Talk:WarGames

Drug references

I watched it again recently, and I suddenly noticed there are a lot of drug references in the film. I wonder does anyone know what the reasons are it cannot be coincidence considering the number of times it occurs. Even in the opening dialogue in the first few minutes of the film, the two airmen at the silo talk about marijuana consumption. And when David is in the infirmary and discovers the tape recorder, the last recording is presumably a doctor discussing marijuana and PCP use. This seems to be a hidden subtext in the film. 90.255.234.173 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The 1980s was the era of D.A.R.E. and "Just Say No." Political efforts against drugs were in full swing at the time in America. Forklift17 (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Merge. Per WP: MERGE, this discussion should have been closed way back on October 17, 2012, at which point support for the merge was unanimous. For some reason none of the three editors who had then voted for the merge, not even the original nominator, did so, and since then opinions on the issue have become mixed. However, the only editor to provide an "Oppose" rationale was Jimerb; his reasons were countered by McGeddon, and no counterargument to McGeddon's reasoning has since been provided. Also, sourcing for the article has not improved in the ten months since the nomination, so the case for merging remains valid.NukeofEarl (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Right now, there is a seperate article for WOPR, which seems rather unecessary. The computer does not really have any notability outside of the film (or any real reliable sources to demonstrate that it does), and the majority of the article is either just plot information that is already covered here, or unsourced and unnotable trivia, making it a pretty pointless split from the film's article. Pretty much the only information there that is actually useful, sourced information is the section on the creation of the prop itself, which can be merged nicely into the Development section of this article. So, I am proposing that information be merged to the main WarGames article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I see no reason for a separate article. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Reasons for merging are self-evident. Ylee (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. IMHO WOPR was an icon of the 80s for movie enthusiasts like me.   M aurice   Carbonaro  12:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I agree a separate article is not necessary for WOPR. Charger2 (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. WOPR has a life outside of Wargames making appearances in commericals and TV shows as outlined in the article. This is similar to the DeLorean time machine from the movie Back to the Future which has correctly earned a separate article. People who see no reason to keep it separate should provide additional rationale as they should vet/oppose the stated reasons why it should be kept split. They are not self evident. Jimerb (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jimerb reasons + article size. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 02:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sirex98 and Jimerb. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 03:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The WOPR has nowhere near the depth of the DeLorean time machine article; at best it's a sentence about the name "WOPR", one paragraph about the computer's role in the film, one paragraph about how it was designed, and one paragraph about how it's appeared in pop culture since. The WOPR "Prop" section would add a lot to this article's "Development", and the pop culture list of WOPR appearances could be trimmed down to "WOPR appeared in an AT&T commercial and some very minor parodies" and merged into "Influence" (providing a more accurate view of the film's cultural legacy, which is currently only lists tech jargon). Adding two paragraphs and a sentence about the name doesn't seem like a significant "article size" concern. --McGeddon (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment finding more sources would help - in particular indi secondary sources Widefox; talk 17:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Firewall origin claim

The article currently states "The movie was notable for coining the term firewall in reference to computer network security." with the [citation needed] remark. In the movie the dialogue is at about 1 hour and 39 minutes in: "Can we invade the deep logic?" - McKittrick, "We keep hitting a damn firewall" - Richter. An [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/wargames-script.html online transcript] can be found, but it is not wholly accurate.

I tried to do a quick search for other claims to the term firewall in relation to computers in general, and most claim "90's" or "late 80's" (in reference to the 20th century). While Wikipedia itself cannot be considered a source, the article on [Firewall (Computing)] states "The first paper published on firewall technology was in 1988", the paper referenced claims "Firewalls have existed since about 1987, and several surveys and histories have already been written.".

While I doubt the writers coined the term, the movie (1983) certainly predates those claims by a healthy margin, and an earlier claim is proving elusive. Perhaps the paper referred to as the first written on firewalls, by Dodong Sean James and Elohra (no title mentioned), could shed some light on it, but I can't find this paper. Kmqz (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I can say quite confidently that the claim is wrong. Referenced is an article by Harry C Forsdick, originally published in 1974, that uses the term "firewall" in the context of computer security. However, the use of the word is in an older sense, by analogy to a structural wall that contains the spread of fires in a building, being applied to the context of preventing the exploitation of a security vulnerability, while the contemporary word refers a separate software program or hardware appliance that filters network traffic. From the script of wargames, it is unclear what the meaning the word has at all. 21:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Jpswade (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Setting? Seattle? Sunnyvale? Colorado? Oregon?

