Discussion:
When "The Day After" Terrorized 100 Million Viewers With a Vision of Nuclear War
(too old to reply)
Ubiquitous
2020-10-21 14:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Before Nicholas Meyer's made-for-television film The Day After had its
official airing on November 20, 1983, then-President Ronald Reagan and his
Joint Chiefs of Staff were given screening copies. In his diary, Reagan
recorded his reaction to seeing Meyer's graphic depiction of a nuclear
holocaust that devastates a small Kansas town, writing:

"It's very effective and left me greatly depressed. So far they [ABC]
haven't sold any of the 25 spot ads scheduled and I can see why.
Whether it will be of help to the 'anti-nukes' or not, I can't say.
My own reaction was one of our having to do all we can to have a
deterrent and to see there is never a nuclear war."

Just a few days later, the rest of America would see what had shaken their
president. Preempting Hardcastle and McCormick on ABC, the 8 p.m. telefilm
drew a staggering 100 million viewers, an audience that at the time was
second only in non-sports programming to the series finale of M*A*S*H.
According to Nielsen, 62 percent of all televisions in use that night were
tuned in.

What they watched didn't really qualify as entertainment; Meyer stated he had
no desire to make a "good" movie with stirring performances or rousing music,
but a deeply affecting public service announcement on the horrors of a
nuclear fallout. He succeeded … perhaps a little too well.

***

The idea for The Day After came from ABC executive Brandon Stoddard, who had
helped popularize the miniseries format with Roots. After seeing The China
Syndrome, a film about a nuclear accident starring Jane Fonda, Stoddard began
pursuing an "event" series about what would happen to a small town in middle
America if tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States escalated
to catastrophic levels. Films like Dr. Strangelove had depicted moments
between politicians debating whether to use powerful weapons of mass
destruction, but few had examined what the consequences would be for the
everyday population.

Reagan had dubbed the Soviet Union "the evil empire" in 1982, so the time
seemed right to bring such a project to TV viewers. Stoddard hired Barnaby
Jones writer Edward Hume to craft a script: Hume drew from research conducted
into the effects of nuclear war and radiation fallout, including a 1978
government report, The Effects of Nuclear War, that contained a fictionalized
examination of how a strike would play out in a densely populated area.
Stoddard also enlisted Meyer, who had proven his directorial chops with Star
Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, but considered the assignment a "civic
responsibility" more than a creative endeavor.

Meyer and the film's producers selected Lawrence, Kansas (pop. 50,000) as the
setting for the movie and got permission from city officials to turn their
town into a post-apocalyptic landscape. Throughout the summer of 1982, tons
of ash, dirt, and rubble were trucked in and spread over the ground; food
coloring blackened farming crops. Thousands of locals were enlisted to
portray victims of a nuclear attack, agreeing to roll in dirt and have their
hair shaved off to simulate a miserable death via radiation poisoning.

Meyer believed that setting the film in a small town would make it more
impactful and relatable to audiences. "Other movies that had attempted to
deal with the subject of nuclear holocaust had always been set in big
cities," he recalled in 2003. "But a great number of people in the United
States do not live in big cities, so they were witnessing an event that
seemed to bear scant relation to them."

That pursuit of realism wasn't always to the network's benefit. ABC
originally planned a four-hour film to run on two consecutive nights, but
filling up that much commercial time proved to be a challenge. Fearing a
graphic and partisan display of anti-nuclear propaganda, many loyal
advertisers refused to let their spots air during The Day After. (Meyer later
joked that all the "generals" pulled out, including General Mills and General
Foods.) They were ultimately able to sell a little over 10 minutes of
commercial time, which prompted executives to condense the movie to a two-
hour presentation. Meyer, who thought the script was padded to begin with,
agreed with the decision.

ABC sensed that the film would be provocative and took unprecedented steps to
handle the inevitable viewer response. A 1-800 number was set up to field
calls from people concerned about an actual nuclear disaster; the network
also issued pamphlets that acted as viewing guides, with fact sheets on
nuclear weapons. Psychologists warned audiences would experience "feelings of
depression and helplessness." Meyer was, in effect, making a disaster movie
with the characters being offered no help of rescue. The film had been openly
endorsed by anti-nuclear organizations as being a $7 million advertisement
for their stance, and some TV industry observers wondered whether ABC would
even air it at all.

***

Prior to The Day After's November 20 debut, actor John Cullum appeared
onscreen and delivered a warning. Calling the film "unusually disturbing," he
advised young children to be led away from the television and for parents to
be prepared to field questions older kids might have.

With that, The Day After commenced. It was every bit as terrifying as viewers
had been told it would be. For the first 50 minutes or so, actors like Jason
Robards, John Lithgow, and Steve Guttenberg established their characters in
Lawrence, largely oblivious to an incident on the border of East Germany that
triggered an armed response from both Russia and the U.S. As missiles fell, a
mushroom cloud vaporized the community; those who survived were doomed to
brief and miserable lives as radiation destroyed their bodies.

Dramatizing what had previously been a sterile discussion about nuclear
defenses had its intended effect. Viewers shuffled away from their
televisions in a daze, struck by the bleak consequences of an attack. The
people of Lawrence, who had a private screening, were particularly affected—
it was their town that appeared destroyed. Residents exited the theater
crying.

What ABC lacked in ad revenue it more than made up for in ratings. The
mammoth audience was comparable to Super Bowl viewership; the network even
presented a post-"game" show of sorts, with Ted Koppel hosting a roundtable
discussion of the nuclear threat featuring Carl Sagan and William F. Buckley.
Sagan is believed to have coined the term "nuclear winter" on the program,
while Secretary of State George Shultz argued the necessity of harboring
nuclear weapons to make sure the nation could protect itself.

The experience stuck with Reagan, who signed a nuclear arms treaty—the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty—with Mikhail Gorbachev in
1987, leading to longstanding speculation that The Day After may have helped
sober political attitudes toward mutually assured destruction.

[TBH, I don't remember being anywhere close to "terrified".]

--
Democrats and the liberal media hate President Trump more than they
love this country.
A Friend
2020-10-21 15:15:07 UTC
Permalink
The experience stuck with Reagan, who signed a nuclear arms treatyóthe
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treatyówith Mikhail Gorbachev in
1987, leading to longstanding speculation that The Day After may have helped
sober political attitudes toward mutually assured destruction.
Reagan's national security advisor Robert McFarlane was at the White
House screening, and later said that Reagan had been profoundly moved
by hearing an actor, imitating Reagan's voice, deliver the post-strike
radio address. McFarlane said this was the reason Reagan suddenly
dropped the "evil empire" rhetoric, never returned to it, and began
issuing peace feelers to the Soviets. There's a slate that follows the
film in which the filmmakers say they hope their efforts would help to
avert "the fateful day." Seems they did.

In the weeks following the film, there were stupid objections from the
usual suspects to the movie president sounding like Reagan, so the part
was overdubbed with a generic voice for replays.
[TBH, I don't remember being anywhere close to "terrified".]
Nor I.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-10-21 17:46:04 UTC
Permalink
That shithead Ubi hid the URL of the article whose copyright he
infringed upon in his headers.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/when-em-the-day-after-em-terrorized-100-million-viewers-with-a-vision-of-nuclear-war
Post by A Friend
The experience stuck with Reagan, who signed a nuclear arms treaty--the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty--with Mikhail Gorbachev
in 1987,
https://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-between-the-united-states-of-america-and-the-union-of-soviet-socialist-republics-on-the-elimination-of-their-intermediate-range-and-shorter-range-missiles/
leading to longstanding speculation that The Day After may have helped
sober political attitudes toward mutually assured destruction.
The experience stuck with Reagan, who signed a nuclear arms treatyóthe
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treatyówith Mikhail Gorbachev in
1987, leading to longstanding speculation that The Day After may have helped
sober political attitudes toward mutually assured destruction.
Reagan's national security advisor Robert McFarlane was at the White
House screening, and later said that Reagan had been profoundly moved
by hearing an actor, imitating Reagan's voice, deliver the post-strike
radio address. McFarlane said this was the reason Reagan suddenly
dropped the "evil empire" rhetoric, never returned to it, and began
issuing peace feelers to the Soviets. There's a slate that follows the
film in which the filmmakers say they hope their efforts would help to
avert "the fateful day." Seems they did.
That's fine, but it was Gorbachev, a sincere reformer, who would go on
to withdraw from the Afghanistan War. He wasn't Brezhnev (Andropov and
Chernenko were also General Secretaries during the course war but they
both died after a little more than a year in office, huh). After WWII,
a warm peace with Stalin was impossible. Today, a warm peace is impossible
given that Putin thinks he's Catherine the Great, intending to reassemble
the Russian empire to the full extent that she had conquered within his
remaining lifetime.

Let's not give the producers too much credit for shaping world events.
Post by A Friend
In the weeks following the film, there were stupid objections from the
usual suspects to the movie president sounding like Reagan, so the part
was overdubbed with a generic voice for replays.
[TBH, I don't remember being anywhere close to "terrified".]
Nor I.
I don't recall watching it.
Tony Calguire
2020-10-22 01:44:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Friend
Reagan's national security advisor Robert McFarlane was at the White
House screening, and later said that Reagan had been profoundly moved
by hearing an actor, imitating Reagan's voice, deliver the post-strike
radio address. McFarlane said this was the reason Reagan suddenly
dropped the "evil empire" rhetoric, never returned to it, and began
issuing peace feelers to the Soviets. There's a slate that follows the
film in which the filmmakers say they hope their efforts would help to
avert "the fateful day." Seems they did.
I say this everytime "The Day After" comes up in this newsgroup:

THREADS was better!

