Talk:Threads (1984 film)

I think Threads should have a link direct to Threads (television show), and a link to Thread, rather than redirecting to the latter - and no mention of the programme at all, until I put one in, which is strange as it would appear there used to be something related to the programme here. Plus lots of links to this page. Not entirely sure why the main article isn't here - maybe there's something on the talk page for it? sheridan 23:06, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

I have just "repatriated" the article here to its correct location. The move was done without discussion by an IP editor by cut and paste so had also lost history. All is now good again! --Vamp:Willow 00:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Large sections of this page are plagiarised from here [1] - i will either attempt a cleaup or leave a cleanup tag myself Tyhopho 21:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The contributor of that material has been consulted, and he maintains that the material is not under copyright, and/or that no rights have been reserved, and that this justifies his use. This is incorrect on several grounds:

1. The source site has been under copyright from the time it was saved to disk. As its contents and its domain name show (btinternet.com is British Telecom), it was created in the United Kingdom, where copyright inheres in a work from the time it is recorded. (The same is true in the U.S., incidentally.)

2. The Berne Convention requires that copyright protection be extended automatically, without requirement of notice or registration. The U.K. has been party to the Berne Convention since 1887. (And yes, Wikipedia does have to honor British copyrights, since it is legally located in Florida, and the U.S. acceded to the Berne Convention in 1989. Thanks for asking.)

3. Initially, the author is the sole holder, not only of the rights to copy, to distribute copies, to display, and to create derivative works, but also of the right to sell or assign these rights. Unless he exercises this latter right, the other rights never pertain to anyone else—they are 'reserved' by default.

4. User:Jim62sch concedes that an attribution to the source is necessary, but seems to believe that it is also sufficient. Citation resolves plagiarism, which is a problem of intellectual honesty, but under the circumstances it has no bearing on copyright infringement, which is a problem of law. Most particularly, a citation would not make this a fair use of text.

5. It is worth noting that the front page of the source site does contain a copyright notice, although it does not say whether this notice concerns merely that page, or the whole site. (The whole site is protected anyway, as previously discussed.) From the fact that the author did put this notice on his front page, I infer that he could well have put a waiver or license of rights on the Threads page, had he wished to. Because he did not do so, I infer that he meant it to have just the protected status that it does have. Your conclusions may differ.

Enough theory. On a practical level, I've emailed the author a request for permission, with an explanation of the GFDL and a promise to remove the offending material if he dislikes it. I told him I'd assume permission refused if I didn't hear back in two weeks. So if you don't hear from me on or before April 26, feel free to nukenuke the offending edits. eritain 02:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, well now I know something new. One other thing -- that write up appears on several web-sites, so I'm guessing either it's been copyvio'd a lot. Anyway, feel free to do what you need to do with the article, and accept my apologies for not quite grasping the part of copyright law you pointed out. •Jim62sch• 09:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one that feels that this article over-describes the film? You need not watch it; just read the Wikipedia article. Look at the plot sections in Casablanca, Gone With The Wind and The Deer Hunter (to name three I pseudo-randomly chose). Furthermore, a lot of the parts have been copied verbatim from the film's narrator. Stonefield 09:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the more detail in an article, the better. Besides, there is a lot of detail in film (e.g., cinematography, pacing, soundtrack) that cannot be conveyed in print—and even if you could convey those details in print, it still wouldn't feel the same as if you had sat through the whole film.
–Gravinos (To each their own*      _{*as long as they leave me alone.}) 11:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Availability

There was no mention of the extremely scarce 1987 VHS release so I have added this. I would also cast doubt on the claim that the 2000 DVD release "soon went out of production" or "quickly became a collector's item" - I picked up a heavily discounted copy in 2003 and I noticed at the time it was available from most of the major online retailers at a comparably low price. I have modified accordingly. DickTurnip 19:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It was a good set of edits all round Tyhopho 21:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Day After

An offhand comment in the introduction calls "The Day After" "theoretically inaccurate". To what does this comment refer? (Without supporting references, this is probably not NPOV.)

