Talk:Dr. Strangelove

Pie scene

"The scene was never released to the general public and not included in the laserdisc and DVD releases of Dr. Strangelove." Then why is the source for the screenshot a DVD release of it? Recury 20:32, 21 February 2007 (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)

Possible misquotation

I think the quote in the Plot section that states "ten to twenty million tops... depending on the breaks" is not what it actually says in the movie. I believe the last word should be "breeze" because a) the breeze will affect where the nuclear fallout will go, thus determining the casualty count b) breaks does not make sense in this context.

However, I can not find any way to confirm this. On this website (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html) it says "breaks". Perhaps the quote should be taken out altogether because it doesn't even really fit in to the rest of the paragraph.Lordofhyperspace 06:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Breaks" is a common American colloquialism meaning fortunes or luck, i.e., "man, that's a bad break you got there." Turgidson is saying that, if the US were lucky, they'd be looking at about 10 million dead; if they were unlucky, it'd be about 20 million dead. Luck, in this case, would be American bombs hitting on target and working as designed or better with few, if any, aircraft being shot down before reaching their targets, and the Soviet response getting minimal weapons past American air defenses, and those being inaccurate or defective; bad luck, of course, would be just the opposite.

I don't see any real need to remove the quotation; it accurately shows both the claim being made by Turgidson, and Turgidson's way of thinking--that suffering ten to twenty million American dead would be acceptable losses in return for destroying the Soviet Union, and he's completely disconnected from the thought that these are real people, not just numbers on a sheet of paper. Rdfox 76 12:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Weird, I have never heard breaks used that way before. Thanks for the info. Lordofhyperspace 17:43, 17 July 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)

Which physicist?

Re: "Possibly inspired by Edward Teller ("father" of the H-bomb) and Nicholas Metropolis (a wheelchair-bound physicist prone to outbursts of violent temper)" — I can find reference to Teller's difficult and volatile personality, but not of Metropolis. Can't find references or images to either of them being in a wheelchair. Perhaps this is the chairbound disguise of Clare Quilty, Sellers' Lolita character which prefigures Dr Strangelove in the film. Anyone? If there's no objection I'll clean it up later Julia Rossi 04:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of refs for Teller, and although afaik he didn't use a wheelchair, he did have a well-known walking difficulty (a problem from childhood with one leg). I don't know about Metropolis though. AdamSmithee 13:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Teller I can buy. Metropolis I cannot. Wikipedia's own article on Metropolis has him skiing regularly at age 70, an unlikely avocation for a wheelchair-bound scientist. Nor is there any indication of wheelchair use, or violent temper, in the links from the Wikipedia article -- including his Los Alamos obituary.

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.