Talk:Threads (1984 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

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)

I remember reading about Threads on IMDB and somebody on the message board there said they were trying to get the DVD but they could only find it on Amazon used for about £200. I didn't check myself though but other people may have read that and got an impression it was rare. I did also search in many shops and could never find it. This would have likely been mid 2004. 86.129.62.173 (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the line about the 1987 VHS release being longer, I have run the VHS alongside the modern DVD release and they are the same. No scenes have been removed. If anyone knows what is meant to be missing please list it. ofahcuts 16:11, 24 February 2013 (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)

{{spoiler}}

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. [[:Image:Protectandsurvivecover.jpg|thumb|Protect and Survive|right]]

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 escalates to include "Economic and industrial targets", 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.

{{endspoiler}}

References

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)

There is still VASTLY too much information about the plot in this article. It's totally unnecessary.--79.65.187.70 (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have chopped out masses of this section. It's still a bit too long, but better than before. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two scenes in the movie that do not appear to fit into the plot, not advancing the storyline in any way that I can tell. Perhaps someone with access to the script (it's not online as far as I can tell) might have an idea of why the writers added these seemingly incongruous scenes. The first scene is when Jimmy makes out with a girl from the pub despite being engaged to Ruth. Is it meant to establish that Jimmy is an ordinary human being with ordinary human frailties? I thought that already had been established. Or is it meant to show that Jimmy's really not such a nice guy after all, so we don't feel much sadness when he (presumably) dies? Again, that doesn't make much sense, as the movie's full of decent people dying. The second scene that doesn't "fit" is when Ruth meets up with Jimmy's friend Bob. I was expecting them to stay together afterward, but Bob soon wanders off elsewhere. This doesn't make any sense, it would be far more logical for them to face the future together - being alone and pregnant must not be an appealing proposition for Ruth, and for his part Bob would certainly be expected to feel some sense of responsibility toward Ruth. The part about the dead sheep would have worked just as well if it involved Ruth and a random stranger. Again, I was hopeful that the script might shed some light on this scene. User: PROSA —Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 1 June 2011 (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)

A date of "Sunday 25th December" is given in the film for the birth of Ruth's Daughter this and the fact that the story is set in the near future (First broadcast 1984) which would suggest 1988 213.40.226.94 (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2009 (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)

What do you mean by the council chief's name being a "red herring"? He is Clive Sutton, so why not say so? Troublemaker1949 (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Because I never identified it as a problem, nor does it fit into the categories of "errors" that I did identify. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:58, 26 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)

No, he doesn't win. His changes don't make sense. What's wrong with "foreign dialect spelling" (a strange expression, did you invent it yourself?)? After all, Wikipedia is a global resource, so don't be so parochial. And, by the way, I'm a Brit. Troublemaker1949 (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see that you have not been editing Wikipedia very long, so you should acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Strong national ties to a topic. This is a page about a British television play, written by a British author, made by a British broadcaster. Americanisms have no place here any more than Britishisms have on The Day After. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Vooz - you would be advised to keep a civil attitude. All you had to do was make your amendments avoiding undue subjective speculation, and maintaining British English spellings. Saying what actually happens in the plot is perfectly acceptable; speculation based on your own subjective interpretations and observations (e.g. "The government takes control of British Airways and the cross-channel ferries (the Channel Tunnel being as yet unbuilt)" - my emphasis) is not. That said, there is such a thing as having too much detail - we do not need a complete point-by-point breakdown of the plot. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick Cooper: File:Faceityoureahomo.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vooz (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick Cooper: LOL. The truth hurts. Vooz (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, Vooz, but I've been away, so never got to see your no doubt hilarious riposte before someone else dealt with it. Still, I'm sure my wife will find your choice of filename amusing. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Operation Squareleg

I've removed the addition of this information, because it asserts a direct connection between the exercise and the TV production without any proof. It is known that Hines carried out extensive research into the subject, and was revising the script even as new material became available during the filming process. The Radio Times for the week of the first broadcast, for example, mentions a World Health Organisation report that came out at the same time as the Curbar Edge scenes were being filmed in February 1983. Hines no doubt did make use of Operation Squareleg, but I can't find a direct contemporary or later reference to it, so to include it in the manner it was here is giving it undue prominence. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Has Anyone come to any further conclusion about the inclusion of Square Leg in the film? I am writing an extensive paper on the topic and have found correlations, but have found no direct evidence. ---Incidentally. It is EXERCISE Square Leg, not Operation. It was one of three exercises in Operation Crusader 80: Jogtrot, Spearpoint, and Square Leg. Djkinney (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Question

External links point to YouTube and Google Video copies of Threads. Are these allowed under copyright, or should we remove them? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think they are; neither link has any hint of endorsement from BBC, who distributes this work. I've removed the links. Erik (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Spurious description of "rape"

I see that this has crept back into the plot summary again, despite the reality having been properly cited in the past. The published script states verbatim (page 234):

136. Interior. Old farm building.

JANE and SPIKE dive down into the straw and open their bags of loot. JANE snatches at a loaf of bread.

SPIKE: Giss'n. Come on. Giss'n.

He grabs at it and they begin to play around. Their wrestling turns sexual, and we hear JANE exclaiming as they have crude intercourse.

That's it. No "rape," no "overpowering," and clearly no intention by the writer that it should be anything other than mutual. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

While I am not a "reliable source", I still clearly remember aspects of the original broadcast and the above quoted script corresponds to my memory. I was thinking about reverting on the basis of my memory since the change was unsourced, but I see you have just done a much better job. Well done. Shows the importance of adding inline references where possible. Mirokado (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Absence of criticism

Unhappily, there is no account of criticism of this programme on this article. I've seen Threads, and the whole thing reads like a plea for unilateral disarmament by the West on behalf of the BBC.

I am sure that, at the time, there would have been more contemporary and pertinent criticism, quite possibly led by Lady Olga Maitland and Women and Families for Defence, which is worth noting here. At the moment all I can find on Wikipedia is praise of the programme. Uncantabrigian (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits by PROSA

PROSA has twice attempted to add speculative detail to the plot section, including:

• "electricity is back in use to at least a limited extent"

Speculation. A video recorder is seen in use. There is no indication if this is running off a generator, stored batteries, or a wider electricity grid, "limited" or otherwise.

• "Jane also participating in a training program for repairing clothing"

Apart from the inappropriate foreign dialect spelling, they're actually picking threads from old garments, which isn't the same as "repairing" them, at all. There is nothing to suggest they are "training," as opposed to doing the work "for real."

• "In one scene a group of young people are seen watching an obviously pre-war video that had been designed to teach the alphabet to much younger children"

It is actually an extract from the BBC Schools TV programme Words and Pictures, which had - and continues to have - a much wider scope than merely teaching the alphabet. In summary, all of PROSA's additions are speculation, and mostly wrong, at that. Nick Cooper (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

PROSA's response: there is a visible power cord, and electric lights can be seen in other places including the hostel/hospital where Jane gives birth. It is not at all speculative to say that electricity from a grid is back in use to at least a limited extent. Also note that coal mining has resumed, as shown in a still photograph, which would yield a fuel source for power generation.

PROSA's response: Jane and the other young people are being watched over by the same older woman who had been present as they watched the video. This implies the existence of a foster care/orphanage arrangement, which in turn would require some level of organization. Whether their activities constitute "repairing" is merely a matter of semantics. In any event, I have edited the page to reflect the nature of the clothing activities.

By the way, "program" is the way I spell the word, being an American. That is not an "inappropriate foreign dialect."

PROSA's response: page edited. The relevant point of this scene is the fact that the program was obviously aimed at very young children, yet in the postwar world it's being used for teaching children Jane's age or even older - in other words, it shows just how far language skills and other forms of learning have fallen.

On a bigger level, the fact that some signs of recovery are beginning to appear - electricity, mining, the rudiments of education and industry - is important to the narrative. We are led to believe that living conditions are very, very slowly starting to climb out of the abyss, giving us the faintest glimmer of hope, only for Jane's giving birth to a dead deformed baby to dash these hopes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PROSA (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 May 2011

Firstly, when you add a response on a Talk page, do not under any circumstances insert your comments into the middle of those already made by other editors. It is not the accepted practice to do so on Wikipedia because it is messy and makes it difficult to follow who is saying what. Instead add your response after the whole post you are replying to.

