What show are you watching right now?

[Montegriffo]

Well, actually not so much a grind, since you were Island Hopping, so intense fights, for smaller pieces of ground

You're in the naval war at all times in the Pacific.

I meant a grind to watch.

I'm more interested in the Cold War and Vietnam anyways, war is boring without hydrogen bombs.

Dr Strangelove was on a couple of nights ago.
Not seen it in a while. Sellers really hammed it up.
I hadn't realised that Kubrick had started off making a serious film.

[Smitty-48]

I meant a grind to watch.

I'm more interested in the Cold War and Vietnam anyways, war is boring without hydrogen bombs.

Dr Strangelove was on a couple of nights ago.
Not seen it in a while. Sellers really hammed it up.
I hadn't realised that Kubrick had started off making a serious film.

The Cuban Missile Crisis changed the zeitgeist ; gallows humor.

[Montegriffo]

Dr Strangelove was shown after Rich Hall's cold war essay ''Red Menace''.
Interesting watch.

[Smitty-48]

Dr Strangelove was shown after Rich Hall's cold war essay ''Red Menace''.
Interesting watch.

Not really, boring cynical priggish anti-nuclear dogma seems to me.

I'd rather watch Castle Bravo.

[brewster]

I hadn't realised that Kubrick had started off making a serious film.

On what do you base that? It was a close satire of the book and already released movie Failsafe. To make a serious movie he'd have had to remake a movie just a few years old. Trivia: Larry Hagman had a minor part in Failsafe as the President's translator.

Edit: just checked, they were both released in 64. I guess he changed course rather than do the same thing.

Just crazy.Wiki:

During the filming of Dr. Strangelove, Stanley Kubrick learned that Fail Safe, a film with a similar theme, was being produced. Although Fail Safe was to be an ultrarealistic thriller, Kubrick feared that its plot resemblance would damage his film's box office potential, especially if it were released first. Indeed, the novel Fail-Safe (on which the film is based) is so similar to Red Alert that Peter George sued on charges of plagiarism and settled out of court.[47] What worried Kubrick the most was that Fail Safe boasted the acclaimed director Sidney Lumet and the first-rate dramatic actors Henry Fonda as the American president and Walter Matthau as the advisor to the Pentagon, Professor Groeteschele. Kubrick decided to throw a legal wrench into Fail Safe's production gears. Lumet recalled in the documentary Inside the Making of Dr. Strangelove: "We started casting. Fonda was already set ... which of course meant a big commitment in terms of money. I was set, Walter [Bernstein, the screenwriter] was set ... And suddenly, this lawsuit arrived, filed by Stanley Kubrick and Columbia Pictures."

Kubrick argued that Fail Safe's own source novel Fail-Safe (1960) had been plagiarized from Peter George's Red Alert, to which Kubrick owned creative rights. He pointed out unmistakable similarities in intentions between the characters Groeteschele and Strangelove. The plan worked, and Fail Safe opened eight months after Dr. Strangelove, to critical acclaim but mediocre ticket sales.

[Montegriffo]

Dr Strangelove was shown after Rich Hall's cold war essay ''Red Menace''.
Interesting watch.

Not really, boring cynical priggish anti-nuclear dogma seems to me.

I'd rather watch Castle Bravo.

I like Rich Hall.
Probably too much of a leftie for you.

[Smitty-48]

Dr Strangelove was shown after Rich Hall's cold war essay ''Red Menace''.
Interesting watch.

Not really, boring cynical priggish anti-nuclear dogma seems to me.

I'd rather watch Castle Bravo.

I like Rich Hall.
Probably too much of a leftie for you.

Redwing Tewa

Three stage, uranium tamper, 87% fission, 5 megaton yield

Who needs cobalt thorium g?

[Haumana]

But while you make a good point, "real" critics have skin in the game, if readers find their reviews are not credible, they'll stop reading.

That's cute.

What, you think a pro reviewer will keep his job if no one thinks he's right? The Times had an advice columnist in the Sunday business section that we thought was particularly awful, and lo and behold, they did not last long. There's plenty of reviewers and columnists I either don't read or take with a grain of salt. Particularly theater. Apparently the wife and I have lowbrow taste and have liked several shows reviewers panned and hated some well reviewed ones.

You still have faith in the MSM, so there is that.

But we have strayed away from your knee jerk reaction to the the reviews of the AOC flick. You thought that the negative reviews were based on political reasons and never really considered the inverse that the positive reviews could also be political because skin or something.

What keeps these "real" critics in business? It ain't their reviews. Its what sells advertising dollars. That you use any of that horseshit as a measuring stick to your wife and your tastes is another tell.

[brewster]

What keeps these "real" critics in business? It ain't their reviews. Its what sells advertising dollars.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. What sells adverts, if not their reviews? Why would you continue to "pay" for advice that time after time has been wrong for you?

[Haumana]

What keeps these "real" critics in business? It ain't their reviews. Its what sells advertising dollars.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. What sells adverts, if not their reviews? Why would you continue to "pay" for advice that time after time has been wrong for you?

Wrong for whom? The person paying? John Q public ain't footing the bill. You not understanding is a given. Do you know what embedded advertisements are?