I've tagged the claim that Threads was "was conceived as the British counterpart to" The Day After for a citation. Given that the American production was screened on 20 November 1983, and Threads was supposedly shot in "late-1983," it seems unlikely there was even an indirect link between the two. Nick Cooper 18:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've no evidence other than having watched both films, but on face value they seem much to similar in plot, structure and tone to be unrelated. Both of them follow the lives of a group of ordinary, mainly non-political people from in and around a provinical city through an early-eighties nuclear war. Both of them depict the gross inadequacies of civil defence measures and the swift overwhelming of medical facilities, as well as marshall law and the government-led attempts at reconstruction. The political messages of both are identical. I wish I had some facts to support the link though - can anyone help? Thom2002 15:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Martial law. 68Kustom (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Watching both movies, there are several scenes that are virtually identical, right down to the dialogue. Both movies have women preparing to marry, then losing their future husbands in the bombing. Both movies have a family that manages to plan ahead for the war so that they can shelter in their basements, then those who remain behind are killed by looters. The oldest daughter in both of these "safe" families strikes out on her own in the radiation before returning to the shelter. The government group in the basement trying to communicate with the outside world is similar to the professor trying to communicate with the world. There's even childbirth into this very changed world right at the end of both movies. Some parallels are to be expected due to similar subject matter, but the movies are too similar for coincidence. 74.130.80.247 03:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a section in this article comparing the two films, as well as one in the The Day After article.
–Gravinos (To each their own*      _{*as long as they leave me alone.}) 11:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested. There are many similarities but they may be shared via influence of other disaster movies, especially the crowd scenes. Overall, I'd say The Day After epitomizes the American attitude and Threads the British. Threads simply benefits from its brilliant writing, direction, everything . . . the ultimate disaster movie with everything on top. Plus an internal level of symbolism that The Day After doesn't really aspire to. The Day After does have superior effects of the actual explosions, the cinematic equivalent of gut-punch after gut-punch. But Threads just connects deeper with the full scale of the horror/pathos/insanity. The woman spontaneously urinating. The cat. The rape. The dog barking in panic to her childbirth. Her daughter's mutant foil. Threads is the one fictional movie I've seen which so terrified me I had no choice but to watch it again, and again, and again (without sound), and years later again to . . . anesthetize myself. Innoculate myself from the fear.

I'm from Oregon by the way. I REMEMBER The Day After (I was 7 in '84 with family and neighbors present) but Threads wove itself deep inside me. Writer and Director deserved the Nobel Peace Prize for this.Magmagoblin (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Style

I don't call if it is plagarism or not - the writing doesn't read well.

I took out some run-on sentences, comma splices, and overall wordiness. I also added some paragraph breaks where they naturrally should be. I did not alter basic factual content, whether correct or not. Hope it reads better now. 68Kustom (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the copyvio stuff, for redaction if appropriate.

If we decide that a more detailed plot outline is appropriate, we can use this as a source, but it needs (a) substantial reworking and (b) a citation in order to make it (a) not plagiarism and (b) not sucky. I don't think we need this much detail in any case. So, with apologies to those who worked on it, copyedited it, improved the style, and wikified it, here's the big honking copyvio that cannot remain any longer. eritain 01:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The buildup

"In an urban society everything connects, each person's needs are fed by the skills of many others. Our lives are woven together in a fabric, but the connections that make society strong also make it vulnerable".

Introduced by these words, Threads is set in the depressed industrial city of Sheffield, England, and centres on two families: the Kemps and the Becketts. It is Saturday, March 5. Ruth Beckett (Karen Meagher) and Jimmy Kemp (Reese Dinsdale) are courting, and in the first scene of the film, they are in Jimmy's parked car overlooking Sheffield. Captions note that the city is 17 miles away from RAF Finningley, a base for both USAF F-4 Phantoms and an RAF communication center, thus making it high priority military target.

The political background is a US backed coup in Iran, the subsequent invasion of northern Iran by the USSR to take over oil fields in the south and west, and tactical moves by the Warsaw Pact and the North Atlantic Treaty organization (NATO) in East Germany and West Germany.

