put Nolan under "Screenplay by."

4. "Written for the screen and directed by" is not just a marketing term, it's just an optional term used to combine both "screenplay by" and "directed by" credits. It's been used in plenty of movies onscreen, including I'm Thinking of Ending Things, where Kaufman is also given "screenplay by" credit. They can't say "screenplay and directed by" because "screenplay" is not a verb. While they could've used "screenwritten" and/or "screenplay written" that's just how it has been and nothing we can really do about it. IAmNMFlores (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I understood the template documentation perfectly. Under |writer=, it say (emphasis added): Insert the name(s) of the writer(s). This field is primarily used for films where the writer(s) are credited under "Written by". Separate multiple entries using either {{plainlist}} or {{ubl}}. Link each writer to their article if possible. Under |screenplay=, it says (emphasis added): Insert the name(s) of the screenplay writer(s). Separate multiple entries using either {{plainlist}} or {{ubl}}. Use this field instead of the normal writer field if films divide writing credits between screenplay and story writers. Link each writer to their article if possible. |screenplay= is only used in conjunction with |story=, it cannot stand alone. Nolan is credited as Written by, not Screenplay by. There is no one credited as Story by. Hence, the correct parameter is |writer=. It's as simple as that.

The table at the top of the press release literally says Written and Directed by: Christopher Nolan. Not Written for the screen. At this point, I would say the press release clearly trumps the WGA website, as this is the most accurate and up-to-date version of the credits listed directly by the studio. Written and directed by Christopher Nolan is most likely what the billing block and main-on-end titles will say, not Directed by Christopher Nolan and then Screenplay by Christopher Nolan separately. Off the top of my head, I know Avengers: Age of Ultron had Written and directed by Joss Whedon, and accordingly our article uses |writer= instead of |screenplay=. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You don't seem to be understanding this. "Written for the screen and directed by" is NOT the same as "written and directed by".

• "Written for the screen and directed by" = "Screenplay by" and "directed by" credits.
• "Written and directed by" = "Written by" and "directed by" credits.

The fact that you think films with just "screenplay by" credits should just have "Written by" credits on the infobox is completely unfounded and against common practice here, and Template:Infobox film never uses the word "only" as you applied it. It's only your interpretation. Yes, "screenplay by" credits can be absent from "story by" credits, do you know how? The story came from the source material, a screenwriter just adapts the story to a screenplay format, but the story was originally a book and "story by" credits are generally for stories written specifically for the film, so a "story by" credit is absent in most cases with adaptations because they don't come up with the story themselves. If they did, there would vbe a "[screen] story by" credit, but sometimes even if it greatly diverges from the source material, they can still end up with only "screenplay by" credit.

Again, WGA is final say. Press releases and news junkets can say "Written and directed by" all they want because it is technically not untrue, just broad. I'll bet what the end titles will say: "Written for the screen and directed by Christopher Nolan. I have no idea where you got the idea that on-screen credits can't say "Written for the screen and directed by" but I recommend you look them up yourself (I already gave you an example). Lastly, the Age of Ultron example is completely ludicrous, as Whedon was ALWAYS referenced as written and directed by Joss Whedon, and not to mention his WGA credit says Written by, unlike Nolan. Seriously, do more research on how writing credits work. IAmNMFlores (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I never said anything about Written for the screen. The press release says Written and Directed By: Christopher Nolan. I'll drop the link for you again: [1]. Your egregious misreading of Template:Infobox film is troublesome, it seems pretty straightforward to me: if there is one writer credited, and the credit says Written by, use |writer=; if there is one writer credited as Screenplay by and another credited as Story by, use |screenplay= and |story=. For Oppenheimer, there is only one writer credited, and the credit says Written by and not Screenplay by, so we should use |writer=. There's nothing more to it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Another reason to place more trust in the studio-issued press release than the WGA website: The information contained in the "Find a Writer" database is the most current and accurate available to Writers Guild of America West (WGAW). Some of the data is self-reported by writers and not independently verified by WGAW. Users of the database accept the data as is, with no warranty of its accuracy stated or implied. And look, this isn't permanent. Once the payoff poster is released and we get the actual, official, final billing block, that will clear things up for us. Until then, we should go with the most accurate source available. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

