Talk:Dr. Strangelove/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Custard Pie Scene

This definitely exists, as it was shown at the 1999 NFT screening after the film.

I'm willing to accept that the footage might still exist (though I'd never heard about this National Film Theatre screening until this article, I did track down a few random references to it aside from here). However, Terry Southern states in an article collected in one of his books that Kubrick hated the footage as-shot. According to Southern (this is from memory; I can track the quote down at home later), the extras in the scene were not told how to act. Kubrick and he intended for them to be very serious, as the scene was meant to reflect the antagonism between the various branches of the military. Instead, the actors got quite comical and excited. The film was quite low budget (due to its subject matter), so re-shoots were impossible for the extremely expensive scene, so Kubrick opted to change the ending.

Thus, it seems unlikely that the pie-fight shown at the NFT was cut together by Kubrick, and I think the reference in the article could be more clear (certainly, explaining why the main screenwriter and director apparently agreed that the scene did not belong in the movie seems appropriate).

ThatGuamGuy 17:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)sean (TGG)

[bw foto 1]bw foto 2 [colour foto 1] colour foto 2

[webpage on pie fight] JayKeaton 08:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Pickens

The article refers to Slim Pickens as "a real-life Texan". He died, and was born in California. How does that qualify him as a Texan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.117.118 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 5 March 2006

John von Neumann

I remember reading (I think it was in A Beautiful Mind) that John von Neumann was one of the inspirations for the character of Dr. Stragelove. He certainly fits the role in a number of ways: a central European born naturalised American; intelligent to a degree most found intimidating; "violently anti-communist, and much more militaristic than the norm."; worked with the RAND corparation and headed the group that developed the theory of mutually assured destruction. Is the list given of people who he is "an analgamation of" backed up by any statement from the writers or is it specualtive?A Geek Tragedy 15:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Finally, the film can also be seen as a sex comedy, even though only one woman ("Miss Foreign Affairs", played by Tracy Reed, stepdaughter of film director Sir Carol Reed, dressed in a bikini) briefly graces the screen. Excepting perhaps the stiff-upper-lip Group Captain Mandrake, all the characters seem to be driven by sexual motives. General Ripper's psychotic delusions are triggered by his sexual impotence. Even President Muffley's eyes light up when Dr. Strangelove describes the situation in the mine shaft shelters. Dr. Strangelove is revived and able to leave his wheelchair at the end of the movie when he reflects upon the unequal number of women per men required to repopulate the earth. Sex drives the movie, from the opening titles with two copulating airplanes to the ending sequence in which the world is destroyed in a globe-spanning moment of sexual ecstasy.

I removed this paragraph; it is totally ridiculous for many reasons: 1. The planes are certainly copulating, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that the ending sequence is a "globe-spanning moment of sexual ecstasy." Perhaps the author of this paragraph finds nuclear explosions symbolic of sex, but certainly that's not a common enough metaphor to claim that sex "drives" the movie. 2. Eyes lighting up when discussing a favorable male/female ratio is one thing; being driven by a sexual motive is another thing entirely. Muffley and Strangelove don't say anything remotely sexual anywhere else in the movie, and Muffley doesn't really even have a motive of any kind. 3. Where are the sexual motives for Kong and all the other guys on the plane?

Sorry, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. 68.161.220.16 08:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think the planes at the beginning deserve mention, at least.

• What is the justification or citation for the comment that Slim Pickens was unaware that the film was a comedy? His performance does not unambiguously suggest that, and the presence of Peter Sellers should at least have been a clue for the actor as to the direction the film was taking.87.74.102.79 00:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Every character in the film has a name which has obvious sexual connotation. "Merkin Muffley" does not need to say anything about sex, it's all there in the name. "Strangelove" is an obviously sexual name. "Mandrake" has obvious connotations (see Mandrake if you're curious). "Jack the Ripper" was a man who killed women for what many theorize to be sexual reasons (though, I concede, we have no way of knowing what Southern and Kubrick thought of the motivations of the Jack the Ripper killings), and General Ripper is certainly shown to hate women.

We could certainly debate what they mean, but it seems indisputible that the entire film is rife with sexual overtones.

"Where are the sexual motives for Kong and all the other guys on the plane?"

Well, I actually agree with you that, as written, that paragraph made too many blanket claims ... but, to answer your specific question, they're right in that survival kit. If shot down, apparently one of their major concerns is safe sex and having a good time in Vegas. I'd turn the question around and ask how does that bit make any sense *without* viewing the film as extremely sexual? Since the film is about the two strongest impluses humans have (sex and killing each other/ourselves), saying that the film is about death and the cold war without including the aspect which is about sex (as in birth, and life) seems to be quite incomplete.

ThatGuamGuy 17:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)sean (TGG)

Kubrick himself mentions the 'sexual framework' of the film in a letter reproduced in Alison Castle's 'Kubrick Archives' book -- I don't have the book with me here, but it gives some authority to the sexual underpinnings of the entire film, and could replace or qualify the (essentially justified) opinions expressed in the section as written.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.0.153.18 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 5 July 2006

Sellers

Re the above comment, I recall reading that it was Sellers who was to play Kong so Pickens may have been a late choice. Apparently Sellers broke his leg and could [NOT] be placed into the confined cockpit set.

That being said, a question remains, at least in my head, Sellers was an inspired improviser thanks to his Goon Show years and natural instincts. How on Earth did that meticulous control freak Kubrick (and I mean that in a nice way) put up with Sellers probably never doing the same thing twice in a row?

I believe his response to Sellers' improvisations was to roll around the floor laughing prodigiously. Tomsalinsky 15:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Clockwork Orange connection...

The CRM-114 that is used in A Clockwork Orange on Alex is actually Serum 114, a technical detail but it should be changed. See CRM114 for details. --Bmalicoat 20:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone here can answer a question I've been wondering about: In the film, the Russian ambassador states that to activate the doomsday machine "is not something a sane man would do; The doomsday machine is designed to trigger itself automatically", and this is what most synopses [sp?] seem to assume, however, there is apparently a significant time gap between the detonation of the bomb sent by General Ripper and the climactic doomsday sequence during which the increasingly unrealistic, hellish visions and plans of survival begin to unfold. As the war room personnel begin to become more and more hysterical and ridiculous in their planning, the Russian ambassador discreetly walks away and activates some device disguised as a watch whilst apparently pretending to tie his shoes. One review I saw suggested that all the characters revert to what they do naturally, the politicians plan, and the ambassador spies, apparently implying the device is a camera. Personally, I occasionally suspected that it is the ambassador himself who activates the machine via the device (it's on screen for a fraction of a second, and it's not obvious what it does) - presumably horrified at the post-apocalyptic future Strangelove and the Americans are desperately dreaming up. Can anyone perhaps verify this, and if it is valid, include it in the article?

After a bit of googling, memoirs from people who actually worked on the film suggest that it is indeed just a camera. Just me being paranoid I guess. The watch is only on screen for a fraction of a second, though, so perhaps mentioning it will prevent others making the mistake I did?

