MovieChat Forums > The Day After (1983) Discussion > Some annoyingly unreal things I saw

Some annoyingly unreal things I saw


Just a couple of things I noticed on rewatching this film:

Would those people in the movie theater have just sat there watching a film in the middle of the afternoon when there were nuclear warnings going out?
Wouldn't the theater manager stop the pictures and tell the people to seek shelter?

And after the attacks when the hospital staff are meeting there was that one nurse/doctor just sitting there smoking (in a hospital? ok, maybe times were different back then and after a nuclear attack maybe the anti-smoking police had their hands full?...) with blood practically running down her face (I guess from running into a plateglass window?) Wouldn't you think she'd wipe her face and maybe splash some alcohol on the wounds ... being a doctor and all?

reply

Also, wouldn't the water supply there in Lawrence likely be radiactive so you couldn't drink out of fountains and I'm not sure boiling radioactive water would do anything to make it safe to clean medical instruments with?

reply

You are correct to assume that consuming radioactive foods and or water would be unsafe. Boiling of radioactive water or even cooking with it would only further spread the radioactivity. Using wood or any materials such as coal that has been comtaminated also spreads radioactivity. Radioactive materials must be neutralized before they can cleared as safe. There are ways to purify water and some foods from radiation. The best ways to protect foods are in canned foods if you have fresh foods , such as an organge it is highly unlikely that peeling it would make it safe for eating. however a radiation dector will let you know just how much radiactive particles settled on the surface of your food. One thing that did kinda bother me was that the remaining millitary did not try to stop people from eating foods exposed to the fallout such as the people around the campfire. They were eating dead horse meat and then shot the farmer. We have to asume they then eat him ( as gross as that sounds ). But I guess that would be the reality of a Nuclear Winter. Lack of food can make people do stupid things I guess. Also the people wondering around after the blast. Do people really think that it would be that safe. If I survived I'd hole up for a few days at least provided I had the food and a decent shelter of course. Also the base watchman hiding in a semi trailer. PLEASE does he really think he wouldn't get cooked. he was only like a mile or so from a Nuclear blast also Dr. Oaks would be Charcoal. I know in Hiroshima people were less than 400 yards from the blast and survived. So I guess it is possible however unlikely, Modern Nukes are hundreds if not thousands of times more powerful than Hiroshima was. Personaly those people in the movie theather got lucky. Would you really wanna live in a post Nuclear waste land? I know I wouldn't wanna survive a Nuclear War. Then again I'd choose option B : Not ever experiencing one in the first place.

reply

> Modern Nukes are hundreds if not thousands of times more
> powerful than Hiroshima was.

Some are, some aren't -- especially more recent ones (the only reason to make a really big one is because you think you can't get it on target, a concern during the pre-GPS era). It's possible to make nukes with less than 1 kiloton yield.

Regardless of size, modern nukes are more "efficient": they need less fissionable material, and consequently there's less particulate radiation.

And humanity (and other life) is a lot more resilient than the average promoter of impending doom would have you believe. The Hiroshima gun-bomb was particularly filthy, yet people are still living there.

reply

Regardless of size, modern nukes are more "efficient": they need less fissionable material, and consequently there's less particulate radiation.


wrong.
while some fallout is from residue of the fissile material, much of it comes from the bomb casing, and the vast majority of it from the debris that is swept up into the rising fireball.

What determines most, the amount of particulate radiation (AKA Fallout), is how the bomb is burst.
a)An Airburst has very little fallout.
b)A low altitude burst is dirtier as ground material is swept up into the rising fireball
c)A Ground burst is the dirtiest of all
d)A subsurface burst contains most of the particulate underground.


I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

No you moron, just no.

Less fissionable material means that there is less radioactive material to be spread around.

All that scaaary fallout. It isn't as radiated or in as much amounts as older weapons.

That poster was completely correct.

reply

You already lost by calling another a moron.
There was no call to get asinine.

And sorry but I AM right on this.

the other poster is correct and I agree that modern nukes are more efficient.

What is wrong is the reasoning behind it. (Right for the wrong reasons)

Fallout is NOT just the fissile material in the core of the bomb. Less in the core means less fallout is yours and the other posters reasoning.

This is simply wrong. Radioactive material from the core package of the bomb is only a tiny tiny tiny fraction of a percentage of the fallout created by the bomb. The vast majority of it comes from debris and materials in the target area that is irradiated and swept up into the rising fireball into the mushroom cloud. To be deposited later as radioactive ash (Fallout).

How much debris is pulled up into the fireball is directly dependent on the nature and altitude of the burst.

Subsurface: Most is contained below ground

Surface: Most irradiated material but spead of fallout is more limited

Low Altitude: greatest fallout spread area but slightly less amount of it to be spread.

High Altitude: Very little fallout, only what comes from the casing of the bomb itself, no debris.

Learn WTF you are talking about before calling others morons. Skxawng!