On the website for each film it would place a check that reads "WGA verified" or an X that reads "WGA non-verified"; I would've never brought the page up if it wasn't verified. It even says most current and accurate. Either way, let's say the billing block says "written for the screen and directed by", does that mean you'll put Nolan under the "screenplay" parameter, right? IAmNMFlores (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It's probably best to just wait until the final poster/trailer with credits is released. WGA have their own guidelines (for the writer's protection in correct pay) and Wikipedia has its own. The writers are still going to be paid accurately even if Wikipedia temporarily credits them wrong. Also, it doesn't make it inaccurate for the readers in the sense that he is still credited as a writer of the film, which he is. Mike Allen 16:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Fine, but if he is credited as "written for the screen and directed by" in the billing block and the infobox does not say "screenplay by", you should expect me for another debate. IAmNMFlores (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, bring it on. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's to hoping it won't come to another debate. IAmNMFlores (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm coming into this without any previous knowledge of how Template:Infobox film and it's parameters work. After reading through this discussion, it seems pretty clear to me that InfiniteNexus is correct here and has laid out a pretty thorough explanation. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

So the full billing block has arrived, and as I predicted it says Written for the screen [and directed] by. Template:Infobox film had been updated since last time, and without any disputes, one of the additions was this to the screenplay parameter:[T]his field is primarily used for films where the writer(s) are credited under "Screenplay by" or "Written for the screen [and directed; a mutually exclusive credit] by". So can we please change the parameter from writer to screenplay? IAmNMFlores (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Other pages have "written for the screen" credits as "screenplay" on infobox, so I believe this should also be the case for this. Bagelmans (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Running time

The source used for running time is Matt Damon. He doesn't even state the specific running time. I don't think this should be used. TimmyC105 (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. We need third party sources for just about all content on Wikipedia. We should wait until the BBFC or IFCO rates the film. Mike Allen 14:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

 Removed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2023

I want to make an edit on Oppenheimer movie page. I want to expand the marketing section and ″add some information about Oppenheimer trailer marketing strategy″. Toheedulhaq21 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2023

I want to add the real people the cast portrays in the film and link them to their Wikipedia page. Aaronthompson528 (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

IMAX 70mm

28 IMAX theaters globally will show the film using 70mm film. According to the AP, the 70mm film is 11 miles long and weighs more than 600 pounds 2600:1011:B059:AD5D:BD16:B183:48D5:D8F0 (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Number of prints added to article. Barry Wom (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Cleaning up the lead section's second paragraph

The lead section's second paragraph has numerous problems that need to be resolved.

First, the misleading bit: Nolan didn't "announce" anything. He started (privately) shopping around his script looking for a studio to fund it, which the trades heard about and reported. Big difference.

Second, so much of what is mentioned in the second paragraph ("Nolan announced he would be writing and directing a film about Oppenheimer, set during World War II, with Universal Pictures as distributor") is redundant with what's in the first and third paragraphs.

We already know that he's writing and directing a film about Oppenheimer from the first lead paragraph. Redundant. And from the trailers, we know that the film will encompass a time period that spans before and after WWII, so the "set during World War II" is outdated. And Universal Pictures is mentioned as the distributor in the third lead paragraph, which is where the info is most appropriately placed. Again, redundant. Not how valuable lead section space should be spent.

Third, there's really no need to mention the editor and the composer and the visual effects company in the lead section. The former two are already listed in the sidebar, and that's all that's needed. That's how the majority of, if not all, Wikipedia pages on films do it, I believe. The editor and composer get mentioned in the sidebar and maybe get elaborated upon below in the depths of the article itself, but not in the lead section. And the third one, the visual effects company? I'm not sure why the name of the visual effects company warrant a mention in the lead section.