(Currently available on Tubi! https://tubitv.com/movies/531445/threads)
Arthur Lipscomb
2020-10-22 02:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Calguire
Post by A Friend
Reagan's national security advisor Robert McFarlane was at the White
House screening, and later said that Reagan had been profoundly moved
by hearing an actor, imitating Reagan's voice, deliver the post-strike
radio address. McFarlane said this was the reason Reagan suddenly
dropped the "evil empire" rhetoric, never returned to it, and began
issuing peace feelers to the Soviets. There's a slate that follows the
film in which the filmmakers say they hope their efforts would help to
avert "the fateful day." Seems they did.
The Day After was just one of any number of post apocalyptic movies I
watched as a kid. It contributed to fear of nuclear war growing up, but
the movie itself didn't scare me.

On the other hand "Special Bulletin" *scared* me senseless. I was a
little kid when it aired, and even though there was a scroll saying it
was fake, my child's brain said who are you going to believe that stupid
scroll or the news broadcaster saying the nukes are on the way. And I
went with the news broadcaster. I think in the back of my mind I new it
wasn't real, but that didn't matter. It had me so worked up that I just
couldn't reason rationally.
Post by Tony Calguire
THREADS was better!
(Currently available on Tubi! https://tubitv.com/movies/531445/threads)
I bought the blu-ray a couple of years ago so I could finally watch the
much talked about "Threads." As WW III movies go, it was a solid flick.
Around the same time I also picked up "When the Wind Blows" and
thought that was a solid flick too.

I still need to see the 1987 TV movie "Amerika" and the 1982 mini series
"World War III."
the dog from that film you saw
2020-10-21 16:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Before Nicholas Meyer's made-for-television film The Day After had its
official airing on November 20, 1983, then-President Ronald Reagan and his
Joint Chiefs of Staff were given screening copies.
threads was much nastier.
Post by Ubiquitous

Transition Zone
2020-10-21 17:26:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Before Nicholas Meyer's made-for-television film The Day After had its
official airing on November 20, 1983, then-President Ronald Reagan and his
Joint Chiefs of Staff were given screening copies. In his diary, Reagan
recorded his reaction to seeing Meyer's graphic depiction of a nuclear
"It's very effective and left me greatly depressed. So far they [ABC]
haven't sold any of the 25 spot ads scheduled and I can see why.
Whether it will be of help to the 'anti-nukes' or not, I can't say.
My own reaction was one of our having to do all we can to have a
deterrent and to see there is never a nuclear war."
Just a few days later, the rest of America would see what had shaken their
president. Preempting Hardcastle and McCormick on ABC, the 8 p.m. telefilm
drew a staggering 100 million viewers, an audience that at the time was
second only in non-sports programming to the series finale of M*A*S*H.
According to Nielsen, 62 percent of all televisions in use that night were
tuned in.
What they watched didn't really qualify as entertainment; Meyer stated he had
no desire to make a "good" movie with stirring performances or rousing music,
but a deeply affecting public service announcement on the horrors of a
nuclear fallout. He succeeded … perhaps a little too well.
***
The idea for The Day After came from ABC executive Brandon Stoddard, who had
helped popularize the miniseries format with Roots. After seeing The China
Syndrome, a film about a nuclear accident starring Jane Fonda, Stoddard began
pursuing an "event" series about what would happen to a small town in middle
America if tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States escalated
to catastrophic levels. Films like Dr. Strangelove had depicted moments
between politicians debating whether to use powerful weapons of mass
destruction, but few had examined what the consequences would be for the
everyday population.
Reagan had dubbed the Soviet Union "the evil empire" in 1982, so the time
seemed right to bring such a project to TV viewers. Stoddard hired Barnaby
Jones writer Edward Hume to craft a script: Hume drew from research conducted
into the effects of nuclear war and radiation fallout, including a 1978
government report, The Effects of Nuclear War, that contained a fictionalized
examination of how a strike would play out in a densely populated area.
Stoddard also enlisted Meyer, who had proven his directorial chops with Star
Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, but considered the assignment a "civic
responsibility" more than a creative endeavor.
Meyer and the film's producers selected Lawrence, Kansas (pop. 50,000) as the
setting for the movie and got permission from city officials to turn their
town into a post-apocalyptic landscape. Throughout the summer of 1982, tons
of ash, dirt, and rubble were trucked in and spread over the ground; food
coloring blackened farming crops. Thousands of locals were enlisted to
portray victims of a nuclear attack, agreeing to roll in dirt and have their
hair shaved off to simulate a miserable death via radiation poisoning.
Meyer believed that setting the film in a small town would make it more
impactful and relatable to audiences. "Other movies that had attempted to
deal with the subject of nuclear holocaust had always been set in big
cities," he recalled in 2003. "But a great number of people in the United
States do not live in big cities, so they were witnessing an event that
seemed to bear scant relation to them."
That pursuit of realism wasn't always to the network's benefit. ABC
originally planned a four-hour film to run on two consecutive nights, but
filling up that much commercial time proved to be a challenge. Fearing a
graphic and partisan display of anti-nuclear propaganda, many loyal
advertisers refused to let their spots air during The Day After. (Meyer later
joked that all the "generals" pulled out, including General Mills and General
Foods.) They were ultimately able to sell a little over 10 minutes of
commercial time, which prompted executives to condense the movie to a two-
hour presentation. Meyer, who thought the script was padded to begin with,
agreed with the decision.
ABC sensed that the film would be provocative and took unprecedented steps to
handle the inevitable viewer response. A 1-800 number was set up to field
calls from people concerned about an actual nuclear disaster; the network
also issued pamphlets that acted as viewing guides, with fact sheets on
nuclear weapons. Psychologists warned audiences would experience "feelings of
depression and helplessness." Meyer was, in effect, making a disaster movie
with the characters being offered no help of rescue. The film had been openly
endorsed by anti-nuclear organizations as being a $7 million advertisement
for their stance, and some TV industry observers wondered whether ABC would
even air it at all.
***
Prior to The Day After's November 20 debut, actor John Cullum appeared
onscreen and delivered a warning. Calling the film "unusually disturbing," he
advised young children to be led away from the television and for parents to
be prepared to field questions older kids might have.
With that, The Day After commenced. It was every bit as terrifying as viewers
had been told it would be. For the first 50 minutes or so, actors like Jason
Robards, John Lithgow, and Steve Guttenberg established their characters in
Lawrence, largely oblivious to an incident on the border of East Germany that
triggered an armed response from both Russia and the U.S. As missiles fell, a
mushroom cloud vaporized the community; those who survived were doomed to
brief and miserable lives as radiation destroyed their bodies.
Dramatizing what had previously been a sterile discussion about nuclear
defenses had its intended effect. Viewers shuffled away from their
televisions in a daze, struck by the bleak consequences of an attack. The
people of Lawrence, who had a private screening, were particularly affected—
it was their town that appeared destroyed. Residents exited the theater
crying.
What ABC lacked in ad revenue it more than made up for in ratings. The
mammoth audience was comparable to Super Bowl viewership; the network even
presented a post-"game" show of sorts, with Ted Koppel hosting a roundtable
discussion of the nuclear threat featuring Carl Sagan and William F. Buckley.
Sagan is believed to have coined the term "nuclear winter" on the program,
while Secretary of State George Shultz argued the necessity of harboring
nuclear weapons to make sure the nation could protect itself.
The experience stuck with Reagan, who signed a nuclear arms treaty—the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty—with Mikhail Gorbachev in
1987, leading to longstanding speculation that The Day After may have helped
sober political attitudes toward mutually assured destruction.
[TBH, I don't remember being anywhere close to "terrified".]
--
Democrats and the liberal media hate President Trump more than they
love this country.
So? "James Bond" actor Sean Connery has done several films about nuclear war. (or almost nuclear war). Big deal.
Ed Stasiak
2020-10-21 21:29:06 UTC
Permalink
Ubiquitous
[TBH, I don't remember being anywhere close to "terrified".]
I was 16 years old at the time and remember watching and while
I also wasn’t "terrified”, I do remember thinking “wow, that would
suck!”

My parents watch also and I don’t remember them saying anything
about it but then they lived thru WWII and saw worse stuff in real life.
Jim G.
2020-11-24 01:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Before Nicholas Meyer's made-for-television film The Day After had its
official airing on November 20, 1983, then-President Ronald Reagan and his
Joint Chiefs of Staff were given screening copies. In his diary, Reagan
recorded his reaction to seeing Meyer's graphic depiction of a nuclear
"It's very effective and left me greatly depressed. So far they [ABC]
haven't sold any of the 25 spot ads scheduled and I can see why.
Whether it will be of help to the 'anti-nukes' or not, I can't say.
My own reaction was one of our having to do all we can to have a
deterrent and to see there is never a nuclear war."
Just a few days later, the rest of America would see what had shaken their
president. Preempting Hardcastle and McCormick on ABC, the 8 p.m. telefilm
drew a staggering 100 million viewers, an audience that at the time was
second only in non-sports programming to the series finale of M*A*S*H.
According to Nielsen, 62 percent of all televisions in use that night were
tuned in.
I distinctly remember this. Not from watching it, but from a friend's
reaction. We were in our senior year of college and while I was busy
doing something or other the night when this originally aired, she was
not and she was pretty shaken up afterward. Not in an embarrassing
meltdown (no pun intended) sort of way, but it was VERY out of character
for her because she'd always been the most stable and tough and grounded
person I'd ever known. That never-ruffled bit is what made her such a
fierce competitor in sports, too, so when she called me late that night
and wanted to get together right away, I had no idea what had happened.

I honestly can't remember if I've ever seen it all the way through, but
I can recall enough of it to understand why it shook so many people. It
was pretty intense, but even then I found myself being distracted by
camera angles and whatnot. I envy people who can get lost in a TV show
or a movie when I can't, but this thing came close to succeeding at times.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really glad we're at this place in our relationship where we can
dig up graves together without having to talk." -- Major Lillywhite, iZOMBIE
Ian J. Ball
2020-11-24 01:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ubiquitous
Before Nicholas Meyer's made-for-television film The Day After had its
official airing on November 20, 1983, then-President Ronald Reagan and his
Joint Chiefs of Staff were given screening copies. In his diary, Reagan
recorded his reaction to seeing Meyer's graphic depiction of a nuclear
"It's very effective and left me greatly depressed. So far they [ABC]
haven't sold any of the 25 spot ads scheduled and I can see why.
Whether it will be of help to the 'anti-nukes' or not, I can't say.
My own reaction was one of our having to do all we can to have a
deterrent and to see there is never a nuclear war."
Just a few days later, the rest of America would see what had shaken their
president. Preempting Hardcastle and McCormick on ABC, the 8 p.m. telefilm
drew a staggering 100 million viewers, an audience that at the time was
second only in non-sports programming to the series finale of M*A*S*H.
According to Nielsen, 62 percent of all televisions in use that night were
tuned in.
I distinctly remember this. Not from watching it, but from a friend's
reaction. We were in our senior year of college and while I was busy
doing something or other the night when this originally aired, she was
not and she was pretty shaken up afterward. Not in an embarrassing
meltdown (no pun intended) sort of way, but it was VERY out of
character for her because she'd always been the most stable and tough
and grounded person I'd ever known. That never-ruffled bit is what made
her such a fierce competitor in sports, too, so when she called me late
that night and wanted to get together right away, I had no idea what
had happened.
I honestly can't remember if I've ever seen it all the way through, but
I can recall enough of it to understand why it shook so many people. It
was pretty intense, but even then I found myself being distracted by
camera angles and whatnot. I envy people who can get lost in a TV show
or a movie when I can't, but this thing came close to succeeding at times.
The first 30 minutes of it are pretty gripping. The rest, not so much
(at all!).

What disgusted me about it at the time was that is was so obviously
anti-Reagan propaganda (lest anyone thing this kind of thing started
with Bush or Trump - it actually goes back to at least Nixon...). I did
notice that in subsequent broadcasts, they redubbed the
"Reagan-soundalike" as Pres. and got somebody generic to say the lines.

But this and "Threads" are nothing more than anti-nuke propaganda.

I'm still waiting for somebody to do a realistic and actually
even-handed dipiction of a nuclear war (esp. a limited one). But with
Hollywood, I'm not holding my breath...
--
"Who would ever do this to him!?" - HottCiara on DOOL (04-27-2020), asking
who would stab Victor Kirakis... How about ANYONE WHO'S EVER MET HIM??!!
A Friend
2020-11-24 03:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian J. Ball
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ubiquitous
Before Nicholas Meyer's made-for-television film The Day After had its
official airing on November 20, 1983, then-President Ronald Reagan and his
Joint Chiefs of Staff were given screening copies. In his diary, Reagan
recorded his reaction to seeing Meyer's graphic depiction of a nuclear
"It's very effective and left me greatly depressed. So far they [ABC]
haven't sold any of the 25 spot ads scheduled and I can see why.
Whether it will be of help to the 'anti-nukes' or not, I can't say.
My own reaction was one of our having to do all we can to have a
deterrent and to see there is never a nuclear war."
Just a few days later, the rest of America would see what had shaken their
president. Preempting Hardcastle and McCormick on ABC, the 8 p.m. telefilm
drew a staggering 100 million viewers, an audience that at the time was
second only in non-sports programming to the series finale of M*A*S*H.
According to Nielsen, 62 percent of all televisions in use that night were
tuned in.
I distinctly remember this. Not from watching it, but from a friend's
reaction. We were in our senior year of college and while I was busy
doing something or other the night when this originally aired, she was
not and she was pretty shaken up afterward. Not in an embarrassing
meltdown (no pun intended) sort of way, but it was VERY out of
character for her because she'd always been the most stable and tough
and grounded person I'd ever known. That never-ruffled bit is what made
her such a fierce competitor in sports, too, so when she called me late
that night and wanted to get together right away, I had no idea what
had happened.
I honestly can't remember if I've ever seen it all the way through, but
I can recall enough of it to understand why it shook so many people. It
was pretty intense, but even then I found myself being distracted by
camera angles and whatnot. I envy people who can get lost in a TV show
or a movie when I can't, but this thing came close to succeeding at times.
The first 30 minutes of it are pretty gripping. The rest, not so much
(at all!).
What disgusted me about it at the time was that is was so obviously
anti-Reagan propaganda (lest anyone thing this kind of thing started
with Bush or Trump - it actually goes back to at least Nixon...). I did
notice that in subsequent broadcasts, they redubbed the
"Reagan-soundalike" as Pres. and got somebody generic to say the lines.
I've already pointed out that Reagan's national security advisor Robert
McFarlane said about twenty years after the fact that, during the White
House screening of The Day After (which McFarlane attended), Reagan was
profoundly moved by hearing "himself" make the post-strike address to
the nation. That was when he stopped baiting the Soviets and got
serious about seeking those arms agreements you're talking about. Yes,
the imitative voice was redubbed, because people who didn't know
anything about anything shrilly objected to Reagan's voice being used.

I'm saying all this, but I'm not defending the movie. I think it's an
overlong, overacted mess.
Post by Ian J. Ball
But this and "Threads" are nothing more than anti-nuke propaganda.
If there is any pro-nuclear war propaganda out there, I'd love to see
it.
Post by Ian J. Ball
I'm still waiting for somebody to do a realistic and actually
even-handed dipiction of a nuclear war (esp. a limited one). But with
Hollywood, I'm not holding my breath...
Jericho. The war was civil, but there you go.
Arthur Lipscomb
2020-11-24 17:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Friend
Post by Ian J. Ball
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ubiquitous
Before Nicholas Meyer's made-for-television film The Day After had its
official airing on November 20, 1983, then-President Ronald Reagan and his
Joint Chiefs of Staff were given screening copies. In his diary, Reagan
recorded his reaction to seeing Meyer's graphic depiction of a nuclear
"It's very effective and left me greatly depressed. So far they [ABC]
haven't sold any of the 25 spot ads scheduled and I can see why.
Whether it will be of help to the 'anti-nukes' or not, I can't say.
My own reaction was one of our having to do all we can to have a
deterrent and to see there is never a nuclear war."
Just a few days later, the rest of America would see what had shaken their
president. Preempting Hardcastle and McCormick on ABC, the 8 p.m. telefilm
drew a staggering 100 million viewers, an audience that at the time was
second only in non-sports programming to the series finale of M*A*S*H.
According to Nielsen, 62 percent of all televisions in use that night were
tuned in.
I distinctly remember this. Not from watching it, but from a friend's
reaction. We were in our senior year of college and while I was busy
doing something or other the night when this originally aired, she was
not and she was pretty shaken up afterward. Not in an embarrassing
meltdown (no pun intended) sort of way, but it was VERY out of
character for her because she'd always been the most stable and tough
and grounded person I'd ever known. That never-ruffled bit is what made
her such a fierce competitor in sports, too, so when she called me late
that night and wanted to get together right away, I had no idea what
had happened.
I honestly can't remember if I've ever seen it all the way through, but
I can recall enough of it to understand why it shook so many people. It
was pretty intense, but even then I found myself being distracted by
camera angles and whatnot. I envy people who can get lost in a TV show
or a movie when I can't, but this thing came close to succeeding at times.
The first 30 minutes of it are pretty gripping. The rest, not so much
(at all!).
What disgusted me about it at the time was that is was so obviously
anti-Reagan propaganda (lest anyone thing this kind of thing started
with Bush or Trump - it actually goes back to at least Nixon...).
People were mean to Nixon? But he was such a nice, honest guy, who
never did anything wrong.

I did
Post by A Friend
Post by Ian J. Ball
notice that in subsequent broadcasts, they redubbed the
"Reagan-soundalike" as Pres. and got somebody generic to say the lines.
I've already pointed out that Reagan's national security advisor Robert
McFarlane said about twenty years after the fact that, during the White
House screening of The Day After (which McFarlane attended), Reagan was
profoundly moved by hearing "himself" make the post-strike address to
the nation. That was when he stopped baiting the Soviets and got
serious about seeking those arms agreements you're talking about. Yes,
the imitative voice was redubbed, because people who didn't know
anything about anything shrilly objected to Reagan's voice being used.
I'm saying all this, but I'm not defending the movie. I think it's an
overlong, overacted mess.
Post by Ian J. Ball
But this and "Threads" are nothing more than anti-nuke propaganda.
If there is any pro-nuclear war propaganda out there, I'd love to see
it.
Same! LOL
Maybe Dr. Strangelove?
Post by A Friend
Post by Ian J. Ball
I'm still waiting for somebody to do a realistic and actually
even-handed dipiction of a nuclear war (esp. a limited one). But with
Hollywood, I'm not holding my breath...
Jericho. The war was civil, but there you go.
Jericho had some inconsistencies early on. They launched the nukes then
a few episodes later someone remembered there should have been an EMP.
It made *no* sense! But I liked it for what it was anyway.