From the Federation of American Scientist (FAS.org)

Blast and thermal effects occur to some extent in all types of explosions, whether conventional or nuclear. The release of ionizing radiation, however, is a phenomenon unique to nuclear explosions and is an additional casualty producing mechanism superimposed on blast and thermal effects. This radiation is basically of two kinds, electromagnetic and particulate, and is emitted not only at the time of detonation (initial radiation) but also for long periods of time afterward (residual radiation). Initial or prompt nuclear radiation is that ionizing radiation emitted within the first minute after detonation and results almost entirely from the nuclear processes occurring at detonation. Residual radiation is defined as that radiation which is emitted later than 1 minute after detonation and arises principally from the decay of radioisotopes produced during the explosion.
Only about 5% of the energy released in an Airburst is initial radiation.

The residual radiation hazard from a nuclear explosion is in the form of radioactive fallout and neutron-induced activity.

These are intermediate weight isotopes which are formed when a heavy uranium or plutonium nucleus is split in a fission reaction. There are over 300 different fission products that may result from a fission reaction. Many of these are radioactive with widely differing half-lives. Some are very short, i.e., fractions of a second, while a few are long enough that the materials can be a hazard for months or years. Their principal mode of decay is by the emission of beta and gamma radiation. Approximately 60 grams of fission products are formed per kiloton of yield. The estimated activity of this quantity of fission products 1 minute after detonation is equal to that of 1.1 x 1021 Bq (30 million kilograms of radium) in equilibrium with its decay products.

Nuclear weapons are relatively inefficient in their use of fissionable material, and much of the uranium and plutonium is dispersed by the explosion without undergoing fission. Such unfissioned nuclear material decays by the emission of alpha particles and is of relatively minor importance.

After an air burst the fission products, unfissioned nuclear material, and weapon residues which have been vaporized by the heat of the fireball will condense into a fine suspension of very small particles 0.01 to 20 micrometers in diameter. These particles may be quickly drawn up into the stratosphere, particularly so if the explosive yield exceeds 10 Kt. They will then be dispersed by atmospheric winds and will gradually settle to the earth's surface after weeks, months, and even years as worldwide fallout. The radiobiological hazard of worldwide fallout is essentially a long-term one due to the potential accumulation of long-lived radioisotopes, such as strontium-90 and cesium-137, in the body as a result of ingestion of foods which had incorporated these radioactive materials. This hazard is much less serious than those which are associated with local fallout and, therefore, is not discussed at length in this publication. Local fallout is of much greater immediate operational concern.


In a land or water surface burst, large amounts of earth or water will be vaporized by the heat of the fireball and drawn up into the radioactive cloud. This material will become radioactive when it condenses with fission products and other radiocontaminants or has become neutron-activated. There will be large amounts of particles of less than 0.1 micrometer to several millimeters in diameter generated in a surface burst in addition to the very fine particles which contribute to worldwide fallout. The larger particles will not rise into the stratosphere and consequently will settle to earth within about 24 hours as local fallout. Severe local fallout contamination can extend far beyond the blast and thermal effects, particularly in the case of high yield surface detonations. Whenever individuals remain in a radiologically contaminated area, such contamination will lead to an immediate external radiation exposure as well as a possible later internal hazard due to inhalation and ingestion of radiocontaminants. In severe cases of fallout contamination, lethal doses of external radiation may be incurred if protective or evasive measures are not undertaken. In cases of water surface (and shallow underwater) bursts, the particles tend to be rather lighter and smaller and so produce less local fallout but will extend over a greater area. The particles contain mostly sea salts with some water; these can have a cloud seeding affect causing local rainout and areas of high local fallout. For subsurface bursts, there is an additional phenomenon present called "base surge." The base surge is a cloud that rolls outward from the bottom of the column produced by a subsurface explosion. For underwater bursts the visible surge is, in effect, a cloud of liquid (water) droplets with the property of flowing almost as if it were a homogeneous fluid. After the water evaporates, an invisible base surge of small radioactive particles may persist. For subsurface land bursts, the surge is made up of small solid particles, but it still behaves like a fluid. A soil earth medium favors base surge formation in an underground burst.


Read all you ever want to know about Nuclear weapon effects here:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/index.html

This is the REAL dope. not the BS that floats around about nuclear weapons that is the product of overactive imaginations. Real dope that is unclassified. greater details are of course classified.

So now dumba$$, call me a moron again


I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

And what's even worse is your ridiculous rant that only further proved my point.

Sorry moron, calling you what you are isn't going to make my argument any less correct, nor is a big rant about how "hurr that material contains radiation" make my specific, detailed point about it containing LESS radiation in which to cause the effects established change the FACT that it CONTAINS LESS RADIATION.

And not, you know, NO radiation. Which I didn't even remotely say, you complete moron.

*facepalm*

reply

And here is further information for you that DIRECTLY proves that you are a moron for calling me a moron when in fact I was correct.

From FAS.org

Air Bursts. An air burst is an explosion in which a weapon is detonated in air at an altitude below 30 km but at sufficient height that the fireball does not contact the surface of the earth. After such a burst, blast may cause considerable damage and injury. The altitude of an air burst can be varied to obtain maximum blast effects, maximum thermal effects, desired radiation effects, or a balanced combination of these effects. Burns to exposed skin may be produced over many square kilometers and eye injuries over a still larger area. Initial nuclear radiation will be a significant hazard with smaller weapons, but the fallout hazard can be ignored as there is essentially no local fallout from an air burst.