I was very confused by Sheedy's character saying Colorado was a 3hr drive from where she lives, which seems to be Seattle? I thought at least IMDB would have trivia about the confused setting of this movie. There's a lot off screen travel that happens in the course of what seems to be 1 day or so. Any theories or thoughts or clarity? I can see NORAD is in Colorado state. Did she come after he touched down in Oregon? --72.173.4.14 (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Both Jennifer Mack and David Lightman live in Seattle. After Lightman hacks into NORAD's line in Sunnyvale, thinking he's got ProtoVision, he's picked up and possibly flown to NORAD. He escapes, hacks a payphone, is picked up by a truck, and meets Jennifer (in Colorado somewhere?), whom he called to get some plane ticket money. They both fly (near) to Goose Bay Oregon, where they meet Stephen Falken (Robert Hume). They then all go by helicopter back to NORAD. Is that correct? Does it help? Should any of it be in the article? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC) (edited 21:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC))

Well I thought the film was very hand wavy about this and I might misremembering, but it's the "and meets Jennifer (in Colorado somewhere?)" part that really takes the cake. She says it's a 3hr drive, so I assume the only way to make sense of that is she drove (does she have a driver's license?) from Seattle to the town in Oregon, since there's no 3hr drive from Seattle to Colorado happening, but it seems like the way it's cut that the impression may be she drove to Colorado. I thought while watching the film there must be a city called Colorado in Washington state. I actually live on the outskirts of a small city called Colorado in Arkansas that's called Lorado instead. But I couldn't come up with a better explanation upon rewinding at the time and just moved on with my viewing --72.173.4.14 (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the film recently. If the film is vague, there's not much for us to add here, unless there's a director's cut or other commentary that makes things clear. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I did watch the commentary track a couple years ago and recall only the following regarding locations:

• The only footage shot in Seattle was of the Seattle skyline and Puget Sound with the ferries. Most of everything else was shot in Vancouver or on sound stages (forget where).
• When the truck drops him off in "Colorado" and pulls away - you see a large mountain in the (near) background, just before he goes to play with the payphone. That mountain is Mount Rainier - which is much closer to Seattle than it is to Colorado. This was shot from a small town close to the mountain, and on the Seattle side of it. Even from the Colorado state line you cannot see Rainier.

Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s an exactly three-hour drive from Seattle to Goose Island. Pazvilre (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Science fiction?

It looks like this movie was recently classified as science fiction and then reverted. What basis is there for including or excluding it from the genre of science fiction? —C.Fred (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

WOPR is an unrealistic AI? Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Today? No. In 1984 - maybe. But that does not qualify it as sci-fi. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It might, even today. Science fiction [...] is a genre of speculative fiction that typically deals with imaginative and futuristic concepts such as advanced science and technology, [...]. See also Science fiction#Definition. --Zac67 (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, but today AI is not at all fiction... even going well past the level of WOPR. Remember - even ST:TNG had tablets to manage things on the ship, and an all-encompassing computer which responded to voice commands to control basic things like lights within the environment. Back then - it was sci fi. Today - it is sci fact. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Picard's Facepalm: The fiction bit doesn't necessarily need to combine with the imaginative and futuristic concepts bit – it's more like science and fiction than fictional science. Also, science fiction is categorized from its contemporary perspective, hence speculative – Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas is science fiction even if its fictional technology has long since been realized. --Zac67 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

All the more reason to cat this into military fiction, computer fiction, technology fiction or cold war fiction. Other than that - I don't see how this at all meets the traditional sense of sci-fi. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't add the tag, just trying to justify it. I wouldn't call that necessarily a defining aspect of the movie, and if it is SciFi... it's relatively 'hard' and not terribly speculative. All that to say, I don't care if it's removed from that category. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

We should be going by how sources have classified the film, not applying our own feelings about it. AllMovie[1] gives it primary genre of Thriller and subgenres of Paranoid Thriller, Teen Movie, Psychological Thriller. Nothing about sci-fi. DonIago (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I had this problem years ago on the Miami Vice movie article.... AFAIC the only true source to determine genre is the studio who is releasing it - not some 3rd party site who classifies it how they feel. I cited the Universal Studio's official release webpage which indicated it was a crime drama for genre. Unfortunately - the consensus there I was overruled on, and for several years the movie was mis-catted. A while back the discussion came up again and this time the consensus swung the other way. I was not involved in any of that - I gave up caring after all the hubbub it caused the first time around.

With the comment above - referring to allmovie & classifying it as a thriller and paranoid thriller - I am honestly left aghast, because even in 1984 this movie was by no means either one of those - nevermind today. That is a gross mis-catting of a movie if I have ever seen one, and to be quite honest it is closer to sci-fi than it is to either of those.

