[aberdeenwriter]

The Sci Fi Channel has trotted out a 1983 made for TV film, The Day After. It tells the story of what life would be like immediately before, during and after a nuclear attack on the heartland of America.

[Kevin]

And it was a LAME movie.

Red Dawn was much better.

[Maflynn]

It was ground breaking at the time. communism had not fallen yet and the threat of war was still very strong. I watched it and yes very dated and kind of lame

[Kevin]

Eh, I thought it was lame back then as well.

[Y3a]

Like Red Dawn too. LAME-OH.

Reminds me of all the Films where nobody did research. In the late 1980's they made a film where the heat from a comet was supposed to kill everything on earth. of course in the 1960's, Lost in Space did the same thing but we didn't know whether comets were hot or cold then. How about the exploration vehicle that they went into the core of the earth ("Core"??). how they could 'see' out the front, or use any kind of sensors to predict their position....Oh, never mind.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Like Red Dawn too. LAME-OH.

The difference? RD is a classic, and this will always be known as a turd.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And it was a LAME movie.

Red Dawn was much better.

I LIKED them BOTH!!!

Well, not exactly like...how can you LIKE the idea of the US being nuked and/or invaded?

But, you know what I mean.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The difference? RD is a classic, and this will always be known as a turd.

I found it fascinating to watch again after all this time because it reflects the ideas, fashions and conventions of the time and also many of the people who scoffed and didn't take the threat of war seriously as well as those who felt war wasn't justified to protect GERMANY are depicted.
(One character says, something like, "Why should we go to war for Germany?! It's not as if the Soviets were trying to deprive us of Saudi Arabian oil!" )

Also, there's one scene where the Emergency Broadcast System announces there is an imminent emergency and people line up by the dozens to use a pay phone by the road to call loved ones.

In addition to there being no cell phones, personal computers or computing devices, another glaring revelation is the lack of CNN or any satellite TV networks.

Several people in the film smoked cigarettes, even a doctor!

Fascinating for a couple of reasons.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Y3a

How about the exploration vehicle that they went into the core of the earth ("Core"??). how they could 'see' out the front, or use any kind of sensors to predict their position....Oh, never mind.

I remember laughing through the trailer while watching the coming attractions. It was about as absurd as Ben Affleck as a superhero.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I remember laughing through the trailer while watching the coming attractions. It was about as absurd as Ben Affleck as a superhero.

Yes. It's interesting to me how some actors we have no problem accepting as superheroes but others we can't.

I mean Michael Keaton as Batman???

And this is meant as no offense to Michael Keaton, either! In fact, I LIKED his portrayal as Batman! What I couldn't buy was his portrayal as a cop in another movie. Why one but not the other? I dunno.

But, maybe we just consider Affleck too much a regular guy and not SUPER?

By the way...

I ran across this and couldn't resist.

[davesimondotcom]

Everybody knows there would never have been nuclear war during the cold war because TIC TAC TOE had no winner. The only way to win is not to play the game.

Duh.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Everybody knows there would never have been nuclear war during the cold war because TIC TAC TOE had no winner. The only way to win is not to play the game.

Duh.

I'd like to have a remote controlled pterodactyl!

[TETENAL]

"The Day After" is extremely lame.

The Russian version "Dead Man's Letters" is a very good movie though. If you have the chance to watch this I highly recommend it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091759/

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

"The Day After" is extremely lame.

The Russian version "Dead Man's Letters" is a very good movie though. If you have the chance to watch this I highly recommend it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091759/

The viewer comments certainly underscore your recommendation for this film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091759/usercomments

[RAILhead]

Red Dawn was a freakin' cool movie, even though it had Patrick Swayze in it.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Red Dawn was a freakin' cool movie, even though it had Patrick Swayze in it.

1st Mich. Wolverine Spotted in 200 Years
By DAVID RUNK
The Associated Press
Wednesday, February 25, 2004; 10:37 PM


DETROIT - A biologist has confirmed the sighting of a real Michigan wolverine, about 200 years after the species was last seen in the state that uses the small but ferocious animal as its unofficial nickname.

Coyote hunters spotted a wolverine near Ubly, about 90 miles north of Detroit. Michigan Department of Natural Resources wildlife biologist Arnie Karr saw the forest predator Tuesday and snapped pictures of the animal as it ran out of the woods and across a field.