Surface Burst. A surface burst is an explosion in which a weapon is detonated on or slightly above the surface of the earth so that the fireball actually touches the land or water surface. Under these conditions, the area affected by blast, thermal radiation, and initial nuclear radiation will be less extensive than for an air burst of similar yield, except in the region of ground zero where destruction is concentrated. In contrast with air bursts, local fallout can be a hazard over a much larger downwind area than that which is affected by blast and thermal radiation.

Subsurface Burst. A subsurface burst is an explosion in which the point of the detonation is beneath the surface of land or water. Cratering will generally result from an underground burst, just as for a surface burst. If the burst does not penetrate the surface, the only other hazard will be from ground or water shock. If the burst is shallow enough to penetrate the surface, blast, thermal, and initial nuclear radiation effects will be present, but will be less than for a surface burst of comparable yield. Local fallout will be very heavy if penetration occurs.

High Altitude Burst. A high altitude burst is one in which the weapon is exploded at such an altitude (above 30 km) that initial soft x-rays generated by the detonation dissipate energy as heat in a much larger volume of air molecules. There the fireball is much larger and expands much more rapidly. The ionizing radiation from the high altitude burst can travel for hundreds of miles before being absorbed. Significant ionization of the upper atmosphere (ionosphere) can occur. Severe disruption in communications can occur following high altitude bursts. They also lead to generation of an intense electromagnetic pulse (EMP) which can significantly degrade performance of or destroy sophisticated electronic equipment. There are no known biological effects of EMP; however, indirect effects may result from failure of critical medical equipment.

Basically there is NO fallout from a High altitude burst, the effects being primarily an EMP.

Are you starting to feel like the moron now for calling me one when you were wrong and I was right?

BTW, I read back over some of your other posts to get as feel for what kind of idiot i'm dealing with here. You use moron a lot. Everyone is a moron to you. Learn some other words kid.

Also all your posts are anti-American rants and pro-soviet communism. You really are pathetic. Communism lost.


I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

On top of those points, uh, PROVING my point (which you perhaps would have known had you actually read my post)...

You were already refuted regarding your post before this. Hahahaha, what a moron.

reply

CSGSailor was an engineer on a nuclear sub, if I recall. I think he would have more knowledge of the effects of a nuclear weapon than a basement computer-jockey.

reply

LMAO...

No.. I wasn't. I was a Surface Warfare Sailor on Guided Missile Cruisers. An EW (Electronic Warfare Technician) to be exact.

But I have studied ACTUAL documents and reports on Nuclear effects as opposed to most who comment here who get their info from watching other Hollywood films, to include the poster I was responding to.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

LOLz you got SMACKED *kapow*
pwnage

reply

name calling! just like second grade! bring it on!

suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

reply

It's established many times over, that the Hiroshima bomb and the Nagasaki bomb never touched the ground.

This makes for a lot less fallout, and the fallout would be spread farther and be more diluted.

reply

Foods do not become "radioactive." They can be contaminated with radioactive particles from fallout, but these can be removed by washing or peeling. You couldn't get radiation sickness from eating an orange unless you ingested actual radioactive particles that were on the food or your hands. As for people wandering around or eating dead animals, they really might not have much of a choice. If you are starving to death, you eat what is available. Of course, those people shouldn't have been wandering around. They should have gone into some nice air conditioned safe shelter building twenty feet underground. Ever think they might not have been someplace where they had that option? Ever think they might have been emotionally shocked and not thinking straight? Ever think the average person might not KNOW anything about radiation and the dangers thereof? Duh.

I do wonder, however, about those people who got vaporized in the middle of their wedding. Um... there are air raid sirens going off and you still go on with your freaking WEDDING? Must have been a real bridezilla who refused to give up HER SPECIAL DAY1

reply

Modern nuclear weapons, at least those housed in your basic ICBM (which is what hit Missori in The Day After) would be in the 300-500 kiloton range. A few would be in the 1+ megaton range. So most of the mushroom clouds in the Kansas City area that day would have likely been 20-40 times more powerful than the Hiroshima blast.

reply

Yes, there are many implausible things in the movie but it's still good. I always thought about the water and the horses. Actually, after a nuclear attack you wouldn't see the sun for a long time either.

As for the doctor, I laughed about her because she said something about not being able to burn woods inside because if so they would contamine the air. Is she not contaminating the air with her cigarette? LOL

reply

I think alittle cigarette smoke pails in comparison to the fallout, the Gamma and alpha and beta radiation they MUST be absorbing, you're gonna DIE anyway....let her have her somke and don't be a smoke nazi!

reply

Well, you have to remember that these missiles were "airburst." I did some research on "airbursting" and this is exploding the nuclear bomb at a high altitude to increase the area that is affected. However, one drawback of it is it will reduce the fallout. Yet as you saw in this movie it makes it impossible to use electricity.

About the female doctor, we don't know that she didn't clean her wounds. In the movie, they looked clean, she just didn't cover them. Also, you have to remember that this was twenty-five years ago- we knew then that smoking cigarettes was bad for you, but not about the dangers of secondhand smoke.

