Talk:WarGames

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

---

Contents 1 Wardialing? 2 WarGames and chess 3 Norad Set 4 Poltical Commentary 5 Scenario List? 6 Global Thermonuclear War Screen Saver?? 7 Game theory 8 WOPR and A.I. 9 false premise 10 Bob Badham? 11 A book too! 12 science fiction? 13 Mistake in trivia? 14 Reason for "a strange game"... 15 Integrate the trivia section 16 What does Kevin Costner have with any of this? 17 Defcon

[edit] Wardialing?

Wardialling anyone? // Liftarn

See War dialing.--Patrick 08:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WarGames and chess

I thought it was interesting that writer Lawrence Lasker's father Edward Lasker was a leading american chess player, with the script often speaking of chess, down to the repeated quote "How about a nice game of chess?". Not sure if that qualifies it as trivia though; I just found it interesting personally, wondering if that could even have been something his own father had said; much like Joshua's father had programmed him to do the same. -- Jugalator 20:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norad Set

Something is not right here - The article states the million dollar set was the most expensive to date. The Volcano in the 1967 James Bond "You only live twice" also cost a million dollars. Either it cost more than a million, or it was not the most expensive to date.. http://www.moviemistakes.com/film1432/trivia http://www.dvdcorner.net/html/youonlylive2.html Commking October 20 2005

[edit] Poltical Commentary

In the Analysis section it seems someone is getting a little too political: "Like other "Doomsday" movies it was produced for and used for advancing one side of the debate on nuclear disarmament," along with the line "Like other "Doomsaday" movies at its core is a false premise." I am not sure if that belongs in the article. These were both added by the same IP address.

The "disarmament" comment is gone, but the "false premise" one is still there (3/2006). I agree this lacks NPOV. The "false premise" (that military systems can be reached by modem and telephone) is patently not false in the movie's fictional universe, and the author does not cite evidence that it's false in the real world. Wishing the US military had closed-loop security for a system like this doesn't make it so.

[edit] Scenario List?

Would it be alright to have a list of the various scenarios the computer runs? I once made a list using a videotape copy, and while the early ones are quite viable, some of the later ones are downright silly. Perhaps someone who has the dvd could post it in the Trivia section? CFLeon 01:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for... 40 minutes of step framing my DVD gives the following list. A few are educated completions of words blocked by heads/etc but some are impossible to see in total. A bit too long a list for the trivia section. Maybe a token selection of the silly ones?