Secondly, "program" is most certainly "inappropriate foreign dialect" on this page, or indeed any page which is about a subject that is wholly or predominantly British. On such pages, British English spellings are used, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, regardless of the nationality of any editor working on it. I respect the reverse convention on American-orientated pages, and you should do the same here.

Lastly, I have reverted your recent edits because you are simply compounded your previous misassumptions. You are making multiple speculations, many of which are either not actually supported by the events on screen and/or the published script of this play, or else are simply wrong. Plot summaries should only describe the events that actually occur, and should not include the suppositions of viewers, especially if those supposition are not accurate or credible. That said, it is a "summary" and - as has been discussed here before - simply does not need the level of detail that you have been attempting to introduce. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Nicky Boy, I just reversed *your* reversal of my edits. Two can play at this game, and this being Wikipedia you're no better than me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PROSA (talk • contribs) 20:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

PROSA, Wikipedia is not a battleground. For writing plot summaries, we have guidelines here: WP:FILMPLOT. Can you please respond to Nick about the details that he is calling speculation? Since we are describing primary sources, we have to keep the description as basic as possible. For example, the current summary is too long for the article. It should be between 400 and 700 words. If we can keep the word count that small, we do not have to worry about being so specific with detail. We can just offer the broad strokes of the film's story to readers so they can have context for the rest of the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

PROSA, if you can't stick to the rules, then clearly I am. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Nick, would it be possible to write a brand new plot summary within 400-700 words? The necessarily broader write-up would allow us to stop worrying about all these details and perhaps come to an agreement. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

At almost 1,300 words, it certainly needs paring down, although it's notable that has in the past it has been even longer. It seems that some editors will insist on expanding the detail! I would suggest that this version of 18 February 2007 - at just under 700 words - would be a good basis, but will still need a bit of reduction, as well as tweaking the obvious errors - e.g. the references to "Mayor" should read "chief executive." A very important issue is the false claim of rape in the penultimate paragraph, which should be removed in favour of the current more accurate script-sourced description and inline warning, as this is something that comes up again and again. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Erik, I've already discussed the alleged "speculation," but I'll do so again. The details regarding electricity, mining, the educational video and the work on clothing are important to the storyline. They show that conditions in the postwar world are very slowly improving, that Britain's surviving population may have been reduced to Medieval numbers but is nonetheless progessing beyond Medieval standards of development. They create the first glimmer of hope in the movie's otherwise uniformly grim atmosphere. At the very end, however, when Jane's baby is born dead and deformed, we see that these were false hopes, and that things *won't* be getting better after all. Without the details regarding slow improvement the birth scene wouldn't be quite as poignant as it actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PROSA (talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

PROSA, there's no "alleged" about it - most of what you've tried to introduce is speculation, and in some case completely false speculation at that. The purpose of a plot summary is do what the word implies, i.e. summarise the plot, not to have different editor's pushing their own interpretations of it. As Erik says, it is far too long as it is, anyway. We simply do not need the level of detail that is already in it, let alone the additional information/speculation you are pushing for. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

PROSA, we have to shorten the plot summary anyway, so it may not be necessary to go into so much detail. Can you look at the version Nick linked to? Will we still have the same dispute we are having now even with that version? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Erik, the February 2007 revision actually looks pretty good, I would say it summarizes the movie better than the current one. It contains one error, however, as it says that Ruth dies 13 years after the war, when it's actually 10 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PROSA (talk • contribs) 18:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Reference has been made to the use of electricity again, the video player was connected to the mains by a plug on which the camera settled for a number of seconds. I don't feel anyone needs to justify it's inclusion in the plot. Hayek79 (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Alison Kemp's fate

Is she the young blonde woman seen among the people imprisoned in the tennis club later in the movie? --PROSA (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The published script states only:

106. Exterior. Tennis club. Day.

A guard is on duty at the gates. Lots of people are behind the wire fences. A Traffic Warden is patrolling.

Caption: 'Dore and Totley Tennis Club. Attack plus four weeks'.

There is nothing to indicate that Alison is amongst the crowd, and it presumably would have said so in the script if that was the intention. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Death of Ruth's parents

After the three looters are caught leaving the Beckett house, a soldier reports to his commander that there are two bodies in the cellar. However, I can't quite make out whether he says that they have been dead for a while or that they have not been dead for a while. Obviously, if they've been dead for a while the looters were not responsible for their deaths, and the main article is incorrect. What does the script say? --PROSA (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The soldier returns from inside the house.

SOLDIER Two bodies inside the cellar, sir. Man and woman. They've not been dead long. The man's had his head battered in.

LOOTER It weren't us. It were him. We ain't done nothing.

It seems fairly obvious the looters were responsible for the deaths, with the above attempting to blame the one of them who was shot dead earlier in the scene. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Two minor bloopers

Okay, these are minor mistakes, certainly not on the level of, say, the self-repairing windshield on Sonny's car in The Godfather's infamous toll booth scene, but given that Threads has an otherwise very well-crafted screenplay they do stick out a bit:

1. Shortly after the attacks, one of the emergency planning team in the City Hall basement reports that one of the local police departments made it to a road works depot, unfortunately the heavy equipment at the depot is nearly out of fuel and hence useless. Given all the careful emergency preparations that local governments undertook as the crisis escalated, such as discharging patients from hospitals and moving fire engines out of the city center, one would logically presume that the responsible parties would make sure that the heavy equipment at the depot (which might well come in very handy after an attack) would be fueled and ready to go. For that matter, it's rather unlikely that the depot managers would let their heavy equipment be nearly out of fuel even in completely normal circumstances.

2. After the first bomb hits the RAF base, Jimmy flees his workplace on foot in search of Ruth. In the few minutes that elapse before the second, much larger attack, Jimmy makes it into the center of Sheffield. This would mean that the workplace, Don Joinery, must have been very close to the city center - and therefore would have been annihilated in the second attack. Yet Jimmy's workmate Bob remained behind at Don Joinery and survived unscathed. PROSA (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)PROSA

Criticism

If anyone wants to challenge my recent edit of the article, then please I welcome it. - Despite the movies overt insinuation that grotesque congenital abnormalities would be far more prevalent in a post Nuclear war environment, The real world data supports that Microcephaly is the only proven malformation, or congenital abnormality, found in the in Utero developing Human fetuses present during the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings[2]. Furthermore this abnormality was only found in pregnant women within the extremely close range of 1-2 km from the hypocenter of the Nuclear explosions. In the case of Jane's pregnancy, No statistically demonstrable increase of major congenital malformations was found among the later conceived children of Nuclear weapon survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 15:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Just Noticed someone removed the Criticism section without consulting here first to discuss the matter.

The alleged reason for deletion was apparently that the section didn't cite specific criticism of the movie itself. As the Movie presents itself in a documentary like manner, and strived to be accurate in its protrayal then the criticisms previously raised are warranted. Furthermore, to placate I will include this cited criticism of the documentary itself, a criticism that is based on less techical grounds -> http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1001/bartlett.htm Despite the authors personal liking of the movie and having many positive things to say about it, they also note that - impressing us with the horror of the impending end of the world by nuclear warfare is no guarantee that our being so impressed will produce a desire in us to help "save" ourselves, let alone "save the world" from nuclear weapons. Inasmuch as the esthetic of Threads elicits serious horror, it creates the side-effect of serious despair, a despair that inhibits ethical conduct and invites fatalism--ironically, the fatalism one would expect its makers not to wish having created. More than any nuclear warfare movie, Threads risks destroying our faith in human agency by insisting on the "unrelievedly bleak" & the viewer might feel propelled to supplement Hines and Jackson’s Threads with the possibility for hope it obliterates in its obliteration of civilized Sheffield and its natural ecology. Otherwise, the film’s horror has no ethical import, and its effect might amount to the pornography of violence wearing the mask of anti-nuclear "awareness." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 08:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the entire section reeks of original research and undue weight, the first paragraph exclusively so. As far as I can see none of the sources for the first paragraph are discussing the programme itself, so even if factually correct, it is still only your personal theory/opinion.

