Talk:WarGames/Archive 1

Wardialing?

Wardialling anyone? // Liftarn

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

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)

Probably comes from 2001, and certainly pops up in 2010. 68Kustom (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This struck me as well. It's presumably sourced from the IMDB, and therefore has to stand, but it looks out of place because it is right up there in the opening paragraph (in fact it's one of only a handful of actual facts about the making of the film, the bulk of the article is a lengthy description of the plot). The IMDB describes the "You Only Live Twice" set as costing $1m,[1] in 1967 dollars. Presumably the 1963 version of Cleopatra was expensive as well. It seems odd that the relatively modest war room set for WarGames should hold a record; unless this factors in the cost of lighting up the screens. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If IMDB contradicts itself, then why should it stand? IMDB only cites the director's commentary on the DVD, and that cite isn't about the cost specifically. At least, I'd suggest changing to "one of the most expensive sets to date" --Bobbozzo (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The trivia section of IMDb is not a reliable source so the accuracy of this information is questionable. The DVD commentary, however, is a reliable source. What does it actually say? I've removed the information from the article for now till a reliable source can found. For future reference the sentence as it appeared in the article was "With a cost of $1 million, the NORAD set was the most expensive single movie set ever built up to that time." - kollision (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 Launch	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 retaliatio [sic]	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 [sic] 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.	Maylasian [sic] maneuver	142.	Jamaica decoy	143.	Maylasian [sic] minimal	144.	Russian sovereignty	145.	Chad option
146.	Bangladesh war	147.	Burmese containment	148.	Asian theaterwide	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)

I just spent more time than I want to admit to checking the DVD and have found a major error on the above scenario table. The scenarios are in groups of 7 per screen, and on the second screen #14 is completely obscured on the full-screen view. However, the early screens are also seen in long-shots and it is clear that there is SOMETHING there (and not just from the numbering system), but I couldn't see it clear on my screen (partially from the resolution, partially from the angle shown). This has the effect of moving ALL scenarios on the above table from #14 on, one number higher. Try as I could, the last screen that I could catch was the 22nd, with "Taiwan Confrontation" being the last one at #154. There are a couple of other things of note: there seems to be at least one, and maybe two, gaps when the camera is on other things for long intervals; after the 15th screen the scenarios are on a partial screen seen from an angle which makes for more difficult reading (not to mention they appear faster and faster with flashing lights), and at least one, "Chad Alert", is repeated (#s 38 & 70). I'd like to change the table to reflect the grouping of sevens, but have no idea of how to do this. CFLeon 21:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a nice analysis of a similar list at http://airminded.org/2008/08/07/a-strange-game/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbozzo (talk • contribs) 00:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

false premise

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

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)

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)

I just dug out my dusty old paperback book copy of this. It was by Dell Publishing Co, Inc., Copyright (c) 1983 by United Artist Corporation. ISBN: 0-440-19387-7 On the cover it says: A novel by David Bischoff based on the original screenplay by Lawrence Lasker & Walter F. Parkes --Nomad Of Norad (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

The movie extrapolates from the scientific ideas and technological advancements of the time and deals with their implications. This makes it closer to 'hard' science fiction than space-opera, certainly not action-adventure. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs).

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).

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)

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)

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)

Defcon

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

Yes, I have done it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LauKorsgaard (talk • contribs) 17:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Goof?

"In the film, David, showing Jennifer how he can hack into various computer systems, goes into an airline database and books a reservation for her, to Paris, under her name. However, later in the film, Dr. McKittridge asks David why he had booked a flight to Paris."

