What stops FAIL-SAFE from being the greatest american doomsday thriller?

[FlyBackTransformer]

The film is absolutely blown for me when after moscow is obliterated President Fonda, ever reasonable and looking for a way to salvage the situation for all mankind, offers to nuke NYC in return...and he hands it to his equally peace-seeking friend Gen. **** to execute. My, how nicely that must have went over with audiences in 1964. In the real world President Fonda should have said to the russians "That's your loss, who told you to interfere with our fail-safe signals?...*que sera sera!* Futurist types love to pontificate about the absolute madness of a thermonuclear sword of damocles hanging over all our heads. Just what is sane or reasonable about nuking an entire metropolis just to mend hurt feelings? Certainly was nice though of President Fonda to squarely blame both sides equally.

[Dargo2]

Yeah, I always thought that ending seemed tacked on for dramatic effect also, 'cause even back in the '60s and before Corporate America didn't run everything like it does today, company reps from Halliburton and the like would STILL have had the ear of a President enough to get him to listen to the thought of somethin' like...

 

"HEY, now HERE'S our opportunity to get the American taxpayer to rebuild Moscow while we make a pretty decent profit on the side! Now THERE'S a "win-win" for EVERYBODY Mr. President! Well everybody BUT the American taxpayer that is of course!"

 

LOL

 

(...btw FlyBack, the REAL problem with "Fail-Safe" is that it lacks great dialogue such as the use of lines like, "precious bodily fluids"!!!)

[FlyBackTransformer]

> {quote:title=FlyBackTransformer wrote:}{quote}The film is absolutely blown for me when after moscow is obliterated President Fonda, ever reasonable and looking for a way to salvage the situation for all mankind, offers to nuke NYC in return...and he hands it to his equally peace-seeking friend Gen. **** to execute. My, how nicely that must have went over with audiences in 1964. In the real world President Fonda should have said to the russians "That's your loss, who told you to interfere with our fail-safe signals?...*que sera sera!* Futurist types love to pontificate about the absolute madness of a thermonuclear sword of damocles hanging over all our heads. Just what is sane or reasonable about nuking an entire metropolis just to mend hurt feelings? Certainly was nice though of President Fonda to squarely blame both sides equally.

Seriously though, I do get it. SO....in order to avoid an all-out russian nuclear retaliation for the nuking of moscow, President Fonda chooses to preserve the status quo by purposely nuking NYC??? The nuking of moscow was an accident brought about by russian scrambling designed to interfere with proper communications between us and our bombers and strict adherence to orders by a bomber crew. President Fonda sincerely wants to show the russian premier that he and us are above board so Fonda says *"I will nuke our own NYC! See! It's all just one big mistake. Still friends?" * Real world believability? Hardly.

[Dargo2]

I gotta ask....was there any reason you quoted yourself there, Fly my man???

 

(...'cause ya know, when people start doin' that, SOMETIMES their NEXT step is thinkin' the fluoridation process of drinking water is a commie plot!!!)

 

LOL

 

[rewrite]

If memory serves, "Fail-Safe" started out as a novel, and that's what happened in the novel, too.

[Sepiatone]

 

I agree that NYC for Moscow wasn't a fair trade. It should have been "one seat of power for another". In that instance, he would have nuked Washington D.C..

 

 

Bu then, maybe they WEREN'T looking for a "FEEL GOOD HAPPY ENDING"!

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

[DownGoesFrazier]

That it's boring?

[FredCDobbs]

It was an effective and frightening ending for 1964, because of the retaliation thing.

[joefilmone]

The ending works because of it's anti-nuclear war message.

[FlyBackTransformer]

> {quote:title=joefilmone wrote:}{quote}The ending works because of it's anti-nuclear war message.

Yeah? Well, who was more at fault for moscow? The russians for their scrambling or the bomber crew who had strict orders that they were highly trained to follow? I'll just bet that russian premier would have really nuked Vladivostok if they had done Coney Island by accident. I don't suppose President Fonda ran for re-election after nuking NYC. :^0

[FlyBackTransformer]

> (...btw FlyBack, the REAL problem with "Fail-Safe" is that it lacks great dialogue such as the use of lines like, "precious bodily fluids"!!!)

Yeah, I love it when Keenan Wynn calls Sellers a *deviated prevert*.

[skimpole]

In response to FlyBackTransformer Americans can hardly be surprised that the Soviets would try to interfere with the communications of military forces that are threatening, and later actually attacking their country.

[FlyBackTransformer]

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}Remember the atmosphere of the early 60's? Remember the likes of Kruschev?

>

> It comes down to the choice of - one major city in each country suffering destruction or the mutually assured destruction of both entire countries and most of the world around them.

>

> Whether it's believable to you or not, whether you agree with the choice made or not, the movie's resolution is what it is. For a different outcome we have other movies - like 'The Day After' (1983)

>

> But whoever said 'Fail Safe' was almost the greatest anything, anyway?

Well, I like most of it right up to President Fonda deciding to nuke NYC...*which is preposterous.*

[joefilmone]

You are missing the point of the screenplay- it's an anti- nuclear war message movie- there would be no winners- well unless you believe Dr Strangelove- but that's the same story told as a comedy.