The page does need a "critical reaction" section, but that should be primarily based on contemporary or near-contemporary mainstream sources, and not one fringe academic piece produced decades after the fact. I am therefore deleting the section again, and request that you do not reinstate the first paragraph in any form, unless you can come up with reliable sources dealing directly with the issues in relation to the programme itself. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You wrote - so even if factually correct, it is still only your personal theory/opinion. wait wait wait, You've lost me, how is something factually correct also classified as 'only an opinion' in the same sentence? Is that some kind of doublespeak?

Does 'Threads' not present itself as a documentary? If a documentary is misleading, is it not the job of knowledgeable editors to point out such errors? Is that not exactly what I have done with a heavy degree of quality medical references?

As original research states: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

Similarly You wrote- I request that you do not reinstate the first paragraph in any form, unless you can come up with reliable sources dealing directly with the issues in relation to the programme itself

For some reason you decline to acknowledge, that the criticism of the misleading deformity increase presented in 'Threads' IS directly related to the topic of the article. It is 'in relation to the documentary itself', as it pretains to 'Threads' insinuation that Congenital deformed children would be more commonplace in survivors offspring after a Nuclear war. The issue 'in relation to the documentary itself' is that on the other hand the medical data however does not support the 'Threads' point of view of. On the contrary the Radiation Effects Research Foundation have very clear findings that refute 'Threads' point of view that children would be more deformed in a post Nuclear war environment.

The RERF clearly state- No statistically significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy outcomes was seen among children of survivors. Monitoring of nearly all pregnancies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki began in 1948 and continued for six years. During that period, 76,626 newborn infants were examined by ABCC physicians. http://www.rerf.or.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html

The RERF ( the authority on Nuclear weapon survivor epidemiology) data has been available for quite some time, yet the makers of 'Threads' clearly, in this regard, decided to either poorly research the subject or wholesale throw the available science data out the window in making this documentary.

You're quite right though about Undue weight being given to an argument, and that argument is 'threads'- that Congentially deformed children would be born far more prevalently after an nuclear war, this is sheer flat-earth nonsense, but widely seen regurgitated ad nauseum on TV, including unfortunately, in 'Threads' seemingly for dramatic effect.

Secondly and inconsequentially, you call a UCLA paper which deals not just with 'Threads' but with a plethora of other Nuclear war depictions in the media as 'fringe' despite the paper referring to 'Threads' directly. This is very odd behaviour on your part. Not to mention you've expressed the opinion that you wish to see only a 'contemporary critical reaction' section included in this article, and not any kind of scientific criticism of the films events to be included, that's down right bizarre. From the casual observer it is beginning to look like you simply don't want there to be any effort to educate those that use this encyclopedia on the inaccuracies in 'Threads', or to put it mildly the creative licences taken by the film makers for dramatic effect.

In the Bible criticism article, no scientific rebuttal needs to find references directly criticising the Bible, by name, for a scientific rebuttal to gain equal presentation in the article. They simply have to point out observations, books and so on, that contradict what the bible is stating. Likewise here in relation to 'Threads' there is no Wikipedia policy that states one must never add anything in an article unless you have references that specifically mentions the article title by name.

Wikipedia policy however is that references must 'directly relate' to the topic. As 'Threads' presents an increase in deformed children in a post nuclear environment, and my referenced criticism 'directly relates' and rebuffs that very topic in 'Threads' then your accusation of Original Research is groundless.

You may need to take a look at Neutral point of view/FAQ 'Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete' While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time.

If you have a problem with the wording of the criticism, that's fine, I did begin this criticism section of this article by welcoming challenges, perhaps a more neutral approach, like removing 'insinuation' of deformities with 'creative license' might seem more neutral, although to get something so wrong in a state funded Documentary is pretty negligent, if I am to be frank.

However please do not remove well referenced medical references again that directly relate to refuting a central tenet of the Documentary that this article is about.

Thank you Boundarylayer (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be labouring under a massive misapprehension. Threads is a drama, not a documentary (it is also not a "movie" as you keep claiming). It is presented in what is known as "documentary-style," but that is not the same thing at all. What you have added absolutely is original research, because you are constructing a criticism of certain details of plot by formulating a counter-theory based on sources that do not discuss the programme itself in any way. Your sources may be factually correct in and of themselves, but that has little bearing on the plot of a television drama, and certainly not to a level that merits the amount of text that you have added. If you can find a contemporary (i.e. 1984), near-contemporary, or even modern source that succinctly says words to the effect of, "this plot detail in Threads is factually incorrect," then by all means do so, but what you absolutely cannot do is spend almost 300 words explaining why you personally think that to be the case. As an aside, I would also suggest that trying to extrapolate the potential long-term effects of a mass multi-megaton mixed air/groundburst attack on Britain with two relatively isolated low-kiloton airburst-only explosions is not particularly valid.

As regards the UCLA paper, it might be considered a valid source in the context of a proper section on critical reaction to the play, but to use it in isolation, and to the extent that you have is undue weight of the highest order. It is grossly inappropriate to use over 250 words to merely express the opinion that the narrative and execution of the play is, "too horrific."

I am therefore deleting the section again, and will continue to do so. If you persist in attempting to reinstate it, it will be regarded as vandalism, and dealt with accordingly. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I fully support Nick's removal of this material for the reasons he has stated. --Mirokado (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Warranted Criticism continually removed, proposed compromise at bottom

Both Mirokado & Nick Cooper should look at: Neutral point of view/FAQ 'Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete' -there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time.

As I've already expressed, if you both feel that less text should be in the criticism section, that's fine, by all means whittle it down if you wish. That does not mean you may outright remove the information, as per Wikipedia's 'Neutral point of view' outlined above.

This quote of yours Nick sadly exemplifies your lack of neutrality: Threads is a drama, not a documentary (it is also not a "movie" as you keep claiming)

I noticed you were repeatedly attempting to dissuade others from describing Threads as a movie going back many years on this talk page. I previously didn't care to pick you up on it, but since you've again done so in a very pedantic of manners I thought I should make you aware that- Threads is a MOVIE & a 'Television drama', they're not mutually exclusive.

See- the internet MOVIE database http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/ notice TV Movie

http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/v49638 Notice 'Film', I used the word film also if you check.

http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1001/bartlett.htm the best movie treatment of nuclear war) is the BBC’s made-for-TV Threads (1984),

This next quote also exemplifies your lack of neutrality and bizarre bias, with yet another denial that it is a movie, going so far as to classify it as a 'play'.

Nick wrote-As regards the UCLA paper, it might be considered a valid source in the context of a proper section on critical reaction to the play,

This inaccurate description of threads as a play somehow even finds its way into the Article - ...One of the key elements of the play is that much of the reportage of world events leading up to the war is in the background...

It is not a 'Play' Nick, it is a movie. See Play & Movie as you're clearly confused. As you've continually refused to acknowledge this, for the past number of years this, I'm afraid, underlines your lack of neutrality. I wonder did you work on the Film?

http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/730560/ Threads documented Jackson and writer Barry Hines' research into the limits of Civil Defence

Even the director's wiki page describes it as a documentary Mick Jackson (director)- The 1984 docufiction Threads, dramatising the aftermath of a nuclear war, with Karen Meagher and Reece Dinsdale

Docufiction refers to the cinematographic combination of documentary and fiction.[1] More precisely, it is a documentary contaminated with fictional elements

Going by that definition, perhaps we should point out that the effects on Children as presented in Threads is one of the fictional elements studded within the documentary movie.

There is certainly more references to support that 'Threads' is at least somewhat a documentary, than there are references to support calling it a fantastical Play. but regardless, even if it was something like a comic strip, that does not mean it is free from criticism.

As for the pedantic question of Threads being a Documentary - Even if it's not, why are you contending it should be free from a rebuttal? The article on the satire Dr. Strangelove mentions quite a few rebuttals and demonstrates it is not realistic. Therefore even if the movie was wholly whimsical, to refute 'Threads' is not contrary to the rules of Wikipedia. Especially since the Threads article then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads#Production_and_themes Goes on to list 6 Scientific advisors to the production, Are you honestly trying to make us beleive that this is normal practice when producing Plays or Television dramas Nick?