Is this really a "goof?" Maybe the tickets (pural, there were two) were in her name, but I think the audience can reasonably assume that the reservation was tracked back to David's computer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.28.59 (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Good point. I'll go remove it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But McKittridge asks him, "you bought two tickets to Paris. Who are you working with?" implying that they know he bought the tickets, but don't know who the other traveller is. If they traced the purchase back to David's computer in Jennifer's name, they'd know his "accomplice." 70.177.186.96 08:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind this was before home computers were so easily traced as they are now, and before Caller ID was prevalent. That doesn't mean they couldn't have, though. Dramatic plot elements in TV and movies often do not stand up to close scrutiny. For example, the dramatic part about the computer figuring out the code doesn't make sense. It does kind of a "countdown", each section taking half the time of the previous. At some point, a worried technician remarks, "It's got half the code." However, unless someone screwed up the programming, it would never have "half the code". Every permutation either is the code, or is not the code. This is the biggest gaffe in the film. Wahkeenah 10:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Not too hard to trace.... FBI gets his phone records, discovers that he called several phone numbers Sunnyvale, California that were for modem access and that one of those happens to be Pan Am flight reservations... and how many people were reserving their flights online during that time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.5.10.140 (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There was another more serious goof. The modem he used was an acoustic coupler. There's no way he could have used it for war dialing.108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC).

Not a goof. The kid is a fricking genius! you don't think he could hack together a computer controlled relay to automatically hangup the phone without physically removing the handset from the acoustic coupler? It only took me 2.2 seconds to figure out how to do it.The Goat (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The later generation acoustic coupled modems DID have dialer capabilities. I know, as I used to own one. As far as "the kid is a fricking genius", it appears that someone has difficulty noticing that the film was a work of fiction, not a biography. Someone quite bright in computing may or may not be excellent in electronics. Either way, it's irrelevant, as this is a work of fiction, he could've as easily pulled his modem out of his TARDIS.Wzrd1 (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wargames 2

Wargames 2 has just started filming, So there needs to be a new article, and a link to it fron here. right? see: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/12/19/2012243.shtml http://forums.introversion.co.uk/defcon/viewtopic.php?t=3670 also see everything at the top of a google search 'wargames 2'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.73.130 (talk • contribs) (23:14, 20 December 2006)

Wargames PC Game

There is a WarGames Real Time Strategy for the PC released in 1998.

Linky

This should be added to the article. The game is not very well known but it is definitely a fun RTS. (: Yes, I know I can edit it myself, but I am wicked tired at the moment and very busy; I do not have the hour or two to spare to write the article satisfactorily to my standards. --Ihmhi 14:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd pop in and mention that a game based on Wargames was on PSX too (not the same game), it was more of a third person shooter than a rts, really. Set in the future, Could choose to be NORAD or WOPR , Wagames DefCon 1--Fr3k3r 17:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of computer games, I remember there being a game printed in the old RAINBOW MAGAZINE back in the 1980s directly patterned after the "Global ThermoNuclear War" simulation in the movie, right down to the graphics style. I can't find a reference to this online anywhere, though... --Nomad Of Norad (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Mention should be made of the controversy surrounding the suit of the owners of Wargames.com (a site which sells computer wargames)by the copyright-holders of the film. This was reported on by the NY Times.69.9.28.40 23:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia cleanup

Wikipedia is not IMDb. Per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, we really need to cut down on the amount of unimportant factoids, production bloopers, etc. in the article. Naturally, this and that are the first to go. --Stratadrake 13:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In-universe?

I see someone tagged this as "in-universe", but it's only the plot. How can a plot not be in-universe? -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 19:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What IS the famous tagline?

Two taglines are mentioned: "Shall we play a game?" and "Would you like to play a game." What is the famous tagline, I wonder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.190.253.129 (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

It is both, the WOPR says it twice once as shall, once as would. Check the film :)

I forget, which came first? "Shall we...?" or "Would you like...?"? --Nomad Of Norad (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

The plot summary was too long (and tagged as such for a while now) so I've replaced the plot summary with a concise but encyclopedic version from this older revision. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Kingturtle (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Its been shortened too much. You are welcome to shorten it, no opposition from here but all that was left was 3 or 4 sentences. Thats too much. Also The 3 screenshots show the discussion between WOPR and David which was the most significant scene on the movie. I think they add to the content. -- Cat ^chi? 12:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's be clear that we're talking about this version, in which the plot summary reads:

David Lightman (Matthew Broderick), is a high school computer hacker, who uses his 1970s vintage IMSAI microcomputer and modem (connected to the telephone by an acoustic coupler) to gain access to the NORAD military artificial intelligence computer system called WOPR¹ that can control the United States' arsenal of ICBMs.