The wolverine, a member of the weasel family that grows to about 25 pounds but is ferocious enough to fight off bears and wolves, once ranged across the northern and western United States. It is now limited mostly to northern Canada, Idaho and Alaska, with sightings in a few other states, but its last confirmed sightings in Michigan were by fur traders in the late 1700s and early 1800s.

The appearance is "up there with having a caribou or a polar bear turn up," Department of Natural Resources spokesman Brad Wurfel said Wednesday. "It's unprecedented."

How the scrappy animal returned and even whether it ever really left are mysteries in the state, where the best-known Wolverines are athletes at the University of Michigan.

Raymond Rustem, supervisor of the natural heritage unit in the department's wildlife division, said the wolverine could have traveled to the state, been released or escaped from captivity.

"What it means, who knows?" Rustem said. "When you take a look at the wolverine, there's always been this debate about whether wolverines ever were a part of Michigan's recent past. Some evidence shows that, some says no."

The wolverine was on Michigan's endangered species list until the late 1990s, when it was removed because it wasn't expected to return, Rustem said. Conservationists asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to put the animal on its endangered list in 2000, but the agency in October declined to study whether the species should be added.

There was a news story here in Washington the other day showing video from a copter of a wolverine bounding through a snowy Pacific Northwest forest.

I knew from Red Dawn that they were secretive but only recently did I realize just how much so. I now have an even greater appreciation for the guys' choice of name in Red Dawn.

[xenu]

Didn't Bush Snr demand a right of reply after this movie was shown?

I like the movie 'Fail Safe'.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by xenu

Didn't Bush Snr demand a right of reply after this movie was shown?

If that was supposed to be funny, try again.

I like the movie 'Fail Safe'.

Which one? The 2000 version or the 1964 version?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Red Dawn was a freakin' cool movie, even though it had Patrick Swayze in it.

I considered renting until I read this post.

[xenu]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

If that was supposed to be funny, try again.

Which one? The 2000 version or the 1964 version?

Was I trying to be funny? Two similar movies came out around the same time, and if I remember correctly, Bush Snr pretty much demanded a right of reply.

I didn't know they remade 'Fail Safe'. I doubt it's better than the original, which is a classic.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by xenu

Was I trying to be funny? Two similar movies came out around the same time, and if I remember correctly, Bush Snr pretty much demanded a right of reply.

I didn't know they remade 'Fail Safe'. I doubt it's better than the original, which is a classic.

GHW Bush was Vice President when the film came out. Are you sure you have the right movie?

The Day After
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Day After
IMDb profile
The Day After is an American TV-movie aired in 1983 on the ABC network. The film presented a theoretical situation which led to nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union, and its consequences as felt by residents of Lawrence, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri. The film was written by Edward Hume and directed by Nicholas Meyer.

George H. W. Bush
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from GHW Bush)
George Herbert Walker Bush

Order 41st President
President from January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993
Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Preceded by Ronald Reagan
Succeeded by Bill Clinton
Born June 12, 1924
Milton, Massachusetts, USA
Political party Republican
Spouse Barbara Pierce Bush

George Herbert Walker Bush, GCB, (born June 12, 1924) was the 41st President of the United States (1989–1993). Previously, he had served as a U.S. congressman from Texas (1967–1971), ambassador to the United Nations (1971–1973), Republican National Committee chairman (1973–1974), Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office in the People's Republic of China (1974–1976), Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (1976–1977), Chairman of the First International Bank in Houston (1977–1980), and the 43rd Vice President of the United States under President Ronald Reagan (1981–1989). He has run unsuccessfully twice for the United States Senate, once for President of the United States, and once for his reelection to that office. A decorated naval aviator he is the last World War II veteran to date to have served as President. Bush is the father of the 43rd and current president, George Walker Bush. His father, Prescott Bush, was a United States Senator.

[xenu]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

GHW Bush was Vice President when the film came out. Are you sure you have the right movie?

Yes. It was during the very scary Regan years, and he wanted to reply to what they saw as
anti-nuke propaganda.

[James L]

ok, that picture is freakin' hilarious!!!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by xenu

Yes. It was during the very scary Regan years, and he wanted to reply to what they saw as
anti-nuke propaganda.

Thank you for enlightening me.

Although one who mistakes Regan for Reagan might say, well...ANYTHING.

Donald Regan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Donald Regan
Donald Thomas Regan (December 21, 1918 – June 10, 2003) was the 66th United States Secretary of the Treasury, from 1981 to 1985, and Chief of Staff from 1985 to 1987 in the Reagan administration, where he advocated supply-side economics and tax cuts to create jobs and stimulate production. Regan was criticized for his prime-ministerial style of service and for his involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair.