Something else was said about why Dr. Oakes wasn't vaporized since he was near Kansas City. He wasn't THAT near the city-if you see the scene where he enters the hospital, he tells the staff that he was thirty miles away. It would take the fallout some time to reach them-you actually see it reaching them when the professor is down in the basement with his students. This depends on the weather and the wind. Also, someone else wondered why the people who were outside didn't die. Well, the assumption is they WERE going to die. People also get radiation sickness at different rates depending on their immune system, which explains why some people, such as Dr. Oakes and the soldier, didn't seem to get it for a while. You can recover from it, however, if the exposure is stopped-so it seems to me that Denise and Stephen should have gotten better. But then again, maybe their level of exposure was very high. I've also read that even if radiation levels are high, you can go outside for a minute or two, although not much more than that, without suffering adverse effects. About the time it would take to empty a bucket of waste, for instance.

About people drinking the water-I would assume that the hospital staff probably boiled and/or treated their water. The others-well, they were dying anyway. That would explain why the military didn't stop people from drinking the water-probably most of them had received fatal levels of exposures, so what difference did it make? They were thirsty; let them drink. About the horses-I assumed that the barn where Jim Dahlberg kept his animals was windowless. That's the major issue in a nuclear war-whether or not there are windows. This is why you see him covering the windows with dirt, because that it high the radiation would get in. I guess the animals that were in the barn could survive up to two weeks? Maybe he left them food and water.

Again, the levels of radiation are lower in an airburst nuclear missile than a direct hit, and all sorts of things, such as the weather, affect how high the radiation level would be. I read recently that the fallout from a nuclear weapon airburst over New York City, for instance, would probably blow out to sea. Like most people, I always had the impression that if one nuclear weapon was exploded near you than the land would be contaminated for a million years and everyone would die of radiation sickness. This isn't necessarily true, but I'm sure it would not be pleasant to be a survivor.

reply

Well, you have to remember that these missiles were "airburst." I did some research on "airbursting" and this is exploding the nuclear bomb at a high altitude to increase the area that is affected. However, one drawback of it is it will reduce the fallout. Yet as you saw in this movie it makes it impossible to use electricity


You are somewhat right and a lot wrong.
you need to do quite a bit more researching... or at least reword your statement to be less confusing.

Your research indicated to you that an airburst is setting off a bomb at high altitude to increase the area that is affected? LOL
WRONG.

A HIGH ALTITUDE burst has almost no effect on the ground other than a massive EMP which will knock out all electrical devices. and in the movie.. ONLY THE FIRST burst was such a high altitude burst.

Increasing a Ground burst to a LOW ALTITUDE Burst does increase the effectiveness of the blast wave because the blast can spread out and down over a larger area without disruption from the ground. a Ground bursts shockwave is not as effective because obstacles and terrain disrupt the blast. but increasing the height also lessens the amount of material directly exposed to the fireball and therefore lessens the radioactive fallout.

thats why they calculate what is called OPTIMAL BURST HEIGHT. a trade off for best blast effect while maximising the fallout.
all the bombs that you see in the movie that obliterate Kansas City, Lawrence, etc... are all low altitude airbursts.

and while all Nuclear bursts have an EMP. most of them do NOT have a very strong one. Only the very high altitude ones have a powerful EMP that knocks out all the equipment as seen in the movie.

That's because a Nuclear blast gives off a fixed total amount of energy. Lower down in the thicker atmosphere or at ground level. MOST of that energy is converted to heat and that heating of the air is transferred into creating the powerful shockwave that is the nuclear blast, the weapons most powerful effect.

Up at the edge of space where the Air is extremely thin, there is nothing to heat and create such a shockwave, but the same total amount of energy must be released and it all goes out in its original form as a massive Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

You have done some decent research, however, you have made a couple of incorrect statements, firstly, about the drinking water, water(amazingly) does NOT absorb large amounts of radioactivity you can drink the water from an area right next to where a nuclear explosion took place, the only thing you have to concern yourself with is any possible particulate matter that is suspended in the water before you drink it, all that is really needed to do is to is pass the water through some sort of filter - ideally a reverse osmosis type of filter, but an activated charcoal one, like a Brita filter is acceptable in a pinch, even a plain paper coffee filter will offer some protection. there is a TON of info on survival techniques available at websites like:

http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/survival/books/doomsday/index.htm

or http://www.fas.org

the other thing you were incorrect about was windows and you were only partially incorrect - they were covering the basement windows with dirt in an attempt to protect them from the blast wave from a nuclear explosion. If the wave happened to hit one of the basement windows, it would shatter them and create high speed, razor sharp missiles out of the debris. Then, the uncovered opening would allow radioactive fallout in.

reply

Regarding fallout: While the missiles that hit Kansas City were airbursts and wouldn't generate significant fallout, I am assuming there would be considerable fallout from ground strikes meant to take out the nearby missile silos.

Denise and Stephen: They probably could have been outside for a little while without ill effects, assuming they avoided contact with particles, washed their bodies and hair thoroughly and changed their clothes after. They were running through the ash, getting it all over themselves, and no doubt breathing a lot of it in. I seem to recall them wearing the same clothes after their trip outdoors (someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) Even if the radiation had decayed considerably, they were pretty much poster children for what NOT to do in an environment full of radioactive particles.

