ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people”.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies and Serials from 1950 to 1969
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MetroPolly
Space Ranger


Joined: 29 Nov 2015
Posts: 188
Location: Oakland,CA

PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not to bring down the lightheartedness of this thread...

I just wanted to point out that this wacky satire is based, more or less, on the same book that gave us one of the most depressing cold war movies (and in the same yr yet) Fail Safe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Rick
Space Ranger


Joined: 25 Feb 2016
Posts: 106
Location: New York City

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, DR. STRANGELOVE is based on a novel titled RED ALERT. The authors of FAIL SAFE were sued for plagiarism by the former book's author. The FAIL SAFE authors paid a (supposedly large) out of court settlement.

So DR. STRANGELOVE is not based on FAIL SAFE. If anything, it is the other way around, and somewhat questionably.

_________________
Man need not kneel before the angels,
Nor lie in death forever,
But for the weakness of his feeble will.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MetroPolly
Space Ranger


Joined: 29 Nov 2015
Posts: 188
Location: Oakland,CA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Embarassed Yikes, thanks, Rick. My mistake. I could've sworn they were based on the same book. Next time my memory is in doubt, I'm just not gonna bother posting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, no, no !!!!

Polly, your post brought out more and deeper discussion on the issue, so it was VERY valuable and good that you made it!!!

Perhaps if you're not sure you could couch it as a question instead of a statement, but in any regard your posts are always thought provoking!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17017
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Gord is right. If I refrained from making statements I wasn't absolutely certain of, I'd hardly ever post anything!

Ditto for making statements I think might be controversial. I'd rather debate something and lose than not have the fun of debating at all!

So, post away, Polly! Better to have posted and lost than never to have posted at all! (To paraphrase an old saying. Very Happy)

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist


Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2017 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The biggest difference between Dr. Strangelove and Fail Safe is that the former is brilliant and the latter is crap.

Strangelove shows amazing attention to detail. Fail Safe seems to have been made by people who had no idea how airplanes work (and they didn't care). Stangelove takes an unlikely scenario and makes it believable. Fail Safe takes and unlikely scenario and makes it just plain stupid.

It's a shame that Fail Safe managed to waste so many really talented actors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17017
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

I hadn't thought about Fail-Safe in a long time, but I just took a quick look at the Wikipedia plot summary to be sure I was I remembered the nutty premise correctly.

Yep, I did.

We nuked Moscow by mistake. Then we nuked New York on purpose. That was done to appease the Russians.

Crazy stuff.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rick
Space Ranger


Joined: 25 Feb 2016
Posts: 106
Location: New York City

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nah, FAIL SAFE is an excellent movie, with a wonderful cast working at top capability.

The far-fetched ending is almost acceptable as you watch it, but after the movie ends you gradually realize that...uh, no. No. That dog won't hunt.

But it's true that even a movie as good as FAIL SAFE (and it is quite good) pales badly alongside the masterpiece that is DR. STRANGELOVE.

_________________
Man need not kneel before the angels,
Nor lie in death forever,
But for the weakness of his feeble will.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

After ordering and (re)watching a DVD of Fail-Safe (1964) I was struck by the similarity of the plot to Dr. Strangelove, as discussed above. I even had the same thought as MetroPolly, that they were both derived from the same book. Fail-Safe, however, was filmed on a noticeably tighter budget. Whereas DrS used a really nicely crafted B-52 miniature filmed against aerial footage backgrounds, F-S relied on stock footage for all its depictions of aircraft. And in the hallowed tradition of stock footage use, the types of aircraft would change from one shot to the next.

The DrS B-52 miniature even had its wings swept upward, as they actually do in flight. A B-52's wings are so flexible, they droop down while the aircraft is on the ground, then flex upward as they lift the aircraft. The B-52 also has supplemental outboard landing gear near the wing tips, together with auxiliary fuel tanks. When the tanks are full, the gear touches the ground. With empty tanks, the gear doesn't reach the ground.