The listing of the scientific advisors insinuates to readers that the movie is somewhat an authoritative Document in film to what life would be like, after a Nuclear war.

However not a single 1 of the Scientific Advisors were Radiobiologists, with only Joseph Rotblat being anyway semi-qualified to advise on the effects of Nuclear radiation.

2 Psychiatrists - Robert Jay Lifton & Eric Chivian

2 Climatologists - Michael McElroy Richard P. Turco

2 Physicists - Joseph Rotblat Carl Sagan

Of note is that the form of Nuclear winter presented by Sagan & Turco above has been heavily revised since the 1980s, and recent modelling has shown their initial results to be based on many assumptions with many exaggerated findings. As discussed in Nuclear Winter.

Perhaps a mention of this should also be included in the criticism section, as yet another example of Threads being an exaggerated and unrealistic presentation of Nuclear war effects.

END.

You seemingly are demonstrating more bizarre behaviour, with contempt for years of science by saying to Extrapolate the potential long-term effects of a mass multi-megaton mixed air/groundburst attack on Britain with two relatively isolated low-kiloton airburst-only explosions is not particularly valid.

I'm not extrapolating ALL the long term effects, just 1 misleading long term effect presented in the movie, that of Hereditable congenital effects. As there is no solid evidence that this would be observed in reality, then this does deserve recognition and pointing out as fictional, a creative license on the part of the writers etc.

Nuclear Fallout is Nuclear Fallout Nick, it's by and large all created equal. The effects of Nuclear Fallout on survivors' progeny in Hiroshima & Nagasaki is more than Valid. As I've had quite a few courses in Radiobiology I have more than ample amounts of reading material, and I've even taken the time to prepare the following list of peer reviewed papers for you.

Before I begin, listen, I know that it is hard for many people to shake linking deformed babies and radiation from your beliefs, I've personally been there. The media constantly bombard us with that message by insinuation. The science however is pretty firm on the matter however, as I'll begin to outline.

There are many other examples that also confirm the ongoing evidence from the progeny of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors that no concrete hereditable effects are observed.

For example let's begin by putting Chernobyl into perspective-

https://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm

The contamination from Chernobyl was significantly larger than would have been expected from a nuclear detonation of about 20 kT at ground level, but was comparable in extent to what might result from a 'small' nuclear war in which a dozen or so weapons of nominal yield were exploded at altitudes intended to maximize blast damage. The above FAS article was written in 1998, so one would assume 'nominal' would be approximately that of the W88 475 kt warhead. This(I acknowledge is Original research) but it puts things into perspective for both of us. 12(475kt)= 5700 kt. This is backed up by->

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/apr/26/guardiansocietysupplement7

Reactor No 4 at Chernobyl nuclear power complex exploded, caught fire, and for the next 10 days spewed the equivalent of 400 Hiroshima bombs' worth of radioactivity 400 x (16kt)=6400 kt. So my mental calculation wasn't too far off, although a caveat is that both sources can't be 100% right. Especially since modern Nuclear weapons are of the Teller-Ulam design, and thus unlike Little Boy at Hiroshima a large proportion of a modern weapons energy comes from Fusion, and not the main offender of Nuclear Fallout that of Fission.

So now that we have that covered, what about the progeny of the Liquidators of Chernobyl? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11121218 There was no significant difference in the frequency of inherited mutant alleles between the exposed and control groups.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11121218 'Germline mutations show no increases in the children of the Chernobyl liquidators.'

If you are still unsatistifed with these studies and think that even Chernobyl isn't enough to extrapolate, then how about Techa River about 500,000 people exposed to 20 times the radiation of Chernobyl.

http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/publications/pp747/techa_cor.htm

Since genetic effects following radiation exposure might be anticipated, a study was conducted with the aim of assessing the health status of the offspring of people exposed in the Techa riverside villages. In particular, the unfavorable outcomes of pregnancies, birth rate, and the mortality rate among progeny of exposed parents are studied. No reliable effects of radiation were established.

Here, probably the most comprehensive unbiased review of all the papers up to 2001 for chernobyl, even including the controversial papers of Dubrova(which I wouldn't have included as they compare Belarus children to UK children, instead of a control group of healthy unexposed children from Belarus before the accident) http://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf There is no unambiguous data to suggest Chernobyl increased the rate of Congenital abnormalities.

A bit of another digression (one you may skip if uninterested), but worth mentioning is Radiation Hormesis(I don't think there is enough solid evidence out there for it to be taken as gospel yet) but these studies are worth a read if you're interested. What about Chronic exposure to low levels of Radiation? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21431077 Low levels of background radiation exist around us continuously. These levels increase with increasing land elevation, allowing a comparison of low elevations to high elevations in regard to an outcome such as cancer death rates etc...
Statistically significant decreases in mortality, with very large effect sizes, were observed in high land elevation for three of the four outcomes, including cancer.

What happens when you control for race? would the same positive results be evident? Yes- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22013397 Higher elevation counties showed less cancer mortality rates for a single race compared to lower elevation counties,

END.

Presenting all of is, including the previous RERF studies on Hiroshima & Nagasaki should finally make everyone accept that an increase in Congenital effects would not be observed in children after a widespread nuclear war. What would be observed is an equally horrible increase in Thyroid cancer, leukemia and other cancers, that is not at all up for debate. Not to mention malnutrition from the interruption of the food supply etc. But kids walking around like in 'Threads'...please don't insult our intelligence Mr. Hines & Jackson.

In closing, I hope we can come to some compromise, I propose something short and sweet like-

Shortened Compromise of the Criticism section. Despite the depiction of congenitally deformed children in 'Threads', in reality there is no unambiguous data available to suggest that exposure to the levels of Nuclear Fallout likely to be encountered by survivors in a 'threads' scenario would result in the effects on children as shown[here insert all the references I've included thus far relating to studies on children born after Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl & Techa River etc.]

Threads (1984) was restrained by "the statutes governing British broadcasting which require that balance and fairness are maintained, in programs making what can readily be seen as politically related statements"

[2] [3]

Some also have written that 'threads' is too fatalistic in it's representation of a Nuclear War and charged - the film’s horror has no ethical import, and its effect might amount to the pornography of violence wearing the mask of anti-nuclear "awareness."http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1001/bartlett.htm

END.

So what do you think? Boundarylayer (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

On the issue of terminology, as this is a British subject page, British-English spelling and language conventions prevail. In the UK, single dramatic works are referred to as "dramas" now, and "television plays" historically, the latter certainly covering the time in which Threads was produced and broadcast. They are even now rarely if ever referred to as either "films" or "movies," both and especially the latter being almost exclusively reserved for feature films released in the cinema. The fact that various American-dominated sources choose to use these terms in relation to Threads is neither here nor there, and does not merit such use here. Threads was originally made and shown as a television play, and the script published as such in Threads and Other Sheffield Plays [Sheffield Academic Press, 1990], which describes it as: "one of the most powerful and disturbing television plays of recent years." I note, however, that some inappropriate uses of the term "film" (i.e. outside of that purely descriptive of the method of production) have crept back into the article, so I will correct these forthwith.

That scientific advisors are credited for Threads no more makes it a documentary as Causualty is one by virtue of it having credited medical advisors. In addition, your attempts to dissect the credentials of the advisors on Threads merely compounds your previous attempts to introduce inappropriate original research to the discussion of the play.

By your own admission, you are fixating on one particular detail out of almost two hours of television. In fact, I assume that in addition to the state of Jane's stillborn child, you may also be referring to the caption at c. 01:34:40 that reads:

Effects of radiation in early pregnancy

Foetus carries higher risk of deformity and mental retardation

Do you honestly believe that that merits almost 300 words of your own personal original research? That Jane's child is stillborn could be attributed to all manner of causes in a largely destroyed world without modern medical resources. Likewise, the apparent mental regression in the younger characters seen towards the end can just as easily be a result of a lack of education and a brutalised environment.