Nothing wrong with having detailed, exhaustive info in the article itself. It's just that that doesn't belong in the lead section, whose purpose is to highlight and summarize only the absolute most essential, interesting aspects. Z8n (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

When I originally wrote this post (on 18 June) bring up my issues with the second lead paragraph, I had actually already made an edit already resolving the issues that I had brought up.

But then the user "Erenyeager008" reverted my edit, and I could tell that if I reverted their reversion, there would just be an edit war, so I made this post to try to resolve any disagreements.

So I made my post, presented my arguments, and I waited for about a week for a response, but there were none. Therefore, I made the relevant edit again.

Now that user has shown up again just to revert my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oppenheimer_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1162791405

They claim "Restored some relevant info , and improved poor english", when neither are true.

I've decided to revert their changes until they can provide some actual arguments otherwise. Z8n (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the lead section is supposed to summarize the article. See WP:FILMLEAD. LancedSoul (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Which it doesn't do, is my point. Z8n (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Correction: Which it didn't do. After my corrective edit, it does. Z8n (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I've laid out my arguments clearly on this talk page, given Erenyeager008 (the other user) ample time to respond, and generally believe that I have presented a good-faith willingness to engage in discussion and compromise.

Meanwhile, this user refuses to come to the talk page, refuses to lay out any actual arguments, and has generally engaged in unhelpful behavior such as reverting my edits and then leaving bad-faith edit summaries in which they tell me to discuss the matter on the talk page.

I'm not sure what more to do here. Could it be that this user is personally invested in seeing this section preserved because they wrote it, or something? Z8n (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2023

Add support actor Amir Ali Shaik 2406:7400:90:FA25:C0F2:BE23:F3C2:18B2 (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Barbenheimer Edit

This message also appears on the talk page for Barbie.

A section in the marketing/release section should be added for the film's viral "Barbenheimer" phenomenon. At one time it was just silly memes, but it has now turned in to a legitimate talking point about the film's release, with Barbie director Greta Gerwig and star Margot Robbie both commenting and promoting the trend, as well as actor Tom Cruise. It is a part of the film's release undoubtedly, there is no way around it. I will post my now-deleted section below, please check my references and sources for authenticity. BakedintheHole (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

=== "Barbenheimer" ===

Oppenheimer is set to be released theatrically on July 21, 2023, the same day as Barbie, the romantic comedy film directed by Greta Gerwig and based of the line of Barbie dolls by Mattel. Due to the difference in tone and genre between the two films, many social media users across platforms such as Instagram and TikTok have taken to making memes and ironic posts about how the two films represent different audiences, or how the two films should be viewed as a double feature. The popularity of the trend comparing the two films led to the New York Times dubbing the phenomenon "Barbenheimer". Gerwig and Barbie star Margot Robbie have both promoted the connection, posting a photo of themselves attending Oppenheimer on Twitter on June 30, 2023. Actor Tom Cruise also encouraged the cross-promotion, tweeting that he "love[s] a double feature, and it doesn't get more explosive (or more pink) than one with Oppenheimer and Barbie". Nolan himself has not commented on the trend. BakedintheHole (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

At most, it can be a few sentences, or a paragraph under the Marketing section. Dedicating an entire new section to it is silly. Not to mention, it needs to be cut down immensely; a direct quote of a tweet from Tom Cruise is just marketing noise and not notable at all. Z8n (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree on the assessment of it not needing its own section in marketing. The Grimace Shake, which is currently a viral trend akin to the Barbenheimer phenomenon, has an entire section dedicated to its impact on internet and meme culture. The same can be said for many other articles on the site. I agree it can be shaved down, however. I will gladly remove the Cruise section and refine the text. I'll add the new edit soon. BakedintheHole (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a valid argument. A few sentences under Marketing is all that is needed. Mike Allen 19:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Added it back to the marketing section. It has been deleted several times and risks starting an edit war with some users, so I hope it doesn’t become an issue. BakedintheHole (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2023

Release information in Japanese markets should be included

Eg https://variety.com/2023/film/box-office/oppenheimer-christopher-nolan-theatrical-release-japan-1235645752/ 182.152.31.165 (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now The Variety article does not give a definitive date for the film's release in Japan.  Spintendo  11:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Barbenheimer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barbenheimer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbenheimer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2023

https://variety.com/2023/film/global/matt-damon-oppenheimer-cast-moved-red-carpet-strike-1235669528/ "It's a $180 million movie.” - chris nolan the movie's budget is now confirmed by the director of the movie Christopher Nolan Harrymode111 (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. (see discussion below) Xan747 (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please state where this information is to be placed.