Reading into it waaay too much. The camera-watch was part of the same bitter joke as the "mineshaft gap" joke- that, faced with the end of the world, the characters are still worried about the other country getting ahead somehow. The gap between the bomb dropping and the doomsday device I can't explain, but since it'd be impossible to get that entire last scene, which is probably the funniest and most impotant in the movie, in without that hap, I think we're probably just not meant to worry about that.
--Justdig 18:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

(A) The two scenes could be simultaneous, even though they're (necessarily) shown sequentially. (B) The Doomsday Device doesn't have to be on a hair trigger. Given the stakes, if I were designing the thing, I'd want it to be really, really, really sure it hadn't received a false positive signal, which would presumably take some time. It's not as if there were any need to hurry—the fallout is going to take months to kill everyone.

—wwoods 19:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if the missles were launched immediately, they would take some time to actually reach America. How fast was the fastest missle in 1963 able to travel? And would that missle have been sufficient to carry a nuclear payload? And how fast would the information of Kong's attack take to reach the computer which controls the Doomsday Device? (For that matter, how fast would the computer work?)

To answer the original question, isn't the watch/camera one of the things which set off the pie-fight in the original ending?

ThatGuamGuy 17:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)sean (TGG)

Kong's End

Impregnating the Earth? What's the source for this notion, or did it just occur to some random person? Considering it's the end of the world, it sounds more like the opposite... If anything, it's probably a representation of disaster occuring thanks to people with too much bravery.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor Jachra (talk • contribs) 08:00, 10 April 2006

Isn't it based on fail-safe?

That what I read about. . . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.75.88.235 (talk • contribs) .

Nope, Red Alert (novel).

Atlant 12:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Starcraft

From article:

In Starcraft, the race of aliens known as the Zerg are described as having a "purity of essence". This could be a reference to the "purity" and "essence" of "bodily fluids" that General Ripper describes.

... I think that's a bit of a stretch for a reference; Dr. Strangelove didn't originate the concept of racial purity, and racial purity is distinct from chemical purity.

24.80.136.78 17:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Question on the sexual references

the classic image of Slim Pickens straddling the nuclear bomb in ecstasy;

I guess it could be concieved as sexual, but I never really saw it that way. Is this something that Kubrick or anyone else involved with the film said? It just look like a good ol boy riding a bucking bronco of a bomb to me.

Ripper's obsession with "precious bodily fluids" resulting from an incident of impotence;

I don't think he talked about impotence at all but rather the belief that the act of ejaculation drains the spirit. It's also a belief common in some Asian cultures.

General Jack D. Ripper: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.
General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.

He the fatigue following ejaculation as a loss of his spirit or essence.--Skeev 13:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's fair to say he's not definitively impotent (although his specific stammers are very deliberately written and, the way Southern writes, it seems at least open to interpretation), but it's clearly suggested that his lack of release (deliberate or not) is contributing to his insanity. This is very much in keeping with Terry Southern's writings and sexual attitudes.

ThatGuamGuy 17:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)sean (TGG)

Well, I can't comment on whether it's leading to his insanity or not. I just wanted to clear up what the article had in it was more than likely incorrect. Seeing as how ejaculation is considered losing "spirit" or "essence" in quite a few Asian cultures, I believe Hinduism and Buddhism speak of it, he seems to be refering to that and his belief that women are out to steal it. Maybe it speaks more of his inability to trust women.--Skeev 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Original negative

Could somebody with access to the appropraite references mention something on the unfortunate loss of the original negative? I believe it was destroyed by fire, and present releases of the film were made from Kubrick's own personal print of the film. It seems worth mentioning.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.0.153.18 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 5 July 2006

The DVD documentaries mention only that a particular sequence was lost by the studio.... a complex edit of a scene set on the B-52, with which all concerned were particularly pleased.... and that this edit had to be reconstructed from memory (the original film was not lost). Could this be what you're referring to? TheMadBaron 23:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I read in a Kubrick interview that the original negative was destroyed and Kurick worked hard to restore it using parts of various copies of varying quality. I'll look for the exact ref. AdamSmithee 23:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Here it is. the relevant passage is:

Q: Your film editor says you still work on your old films. Isn't that neurotic perfectionism?

A: I'll tell you what he means. We discovered that the studio had lost the picture negative of Dr. Strangelove. And they also lost the magnetic master soundtrack. All the printing negatives were badly ripped dupes. The search went on for a year and a half. Finally, I had to try to reconstruct the picture from two not-too-good fine-grain positives, both of which were damaged already. If those fine-grains were ever torn, you could never make any more negatives.

AdamSmithee 00:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Laputa

In the "Sexuality" section, the article says "The name of the target, Laputa, is a derogatory Spanish word for prostitute, "la puta" meaning 'the whore'." Yet in the "Trivia" section, it says "One of the primary targets of the B52 bomber is Laputa, which is a floating city in Jonathan Swift's satire Gulliver's Travels." Did Kubrik intend for the name to carry both of these meanings? --68.50.120.98 00:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither idea is cited but I think the Swift reference makes more sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilliput_and_Blefuscu These two islands are always at war for a silly reason, which fits in perfectly with this film. The Spanish reference doesn't really make a lot of sense unless we decide first that everything in the film is really about sex. Somebody needs to cite something to claim either. For what it's worth, IMDB (which I wouldn't rely on) references Swift but not Spanish. --128.231.88.4 00:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

I see a lot of information in the theme section that falls under various catagories in WP:OR. What I don't see is a lot of citations or references to match these opinions and theories put forth there. Is there something in the external links that supports these items?--Crossmr 06:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

error

• The malfunctioning CRM 114 radio is a phonetic play on Experimental Serum 114 found in A Clockwork Orange, another Stanley Kubrick film.

This is incorrect, it's the other way around.

"not at all madcap" ? Citation please

Hi, I inserted a request for a citation, but it has now been reverted, and I won't get into a revert war ;-) "not at all madcap" is clearly POV, and therefore needs citation from a reputable source. Or have I misunderstood the point of the NPOV rule? Thanks. Leeborkman 00:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Herman Kahn

"Dr. Strangelove takes passing shots at numerous Cold War attitudes, but focuses its satire on the theory of mutual assured destruction (MAD), in which each side is supposed to take comfort in the fact that a nuclear war would be a cataclysmic disaster. Herman Kahn in his 1960 On Thermonuclear War used the concept of a doomsday machine in order to mock mutually assured destruction - in effect, Kahn argued, both sides already had a sort of doomsday machine. Kahn was a leading critic of American strategy during the 1950s, urged Americans to plan for a limited nuclear war, and later became one of the architects of the MAD doctrine in the 1960s. The prevailing thinking that a nuclear war was inherently unwinnable and suicidal was illogical to the physicist turned strategist. Kahn came off as cold and calculating; for instance, in his works, he estimated how many human lives the United States could lose and still rebuild economically. This attitude is reflected in Turgidson's remark to the president about the outcome of a pre-emptive nuclear war: "Now I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I am saying no more than 10 to 20 million killed. Tops!" In the War Room, Turgidson also has a binder which is labeled “World Targets in Mega-deaths”."

