Talk:Fail Safe (1964 film)

Untitled comments

The 1964 film version had the misfortune to be released shortly after Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, which shares many obvious plot similarities with Fail-Safe, but adds black humour and satire to the mix. It proved not as successful in the theatres as it might have been.

Ummm ... it refers to which movie -- Strangelove or Fail-Safe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.37.19.100 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 27 September 2004.

The above comments some months ago by this anon. Andrewa 17:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Professor Groteschele (played by Walter Matthau in the 1964 movie), who is loosely based on Henry Kissinger, suggests the United States follow this accidental attack with a full-scale attack to force the Soviets to surrender.

According to [Herman_Kahn] the character is based on Herman Kahn, not Kissenger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nmueller (talk • contribs) 12:42, 28 April 2005.

• That's what I was wondering too. Kissinger was relatively unknown in 1962 (when the book was written) whereas Kahn published On Thermonuclear War in 1960. The character in the book has many similarities with Kissinger, though (German immigrant at about the same time, worked in de-Nazification activities after the war, studied in a notable history professor who was an advisor to presidents, etc.), many more than Kahn. I know that Burdick and Wheeler claim to have based their work on real people, so maybe they did consider Kissinger, even if he wasn't well known? (Kahn is mentioned in the book directly as someone Grotheschele knew). I don't know, but it's interesting to ponder... I haven't seen the movie, mind you, but I have read the book. --Fastfission 19:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The 2000 TV version used B-1 Lancer bombers.

I don't remember the details, but the TV movie was set in the 60's -- long before the Lancer.

All in all this article is highly suspect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nmueller (talk • contribs) 12:46, 28 April 2005.

Please sign your posts on talk pages, User:Nmueller, use four tildes ~~~~.

Agree this article needs a lot of work, but there's a lot of good content there too. The disambiguation section at the top should be split off to failsafe (disambiguation) for a start. Andrewa 17:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree too, the page had this bogus claim on it that Nuclear Launch Subs got their instructions from some kind of LongWave Morse Code!! HUH? This sounded so crazy... i checked my memory banks for the movie Crimson Tide with Hackman and Denzel and remembered that at the end ... there was a Producer's note that the President had changed the keys on all the subs and instead they would use blue lasers from Satellites, which can penetrate Water to a great depth, and are more secure than radio signals. There have been articles on fool-proof laser-encryption networks .. getting out of the lab and into the real world... [recently]. This promises to help Computing become Truly Secure in the Future. Maxon1311 13:37 30-JUN-2005 (EDT).

this bogus claim on it that Nuclear Launch Subs got their instructions from some kind of LongWave Morse Code Are you alluding to very low frequency or extremely low frequency communications? David.Monniaux 14:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear submarines first receive their instructions by long-wave radio, which can penetrate seawater. However, they can't receive detailed instructions. They do receive an warning message by VLF, and then proceed to a depth where they can receive the messages by laser. I've been following Naval communications for years on this. GABaker 5 June 2006 (UTC).

A question about the 2000 TV movie

At the very end of the movie, shortly before dropping the bomb, the pilot appears to inject himself with something. What? Why? Or did I misinterpret what I saw? Barnabypage 21:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

- Don't know what exactly he injected himself with, but my guess is cyanide because he kills himself. My guess is that he did it so that he would not have to live with what he did. Remember, he told his men that dropping the bomb on NY was his responsibility so that no one else could be blamed.

--This also happened in the 1960s movie. GABaker 17:25 9 April 2006 [UTC]

--- The book is more specific about it. In it, he winds up dropping the bomb, more or less, right on top of his wife and children. He simply couldn't live with himself afterwards! 71.233.230.223 (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Fail-safe" used as a term

This claim was once the article's last sentence: "The term "fail-safe" has entered common speech based on the plot of the movie; it means to allow some sort of modest retaliation, or even perform it yourself, to avoid a greater escalation of hostilities."