Water: That pump the refugees were drinking from wasn't really a pump (even though the guy is shown "pumping" it.) It's a water spigot for a pressurized system and I doubt they would be able to get anything out of it. I have two of those on my property, and when the electricity goes out, the pump to the well goes out and there is no water pressure to the spigots. So if you're really persnickety, them drinking that water would be a moot point. They wouldn't be able to get to it unless someone rigged up a way to draw water from the well without electricity.

A learning experience is something that says, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that."

reply

> after a nuclear attack you wouldn't see the sun for a long time either.

BS.

reply

well there are two reasons you would not see the sun for a long time
1 Death. Being dead tends to cut into your Sunbathing hours
2. Nuclear winter. It tends to happen after a large scale Nuclear attack

Oh GOOD!,my dog found the chainsaw

reply

As for the doctor, I laughed about her because she said something about not being able to burn woods inside because if so they would contamine the air. Is she not contaminating the air with her cigarette? LOL


They could not burn wood inside that came from outside because the particulate ash from the wood would be radioactive as well. That is what fallout is... ash from materials that have been irradiated. The cigarette on the other hand was not irradiated.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Well, after all that had just happened,and the fact that the doctor was obviously traumatized (who the hell WOULDN'T be )I highly doubt that she or any of her colleagues would be to concerned with the comparatively infinitessimal amount of contamination her cigarette would cause. Damn militant non smokers!

reply

The most annoying scene happens before the attack, when Jolene Dalhberg steals her sister Denise's IUD. When Denise finds it missing, the two of them get into an argument and then proceed to run through the bedrooms and bathroom yelling at each other, the IUD trailing by it's string from Jolene's hand (!). An utterly ludicrous, stupid and unnecessary scene.


reply

At the supermarket checkout line: "They just hit one of our ships in the Persian Gulf."
Girl's fiance: "Who's 'they'?"
That has got to be the absolutely dumbest question I've ever heard. Who were we fighting, the Norwegians???!!! Geesh. Get a grip, Hollywood.

reply

Actually, I don't think that scenario is that far-fetched, unfortunately. Lots of people don't pay any attention to what's happening in the news, be it local, national, or world-wide.

reply

I have a friend who never watched the news or read papers, she was totally oblivious to anything unless someone told her about it, so I also can believe it. She didn't know we'd had an election, never mind a new prime minister, honest to God. She's older now with children, so a bit more aware, but not much!!!

Also I would think people might bury their heads in the sand....no news is good news if you know what I mean.

reply

Well my word can you blame your friend for not watching the news or reading the newspaper. All that you see and hear nowadays are wars, higher taxes that keep climbing, people moaning, murders, stabbings, violence.... what gives? Your friend is probably trying to save her mental health. I don't watch the news or read a newspaper. I get tired of hearing these things constantly and that is all YOU HEAR. I'm depressed enough as it is. And it seems you can't watch a programme these days (esp from the US) unless there is the T word in there (Terrorism). Regarding news and newspapers, you don't know who to believe anyway, things are so biased.

reply

LOL I remember being on an AOL message board last President's Day. They had listed the top ten presidents of all time, and the top ten worst, and posters were discussing it. (FYI-Dubya made BOTH lists)! One poster went on and on about how she thought Al Gore should have made the worst presidents list because all he did when he was in office was obsess about global warming. And there were people agreeing and disagreeing with her. I was watching, amused, wondering how long that topic would go on. Of course, someone finally couldn't resist informing them that Al Gore was never president.

reply

I had a friend who I sat down and watch Pearl Harbor with. She thought the movie totally unrealistic,not because of all the inaccuracies inherent in a Michael Bay film, but because the Japanese are our allies and would have never attacked us like that.
WTF!!!

I had to explain to her that Pearl Harbor really did happen and that we fought for nearly 4 years against the Japanese in a little scuffle called World War Two.

She had No Effing clue.
and we are not talking about a kid in school. She was in her early 40's.


I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

...because the Japanese are our allies and would have never attacked us like that


Please tell me you're joking?

SpiltPersonality

reply

Nope. Not joking.
She is a very strong supporter of Obama as well. No surprise.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

For someone who appears to be pretty intelligent, you do a fine job here of presenting yourself as a simple-minded fool.

reply

Oohhhh Personal ad Hominem attacks from the left because I don't think Highly of Obummer.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Well, how about one from a right-winger.

Shut up and stick to the topic!

reply

LOL

reply

Yeah, I agree. I have sisters, and the last thing I would want to grab with my bare hands and run around with would be something that had come into extremely intimate contact with them. And also, how realistic is it that an innocent, sheltered twekve year old, like Jolene is presented as, would even know that is a birth control device? And wouldn't Denise hide that a little better, especially if she knows her sister is a brat?

reply

I don't know what they were fussing about exactly but I do know it could not have been an IUD. IUD stands for intra uterine device. It is inserted into the uterus by a doctor and it stays there until a doctor removes unless it becomes dislodged and falls out on its own (it happens but not often).