Furthermore, your claim of an "overt insinuation that grotesque congenital abnormalities would be far more prevalent in a post Nuclear war environment" fails on two counts. Firstly, we don't deal with subjective "insinuations," and secondly I do not believe the play actually shows what you claim. There is reference at c. 01:40:10 to a higher incidence of cataracts, cancers and leukaemias, but that is in the context of returning sunlight being heavier with UV. Where are these "grotesque congenital abnormalities" of which you speak?

To be honest, I have not bothered reading most of the second half of your post above, as it seems to be merely you tortuously labouring the point of your own original research, which since it cannot be included on the page, is irrelevant. It does, perhaps, illustrate your appparent obsession with something that may not necessarily be in the play's narrative in the first place. I get that you seem to have a personal antipathy towards the play, but that's not a good enough reason to contaminate the page with it.

As regards your suggested "compromise" text, the first part is inappropriate because it is predicated on a "depiction of congenitally deformed children" that does not actually appear to exist. The observation about British broadcasting regulations has no context, and doesn't appear to be saying anything. The final quote may be useful in the context of a proper documentation of the critical reaction at the time of broadcast, but in isolation is classic undue weight. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Where did I write that I have an antipathy towards 'Threads'?

If there is any antipathy it is yours towards calling a spade a spade.

Terminology:

Threads was nominated for seven BAFTA awards in 1985. It won Best Film Cameraman, Best Film Editor, and Best Single Drama. Its other nominations were for Best Film Sound.

So BAFTA in 1985 regarded Threads as both a Drama and a Film. Well gosh, would you look at that, nothing about best Play or best television play. Funny that Nick.

If you had read up on the term Television play that you kindly linked to, you would know that it explains that the term is a partial misnomer- Although the earliest works were marked by television drama drawing on its theatrical roots, with live performances telecast from the television studio, a shift towards shooting on film occurred in the late 1970s.

http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/445349/index.html TV plays - AKA Teleplays were either performed live in the studio or filmed on stage; the word 'play' is about as fashionable as wide collars and tank tops

As we all know Threads was shot on film, and not telecast with live performances from the television studio, it is thus inaccurate to call Threads a Television play. Regardless of your personal preference for the dubious term being applied to Threads, it's not a Television play. Something myself and BAFTA recognise.

Furthermore The word Play that you consistently show a preference for to describe threads is in no way a synonym for your personal bastardisation of the meaing of Television play that is contrary to the accepted definition of that term. As a film like 'Threads' that includes no elements of an actual Play is thus quite obviously, not at all a Play! Similarly, in it's original format, Macbeth is a Shakespearean play and not at all a Film.

Henceforth to describe Threads as a Play is misleading and inaccurate. 'play' is certainly not shorthand for Television play as Threads has no elements of a true Play. Lastly, even if Threads were actually a Television play that is - a telecast of live performances from the TV studio and therefore the term would be historically more accurate than Drama, the fact would still remain that Threads is also classified as a Film. Threads is a Film & a drama(or the misnomer Television play that you prefer), as I've referenced.

Again, Film is not a mutually exclusive term, so you can keep your forthwith in your holster there cowboy, unless you want to go challenging BAFTA.

Threads', a feature length docu-drama based on the political situation at the time and the possibility of nuclear war. http://www.tes.co.uk/teaching-resource/Docu-drama-Threads-1980s-6192782/

Yet again, another British site that regards Threads as a Docu-drama.

Back to the original point-

The shortened compromise criticism : (relating to refuting the insinuation that there would be more congenital abnormalities after a Nuclear war) contains 50 words, not 300 as you suggest.

In response to the 'overt insinuation' that the film depicts a higher prevalence of congential abnormalities (You should note that, that specific wording is absent from the compromise edit).

The insinuation is there though, I simply ask you, what occurs in the film directly after the caption at c. 01:34:40 that reads:

Effects of radiation in early pregnancy

Foetus carries higher risk of deformity and mental retardation.

Why Ruth delivers baby Jane! around 10 minutes later child bearing age Jane(who in the mean time has demonstrated her questionable mental faculties by uttering only simple commands, apparently unable to form full sentences) then becomes pregnant and delivers either a stillborn or a dead deformed baby (the film being deliberately ambiguous on this detail). The film then quickly happens to end with Jane screaming at the sight of the dead baby. Yet you somehow regard this as coincidental, and not at all linked to the previous caption regarding pregnancy and Fetuses?

According to your quote - That Jane's child is stillborn could be attributed to all manner of causes in a largely destroyed world without modern medical resources. Likewise, the apparent mental regression in the younger characters seen towards the end can just as easily be a result of a lack of education and a brutalised environment.

So you are honestly contending that the film doesn't insinuate that mental retardation and congenital deformities would be more prevalent? A Docu-drama about the effects of Nuclear War ending on a still shot of a likely retarded mother who just delivered a dead baby, isn't insinuating that still born, retarded & deformed babies would not be more prevalent because of the effects of radation. That this is all just circumstantial coincidence to you?

Ok, here are two examples that illustrate your standpoint is untenable.

Applying that thinking, to another caption, I take it you also regard it as a coincidence and not insinuation that directly after the caption c 1:39;30 that reads:

Skies becoming clearer, Returning sunlight now heavier in Ultra-Violet light

We see people working in fields wearing ski masks and goggles. According to your skewed reasoning applied here- the film isn't insinuating a connection between the caption and ski masks and goggles, no not at all they could easily have donned this attire simply because of something like the weather forecast was for snow, so everyone was getting acclimitized to skiing clothing. It is purely coincidence, and that it most certainly isn't insinuating that the field workers were wearing these things to protect themselves from the dangers of UV light.

Come now Nick, don't be ludicrious, every caption in the film follows with a connecting representation of the text. Another example:

Caption c 1:32:40

Attack in Spring: Darkness and Cold reduce plant activity to very low levels.

Is followed by none other than pictures of rotting crops and then film footage of frantic harvesting of the remaining crops that have survived.

As for the response from the Governing british broadcasting body and the references citing it: why shouldn't this be included? you mention it has no context, but the Broadcasting section of the article Threads that would come directly below the proposed criticism section states that Threads was first broadcast on BBC Two on 23 September 1984.[4] It was repeated on BBC One on 1 August 1985...Threads was not shown again on British screens until the digital channel BBC Four broadcast it in October 2003. That's context enough do you not think?

In response to your claim of undue weight towards the following peer reviewed paper reference, http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1001/bartlett.htm Policy states in regard to undue weight. 'Editorial oversight—A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification. Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news sources'

As UCLA publications' meet that criteria, it demonstrates that the reference is not at all classified as Undue weight.

Revised Shortened Compromise of the Criticism section. Feel free to chip in and contribute!

Despite the film's insinuations and text captions that depict and state the prevalence of congenitally deformed and mentally retarded children would be increased by the Nuclear Fallout, in a post Nuclear war scenario as depicted in 'Threads'. Studies of the progeny of survivors in Nuclear explosions and Nuclear accidents have found no unambiguous connection.[here we'll insert all the references I've included thus far relating to studies on children born after Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl & Techa River etc.]

Threads (1984) was restrained by "the statutes governing British broadcasting which require that balance and fairness are maintained, in programs making what can readily be seen as politically related statements"

[4] [5]

Some also have written that 'threads' is too fatalistic in it's representation of a Nuclear War and charged - the film’s horror has no ethical import, and its effect might amount to the pornography of violence wearing the mask of anti-nuclear "awareness."http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1001/bartlett.htm

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You continue to labour under misapprehensions. The BAFTA Television awards you refer to which include the word "Film" relate to the medium on which the programme in question was made, not the overall form of the programme. In the following two years, "Television - Film Editor," "Television - Film Sound," and/or "Television - Film Cameraman" (amongst others) went to Edge of Darkness and The Singing Detective respectively, both six-part TV serials (not "miniseries" - a term not used in the UK back then - terminology again). If you would actually care to look at the BAFTA Television awards by year, you will see that there are also ones for "VTR Editor," "Sound Supervisor," and "Video Camerman," which are the electronic format equivalent of the film format awards you have misinterpreted.