Try "By Dawn's Early Light" that was a really good 1990 HBO TV movie
about a limited nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. It had a great
cast too, including Martin Landau as the President and James Earl Jones
as the commander of "Looking Glass."


danny burstein
2020-11-24 18:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by A Friend
Jericho. The war was civil, but there you go.
Jericho had some inconsistencies early on. They launched the nukes then
a few episodes later someone remembered there should have been an EMP.
It made *no* sense! But I liked it for what it was anyway.
I recall watching one of the episodes where the camera was
focused on the nighttime sky and we saw two very distant
blurs of light, and I immeditely figured "EMP"...

And sure enough, that's when the electrical problems began
in earnest.

Note that ground/low altitude based nuclear explosions
don't give much EMP outside the area. It's the high
altitude bursts, etc., etc.
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Try "By Dawn's Early Light" that was a really good 1990 HBO TV movie
about a limited nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. It had a great
cast too, including Martin Landau as the President and James Earl Jones
as the commander of "Looking Glass."
http://youtu.be/UaFMv2mpxnY
Thanks for the link. I didn't know it had been posted
to YouTube. Now _that_ one was scary.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
***@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
alvey
2020-11-24 19:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by danny burstein
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by A Friend
Jericho. The war was civil, but there you go.
Jericho had some inconsistencies early on. They launched the nukes then
a few episodes later someone remembered there should have been an EMP.
It made *no* sense! But I liked it for what it was anyway.
I recall watching one of the episodes where the camera was
focused on the nighttime sky and we saw two very distant
blurs of light, and I immeditely figured "EMP"...
And sure enough, that's when the electrical problems began
in earnest.
Note that ground/low altitude based nuclear explosions
don't give much EMP outside the area. It's the high
altitude bursts, etc., etc.
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Try "By Dawn's Early Light" that was a really good 1990 HBO TV movie
about a limited nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. It had a great
cast too, including Martin Landau as the President and James Earl Jones
as the commander of "Looking Glass."
http://youtu.be/UaFMv2mpxnY
Thanks for the link. I didn't know it had been posted
to YouTube. Now _that_ one was scary.
Has everyone forgotten 1964s brilliant 'Fail Safe'?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058083/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0



alvey
Arthur Lipscomb
2020-11-24 20:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by danny burstein
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by A Friend
Jericho. The war was civil, but there you go.
Jericho had some inconsistencies early on. They launched the nukes then
a few episodes later someone remembered there should have been an EMP.
It made *no* sense! But I liked it for what it was anyway.
I recall watching one of the episodes where the camera was
focused on the nighttime sky and we saw two very distant
blurs of light, and I immeditely figured "EMP"...
And sure enough, that's when the electrical problems began
in earnest.
Note that ground/low altitude based nuclear explosions
don't give much EMP outside the area. It's the high
altitude bursts, etc., etc.
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Try "By Dawn's Early Light" that was a really good 1990 HBO TV movie
about a limited nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. It had a great
cast too, including Martin Landau as the President and James Earl Jones
as the commander of "Looking Glass."
http://youtu.be/UaFMv2mpxnY
Thanks for the link. I didn't know it had been posted
to YouTube. Now _that_ one was scary.
Has everyone forgotten 1964s brilliant 'Fail Safe'?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058083/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0
alvey
Of course not. I mentioned Dr. Strangelove. ;-)
Adam H. Kerman
2020-11-24 20:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by alvey
Post by danny burstein
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by A Friend
Jericho. The war was civil, but there you go.
Jericho had some inconsistencies early on. They launched the nukes then
a few episodes later someone remembered there should have been an EMP.
It made *no* sense! But I liked it for what it was anyway.
I recall watching one of the episodes where the camera was
focused on the nighttime sky and we saw two very distant
blurs of light, and I immeditely figured "EMP"...
And sure enough, that's when the electrical problems began
in earnest.
Note that ground/low altitude based nuclear explosions
don't give much EMP outside the area. It's the high
altitude bursts, etc., etc.
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Try "By Dawn's Early Light" that was a really good 1990 HBO TV movie
about a limited nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. It had a great
cast too, including Martin Landau as the President and James Earl Jones
as the commander of "Looking Glass."
http://youtu.be/UaFMv2mpxnY
Thanks for the link. I didn't know it had been posted
to YouTube. Now _that_ one was scary.
Has everyone forgotten 1964s brilliant 'Fail Safe'?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058083/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0
alvey
Of course not. I mentioned Dr. Strangelove. ;-)
Apparently alvey has forgotten that both movies have the same nonfiction
literature source material and were both released the same year.
alvey
2020-11-24 21:53:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by alvey
Post by danny burstein
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by A Friend
Jericho. The war was civil, but there you go.
Jericho had some inconsistencies early on. They launched the nukes then
a few episodes later someone remembered there should have been an EMP.
It made *no* sense! But I liked it for what it was anyway.
I recall watching one of the episodes where the camera was
focused on the nighttime sky and we saw two very distant
blurs of light, and I immeditely figured "EMP"...
And sure enough, that's when the electrical problems began
in earnest.
Note that ground/low altitude based nuclear explosions
don't give much EMP outside the area. It's the high
altitude bursts, etc., etc.
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Try "By Dawn's Early Light" that was a really good 1990 HBO TV movie
about a limited nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. It had a great
cast too, including Martin Landau as the President and James Earl Jones
as the commander of "Looking Glass."
http://youtu.be/UaFMv2mpxnY
Thanks for the link. I didn't know it had been posted
to YouTube. Now _that_ one was scary.
Has everyone forgotten 1964s brilliant 'Fail Safe'?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058083/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0
alvey
Of course not. I mentioned Dr. Strangelove. ;-)
Apparently alvey has forgotten that both movies have the same nonfiction
literature source material
That's debateable Kermie. Although not with you obviously.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
and were both released the same year.
To which the obvious question is, "So what"?



alvey
A Friend
2020-11-24 23:44:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by alvey
Post by danny burstein
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by A Friend
Jericho. The war was civil, but there you go.
Jericho had some inconsistencies early on. They launched the nukes then
a few episodes later someone remembered there should have been an EMP.
It made *no* sense! But I liked it for what it was anyway.
I recall watching one of the episodes where the camera was
focused on the nighttime sky and we saw two very distant
blurs of light, and I immeditely figured "EMP"...
And sure enough, that's when the electrical problems began
in earnest.
Note that ground/low altitude based nuclear explosions
don't give much EMP outside the area. It's the high
altitude bursts, etc., etc.
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Try "By Dawn's Early Light" that was a really good 1990 HBO TV movie
about a limited nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. It had a great
cast too, including Martin Landau as the President and James Earl Jones
as the commander of "Looking Glass."
http://youtu.be/UaFMv2mpxnY
Thanks for the link. I didn't know it had been posted
to YouTube. Now _that_ one was scary.
Has everyone forgotten 1964s brilliant 'Fail Safe'?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058083/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0
alvey
Of course not. I mentioned Dr. Strangelove. ;-)
Apparently alvey has forgotten that both movies have the same nonfiction
literature source material
That's debateable Kermie. Although not with you obviously.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
and were both released the same year.
To which the obvious question is, "So what"?
The "so what" is that, in turning his drama into a black comedy,
Kubrick made it possible for both films to be made. I remember the
controversy over this, and remain glad we've got both Fail-Safe and
Strangelove.
RichA
2020-11-25 00:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Friend
Post by alvey
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by alvey
Post by danny burstein
Jericho. The war was civil, but there you go.
Jericho had some inconsistencies early on. They launched the nukes then
a few episodes later someone remembered there should have been an EMP.
It made *no* sense! But I liked it for what it was anyway.
I recall watching one of the episodes where the camera was
focused on the nighttime sky and we saw two very distant
blurs of light, and I immeditely figured "EMP"...
And sure enough, that's when the electrical problems began
in earnest.
Note that ground/low altitude based nuclear explosions
don't give much EMP outside the area. It's the high
altitude bursts, etc., etc.
Try "By Dawn's Early Light" that was a really good 1990 HBO TV movie
about a limited nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. It had a great
cast too, including Martin Landau as the President and James Earl Jones
as the commander of "Looking Glass."
http://youtu.be/UaFMv2mpxnY
Thanks for the link. I didn't know it had been posted
to YouTube. Now _that_ one was scary.
Has everyone forgotten 1964s brilliant 'Fail Safe'?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058083/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0
alvey
Of course not. I mentioned Dr. Strangelove. ;-)
Apparently alvey has forgotten that both movies have the same nonfiction
literature source material
That's debateable Kermie. Although not with you obviously.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
and were both released the same year.
To which the obvious question is, "So what"?
The "so what" is that, in turning his drama into a black comedy,
Kubrick made it possible for both films to be made. I remember the
controversy over this, and remain glad we've got both Fail-Safe and
Strangelove.
The main plot of Strangelove wouldn't have happened today. Now they have viagra.
The Horny Goat
2020-11-29 08:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichA
The main plot of Strangelove wouldn't have happened today. Now they have viagra.
Supposedly in the original Strangelove script Mandrake (Sellers'
British character) was supposed to ride the bomb but fell 15' to the
concrete floor below forcing the scene to be recast with a different
actor riding the nuke.