The teenager, unaware of the machine's real purpose, discovers what he believes to be a simulation game called "Global Thermonuclear War" and begins to "play." Unbeknownst to him, WOPR sets in motion preparations for a real attack against the Soviet Union. With the aid of the machine's creator (Wood), disaster is narrowly averted when the hacker manages to teach WOPR about the futility of war by getting it to play endless drawn games of tic-tac-toe against itself which segue into cycles through all the nuclear war stategies that WOPR has devised. WOPR then learns that "the only winning move is not to play."

Your objection is that:

It's been trimmed back too much

Three screenshots illustrating computer screens containing text have been removed.

How about this?

We restore two screenshots. I think the one in which "Global Thermonuclear War" appears alongside options like Bridge, Chess, Checkers and Poker is important, and also the one in which the outline maps of the USA and USSR are shown. The third one, containing a dialog in which the David asks to play Global Thermonuclear War and the computer asks "Wouldn't you prefer a good game of chess?" would be best but the text is illegible at the screen presentation sizes we use on Wikipedia.

We rewrite the plot summary together with the aim of reducing the size without losing the most important material. --Tony Sidaway 13:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I want to see the plot summary something along twice that length giving the essence of the story. I just dont want it to be like. David hacks, David plays, David saves the day. Essentially all content about why WOPR was put in charge of the nukes was omited out. How David 'hacked' is also useful info. Details of how he hacked can be omitted as that can be a separate article on how "hacking" was done back then (a real world topic). David finding he creator of WOPR Dr. Falkand (or whatever his name was) was also a significant plot event. The entire panic in NORAD and how things got out of control, how David hitch hiked to NORAD... All this should be there so whe have an understanding of the story. Featured Simpsons episodes have a more lengthy plot summary. -- Cat ^chi? 13:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer a single image for all 3 though. Perhaps a slow speed gif. I do not believe copyrights is a serious issue with those screenshots given they are mere text and some asci art. Perhaps copyright-able but not really a serious legal issue. Would that work with you? I do not like that the images occupy so much space on the page actually. -- Cat ^chi? 13:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of that is fluff, really. The essence of the story can be conveyed more economically, without crowding the reader with detail:

David Lightman (Matthew Broderick), is a high school computer hacker, who uses his 1970s vintage IMSAI microcomputer and modem (connected to the telephone by an acoustic coupler) to perform automated searches for systems connected to the public phone system, which he then cracks. Encountering a system displaying a list of games, he believes it to be a game company's computer, and gains access to it by carefully researching the system's programmer and guessing a backdoor password.

The system is actually a NORAD military artificial intelligence computer system called WOPR¹ that can control the United States' arsenal of ICBMs. The computerized control had been introduced after, during a test of operational readiness, twenty-two percent of crews tested failed to launch their missiles.

The teenager, unaware of the machine's real purpose, discovers what he believes to be a simulation game called "Global Thermonuclear War" and begins to "play." Unbeknownst to him, WOPR sets in motion preparations for a real attack against the Soviet Union. With the aid of the machine's creator (Wood), disaster is narrowly averted when the hacker manages to teach WOPR about the futility of war by getting it to play endless drawn games of tic-tac-toe against itself which segue into cycles through all the nuclear war stategies that WOPR has devised. WOPR then learns that "the only winning move is not to play."