My impression was that it was a diaphragm which is a flexible latex device that is inserted into the vagina and covers the cervix (the opening of the uterus). They are coated with spermicide jelly lubricant and inserted by the woman or her partner just before intercourse takes place. Diaphragms don't have strings though. They also come in a case that sort of looks like an oversized powder compact so the sister wouldn't have been touching the actual diaphragm.

I'd say that the sister was maybe 12-13 years of age. I don't find it unlikely that she would have been taught about the various forms of birth control. Even in as family that was as conservative as that family was. And big sisters tend to educate little sisters about such matters.

and that concludes our IMDb sex education/contraceptives 101 class

B

reply

It's not an IUD, and IUD is implanted and not kept in one's drawer. I assume it was a diaphragm.

That said, the scene is still really stupid.

reply

Well, in the super-silly "X-RAY" scenes, there were even people officially marrying (and more).

reply

The unreal thing I remem ber is the fancy horse and carriage some people are riding in after the attacks.. It looked like the horse and carriage from "Oklahoma".

reply

Myself, I guess my biggest gripe would be how incredibly stupid most of the females were in this film. The daughter asking in a sort of drawling slack-jawed way.."Daddy... what's radiation?"; as was mentioned before when the person mentioned the attacked ship: "Who's 'they?'"; The mom refusing to stop making the bed and having to be dragged down into shelter (although, maybe she just wanted to die quickly; but what I got out of this scene was that she went into a sort of hysterical shock); the IUD scene; the girl panicing and running outside into the field and Steve Guttenberg having to "rescue her" (as you can see, I forget the names of the characters because it's been a while since I've watched it). The list goes on and on. I was 12 when I first saw the movie and even then I had to roll my eyes in exasperation.


No TV and no beer make Homer something--something!!
Go Crazy?
Don't mind if I do!!!

reply

I didn't have a problem with Joleen. I think her character was intended to be naive, very shallow and flirty. Note how she said "Hello, Bruce..." LOL

reply

The mom refusing to quit making the bed is someone in complete denial. That scene gets me every time. She needed to have a few final moments of "normalcy".

The woman in the hospital smoking a cigarette was probably in shock (like everyone would be). If she needed a cigarette to begin to process what has just happened then let her have one.

To paraphrase a line from "The Day After Tomorrow"... Imagine everything you've ever worked for was for a future that no longer existed.

reply

The woman at the hospital could smoke but not make that comment at the same time, because it sounds ridiculous.

reply

Yes she could, being that we didn't know about secondhand smoke in 1983, when the film was made.

reply

Um, the person who asked "who's they" about the attacked ship was Bruce. I might be mistaken about this, but I believe his character is male.

reply

At the supermarket checkout line: "They just hit one of our ships in the Persian Gulf."
Girl's fiance: "Who's 'they'?"
That has got to be the absolutely dumbest question I've ever heard. Who were we fighting, the Norwegians???!!! Geesh. Get a grip, Hollywood.


<Um, the person who asked "who's they" about the attacked ship was Bruce. I might be mistaken about this, but I believe his character is male.>

Yes; I knew that it was a male. It was Denise's fiance.

Even more than two years later, I still think that it was a stupid question.

reply

At the supermarket checkout line: "They just hit one of our ships in the Persian Gulf."
Girl's fiance: "Who's 'they'?"
That has got to be the absolutely dumbest question I've ever heard. Who were we fighting, the Norwegians???!!! Geesh. Get a grip, Hollywood.

Actually, I don't think that scenario is that far-fetched, unfortunately. Lots of people don't pay any attention to what's happening in the news, be it local, national, or world-wide

I have a friend who never watched the news or read papers, she was totally oblivious to anything unless someone told her about it, so I also can believe it. She didn't know we'd had an election, never mind a new prime minister, honest to God. She's older now with children, so a bit more aware, but not much!!!

Also I would think people might bury their heads in the sand....no news is good news if you know what I mean.


<Um, the person who asked "who's they" about the attacked ship was Bruce. I might be mistaken about this, but I believe his character is male.>

Yes; I knew that it was a male. It was Denise's fiance.

Even more than two years later, I still think that it was a stupid question.
I watched the film last night and noticed something that reinforced my original statement in the first quote above, (I am in red) and that was the guy had just been to the barbershop and they were talking about the conflict between the US and the Soviets. I thought it was dumb question at the time and I still do.

reply

The disintegration scenes were not realistic, but I think it was done for effect. The wedding, the children at school, etc., scenes were far more emotionally moving than scenes of people in shelters would have been.

reply

What effect? "Laugh" or "turn off the tv"? Destroyed the movie for me.

reply

The effect of seeing life as we know it gone in milliseconds. Scenes of people taking cover portray life and humanity only in the context of the war. The scenes of happiness and normalcy, however logically unrealistic, show what we would really lose.

reply

The disintegration scenes were not realistic, but I think it was done for effect.


Yes, the effect of playing up to the average uninformed persons fear and expectations of what they "KNOW" happens in a nuclear blast.

In reality, only those directly in contact with or within a few hundred yards of the leading edge of the fireball would likely be "vaporized".

the remainder, out to a couple miles from the fireball, would be flash seared from the heat(but not vaporized), then blasted away by the insuing shockwave.

after those few miles, your greatest worry is the blast wave qand flying debris, the heat pulse is absorbed very efficiently by the atmosphere and at the most you would have a severe sunburn.