So, no, you are wrong in your claim that "BAFTA in 1985 regarded Threads as both a Drama and a Film" by virtue of the names of the awards it was nominated for or received. The form is the "television play," or which "docu-drama" is a sub-set, although the term was very new at the time it was made, but they are not mutually exclusive. Neither is "drama," either as a genre or a description of a single programme, serial, or series. You also seem to have misunderstood Mark Duguid's point on Screenonline. Broadcasters have eschewed use of the term "play" and instead now generally use "drama" to describe self-contained one-off productions, but that does not retrospectively change pre-existing historical productions that were made a plays, broadcast as plays, and viewed as plays by the general audience, media critics, and academia.

You are also laughably wrong if you think that being broadcast live was a prerequisite of a programmebeing a "play" in the UK. Live broadcasts were largely dispensed by the start of the 1960s, long before such seminal series of plays as The Wednesday Play (from 1964) and Play for Today (from 1970), both of which used a combination of either all video, mixed video/film, or all-film production. In addition, there were numerous other series of self-contained dramas that the BBC and ITV companies referred to as "plays," either directly in the titles, or in publicity. Your suggestion that the way British TV and the viewing public used and recognised the term "telelvision play" - or simply "play" for short - is my "personal bastardisation of the meaning of Television play" is utterly false. I also note that you seem to be conveniently ignoring the glaring fact that Hines's published script calls it a "television play," even six years after broadcast.

As to the disputed caption, one could equally say that the very fact that Jane is born with no physical deformity suggests no direct connection. It raises a possibility for dramatic purposes, which is then not borne out, and the script (page 229) does actually make this clear:

The BABY cries out, and RUTH sees that it is physically normal. She cries, and holds the baby to her.

As to Jane's "questionable mental faculties by uttering only simple commands," the script (pages 233-234) makes clear - by parallel printing of the "translated" dialogue - that this is a case of language having been degraded through a collapse in education, thus:

SPIKE Hoy! What'n be? (Meaning: 'What is it?')

GAZ Seed'n. N'coney. (Meaning: 'I saw it. It's a rabbit.')

SPIKE Giss'n. Come on. Giss'n. (Meaning: 'Give it to us.')

GAZ Better, else us'll bray'n. (Meaning: 'You better had. Or else we'll beat you.')

Furthermore, the introduction explicitly states (page 15):

"In the future that Hines depicts, survivors from pre-Holocaust times still speak their language; but those who were born or grew up after the attack have developed a dialect of their own - gutteral and abbreviated, a language of survival and necessity."

Clearly the speech of Jane and her age-peers is a matter of linguistics, and not the result of some unseen yet universal deformity, so please stop trying to suggest that it is. The same applies to her stillborn child. You really do seem to be believing what you want to believe, rather than what there is actually any clear indication for on-screen, or in the script.

As to UK broadcasting rules, I don't see any connection between a unprompted mention of them, and the broadcast history of the play. Perhaps you could explain what "context" you are referring to?

I have repeatedly said that the UCLA paper may be useful as a counterpoint to contemporary or near-contemporary critical reaction. The broadcast was very high-profile, and widely discussed in the UK press both before and after transmission. We should not have to rely solely on something written two decades after the play was made. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If the Caption in question was unprompted and Jane is intended to be protrayed as physiccally normal without mental retardation, as is her stillborn child. Then why don't you include what you have written to leave nothing up to ambiguity?

As to the disputed caption, one could equally say that the very fact that Jane is born with no physical deformity suggests no direct connection. It raises a possibility for dramatic purposes, which is then not borne out, and the script (page 229) does actually make this clear:

The BABY cries out, and RUTH sees that it is physically normal. She cries, and holds the baby to her.

As to Jane's "questionable mental faculties by uttering only simple commands," the script (pages 233-234) makes clear - by parallel printing of the "translated" dialogue - that this is a case of language having been degraded through a collapse in education, thus:

SPIKE Hoy! What'n be? (Meaning: 'What is it?') GAZ Seed'n. N'coney. (Meaning: 'I saw it. It's a rabbit.') SPIKE Giss'n. Come on. Giss'n. (Meaning: 'Give it to us.') GAZ Better, else us'll bray'n. (Meaning: 'You better had. Or else we'll beat you.')

Furthermore, the introduction explicitly states (page 15):

"In the future that Hines depicts, survivors from pre-Holocaust times still speak their language; but those who were born or grew up after the attack have developed a dialect of their own - gutteral and abbreviated, a language of survival and necessity."

Clearly the speech of Jane and her age-peers is a matter of linguistics, and not the result of some unseen yet universal deformity, so please stop trying to suggest that it is. The same applies to her stillborn child. You really do seem to be believing what you want to believe, rather than what there is actually any clear indication for on-screen, or in the script. Boundarylayer (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to include all that for the very obvious reason that you are the first person in over ten years who seems to have misinterpreted the narrative as you have, and sought to impose that misinterpretation on the page. Most people would recognise and understand the dramatic use of suspense of this type in drama. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Ambiguity of the condition of Jane's baby

Nick, it's pretty misleading. Furthermore I'm not the first person in 10 years. As all the below sources suggest a deformed baby. So it appears it's a pretty frequent 'misinterpretation' as you put it, and there are many more sources supporting the same.

The movie ends with Ruth's daughter giving birth to a stillborn and presumably deformed baby. The film freezes just as she is about to scream in horror. http://threads.askdefine.com/

When Jane gives birth to a stillborn, deformed baby. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/HighOctaneNightmareFuel/Threads

Film Drama suite 101- The last shot of the film is Jane giving birth to a stillborn, deformed baby, freezing just as she opens her mouth to scream. Threads-BBC Film Review

A child born to a survivor of the nuclear bomb later giving birth herself to a hideously deformed stillborn baby. http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2010/04/05/five-of-the-best-nuclear-apocalypse-movies/

The stillborn, deformed baby at the end was the kicker for me. http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1809218

So I'm not the only one as you put it, not by a long shot, furthermore I really can't see how you are defending the caption or ending, it is intentionally misleading as to the condition of the baby. Why else would they have put the caption in? and why else would so many people write(as above) that the baby is deformed?

Lastly, I don't buy the explanation of the use of the caption as simply a dramatic tool of suspense that you are suggesting.

The film pretains to being an authenic docu-drama.

Barry Hines, best known for Kes, fashioned his script on evidence supplied by bodies as varied as the British Medical Association and the Home Office, with literally dozens of experts from varying fields - including Carl Sagan - consulted to guarantee authenticity. http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/classic_british_nuclear_attack_drama_threads

Boundarylayer (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the 10 years this Talk page has exists, but that's a moot point, given that we do not actually see a "deformed baby" on screen, and the script certainly doesn't call for one:

139. Interior. Hospital. Night.

The baby is delivered in the hospital. JANE is in a bed and crying out when the pain is bad. Other patients take no notice of her. The body is being wrapped in the bloody cloth which it has just been wiped with. There is silence. The baby is given to JANE, who stares down at the bundle in her arms. Her face turns to horror and disgust. She pushes the baby away from her and open her mouth to scream.

Freeze frame.

Roll end credits.

The very fact that some people manage to describe what is not script, and does not appear on screen - i.e. a supposed "hideously deformed baby" - says more about them than the actual production. We simply cannot include detail of that which is not there, and which the script clearly does not even ask for. The same applies to the earlier disputed caption. The script makes clear that Jane is born "normal," and there is nothing we see subsequently that suggests otherwise, or can't be attributed to other factors, which are dealt with in the script. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

An article on a film does not have to soley deal with what is in the script. For example, here is a film, of which there are many, that does not even pertain to being a docu-drama Saving Private Ryan, and it's article discusses many inaccuracies and other such things that appear nowhere in the script. So clearly your personal view on what should and should not be included in wikipedia articles is woefully out of line with current practice.

