Its dated since Russia is not our main enemy anymore, the "cold war" is basically long over BUT a remake could involve TERRORISM like Isis getting and using a nuke. With a good budget and more modern special fx the destruction could really look real!
shareThat would not be a remake then.
There are other movies about terrorists blowing up a Nuke.
Sum of All Fears.
True Lies
Etc...
those are not "remakes" of The Day After, yet their plots fit more in line with your suggestion than The day After does.
Try learning exactly what a "remake" is.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
yes but in those movies the terrorists were DEFEATED and the attack was PREVENTED.
If the attack was SUCCESSFUL and a community had to live with the horror of the aftermath then story wise it would be pretty much the same thing.
They could also replace Russia with North Korea for a remake.
yes but in those movies the terrorists were DEFEATED and the attack was PREVENTED.
Well my other idea was remaking it with North Korea as the enemy instead of USSR. That would really be a logical idea since the remake of RED DAWN switched the enemy from Russia to North Korea.
shareWell my other idea was remaking it with North Korea as the enemy instead of USSR. That would really be a logical idea since the remake of RED DAWN switched the enemy from Russia to North Korea.
If the Russians were sailing one of their aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Mexico, I don't think many Americans would be upset if we buzzed them like they buzzed us. But because these incidents happened in their home waters (Baltic Sea & Black Sea), we're getting our panties in a bunch? Bizarre.
As for Ukraine (it's "Ukraine" not, "The Ukraine), the CIA helped to overthrow the duly elected government so we could get Ukraine to join the EU. And in Crimea, the people voted to re-join Russia as part of the Russian Federation. Russia could not afford to lose Crimea.
How about we stop feeding the Neo-Cons and their desperate ploys to start a war with Russia and leave Syria and Russia alone and in peace? Haven't we had enough conflict in the mid-east?
WOW, You really drank the koolaid didn't you!
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
I've never seen Sum of All Fears but in True Lies we just see a couple of seconds of a mushroom cloud in the distant horizon. It blew up at sea on a deserted island. It in no way lets you walk around amongst the sick and wounded in the aftermath to let you see how it may be for those who survive the horror. True Lies wouldn't in any way provide what you are asking for, "a community had to live with the horror of the aftermath" does not happen in True Lies.
Was ist der Sinn des Lebens?
CGSalior, why are just the constant force of hostility on The Day After boards?
This isn't your class and the people who post on this forum are not your pupils.
Anyhow for a film that includes a decent depiction of nuclear Terrorisim try Special Bulliten.
CGSalior, why are just the constant force of hostility on The Day After boards?
Anyhow for a film that includes a decent depiction of nuclear Terrorisim try Special Bulliten
Well back to film talk I think the issue with any nuclear terrorisim movie is that you would have to go outside usual credibility to do one.
You could make a good film out of it but not a terribly realistic one. Nuclear terrorisim is nowhere as easy to accomplish as most people think, black market nuclear materials are not easy to come by.
You could write a scenario in which Islamic extremists have taken control over a number of mobile nuclear weapons in Pakistan. That's a more likely scenario but as I am sure you are ware nothing like a bomb in a suitcase or a back of a van, at least nothing beyond a "dirty bomb".
You could make a good film out of it but not a terribly realistic one.
Within the realms of of the films reality I grant you but outside of fiction nuclear terrorisim is not a likely threat.
shareIn reality it is a possible, though not likely threat.
Which means that any film that portrays a nuclear terrorist attack is not by default "unrealistic".
A show may very well still be unrealistic for a variety of reasons, but just because it is about nuclear terrorism in itself does not make it so.
What part of this do you not get?
And FYI... The threat of nuclear terrorism is growing daily. Though still a highly unlikely event... the threat is growing.
Especially if Iran goes nuclear.
(Thanks Obama, you farking traitor)
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
In reality it is a possible, though not likely threat.
Which means that any film that portrays a nuclear terrorist attack is not by default "unrealistic".
Entirely depends on ho they portray it, it isn't realistic by default. A war with Russia is possible but that doesn't mean "by default" it would be realistic.
A show may very well still be unrealistic for a variety of reasons, but just because it is about nuclear terrorism in itself does not make it so.
What part of this do you not get?