[xenu]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Thank you for enlightening me.

No worries. I had actually forgotten about that period in history until this thread reminded me- or suppressed it.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by xenu

No worries. I had actually forgotten about that period in history until this thread reminded me- or suppressed it.

It was a good time for millions and millions. Sorry for your pain. But the world made out alright due to his administration so at least you'd probably be glad for that. Right?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by xenu

Yes. It was during the very scary Regan years

I grew up in the Regan years. They were hardly scary.

[xenu]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I grew up in the Regan years. They were hardly scary.

Then you weren't old enough to understand.

A mummy's boy who was told what to do by his wife and astrologer.
He was a dangerous man.

[xenu]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

It was a good time for millions and millions. Sorry for your pain. But the world made out alright due to his administration so at least you'd probably be glad for that. Right?

Did he? He bought off the Iranians with money and weapons.
Was this about the time of Oliver North, and the mess in Central America?

He was very antagonistic towards Russia.
I think the world was fortunate Russia had Gorbachev at the time, to counter Regan.

Anyway, this is all way off-topic now.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by xenu

Did he? He bought off the Iranians with money and weapons.
Was this about the time of Oliver North, and the mess in Central America?

He was very antagonistic towards Russia.
I think the world was fortunate Russia had Gorbachev at the time, to counter Regan.

Anyway, this is all way off-topic now.

My thread. And others can continue to comment on the movie if they wish.

Does being on the losing side of arguments, not to mention history, work for ya?

I bet you sport a black beret, too, right?

http://www.chapellerie-traclet.com/h...roducts_id=319

[ghporter]

Regan was hardly a "mummie's boy" and if you believe that he did what Nancy and some astrologer told you, then you also believe all the other stuff the Weekly World News prints.

The geopolitical situation during the Regan years was very complex, but it centered around the fact that the Soviet Union was coming apart and the Politburo didn't yet see this or admit it. There was a significant threat that they would indeed do something extremely stupid.

During this time I was involved in command and control of strategic weapons systems. The threat was real, the stakes were higher than they had ever been (even during the Cuban Missile Crisis), and there was absolutely NO way for anyone not deeply involved in high-level intelligence to know what was actually going on.

On the other hand, Regan actually did prove to be a credible actor; he got a lot of people, most notably the Soviet leadership, to believe he'd push the button. He also fielded the Ground Launched Cruise Missile system in a very short period of time to counter Soviet missiles in Eastern Europe that could strike as far west as London. It worked; GLCM mobile launch systems could launch a Tomahawk-like cruise missile that the Soviets could not defend against, and they could hit Moscow with them from anywhere they put 'em. What a great weapon! It did its job without ever being used in anger!

As for "The Day After," it scared the crap out of me. They got the details right-from discussing "launch on warning" to how a lot of nukes would affect the weather, to how extensive and dangerous fallout would be, etc. Very scary for someone who actually knew something about the science behind the beasties.

[xenu]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Does being on the losing side of arguments, not to mention history, work for ya?

I bet you sport a black beret, too, right?
[/URL]

WTF are you on about?

I was on the side that didn't want to die in a nuclear war, started because Regan's astrologer decided it was a good day to press the button.

[xenu]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Regan was hardly a "mummie's boy" and if you believe that he did what Nancy and some astrologer told you, then you also believe all the other stuff the Weekly World News prints.

I understand that Regan was a very popular president, and that the official history paints him in a very good light, but it is general knowledge that his wife Nancy and his astrologer had a very strong influence on him. So much so that his actions were unpredictable. That made him dangerous.

As I said, it was fortunate that the Russians had a moderate president at the time. Had the old-school Russians been in power at the time, who knows where things may have gone.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by xenu

I understand that Regan was a very popular president, and that the official history paints him in a very good light, but it is general knowledge that his wife Nancy and his astrologer had a very strong influence on him. So much so that his actions were unpredictable. That made him dangerous.

As I said, it was fortunate that the Russians had a moderate president at the time. Had the old-school Russians been in power at the time, who knows where things may have gone.

You mean "moderate" Soviet presidents like Brezhnev (who in his time invaded Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan), Andropov (a former head of the KGB, and mastermind of the Soviet invasion of Hungary), and Chernenko (long time Brezhnev crony)? Or did you think Gorbachev was the only Soviet leader in office while Reagan was president?