So, um. Kahn was a leading critic of American policy, and then he helped create MAD... The article then goes on to say both A)MAD was illogical to him, and B) he used a metaphor to mock MAD... which he had created? Clean up, please, it's just confusing at the moment. I think I can decipher what the meaning is meant to be, but I don't know much at all about Kahn and I'd rather not write anything about him. --Switch 18:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Strangelove can't be Kissinger

I have deleted the phrase, " ... JFK's sinister National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger." I can see why later audiences would make the comparison, mainly because of Kissinger's hairstyle and his accented and academic speech. However, It's extremely unlikely that Kubrick would have had Kissinger in mind, while making the film in 1963. Kissinger was a liberal Republican, who worked with New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, before becoming Richard Nixon's National Security Adviser in 1969.[1] Marzolian 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about inspirations but changed silly error JFK to Nixon Darked 17:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Kissinger again -- in 1963, Kissinger was a semi-obscure Harvard professor with a PhD dissertation about Metternich and some behind-the-scenes involvement in the New York state liberal anti-Goldwater wing of the Republican party. He had written a 1957 book about nuclear policy, but it received much less publicity than Herman Kahn's book did, and the general public would NOT have been familiar with his accent or appearance. AnonMoos 02:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Reagan as a fan?

Somewhere I've heard a story, possibly an urban legend, to the effect that when Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981, he asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff to see the "War Room," and was shocked when they told him no such thing actually existed. Does anyone out there have information to confirm or reject this?

This is claimed by production designer Ken Adam on one of the documentaries with the DVD. Unfortunately, he does not cite his sources. This might well be an urban legend, or Reagan might have been joking. TheMadBaron 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

President Muffley's (given) name

I may well be shot down in flames for this, but: I thought that it was President _Mervin_ Muffley - and not "Merkin". (Various other film sites reflect this idea ...) I know this goes against the various sexual themes alluded to in the article; but isn't "Muffley" adequate in itself, in this context?

Comments?

Hair Commodore 19:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely "Merkin". TheMadBaron 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So _you_ say. But I've just done a search (using WebCrawler) for both "Mervin Muffley" and "Merkin Muffley", specifying the English language only. I found 14 sites for "Mervin", and only one - Wikipedia - for "Merkin". I'm NOT saying that the majority must be correct, but - short of seeing the film again, there must be a simple way of *proving* who's correct ... Hair Commodore 18:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw the film for the first time a couple of days ago. It's Merkin. TheMadBaron 19:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here ya go....

screenshot from DVD features

TheMadBaron 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Do you think you could crop a three-photos section of that and put it in the article at the section discussing Sellers' roles? AdamSmithee 19:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No need - having seen the reference, I'm convinced: I woz wrong. (If only all such mistaken memories were so easy to resolve!) Hair Commodore 20:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want it, Smithee, here it is, but I don't think much of the quality. We could make a better one out of screenshots from the actual movie.TheMadBaron 22:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Scratch that. It looks good on the page. Nice call. TheMadBaron 09:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring

I think this article needs to be restructered by modelling it on a FA-class film article (like Gremlins). The cast should be moved under production since this passage clearly falls under cast and production

At the start of Dr. Strangelove 's production, Sellers was set to play a fourth role; that of Air Force Major T. J. "King" Kong, the B-52 Stratofortress bomber captain. However, Sellers fractured his leg while filming the bomb-straddling sequence (he fell off the bomb), and could not play the role because technical constraints would have confined him to cramped space of the cockpit set. It has been suggested that Sellers, who was concerned about correctly reproducing the Texan accent required, contrived the injury—or at least exaggerated it. Slim Pickens, an established character actor and veteran of many Western films, was quickly tapped to replace Sellers as Major Kong. It is no coincidence that his performance turned out so authentic; fellow actor James Earl Jones recalls, "He was Major Kong on and off the set—he didn't change a thing—his temperament, his language, his behavior." According to some sources, the British film crew thought he was a method actor, and his mannerisms were his way of "finding" his performance for the character, unaware that that was the way he really behaved. It has also been said that, for the entire course of filming, Pickens was apparently unaware that Strangelove was a comedy and instead played the role straight, (though many find this difficult to believe given the nature of the role)[citation needed].

Also some the character profiles could perhaps be incorporated into the plot.--Supernumerary 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that in the third paragraph of the plot, where the U.S. Government is linked, mention of President Merkin Muffley should be given. It's not the actual U.S. Government anyway (is this link meaningful here?). Hoverfish 22:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot cleaned of historical references

The following parts of the plot should either move to another section, or should be somehow rephrased to integrate better where they are:

The right-wing John Birch Society opposed fluoridation at the time claiming it was a government-mandated and involuntary medical treatment that violated citizens' civil rights.[2]

The provisions of a military protocol known as "Plan R" ('R for Romeo') allow lower-echelon commanders to authorize the use of nuclear weapons without Presidential authority during a "time of conflict." It was apparently established after a certain Senator named Buford pointed out that the nuclear deterrence plan of the United States lacked credibility, in that if only the President could authorize a nuclear strike, retaliation could be avoided if the USSR succeeded in wiping him out in a decapitation strike. Hoverfish 09:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - it is unclear from context whether Buford is a historical figure (in which case there should be a reference, or at least a wikilink) or a fictional character created for the film (in which case the reference to the non-fictional John Birch Society serves to make this unclear). TheMadBaron 10:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There could be a section before plot (Parallel historical issues), giving some idea of these two and maybe few more contemporary issues relevant to the script. In this way one can make the connections as the plot evolves. "Satirizing the Cold War" and "Use of ex-Nazis in government" also contain a couple of references that could be worked into this section. Hoverfish 16:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed the reference to "Plan R" from the "Historical Parallels" section.... a similar policy might well exist, but I think that this detail is a fiction created for the film. I might rephrase it and work it back in to the plot section later. TheMadBaron 00:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Buford is from the film:

General "Buck" Turgidson: "Plan R is an emergency war plan in which a lower echelon commander may order nuclear retaliation after a sneak attack if the normal chain of command is disrupted. You approved it, sir. You must remember. Surely you must recall, sir, when Senator Buford made that big hassle about our deterrent lacking credibility. The idea was for plan R to be a sort of retaliatory safeguard." (29:00)

according to [3] AdamSmithee 12:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

One way is to rephrase it into part of the plot. The problem I see there, is that althought it is mentioned later, as AdamSmithee found, the flow of the plot is such that it would be meaningful even before Ripper, but to start with Turgidson's quote... I think it has to be seen as his quote and maybe also briefly introduce the role: "As General Turginson reveals in the War Room later...". What about between the first and the second paragraph? Hoverfish 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We need to explain why the president is unable to recall the planes, but this has more to do with the radio codes. It may be advantageous to explain how Ripper was able to exceed his authority, but probably not to the point of naming ficticious senators who are mentioned only incidentally.

I've just done some fairly extensive work on the plot outline, but I think it will need quite a lot of further restructuring. For example, we have The president asking Strangelove about the doomsday machine early in the second paragraph, but we haven't yet mentioned the arrival of the Soviet ambassador and the subsequent phone call to the Soviet premier from which the discussion of the machine follows. As I recall, Strangelove himself doesn't make an appearance until 50+ minutes into the film. I'll probably take another look at this tomorrow. TheMadBaron 22:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Pentagon cooperation

I think this section should be retitled, since it is more about B-52 set design than Pentagon cooperation (ie there wasn't any). It seems strange to state that "The Pentagon did not cooperate in the making of the film".... was Pentagon cooperation even sought? If so, it might be better to state that "the Pentagon refused to cooperate". If not, then the fact is hardly notable (the Pentagon do not cooperate in the making of most films). The reference to Strategic Air Command should be expanded to show any possible relevance to Dr. Strangelove, or removed, IMO. TheMadBaron 11:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the title, wouldn't it be better as "The Pentagon was not cooperative..." ? Like this it suggests that coopration might have been sought. Hoverfish 21:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, but I think we should ultimately replace the whole thing with a broader discussion of set design, incorporating set and location notes from the trivia section, the B-52 security concerns, the source of the B-52 photo (mentioned in one of the documentaries), and notes about the war room (150 tradesmen, triangular, 130 ft long, 100 ft wide, 35 ft high, 22 ft diameter table covered in green baize, etc). TheMadBaron 22:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fail-Safe

"The book was widely acknowledged to be a near carbon-copy of Red Alert."