Atmospheric absorbtion of the Thermal pulse is what causes the Blast shockwave in the first place.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

"up to the average uninformed persons"

FWIW, I read on Wikipedia that this movie had an impact on Ronald Reagan, so I wouldn't say it was just the ill-informed masses that were influenced by the film.

reply

You misunderstood my point.

I was not talking about the effect the film overall had on people, or that it only affected the ill-informed.

I was talking specifically to the unrealistic disintegration shots. (the X-ray vaporization shots)

I was postulating that they did it the way they did because that's what the average uninformed layperson thinks happens during a blast. So the film played to their expectations.

I WAS NOT addressing the effect the film overall had on people.

Wakarimasu ka?


I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

My take on it was that they did the Xray thing because it was relatively cheap special effects which would pass network censors, yet have maximum emotional impact. I always saw the Xray shots as a metaphor, just a way of saying, 'these people are killed an instant', but not a literal depiction of what their death would actually look like.

However, it is true those shots look suspiciously like disintegration shots from 195os sci fi films, so it is possible filmmakers were actually building on what the audience's misconceptions might have been.

reply

The network censors had a large impact on the way the nuclear scenes were shown. The intended effect was more realistic. From Edward Hume's script:

329 QUICK TO FIVE RAPID CUTS - PROGRESSIVELY CLOSER - A MAN
looking into the FLASH... his face darkens like a roasted marshmallow... eyes char... lifting his hands, the skin already smoking, carbonized...

reply

It was also to show that everyone was getting a lethal dose of radiation. After all what is an x-ray but a radiation burst?

Also hold up a flashlight to your hand. You can see the outlines of your bones. A bright enough flash could make your bones visible. There is a reason why looking at the flash from a nuke is bad.

Even if your head is turned away from it you still know a flash occurred because the light was so intense it went through the back of your head. Even blind people can see the flash of a nuclear bomb.

reply

You misunderstood my point.
Perhaps it's because you've been posting (or sermonizing) on the same thread for FIVE years.

The "Magic Negro" won two presidential elections - get over it already.

reply

Hey Jose. You've been stalking me? Sorry, but I don't swing your way. Comprende?

There are many people who have been on older established boards for years. There is no time limit as to how long one is allowed to post.
So how about you go Frak off somewhere else troll.


I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

I remember at the time of its initial showing, the producers (I think) saying they went with the disintegration scenes the way they did because they didn't know exactly how to best portray it to the public.

reply

one that bugs me is when Stephen is dropped off during his hitch-hiking; the movie carries on as if he and his driver had not seen dozens of Minutemen launched just a little while previously. Doesn't seem to fit. You think they'd be hauling tail somewhere to seek shelter...

reply

I have never seen the whole movie but just watched the Nuke scene on YouTube and it was quite funny...the SFX budget must been like 30 dollars! Jason Robards is in a car a few miles from TWO nukes and he isn't injured?

reply

Jason Robards is in a car a few miles from TWO nukes and he isn't injured?


thoses two blasts were more like 8 to 10 miles off and yes, he very well could have survived that.

No offense intended but you are a prime example of what I talk about a lot in various posts. Too many uninformed people have these exagerated ideas of what exactly a nuclear blast does and how big it is.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Later in the movie, he says he was about 30 miles off from the blast.

reply

Stephen was dropped off BEFORE the nukes were launched because there is the scene of him walking down the two lane highway and it gets eerily quite before the scene switches to the missile silo where they are getting ready to launch.

reply

I stand corrected. Thank you...

reply

Remember, this was aired in the early 80s on a Sunday night, so the destruction scenes had to be very toned down. Also, in reference to the cigasrette smoking doctor, in that era, smoking was allowed and done everywhere.

Also, given the geography of Kansas City, the bombs went off over downtown. Dr. Oakes was on I-70 in a wooded area, which would place him about 4+ miles away from downtown. Also, Lawrence is 41 miles from Kansas City and he walkded from his car to the hospital in a matter of hours, so he had to be a distance from the blasts. He did say that he saw them go off over downtown.

reply

[deleted]

When Oakes said he was 30 miles away and walked back to Lawrence, he had to have been traveling eastbound otherwise if he was 30 miles EAST of KC he would be near Whiteman Air Force Base and a group of missile sites and there was no way he could have walked that far because he would have been vaporized! So he could have survived the 2 nuke strikes if he was WEST of KC due to the terrain and distance he was between KC and Lawrence.

reply

"It was just starting to come out in the early 80's that smoking was seriously bad for your health"

I was not talking about tobacco or people's health. I meant it just sound stupid a woman saying "If we do that we will contaminate the air" while at the same time she is making smoke indoors, that it is obviously something that contaminates the air.

reply

Fashionable though it is to shiver at the terrifying lethality of tobacco smoke and the callous, fascist attitudes of smokers, let me put two points to you:

1) Each of us enters a small, sealed shed. I light a cigarette in mine and inhale as usual (well, as I used to before I gave up). I come out when the cigarette is finished. You light a wood cooking fire in yours and come out when it's finished. Which one of us is more likely to need immediate hospitalisation?