Scenario List
1.	US first strike	2.	USSR first strike	3.	NATO / Warsaw Pact	4.	Far East strategy	5.	US USSR escalation
6.	Middle East war	7.	USSR - China attack	8.	India Pakistan war	9.	Mediterranean war	10.	Hongkong variant
11.	SEATO decapitating	12.	Cuban provocation	13.	Inadvertant	14.	Atlantic heavy	15.	Cuban paramilitary
16.	Nicaraguan preemptive	17.	Pacific territorial	18.	Burmese theaterwide	19.	Turkish decoy	20.	NATO ...?
21.	Angentina [sic] escalation	22.	Iceland maximum	23.	Arabian theatrewide	24.	U.S. subversion	25.	Australian maneuver
26.	Iranian diversion	27.	...? limited	28.	Sudan surprise	29.	NATO territorial	30.	Zaire alliance
31.	Iceland incident	32.	English escalation	33.	Zaire sudden	34.	Egypt paramilitary	35.	Middle East heavy
36.	Mexican takeover	37.	Chad alert	38.	Saudi maneuver	39.	African territorial	40.	Ethiopian escalation
41.	Canadian ...?	42.	Turkish heavy	43.	NATO incursion	44.	U.S. defense	45.	Cambodian heavy
46.	Pact medium	47.	Arctic minimal	48.	Mexican domestic	49.	Taiwan theatrewide	50.	Pacific maneuver
51.	Portugal revolution	52.	Albanian decoy	53.	Palistinian [sic] local	54.	Moroccan minimal	55.	Hungarian diversion
56.	Czech option	57.	French alliance	58.	Arabian clandestine	59.	Gabon rebellion	60.	Northern maximum
61.	...?rian surprise	62.	...?sh paramilitary	63.	SEATO takeover	64.	Hawaiian escalation	65.	Iranian maneuver
66.	NATO containment	67.	Swiss incident	68.	Cuban minimal	69.	Chad alert	70.	Iceland escalation
71.	Vietnamese retaliation	72.	Syrian provocation	73.	Libyan local	74.	Gabon takeover	75.	Romanian war
76.	Middle East offensive	77.	Denmark massive	78.	Chile confrontation	79.	S.African subversion	80.	USSR alert
81.	Nicaraguan thrust	82.	Greenland domestic	83.	Iceland heavy	84.	Kenya option	85.	Pacific defense
86.	Uganda maximum	87.	Thai subversion	88.	Romanian strike	89.	Pakistan sovereignty	90.	Afghan misdirection
91.	Thai variation	92.	Northern territorial	93.	Polish paramilitary	94.	S.African offensive	95.	Panama misdirection
96.	Scandinavian domestic	97.	Jordan preemptive	98.	English thrust	99.	Burmese maneuver	100.	Spain counter
101.	Arabian offensive	102.	Chad interdiction	103.	Taiwan misdirection	104.	Bangladesh theaterwid [sic]	105.	Ethiopian local
106.	Italian takeover	107.	Vietnamese incident	108.	English preemptive	109.	Denmark alternate	110.	Thai confrontation
111.	Taiwan surprise	112.	Brazilian strike	113.	Venezuala sudden	114.	Maylasian alert	115.	Isreal discretionary
116.	Libyan action	117.	Palistinian [sic] tactical	118.	NATO alternate	119.	Cypress maneuver	120.	Egypt misdirection
121.	Bangladesh thrust	122.	Kenya defense	123.	Bangladesh containmen [sic]	124.	Vietnamese strike	125.	Albanian containment
126.	Gabon suprise	127.	Iraq sovereignty	128.	Vietnamese sudden	129.	Lebanon interdiction	130.	Taiwan domestic
131.	Algerian sovereignty	132.	Arabian strike	133.	Atlantic sudden	134.	Mongolian thrust	135.	Polish decoy
136.	Alaskan discretionary	137.	Canadian thrust	138.	Arabian light	139.	S.African domestic	140.	Tunisian incident
141.	Maylasisn maneuver	142.	Jamaica decoy	143.	Malasian minimal	144.	Russian sovereignty	145.	Chad option
146.	Bangladesh war	147.	Burmese containment	148.	Asian theatrewide	149.	Bulgarian clandestine	150.	Greenland incursion
151.	Egypt surgical	152.	Czech heavy	153.	Taiwan confrontation	154.	Greenland maximum	155.	Uganda offensive
156.	Caspian defense

Sapient 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! We started that exercise once but couldn't complete it! If no one objects, I'd certainly like to see that included in the article, perhaps as a nice multi-column table. I thought it was "SEATO decapitation", though. :-) )

Atlant 23:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As I was half-watching CSI when composing the list you've prompted me to re-check. Decapitating I'm afraid :-) I'm no good at tables in wiki, but your idea seems a good one. Sapient 12:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Decapitating" -- Thanks, got it! - Atlant 12:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Shall We Play A Game? --WOPR 13:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing more challenging than Tic-Tac-Toe, thanks!

Atlant 14:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

WOULDN'T YOU PREFER A GOOD GAME OF CHESS? Sapient 14:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

WHY DIDN'T YOU GIVE ME A GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR SCREEN SAVER, PROFESSOR FALCON? 

no seriously, I want a global thermonuclear / tic-tac-toe playing screen saver like from the end of the movie for my computer!! does such a thing exist??? --Nerd42 19:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Thermonuclear War Screen Saver??