And with that - I am bowing out of the discussion - and no longer giving a damn about the genre classification of this movie anymore, either. It is clear that the more on the rails I am trying to get it - the further off the rails it is going to go. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Psychological thriller? Have they ever watched one? Seriously, those are some messed up classifications. Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, they weren't my idea, and there are other options. DonIago (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

List of attack simulations

List of attack simulations in the film.
Text is a direct copy from a YouTube clip contributor (Hater67876) - with no editing by me - around August 2021.

USSR First Strike
US First Strike
NATO/WARSAW Pact
Far East Strategy
US, USSR Escalation
Middle East War
USSR China Attack
India Pakistan War
Mediterranean War
Hongkong Variant
SEATO Decapitating
Cuban Provocation
Inadvertent ??? (Guy running past cut it off)
Atlantic Heavy
Cuban Paramilitary
Nicaraguan Preemptive
Pacific Territorial
Burmese Theaterwide
Turkish ???voy (Guy running past strikes again)
NATO ??? (Like if you hate Guy running past)
Argentina Escalation
Iceland Maxium
Arabian Theaterwide
US Subversion
Australian Maneuver
???an Diversion (I want this man tracked down and fined)
??? Limited (Yep, another thing ruined by Guy running pass)
Sudan Surprise
NATO Territorial
Zaire Alliance
Icelandic Incident
English Escalation
Zaire S??en (Guy Running past is my arch enemy)
E??????? ???????Itary
Middle East Heavy
Mexican Takeover
Chad Alert (Virgin guy running past vs Chad Alert)
Saudi Maneuver
African Territorial (Guy Running past almost ruined this one)
Ethiopian Escalation
Canadian ???
Turkish Heavy
NATO Incursion
US Defense
Cambodian Heavy
Pact Medium
Arctic Minimum
Mexican Domestic
Taiwan Theaterwide
Pacific Maneuver
Portugal Revolution
Albanian Decoy
Palestinian Local
Moroccan Minimal
????rian Divers (Guy leaning towards console joins my hitlist)
Czech Option
French Alliance
Arabian Clandestine
Gabon Rebellion
Northern Maximum
???rian Su????se
Turkish Paramilitary
SEATO Takeover
Hawaiian Escalation
Iranian Maneuver
NATO Containment
Swiss Incident
Cuban Minimal
Chad Alert [Again] (Virgin Screenblockers vs Chad Alerts)
Iceland Escalation
Vietnamese Retaliatio
Syrian Provocation
Libyan Local
Gabon Takeover
Romanian War
Middle East Offensive
Denmark Massive (I find it quite small)
Chile Confrontation
South African Subversion
USSR Alert
Nicaraguan Thrust
Greenland Domestic
Iceland Heavy
Kenya Option
Pacific Defense
Uganda Maximum
Thai Subversion
Romanian Strike
Pakistan Sovereignty
Afghan Misdirection
Thai Variant
Northern Territorial
Polish Paramilitary
South African Offensive
Panama Misdirection
Scandinavian Domestic
English Thrust
Burmese Maneuver
Spain Counter (I checked there is just one, no need for this)
Arabian Offensive
Chad Interdiction (Chad will not be denied)
Taiwan Misdirection
Bangladesh Theaterwide
Ethiopian Local
Italian Takeover
Vietnamese Incident
English Preemptive
Denmark Alternate
Thai Confrontation
????? (Taiwan) Surprise (Nuke Flash doesn't help)
Brazilian Strike
Venezuela Sudden
Malaysian Alert
Israel Discretionary (they spelt it Isreal lol)
Libyan Action
Palestinian Tactical
NATO Alternate
Cypress Maneuver
Egypt Misdirection
Bangladesh Thrust
Kenya Defense
Bangladesh Containment (Seems like someone missed a mistake here cause it says Containmen)
Vietnamese Strike
Albanian Containment
Gabon Surprise
Iraq Sovereignty
Vietnamese Sudden
Lebanon Interdiction
Taiwan Domestic
Algerian Sovereignty
Arabian Strikev
Atlantic Suddenv
Mongolian Thrust
Polish Decoy
Alaskan Discretionary
Canadian Thrust
Arabian Light
South African Domestic
Tunisian Incident
Malaysian Maneuver
Jamaica Decoy
Malaysian Minimal
Russian Sovereignty
Chad Option (Pick this one)
Bangladesh War
Burmese Containment
Asian Theaterwide
Bulgarian Clandestine
Greenland Incursion
Egypt Surgicial
Czech Heavy
Taiwan Confrontation
Greenland Maximum
Uganda Offensive
Caspian Defense

Wikambi (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

References