This is literally the greatest movie of all time. Unless you have a better one.
>>221013887>title character exists to dump exposition.>title character does nothing to advance the plot>title character doesn't exist in the book
Why can't hollywood directors take nuclear war seriously, artistically speaking? They either resort to postapocalyptic slop or edgy satireslop like this. Why are they seemingly INCAPABLE of depicting actual nuclear warfare as the main plot? Only notable exception is By Dawn's Early Light (1990). A House of Dynamite (2025) does not really count because it only deals with the events leading up to actual warfare. And I'm saying this as someone who loves Kathryn Bigelow.I hope Denis Villeneuve will finally do nuke kino some justice.
>>221014104>Why can't hollywood directors take nuclear war seriouslyThe book took it seriously.
>>221014104because nukes don't exist
>>221014104The military probably prevents it. The military is always meddling in Hollywood and always has been.
>>221014127Elves don't exist and there are films that at least go to some lengths to believably conjure them. Same goes for faster-than-light space travel.
>>221013887>make it a point that the military round table is green felt like a poker table because 'the generals were gambling with the fate of humanity'>make the film black and white so no one knows and can't appreciate this detail Truly visionary.
>>221013887the war room joke made me laugh
>>221013887it might genuinely be kubricks best and most human film
Fail Safe is much better
>>221014104Have you seen The Day After (1983)? There's also Threads (1984) although that was made by the BBC so doesn't count as Hollywood.
>>221014104>>221014126Fail Safe is superior to Dr Strangelove if you want the same story with the serious tone
hes literally me