Wikipedia should certainly cite references for such bold claims....

"What worried Kubrick the most about Fail-Safe was that it boasted an acclaimed director, Sidney Lumet, and first-rate dramatic actors, Henry Fonda as the American President and Walter Matthau as the bold ex-Nazi advisor to the Pentagon, Professor Groepenschelesche."

Taken at face value, I would venture that what actually worried Kubrick the most about Fail-Safe was that it breached his copyright....

"Kubrick tried to halt production on Fail-Safe by arguing that its own 1960 source novel of the same name had been plagiarized from Peter George's Red Alert, to which Kubrick himself owned the creative rights. Also, he pointed out the unmistakable similarities in intentions between the characters Groeteschele and Strangelove. The plan ended up working exactly as Kubrick intended; Fail-Safe opened a full eight months behind Dr. Strangelove to critical acclaim, but mediocre box office results."

The above paragraph contradicts itself:

"Kubrick tried to halt production on Fail-Safe"

"The plan ended up working exactly as Kubrick intended; Fail-Safe opened"

Huh?

Much of this needs clarifying - since Fail-Safe opened, despite supposedly being "widely acknowledged" to plagiarise Red Alert what, exactly, was the legal outcome of the lawsuit mentioned by Lumet?

TheMadBaron 12:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

References

After looking for quite some time and finding only Wikipedia copies that mention, "The imagined cockpit was so accurate that the Department of Defense suspected the film crew of sneaking into a B-52 and taking pictures," I have removed the text until someone finds a source for it.--Supernumerary 21:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This is Ken Adam on the subject, from the "Inside" documentary....

"The publicity people invited some American Air Force personnel to look at the shooting we did, and they literally went white when they saw the inside of the B-52 because they said it was absolutely correct, even to the little black box which was the CRM. So, the next day I got a memo from Stanley; he hopes that I've got all my research from legal sources, or from justifiable sources, because otherwise, I and he could be in serious trouble, with a possible investigation by the FBI."

TheMadBaron 04:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reliable enough source for it to be added back in. I figured it was out there, but all I had available was the internet.--Supernumerary 04:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you were right to pull it. It needs re-writing. Without a reference, "the Department of Defense suspected the film crew of sneaking into a B-52 and taking pictures" seems like an overly liberal interpretation of the known facts. It might be better to quote Ken Adam directly. TheMadBaron 10:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and used the quote you provided to add it back in. I hope it doesn't come off badly.--Supernumerary 22:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I had another look around on the internet and couldn't find any source for this, "It has also been said that, for the entire course of filming, Pickens was apparently unaware that Strangelove was a comedy and instead played the role straight, (though many find this difficult to believe given the nature of the role)." I've removed it until a source can be found.--Supernumerary 21:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This is speculation, at best. I see little point in finding a source for a highly dubious claim which serves only to insult Pickens' intelligence. TheMadBaron 10:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find a reference for "It has been suggested that Sellers, who was concerned about correctly reproducing the Texan accent required, contrived the injury—or at least exaggerated it." and it sounds like pure speculation, so I remeoved it until some ref will be found. I also replaced an information I found to be wrong in the same paragraph: according to Southern, as cited, Sellers hurt his ankle while getting out of his car at a restaurant, not falling off the bomb while filming (though it sounds more dramatic this way) AdamSmithee 14:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, the documentaries on the DVD say that he fell from the bomb, or perhaps the plane.... and one interviewee hinted that he might have contrived to do so.... I'll come back to this later, as bigger priorities for me right now are making some other changes (when I'm less tired) and rewatching the film itself in order to check some facts.

However.... what immediately occurs to me now that you have cast doubt on how the (alleged) injury was acquired is this.... it is overtly stated in the documentaries that the scene showing Pickens riding the bomb was a last minute innovation (by Kubrick, I think), and that Ken Adam had to rush the effects job, devising a very simple way of getting the shot. If that's the case, then Sellers would surely never have been on the bomb....

TheMadBaron 15:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cast and crew

It doesn't seem right to place Cast and crew as a subsection of Production. Cast usually is given it's own section. But even if this is no serious point, I do see a visual or logical imbalance on the issue of Peter Seller's roles (bold, linked, ...list). If the section of cast becomes its own section, then we could add other important roles (and actors) in a similar formatting, or somehow make it look like we are not only talking of one actor. Hoverfish 15:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I partially agree, and propose the following solutions:

1. move the talk about multiple roles, together with the introduction of Slim Pickens, stuff about novel etc. in a different subsection of Production - Production Background - and turn it to flowing prose;
2. move discussions of character inspirations in a section of its own - "The character of Dr. Strangelove"
3. keep the cast list simple, with one-two lines on each actor discussing the role, critical reactions to the particular actor etc

I don't really have a preference over keeping the resulting cast section under or outside Production AdamSmithee 15:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Later addition: some of the discussion of Sellers' charecters names can go in the section on sexuality under themes AdamSmithee 15:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will work on these lines off article and if there is agreement on what I come up with, I will do the change. Hoverfish 21:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And here is what I came up with: User_talk:Hoverfish/Films. Please, let me know. I will be back to it tomorrow. Hoverfish 00:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've only taken a brief look at it (and made some minor changes), but it's obviously a much better structure. It will need further copyediting, and the trivia section should be dealt with, but we can deal with that after you make the change. I don't agree with the single reason given for the removal of the pie fight (other reasons are given in the documentaries) and I think the spoiler warning should be removed from that section, regardless. TheMadBaron 03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I second TheMadBaron. Go ahead and implement it. The spoiler warning is rather annoying, but it is a spoiler. (Personally I think spoiler warnings should be done away with.) I can add to the reasons for why the pie fight was cut since I ran across many good sites in finding references.--Supernumerary 03:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is MUCH better. Nice job :) On the other issue, I also think that the spoiler tags should be taken off from the pie-fight scene. It spoils nothing, as it is not part of the film AdamSmithee 08:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a spoiler only in that it uses the words nuclear holocaust, which it needn't. TheMadBaron 09:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

Is anything really gained by quoting Ripper at such length in the plot summary? To my mind, it spoils the flow. We could summarise Ripper's motivation with a simple short sentence to the effect that he believes in an "international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids", and move the rest to wikiquote, if it's not already there.... TheMadBaron 10:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking that these long quotes from the movie are more cruft than encyclopedia. Besides, there is a link to wikiquotes at the bottom of the article. So, I think that both the quote you mentioned and the long quote of the Sellers improvised talk with the Soviet prime-minister should be taken out of the article. AdamSmithee 10:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've cut both quotes. In fact, I cut the entire section, "Satirizing Hollywood", containing Sellers talk with the Soviet premier, as mentioned above.... the scene is significant, but I think that Sellers' delivery is required in order to really appreciate this, and that it would be better to summarise it elsewhere. With that monologue removed, the section is reduced to a single sentence, pasted below. I think that this section would need examples which illustrate its supposed point (ie that the film satirizes war movies).... the long quote never really accomplished that anyway. TheMadBaron 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Satirizing Hollywood

Dr. Strangelove satirizes the conventions of Hollywood war movies, as well as the curious "red telephone" relationship between heads of state, in which a first-name intimacy competes with a culturally conditioned dislike for the other and for the entire political system which he heads.