So much for we simply cannot include detail of that which is not there then. Boundarylayer (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• askdefine.com is not a reliable source: "User Contributed Dictionary", "Material from Wikipedia, ..."
• tvtropes.org is not a reliable source: "There Is No Such Thing As Notability, and no citations are needed."
• geeksaresexy.net. Pardon? "... makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site..."
• forums.whirlpool.net.au is a forum, so not a reliable source. You quoted a reader comment.
• dangerousminds.net is a blog, so not a reliable source. You have linked to a post linking to (I strongly suspect) copyright violations.

Please read WP:RS to find out about reliable sources.

As far as Saving Private Ryan is concerned, all the references I have checked in the Portraying History section refer directly to SPR so the article is based on sources which discuss the subject, which Nick has already explained is necessary. --Mirokado (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, you want more reliable references. Here's more reputable sources, including a BBC writer.

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mysciencefictionlife/A17624180

Threads memorable final scene is of Ruth's daughter giving birth to a mutated, deformed baby; as the young mother starts to scream, the programme ends.

Author Will Hadcroft, author of, 'The Feeling's Unmutual,' and the, 'Anne Droyd' series.

http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/brunel/A653311

We are treated to a graphically disturbing portrayal of the medieval conditions that might prevail after such a conflict, including starvation, nuclear winter, disease, psychological trauma, illiteracy and both mental and physical mutation.

• http://www.campaigncentral.org.uk/opinion/threads

And when Ruth dies, her teenage daughter, whose generation can barely form sentences, has a baby deformed by radiation.

The Author Nick Wilson wrote the book - A More Human Channel: Peacebuiding on the frontline and the human rights manual First Steps, used in over 30 languages.

http://vkinoshke.ru/documentals/6325-Smotret_nbsp_Niti_Threads.html

The movie ends with Ruth's daughter giving birth to a stillborn (and presumably deformed) baby, and the film freezes just as she is about to scream in horror.

Vkinoshke.ru is akin to a Russian IMDB.

• http://www.amazon.com/Threads-Karen-Meagher/dp/B0007R2L94

The top rated customer review of the movie Threads, voted by 70 people as helpful contains the line- ...And when Ruth delivers her daughter, it's deformed and stillborn. That's the final coda...the future of humanity. There isn't one.

Author David H. Lippman.

So as you should now see, both of your positions are untenable, give up the farce already. The previous comparison with Saving Private Ryan stands.

Boundarylayer (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because you've found a few more instances (most of which aren't reliable sources, anyway) of people's mistaken recollections, doesn't make it true. Erroneous opinions do not trump facts. Memories are fallible. For years mine had conflated scenes from two separate episodes of Survivors, which only became clear when I was able to watch them again some twenty years later. Before that point, I could have said on a forum, "I remember the bit when...." but I would have been completely wrong, and it wouldn't be "evidence" for anyone seeking to describe the episode/s as I remembered them. In the case of Threads, however, both recordings and the script are available for immediate purusal, and there simply is no "deformed" or "mutant" baby to be seen or described. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say in your analogy about Survivor, but it is not quite applicable, the analogy would be more accurate in this case if it was a common belief and vast numbers of people also have reiterated the same exact remember the bit when... as you. However in reality the end of the film and Jane's baby's condition is intentionally ambiguous. So again your analogy doesn't quite fit.

All of the references below state the baby is deformed-

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mysciencefictionlife/A17624180

• http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/brunel/A653311

• http://www.campaigncentral.org.uk/opinion/threads

Vast numbers of people assume that the baby is deformed-

• http://www.amazon.com/Threads-Karen-Meagher/dp/B0007R2L94

The top rated customer review of the movie Threads, voted by 70 people as helpful contains the line- '...And when Ruth delivers her daughter, it's deformed and stillborn.'

At the very least, an addition to the article to the effect that - contrary to many sources stating to the contrary, the script does not indicate the baby is deformed.

It also strikes me, according to the scriptyou provided, Jane is said to be Horrified and disgusted at the sight of her dead baby. But why exactly would she, or any mother, be disgusted at the sight of a still born baby, let alone her own baby? 139. Interior. Hospital. Night.

The baby is given to JANE, who stares down at the bundle in her arms. Her face turns to horror and disgust. She pushes the baby away from her and open her mouth to scream. Freeze frame. Roll end credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 03:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's ridiculous to suggest that some people marking an Amazon review as "helpful" somehow constitutes an endorsement of the particular erroneous bit of it that you are pushing. As has been noted previously, none of the sources you are using would be regarded as acceptable, even for a non-contentious piece of information, so they certainly don't pass muster for somethign like this. At the end of the day, we don't deal in what people mistakenly "assume" when reliable sources (i.e. the script and the programme itself) clearly show - or rather do not show - something else. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll think you'll find both references are more than acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines.

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mysciencefictionlife/A17624180

Threads memorable final scene is of Ruth's daughter giving birth to a mutated, deformed baby; as the young mother starts to scream, the programme ends.

Author Will Hadcroft, author of, 'The Feeling's Unmutual,' and the, 'Anne Droyd' series.

&

• http://www.campaigncentral.org.uk/opinion/threads

And when Ruth dies, her teenage daughter, whose generation can barely form sentences, has a baby deformed by radiation.

The Author Nick Wilson wrote the book - A More Human Channel: Peacebuiding on the frontline and the human rights manual First Steps, used in over 30 languages.

Is there any wonder Saving Private Ryan (and the important Saving Private Ryan#Protraying History) is regarded as a stellar wikipedia article, listed as one of the Theatre, film and drama good articles under the good article criteria, whereas this Threads article is rated so poorly?

Your insistence that there must not be any discussion of how likewise Threads protrays Nuclear War is evidence of your skewed bias.

You'll find that reference 22 of the above SPR article does not even mention Saving Private Ryan once, yet is included in the article and is part of what makes the article so good. Quotation - Inevitably, some artistic license was taken by the filmmakers for the sake of drama. One of the most notable is the depiction of the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich, as the adversary during the fictional Battle of Ramelle. The 2nd SS was not engaged in Normandy until July, and then at Caen against the British and Canadians, one hundred miles east.http://web.archive.org/web/20101208095306/http://dasreich.ca/normandy.html Neither does reference 23 of SPR mention the film. http://www.6juin1944.com/assaut/aeropus/en_index.php

As has been mentioned by other editors of this page, you appear to have a personal vendetta against anyone who attempts to add new material.

Regardless of your personal feelings, attempting to lie about what is acceptable for wikipedia does your case nothing but harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 09:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is that we don't repeat demonstrably false statements, no matter who repeats them. You are, of course, free to come up with a reliable source that specifically discusses the widespread mis-remembering of certain things that simply do not appear in the finished programme. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my intentions, as I've said already: At the very least, an addition to the article to the effect that - contrary to many sources stating to the contrary[including refs here], the script does not indicate the baby is deformed[incl script ref here].

As you acknowledge it is a common 'mis-remembering', is it not the function of an encyclopaedia to set the record straight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 22:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of editing the plot again so that it includes a reference to Jane's daughter's deformities, which are visible in the film, and also her stillbirth. I'm not interested in Wikipedia etiquette so please don't correct me Hayek79 (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You could try proving that with a screen-grab, but - oh no! - you can't, because it's not true. How you somehow manage to be aware of the baby's sex is also anybody's guess... Nick Cooper (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Her refers to Jane, re-read Hayek79 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"Civil or military authority"

I have removed the following "The scattered remnants of civil or military authority are gone, as the meagre resources of food and fuel they once controlled are fully depleted, with no sources of renewal"' from the plot section, I do not feel this can be justified given the appearance of soldiers even in the final 10 minutes of the film, one of whom shoots a boy for stealing bread. After this comment there is also reference to increasing mechanisation (picture of a traction engine) and manual coal mining, which must be an implicit suggestion of a remaining authority or order. Before Jane gives birth in fact she walks through a room in which three people (presumably criminals) have been hung, I therefore disagree that in the film even the "scattered remains" of authority have vanished, when it is obvious that a certain authority does exist, centralised or otherwise. Hayek79 (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Deformed baby

I see this hoary load of nonsense has raised its head again, so I will once more refer to the actual script of the play:

139. Interior. Hospital. Night.

The baby is delivered in the hospital. JANE is in a bed and crying out when the pain is bad. Other patients take no notice of her. The body is being wrapped in the bloody cloth which it has just been wiped with. There is silence. The baby is given to JANE, who stares down at the bundle in her arms. Her face turns to horror and disgust. She pushes the baby away from her and open her mouth to scream.

