Talk:Dr. Strangelove/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: [bw foto 1]bw foto 2 [colour foto 1] colour foto 2
[webpage on pie fight] JayKeaton 08:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Custard Pie Scene

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sellers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Isn't it based on fail-safe? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Starcraft

message: 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)
thread_title: Laputa

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "not at all madcap" ?  Citation please 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Herman Kahn 

message: 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.  
Marzolian 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about inspirations but changed silly error JFK to Nixon Darked 17:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Strangelove can't be Kissinger 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reagan as a fan? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Restructuring 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pentagon cooperation 

message: :"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)
thread_title:  Fail-Safe 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Quotes 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lists to Prose 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: (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)
thread_title: DVD Documentaries

message: "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)
thread_title: Sellers' Improvisations

message: "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)
thread_title: The phone call

message: 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)
thread_title: President Merkin Muffley

message: 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)
thread_title: Priority?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That is not true: I reviewed ~400 pages containing  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Warroom.jpg

message: ===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).'Kubrick on The Shining' from Michel Ciment, 'Kubrick', Holt, Rinehart, and Winston; 1st American ed edition (1983), 
*'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.Dr. Strangelove: 40th Anniversary Edition, 1964
* 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)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

message: *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).'Kubrick on The Shining' from Michel Ciment, 'Kubrick', Holt, Rinehart, and Winston; 1st American ed edition (1983), 
*'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.Dr. Strangelove: 40th Anniversary Edition, 1964
* 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)
thread_title: Trivia

message: I've restored the  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)
replies: text: Don't tag it, trim it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 07:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot length