MovieChat Forums > On the Beach (2000) Discussion > If you thought this film was scary/inten...

If you thought this film was scary/intense...

posted 16 years ago by bryggreen
18 replies | jump to latest

then you need to see the film "Threads", if you can find it. That film is one that will actually change your life and how you think about war/nuclear weapons. A warning though, you will be very depressed during and after the film's end. I'm not easily frightened or spooked but that film had me up for a few nights just thinking, "what if?". "The Day After" is also a good film about this subject but "Threads" is about as close/real you can get without actually experiencing a nuclear war. Other people I know that are educated on what would happen if nuclear war happened say that "Threads" is actually more optimistic than what would really happen. Watch that film at your own risk. It's not one I'd watch with friends. I made the mistake of watching it on a date of all things. Let's just say, it killed the mood for the night.

[–] Credon 16 years ago

I've seen 'threads' and I don't think it was really that good. Then again I saw it a few years ago, not when I was a child. I think the early parts were ok but the estimates at the end on what would happen after 10 years and so on seemed way over the top and rediculous.

I don't think that after a nuclear war, assuming that people would survive, all of a sudden everyone would behave like a prehistoric caveman in a few years.

Yes some or most of the modern equipment would be lost at least temporarily but people would still have their modern education and skillsets. There would be doctors, engineers, construction workers, industrial workers and farmers here and there and I think people would quickly start to work together however they could first with a few friends and then with more people as long as everyone would have something useful to offer to the new growing "community". Freeloaders would probably be left to die or at least they would be on their own.

And what seemed very stupid at the end of the movie was the fact that apparently, according to the movie, people would hardly even speak to their biological family members for years. At the end of threads the kid who had lived with her mother her whole life had a baby herself when she was a teenager but the movie practically portrayed her as a regressed caveman/woman who couldn't even speak with other people. She couldn't even communicate properly using the simplest of words. I think that's a bit far fetched even if one was born after or just before a nuclear war.

So once again, yes modern equipment would be lost, but that doesn't mean that thousands of years of civilization would disappear completely within a decade regardless of how bad the nuclear war would be.

[–] bryggreen 16 years ago

I'm sorry, I disagree with you. "Threads" in my opinion is actually a lot more hopeful than reality would be. I'm not saying you're ignorant or anything but do some additional reading and/or asking questions and you'll find out why no one during the cold war would push that button, thank God. Every part of this earth would be effected in a negative way if nuclear war happened. My Uncle is a nuclear physicist and we've had long discussions about the subject.

[–] bryggreen 16 years ago

Also, I'm not saying that knowledge would be lost, but human ability to put that knowledge to use would be affected considerably. Fallout would contaminate the earth's soil, debris would cause the Sun to be covered for years resulting in temperature to lower rapidly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter) and for a long period of time. Water would become contaminated and not only cause cancer in some people but also affect our ability to make electricity. Yes, there would be Doctor's but how would those professionals make sure that blood supply was clean, tools were sterile and they had the right working equipment they needed to preform their skill?

Farmers would have to remove contaminated top soil, using valuable fuel and then replant seeds that may or may not be there to plant. The ultraviolet rays from the sun when it finally came out or cleared would be extremely hazardous because of the damage to the ozone layer and the UV rays after a nuclear explosion.

These are just some of the issues that would come up. Everything would be effected and everything is joined in one way or another. Just thank God that we've overtted this so far. I hope the powers that be will continue this.

Check the film out again. See the film "The Day After" as well, it's more of a TV drama that's easier to deal with than "Threads" but there are other docu's and films that deal with the issue but I do believe "Threads" is as accurate as they've come so far. Getting any closer, I don't think the producers/money-backers would believe there would be an audience. It would scare people too much. Although we live in a scared society today so anything's possible. If we were still in the cold war then I could see it happening, but not so much now.

[–] bryggreen 16 years ago

I'm sorry, I know this is the 3rd post to your response but after looking at your "spoiler" section again. How can you not see the message? She wasn't able to speak properly because of all the years of not talking. She had NO education. She wasn't taught to speak English. There was no structure, no upbringing. That was the point of showing that. I can't believe you missed that. She picked up a little English but very basic and it's easy to see after 10 years since the bombs went off to see how the language would change to children born after the initial explosion. She would know nothing about civilization. To her, the "dark ages" so to speak is all she's known. At the end, when she gives birth and the child is "still-born" the child is not normal, it's mutant, due to the radiation and adverse conditions which it was carried and born. That was the message I and my classmates (college) got.

[–] greg-233 13 years ago

I've seen Threads, I've got it on video. The immediate aftermath was realistically handled. I found the "dark age/medieval society" 13 years down the track quite convincing too.

