Talk:The Day After

message: There is another article on the film with an incorrect title: User:TimBayliss/Homicide: The Movie. I think that second article should either be deleted or merged with this one.
--Moisture (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I am missing something, the second article should not be merged because it is not a wikipedia article at all -- it is a draft in a user subpage. TimBayliss is using the text from The Day After as a starting point for Homicide: The Movie.  His first edit summary explains, "Copied in the content from the page of a popular made-for-TV movie. Going to completely make it over to reflect Homicide:The Movie." That said, TimBayliss has apparently abandoned this draft (he hasn't touched it for almost a year)  and someone else has written an article on Homicide: The Movie in the interim. Typically, editors are left to manage their own user subpages, but in this case, I don't see the harm in cleaning up TimBayliss's user space by deleting this draft. Although, you might want to reach out to him first. Ciricula (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger

message: Towards the East I mean.-G
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.137.113 (talk) 02:43, 2006 December 29 (UTC)
:The Soviets, in a way, certainly start the ball rolling by escalating tensions with the blocakde of West Berlin, sending forces to the West/East German border, and being the first to use limited nukes in Germany. But, on the other hand, NATO forces had invaded East Germany, which prompted a Soviet counter invasion of western Europe. As for the BIG event (the massive ICBM exchange), it's intentionally never revealed who launched first. --Brad Rousse 19:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: So how biased was the film?

message: The line about Soviet troops crossing the Fulda Gap and where Wiesbaden may have been destroyed by a nuclear explosion did indeed occur in the film.  It comes from two specific lines of dialouge.
At one point, a number of students at the University of Kansas are in line and Bruce is among them.  Bruce is drawn over to a television set, where the announcer says "...three pronged attack, spearheaded by rapid Soviet tank and artilley advances into the Fulda Gap.  Having already captured NATO advance positions along the West German border, the looming question is:  how far will the Warsaw Pact forces go?  Will the Russians advance straight for the Rhine and defy NATO's declared policy of defense by all means, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons?"
Shortly afterward, there is a scene where Dr. Oakes is stuck in his car in slow-moving traffic on the Interstate.  On the radio, the announcer says "...Warsaw Pact forces are close to annoucing a cease-fire along the German border.  There are still no eyewitness accounts to substantiate the rumor that low kiloton-range nuclear weapons were detonated this morning during the conflct, resulted in the reported destruction of Wiesbaden, and the outskirts of Frankfurt" and then the Emergency Broadcast System beep cuts in.
(—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.164.132.42 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 6 November 2004 Please sign your comments by adding four tildes ~~~~ to the end of the comment.)</I>
:The preceding was added by me, prior to my registering this user name.  --Dr. Floyd 20:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviets in the Fulda Gap

message: The line about all US Forces being placed on "DEFCON 2" is not correct, the verbiage was "stage 2 alert." If after checking, the two turn out to not be equivalent, I will go ahead and edit the verbiage. Also, while the section correctly describes the ambiguity of the movie as to who shot first, it may misrepresent the "launch on warning" policy; the verbiage vaguely suggests that the policy would allow launch merely because an attack was considered likely, without anything actually detected on warning systems.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.64.145 (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracies in "Events Leading" Section

message: This movie has a small scale cult status in my hometown because of the line "Mister, there ain't no more Sedalia." I'm trying to remember if Whiteman AFB got hit the the nuclear exchange. If so, maybe link here from the Sedalia, Missouri and Whiteman Air Force Base articles? crazyeddie 10:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sedalia, Whiteman AFB

message: Although the iconic mushroom cloud may have been created by special effects, my understanding was that a lot of scenes of houses getting destroyed WERE government stock footage.  Can anyone confirm/deny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.35.133 (talk • contribs) 6-SEP-2005
:Yes, some of it was U.S. government stock footage, including a scene of trees being brushed back by the nuclear explosion.  Those trees were, I think, planted in concrete as an experiment at the time of a nuclear test.  There's also one scene of a building shattering that was lifted from an obscure 1979 disaster movie, "Meteor," starring Sean Connery and Natalie Wood. 205.188.116.135 01:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of government stock footage?

