The Day After was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 9, 2005 Peer review Reviewed October 12, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: War films / Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  War films task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Film: War / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the War films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Science Fiction Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Missouri Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Cold War Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.)

The preceding was added by me, prior to my registering this user name. --Dr. Floyd 20:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

even 25 megatons is too much. you must remember that logistics is the problem. they transported those bigger bombs via ship or ground. they can't just send anything up in the sky @ 7 miles per sec. hydrogen bombs are heavy so they must be smaller to travel 11,000 miles away. 75.90.112.68 (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was Belton, MO ever mentioned in the movie?--24.208.123.129 01:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Geobeedude[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah. I now have an obsession with nukes. It's nothing compared to Threads, though. UPDATE: I was at a school just north of the river in the most clear, beautiful view of KC i had ever seen.The skyline was in clear view (I think they filmed somewhere near here). I suddenly had a horrible vision similar to the scene in TDA. Geobeedude 02:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Geobeedude[reply]

I was on my first visit to the US (I am Australian) when I saw this in San Francisco. All through the second half of the movie I kept thinking "This could be happening right outside". I also remember that whilst there was a lot of peopling smoking cigarettes in the theatre (this was very noticeable to me because smoking in theatres had been banned in Australia for many years) during the beginning of the movie, and talking to each other, by its end there was no smoking and a grim silence. Old_Wombat (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember after this seeing an increase in the survivalist movement, preppers. Also known as doomsday preppers. When nothing happened they became the root of the right wing white racist christian nationalist movement. 2600:8807:5400:7000:FC86:FDF3:8F54:32E7 (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've drastically expanded the Plot section to give more details about the film's plot as it aired, as what was previously entered was only partially accurate, and not all that informative. Spoiler tags were, of course, left in place. One fact that I was unable to get info on were the children of the Hendrys. Their names weren't listed in IMDB, and weren't mentioned in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.151.114 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 2 October 2006

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) One big omission: The film was only shown once on U.S. television (so far as I am aware). My wife missed it because she had a class that night. We looked for a rerun until we were blue in the face and none ever came. She finally saw the movie after it went to DVD in 2004 and we purchased a copy. For a film that had such an impact this seems strange. I suspect it was too overwhelming and the network decided not to show it again on broadcast TV. Does anyone know the history behind this? Gdthayer (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

1. Well written? Fail

2. Factually accurate? Fail

3. Broad in coverage? Fail

4. Neutral point of view? Fail

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Fail

Additional comments :

• Image:Dayafterfilm.jpg, Image:Dayafter1.jpg don't state their fair use rationale.
• The article misses inline citations/references especially in Events leading to war.
• Trivia section is has non-notable trivia that should be removed and everything else should be replaced in the text.
• The Plot section shouldn't have bullet point lists in it.
• The lead section doesn't represent the length of the article (See WP:LEAD).

This article needs a lot of work to add sourcing to the material present and it also needs re-writing in some parts. As it stands, it looks like a weak B-class article. Good luck on the bettering of the article and if you have any questions just pop on my talk page. Lincher 13:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Lincher 13:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont you change it if you think its so bad the thing lists all it could about the documentary if u want to improve it then change the documntary

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.66.112 (talk) 03:04, 2006 October 24 (UTC)

Just in case, for reference to anyone curious about GA (Good Articles) or the process of their nominations, reviews, etc., this article was once nominated, and Lincher was the person to make the review. Reviewers don't normally make changes, though they will suggest them. It is like having a home inspector check your house/apartment... they don't fix the problem, they look for the problems, and they will pass your inspection if there are no problems. — al-Shimoni (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are several significant (in my opinion) inaccuracies in the "Plot" section and I've been trying to change them for a couple of days now, but every time, someone else comes in and reverts them right back. I don't get it . . . it makes me wonder if the people here have ever actually watched the film. So, anyway, let me just list the different inaccuracies:

• It says the Dahlbergs live "outside of Lawrence, KS." Wrong. Actually, the caption on the bottom of the screen in the film reveals that the Dahlbergs live outside Harrisonville, MO, which is far, far away from Lawrence (it's south of Kansas City). There actually weren't many missile silos around Lawrence in the 1980's, most of the Kansas ones were further out west, such as in Hutchinson and Wichita. Most of the silos which were nuke targets in this movie were in Missouri, around Whiteman AFB, Harrisonville, etc.

• The Hendrys "live at an unspecified location". Also inaccurate. The film's caption confirms that the Hendrys live in the fictional town of "Sweetsage, MO" (20 miles southeast of Kansas City, according to the movie).

• Similarly, Billy McCoy is said to work one of the missile silos "around Lawrence" --- what the author should have said is "around fictional Sweetsage".