--Tony Sidaway 04:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've placed that version into the article. --Tony Sidaway 22:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that version is incorrect. Broderick's character realizes the instant he types "list games" that it is not the computer games comapany he was looking for. That's how he know's who to research to get the password. 82.40.41.139 (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Easily fixed. Please could someone who has seen the movie edit to the summary to correct the error. --Tony Sidaway 18:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the wording was a little fluffy. Calling NORAD personnel "humans" throughout the article makes it sound like a Star Trek episode. Leonard Maltin wouldn't do that. I also touched up a few other slightly corny points, one being that the WOPR was "goading" NORAD. Huh? In the film, WOPR is a computer program run amok, not a snide robot teasing people. The rest is fine, though. 68Kustom (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten, copyedited, and trimmed the summary as much as possible. It's still slightly too long for my tastes (and, I think, for WP:MOS purposes), but I'll be darned if I can come up with anything else to remove while still covering all the essential plot points. YLee (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Cast

One thing I noticed in editing the plot summary is that the cast list seemed to list everybody who appeared in the film. I've trimmed it to the main four or five characters. --Tony Sidaway 22:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of non-free images

Somebody has tagged the article (specifically the plot section) as overusing non-free images. Even with one of the screen shots removed, this is obviously true. We have four non-free images in one small article, none of which is strictly necessary to illustrate the subject. This is in conflict with the foundation's copyright policy, and we have no option but to do something about it. --Tony Sidaway 22:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw that Pd THOR tagged those and think the two crt screen shots should go. They mess up the layout of the page, too. The norad shot is good given the set cost. Cheers, --Jack Merridew 15:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wargames View at NORAD.png

Image:Wargames View at NORAD.png 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) 03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wargames: a generation of hackers (and curious computer enthusiasts)?

Anybody have any info (or want to comment on) how this movie inspired a generation of hackers and tech-savvy kids? I've seen it referenced in numerous articles relating to computer security and hacking, and find it quite ironic that there is no mention of this on the Wiki page. Normally I discount/downplay the effect of media on people's actions, but I can't help but remember that I too first saw this movie when I was only 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.245.122 (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be anecdotal and not verifiable, really. I'm sure MASH influenced a few to become zany doctors! 68Kustom (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New source

The current issue of Wired magazine has several pages on WarGames. Much of the magazine's content tends to get online to wired.com pretty soon after printing. --EEMIV (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The article can be found here if anyone wants to see what can be used in this article. I'll give it a read sometime as well. - kollision (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Games

Can this go in the page? I would have found it useful, instead had to look it up on the DVD...

• Falken's Maze
• Black Jack
• Gin Rummy
• Hearts
• Bridge
• Checkers
• Chess
• Poker
• Fighter Combat
• Guerrilla Engagement
• Desert Warfare
• Air-To-Ground Actions
• Theatrewide Tactical Warfare
• Theatrewide Biotoxic and Chemical Warfare
• Global Thermonuclear War —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brindy666 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this information is rather trivial and not important to the plot or storyline. Adding it would probably be considered fancruft and would be quickly reverted. HTH — Frecklefσσt | Talk 23:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's what I thought. I wonder if there's a trivia wiki I can put this in? Anyway, it's in here now in case any other nerds like me want it. Cheers. --Brindy666 (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sheedy?

A note ought to be in here somewhere about Sheedy, 21, playing an almost believable pre-adolescent girlfriend of the hero.Student7 (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, her character wasn't pre-adolescent, she was an adolescent. But I don't really think it's all that noteworthy. Young adults often play teenagers in feature films, such as in Grease, where all the featured cast were post-teens playing teens. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

IMSAI_8080

Why did they use an IMSAI_8080? That computer was discontinued in 1978 (five years before War Games hit the theaters). Why didn't they use something up to date, like an original IBM PC or one of the early clones? At the very least an Apple II or TRS-80... But a five year old discontinued computer? Somethings wrong with this picture.