Awards

Would anyone object to me doing away with the table and changing the academy awards to resemble the other award sub-sections (or possibly collapsing them into just one section)? Or would it be better to incorporate all the awards into the table?--Supernumerary 23:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Kill the ugly table and colapse :) AdamSmithee 23:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Also my opinion from the start. Tables are useful for some things, but here prose would be much better. Hoverfish 00:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay I killed the table and collapsed the three sub-sections. I'll have to polish the prose since it's rather clunky right now.--Supernumerary 00:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are repetitions and contradictions. Also the academy awards are not expanded. I will be back to help on this in a few hours. Hoverfish 11:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ... but there were no academy awards won. Here are the 37th Academy Awards. Is it worth mentioning just for nomination? Hoverfish 15:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC) And here is a link to the BAFTA's of 1964. I see four awards and one nomination there. Hoverfish 15:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If no award was won, I think a quick one-line mention of Oscar nominations should be enough AdamSmithee 15:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Lists to Prose

I've been trying to convert the lists to prose (task one on the to do list), and I think I'm getting there with the sexual themes section. Have a look at what I've managed over here and tell me what you think. I already know that the names point needs to be changed to make it flow better, but I'm stumpted at the moment. (I'll probably think of something if I let it sit for a day.) Nevertheless, I think it is a step in the right direction since it reduces the number of points from twelve to five.--Supernumerary 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly a step in the right direction. Personally, I think that the section would benefit from being trimmed further.... for example, the suggestion that Strangelove standing is analogous to an erection sounds a bit far fetched, and I'm not sure that the reference to the survival kit scene is really helpful. To my mind, the theme of sexuality in "Strangelove" would be elucidated better by detailing just the most overt examples rather than painstakingly cataloguing every single one. The length of the section serves to make the article dwell a little too much on what is actually a very subtle undertone to the film. It's not a sex comedy, or even a Carry On film.... there's only one woman in the film, for heaven's sake. And she's not even hot. TheMadBaron 10:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay I took your advice and trimmed it down. It's much shorter and now only 4 points. I'm going to replace the one in the article with this one so that more people might look at and edit it.--Supernumerary 23:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

References

One important issue with the article are citations. It has lots of trivia-like bits of information, comments and opinions which lack citations. When the article gets to WP:FAC (and it should) it will probably be hammered for not being carefully backed by citations. I have started putting fact tags not as a critique, but as a reminder of what specific issues should be researched. Now, TheMadBaron, I see that you have some usefull sources on acting and actors, as you have put in comments with "this is mentioned in the DVD documentaries". Could you please turn them into standard in-line refs, mentioning all the DVD series identification details (basically, the distribution company and year of release should probably be enough), please? Alternativelly, please give the details here and I'll write the citations. AdamSmithee 08:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I fully intend to do so.... my comments are to serve as a reminder to myself. My sources are the two main documentaries on the DVD, already referenced elsewhere. I just need to watch them again to remind myself which documentaries mention which details. I'll do this either today or tomorrow. TheMadBaron 09:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I was afraid that you might take the tags addition the wrong way, and it was not my intention :) AdamSmithee 11:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sellers and Major Kong

According to the HBO movie "Life & Death of Peter Sellers", Peter faked his ankle hurting to avoid having to come up with an accent for Major Kong. Is this true or one of them dramatic licenses? ~ Feureau 15:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

See talk about this somewhere above. That film would not make a reliable source though. Anyway, it generally might pay to read previous discussions AdamSmithee 16:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to that film. There's the sellers section that said it's written somewhere that sellers was supposed to play Kong, but broke his leg. Can you point me to the right section? Greatly appreciated. ~ Feureau 20:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant one of the sections named "References" on the talk page (unfortunately there are more than one of these :-)). Basically, it seems to be false, but TheMadBaron is on it. Interestingely, Terry Southern recounts in two places (cited in the article) that Sellers did master the accent using the tape he recorded - so he wouldn't have any reaon to fake an accident AdamSmithee 23:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He had an enormous workload in preparing for three roles. Four was just one too many. TheMadBaron 05:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Filming begins?

Does anyone know when Dr. Strangelove filming begins? This info is usually found on production notes.~ Feureau 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be mentioned in the DVD documentaries, which I'll be revisiting soon. Please sign your name using four tildes ~~~~ when making your posts on talk pages.

TheMadBaron 20:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops sorry, a typo. I usually sign my talks. :D ~ Feureau 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes by User:Feureau

There were lots of recent changes by ~ Feureau. First, thank you for contributing. Now, some quick comments:

• this is of course not mandatory, but it would be more easy to follow what you do if you used one large change instead of lots of little changes;
• you have lots of good edits (I mean it), however...
• some are not so good, which I'm sorry, but I will revert them when I'll have the occasion:
  • you made some large mistakes which could be avoided by making some minimal research: the most proeminent example is deleting the sexual themes, which are widely commented and a source can easily be found;
  • some minor changes reflect your lack of knowledge of general practices and consensus around WP-films; for instance, the infobox is meant to summerize some quick points of the article, not replace info in the article - that is, do not delete info in the article because it is in the infobox; also, the general rule is to wikilink something the first time it appears, not every time - that is, do not wikilink each and every instance of "Stanley Kubrick" in the article; etc.
• also, it is good form to discuss major changes (especially if potentially debatable) on the talk page before doing them.

I hope you don't take these the wrong way - it is just a friendly advise meant to make things go smoothly. AdamSmithee 16:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no hard feelings, this is wikipedia anyway, All edits will be picked at mercilessly.

• I prefer lots of edits instead of one large edit so it's easier to pick out which sections got changed instead of one large diff to run thru.
• The sexual themes, at least to me, sounds a LOT like speculations and attempts to argue a point. -Which is a widespread issue with most movie articles. Although some points seems to be valid. Yet, they remains to be speculations. And should there be citable external resources, the deleted section did not reflect its existance. I think if you want to revert it, citations should be added along with notable/reliable personality who makes the points.
• I linked all the Stanley Kubricks on the infobox because I think it doesn't look too good to have most in blue while other in black. Also, I think most wp pages with infobox doesn't warrant a repeat of information available in infoboxes on the article itself. (i.e. most software infoboxes).
• I did major changes for being bold. I did not do potentially debatable change on the Peter Sellers' potentially faked broken ankles issue until I got an affirmation on the talk page, didn't I?

And I hope you don't take this "reply" the wrong way too. It's just wikipedia. ;) ~ Feureau 20:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, don't you just love this place? It's as civil as cricket and cream teas....

I would agree with almost all of Smithee's remarks.... though I would point out that the changes effected by a long stream of edits can easily be seen by comparing selected versions of the history, and that there are definite advantages to making multiple edits.... for one thing, it can make individual changes within a section easier to revert.