Well ... I've been doing some searches ... and nothing really good has come up as yet, but these people are at least trying. Come on ... somebody make something cool plz!! --Nerd42 19:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game theory

WarGames has nothing to do with Prisoner's Dilemma or Nash equilibria. Loosely, it might be said that Joshua uses backwards induction to determine that the only subgame perfect equilibrium is not to start any nuclear war. The paragraph in the article was confusing and added little. Amcfreely 17:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph I added was written poorly in a confusing manner. However, I do believe this is a big theme in the movie. When Joshua is able to determine that the only "subgame perfect equilibrium" is to not start a nuclear way in the first place, it demonstrates to the audience the futility of such a war and the rationale of game theory. Joshua has two choices, per side(as he is his own opponent) in the nuclear war game. Because he can choose whether to launch or not, analogous to "cooperating" or "defecting," Joshua learns the various outcomes in this Prisoner's Dilemma. If he launches for both players, the outcome is bad(in that both sides lose to nuclear wipeout), but surely not as bad as not launching for only one player, as that player will be destroyed and lose. By computing these iterations over and over, Joshua finally realizes that both sides are better off if they don't launch in the first place. It is only because Joshua is able to play as both sides that he can come to such rationale(so says game theory). --Dameyawn 19:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WOPR and A.I.

AFAIR, Falken states that WOPR is a self-learning program ("Artificial Intelligence" comes to mind, an popular idea in the 1980s). When left alone, WOPR continually computes attack plans, in order to improve itself. This appears to be a key point in the plot (IMHO), yet it's missing in the article. --Klaws 16:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold! (And your recollection matches mine; in plot exposition, one of the characters (McKettrick?) explicitly discusses this.)

Atlant 16:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] false premise

Can someone expand/clarify the false premise of the modem breaking into the "closed loop"? PMA 18:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Badham?

Why does the article call the director "Bob (John Badham)"? The latter is his name, so who is Bob? --Arteitle 07:24 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it was some kind of vandalism, so I removed the "Bob". --Arteitle 07:29 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] A book too!

Hi, it might be worth adding that there was a book based on the film as well, by david bischoff. didn't see it in the article. 14:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.151.211.131 (talk • contribs) .

If you're certain (e.g., looked it up on Amazon so have an ISBN, etc.), please feel free to be bold and add that fact to the article. (We have an ISBN template; see any article abou a book for an example of its use.)

Atlant 14:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] science fiction?

Hmm. Should this really be classified under science fiction as a film?

--Leathlaobhair 00:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, certain aspects of the film clearly are fictionalized (for example, WOPR/Joshua understanding conversational English), but basically the movie is action-adventure more than sci-fi. I'm ambivalent.

Atlant 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake in trivia?

In "Trivia", I find this :

GOOFUPS: While being held in the NORAD infirmary, Broderick's character plays a tape recorder. The tape plays a doctor's voice saying "...patient's eyes are dilated, which is consistent with marijuana use...". Actually though, marijuana use does not dilate the pupil but it fact constricts them, a common misconception.

I would tend to think marijuana does indeed dilate pupils. When I smoke it, my pupils do look wide open, and intense light sources are painful, which seems logical (the eyes receive too much light).

[edit] Reason for "a strange game"...

In the article it says; "It has apparently realised that the only way to win a war (to protect the United States and neutralize all threats to it) against an equally matched opponent, is not to go to war in the first place."

However, I don't think that is the case, actually it would be more like that the system had figured out that it was unable for any nation with nuclear weapons to win such a war, it is careless weither or not the US wins, it is a freaking machine. Like it says itself, the primary goal is to win the game! --[Svippong - Talk] 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Integrate the trivia section

Please see WP:Trivia and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles L0b0t 02:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the header from "Lose the trivia section" to "Integrate the trivia section" as this more accurately reflects the policy you link to. After all, "This guideline does not suggest deletion of trivia sections".195.24.29.51 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the trivia section will deleted as soon as the info is integrated, "lose" is accurate. Not a big deal though, 6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other. Cheers. L0b0t 16:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does Kevin Costner have with any of this?

One of the bullet points in the trivia section reads "Kevin Costner turned down the lead role for a part in The Big Chill, which was eventually cut.". Que? 195.24.29.51 16:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defcon

Perhaps it should be noted in trivia that the new game "Defcon" from Introversion is inspired by Wargames.