The film jumps ahead to May 11, and the Becketts are awaiting a visit from the Kemps, since Ruth is pregnant with Jimmy's child, and they are planning to get married. Meanwhile, the BBC reports that the American submarine Los Angeles has been attacked and destroyed in the Persian Gulf, and the United States has announced that it plans to send a rapid deployment force into western Iran in order to block any possible Soviet move towards the oil fields.

Jimmy and Bob have a pint

In a pub, Jimmy and his friend Bob are discussing the international situation over a pint, when it is announced on the TV that the United States has accused the Soviets of moving nuclear warheads into their new base in Iran. Bob's concluding comment is "... I'll tell you one thing; if the bomb does drop I want to be pissed out of my mind and straight underneath it when it happens...."

The United Kingdom has emergency plans for war, which it begins putting into effect. Should the central government fail, power can be transferred to a network of local officials. In an urban area like Sheffield, there is already a designated wartime controller -- the city's peacetime chief executive. If and when this transfer happens depends on the crisis itself.

Escalation

On Saturday, May 21, the Ministry of Defence begins to move troops into mainland Europe on the border with East Germany. British Airways and all cross-channel shipping and ferries are commandeered for this purpose. Peace rallies are held throughout the country in an attempt to defuse the situation. The United States demands a joint withdrawal from Iran by noon on Sunday, May 22. The Soviets refuse.

Overnight reports indicate build-ups of Soviet forces along the Iranian border and in East Germany. At 1PM local time on Sunday, one hour after the US ultimatum expires, American B52-Gs strike the Soviet base in Iran with conventional weapons. The Soviets defend the base with a single nuclear air defence missile, resulting in the loss of many B52s. At 2PM, the United States retaliates with a tactical nuclear weapon, destroying the Soviet base, and the exchange stops.

In Britain, looting and lawlessness break out. On May 24, there are early reports of an outbreak of fighting between the United States and Soviets in Iran and the Persian Gulf. Parliament passes an Emergency Powers Act. Many begin to leave large population centers for the relative safety of the West Country and Welsh countryside. This movement is against government advice. Official Essential Service routes are set up to enable vital movements to continue (such as soldiers, tanks, ammunition, food, fuel and medical supplies), hence motorways are closed to all but military traffic . Known and potential subversives are arrested.

File:Protectandsurvivecover.jpg

Protect and Survive

The American carrier Kitty Hawk is sunk in the Persian Gulf. America responds with an air and naval blockade of Cuba. Many people follow government advice to build improvised fallout shelters. Protect and Survive booklets are distributed, which include advice that a fall-out room should be set up with provisions for the family for 14 days stored within it. A 'lean-to' should be built out of boards, doors, etc., and rested against an inner wall. The Kemps build such a structure, the Becketts decide to use their cellar. A radio news broadcast notes "There has been a run on tinned food, sugar and other storable items that is causing shortages in some areas. A spokesman for the main supermarket chains says that fuel shortages are hindering re-supply and urged the public to calm down".

On May 25, Sheffield officials enter the bunker (more accurately, the basement/cellar used to store documents) under the Town Hall. Many officers have had no training; some discovered their emergency role only in the last few days, and almost all are unsure of their exact duties.

Ruth is with her parents, and has decided not to go into work because she is not feeling well; whether this is due to morning sickness or anxiety over the crisis it is not made clear in this scene. When her mother attempts telephoning Ruth's place of employment to tell them that she isn't coming in for work, her mother discovers that the telephone has been disconnected. The telephone preference system has been activated, allowing all but ten percent to be cut off at will, in order to allow hospitals, utilities, military bases and the like to still have a phone line. It also prevents spies listening in.

The UK Warning and Monitoring Organisation is responsible for issuing the "four-minute warning". The warning originates at RAF High Wycombe near London, and is relayed to over 250 control points in major police stations. Should war arrive, the police will activate the 7,000 automated warning sirens in the UK. These are backed up by 11,000 other warning points in rural areas, located in coastguard stations, hospitals, village shops and even pubs, these warning points sound the alarm by hand-siren. Small three person bunkers scattered all over the UK are staffed to sound the alarm and monitor blast and fall-out levels.

War

It is now 8:00 AM May 26. In the bunker under Sheffield town hall, a WB400 warning receiver is making a 'ticking' sound, a nuclear 'all clear'. The Kemps are removing inside doors to use for their shelter, while the radio plays an information broadcast. By this time, public information films are being broadcast almost constantly.

First salvo hits RAF Finningley, a 150 kt blast, as seen from Sheffield.

At 8:30 AM, (3:30am in Washington D.C.), it is noted that over the last few days neither the President nor his staff will have had more than a few hours rest; this is when they may be asleep, and thus this is when Western response will be slowest. At 8:30 AM, the 'ticking' sound of the warning receiver is replaced by an alarm sound and the announcement "ATTACK WARNING RED", indicating an attack in progress. The police sound the Air Raid sirens, causing Jimmy and Bob to look for cover. At 8:35 AM single warhead is detonated high over the North Sea; the Electromagnetic Pulse knocks out power and communication systems. At 8:37 AM, the first salvos hit NATO military targets, including RAF Finningley. The Finningley blast breaks windows, and the nuclear flash blinds many in Sheffield who were caught outside. Ruth and her parents have taken shelter in their basement with their invalid grandmother (meanwhile, the family cat is killed), while the Kemps have attempted to build a makeshift shelter using doors and furniture. This first salvo totals 80 megatons. Seeing the mushroom cloud rising from RAF Finningley, Jimmy leaves Bob, and runs off to find Ruth. This is the last we see of him. The Kemps' son Michael panics, and runs outside.

The nuclear exchange continues, with more strategic weapons being used. One of these large bombs is detonated over Sheffield, a one-megaton airburst warhead. Buildings explode and collapse (including the town hall over the bunker, trapping the officials inside) and milk bottles melt in the heat. The Kemps' young son Michael is either killed by the heat's blast or by a hail of falling bricks, or both, and Mrs. Kemp is blinded and maimed when she tries to save him instead of taking shelter in the inner refuge.

Initial casualties are between 2.5 and 9 million. An hour and 25 minutes after the attack (10:00AM) the first fall-out dust settles on Sheffield from a detonation in Crewe. About two thirds of the houses in the UK are in fire zones. Almost all windows are broken and most roofs are open to the skies. Fire fighting on any large scale is unlikely. Food distribution also unlikely for at least 3-4 weeks. In total, out of a 3,000 megaton exchange between East and West, an estimated 210 megatons fall on the UK -- that is the equivalent of 3.5 tonnes of high explosive for every person in the country.

Aftermath (short term)

The first duty of the Sheffield officials is maintaining communication with other control centres and assessing the damage. A large map on the wall is marked with concentric circles around the detonations. These "release bands" determine the length of time people will have to stay in their shelters.

The Kemps emerge from their shelter to a scene of total devastation. Their survival chances are minimal as the damage to their house has exposed them to fallout. They find Michael's body under rubble in the garden. Mrs. Kemp dies shortly thereafter from radiation and her injuries. The Becketts, living in a cellar outside the fire zone, still suffer radiation sickness but survive the initial effects of the attack. Ruth's grandmother dies in her sleep. While her parents are removing the body, Ruth decides to leave the basement. Shortly afterwards the house is raided by looters who kill her parents.

Finding medical help is almost impossible - without power, water or drug supplies there is almost no way any doctor could render anything more than basic help. Also, given the devastation of the attack, the effects of the one bomb that hit Sheffield would be enough to overwhelm all the resources of the UK's National Health Service.

The officials in the basement are as shocked by the events as anyone else. The Chief Executive and the Medical Officer are looking at the radiation map on the wall "Everybody here will be dead already... Around here 50% will still be alive, but they are as good as dead already, they have probably received a lethal dose".

The town hall bunker has a generator and food supplies for 2 weeks, but the blast brought down all four floors of the building, sealing the officials in. Getting lifting equipment to them is difficult. After an attempt is made to mount rescue efforts above, they all die of suffocation.

In the atmosphere, huge clouds of dust block out the sun, and over large parts of the northern hemisphere it starts to get dark and cold. In the center of large land masses like America or Russia the temperature drop may be as much as 25 degrees Celsius. Even in Britain, the temperature could fall to freezing or below for long periods.

Aftermath (long-term)

Beneath a relic of pre-holocaust society, the central character of Ruth Beckett looks for food - rats.

On June 5th, 10 days after the attack, Ruth walks devastated streets passing charred bodies and a woman holding a dead baby. At Jimmy's house, she finds Mrs Kemp dead, and takes one of Jimmy's books as a keepsake. The killers of Ruth's parents are arrested and executed by firing squad. Ruth returns home to find that her parents are no longer there. A public information broadcast states that "... All able-bodied citizens, men, women and children should report for reconstruction duties commencing 08:00 tomorrow morning...."

A group of survivors (Jimmy's father amongst them) tries to break into a food storage depot; soldiers defend the depot with tear gas. Detention camps are set up to cope with the growing numbers of looters.

By 4 to 6 weeks after the attack, deaths from fallout are reaching their peak, disposal of bodies is difficult, digging pits by hand is not practical, and fuel is too valuable to be used for cremations. There are now between 10 and 20 million unburied bodies in Britain, which in turn give rise to epidemics such as cholera, dysentery and typhoid.

By now most who can have left cities and towns in search of food. In the grim economics of the aftermath is a harsh reality: a survivor who can work gets more food than one who can't, and the more who die, the more food left for the rest. Along with many others, Ruth is relocated to Buxton, which suffered fewer effects of the attack. Ruth, along with three others, is allocated temporary accommodation in a private home, over the objections of the homeowner, who kicks them out of this accommodation very soon afterwards.

Food is distributed after 4 weeks. The delay is partly organisational and partly deliberate, as there is a desire not to waste food on people who are going to die anyway. Even with supplies rationed to 1,000 calories per day for those who can work (and 500 calories for the rest), stocks do not last long and it is up to the remaining population to harvest what little crops have survived.

Ruth runs into Jimmy's friend Bob, and they band together and find a dead sheep. After some deliberation, they choose to eat it then use its coat to keep warm. Four months after the attack Ruth, alone, gives birth to a surprisingly healthy child and gathers with some survivors around a fire on Christmas Day. Aside from a caption that gives the date, the only thing to suggest it being Christmas is a shot that is a grim parody of a nativity tableaux; the day passes without celebration.

The sky is clearing and sunlight (heavy with ultraviolet radiation) is returning. However, with fuel stocks running low, this could be the last harvest done with tractors and combine harvesters. Lack of fertilizers and the like make the growing of crops very hard.

The first few winters are so harsh that most of the young and old die as their protective layers of flesh are thinner. The pace of the film quickens -- we see Ruth and her young daughter (whose name, Jane, is only revealed in the closing credits) working in the fields.

The population falls to about 5 million (the caption states that "population may fall to mediaeval levels, between 4 and 11 million people") within 8 to 10 years of the attack. The country is returning to population levels and standards of living similar to those of medieval times. A breakdown of language is evident among those born after the attack, making learning difficult.

Ten years after the attack, Ruth is in the final stages of cancer and looks far older than her years; she dies peacefully. By this time, basic electricity is in use again and we see mining and the use of steam engines. Ruth's people have even rigged up a television and VCR, which they use to show their children the few surviving recordings of pre-war programmes. The bitter irony being that the programme being shown is an episode of Words and Pictures, with a story about a family of skeletons. Jane and the other girls in the community are learning how to repair clothes.

Jane becomes pregnant as a result of being raped. As her contractions begin, she stumbles through the devastated landscape until she finds a hostel with electricity. Her baby is assumed disfigured, and possibly stillborn, a result of genetic mutation.

As Jane is about to scream at the sight of her baby, the movie ends. Template:Endspoiler

Off-topic list moved to independent article

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 Jericho (TV series) and The Day After. See Talk:List of nuclear holocaust fiction. MrZaius^talk 05:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Threadsmoviecover.jpg

Image:Threadsmoviecover.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

1985 Broadcast of Threads

The section describing the 1985 repeat of Threads is almost entirely conjecture with nothing to substantiate it; having watched it at the time I know for a certainty that nothing of the man having his leg amputated was edited or omitted. There was no need for any of Threads to be edited for the After The Bomb season which is what it was part of -- it was shown at 21:25, only 5 minutes earlier that it's original showing on the 13rd September 1984 at 21:30. It's interesting to note that in The Times television listings it reports Threads on 23 Sept 1984 starting at 21:30 and finishing at 23:25 and on 1 Aug 1985 starting at 21:25 and ending at 23:20 indicating both broadcasts being of 1 hour 55 minutes. As their are no commercials on the BBC it is unlikely they would be of uneven duration. Any trims to the content would have removed at least 1 or perhaps 2 minutes from the running length of the film, particularly cuts as long as those detailed in this article.

There is a heavily sanitised version of Threads this may be in reference to that was broadcast on satellite (not BBC4) that has been bootlegged around the Internet that has many of the cuts referenced above. It was broadcast at or around 2003 but I am fairly sure it was not an edit made by the BBC. Clearly this article needs extensive revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gitfinger (talk • contribs) 07:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This has come back again to haunt us. Firstly, I'm not saying that Threads was never edited in its rebroadcast in 1985. What I am saying is that any such claim needs to be substantiated. If it is true and can be cited, then great. If it can't then it has to be removed otherwise we're peddling more urban-legends. My own research reveals the following: According to The Times (see: The Times, September 22, 1984; p.33;), Threads was first broadcast on the 23rd September 1984 from 21:30 to 23:25 giving it a length of 1 hour 55 minutes. When it was re-shown on 1st August 1985 (see: The Times, August 1, 1985; p.35) it ran from 21:25 to 23:20 giving it exactly the same duration. I think it is worth nothing that The Times television correspondent, Peter Dear, in his preview of Threads for the reshowing on August 1 1985 ("Mushroom cloud meditations," The Times, July 27, 1985; p.17) makes no mention of any trims to the content. Although this is hardly the last word in evidence I would find it very strange that given the political intensity surrounding Threads at the time, it would have been very strange indeed if any edits to the play had gone unnoticed; any edits to reduce the graphic nature of the film would have almost certainly been seen as a climbdown or at worst as compromising the integrity of the film.

I would just like to add if Threads was changed/edited and there is evidence from a reputable source then by all means change the entry. It is just so important that anything to do with Threads is factually accurate and that readers can check sources for themselves. Gitfinger (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked into this issue a few years back, when there was a suggestion on a TV forum that the 1985 broadcast was cut. The general consensus - corroborated by posters who had access to the BBC transmissions database - was that it was not. My own contribution to the debate was to note that prior to the film being available commercially, it was available to schools through BBC Education, and that version may very well have been "toned down." If such a cut version got into circulation, and some people - noting bits absent that they remembered from the first transmission - may well have assumed that it was a recording of the 1985 repeat. All this is annecdotal, of course, but the bottom line is that nobody has come up with any concrete proof that the 1985 screening was cut, so we should really avoid any suggestion that it was. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update - much appreciated. I can't fault what you're saying, according to The Times, Threads was on sale to schools via BBC Enterprises the week following transmission (The Times, Oct 2, 1984; p.3) at half price of £110. What's also interesting is that every version of Threads submitted to the BBFC has had an identical running length of 112m 27s. If this version was changed given that it was available to schools within a week or so of broadcast it could very easy if people thought that the second terrestrial transmission was also edited. Gitfinger (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the cost of a pre-recorded VHS in those days! The BBC Education version predates compulsory BBFC certification for video (the first releases that were were in September 1985), but their output is rarely certified, anyway. I have the 1987 VHS (a lot cheaper!), and it is the "full" version. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The repeat was noted in some listings at the time as a 'revised repeat', and the memory of several people who saw it was that it had been directorially 'tightened up' rather than actually cut as such. It was stated in Time Screen magazine in 1993 that a 'recut repeat' version existed in the BBC Archives alongside the original cut, though this sheds little light on what if anything was actually 'cut' from it (could have just been a change to the end credits or something for all anyone knows). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.102.30 (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Intriguing stuff - it would be fascinating to see if anything was removed from Threads. The 1987 video packaging has stills on the back cover of scenes never seen in Threads. Gitfinger (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Plot Section needs completely rewriting

