Talk:Dr. Strangelove

George C Scott's performance - The Jones version.

Much is being made of the alleged "trick" pulled by Kubrick to dupe George C Scott into a "more outlandish performance than he was comfortable with".

This is from an early 2000s account written by veteran actor James Earl Jones. Jones appeared in the film as part of Major Kong's B-52 crew, and is only seen on-screen with that portion of the cast, and only on the bomber interior set.

Jones at no point appears on the same set as, or actin g alongside, Scott. Their characters never interact nor are aware of one another individually.

Scott, if 'tricked' as alleged by Jones almost forty years after the event, thus performed every single one of his character's scenes in a faultlessly comical or farcical manner, without once suspecting that the entire movie was a farcical comedy in actual fact.

Scott's character was named 'Buck Turgidson' and was senior to one named 'Jack D Ripper', acting alongside a noted comedic actor playing a character named 'Merkin D Muffley'. Scott did not realise this was a comedy? Or was simply aware of the farcical nature, but thought he would perform two differently-toned versions of the same farce?

If neither of those, then Scott would have been working with two different scripts, where character names would have to have been 'toned down' to fit in line with this supposed conspiracy.

I have modified the phrasing of this section, as it is believed to be fact by many (the story is regularly recounted in public forums as fact), when it is, at best, apocryphal, owing to the relationship of the source (actor Jones) to the subject (actor Scott) at the time these events occurred. 86.180.132.21 (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

All of this above is your personal analysis and amounts to WP:OR. The sentence is sourced and already notes it is "According to...". The qualifier you inserted is unnecessary and I have removed it. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 14:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, the allegation is that Kubrick often required dozens (sometimes hundreds) of takes, and often selected "goof" takes which hadn't been taken very seriously on the film set to be edited into the final film. So during the great majority of takes, Scott could have been acting in a more dignified way than seen in the film... AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

What is the problem with my edit? You can't explain the reason?

Many articles on films include the country (in this case, the countries) of origin. Both U.S. and U.K. film authorities awarded honors to "Dr. Strangelove" as a film originating in THEIR country. The confusion over this is easily resolved by including "British-American" in the opening paragraph. I don't see what the problem is, and you don't see fit to explain what it is. Rontrigger (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

As per the relevant guidelines at WP:MOSFILM#Lead section: "If the nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), identify it in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section".

Since this film is an international co-production between the U.K. and the U.S. as indicated in the infobox, we don't list the nationalities in the opening sentence. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

AFI cited the film on two lists: the best American movies, and the funniest American films.

It was nominated for a BAFTA award as Best British Film.

The guidelines are only that--guidelines. They are not ironclad rules without exceptions. And clearly there is an unexpected problem here. The nationality is not singular, yet there is a seeming contradiction that should be explained before going further into the lead section.

What is wrong with a simple clarification in the opening sentence making it unneccessary to go to the Infobox? In fact, isn't it possible that someone might not think of consulting the Infobox? Rontrigger (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason here to not follow the guideline. The issue with films involving multiple countries is that to frontload all the countries creates an uncommon label (like "Brazil-Canadian-Japanese") which does not indicate who did what. To avoid disputes about if a a film is American, British, or American-British, the point of the guideline is to instead unpack the multiple countries' involvement in fuller context than available in the opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree. But in the opening paragraph the honors given by AFI identify "Dr. Strangelove" as an American film, while BAFTA actually nominated it for Best British Film. I think identifying the film immediately as "British-American" would resolve any confusion--especially since a reader might not think to check the Infobox and in any case shouldn't be forced to do so. Rontrigger (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I added a sentence at the end of the lead section's first paragraph to provide context. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I really appreciate your help in this matter. Rontrigger (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Dan Blocker

Blocker was widely known as a liberal Democrat who strongly opposed the Vietnam War. The "pinko" comment about his refusal of the role seems suspect at best.

https://www.nytimes.com/1972/05/15/archives/tv-impressed-an-image.html 2603:8081:9C00:50C2:B8A4:F3DB:73CA:3A19 (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Vietnam was barely on the U.S. political radar in 1963 (when the movie was being made), and anyway, it's Dan Blocker's agent who was said to have that reaction. AnonMoos (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)