message: Now here's a question. If one of the bombs destroyed Whiteman Air Force Base, would Warrensburg, Missouri have been wiped out? (—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike14 (talk • contribs) 6 April 2006 Please sign your comments by adding four tildes ~~~~ to the end of the comment.)
:Almost certainly. Mapquest shows downtown Warrensburg to be only about 11 miles from the base. A larger weapon in the 25-100 megaton range would level everything within a blast radus that Warrensburg would definitely fall in. Even blasts from smaller yield weapons would still devastate the town. Warrensburg would be toast. Kevyn 04:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 100 Megaton nuclear weapons do not exist. The largest was the Tsar Bomba at 50 megatons. I don't even think the Russians deployed 25 megatons. The Tsar Bomba was mainly used as a scare tactic and propoganda. If a nuclear bomb were to be detonated at Whiteman AFB, it would not hit Warrensburg. More than likely such a strike would be a ground burst in an attempt to completely destroy the complex (I don't know how hardened it is against nuclear strikes). An airburst would cover more area, but not have the damage of the direct area right around a ground burst. So chances are you'd survive, just don't be near any windows. PsychicKid1 03:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you're right, 100 mT weapons don't exist. The Soviets did have a 25-mT weapon deployable by ICBM, while the U.S. had a 9-mT weapon. Much easier just to set off three 200-kT weapons over a city. <shudder> 68Kustom (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Warrensburg, Missouri?

message: Was Belton, MO ever mentioned in the movie?--24.208.123.129 01:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, but I was studying (ironically enough!) for a Soviet Union exam in college as I watched it, so it might have snuck by me.--Brad Rousse 19:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Belton mentioned?

message: Is there more information on the extent of the social impact of the movie?  For example, I was 14 and living in a peaceful small town near Toronto, Ontario, in Canada when I watched it.  I was sick and nauseous for days.  Both my mother and I had nightmares for months after watching it, and we jumped at the sound of overhead passenger jets.  I'm still jittery if not slightly nauseous at the thought of nuclear war.  I even associate some popular radio songs at the time with the movie, and can't listen to them.  Surely there are many more people affected to this extent.205.250.105.83 21:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There certainly were social impacts of the movie. I was a teenager in Southern California when this aired, and was very disturbed by the movie - which haunted me for years. (For instance, I never expected to live to see adulthood). If any research has been done into the social impacts of this film, I'd very much like to see them included here. Kevyn 22:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about 12 when this was shown in New Zealand (1985/6?) at theatres. There was quite a big attempt by certain politicians and the media to whip up a scare  - it was actually suggested that sort-of field hospitals for the traumatised film-goers be set up outside the theatres! I went to see it with my mother, and I don't recall being particularly upset by it, in the way I had certainly been by "Threads" a couple of years earlier. Perhaps if someone could look up some newspaper articles from the time that could be helpful. I'd do it here but I'm recovering from surgery at the moment. I think a social impact section could prove very interesting though.Topatientlyexplain 09:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I was in junior high in the US at the time. There were a lot of upper-class kids in my school who dismissed the movie as "liberal propaganda," for several days before it aired. It was a big TV event, like the Shogun miniseries, back then cable tv and the internet didn't exist, and practically everyone watched tv. So there were occasionally things that everyone would obsess about. The Day After generated intense debate long before it even aired, and pro-nuke advocates were quick to release Red Dawn as a response.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.64.145 (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Social Impact?

message: Well-written article.  However, it lacks any sort of in-line citations, as wanted by wikipedia. Also, the comments about the "woman in the bathtub" scene in the Trivia section are hard to follow, as there is no other clear reference to the scene in question. Please detail the facts of the scene either in the Trivia section itself or in the main body of the article for clarification. Badbilltucker 15:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that "The Day After" aired on the ABC television network twice: the original broadcast in November 1983 and the first re-run in January 1989.  I am uncertain if it was broadcast again on network broadcast television after January 1989. Jab73 (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique 

message: Is the dab header necessary? It's a bit curiously worded and I was wondering if it's needed at all - do you ever get links pointing here which are meant for the other film? Any signs that readers are getting navigationally confused? If no, it's not necessary. If yes, well, c'est la vie :) - but perhaps reword it? --kingboyk 16:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dab header 