Might I suggest throwing away the Kitty Kelly biography (which is where you are getting the astrologer story) and get a decent history book?

Oh, and please everyone, it is Reagan. With an "a."

[xenu]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

You mean "moderate" Soviet presidents like Brezhnev (who in his time invaded Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan), Andropov (a former head of the KGB, and mastermind of the Soviet invasion of Hungary), and Chernenko (long time Brezhnev crony)? Or did you think Gorbachev was the only Soviet leader in office while Reagan was president?

Might I suggest throwing away the Kitty Kelly biography (which is where you are getting the astrologer story) and get a decent history book?

Oh, and please everyone, it is Reagan. With an "a."

No I mean exactly what I said. The old-school at the time were losing power and were on the way out. A 1950's style Russian president would have led to a very different outcome during those years.

Perhaps you should stop reading the authorised biographies, and learn some real history.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by xenu

No I mean exactly what I said. The old-school at the time were losing power and were on the way out. A 1950's style Russian president would have led to a very different outcome during those years.

Perhaps you should stop reading the authorised biographies, and learn some real history.

Hahahahaha! I can't wait!

[xenu]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Hahahahaha! I can't wait!

For what? More of the "official truth"?

The richest Australian died recently. There was a huge send off for him in the Sydney Opera House, where he was toasted, and made out to be a nice guy.

How much truth do you think there was going around that day? His official history was being written. In 20 years time, what will people be saying about this man? The real truth, or the "official truth"?

You know, for people who pride themselves on their war of independence, and Bill of Rights, you really are quite subservient.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by xenu

No I mean exactly what I said. The old-school at the time were losing power and were on the way out. A 1950's style Russian president would have led to a very different outcome during those years.

Perhaps you should stop reading the authorised biographies, and learn some real history.

Soviet presidents were figureheads and none of the top Soviet leaders (including Gorbachev) ever held the office of president.

That being so, I take it you mean Stalin or Khruschev, since they were the only Soviet General Secretaries in the 1950s. Brezhnev (along briefly with Kosygin) was Khrushchev's immediate successor. He came to power after Khrushchev was pushed aside after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Brezhnev came to power in 1964 and he was very doctrinare. He crushed the Prague Spring in 1968 and invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Brezhnev died three years later while Reagan was in office in 1982. Bhrezhnev was succeeded by Yuri Andropov, who was quite hard core (despite all the rubbish published at the time about him liking Jazz). He planned the invasion of Hungary in 1956 and subsequently headed the KGB during the Bhreznev years. Andropov in turn was succeeded by the very conservative Konstantin Chernenko, who was a Brezhnev hack (and also very sick).

In other words, Reagan's time in office and the old school Soviet leadership coincided. You only don't think it does because the high school history books gloss over the pre-Gorbachev years. But Gorby didn't become General Secretary until 1985, which was the first year of Reagan's second term. In fact, part of the reason the Soviets went with the much younger Gorbachev was to answer Reagan.

You aren't old enough to remember any of this, are you.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by xenu

For what? More of the "official truth"?

The richest Australian died recently. There was a huge send off for him in the Sydney Opera House, where he was toasted, and made out to be a nice guy.

How much truth do you think there was going around that day? His official history was being written. In 20 years time, what will people be saying about this man? The real truth, or the "official truth"?

You know, for people who pride themselves on their war of independence, and Bill of Rights, you really are quite subservient.

If you were as good at manipulation as you are at mental masturbation maybe you'd have a brighter posting future than what appears at this juncture.

[ghporter]

And Kitty Kelly's "work" is also well known to be fiction with the names of real people thrown in.

The President of the United States is NOT free to do what he wants. He has the duty and responsibility to establish policy and make military command decisions. But after that, those policies and decisions are carried out by a LOT of other people, NONE of whom could possibly be influenced by Nancy Regan or anybody's astrologer. Again, I think the Weekly World News is looking for people who believe this sort of crap to enhance their subscriber base.

Further, as Simey says, the Soviet leadership during the '80s was anything but warm and fuzzy. While their expansionist intentions were soundly blunted by their misadventure in Afghanistan, they didn't really slow down much. Where did the money for Cuba's moves on Grenada come from? How did several of the South and Central American "liberation fronts" get their start? What about Nicaragua? All influenced and bankrolled by the Soviet government. This does NOT fit my definition of "moderate" in any way.