DrS had a few flaws as well, although not on the order of F-S. One flaw I noticed in the footage used for backgrounds in some of the low-level aerial scenes with the B-52 miniature is that the shadow of the aircraft on the ground (or water) is that of a B-17.

Another flaw was the crew's use of clear plastic overlay sheets printed with map geography in the aircraft's radar scope. With the radar signal originating in the moving aircraft, a stationary map overlay would be useless.

Nevertheless, not only does DrS have funny one-liners, but the signage and labels here and there contribute to the humor. (The warheads on the bombs are labeled, "NUCLEAR WARHEAD - HANDLE WITH CARE"; a sign in the background at the Air Force base ironically reads, "Peace is Our Profession", which is an actual motto of the Strategic Air Command.)

While looking at DrS images at IMDb, I noticed that Tracy Reed, who plays Gen. Turgidson's (George C. Scott) secretary, is also the centerfold of the Playboy magazine that Maj. 'King' Kong (Slim Pickins) is examining in the aircraft.

_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pow
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3400
Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remain a big fan of both DS and FS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eadie
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 1695

PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stanley Kubrick Explains Why People Don’t Understand Nuclear Threats

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/04/stanley-kubrick-dr-strangelove-documentary-1202057421/

In a new documentary accompanying a re-release for the film, the filmmaker's words are timelier than ever.

by Eric Kohn

Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 satire Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb was released at the height of a nuclear arms race, as paranoia about the apocalypse reached an all-time high. Decades later, as nuclear threats continue to ripple across the globe, the idea of an atomic bomb threatening life in America continues to be seen as a fantasy. That makes Kubrick’s loopy cautionary tale more timely than ever, and a new short documentary exhumes the filmmaker’s assessment of his movie to remind people that there is plenty of cause for concern.

In Stanley Kubrick Considers the Bomb, director Matthew Wells explores the movie’s outlook in Kubrick’s own words. “The atomic bomb is as much of an abstraction as you can possibly have,” Kubrick says in an archival interview, which runs alongside images of mushroom bombs similar to the ones that close out his film. “It’s as abstract as that you know that someday you’ll die, and you do an excellent job of denying it, psychologically. I would say, in the minds of most people, it’s less interesting than city government.”

The documentary has been produced in tandem with plans for a new 4K restoration of Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb that will be released in UK cinemas on May 17. Contemporary voices in the documentary include author and journalist Eric Schlosser, who points out that a lot of the immediate coverage of Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb failed to recognize its accurate portrayal of the current nuclear threat, viewing the film’s cataclysmic “Doomsday Machine” as a fantasy. In fact, Kubrick had interviewed government officials, which informed his portrayal of a dysfunctional war room where poor tactical decisions could have destructive results.

Kubrick himself coped with plenty of anxiety about the potential for nuclear war, according to his daughter, Katharina Kubrick, who also appears in the documentary. “He didn’t want to frighten us,” she says, noting that her father didn’t bring it up at home, and instead channeled his fears directly into his film. “He was terrified like everybody was, which was why he chose to make a movie about this very terrifying subject which is a threat still,” she says.

Watch the trailer for the release of Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb at:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rF5XftjRGM[/size]
_________________
____________
Art Should Comfort the Disturbed and Disturb the Comfortable.


Last edited by Eadie on Fri May 29, 2020 2:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scotpens
Starship Captain


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 871
Location: The Left Coast

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

orzel-w wrote:
Whereas DrS used a really nicely crafted B-52 miniature filmed against aerial footage backgrounds, F-S relied on stock footage for all its depictions of aircraft. And in the hallowed tradition of stock footage use, the types of aircraft would change from one shot to the next.

It's been years since I last saw the film, but I recall the bombers in Fail Safe being portrayed by stock footage of Convair B-58 Hustlers (called "Vindicators" in the movie).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Krel
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Peter Sellers was convinced to take the Major Kong role, although he felt the load of playing four different characters was a bit much. That ended when he 'accidentally' fell getting out of the bomber set, injuring his leg. The injury disappeared after the role was recast. There are photos of him dressed as Major Kong.