2) Wood stored outside may have accumulated fallout. Burning it will release potentially dangerous amounts of radioactivity into the atmosphere.

Believe it or not, there are more dangerous things than tobacco smoke.

reply

You still don't get my point. I don't mind tobacco. I was talking about smoke in general, from a cigarette, from a wood, from a paper. You can't say "Oh, we'll contaminate the air!" while at the same time you are making smoke indoors. That is why I think that line from the doctor in the hospital was just stupid, especially coming from a doctor. Let me put another example, it is like saying "Don't let those kids come to the swimming pool because they spit on the water" while you are peeing in it. Got it?

reply

When the air-raid siren goes off, you see what must have been a virtually brand new Ford Escort get run into by a pick-up truck or something, and if you pause this scene, just before the impact, and examine it in great detail as I did, you can see grey primer patches on the car. I know the Escort was not a high-roller`s car in the U.S., but there is no way one can have rusted at such an early age, and if it had sustained a parking scrape or some-such, it would have been sufficiently new and valueable to have been booked in at a proper paint shop, not just wafted over with an aerosol of primer and left at that, as though it was some old shed on it`s last gasp before the scrapyard.

I can let all the other stuff like the X-rays etc. slide, but casting a new Escort in a role that would have been far more suited to a ten year old Pinto is just one transgression too far, and I intend to write a strong letter of complaint to some sort of ombudsman or something. It`s right up there with Hutch`s "beaten up old" Ford Custom sedan which was probably more or less the same age as Starsky`s shiny new Torino. It`s just not on.

reply

You can't say "Oh, we'll contaminate the air!" while at the same time you are making smoke indoors.

Thats because you are viewing that scene through the lens of 2008 attitudes. Back in 1983 very little public opinion existed, it was very common for not only smoking to be done inside pubic buildings (heck even inside a commercial airline), but the effects of 2nd hand smoke was considered no big deal, like it is today.

reply

I think the "cigarette contamination" argument is silly. If the bomb went off, I believe I might well feel like a smoke myself. I would also imagine the other doctors might well have one or two things on their minds other than to scream, "Stop polluting our lovely, clean air, you hypocritical, evil, cigarette-sucking hag!"

The risk of releasing radiation from burning wood (the pollution the female doctor was talking about)is far, far greater than that of burning a tube of tobacco.

reply

[deleted]

You truly are an ignorant *beep* moron. Even after having it repeatedly explained, idiots like you come back with this stupid *beep* sh!t.

This is NOT about SECOND-HAND SMOKE. This is NOT about the DANGERS of SMOKING.

Current day and the mindset in the 1980's means NOTHING in relation to the smoke created by a cigarette.

The line, along with what she was doing, would still be ridiculous if she lit up a tube of nicotine-free paper. Or hell, a piece of confetti. Or a leaf. Or marijuana. Or a piece of *beep* cloth.

It's the fact she is creating SMOKE in an enclosed space and then bringing about a ridiculous line on air contamination.

You realize people were STILL *beep* coughing in the 20's and 50's and even 80's from cigarettes. It was still smoke. Even to smokers. Just like when you breath in smoke from a fire, just in a smaller concentration.

Next time listen.

reply

Listen you loser moron, its called context. I take it you are some little *beep* that thinks they know it all. People had VERY different attitudes towards smoking in 1983, and that includes smoking in ENCLOSED SPACES. You cannot get more CONFINED than a small airplane *beep* and yet it was not ONLY done on EVERY FLIGHT (yes even 12 hour transatlantic) but was condoned / tolerated by both public and government.

You are applying todays views on smoking to yesterdays attitudes.

NEXT TIME READ

reply

Oh and one last thing, when you are dealing with nuclear fallout, cigarette smoke seems kind of trivial in comparison. Don't you think?

Its kind of like falling into a Lions den and worrying you might catch their fleas. Idiot!!

reply

I had the same reaction at first - why would people be sitting in a movie theater, sitting in school, getting married, etc., with World War III breaking out? Of course they wouldn't be. The producers were making a statement - all of these aspects of everyday life would be gone, forever, if such a war actually happened. It's artistic license, though I'll admit it can be jarring when otherwise the film is supposed to be so realistic.

reply

The scene at the supermarket everyone getting line when there would be rampaid shoplifting and lots of employees leaving their posts but the employees didn't seem to care there was a ware breaking out.

The couple walking upstairs and their girl going outside to play when the EBS signal goes off during a cartoon yet they didn't notice no announcent that it a was a test like ususual. Later when the missiles launch the mother just wants the kids to come inside you would think at that point they would be running away because they were sitting on top of a primany target.

Think outside the box Logic was meant to be defied.

reply

They were more interested in bonking one another. They were not wanting to get prepared. They were just going about life as usual.

reply

Wouldn't the officials stop the football game after seeing the missiles launch and tell people to find shelter?

Think outside the box Logic was meant to be defied.

reply

Back to the doctor that was smoking. If you just survived a nuclear war. I realy don't think you should worry about somebody lighting up a smoke and taking a puff. I mean with all of the fall out, what does she have to worry about? The fall out is going to kill her and everyone else before first or second hand smoke does.

reply