I have to agree that the plot section is much too dense and to a large degree fairly irrelevant. For the purposes of an encyclopedia this section needs extensive revision to both shorten it and to actually add more important details to the basis and origins of the plot. Simply writing a synopsis of the entire film neither does the film justice or has much learning value to it (various synopsis of the film are already widely available on the web). As time permits I propose completely rewriting this section. Gitfinger (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Though I haven't the time to rewrite this as extensively as I would like (i.e. to discuss the play rather than simply reiterate the plot) I've tried to remove the worst of the errors and inaccuracies, removed much of the unverified and unverifiable presumptions in the section. If it isn't explicit in the film or the published play then I've removed it as these are really the only two primary sources for Threads. Statements like " Ruth is put to work in the farming effort, where workers are provided barely enough nutrition to survive" have been removed because from the film we don't know any of that is true; we don't know what the workers were given in exchange for their labour so its removed. We also don't know such things as "Their "education" seems to consist of watching a damaged videotape of the BBC children's programme" because we don't know from the film what context the children were watching the video in. Similarly I've tried to remove some of the irrelevancy: "it is not clear whether the damage to the tape is due to the effects of the war or simple over-use" which adds nothing to the understanding of the plot or the film as a whole. These are examples of what I've tried to achieve, the page's history will reveal all my revisions. Gitfinger (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Unverified Content

I have removed completely "The VHS/DVD releases have a modified soundtrack (compared with the broadcast version) because of rights issues." because it is completely unverified. There are essentially only two pieces of music in Threads, at the beginning when Ruth and Jimmy are in the car and "Johnny B. Goode" is playing, a piece of classical music Jimmy's sister listens to as she does her homework and a coda of "Johnny B. Goode" that is heard whilst Ruth's daughter, Jane, stumbles through the rubble of a city (Sheffield? Buxton?) before giving birth. Unless the issue of rights issues can be verified there is no point in leaving conjecture in the article. It makes sense to reinstate if proper references can be provided, until then it shouldn't appear. Gitfinger (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dating

This is really getting a bit silly. The fact that the stated date of the attack - Thursday 26 May - applies to 1983 or 1988 is a self-evident fact, and is no less valid a detail regarding the plot of the play than much of what is already in the summary. We do not have to cite proof of something that is as plainly obvious as "grass is green". Nick Cooper (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It could also be any number of other dates, and the date is never specified in the movie. Since it's fictional and an actual date is not mentioned, there's no evidence whatsoever that the authors were thinking of those particular years. The fact that it has to list them both, separated by five years, disclaims the usefulness of the information; it'd be equally pointless to list every possible Thursday, May 26 during the Cold War. The information is not encyclopedic, not to mention poorly phrased, and not to mention does not back itself up with a citation. It does not belong in an encyclopedia.  Xihr  01:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly convinced that Threads was meant to be sent in 1983; during the scene when Alison Kemp is collecting her papers to deliver, the date is given as May 8; as both papers shown were Sunday papers (The Observer and The Sunday Mail) and that May 8th was a Sunday in 1983 I can't see it not being 1983. Also both papers can be very briefly seen to show the year; The Observer in particular. At 04:31 in the film just as the newsagent is writing the delivery address on the front you can see the date as "Sunday May 1983" reasonably clearly on the masthead. The pixelation caused by DVD compression doesn't make it very easy to read but it's still there.Gitfinger (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is still original research. Someone making up a day of the week and day of the year is no indication that they had an actual concrete date in mind, especially since there is no evidence that they were thinking of a particular year. Consistency with calendar cycles is not relevant; it's fictional.  Xihr  08:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Er... so you're now arguing that although the year "1983" is visible in the actual programme, it "doesn't count"?! Nick Cooper (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's true, then let's see a reliable source claiming it. Otherwise, this has already been way too much effort expended over a trivial point.  Xihr  11:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more you want; frankly I give up. I gave the time-code for when the date is visible on screen. The fact there are newspapers on-screen showing a specific year is an absolutely concrete date. This is a primary source that doesn't need to be verified elsewhere, anyone can check the evidence for themselves. I can't post a screenshot as I would be in breach of copyright; I suggest you view Threads for yourself at 04:31 (it may be visible a second or so earlier.) Besides which having a year for when Threads was based in I would argue is valuable information because it provides it with a context from when it was meant to occur during the Cold War; it couldn't have happened any earlier than 1980 because the Protect and Survive films didn't exist (unverified dates can put these films to an earlier 1975/76 date) and probably no later than 1985 when the BBC stopped using the "Tommorow's World" theme heard in the film. Also there is a Rover SD in Police livery and these cars weren't built before 1976 so we know Threads couldn't have occurred before this date also. Gitfinger (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This analysis is precisely what WP:NOR does not allow.  Xihr  04:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The programme itself is a primary source, and is sufficient in and of itself. Do you want a screen-grab? Nick Cooper (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If there's a primary source available, then use it. All the arguments given so far, including yours, have been about indirect conclusions from third-party reference, which is original research. If it's clearly indicated in the movie, then let's have it. But the arguments -- including the ones you've made just above -- haven't been about that; they've been attempts to synthesize information from different sources and come to a conclusion, which is not allowed according to Wikipedia's rules.  Xihr  09:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should pay closer attention to exactly who is saying what. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Impact