Kubrick wanted Dan Blocker to play Major Kong. Although he was a social liberal, he turned the part down, as he felt the script was a bit "Pinko". Laughing

Slim Pickens said that because of the movie, after 20 years in the movie business, he went from Slim to Mr. Pickens.

When Slim Pickens showed up in England, he was dressed in bluejeans, a belt with a large belt buckle, cowboy boots, buckskin jacket and a cowboy hat. One of Englishmen seeing this, said: Oh Look! He came in costume.

David.
Back to top
Krel
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TCM is showing "Doctor Strangelove" tonight at 7 PM Central.

David.
Back to top
Bogmeister
Galactic Fleet Vice Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 574

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

____________

__

__

__

Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is Stanley Kubrick's zany version of Fail Safe (also 1964), about the imminent threat of nuclear war.

Only, "zany" is a simplistic description. I first watched this in high school, when someone brought in a print to screen for the students. I found some of it funny, but much of it went over my head. Back then — the late seventies — I wasn't very familiar with the mindset or zeitgeist of the fifties & sixties in America concerning the Bomb, the Cold War, and Communism.

__

The film is a curious mixture of near-slapstick and wry commentary. It's curious mostly for the fact that Kubrick is known for serious, almost solemn films. This was his only foray into dark comedy.

But as a teen, the commentary wasn't apparent to me, like
the lengthy rants and diatribes of the crazed General Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden). Yes, his name sounded funny but his almost endless commentary about communism and bodily fluids was just weird and incomprehensible.

It took me a few years of growing up to finally get in on the joke. In my defense, Kubrick filmed Hayden's scenes in such a way (with low angles) that many of them are more sinister and frightening than funny.

The same holds true for scenes inside the bomber plane — a style that usually fits something dramatic rather than comedic.

__

The joke — a very dark joke — is that the two most powerful nations on Earth could stoop to mutually-assured destruction over ideology.

The joke's on us: it all might happen by accident, unplanned, due to one key military man going nuts. The joke is that even though Communism might be an abhorrent, uninspired way of life, if we let paranoia rule us, it will only backfire on us — we will be our own worst enemy, not the enemies from behind the Iron Curtain.

Or so this film seems to be saying.

As with several Kubrick films, this points out the dangers of advanced machinery: in this film, the machinery is set up to blow up the world; all it takes is one little slip-up to put it all into motion and it's out of mankind's control. It shouldn't be funny . . . but Kubrick managed it somehow.



The structure of the film divides the story into three concurrently-running plotlines. The first concerns General Ripper snapping at his base of command, ordering bombers to attack the Russians, and the efforts of a Captain Mandrake (Peter Sellers) to bring some sanity to the situation.

The 2nd one all takes place aboard a bomber on its way to drop a nuke on a target in the Soviet Union. It's commanded by Major "King" Kong (Slim Pickens).

The 3rd involves the U.S. President (Sellers again, in bald make-up) and the top brass in the War Room dealing with the escalating situation. This includes a war hungry General played by George C. Scott and the titular character (also played by Sellers), a crazy scientist in a wheelchair who used to work for the Nazis.





Probably the more disturbing scenes in this film, even though it's a comedy, take place in the War Room. This is where we would expect to see the most rational voices, those being our leaders. But combined with the President's wea and ineffectual attitude, one also gets the impression that many in this room wouldn't mind a nuclear holocaust.

Mostly, some see this as a chance to wipe out the enemy — the Soviets — with the USA getting only some of the blowback (mostly voiced by Scott's uber-aggressive general).

Towards the end, the conversation shifts to wild post-war survival scenarios, including the infamous 10 women for every man set-up. It spells out that the leaders only really think of themselves in such a situation. The Chicago Sun-Times review summed it up best.

Dr. Strangelove's humor is generated by a basic comic principle: People trying to be funny are never as funny as people trying to be serious and failing.

BoG's Score: 8.5 out of 10



BoG
Galaxy Overlord Galactus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies and Serials from 1950 to 1969 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group