And that "Mein fuhrer, I can valk!!!" line was done the day after
Sellers got his cast off and had told nobody but Kubrick with the
result when he got out of his wheelchair none of the actors present
had seen him out of either crutches or wheelchair for 3-4 weeks thus
adding to the dramatic effect which was exactly what Kubrick and
Sellers wanted.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-11-29 08:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by RichA
The main plot of Strangelove wouldn't have happened today. Now they have viagra.
Supposedly in the original Strangelove script Mandrake (Sellers'
British character) was supposed to ride the bomb but fell 15' to the
concrete floor below forcing the scene to be recast with a different
actor riding the nuke.
Sellers playing multiple characters was annoyingly indulgent. He was
supposed to play Gen. Turgidson too. Fortunately, we got a wonderful
George C. Scott performance that really made the movie. Slim Pickens was
terrific as well. He credited Strangelove with putting his career on
track to better roles later in life.

The movie is better that Sellers didn't do those things.
Post by The Horny Goat
And that "Mein fuhrer, I can valk!!!" line was done the day after
Sellers got his cast off and had told nobody but Kubrick with the
result when he got out of his wheelchair none of the actors present
had seen him out of either crutches or wheelchair for 3-4 weeks thus
adding to the dramatic effect which was exactly what Kubrick and
Sellers wanted.
A Friend
2020-11-29 15:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by RichA
The main plot of Strangelove wouldn't have happened today. Now they have viagra.
Supposedly in the original Strangelove script Mandrake (Sellers'
British character) was supposed to ride the bomb but fell 15' to the
concrete floor below forcing the scene to be recast with a different
actor riding the nuke.
Sellers playing multiple characters was annoyingly indulgent. He was
supposed to play Gen. Turgidson too. Fortunately, we got a wonderful
George C. Scott performance that really made the movie.
Don't forget his secretary. I was 11 then, and I never will.
Ian J. Ball
2020-11-29 18:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by RichA
The main plot of Strangelove wouldn't have happened today. Now they have viagra.
Supposedly in the original Strangelove script Mandrake (Sellers'
British character) was supposed to ride the bomb but fell 15' to the
concrete floor below forcing the scene to be recast with a different
actor riding the nuke.
Sellers playing multiple characters was annoyingly indulgent. He was
supposed to play Gen. Turgidson too. Fortunately, we got a wonderful
George C. Scott performance that really made the movie. Slim Pickens was
terrific as well. He credited Strangelove with putting his career on
track to better roles later in life.
The movie is better that Sellers didn't do those things.
Totally agree.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
And that "Mein fuhrer, I can valk!!!" line was done the day after
Sellers got his cast off and had told nobody but Kubrick with the
result when he got out of his wheelchair none of the actors present
had seen him out of either crutches or wheelchair for 3-4 weeks thus
adding to the dramatic effect which was exactly what Kubrick and
Sellers wanted.
--
"Who would ever do this to him!?" - HottCiara on DOOL (04-27-2020), asking
who would stab Victor Kirakis... How about ANYONE WHO'S EVER MET HIM??!!
Adam H. Kerman
2020-11-25 00:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Friend
Post by alvey
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by alvey
Post by danny burstein
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
. . .
I recall watching one of the episodes where the camera was
focused on the nighttime sky and we saw two very distant
blurs of light, and I immeditely figured "EMP"...
And sure enough, that's when the electrical problems began
in earnest.
Note that ground/low altitude based nuclear explosions
don't give much EMP outside the area. It's the high
altitude bursts, etc., etc.
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Try "By Dawn's Early Light" that was a really good 1990 HBO TV movie
about a limited nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. It had a great
cast too, including Martin Landau as the President and James Earl Jones
as the commander of "Looking Glass."
http://youtu.be/UaFMv2mpxnY
Thanks for the link. I didn't know it had been posted
to YouTube. Now _that_ one was scary.
Has everyone forgotten 1964s brilliant 'Fail Safe'?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058083/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0
Of course not. I mentioned Dr. Strangelove. ;-)
Apparently alvey has forgotten that both movies have the same nonfiction
literature source material
That's debateable Kermie. Although not with you obviously.
It's actually not a point of debate. Both the authors of Red Alert and
Fail Safe were reading the same reports about the threat of triggering
nuclear war and ended up writing novels with similar themes. One author
sued the other for copyright infringement, then Kubrick sued the other
movie production, forced his studio to buy the independent production
and hold off its release till after his picture was released. Fail Safe
ended up not doing so well at the box office.

Apparently everyone who remembers these two movies recalls this but you.
Post by A Friend
Post by alvey
Post by Adam H. Kerman
and were both released the same year.
To which the obvious question is, "So what"?
The "so what" is that, in turning his drama into a black comedy,
Kubrick made it possible for both films to be made. I remember the
controversy over this, and remain glad we've got both Fail-Safe and
Strangelove.
I certainly agree but I still think what Kubrick did was pretty shitty.
The marketplace has room for two very different takes on important
issues of discussion.
alvey
2020-11-25 01:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by alvey
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by alvey
Post by danny burstein
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
. . .
I recall watching one of the episodes where the camera was
focused on the nighttime sky and we saw two very distant
blurs of light, and I immeditely figured "EMP"...
And sure enough, that's when the electrical problems began
in earnest.
Note that ground/low altitude based nuclear explosions
don't give much EMP outside the area. It's the high
altitude bursts, etc., etc.
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Try "By Dawn's Early Light" that was a really good 1990 HBO TV movie
about a limited nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. It had a great
cast too, including Martin Landau as the President and James Earl Jones
as the commander of "Looking Glass."
http://youtu.be/UaFMv2mpxnY
Thanks for the link. I didn't know it had been posted
to YouTube. Now _that_ one was scary.
Has everyone forgotten 1964s brilliant 'Fail Safe'?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058083/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0
Of course not. I mentioned Dr. Strangelove. ;-)
Apparently alvey has forgotten that both movies have the same nonfiction
literature source material
That's debateable Kermie. Although not with you obviously.
It's actually not a point of debate.
As I said Kermie, "not with you". That'd be because you're one of those
poor creatures who hide behind their killfile yet still take potshots from
that position of cowardice.

snip unread.


alvey
alvey
2020-11-25 01:48:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Friend
Post by alvey
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by alvey
Post by danny burstein
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by A Friend
Jericho. The war was civil, but there you go.
Jericho had some inconsistencies early on. They launched the nukes then
a few episodes later someone remembered there should have been an EMP.
It made *no* sense! But I liked it for what it was anyway.
I recall watching one of the episodes where the camera was
focused on the nighttime sky and we saw two very distant
blurs of light, and I immeditely figured "EMP"...
And sure enough, that's when the electrical problems began
in earnest.
Note that ground/low altitude based nuclear explosions
don't give much EMP outside the area. It's the high
altitude bursts, etc., etc.
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Try "By Dawn's Early Light" that was a really good 1990 HBO TV movie
about a limited nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. It had a great
cast too, including Martin Landau as the President and James Earl Jones
as the commander of "Looking Glass."
http://youtu.be/UaFMv2mpxnY
Thanks for the link. I didn't know it had been posted
to YouTube. Now _that_ one was scary.
Has everyone forgotten 1964s brilliant 'Fail Safe'?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058083/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0
alvey
Of course not. I mentioned Dr. Strangelove. ;-)
Apparently alvey has forgotten that both movies have the same nonfiction
literature source material
That's debateable Kermie. Although not with you obviously.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
and were both released the same year.
To which the obvious question is, "So what"?
The "so what" is that, in turning his drama into a black comedy,
Kubrick made it possible for both films to be made.
Yes, but what has that to do with Adum's observation that they were both
released in the same year? Or his *opinion* that both films were based on
the same source? Two great, but vastly different films were produced. Does
it matter a toss about their source?
Post by A Friend
I remember the controversy over this, and remain glad we've got both
Fail-Safe and Strangelove.
Indeedy. And how we got there is irrelevant.


alvey
The Horny Goat
2020-11-29 08:18:23 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 20:13:00 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by alvey
Post by danny burstein
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by A Friend
Jericho. The war was civil, but there you go.
Jericho had some inconsistencies early on. They launched the nukes then
a few episodes later someone remembered there should have been an EMP.
It made *no* sense! But I liked it for what it was anyway.
I recall watching one of the episodes where the camera was
focused on the nighttime sky and we saw two very distant
blurs of light, and I immeditely figured "EMP"...
And sure enough, that's when the electrical problems began
in earnest.
Note that ground/low altitude based nuclear explosions
don't give much EMP outside the area. It's the high
altitude bursts, etc., etc.
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Try "By Dawn's Early Light" that was a really good 1990 HBO TV movie
about a limited nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. It had a great
cast too, including Martin Landau as the President and James Earl Jones
as the commander of "Looking Glass."
http://youtu.be/UaFMv2mpxnY
Thanks for the link. I didn't know it had been posted
to YouTube. Now _that_ one was scary.
Has everyone forgotten 1964s brilliant 'Fail Safe'?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058083/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0
alvey
Of course not. I mentioned Dr. Strangelove. ;-)
Apparently alvey has forgotten that both movies have the same nonfiction
literature source material and were both released the same year.
Or for that matter Arthur Hailey's "In High Places" which was earlier
than either as was Neville Shute's "On the Beach" which was
interesting for him predicting the nuclear war would be between India
and Pakistan neither of which had nukes at the time.
A Friend
2020-11-29 15:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Or for that matter Arthur Hailey's "In High Places" which was earlier
than either as was Neville Shute's "On the Beach" which was
interesting for him predicting the nuclear war would be between India
and Pakistan neither of which had nukes at the time.
On the Beach, the novel, does a much better job of describing how the
war poisoned the world with radiation. For instance, there was stuff
about how the Soviets had nuked much of China with neutron bombs or the
equivalent to eliminate that threat to them.