There doesn't seem to be much mention of the impact of the film following broadcast. The Day After features a substantial section (with the very important impact it had - even on World Leaders). I know from a personal point of view at 14 years old I was terrified and haunted by it - and so was everyone I knew who saw it - including teachers at school, adults and many discussions on TV. Does anyone know where to find this info, or does anyone have it already? For the type of film it was and particularly the era in which it was shown, the impact is especially important I think.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine and relevant (and I agree with your point), but it would have to be backed up with reliable sources. Just stating it outright is not sufficient.  Xihr  07:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Latest en masse changes

Vooz, before you make any more changes, please note the following:

• This is a British subject pages - please do not include text with inappropriate foreign dialect spelling, as you did (e.g. "centers," "realize," etc.).
• Do not include you own subjective interpretations (e.g. "depicted melodramatically"), especially ones which may be false (e.g. your description of "lower-middle-class Kemps and the upper-middle-class Becketts").

Nick Cooper (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick Cooper: I removed those portions. However, I stand by my other changes:

• The film is set in 1988. All the days and dates depicted in the film match those of that calendar year.
• The "Chief Executive" character is named Clive J. Sutton, LlB. He is plainly referred to by that name in the film, both visually and in dialog.

My rewrite is based upon an extensive, frame-by-frame review of Threads. I would be happy to post screencaps to support each of my claims. I don't mind if the Britishisms are put back in (even though I find the whole controversy to be both priggish and stupid), but kindly do not revert my other changes unless you have some evidence from the film to support the reversion.

-- Vooz (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes yet again. Please respect the fact that this is a British subject page by not including text with inappropriate foreign dialect spelling. Please do not include ypour own speculation and subjective opinion as if they are factual descriptions. If you wish to refer to the published script, which does include some explanation as to characters' motivations and feelings, then by all means do so. Please see the discussion above about the dating of the play. This was prompted by a side reference to the dates being applicable for 1983 or 1988, but extrapolating out to specific years for later events as you did is original research (that they match 1983 is no doubt because that was when the play was filmed; that they match 1988 is purely coincidental). The name of the council chief esec is a red herring. Lastly, it's a television play, not a "film".Nick Cooper (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Nick Cooper: You know something, Nick? It's douchebags like you that make people hate Wikipedia.

That being said, I quit. You win. Revel in your victory. Oh, and kindly do me the "favour" of shoving this article -- and your "television play" -- up your Pommie "arse".

-- Vooz (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)