• 'Tis said that Dr. Oakes is "enroute to Kansas City from Lawrence," which is partly inaccurate. I think it should be explained, even in just a few words, that Oakes was on the way down I-70 to Lawrence to teach a class at KU when the EBS warning came on and, after a futile attept at contacting his wife from the phone booth, heads down I-70 for Kansas City in an attempt to rescue his family. He was also not "unaware of the attack warning" --- he's been listening to the news on the radio for hours and knows what might happen, and certainly is "aware" when the EBS warning comes on.

• Steven Klein was not in Lawrence when he ducked into the store just as the blast waves hit his locations. If Steven left the KU campus in Lawrence, hitched a ride way out into the country, and started walking around the time the bombs hit, how could he then wind up all the way over in Lawrence again? These kinds of errors are frustrating. Because Steven later says to the Dahlbergs "I was near Harrisonville when it started", and also because on a research trip where I found ABC production records for the film it was revealed that they shot this scene in a Mexican restaurant in downtown Harrisonville, I think it's pretty safe to say that Steven Klein was in Harrisonville in this scene, not in Lawrence. Grrrrr.

• Two smaller may-be inaccuracies. The basketball court where Steven later finds Denise among the dying is not really a "high school gym", but the KU basketball venue Allen Fieldhouse. Whether or not the filmmakers intended this setting to actually be the fieldhouse in the story, or if it was indeed a gym in the story, I don't know, but I don't think a high school gym would be this big or have as many seats. Also, I doubt that at the end of the story Oakes really finds his house. I believe that he is simply hallucinating or imagining that he is locating the area of his house (you know, with all the radiation and whatnot). I seriously doubt that a guy, especially one weakened and maddnened by radiation sickness, could locate where his house once stood when everything for miles around is flattened and in ruins---total rubble---especially considering that Kansas City is a pretty big place.

That's it, gentlemen and ladies. Please do something about it, or permit me to do it myself, without my changes being reverted within hours like they have been over the past couple of days. --- Mike14

Again, one reason you've probably been reverted is because of the profile of your edits. I can't speak for the other editors who reverted, but from my perspective there were three details that made me wary. First, you made significant changes to fairly stable material in a pop-culture article, particularily details that are thought to be "common knowledge". (For example, although I might not have actually watched "The Day After" for years, I've seen many references to Lawrence, Kansas as the setting. Your edits changed it away from that, which looks suspicious.) Secondly, your changes appeared to be your first edits on this page, and a check of your edit history showed that you're not a "regular" contributor as of late. (Nothing wrong with this, of course, but you had one edit a few weeks back, and then it goes back two months.) Finally, and perhaps most significantly, there were no no edit summaries in the article history, nor were there any comments on the talk page. Don't take it personally, please - there's just so much vandalism on Wikipedia that many editors (myself included) tend to err on the side of caution.

The above, however, clearly outlines your rationale for making changes, and makes it easier for other editors to assess them. (This level of detail certainly isn't mandatory, or even necessary for many edits. However, a good, concise edit summary when you save your work can often avoid a lot of problems with reverts and changes.) Hope this helps - and, all this aside, good catch on the errant information. It has been a long, long, long time since I've seen the film, so I'd be hard pressed to note such details, and I'm glad you did. It's particularly important since the article is probably getting more hits due to the Jericho series and the Kansas parallels. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually, during a period from about last fall to the spring of this year, I was a very regular contributor to the "Day After" page and I think myself and a few others were the first ones to consider seriously expanding the article. For instance, I wrote most of the "Production" section based on research I'd done on the film's shooting, at the U. of Iowa (where director Nicholas Meyer has his personal and career papers archived). I once had a list of twenty-some newspaper and magazine articles that I consulted from the '80s under the "References" section, but they were deleted after several months because, according to the guy, they were a bunch of "dumped references". Ha. Anyway, thanks. I haven't been on the Day After page here in a while, and I just couldn't understand what was happening because all the information I was providing was correct. --Mike 14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Be advised that one of the plot edits you made was also incorrect. If you look at the scene closely where the elder survivor gives Dr. Oakes one of his supplies, it's not bread but an orange. This is how it is mentioned in the script, which I'd love to cite online, but is only available in my hands at the moment. And no, I'm not going to scan it in and put it online so you can link to it, because that's illegal. 66.90.151.114 09:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it was a "piece of bread" that the guy handed Oakes. I doubt that it matters much anyway. I, too, have read the script. I have several photocopies of it at my home. Remember that while filming on location, the director & crew might make a few changes from the script as far as props go. On the call sheet from the day that scene was filmed (on September 10, 1982), on the "Props" section it says---"Pear", instead of "Orange". User:Mike14 09:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I have next to no knowledge of wikipedia editing, and wouldn't like to edit the plot section myself but I'd like to point out that this bread or pear is almost definitely an onion. Look closely you will see either end of the 'object' is what is found on the end of onions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.240.210 (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having just bought this film on DVD I am thinking of starting an 'Errors and Goofs' section, perhaps starting with the following - could people tell me if I am right on this one:

When the EMP strikes all the cars die - no doubt because the electrics cut out and the spark plug circuits no longer work. But we are then shown people trying to start their cars again... to the sound of the electric starter motors! Would one circuit go and not the other?