Nuclear terrorisim is an easy thing to hype and realistic scenario where a terrorist orginisation manages to get hold of nuclear material, have enough money to purchase the nuclear material, to go undetected buying it, to have the expertise to build a bomb, to be able to place it somewhere...is not easy.
Making such a film belivable would be hard though not impossible.
And FYI... The threat of nuclear terrorism is growing daily. Though still a highly unlikely event... the threat is growing.
Especially if Iran goes nuclear.
The chances are Iran could secure thier nuclear material better than other current nations like Pakistan currently is. The bigger threat is an nuclear arms race in the middle east NOT nuclear terrorisim.
Wether or not Obama's deal was helpful remains to be seen but sanctions never stopped North Korea from developing nuclear weapons and if the U.S really wanted to stop a possible nuclear conflict they would have stopped India and Pakistan from developing them.
They didn't and currently that region of the planet is the most likely area to have a nuclear exchange.
Not only that but South Africa had a nuclear weapon in the 1980's but gave it up for better relations with the west. If you think the U.S can stop nuclear proliferation by being a hard arse then clearly you haven't been paying attention to what has been happening on this planet since 1945.
[deleted]
You forget that Iran actually AIDS Terrorists and provides them with weapons.
Both Hesbollah and Hamas are fully supported in both arms and money by Iran.
It isn't a matter of how secure their weapons are, but who they would GIVE them to.
Remember.. Iran's stated goals are to wipe Israel and America off the map.
And the doctrine of MAD won't work as a restraint for those that believe in Martyrdom.
They believe it is their God Given duty, even if it kills them.
And your comment concerning Pakistan's weapons security just reinforces MY position. not yours.
Iran would much rather be an econmic powerhouse than some self-appointed slayer of an American Imperial dragon. As far as aiding terrorisim gopes America has done exactly that themselves so there shouldn't be any finger pointing.
Iran couldn't wipe America off the map even if it that is there wish. This is much much like those crazy propaganda videos North Korea produced depicting an attack upon the U.S with nuclear weapons.
You also wouldn't need something like M.A.D to prevent an attack by Iran, Iran presents a different threat to what the Soviet Union did or even one that China could possibly pose.
Iran does not want to destroy itself, it would much rather be a rich nation. It's people would much rather have western luxerys.
Pakistan keep their nuclear weapons on mobile launchers, they have a much bigger Islamic extremist problem than Iran. The nation is far more involved in aiding terrorisim than Iran. Iran isn't the biggest problem, Pakistan is the country that should be giving us nightmares.
They don't have them yet, though it is only a matter of time.
According to some intelligence reports they are all ready in posession of said weapons. At according to the book Command and Control of which sources information directly from reliable sources.
Hey asshat! Where was I even making that argument?
How about you stop with the false strawman argument to bolster your insult!
All I was going by was the boring and obvious stabs at Obama, as if he invented dipolmacy. The fact is you have to give a nation a reason to give up their nuclear weapons programme, if you just offer stick and no carrot the hostility will come across as a threat and you are more likely to make that nation cling to their nuclear weapons programme.
To be honest nuclear weapons are a great way to bring big nations to the table to talk to them when they may have otherwise been ignored. This is deffently a big part of the reason why Iran is developing them and it's exactly why North Korea either has them or is close to having them.
If you think Obama talking to Iran is just some limp wristed, weak foriegn policy, Trump plans to talk to with North Korea!?
Unless you believe he is some maverick the likes the world has never seen before he is also going to have to make concessions and to a leader of a nation that is far more unstable than Iran.
Howbout Obummer says something so dumb to Putin (Like keepin it real) that Vladimir has no choice but to press the button?
shareRemake it and call it Swan Song
Death lies dormant in each of us and will bloom in time. Odd Thomas
Actually, we and the Russians still train as if we were going to war with each other.
"An Archer is known by his aim, not by his arrows."
-Li Chen-Sung (Richard Loo) The Outer Limits
I'd actually like to see a well-made remake. With the updated political atmosphere and current events incorporated into the film, a remake would be compelling.
share[deleted]
Crackpot.
---
"America never had an Islamic terrorist attack before Obama"--Adolph Ghouliani, America's Mayor
[deleted]