Where infoboxes are concerned, style guidelines should be followed.... and debated within the film project talk page. I'll be doing plenty more of that later, but for now, I follow the guidelines whenever I'm sure what they actually are....

I have reverted some of Feureau's changes to the infobox, and restored some of the deleted material. I'll leave it to others to sort out what else should be retained, including the "Sexuality" section.... I'm starting to think that this might be the only theme worth mentioning in any kind of detail (and my thoughts on this are detailed above), in which case the "Themes" section might need to be rethought. All other supposed themes, if worth mentioning at all, might be summarised in a single section and/or moved elsewhere (as I did with the examination of Strangelove as a nazi).

I thought that the previous treatment of Sellers as Kong was awkward, and needed reworking.... I didn't much like Feureau's approach either, but I have now effected what I hope might be an acceptable compromise.

While many of Feureau's edits were bound to be controversial, I think the article has benefitted, on balance, from having a lot of the deadwood swept out if it. It was a dirty job, and someone had to do it.

TheMadBaron 20:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL :D Civil as a cricket! *Tosses a pie* TheMadBaron. Great treatment on Kong. I concur. And thanks for the fix. I still think the sexual themes should be out per my comment.~ Feureau 21:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Noooo, civil as cricket, not a cricket.... you know, freshly mown lawns, the crack of leather on willow.... splendid.

I don't think the sexual themes can be completely ignored, I'm afraid *reaches under raincoat*....

BTW, what do you mean, just Wikipedia? If there's anything more important than Wikipedia on this planet, I want it caught and shot NOW.

TheMadBaron 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Noooo There's nothing as crickit [sic] as a cricket. Crickets as we all know, keeps rubbing their legs and making all the noise! Noise! NOISE!! That keeps you up at night. Spay them all, I say! And on the context of spaying, I also think the sexual themes can't be completely ignored, the film is too sexy front and back. But you know, wikipedia sez no original research, and without citations, all researches are original. *Rains pies on TheMadBaron* And to think you always want to avoid getting citations from the cops.... And please no guns, be civil! Don't shoot citizendium. Imitation is the highest form of flattery. It's not like there's anything we can do anyway... as decent wikipedians... Great Jimbo, you're right! I want it caught and shot! NOW!! LOL :D ~ Feureau 21:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, before deleting any more content on the grounds that it's original research, please consider slapping citation tags all over the article instead. I'm not saying that it's wrong to remove content which appears to be original research, and I know those tags are ugly, but I can, and will, cite sources which demonstrate Kubrick's intent where much of the stuff about sexuality, Kennedy, etc, is concerned. In fact, this is all I have planned for tomorrow, and it will save me time if there are tags on all disputed statements. TheMadBaron 22:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, this is in the end the only really serious issue: Don't just delete content. Most of it is good info, just unreferenced. Actually, a few weeks ago, basically nothing was backed by references, and this changed somewhat. It's only that research takes time. First put a "fact" tag and try to research the issue. If you, however, decide to delete something, it is better to move it to talk page and start a discussion after deleting from the main text AdamSmithee 23:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Critical views, or Appearance on Movie Lists

I renamed the currently named Critical views section into Appearance on Movie Lists. But got reverted with comment most of these lists are made by critics, you know? and they are a form of criticism, anyway

Here's its content.

Dr. Strangelove was listed as #26 on the American Film Institute's 100 Years, 100 Movies and #3 on its 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Sellers' line "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" made #64 on AFI's 100 Years, 100 Quotes. The film has also been selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry. In 2000, readers of Total Film magazine voted it the 24th greatest comedy film of all time.

Roger Ebert has Dr. Strangelove in his list of Great Movies, saying it is "arguably the best political satire of the century."

This film is number 53 on Bravo's "100 Funniest Movies".

To me this looks like a somewhat comprehensive summary (or list) of appearances (or inclusion) of the film on Movie Lists. Instead of a comprehensive summary of views expressed by film critics. What do you guys think? Maybe it needs a rewrite?~ Feureau 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Critical views" (where "Critical" is used in the sense of "pertaining to critical analysis", rather than in the sense of "saying nasty things") is a more encyclopedic title. For one thing, the word "movie", in most contexts, should be terminated with extreme prejudice. BTW, if you're going to change headers, you shouldn't capitalise words except where necessary, per the Manual of Style.

I think the section needs expanding. We're lacking any kind of discussion on the impact of the film on its release.... making people think about the bomb, etc.... My impression, having recently watched the film for the first time, is that it is very much a product of it's time, and this context is an essential part of appreciating the film.

In the documentary No Fighting in the War Room Or: Dr. Strangelove and the Nuclear Threat, Roger Ebert recounts his initial reaction to the film:

"We said "this is going to change everything, this is going to overthrow American foreign policy, this movie is revolutionary; we were completely wrong, but we really felt that something amazing had happened on the screen. It was.... radical and fresh, for its time."

If we could gather a few observations like that, we could have a much better section, and a better article.

I'm going to make a very controversial and POV observation now. Cover your eyes if this is likely to cause offense.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is quite possibly brilliant... but it's not funny.

There, I said it.

TheMadBaron 21:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's not funny, but it's rather shocking. I think it's funny in it's own way, unlike, say, Duck Soup. Take for instance the part where Dr. Strangelove ridicules the Russian ambassador about not making the doomsday machine public, to which he replies "It was to be announced on the party congress on Monday. You know how the premiere loves surprises." It's not funny per se, but think what a surprise it would be for the party attendee on the announcement as the premiere drops the bomb on them. LOL :D Anyway, on to the matter, I understand to take the phrase critical view as in, as you said and I quote, "pertaining to critical analysis", rather than in the sense of "saying nasty things" but then wouldn't the list of awards section would be included? I mean, those awards would count as critics in the sense of "pertaining to critical analysis", wouldn't it? I think if the title should be maintained, more critical observation like that of Roger Ebert's initial reaction to the movie should be added. (hence, critical view. Agreed on the capitalization. I stand corrected ~ Feureau 21:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I also think that the section is more likely to be expanded meaningfully (I don't have the data to do it, not that I've looked) if it retains the title "Critical views" than if we change it to "Appearance on film lists" (or anything similarly awful).

Shocking? Bollocks.

TheMadBaron 22:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been meaning for some time to start fleshing out the critical reactions section, just didn't get to yet. One thing that I intend to put in (with citations) is that the film had some initial bad reviews, on the grounds that it is red and anti-patriotic. Only later the "masterpiece" consensus emerged. Also I agree that we should have more of the specific critical opinions. AdamSmithee 23:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's one from Alexander Walker, referring to Kubrick

from "Inside the Making of Dr. Strangelove", 7m 44s

"With the help of Terry Southern, he constructed, I think, the most perfectly written comic screenplay of the post-war cinema."

Well, he's entitled to his opinion, I suppose....

TheMadBaron 06:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring production

I've built a "Sets and filming" sub-section with new info on the war room and merged in the B-52. I like this partially as it reduces the excessive number of sub-sections of Production. For the time it basically has no info on the filming part, but I'll put something in when I have time (I have some refs). Also, I'll have some quick info on Ripper's office. So, it is still work in progress.

