• @HootinNHollerin
    link
    209 months ago

    I’ve heard it’s because it’s mixed for surround sound

    • @TheControlled
      link
      44
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Optimized for peak surround sound, allegedly. I have a $5000 system and it still sounds like shit. I can understand it, but it’s shit nonetheless.

      Snobby ≠ good, methinks.

      • Maven (famous)
        link
        119 months ago

        I would NOT call Oppenheimer a major improvement! It was one of my least favorite theater experiences because I couldn’t hear half of the dialogue and the whole thing was way too loud.

      • @Nudding
        link
        19 months ago

        It felt like I was watching a bunch of vines strung together in a parody of a Nolan film. I couldn’t finish it, there was literally a cut every 3 seconds.

    • @Ibaudia
      link
      English
      219 months ago

      I heard it was mixed specifically for high-end theatre speakers. I think Nolan was just too far up his own ass on this one.

      • @FooBarrington
        link
        149 months ago

        I watched it in Dolby Atmos and still couldn’t understand shit. It was simply very, very badly mixed. I don’t think I’ll watch another film from Nolan.

        • @Visstix
          link
          49 months ago

          Yeah Oppenheimer was just bad with audio.