Sorry Xan747 - we keep bumping in to each other. You got this one. Regards,  Spintendo  03:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Budget

For now, let's keep the budget at $100 million, which is the last properly-sourced number.

For film budgets, we use reliable source (Deadline, NYT, THR, Variety, etc.) in which the author explicitly says what the budget is. It's extremely unusual to take a director's words regarding the budget at face value as a source.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie_(film) The budget is $145 million because the source article from The New York Times says, "Warner Brothers who bankrolled the roughly $145 million production", not because it's in a quote by Barbie's director.

In Oppenheimer's case, the director Christopher Nolan recently said, "It’s a 180-page script and it’s a $180 million movie" but this is a problematic source for two reasons.

First, it's unclear exactly what he's referring to when he says "it's a $180 million movie". Is he referring to only the production budget? Is he including the marketing budget? Tax breaks? And so on.

Second, the director is throwing out numbers at a red carpet movie premiere, in a very off the cuff manner, and it's likely that he's rounding up or down heavily in order to service the "180 pages. 180 minutes. 180 million budget." rhyme.

So let's stick to $100 million for now until a Deadline or THR or Variety article comes out telling us the actual budget, which usually occurs during the film's opening weekend, which is next week. Z8n (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The $180 million budget has now been confirmed as incorrect - the quote was misreported and Nolan was referring to the 180 minute runtime, not the budget. arthomnix (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the supporting cast paragraph for the intro as well the infobox, please only include the top billing cast: Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr. and Florence Pugh. 2600:100C:A211:73E1:D847:17E8:7E64:2369 (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is Rami Malek mentioned in the lead and not David Dastmalchian when both were some of the last to have their roles revealed? Are there any sources of starring? 2600:100C:A211:73E1:D847:17E8:7E64:2369 (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Same goes for David Krumholtz. 2600:100C:A211:73E1:D847:17E8:7E64:2369 (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the top billing cast according to the official press kit. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Please put a note or source it there then. 2600:100C:A211:73E1:D847:17E8:7E64:2369 (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

One needs to register to sign in so please add an annotation. 2600:100C:A211:73E1:D847:17E8:7E64:2369 (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Xan747 (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Top billing

Who should be included in the top billing? 2600:100C:A211:73E1:D847:17E8:7E64:2369 (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? We have the definitive billing structure right now there is zero reason to continue changing it. Rusted AutoParts 04:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Grammar

In the article it says "He had began by trying to find..." Begun (not began) is the past participle of begin. Karate Kid part II (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Release

It has been reported on NPR (15 July) that the release has been postponed. The delay is related to the actor/writer strikes. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:ECF9:6F3F:2E4B:BF56 (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Not true. Mike Allen 20:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

According to Variety on 14 July, the red carpet procedure has been canceled but the movie will have its US premiere on 17 July and nation-wide opening on 21 July: https://variety.com/2023/film/news/oppenheimer-us-premiere-cancels-red-carpet-sag-strike-1235670707/ 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:ECF9:6F3F:2E4B:BF56 (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

So the release has not been postponed. Mike Allen 01:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That article does not say anything about the film being delayed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2023

i want to edit this page please Ajdkek3o (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It is protected due to vandalism, you may post editing suggestions here. --Mvqr (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Grammar

"about J. Robert Oppenheimer, also known as the "Father of the Atomic bomb" was a theoretical physicist..." doesn't make sense and should be changed to:

"about J. Robert Oppenheimer, also known as the "Father of the Atomic Bomb", who was a theoretical physicist..."

Not even sure if the last edit was really necessary. Rayanblaq14 (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)