However, the main point here is this - would a diesel engine (such as the one presumably on the vehicle being driven by McCoy), once running, be affected by an EMP at all? Even if the starter motor circuits were ruined, surely once going they would be EMP-immune, as Diesel engines have no spark plugs? No doubt in these days of embedded microprocessors with 200 times the power of a Commodore 64, something could go awry, but surely not in the 80s?

I often wondered that myself; how an electric starter would continue to function after an EMP. As far as Airman McCoy's truck being a diesel, I don't think it was. It looks like about a 1978 or 1979 model Ford; Ford did not offer a diesel engine in light duty trucks until 1984.

Lothar the Terrible 12:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I wondered about this myself the EMP stops all driving cars (why? Is it damage to the spark plugs?), but when people try starting their cars again, starter motors can be heard. Are starter motors more resistant to EMP effect then spark plugs? I know EMP is a bit controversial as well, since it's mostly theory, but would it only effect active electric equipment or the one that is off as well? I try listening to McCoy's truck, if it's a Diesel and I think it's not. I got a diesel car myself and wonder what effect EMP would have on the electronic immobilizer? --154.69.13.59 (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for other goofs, the main one I can think of is when the first bombs are going off, as the second mushroom cloud appears the first one suddenly shrinks in size slightly. Milvinder 15:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed another. In the scene where Mr. Dahlberg is carrying his son inside after the explosion, the super-gale force winds in the foreground blow in the opposite direction to the flag on the roof of the house in the background. Milvinder 21:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read through some quotes from the film and one of them was that an EMP would not destroy everything electrical, some sources would still work —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricksen (talk • contribs) 18:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Errors & Goofs update: checked with a mate of mine re: EMP and Diesels. Apparently a "really old shitty one" might keep going once the electrics were fried, but modern ones have computers controlling everything. So the jury's out on that one, we'll let them off!

However, here's a really major goof - when the first blast goes off (after the EMP one) you hear the sound of the blast at the same time as you see the light from it, despite the fact that Dr. Oakes is a long way from the bomb. This really is bollocks, as sound travels much slower the flash would appear and there would be silence for several seconds. This effect is seen in 'By Dawn's Early Light', you see the light at a window, several seconds of silence, then the window gets blown in. In fact when I was at uni somebody drove a car onto the grass outside my window when I was asleep, I woke up and then they turned the headlights on full beam, feet from my window. For a few seconds I really did think a nuke must have gone off.

Will get round to doing the Errors and Goofs section some time soon! Milvinder 20:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the sound of the blast reaching Oakes at the same time as the light, that is creative license. Same reason you hear explosions in space. Not realistic, but a lot more dramatic. As they say in the theme song to MST3K, "If you wonder how the eat and breath and other scientific fact, say to yourself 'It's just a show and I really should relax!'". The Day After was, ultimately, propaganda and so they wouldn't necessarily be completely scientific. It would ruin the effect they were trying to achieve.

Also, isn't the EMP thing still theoretical?Lighthope (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How was The Day After "ultimately propaganda"? I'd say a fictional depiction of the effects of MAD is the ultimate anti-war propaganda. 68Kustom (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the point of the movie was to depict nuclear war in such a way that it would incite people to find ways to disarm. Therefore, it qualifies as "propaganda". That doesn't mean it's a bad movie. Quite the contrary, it's one of the best. But its purpose was to promote a cause. Nothing wrong with that. And, in fact, you agree with me that it is propaganda when you say that "a fictional depiction of the effects of MAD is the ultimate anti-war propaganda". (Emphasis added) Lighthope (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add "Errors and Goofs" sections to Wikipedia articles about fictional subjects. Moreover bear in mind that a seventies truck with solid state parts anywhere except the radio is probably a rarity. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did the movie really say a "MiG-25" did the bombing? If so, that's a goof because only one version of the MiG-25 has any bombing capability at all, and even that is a very poor bomber. The MiG-25 is intended as a high-altitude interceptor and reconnaissance platform. For deep strike bombing of a large target the Su-24 seems a more likely choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.200.117 (talk) 20:21, 2009 June 25 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. MrZaius^talk 05:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Blow by blow..." Do you realise how close that is to being a really great pun?  :) Lighthope (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Plot summary is poorly written. Grailknighthero (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain that the plot summary is a copyvio of this, but can't find my copy at the moment. I'll check if it turns up (unless someone else has a copy), and remove the section if I'm right. Heather (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ah, okay; that makes sense. I apologize for the misunderstanding. lothartheterrible (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

they said nationalism is good, but USSR is not Russia, they not know how enemy called. 85.163.42.17 (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]