The movie skips over all the details so it can tell a love story
between the captain and the alcoholic gal. There is no love story in
the novel because the captain steadfastly remains loyal to his wife,
whom he delusionally believes is still alive somewhere in Connecticut.
(Everyone in the novel is at least a little crazy.) The gal in the
novel is much younger and isn't a drunk, but she does have an
unrequited thing for the captain.

The novel is much better than the movie.
Arthur Lipscomb
2020-11-29 18:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Friend
Post by The Horny Goat
Or for that matter Arthur Hailey's "In High Places" which was earlier
than either as was Neville Shute's "On the Beach" which was
interesting for him predicting the nuclear war would be between India
and Pakistan neither of which had nukes at the time.
On the Beach, the novel, does a much better job of describing how the
war poisoned the world with radiation. For instance, there was stuff
about how the Soviets had nuked much of China with neutron bombs or the
equivalent to eliminate that threat to them.
The movie skips over all the details so it can tell a love story
between the captain and the alcoholic gal. There is no love story in
the novel because the captain steadfastly remains loyal to his wife,
whom he delusionally believes is still alive somewhere in Connecticut.
(Everyone in the novel is at least a little crazy.) The gal in the
novel is much younger and isn't a drunk, but she does have an
unrequited thing for the captain.
The novel is much better than the movie.
I like the movie, but it is so depressing. I'm not sure if I've ever
watched it more than once. Maybe twice. Every time the original airs I
think about recording it, remember how depressing it is, then change my
mind. The remake was also good. Armand Assante clearly enjoyed chewing
the scenery as the sub captain. I've actually been hoping to see the
remake again.

Anyone remember a 1980 Japanese movie called, "Virus?" it was a
Japanese movie, but it was in English with American actors. I think I
only saw it once on TV probably about 30 or so years ago, but I still
remember it very well. Similar to On the Beach, most of humanity gets
wiped out, but this time it's by a virus. A small group of survivors
hold up in Antarctica where it's to cold for the virus to thrive. But
the survivors realize they are in danger because the Soviets and
Americans each developed a "fail safe" that would be triggered in the
event the computer determined their side was dead, presumably killed by
a sneak attack. The U.S. system was preprogrammed to launch a nuclear
strike on Russia. The Russian fail safe would launch a retaliatory
strike on America, including the Antarctic base where the last of
humanity was hold up. So the survivors send a nuclear submarine to the
U.S. to deactivate the system. The sub captain was played by Chuck Connors.

It's weird I can remember in such detail something I saw once decades
ago, but movies I saw a year or two ago are *completely* wiped from my
brain.
danny burstein
2020-11-29 18:23:26 UTC
Permalink
In <rq0nnf$hro$***@dont-email.me> Arthur Lipscomb <***@alum.calberkeley.org> writes:

[snip]
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Anyone remember a 1980 Japanese movie called, "Virus?" it was a
Japanese movie, but it was in English with American actors. I think I
only saw it once on TV probably about 30 or so years ago, but I still
remember it very well. Similar to On the Beach, most of humanity gets
wiped out, but this time it's by a virus. A small group of survivors
hold up in Antarctica where it's to cold for the virus to thrive. But
the survivors realize they are in danger because the Soviets and
Americans each developed a "fail safe" that would be triggered in the
event the computer determined their side was dead, presumably killed by
a sneak attack. The U.S. system was preprogrammed to launch a nuclear
strike on Russia. The Russian fail safe would launch a retaliatory
strike on America, including the Antarctic base where the last of
humanity was hold up. So the survivors send a nuclear submarine to the
U.S. to deactivate the system. The sub captain was played by Chuck Connors.
Eyup, I've seen it and think I even have one of the DVD releases.

Note that it's been repeatedly sliced and diced and re-edited

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_(1980_film)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080768/
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
***@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
A Friend
2020-11-29 18:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by A Friend
Post by The Horny Goat
Or for that matter Arthur Hailey's "In High Places" which was earlier
than either as was Neville Shute's "On the Beach" which was
interesting for him predicting the nuclear war would be between India
and Pakistan neither of which had nukes at the time.
On the Beach, the novel, does a much better job of describing how the
war poisoned the world with radiation. For instance, there was stuff
about how the Soviets had nuked much of China with neutron bombs or the
equivalent to eliminate that threat to them.
The movie skips over all the details so it can tell a love story
between the captain and the alcoholic gal. There is no love story in
the novel because the captain steadfastly remains loyal to his wife,
whom he delusionally believes is still alive somewhere in Connecticut.
(Everyone in the novel is at least a little crazy.) The gal in the
novel is much younger and isn't a drunk, but she does have an
unrequited thing for the captain.
The novel is much better than the movie.
I like the movie, but it is so depressing. I'm not sure if I've ever
watched it more than once. Maybe twice. Every time the original airs I
think about recording it, remember how depressing it is, then change my
mind. The remake was also good. Armand Assante clearly enjoyed chewing
the scenery as the sub captain. I've actually been hoping to see the
remake again.
I thought it was pretty good. I wasn't crazy about the ending, because
I thought the point of the book and the first film was that the war and
its aftermath had poisoned the relationships between people as well.
At the end, the captain takes his boat and crew out one last time,
knowing he and they won't make it home. He knows it's his duty, even
if everyone else in the U.S. Navy is dead. (In the novel, the captain
knows they can't possibly get home, so he takes the boat out to scuttle
it, with everyone aboard. He also orders the only other remaining sub,
in the Atlantic, to do the same.)

I love Fred Astaire's performance in the 1959 film. It was Fred's
first dramatic role, and I thought he ran away with the movie.

BTW Channel 11 in New York would show On the Beach fairly often. There
was one Christmas Day when they showed it as a holiday special. There
was a little bumper showing a Christmas tree while they played a tinkly
version of Deck the Halls, and then you'd be back dying of radiation
and trying to bang Ava Gardner again.
b***@ripco.com
2020-11-30 13:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Anyone remember a 1980 Japanese movie called, "Virus?" it was a
Japanese movie, but it was in English with American actors. I think I
only saw it once on TV probably about 30 or so years ago, but I still
remember it very well. Similar to On the Beach, most of humanity gets
I not only remember it but spent way too much time trying to track a copy
down.

I don't know why but it is sitting on archive.org...

https://archive.org/details/VirusFukkatsuNoHi1980

Never found a real dvd copy.

-bruce
***@ripco.com
Arthur Lipscomb
2020-11-30 16:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@ripco.com
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Anyone remember a 1980 Japanese movie called, "Virus?" it was a
Japanese movie, but it was in English with American actors. I think I
only saw it once on TV probably about 30 or so years ago, but I still
remember it very well. Similar to On the Beach, most of humanity gets
I not only remember it but spent way too much time trying to track a copy
down.
I don't know why but it is sitting on archive.org...
https://archive.org/details/VirusFukkatsuNoHi1980
Never found a real dvd copy.
-bruce
It's also on Amazon streaming:
https://www.amazon.com/Virus-Ed-Johnson/dp/B005IVRI06/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=virus+1980&qid=1606751994&s=movies-tv&sr=1-1


I've had some luck tracking down hard to find movies by searching
foreign Amazon.com websites (Britain, France, Germany, Japan, etc.)
Sometimes they are other regions, but sometimes they play fine on a U.S.
player. Checking... Yep, Japanese Amazon.com has it:
https://www.amazon.co.jp/%E5%BE%A9%E6%B4%BB%E3%81%AE%E6%97%A5-DTS%E3%83%97%E3%83%AC%E3%83%9F%E3%82%A2%E3%83%A0BOX-DVD-%E8%8D%89%E5%88%88%E6%AD%A3%E9%9B%84/dp/B000060NDE/ref=sr_1_3?__mk_ja_JP=%E3%82%AB%E3%82%BF%E3%82%AB%E3%83%8A&dchild=1&keywords=virus+1980&qid=1606752253&sr=8-3

Multiple versions, I didn't check the regions or other details.

If you already have an account with Amazon, the foreign version should
more or less link up to your American account. But if you don't have a
region free player, make sure it's playable in the U.S.


I don't think they have Virus, but www.zavvi.com is another source for
hard to find movies that weren't released in the U.S. but released in
other countries. They have both a U.S. and a U.K. website. You may
have to manually switch to the U.S. site.