Two issues on screen writing:

• I removed James B. Harris as uncredited screen-writer as I couldn't find anything; moreover, I found sources saying that he collaborated with Kubrick on previous films but not on "Dr. Strangelove"; anyway, even then he collaborated as a producer, not writer;
• I know that Sellers improvised, but it is difficult to determine how much. In this interview, Terry Southern says explicitely that the changes brought by Sellers' improvisations were "minimal" (that is, just small modifications to some specific lines). Moreover, although the idea that he improvised the entire phone call in the war room, I can find no reliable citation for this. Anyway, I find it hard to believe - all the things about introducing this way the Doomsday device and so on had to be in the script - this is stuff that Kubrick researched havily and wanted to have in the film, not something that Sellers came out with out of the blue.

Feedback would be appreciated AdamSmithee 00:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

All covered in the documentaries. Harris worked on the adaptation with Kubrick, but left to pursue a career as a director before it became a comedy. Sellers improvisations did included the telephone conversation.

I will now gather all statements needing sources from the article and talk page, watch the documentaries again, and report back later with quotations and details. This will undoubtedly take me several hours....

TheMadBaron 04:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Inside the Making of Dr. Strangelove" pans across one of Ken Adam's original sketches for the war room. I made a jpg from two screenshots. I doubt that we can justify its use, but see what you think.

war room sketch

TheMadBaron 07:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

About Sellers phone call improvisation, I remember seeing in the article a remark on how he improvised it, just can't find it anymore. I hope I'm not imagining things! Anyway, the sketch is great and probably could be justified as fair use (because the article goes some length towards discussing the design). However, I'm afraid it might be too much... Actually, we have so much info on this (some of it not included) that it would be possible to make a subordinate article on the sets, though I don't know if this makes sense AdamSmithee 10:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, build up the existing section with the missing detail, when you have time, and then we'll see if it makes sense. It doesn't hurt to start with too much detail and then cut back to the best stuff. Some of these production details are among the most remarkable aspects of the film, and it might well be that a subordinate article is warranted. I don't think we have anything in the article yet about the second unit plane being forced down by the USAF after flying over a secret base, the hellish conditions they worked in, the loss of the original negative, etc.... TheMadBaron 15:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

DVD Documentaries

(I'll be working on this for much of the day. Please don't edit this section until I'm done, but feel free to incorporate relevant parts into the article. If you want to bug me about something, try my talk page.)

Quotations from the documentaries "Inside the Making of Dr. Strangelove" and "No Fighting in the War Room Or: Dr. Strangelove and the Nuclear Threat", for use as references.

Harris as screenwriter

.... and further development of the screenplay....

"Inside the Making of Dr. Strangelove", 2m 33s

NARRATOR: In 1962, Kubrick and his producing partner, James B. Harris, begin to develop a screenplay titled Edge of Doom.

HARRIS: The first thing he did was to have me read the book by Herman Kahn called On Thermonuclear War, which was pretty sophisticated in terms of how it explained everything. Stanley had already read the book several times, and was an expert on it.

We developed the screenplay as a straight drama and a straight suspense story.

We would work late into the night, and there were times when it got to be well past midnight and we started to get a little silly, and a little giddy, and started to imagine what it would be like if all of these people in the war room, with this terrible problem, were hungry, and had to eat. I mean, this was the silly stuff that we started to think about. What, would they call out to the Gaity delicatessen?

"Inside the Making of Dr. Strangelove", 4m 11s

NARRATOR: Ultimately, Harris departs from the project with Kubrick's blessing, to become a director. Shortly thereafter, Kubrick informs Harris of a major conceptual change for the project.

HARRIS: I got a call from Stanley, saying "Do you remember when we discussed the possibility of doing this thing as a comedy?" He said "You know, I really feel that the best way to tell this story, to make the point, the whole thermonuclear dilemma, is much better said in the form of a satire, a comedy, than it is in the straight story that we developed."

ALEXANDER WALKER: He kept coming across various aspects of the story that weren't tragic, but were comic. For example, if a man learns the news that nuclear annihilation is nigh when he's in his office, the result is a documentary. When he's in his living room, it's a social drama. When he's in the bathroom, it's a comedy.

"Inside the Making of Dr. Strangelove", 5m 22s

NARRATOR: An early draft opens with extra terrestrials observing Earth in the wake of a nuclear holocaust, and is titled The Delicate Balance of Terror. Kubrick decides that the now comedic script requires a degree of inspired lunacy. However, he feels the story should place the absurdities within a realistic framework. He turns to writer Terry Southern, whose novel Candy caused a media sensation with its bold and satiric look at modern sexuality.

Sellers' Improvisations

"Inside the Making of Dr. Strangelove", 14m 54s

NARRATOR: As the technical aspects of the production continue to progress, Kubrick turns his attention to casting. He approaches Peter Sellers, who had recently won wide acclaim in Kubrick's previous film, Lolita', to again play several roles.

15m 09s

ALEXANDER WALKER: Peter always hoped to work with Stanley Kubrick again after Lolita, and whenever Stanley explained to him that he wished him to be in Dr. Strangelove, there was no difficulty in persuading Perter, especially when Peter realised that he could play three parts, the RAF officer, the US president and the president's very sinister and nazi advisor, Dr. Strangelove.

15m 31s

ALEXANDER WALKER: Much of the part that Peter eventually played, three roles, in Dr. Strangelove, was not scripted. It came out of Peter developing it with Stanley Kubrick on the set, like a jazz musician, each of them contributing to the riff.

15m 58s

ALEXANDER WALKER: The easiest part of the three for Peter to play was the RAF officer, because when he himself was serving, doing his national service, he used to impersonate officers, which, of course, was an offense which could have got him ten years in a military prison, but he just loved it.

(I think there's a citation needed tag on a statement to that effect)

"Inside the Making of Dr. Strangelove" 17m 16s

NARRATOR: Sellers well known ability to improvise contributes to some of the film's most memorable lines and situations.

MANDRAKE: Jack, I'd love to come, but, um, what's happened, you see, the string in my leg's gone.

JOE McGRATH: What he was supposed to say is "I have this thing in my leg which goes every now and again", and he said, "what I actually said was 'the string in my leg"', and then he said "Stanley and Hadyn and I [....] got hysterical, but we managed to control it, and Stanley was shouting 'keep going", and that's the take that's in the film.

The phone call

"Inside the Making of Dr. Strangelove" 17m 50s

NARRATOR: Sellers also improvises the classic line where the beleaguered President Muffley has to inform the Soviet premier that the US has accidentally launched a nuclear strike on his country.

MUFFLEY: Now then, Dimirti, you know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the bomb.

PAMELA CARLTON (CONTINUITY): And though the conversations were actually scripted, Peter started, but only really delivered the first line of the script, and after that he just improvised, and we just shot ten minute takes.

MUFFLEY: One of our base commanders, he had a sort of, well, he went a little funny in the head, you know, just a little funny, and, er, he went and did a silly thing.

As the narrator speaks, an image of the original script is shown. This is reproduced here.

Right, then, time to reinstate some content, and add some refs....

TheMadBaron 05:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

President Merkin Muffley

Two citation tags in the Muffley section of "Peter Sellers' roles".... the following confirms that Sellers faked cold symptoms in early takes, and that he drew inspiration from Adlai Stevenson. It's not overtly stated that the resulting laughter ruined take after take, as suggested in the article, though this seems likely. There are a couple of points in the film where Muffley appears to be suffering from a cold.