Oh.. there is NO WAY he could have used an acoustic coupler to war dial. No way to autodial or hang up the phone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.45.171 (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

On the DVD they talk about the fact that he wouldn't have had the money to buy the latest stuff and scrounged the equipment - so it was all old and out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevster (talk • contribs) 02:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I was a broke 18 year old kid back when War Games was released. I went to computer swap meets and user groups and I never ran across anyone who used an IMSAI_8080. Not one. Almost everyone I knew had TRS-80's. A few had Apple II's. The only place I had ever seen any IMSAI computers was at a small computer museum in a corner of a computer store. It wasn't operational. Does anyone seriously believe that there were software companies in 1983 that were still creating games that could run on the IMSAI_8080? If he was a gamer, he probably would have had an Atari or a Commodore 64, not a five year old discontinued computer.108.23.147.17 (talk)

Ender's Game

There is a character in this movie with the surname of Wiggin and in fact the whole "game/reality" plot is similar, though not identical, to Ender's Game. Am I the only one who noticed this? Can it be added into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.229.144.16 (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless we have some note or reference form the production team of the connection, we should probably leave it alone.--Knulclunk (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Scenarios Leading to Global Thermonuclear War removed

Smallman12q (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed the list because it has already been posted earlier in the discussion page. TyVulpine (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Voice of WOPR/"Joshua"

Was the voice completely synthesized or was it an altered human voice? 64.184.253.134 (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it strange that the military used the same voice synthesizer device that Matthew Broderick's character owned?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC).

This was actually John Wood himself speaking "backwards" and then playing it forward. 208.54.83.206 (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

1980 incident

I have removed the following from the article because although it has some similarities with the film's plot it does not relate directly to the film.

Author David E. Hoffman, in his 2009 book, ''The Dead Hand'' describes a similar real-life incident in June 1980, where a US military computer chip failed, triggering a full missile alert which passed through two stages of possible retaliatory action against the Soviet Union before it was discovered to be a false alarm.<ref>Hoffman, David E. The Dead Hand ISBN 978-0-385-52437-7, Published by Doubleday 2009</ref>

- Kollision (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Influence?

An interesting panel on Youtube made two points about this movie's influence. One, that NORAD remodelled its command center after the movie came out to more closely resemble what was seen in the movie, and two, that Ronald Reagan quoted the line "the only winning move is not to play" in one of his speeches. Can't find any published references to it though. Serendi^podous 23:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting certainly. There might be published references to it out there, somewhere. From the page you linked:

On Friday, May 30th Craig Silverstein hosted a panel and an exclusive screening at Google of the 1983 suspense film, WarGames, in honor of the 25th Anniversary DVD. The panelists included Walter Parkes (Academy Award Nominated Writer, Producer), Lawrence Lasker, (Academy Award Nominated Writer, Producer) and Peter Schwartz (Cofounder and Chairman, Global Business Network). The panelists gave Googlers a behind the scenes peek into the making of this film and its resulting legacy.

The video is uploaded by Google, on their official channel; copyvio wouldn't apply if linking to it. It should be possible to use it to develop the article in some way. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Found a source referring to it already in the article, in the Development section. Wired article. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

North American video game crash of 1983

North American video game crash of 1983 is linked in the see-also with the rationale that "the "context" is "1983" and "videogame"". This seems a little tenuous. Is there any more to the connection other than they both happened in the same year and had something to do with videogames? Lots of other videogame things happened in 1983, and a couple of actual wars broke out that year, but if they don't have anything to do with the WarGames movie, it's misleading the reader to suggest that a link might exist. --McGeddon (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This makes me seriously think that McGeddon (talk) was probably a teenager in 1983 because I remember very well the sort of panic this movie spreaded (at least in Italy where I was living at the moment with a NATO base of Cruise nuclear missiles close to me). Hopefully this will not offend him. McGeddon, I have the "impression" that your main edits concern "videogames" but not "movie" articles. Please try to be a little bit more constructive with people that have more edits than you in movie articles: I have NEVER hear of a WP:OR for just adding a single link to another article in 10 years I have been on Wikipedia. And, if you manage, see if you can try to avoid looking like you are wp:wikihounding my recent edits. If we are going to have more "problems" about my recent edit in the "WarGame" movie or about my edits in general I will ask for WP:30. Have a nice day. Thanks.   M aurice   Carbonaro  12:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Incredulity and personal commentary aside, can you explain what you think this film or its broader Cold War themes have to do with a 1983 recession in the videogame industry? --McGeddon (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I see no connection or relevance between the two articles. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. There is no connection between this film and that topic. Ylee (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)