I have removed it, because it is unsourced, and contradicts my own understanding of the word (confirmed by a peek at Dictionary.com). Fail-safe, in everyday speech, seems to mean exactly what it's original "engineering use" would suggest: A measure intended to mitigate total failure in the event of an unexpected malfunction or unintended circumstance. This meaning has little to do with "retaliation". Xoloz 02:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)#

i.e. a piece of equipment should fail into a safe condition. Which means that the film's title is probably a wry joke; the system fails deadly. -Ashley Pomeroy 01:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

'Fail safe' originally comes from railways (US 'railroads') in the 19th century. If the rod or wire controlling a semaphore signal broke, the signal would automatically drop to show 'danger' (with the red rather than green lens over the light) and stop oncoming trains. In the film, the idea is that US bombers on a pre-alert will fly to their 'fail-safe' points and orbit there, and will not proceed unless given a positive order to attack. The bombers are then mistakenly given the order and we see the captain of one aircraft open his sealed envelope to reveal a big card reading 'Moscow'. Kubrick's Dr Strangelove is far more realistic in that the primary and secondary targets are pre-assigned and all the bombers need is the go-code. Fail Safe shows an obsolete procedure, high-level penetration by supersonic B-58s, which was no longer possible in 1964 due to Soviet missile defences. In fact B-58s had been re-roled for subsonic low-level penetration, and in that flight regime they would not have the fuel endurance to reach Moscow from the nearest NATO bases, so they were tasked to attack defensive installations which were a bit closer, enabling B-52s to strike Moscow with Hound Dog stand-off missiles. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fail safe moviep.jpg

Image:Fail safe moviep.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

American bomber planes are deployed to meet the potential threat

American fighert planes are deployed to meet the potential threat. Strategic bombers are dispersed... George O'Connor (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

SSB _is_ easily jammed!

I am strongly tempted to wipe out the entire section about the radio jamming inaccuracy! The only difference between SSB and AM voice is that you need a bit over twice as much power - all other things being equal - to make a given channel or range unusable. Not really a big technical hurdle. EAMs can be sent on several channels at high power, but the fact that SSB is used hardly changes anything! If anyone seconds this, I'll do the delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spamhog (talk • contribs) 16:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed--maybe the writer mean single-sideband spread-spectrum, which is more difficult to jam. Dkazdan (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

B-52, not B-58's, right?

The article says:

"However, due to a technical failure, the attack code of "CAP 811" (rather than the recall order) is transmitted to Group Six, which consists of six Vindicator supersonic bombers (see B-58 Hustler as used for stand-in aircraft in the movie: Dr. Strangelove)."

Didn't Dr. Strangelove use only a B-52 mockup, and no B-58's? – Wdfarmer (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You've got two different movies here- Dr. Stranglove... was set in a B-52 base and had them attacking the Soviet Union while Fail Safe had fictional "Vindicators" that were actually B-58 Hustlers in drag. LOL FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC).

That's my point. Why does this article say "see B-58 Hustler as used for stand-in aircraft in the movie: Dr. Strangelove" if no B-58's were used in Dr. Strangelove? – Wdfarmer (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Corrected although the note about the B-58 is in two places (a bit repetitive but is important as a production note). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC).

Right Techie1964 (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Whose wife was in New York City?

I recall the film's ending as a newspaper showing the President's wife was in NYC, not Blackie's. However, I'm not sure enough of that to correct what is listed in the article. Can anyone else confirm my suspicion? Jhugart (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there was such a mention of the President's wife also being there, but I think the article is still correct about Black's wife and kids being there. At one point, the President asks Black something like, "Are Katie and the kids in New York today?" When Black replies that they are, the President then says something like, "I may be asking an awful lot of you."

Black is a general, not Secret Service, nor a personal aide to the President or anything like that. So there's no reason the President should expect Black to know the First Lady's location better than the President himself would know. So I'm pretty sure the President was inquiring about Black's wife at that point, not about his own. Further, I think I recall the film's opening scene had established Black's wife's name as Katie and that their family lived in New York, with Black having started that day by flying from there down to Washington. 63.110.89.212 (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Both the first lady and General Black's wife/family are in New York 98.118.94.78 (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Enlarging the plot

There is no problem in adding more details in the plot section, bearing in mind, that there are typically recommended size limits to be considered. Increasing the plot section recently by a three-fold measure, was likely a place to consider some pruning of the new submissions. The plot also should not elaborate on film devices, but these can become part of the lede statement or production section. 16:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Who was sued?

The section about the plagiarism lawsuit is unclear as to whether the film's producers were sued by the writer of Red Alert or the authors of the novel. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Abraham '59

Saw a reference that Harvey Wheeler had said he'd written the original version of the story in 1956, eventually published as Abraham '59. Found this article where he does so. Also relates to the lawsuit section.
Relevant section;
"My original Dissent “Christmas fantasy” was based on the biblical Abraham. God made Abraham’s salvation depend on his willingness to sacrifice his own son. “Abraham ‘58” I titled the story when the mailings started in 1957. It appeared as “Abraham ’59” by F. B. Aiken. In real life I study the work of the 17th century philosopher who signed himself “F. Bacon.” F.B. Aiken made me a good pen name. It got the lead cover listing of the Winter 1959 Dissent : “Abraham ’59 – a Nuclear Fantasy,” by F.B. Aiken. Bud Burdick was given a copy but he had forgotten.