To me, Threads, despite its gloomy depiction of a post-nuclear world, seems more optimistic than On the Beach. In Threads people are still alive, you can imagine that the human race will continue to go on, despite the descent into barbarism. In On the Beach we can see there will be no survivors AT ALL, and humanity will disappear completely.

[–] znapper 8 years ago

Creton: You have no idea what radiation will do to brain-development, do you?

IMO, she was "slow", and many of the other kids were as well.
The language wasn't necessarily hard to understand, but it was underdeveloped, consisting of the important words; Work, give, eat etc.

Also, youth slang and local British dialects can quickly sound like caveman-talk, it doesn't get better if there is no education and most of your life, consist of working and scavenging for food.

Sure, it may be a bit far-fetched (when it comes to the first generation in a Threads-universe), but not further down the road. (if there are any roads further ahead).

[–] snafuone 13 years ago

The nuclear blast scene in "Terminator 2", was lauded as being the most realistic thing you could ever imagine if such a horrific event ever unfolded, this according to scientists and experts. I liked "Threads", and love all movies involving nuclear war. I don't love nuclear war. I hate it, but the power of the bomb is quite awesome, to say the least. The nuclear holocaust movie "The Divide" that came out last year is coming out on DVD on the 17th of this month. I hear it got bad reviews, but i still wanna see it.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] znapper 8 years ago

Divide attack scene is horribly bad.
In the trailer you can see the main-cast watching nukes go off, without even getting temporarily blinded, or scolded.

Rest of the film is very grim, very....!

[–] Strazdamonas 12 years ago

I saw threads. this was beter. Threads had a very good idea, but quite poor execution (the characters depicted held no meaning to me, unlike this movie) and when it got into the post-nuclear time it weered way offcourse in some places.
The day after is a goof film, but that is pure hollywood fantasy one. its fun to watch, but its not a realistic portrayal.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

[–] greg-233 12 years ago

Testament is quite a good film too. It came out the same year as The Day After, though it has a bit more in common with On the Beach. The characters live in a town that was physically intact after the nuclear holocaust, we don't see any ruins or disfigured survivors, but the radiation is coming.

[–] Jerry-137 11 years ago

I kind of like Threads as far as "end of the world" scenarios go. After watching it, it stayed with me for days, much longer than On The Beach. I loved the scenery in On The Beach, it is beautiful in that respect but the thought of mass suicides and murders (by parents) was disturbing.

Threads though was a different kind of "end of the world". It showed the effects of close nuclear explosions, a matter of mile, or the next town over.

One thing a lot of the threads on this board forget is the matter of food. Or I should say the lack of it. Once such a thing happens the transportation and distribution of food stuff would cease in a matter of days in most cases. The resulting riots would kill billions of survivors within a month. Folks would do anything to keep their families alive, including murder. By 3 months most likely only 20% of the initial survivors would still be alive either dying by radiation, starvation, or murder. Of those 20% only a few people, mostly isolated groups with some knowledge of farming would survive the first year.

That's one reason Threads was so good at story telling. I know it gave me the creeps for a long time and I didn't get a chance to watch until about a year ago. They showed the issue of food in a short period of time although they quickly ended the film with a future where they had started farming again giving a little hope that humanity might survive.

It was not a big budget motion picture though and the acting was poor and some of the CGI was just pitiful but it told the story well anyway.

***************************************************
My favorite: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

[–] znapper 8 years ago

CGI?

It was made in 1984, there was no CGI back then.

You are right about the food-issue. Most analysis say that most of the victims of a nuclear Holocaust would be from starvation and sickness (cholera, other treatable disease)

As it was made on a tiny BBC (TV) budget, Threads really outdid itself regarding the effects. (melting bottles, burning people and animals etc).
I thought the acting and the cast in Threads was great, they were mostly just normal people, hired for the job, or semi-pro actors.
It's blue-collar and British, I suppose that's what put most Americans off, for most others, it's closer to normal than the picket-fence suburbia-reality of The Day After :)

The day after on the other hand, shows cheesy stock-footage, bundled with cartoonish scenes of people turning into skeletons.
Also, a full stadium at a baseball game, when there has been several warnings of imminent attack? =)

[–] Jerry-137 8 years ago

Yikes! My message was back in 2013.

You make some good points though and now I have to watch it again (if I can find the DVD).

**********************************************
My favorite: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

[–] znapper 8 years ago

Hehe, sorry for awakening an old thread ^_^

[–] ciprianl 11 years ago

In my opinion, the best nuclear war movie is Dr. Strangelove.

[–] znapper 8 years ago

I don't get it, it's just a stupid-ass comedy.

It's not realistic, not funny, not particularly serious and the satire is flat and unintelligent.

I really don't get all the praise that movie gets.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]