For fans of 3D and 4K/3D combo packs, the foreign amazon is also a good
way to find those versions of new releases. 3D is mostly dead in the
U.S. but still very popular in other countries. So to get my 3D fix, I
often order from foreign amazon (and Zavvi). They will also sometimes
have 3D/4K combo packs which I love.
Arthur Lipscomb
2020-11-30 16:30:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by b***@ripco.com
Anyone remember a 1980 Japanese movie called, "Virus?"  it was a
Japanese movie, but it was in English with American actors.  I think I
only saw it once on TV probably about 30 or so years ago, but I still
remember it very well.  Similar to On the Beach, most of humanity gets
I not only remember it but spent way too much time trying to track a copy
down.
I don't know why but it is sitting on archive.org...
https://archive.org/details/VirusFukkatsuNoHi1980
Never found a real dvd copy.
-bruce
https://www.amazon.com/Virus-Ed-Johnson/dp/B005IVRI06/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=virus+1980&qid=1606751994&s=movies-tv&sr=1-1
I've had some luck tracking down hard to find movies by searching
foreign Amazon.com websites (Britain, France, Germany, Japan, etc.)
Sometimes they are other regions, but sometimes they play fine on a U.S.
https://www.amazon.co.jp/%E5%BE%A9%E6%B4%BB%E3%81%AE%E6%97%A5-DTS%E3%83%97%E3%83%AC%E3%83%9F%E3%82%A2%E3%83%A0BOX-DVD-%E8%8D%89%E5%88%88%E6%AD%A3%E9%9B%84/dp/B000060NDE/ref=sr_1_3?__mk_ja_JP=%E3%82%AB%E3%82%BF%E3%82%AB%E3%83%8A&dchild=1&keywords=virus+1980&qid=1606752253&sr=8-3
Multiple versions, I didn't check the regions or other details.
If you already have an account with Amazon, the foreign version should
more or less link up to your American account.  But if you don't have a
region free player, make sure it's playable in the U.S.
I don't think they have Virus, but www.zavvi.com is another source for
hard to find movies that weren't released in the U.S. but released in
other countries.  They have both a U.S. and a U.K. website.  You may
have to manually switch to the U.S. site.
For fans of 3D and 4K/3D combo packs, the foreign amazon is also a good
way to find those versions of new releases.  3D is mostly dead in the
U.S. but still very popular in other countries.  So to get my 3D fix, I
often order from foreign amazon (and Zavvi).  They will also sometimes
have 3D/4K combo packs which I love.
I hit send too soon. The DVD is also on regular Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Virus-Chuck-Connors/dp/B00025X2LM/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=virus+1980&qid=1606751994&s=movies-tv&sr=1-3
RichA
2020-12-01 02:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
For fans of 3D and 4K/3D combo packs, the foreign amazon is also a good
way to find those versions of new releases. 3D is mostly dead in the
U.S. but still very popular in other countries. So to get my 3D fix, I
often order from foreign amazon (and Zavvi). They will also sometimes
have 3D/4K combo packs which I love.
https://www.amazon.com/Virus-Chuck-Connors/dp/B00025X2LM/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=virus+1980&qid=1606751994&s=movies-tv&sr=1-3
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080768/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_77