"Inside the Making of Dr. Strangelove", 16m 13s

NARRATOR: The role of President Muffley proves to be more problematic for Sellers. Initially, he decides to play him as a meek, fey character, with an inhaler.

16m 25s

KEN ADAM: The whole stage A at Sheperton was in tears, because Peter played it as though he was suffering fom asthma and a very bad cold. So he asked for an inhaler, and the whole two days we shot he played it with this inhaler, and this terrible cold, and it was hilariously funny.

16m 54s

ALEXANDER WALKER: And Stanley said, "now wait a minute, Peter, we're on the wrong track. Merkin Muffley should be the one man who understands the consequences of his actions, the one serious point in the film. So you've got to play him seriously." And Peter said "Rather like Adlai Stevenson if he'd become President, if the results of the US election had gone the other way?" And Stanley said, "exactly".

TheMadBaron 17:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Priority?

For a film of such huge significance I would think that it should be looking perfect by now. Don't get me wrong, it is absolutely stellar work, one of the best pages I've seen on wikipedia. But that little bit more to get it featured should probably be taken. It is in such good shape that I simply don't know how to improve it myself, so I am sorry to say this and not edit it myself JayKeaton 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of spoiler warnings

There is a ongoing community debate about spoilers and how (and if) they should be used. The wholseale removal of them is pre-empting that result of that debate before a consensus is declared. While the debate is ongoing, the status quo should be maintained, and that means that spoilers should (and shall) stay in place until a consensus is reached. Please do not continue to delete them, and they will just be replaced. If you feel strongly about this, go participate in the debate -- if your point of view prevails, then there's nothing to stop spoilers from being removed. Until then, please cease. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 05:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree with your suggestion to simply maintain the status quo on articles containing spoiler tags simply because there is an ongoing debate over whether or not all spoiler tags should be removed altogether. Until there is a conclusion to the debate, there shouldn't be a wholesale removal of all spoiler tags, but it shouldn't be off-limits to remove any particular tag either. anthony 01:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

But spoiler tags ARE being removed on a wholesale basis, that's entirely the point. The people who are doing it are not evaluating each article and making a judgment based on the content, they are simply searching out every single spoiler tag they can find and deleting them -- these can be easily seen by looking at the contributions list of the people who are doing it. They ARE indeed usurping the community discussion process, which ain't kosher. (For two quick examples of what I'm talking about, look here and here -- between just these two people several thousand spoiler tags (at least) have been removed. That's not making well-considered choices for articles, the essence of editing, that's ideology in action.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 06:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not true: I reviewed ~400 pages containing {{endspoiler}} yesterday evening, and removed all spoiler tags from ~250 of them. I don't see how this is "wholesale removal". Kusma (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

For example, many superhero comics articles don't carry spoiler warnings for "classic" plots, but reserve warnings for the most recent storylines. I have left these articles alone. Kusma (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone can be expected to have already seen and known the details of "classic" works. Sometimes, when I read an article on a film, it is for a film that I am interested in but have never seen, and I want to know the details behind the film's production. If a person who has never seen Dr. Strangelove comes across this page without having seen the film, he'll be compromising the viewing experience. I am frequently annoyed when documentaries discussing certain films/stories/etc. reveal the ending of films that I have not seen. (Ibaranoff24 13:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

I'm not going to discuss the actions of other users, because they aren't relevant to what we're talking about here. If you are merely opposed to the wholesale removal of these tags without regard to content, I accept that. But I am likewise opposed to the wholesale maintenance of these tags without regard to content. I'm going to remove the tags again, because I don't think they in any way contribute to this article. If you disagree, please give me the courtesy of explaining why you think these tags, in this article, in this location, are appropriate. anthony 11:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't restore redundant warnings to clearly marked plot summaries. --Tony Sidaway 03:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If the removal of spoiler warnings on a mass basis (and, yes, 250 out of 400 IS a mass removal) is contrary to proper Wikipedia behavior (and it is, since a community debate is ongoing, and these actions usurp that debate and substitute for it personal opinion as to what should be done), then restoration of the spoiler warnings is proper, since it restores the status quo ante and removes from the article an improper edit. The people who are in error here are those who continue to remove the spoilers despite the fact that the Wikipedia community is in the midst of deciding what to do about them. Once that decision is made, action can be taken, but until the community decides what is to be done, editors should not force their views on the community. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Warroom.jpg

Image:Warroom.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article

Trivia

• During the filming, Stanley Kubrick and George C. Scott had differences of opinions regarding certain scenes. However, Kubrick got Scott to conform based largely upon his ability to beat Scott at chess (which they played frequently on the set).
• 'Peace is Our Profession' was the actual motto of the Strategic Air Command.
• Major Kong's B-52, The Leper Colony, is a direct tribute to the classic 1949 bomber movie Twelve O'Clock High, in which 'Leper Colony' is crewed by the worst airmen in the 918th Bomb Group.
• Among the nuclear explosions used for the final sequence are footage of the Trinity test, the bombing of Nagasaki, shot BAKER of Operation Crossroads, a test from Operation Sandstone, and, lastly, one of the massive hydrogen bomb tests from Operation Redwing.
• The doomsday weapon in the film (a 'cobalt-thorium-G bomb') was inspired by the real idea of a cobalt bomb, conceptualized by nuclear pioneer Leo Szilard, founder of Council for a Livable World.
• Dame Vera Lynn, in an interview on the BBC that celebrated her 90th birthday, said when she first saw the movie, the audience laughed at the use of her singing 'We'll Meet Again' against a backdrop of exploding atomic bombs. But then the audience realized it was not funny and became strangely silent.
• 'Strangelove! The Musical', a theatrical musical adaptation of the movie was performed during the 2007 Melbourne International Comedy Festival, directed by Dave Harmon and Mark Sutton.
• The science officer character in the Muppet Show skit known as Pigs in Space was called Dr. Julius Strangepork in reference to the character in the film.
• During the scenes in which Dr. Strangelove is fighting with his own right arm, Peter Bull (playing the Russian ambassador) can be seen barely suppressing a laugh. Indeed, Kubrick had difficulty getting a take without someone laughing.
• The Coen brothers paid an apparent homage to Dr. Strangelove in their movie, Raising Arizona. The code letters used by General Ripper, 'P.O.E' ('Peace on Earth') and variation, can be seen written on the door of a gas station door after the John Goodman and William Forsythe characters break out of prison.
• When Dr Strangelove premiered in America, it was first thought to be a serious film. In fact an unknown Irish woman was ejected from the cinema for laughing 'inappropriately' throughout the film.
• Kubrick used a B-25 to shoot some of the flying scenes. Its shadow is visible against the ground, and is obviously not a B-52. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot length

I've restored the {{plot}} tag, which was recently removed. The plot section is currently some 1340 words, and reads like a scene-by-scene account of the film. It does need to be trimmed somewhat and changed into something more suitable for an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't tag it, trim it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 07:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:SUBTITLES

I'm trying to get some comments for a proposed guideline about titles with subtitles. I would appreciate any comments over at WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 16#WP:SUBTITLES. Thanks! superluser_tc 2007 December 23, 08:38 (UTC)