message: These references were removed because after trying to find them in the archive and not finding one (I picked 7 at random), and because it was a dump of references that weren't used to write the article. Lincher 13:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference removal 

message: My father took me to see this film at The Agora Cinema, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia in early 1984. I remember the impact it had on the entire audience. As we left the theatre into an Australian summer night, I could not help look into the air to reassure myself the missles were not about to land. As I looked back down to head hight, I noticed the majority of the audience glance upward. Only a few months before, I had seen an article on the nightly current affairs programme in Brisbane, Australia, where they had drawn lines illustrating the effect of a nuclear strike on the Metropolitan area. A year before that there had been articles in The Age in Melbourne, Australia, discussing that a war was just around the corner.
In these years I was just entering my teens. I now try and explain the effect of this threat to my students some twenty years later and they find it very hard to understand. Twenty two years later I remember every scene of this film, and the effect it had on my life. Following this film, and during my teenage years and into my twenties, I became an active anti-nuclear protester when I had the chance. The best time I can remember in my formative years was watching The Eastern Block countries open to The West. I remember The Berlin Wall falling and visited Berlin as soon as I could and collected a piece of the wall. Even today, I believe there is no excuse for any country to possess Nuclear weapons.
Maree Davidson, Essex, England, UK (ex-Australia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.177.183 (talk • contribs) 
I also remember viewing this movie, but had a very different reaction, and it seemed that many of my friends had the same reaction I did. The movie itself was ok, but if felt like it was just a movie. The Overreaction portrayed by the media made the whole thing seem farcical, as if the media was trying to fan fears rather than report peoples reaction. I recall an interview with a family at the conclusion of the movie, and the reporters were actually trying to get the children to respond emotionally by asking leading questions about imagining their own families dying in nuclear fire.
This was in the early days of sensationalized media reporting, but I think the media hyperbole helped to drive the cable style news we are currently assaulted with today. I would find it interesting to know the ratings of the news agencies that participated in sensationalizing the impact of this movie, especially in America.
12.200.60.7 (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal account of viewing the film. 

message: I've restored Malyctenar's recent edit, which was reverted by Darthflyer without any edit summary or talk page discussion. Please note that this wasn't done to take sides in the matter, or to suggest support for one version over the other. However, Malyctenar's edits seemed reasonable, involved, and beneficial (based on a quick scan) so they should not have been reverted outright, especially without some form of explanation. Darthflyer, if you have concerns about the changes, you might wish to discuss them with Malyctenar first so that we can avoid a dispute. --Ckatzchatspy 06:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malyctenar's recent edit 

message: I know The War Game is listed at the bottom of the article but this show has so many parallels and similarities that perhaps someone with a real stake in this article may wish to consider researching to see if Meyer was influenced in any way by that?AlanD 20:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you're making a movie about the destruction of nuclear war, there are only so many ways to go at it.  No small surprise that some ideas overlap. Lighthope (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Watkins film is regarded as a classic, and undoubtedly Meyer and Hume would have viewed it in planning this (much tamer) film.  It may be that they have compared the two in an interview.  Incidentally if you want to see a similarly bleak British vision roughly contemporaneous with The Day After, I recommend Threads. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Threads is excellent but a bit drier in the drama department.  Where the Wind Blows is another excellent film and very depressing.  If you can find it, Testament is also a good film, but not in the same category as the others mentioned here.  By Dawn's Early Light is okay.  A really hard one to find is Countdown to Looking Glass.  If anyone finds it, let me know!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lighthope (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The War Game