RichA
2020-11-24 22:22:23 UTC
Permalink
Reagan and Nixon did more to control nuclear proliferation than ANY Democrat ever did.
A Friend
2020-11-24 23:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Try "By Dawn's Early Light" that was a really good 1990 HBO TV movie
about a limited nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. It had a great
cast too, including Martin Landau as the President and James Earl Jones
as the commander of "Looking Glass."
http://youtu.be/UaFMv2mpxnY
Yes, one of the good ones. Great cast, too. "God bless you, Mary."
Jim G.
2020-11-25 01:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian J. Ball
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ubiquitous
Before Nicholas Meyer's made-for-television film The Day After had its
official airing on November 20, 1983, then-President Ronald Reagan and his
Joint Chiefs of Staff were given screening copies. In his diary, Reagan
recorded his reaction to seeing Meyer's graphic depiction of a nuclear
"It's very effective and left me greatly depressed. So far they [ABC]
haven't sold any of the 25 spot ads scheduled and I can see why.
Whether it will be of help to the 'anti-nukes' or not, I can't say.
My own reaction was one of our having to do all we can to have a
deterrent and to see there is never a nuclear war."
Just a few days later, the rest of America would see what had shaken their
president. Preempting Hardcastle and McCormick on ABC, the 8 p.m. telefilm
drew a staggering 100 million viewers, an audience that at the time was
second only in non-sports programming to the series finale of M*A*S*H.
According to Nielsen, 62 percent of all televisions in use that night were
tuned in.
I distinctly remember this. Not from watching it, but from a friend's
reaction. We were in our senior year of college and while I was busy
doing something or other the night when this originally aired, she was
not and she was pretty shaken up afterward. Not in an embarrassing
meltdown (no pun intended) sort of way, but it was VERY out of
character for her because she'd always been the most stable and tough
and grounded person I'd ever known. That never-ruffled bit is what made
her such a fierce competitor in sports, too, so when she called me late
that night and wanted to get together right away, I had no idea what
had happened.
I honestly can't remember if I've ever seen it all the way through, but
I can recall enough of it to understand why it shook so many people. It
was pretty intense, but even then I found myself being distracted by
camera angles and whatnot. I envy people who can get lost in a TV show
or a movie when I can't, but this thing came close to succeeding at times.
The first 30 minutes of it are pretty gripping. The rest, not so much
(at all!).
What disgusted me about it at the time was that is was so obviously
anti-Reagan propaganda (lest anyone thing this kind of thing started
with Bush or Trump - it actually goes back to at least Nixon...). I did
notice that in subsequent broadcasts, they redubbed the
"Reagan-soundalike" as Pres. and got somebody generic to say the lines.
I recall getting the sense that it was anti-MAD in an "if we'd
unilaterally disarm then I'm sure that the Russkies will do the same"
sort of way, but I don't recall anything specifically anti-Reagan. In
fact, Reagan really liked the film, IIRC! Well, not like in a holiday
tradition sort of way, but he appreciated it for what it was.
Post by Ian J. Ball
But this and "Threads" are nothing more than anti-nuke propaganda.
I'm still waiting for somebody to do a realistic and actually
even-handed dipiction of a nuclear war (esp. a limited one). But with
Hollywood, I'm not holding my breath...
I immediately think of something dystopian and I generally HATE
dystopian stuff, so I'm good with them not doing it.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really glad we're at this place in our relationship where we can
dig up graves together without having to talk." -- Major Lillywhite, iZOMBIE
Dimensional Traveler
2020-11-25 04:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ian J. Ball
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ubiquitous
Before Nicholas Meyer's made-for-television film The Day After had its
official airing on November 20, 1983, then-President Ronald Reagan and his
Joint Chiefs of Staff were given screening copies. In his diary, Reagan
recorded his reaction to seeing Meyer's graphic depiction of a nuclear
    "It's very effective and left me greatly depressed. So far they
[ABC]
    haven't sold any of the 25 spot ads scheduled and I can see why.
    Whether it will be of help to the 'anti-nukes' or not, I can't say.
    My own reaction was one of our having to do all we can to have a
    deterrent and to see there is never a nuclear war."
Just a few days later, the rest of America would see what had shaken their
president. Preempting Hardcastle and McCormick on ABC, the 8 p.m. telefilm
drew a staggering 100 million viewers, an audience that at the time was
second only in non-sports programming to the series finale of M*A*S*H.
According to Nielsen, 62 percent of all televisions in use that night were
tuned in.
I distinctly remember this. Not from watching it, but from a friend's
reaction. We were in our senior year of college and while I was busy
doing something or other the night when this originally aired, she was
not and she was pretty shaken up afterward. Not in an embarrassing
meltdown (no pun intended) sort of way, but it was VERY out of
character for her because she'd always been the most stable and tough
and grounded person I'd ever known. That never-ruffled bit is what made
her such a fierce competitor in sports, too, so when she called me late
that night and wanted to get together right away, I had no idea what
had happened.
I honestly can't remember if I've ever seen it all the way through, but
I can recall enough of it to understand why it shook so many people. It
was pretty intense, but even then I found myself being distracted by
camera angles and whatnot. I envy people who can get lost in a TV show
or a movie when I can't, but this thing came close to succeeding at times.
The first 30 minutes of it are pretty gripping. The rest, not so much
(at all!).
What disgusted me about it at the time was that is was so obviously
anti-Reagan propaganda (lest anyone thing this kind of thing started
with Bush or Trump - it actually goes back to at least Nixon...). I did
notice that in subsequent broadcasts, they redubbed the
"Reagan-soundalike" as Pres. and got somebody generic to say the lines.
I recall getting the sense that it was anti-MAD in an "if we'd
unilaterally disarm then I'm sure that the Russkies will do the same"
sort of way, but I don't recall anything specifically  anti-Reagan. In
fact, Reagan really liked the film, IIRC! Well, not like in a holiday
tradition sort of way, but he appreciated it for what it was.
Post by Ian J. Ball
But this and "Threads" are nothing more than anti-nuke propaganda.
I'm still waiting for somebody to do a realistic and actually
even-handed dipiction of a nuclear war (esp. a limited one). But with
Hollywood, I'm not holding my breath...
I immediately think of something dystopian and I generally HATE
dystopian stuff, so I'm good with them not doing it.
The problem with the idea of a limited nuclear war is that it requires
both sides to agree to it. As it turned out the Soviet Union, while
aware of the concept, thought the idea was militarily completely INSANE.
They had no plans for a limited use of _anything_ if there was a
NATO-Warsaw Pact war. They would have deployed chemical and biological
weapons from the get-go and emptied the silos as soon as hostilities
started. They were simply NOT going to give the West a chance to be the
ones to "successfully" knock them out with an escalation.
--
<to be filled in at a later date>
Jim G.
2020-11-25 21:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ian J. Ball
Post by Jim G.
I distinctly remember this. Not from watching it, but from a friend's
reaction. We were in our senior year of college and while I was busy
doing something or other the night when this originally aired, she was
not and she was pretty shaken up afterward. Not in an embarrassing
meltdown (no pun intended) sort of way, but it was VERY out of
character for her because she'd always been the most stable and tough
and grounded person I'd ever known. That never-ruffled bit is what made
her such a fierce competitor in sports, too, so when she called me late
that night and wanted to get together right away, I had no idea what
had happened.
I honestly can't remember if I've ever seen it all the way through, but
I can recall enough of it to understand why it shook so many people. It
was pretty intense, but even then I found myself being distracted by
camera angles and whatnot. I envy people who can get lost in a TV show
or a movie when I can't, but this thing came close to succeeding at times.
The first 30 minutes of it are pretty gripping. The rest, not so much
(at all!).
What disgusted me about it at the time was that is was so obviously
anti-Reagan propaganda (lest anyone thing this kind of thing started
with Bush or Trump - it actually goes back to at least Nixon...). I did
notice that in subsequent broadcasts, they redubbed the
"Reagan-soundalike" as Pres. and got somebody generic to say the lines.
I recall getting the sense that it was anti-MAD in an "if we'd
unilaterally disarm then I'm sure that the Russkies will do the same"
sort of way, but I don't recall anything specifically  anti-Reagan. In
fact, Reagan really liked the film, IIRC! Well, not like in a holiday
tradition sort of way, but he appreciated it for what it was.
Post by Ian J. Ball
But this and "Threads" are nothing more than anti-nuke propaganda.
I'm still waiting for somebody to do a realistic and actually
even-handed dipiction of a nuclear war (esp. a limited one). But with
Hollywood, I'm not holding my breath...
I immediately think of something dystopian and I generally HATE
dystopian stuff, so I'm good with them not doing it.
The problem with the idea of a limited nuclear war is that it requires
both sides to agree to it.
Another problem is that there's a good chance that it just means that
you die slowly and painfully instead of very, very quickly.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
As it turned out the Soviet Union, while
aware of the concept, thought the idea was militarily completely INSANE.
They also knew that their books were already seriously in the red and
that they could not afford a prolonged war.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
They had no plans for a limited use of _anything_ if there was a
NATO-Warsaw Pact war. They would have deployed chemical and biological
weapons from the get-go and emptied the silos as soon as hostilities
started. They were simply NOT going to give the West a chance to be the
ones to "successfully" knock them out with an escalation.
We used to be smart enough to take nations, states and players at their
word when they came right out and declared themselves to be our enemies.
I miss those days.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really glad we're at this place in our relationship where we can
dig up graves together without having to talk." -- Major Lillywhite, iZOMBIE
Dimensional Traveler
2020-11-25 21:51:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim G.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ian J. Ball
Post by Jim G.
I distinctly remember this. Not from watching it, but from a friend's
reaction. We were in our senior year of college and while I was busy
doing something or other the night when this originally aired, she was
not and she was pretty shaken up afterward. Not in an embarrassing
meltdown (no pun intended) sort of way, but it was VERY out of
character for her because she'd always been the most stable and tough
and grounded person I'd ever known. That never-ruffled bit is what made
her such a fierce competitor in sports, too, so when she called me late
that night and wanted to get together right away, I had no idea what
had happened.
I honestly can't remember if I've ever seen it all the way through, but
I can recall enough of it to understand why it shook so many people. It
was pretty intense, but even then I found myself being distracted by
camera angles and whatnot. I envy people who can get lost in a TV show
or a movie when I can't, but this thing came close to succeeding at times.
The first 30 minutes of it are pretty gripping. The rest, not so much
(at all!).
What disgusted me about it at the time was that is was so obviously
anti-Reagan propaganda (lest anyone thing this kind of thing started
with Bush or Trump - it actually goes back to at least Nixon...). I did
notice that in subsequent broadcasts, they redubbed the
"Reagan-soundalike" as Pres. and got somebody generic to say the lines.
I recall getting the sense that it was anti-MAD in an "if we'd
unilaterally disarm then I'm sure that the Russkies will do the same"
sort of way, but I don't recall anything specifically  anti-Reagan. In
fact, Reagan really liked the film, IIRC! Well, not like in a holiday
tradition sort of way, but he appreciated it for what it was.
Post by Ian J. Ball
But this and "Threads" are nothing more than anti-nuke propaganda.
I'm still waiting for somebody to do a realistic and actually
even-handed dipiction of a nuclear war (esp. a limited one). But with
Hollywood, I'm not holding my breath...
I immediately think of something dystopian and I generally HATE
dystopian stuff, so I'm good with them not doing it.
The problem with the idea of a limited nuclear war is that it requires
both sides to agree to it.
Another problem is that there's a good chance that it just means that
you die slowly and painfully instead of very, very quickly.
Most of the dead in any nuclear war will die slowly and painfully. The
percentage killed in the initial blast of even the megaton range "city
killers" is relatively small compared to all the other effects. Which
includes the disease and starvation caused by the disruption of supply
networks as well as deaths from "conventional" injuries and radiation
poisoning.
--
<to be filled in at a later date>
A Friend
2020-11-25 22:27:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Most of the dead in any nuclear war will die slowly and painfully. The
percentage killed in the initial blast of even the megaton range "city
killers" is relatively small compared to all the other effects. Which
includes the disease and starvation caused by the disruption of supply
networks as well as deaths from "conventional" injuries and radiation
poisoning.
The limited-by-technology nuclear war at the end of 1959 in Pat Frank's
"Alas, Babylon" reduced the U.S. population from 178 million to 45
million in a matter of months, mainly through disease and starvation.
Jim G.
2020-11-26 18:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jim G.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jim G.
I recall getting the sense that it was anti-MAD in an "if we'd
unilaterally disarm then I'm sure that the Russkies will do the same"
sort of way, but I don't recall anything specifically  anti-Reagan. In
fact, Reagan really liked the film, IIRC! Well, not like in a holiday
tradition sort of way, but he appreciated it for what it was.
I immediately think of something dystopian and I generally HATE
dystopian stuff, so I'm good with them not doing it.
The problem with the idea of a limited nuclear war is that it requires
both sides to agree to it.
Another problem is that there's a good chance that it just means that
you die slowly and painfully instead of very, very quickly.
Most of the dead in any nuclear war will die slowly and painfully. The
percentage killed in the initial blast of even the megaton range "city
killers" is relatively small compared to all the other effects. Which
includes the disease and starvation caused by the disruption of supply
networks as well as deaths from "conventional" injuries and radiation
poisoning.
Yeah, and dying instantly would be preferable to dying painfully from
radiation exposure days or weeks later, which in turn would be
preferable to dying months later when the food runs out...
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really glad we're at this place in our relationship where we can
dig up graves together without having to talk." -- Major Lillywhite, iZOMBIE
RichA
2020-11-30 02:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim G.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ian J. Ball
Post by Jim G.
I distinctly remember this. Not from watching it, but from a friend's
reaction. We were in our senior year of college and while I was busy
doing something or other the night when this originally aired, she was
not and she was pretty shaken up afterward. Not in an embarrassing
meltdown (no pun intended) sort of way, but it was VERY out of
character for her because she'd always been the most stable and tough
and grounded person I'd ever known. That never-ruffled bit is what made
her such a fierce competitor in sports, too, so when she called me late
that night and wanted to get together right away, I had no idea what
had happened.
I honestly can't remember if I've ever seen it all the way through, but
I can recall enough of it to understand why it shook so many people. It
was pretty intense, but even then I found myself being distracted by
camera angles and whatnot. I envy people who can get lost in a TV show
or a movie when I can't, but this thing came close to succeeding at times.
The first 30 minutes of it are pretty gripping. The rest, not so much
(at all!).
What disgusted me about it at the time was that is was so obviously
anti-Reagan propaganda (lest anyone thing this kind of thing started
with Bush or Trump - it actually goes back to at least Nixon...). I did
notice that in subsequent broadcasts, they redubbed the
"Reagan-soundalike" as Pres. and got somebody generic to say the lines.
I recall getting the sense that it was anti-MAD in an "if we'd
unilaterally disarm then I'm sure that the Russkies will do the same"
sort of way, but I don't recall anything specifically anti-Reagan. In
fact, Reagan really liked the film, IIRC! Well, not like in a holiday
tradition sort of way, but he appreciated it for what it was.
Post by Ian J. Ball
But this and "Threads" are nothing more than anti-nuke propaganda.
I'm still waiting for somebody to do a realistic and actually
even-handed dipiction of a nuclear war (esp. a limited one). But with
Hollywood, I'm not holding my breath...
I immediately think of something dystopian and I generally HATE
dystopian stuff, so I'm good with them not doing it.
The problem with the idea of a limited nuclear war is that it requires
both sides to agree to it.
Another problem is that there's a good chance that it just means that
you die slowly and painfully instead of very, very quickly.
Most of the dead in any nuclear war will die slowly and painfully. The
percentage killed in the initial blast of even the megaton range "city
killers" is relatively small compared to all the other effects.
Uh, no. Heat, blast and initial radiation would kill FAR more than ANY lingering fall-out products. Most blasts would be air-burst to maximize damage and
Hiroshima and Nagasaki (air bursts) were habitable a few days after the blasts.
RichA
2020-11-24 01:30:32 UTC
Permalink
It was a pale version of the much better British "Threads" or even "Testament" but they were all good for a laugh.
These "dire situation" movies came out at Carl Sagan went of the deep-end and began chanting about "nuclear winter."
It was all nonsense. As for Reagan, he did not like nuclear weapons and tried his best to reach deals to limit them.
What he should have done was build more.
Loading...