Talk:CRM 114 (fictional device)

fictitious or real?

Is this device fictitious or real? --Jtir (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

is it "CRM-114" or "CRM114"?

This could be sourced with a screen shot of the device. --Jtir (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The device is fictional, and is properly "C.R.M. 114" as per the film. No need for a screen shot, IMHO. I've made the changes to the article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this. --Jtir (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the device in Red Alert (novel) is called the "CRM 114", I propose renaming the article to match. (replace the hyphen with a space) --Jtir (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

apocryphal instances

Thanks for checking all those alleged sightings of "CRM 114" in Kubrick's films. Since they are not verifiable, they could be removed per WP:V. --Jtir (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

These all make claims about "CRM" and, after looking at them, I can see the need for the "apocryphal instances" note.

• The Easter Egg Archive — Kubrick, Stanley - CRM 114
• CRM Toys Clockwork Orange Crime Cure Alex
• Dr. Strangelove

Some of these could have been "sourced" from WP, I suppose.

--Jtir (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How long will it take before this is added to the article as an example of a Dr. Strangelove reference? :-)

Cannon Room, Building C, Rm. 114

Harvard Medical School

--Jtir (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Eyes Wide Shut. People keep inserting the supposed "taxi's licence plate was CRM114" and "the morgue room was C-Room 114" myths. Before anyone gets tempted to re-insert it without actually checking the movie, here are the facts: the taxis's licence plate reads 7M96 (both when he's going to Nathanson's apartment and when he's going to the Somerton estate, they used the same automobile in both scenes) also, the license plate on Bill Harford's Range Rover reads MD9987. The room number of the hospital morgue is never visible. Bill is filmed leaving the hospital by the C-Wing, but it was used for the scene because of the red and green theme, and the "Way Out" sign visible on the left. Ellogo (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

why couldn't the crew be recalled?

The lead seems to be incorrect, but I am not sure of a detail from the film — the crew could not be recalled because the CRM 114 was destroyed by an anti-aircraft missile.

Dr. Strangelove is somewhat vague on this point: "Unable to receive the recall code, due to damage to the plane's radio equipment, ..."

--Jtir (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A near-miss explosion of a missle does damage to the aircraft, including setting off the explosive destruction device of the CRM 114. With the device destroyed, the crew cannot receive the recall code. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot about the self-destruct mechanism in the CRM 114. As I recall, the Pentagon(?), in desperation, tries to send a recall message without the authentication code. Major Kong scoffs: "That's just them Russkies trying to trick us" (approximately). (Apparently, their radio receiver is functional.)

Doesn't the CRM 114 also appear earlier when the B-52 crew receives the attack(?) order? (I have watched the film several times, but these details are only now coming back to me.) I'm thinking that the article could be expanded to describe more fully the role of the CRM 114 in the plot. --Jtir (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

When the crew receives the attack order, they run through a checklist to prepare for the attack. One item of the checklist is setting the code prefix and then locking it into the C.R.M. 114. That's when we see a closeup of the selector knob on which is printed "C.R.M. 114". They also lock on the self-destruct button. (Although, in retrospect, why the discriminator should need a self-destruct mechanism is far from clear to me.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The attack order is not authenticated by the CRM 114, but the recall order is. Weird. Maybe the self-destruct mechanism is there to prevent the CRM 114 from falling into enemy hands. --Jtir (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

They don't expect the "Rooshuns" to issue fake "attack us now" orders, so they don't think they need to protect against that. 69.63.55.224 (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Changing the article's name

You're suggesting changing the name of the article to "CRM 114 (device)", I assume based on the primacy of the reference in the George novel. Two problems I can see:

• Since "CRM 114 (device)" already exists as a redirect page, I don't believe you'll be able to do the move automatically - I think an admin will have to do it.
• If you do the move, make sure to change all the pages that link here, to avoid double redirects. Use the "What links here" link on the left to get a list of them, and go through them one by one and change them manually. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm wrong about "CRM 114 (device)" already being a page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, you're right — "CRM 114 (device)" is what I meant. The change is based on the fact that a hyphen is not used in the novel or the film. I'll do the rename then, and change the links. Maybe I will use WP:AWB to change them. --Jtir (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

CRM 114 was in the book upon which Dr. Strangelove is based

The CRM 114 was invented by Peter Bryant in his book 'Red Alert' I agree that most references we're probably taken from Dr. Strangelove but the CRM 114 was given it's name most definitely by Peter Bryant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.11.18 (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

==> CRM114 in Men In Black 3.

At the beginning of the movie, Boris The Animal blasts a hole in the wall of the Lunar Penal Facility, and jumps out onto the surface of the moon. "CRM114" is stenciled on the exterior face of the wall. KJK22956 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.75.38 (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Real-life parallels

the quote that is offset in the middle of this section is not attributed to anyone, and the citation appears to refer to a dead link. There is dialog much like this in the film, but does it come from the novel on which it was based, or from the government? PurpleChez (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)