message: The Day After was not created in a vaccum.
What would be interesting in this article would be including some information about how the Reagan administration official line in the 1980's was that the US could win a nuclear war, which included placing nuclear weapons in Germany, etc. 
The movie "The Day After" was not only backlash of this policy. There were world wide protests of the US foreign policy. Several protestors were arrested at nuclear facilities, and I remember several magazines talking about what would really happen in a nuclear war (I remember Newsweek had an excellent article with its signature colorful graphs, showing the fallout and deaths in Moscow if a nuclear bomb were to be blasted there). 
*http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/nuclear.htm
* http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/nuclear.htm#When
I believe (but need to do some research) that this movie was part of the backlash of this insane foreign policy.
Reagans cold war stance was part of Plan B, the group of cold war hawks who helped destroy Kissinger's Détente and helped make the declining cold war hot again. 
Is there any articles on wikipedia about Reagan's evolving nuclear war views? Travb (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reagan's push for a bibilical nuclear armagedon

message: The See Also section of this article was becoming a list of other works only tengentially related to this one.  It was moved to List of nuclear holocaust fiction along similar, redundant, frequently overlapping lists from Threads and Jericho (TV series).  See Talk:List of nuclear holocaust fiction.  MrZaiustalk 05:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Off-topic list moved to independent article

message: :Image:Thedayafter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Thedayafter.jpg

message: you can see the military fotage that ABC had to use since the DOD did not allow militiary assistance http://youtube.com/watch?v=jlPEBROvR9w pulled from the intro to the 1979 documentry "First Strike"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.154.84 (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Footage from First Strike"

message: Can anyone tell me what format this film was likely shot on, 16mm? 8mm (film)? 35mm? The reason being is I can most definitely tell the film has been "tele-cined" after watching it on DVD. I also noticed some parts that probably weren't transfered very well as a big scratch appears to jump around from shot to shot toward the beginning. This is on the DVD version. Thanks! Milonica (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I found out it was 35mm. It looks awfully grainy to be 35mm, but then again that could be the ISO of the film too, or, again, the poor telecine transfer. Milonica (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Format of film used?

message: The plot summary was over-detailed and had been tagged as too long for at least six months.  I've reverted to the version from this early revision, which seems to summarise the plot adequately without giving an unsuitable blow-by-blow account. --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Blow by blow..."  Do you realise how close that is to being a really great pun?  :)  Lighthope (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just the plot summary, but the extremely overlong and chatty "Production" and "Shooting" sections, which must have been written by someone on the crew.  It all badly needs extreme condensation.  Tempshill (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I think you are mistaken; this plot description accurately describes this film, which predates the book you referenced by twenty years.  lothartheterrible (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The book contains a plot summary of the film.  I think that the plot summary included here was copyvio'd from the book.  But, like I said, I don't have my copy handy.  I am certainly not claiming that the movie plot itself was lifted from the book--that would be a bizarre argument (as you noted).  Heather (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, okay; that makes sense. I apologize for the misunderstanding.  lothartheterrible (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary

message: Sentence: "... released the film theatrically around the world to great success in the Eastern Bloc, ..." does not apply on Czechoslovakia. The movie was shown only after 1989. In 1983 / 84 propaganda in Czechoslovak TV claimed that "the West" didn't allow to screen the movie there. I am not aware about situation in other countries of the Bloc.
The sentence should say which countries of the Eastern Block did allow the movie or should be rephrased to "in some countries of Eastern Bloc". The "great success" could be qualified. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  great success in the Eastern Bloc 

message: I recall news reports and newspaper articles reporting on some watchers panicking when they had a power failure during the initial attack scene... Does anyone recall what city this occurred in or have a reference? — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power Failure Panic 

message: In the version I viewed recently, the firing squad scene was included.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.105.34 (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted/Alternate Scenes 

message: The article mentions the movie was broadcast in the Soviet Union in '89, but fails to elaborate. I would like to know how the Soviet viewers reacted to the movie. 99.177.92.32 (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction in Soviet Union 

message: The USA had The Day After, and the UK had Threads ... are there any similar films created within the Soviet Union at the time? 99.177.92.32 (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Counterpart? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Day After. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116131652/http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/D/htmlD/dayafterth/dayafter.htm to http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/D/htmlD/dayafterth/dayafter.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The film was broadcast in the United Kingdom on ITV; it was followed immediately by a live studio debate programme called After The Day After where the subject matter was discussed by a number of prominent politicians and other figures along with an invited studio audience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BXMjkitBgA Paul Holloway (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadcast of The Day After in the UK