The late Martin Gang (Gang, Tyre, Rudin & Brown) was our lawyer. He had assigned to us a very bright and personable young attorney, Frank Wells – later to become President of Disney. When the law suit struck, and without telling any of the others, I called Frank for an appointment - “got something to show you.” The upscale Hollywood law offices of Gang, Tyre, Rudin & Brown were quietly sedate. After being seated across from Frank’s desk I handed him the Dissent issue. He was puzzled. I pointed out the Aiken article. Still puzzlement. “Aiken is my pen name,” I explained. “Oh,....so..?” “Yes, this is the first version of Fail-Safe, but I actually wrote the story in 1956 and tried for two years to publish it everywhere.” Frank scanned “Abraham” quickly. A big grin spread across his face. He picked up the magazine and ran through the offices waving it and yelling “We won!... we won!” And we did, handsomely.

A noisy five-way conference phone call was held: Burdick in Japan, our film agent, Ziggie Zigler in Pasadena, Martin Gang in Hollywood, Max Youngstein in New York, and me in Santa Barbara. I argued we should press a counter-suit against Columbia, Kubrick and Peter George, author of Red Alert - he’d been fiction editor at more than one of the U.S. magazines I’d sent “Abraham ‘58"! But the bad phone connections made argument impossible. A suit would tie up our film, and Youngstein’s account was hemorrhaging. I agreed to a settlement. Columbia Pictures took over the film contract and made the picture just like Youngstein wanted. F.B. Aiken and “Abraham ‘59” figure prominently in our settlement contract with Columbia."219.88.68.195 (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hyphen?

I'd like to put forward the suggestion that the title page of this Wikipedia article (and within the article) be changed from Fail Safe, to Fail-Safe. The title card during the film's opening has a hyphen between the two words. The original novel also has a hyphen (as per its Wikipedia page).

(Though I do note that the film's original trailer has no hyphen, and neither does some of the film posters of the time)

--Rhettrospective (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I too noticed that the film itself was inconsistent with the hyphen. The term should have one, or be a single word, but for some reason, the film production was ambiguous about it. I sometimes wonder if the image of the plane in the poster is meant to be the hyphen. Note that IMDb hyphenates its entry for the film. Eric ^talk 12:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that as well on the poster, and one could consider that to represent a hyphen.

The film title itself is hyphenated in the opening credit, so I suspect it should be added. Problem is, I can't see where in the Edit tab one actually changes the heading of the wikipedia page --Rhettrospective (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Renaming an article is done by moving the page. See WP:Move. It might be good to get some input from other editors first. Eric ^talk 16:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

"Plagiarism"

The article says "Fail Safe so closely resembled Red Alert that George filed a plagiarism lawsuit", citing LoBrutto, p. 242. The use of "plagiarism" is consistent with what LoBrutto says (although LoBrutto suggests it was Kubrick, not George, who sued; but the passive voice makes it hard to be certain): "A plagiarism suit was launched against Youngstein's ECA, Burdick, Wheeler, their publisher McGraw-Hill, and Curtis Publishing, which serialized Fail-Safe."

The only problem is, plagiarism isn't (and wasn't in 1963) grounds for suit. Plagiarism is the academic offense of using someone else's words or ideas without giving proper credit, passing them off as one's own. What was undoubtedly filed here was a copyright infringement suit. An act can be both copyright infringement and plagiarism, but only the copyright infringement is actionable. (For example, copy ideas without giving credit: plagiarism, an academic no-no, but completely legal; copy a chapter or two of someone else's work, but being upfront that someone else is the author: no plagiarism, but actionable copyright infringement; copy a plot of a novel: plagiarism, if no credit is given, and maybe copyright infringement, depending on the scope of protection and exactly what was used, but only the copyright infringement aspect is actionable.)

So do we replicate LoBrutto's error, and incorrectly say it was a suit for "plagiarism"; or do we correct it to "copyright infringement" and possibly going astray of WP:OR? TJRC (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Never mind; after a moment's reflection, the solution was obvious; find better sources that get it right and edit accordingly, sidestepping the OR issue. TJRC (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Russian general?

The voice actor who played the Russian general (Kornilev?) is not listed. 47.200.80.102 (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)