halle1@houxz.UUCP (11/21/83)
My reaction to it surprised me. I was bored. I thought it interesting the effects at ground zero, but otherwise I thought Earthquake was gorier and more disturbing. Certainly Special Bulletin was far better as a sober rendition. I felt sure I was watching an Irwin Allen flick. On the other hand, I felt the pannel discussion afterwards well worthwhile, and worth the wait. More was said every five minutes there than was said in the entire movie. Re: freeze oriented? I really did not see anything objectionable. Of course there is the implication that people do not want siloes nearby, so they should stop them, but in reality, those locales should be safest. Since the missiles will be gone by the time they are hit, why should they be targets? (N.B. I am a freeze opponent and am conservative to hawkish on defense issues, so do not assume that my lack of objection is due to my politics.)
sowajj@ihuxn.UUCP (11/22/83)
After watching the show I was rather surprised at how mild it actually was.
The movie totally ignored the current feeble attempts from the US government in
their crisis relocation plan (even though it won't work). The movie also failed
to should how the US's only valid attempts at sheltering occur where large
govermental bodies work (i.e. Springfield, Illinois and it underground
interlaced tunnels). TDA never admitted the existance in this country of how
the survivalists in this country will make out.
The producers decided not to make any attempt at being an educational film and
did not show any of the actual time lapse in order to have the radiation levels
reduce but instead showed one scene at 50 rad then switched to an announcement
of limited exposure at .4 rad? (What happen to the other weeks?) Why not show
the size of the blasts or the actual time involved why not try to educate the
people instead of only fightening them.
For all of the media hype that went along with the showing the movie did very
little to accomplish anything in this country except get many peope away from
other networks in order to increase their ratings.
J.J. Sowa
ihnp4!ihuxn!sowajjbalfanz@ihuxv.UUCP (11/22/83)
I am another person who was disappointed with "The Day After". I was not only bored, but disappointed in the way the movie was done. Characters were introduced and then never seen again. And other characters were introduced and then popped in at the end of the movie as if to get in another appearance. There must be something wrong, because this newsgroup was created for the great amount of discussion this movie was supposed to generate and I think this article is only about the 5th in 2 days.
9212osd@houxa.UUCP (11/22/83)
> There must be something wrong, because this newsgroup was created > for the great amount of discussion this movie was supposed to generate > and I think this article is only about the 5th in 2 days. Let me take the liberty to quote the last paragraph of today's New York Times editorial "All Noise on the Western Front." "For all pompous pretense, this [TDA] was entertainment. Yes, entertainment: as in horror show, disaster movie, Grimm fairy tale. A hundred million Americans were summoned to be empathetically incinerated, and left on the true day after without a single idea to chew upon." -- Orlando Sotomayor-Diaz /AT&T Bell Laboratories, Crawfords Corner Road Room HO-3M-325 201-949-1532 Holmdel, New Jersey, 07733 Path: {{{ucbvax,decvax}!}{ihnp4,harpo}!}houxa!9212osd
pvl@houxh.UUCP (11/22/83)
Although I generally agree that TDA itself was a let-down, I was surprised to find out how few people watched the panel discussion which followed. The film's only usefulness was to stimulate people to discuss the problem and possibilities for avoiding it. I found that contrary to my impressions, Henry Kissinger seemed to be a realistic pacifist: he seems to want elimination of nuclear weapons (like all sane people) but realizes the real problems standing in the way of doing so. I was surprised that the content of the discussion *was* so good. How come most of the people I talked to simply turned the TV off after the film (which should have simply been a teaser). Did *you* watch the panel discussion? Pete LaMaster NJ (201)949-0040 ihnp4!houxh!pvl
clyde@ut-ngp.UUCP (Clyde W. Hoover) (11/23/83)
I too was dissapointed in "The Day After". This ground has been
covered better and with less American sitcom psuedo-drama.
In particular, "The War Game", produced for the BBC by (name forgotten)
but not shown because of its grimness, does this theme one better. Hell,
even "On the Beach" left a much darker pall than "The Day After".
There was also a real annoying techincal error - that the EMP effect would
knock out automobile ignitions. Most auto ignition systems (except
for the newer 'computerized' versions) have nothing
more electronically complicated than a capacitor, and from what I have
read about EMP, nothing that simple would get fried.
"The Day After" retrod already well-sodden ground and didn't contribute
anything new. The media hype was just so much finanicially-inspired
hot air. Surely this could have been done more effectively.
--
Clyde W. Hoover @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center
Austin, Texas
clyde@ut-ngp.{UUCP,ARPA} clyde@ut-sally.{UUCP,ARPA} ihnp4!ut-ngp!clydedave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (11/23/83)
How did they film the people instantly turning to skeletons?
I thought that was kind of nat. The rest of it was just so-so.
And I've already griped elsewhere about ABC not being able to
write correct English.
Dave Sherman
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!daveinc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson) (11/24/83)
I agree with J.J. Sowa's critique. For all the hype, NBC really missed the boat. The film was scary but left me thinking that they could have done so much more in the way of education. There was not even an attempt to tell the folks what a rad is, much less the relative importance of the figure 50 and 0.4 when associated with the unit. Nothing about MAD or LAW, other than a perfunctory reference, apparantly included to show that they'd done their homework. Not enough, though. Also, nothing about the (hopefully) sincere attempts by both sides to limit nuclear weapons (sic). My own opinions are: These monstosities are not weapons. They are unusable both at the stategic and the tactical level. Not being weapons, it is a short logical jump to my conclusion that it must be evident to both major protagonists that they cannot be used. After all, if I figured it out, surely they can. Arms control is a survival necessity, and if planetary survival is at stake, no power merchant is going to do something that will chance losing power. However, a good friend tells me that we are 6 minutes from Armeggadon with the introduction of Cruise missiles to Europe. I am wary enough of the fallibility of computers to be afraid that something accidental could happen, and believe that we are trusting an awful damn lot to people who program "Fail-Safe" systems. Perhaps strategic arms limitation talks should be changed to nuclear weaponry control talks, and focus on ways to insure that accidents don't happen, rather than always arguing over how many you can have where, and how many we get. Numbers are pointless indicators of power in this new age; the real indicators can only be realized by avoiding a nuclear confrontation. I seriously do not believe that a deliberate nuclear war will happen. The new battles are still fought with guns and tanks, jet fighters, napalm, and all those other conventional weapons, with more emphasis all the time on 'psychological' weapons. What scares the **** out me is the possiblity of accidental global nuclear holocaust. The depressing part of it all is that, there doesn't seem to be much interest either in Moscow or Washington in initiating such talks. Gary Benson John Fluke Mfg. Co. Everett, WA, USA
geller@rlgvax.UUCP (David Geller) (12/01/83)
So many people are writing that the show "The Day AFter" did little else
but increase ABC's ratings for the evening. What's wrong with this. I'm
sure that was their original intent in showing the film. Had they decided
to show a highly educational film they might have employed the talents of
such people as Cronkite, Ustinov (he was good on NOVA), or Sagen to explain
in detail the many things that would happen if should a tragedy were to
occur.
The show was extremely entertaining. I enjoyed it very much. I felt that
there were several minor flaws (acting, script, facts) in it but such is
life. Why are we all dwelling on this subject so much. The best way to voice
your opinions so that they have some causal effect would be for you to write
to your congressmen, state lobbiests, state educational directors, the major
networks, etc.
We can't watch PBS all the time...
David Geller
Washington, D.C.
{seismo}!rlgvax!geller