Freeze frame.

Roll end credits.

There is no suggestion whatsoever that the baby is "deformed," nor is any such "deformity" seen on screen. A pile of bloody rags and a clear reference to "silence" indicates stillbirth, not "deformity." All the mistaken recollections or misassumptions in however many blogs or opinion pieces can be found does not change that. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"Her face turns to horror and disgust" is a suggestion of something being wrong with the appearance of the baby, in the same way that "silence" is an implicit suggestion of stillbirth. There is no EXPLICIT reference to either. Why would she "scream" in "horror" and "disgust" if the baby were merely dead. Equally given the established scientific consensus on the exposure of foetuses to radiation it is more than likely that it was Barry Hines's intention to "suggest" deformation. With regards to the citation, perhaps the authors of those reviews came to the right conclusion, rather than yourself. This has been an issue in contention before and had not remained so until now simply because you reverted any edits that did not conform with your interpretation of the script, one that is, I might add, a misreading; if you persist with this I will have to refer it to an administrator. Hayek79 (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw the film when it first went out in 1984, obtained an off-air recording it when it was repeated in 1985, bought it when it was commercially released in 1987, and have watched it many times since, and there is nothing on screen to justify your misassumption, no matter how many other people have made the same mistake as you. In short, you can't describe what isn't seen, and in fact in the few frames where it is briefly visible, the dummy baby's face (which is the only part Jane will have actually seen, once the baby was wrapped up) looks completely normal. I assume that you now know that, given that you are now trying to claim "suggestion" rather that actual sight of the mythical "deformity." One could equally counter that the "midwife" does react to this supposed "mutation," and that in fact Jane's reaction is simply that to having given birth to a stillborn child. End of. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many times you've watched it, or when you first saw it. It is possible to describe something that is implied; did it mention in the script that the infant was stillborn? Of course it didn't, which means I ought to remove that too. Why would she scream in "horror and disgust"? Why would it have horrified her? Why would a dead baby have disgusted her? A stillborn infant wouldn't have merited that response, neither would a scream of that nature. Why didn't the midwife react, perhaps because she'd delivered babies in that condition before, she wasn't mentally disabled perhaps?

Is it not possible that rather you have made the error? Merely because something is not made explicit reference to in a script, that isn't to say that the writer did not intend for it to be interpreted as such. It is the same here with respect of both deformity AND stillbirth, for both of which there is evidence on screen and in the script. There have been several attempts to rectify the plot on this page before, it is not your private page to outline your own private views and as I have demonstrated, as have several others, the overwhelming consensus is that the baby is deformed, and for that reason the plot on this Wikipedia page will read as such. If you choose to change this again without providing evidence of anyone other than yourself interpreting the film as not involving what is one of the pre-established results of foetal exposure to radiation, I will report YOU for vandalism; until at least the administrator gets back to me. End of. Hayek79 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Prove it. Show us a screen-grab, or a quote from the writer or director. But, oh no! You can't.... Nick Cooper (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And also for your information Wikipedia recognises synopsis and reviews from reputable websites and publications as sources; if you remove these it will be treated as vandalism. Edit: Equally given that similar sources have been provided as citation for other parts of this article, it would be inconsistent to dismiss those that I have provided. Hayek79 (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

We do not quote self-evident factual errors. Plenty of people will swear blind that they see the ear actually being sliced off in Reservoir Dogs, but that don't make it so.

No "deformity" is seen on screen or described in the script. Live with it. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC).

Whether or not it is on screen is not in contention (nobody disputes that the ear was not removed in reservoir Dogs), it is whether or not a deformity is implied, and the weight of evidence and the consensus on the subject suggests that it is. Therefore it should read as such on the article. I am prepared to compromise by inserting the word "apparently". Hayek79 (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but we don't include stuff that isn't true, just because some people think it is. We certainly don't repeat urban myths, which is what the "deformed baby" claim is.

You previously dismissed my viewing history of the film. As stated, I saw it (as an adult, and coincidentally had spent the previous day and night in Sheffield) when it first went out, at a time when I was active in the anti-nuclear movement, in which the production was widely discussed, and I can assure you that nobody at that time thought the baby was deformed. But you don't have to take my word for it, because contemporary review are silent on it as well. The Times does not mention the birth at all (nor the Daily Express or the Daily Mirror for that matter), while The Guardian (24 September 1984) states:

"There is an appalling moment at the end when the Beckett girl's daughter, by then 13, is herself pregnant in that post-nuclear desolation. Her labour ward is a barn, her midwife a harrassed old woman, and she is handed the bloody, rag-wrapped bundle of her offspring. Her family history does not matter, there is no nurse of doctor to scribe it carefully in the patient's notes. All that matters is the dead and silent bundle."

If the intention was that the baby was "deformed," it obviously didn't register with that reveiwer, nor with anyone else at the time. Certainly, there's no trace of Hines or Jackson rushing to say that the audience had missed the supposedly major plot point you think was there.

The reality is that the urban myth is largely the product of the false and blurry memories of people describing something they saw maybe only once many years previously (although released on VHS in 1987, it soon went out of print, and was unavailable and unrepeated for many years). This comes full circle by virtue of people who read these false descriptions before actually seeing the film, and so when they do, because they expect to see a "deformed baby," they then think they do. Quite frankly, it matters not a jot how many examples of such mistaken people you can find, especially when so many were written decades after the fact; the New Yorker even falsely claims that the baby's (normal) face is not seen, when it actually is. Nothing in the script even hints at a suggestion of "deformity," and certainly nothing on screen does - quite the opposite, in fact. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your personal anecdotes as evidence, and quite frankly I find it insulting that you'd dismiss my citation as "mistaken" (of course you are above being mistaken, whereas everyone else must be) if that's all you can provide (aside the Guardian article, which certainly isn't conclusive by itself) Hayek79 (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

My own experience merely confirms the factual evidence, i.e. the script, and what is actually (or rather not) seen on screen. The contemporary Guardian review explicitly addresses the stillborn baby, yet makes no mention whatsoever of the mythical "deformity." I mean, seriously? You actually think that the Guardian, of all newspapers, would not mention that at the time when the anti-nuclear debate was at the pitch it was? The reality is that idea of the "deformed baby" is simply a self-perpetuating urban myth that developed decades after the fact, largely due to hazy and distorted memories when the film was not widely available.

If you find the realisation that you have been mistaken - which I suspect you have, given that you moved from claiming the "deformity" is visible to some sort of wishful suggestive reading of something that isn't in the script, or actually on screen - to be "insulting," that's your problem, not mine. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No, anecdotal evidence confirms nothing. The Guardian review explicitly addresses the still born baby, which is assumed, much like the deformity which is assumed in the three reviews I cited, with neither being referenced in the script, but with both having been implied by sounds (or in the instance of stillbirth lack of one). Your accusation that those who came to the conclusion (with the screaming, and the fact that it has long been established that, with exposure to radiation, foetuses can suffer abnormalities such as dipygus) suffer from "hazy memories", is no less applicable to your own interpretation of the film. If your concern is that it is not present on screen (or the script), I am happy to remove both claims, since, as the interpretation of third parties is, as you claim, not permissible, neither the deformity nor the stillbirth can be substantiated. Hayek79 (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I've taken several screen shots of the baby on my iPad, which do in fact show that it is deformed, if I can be told how I might unload them here without violating any intellectual property laws I will. Hayek79 (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Prove it. You must be dealing with a particularly rubbish copy to have managed to find anything that remotely looks like the baby is "deformed." Nothing to see here, so I'm buggered if I know what you can be thinking of. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, these are the pictures of the baby on screen, the baby is visibly not normal here, being of a strange shape and also here. If you look here as well, though obscured by the midwife, the baby is shown to be constructed of strange lumps, none of which correspond to the physiology of a healthy child. Case closed. 109.144.212.160 (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. Apart from the fact that you've managed to post three links to the same indistinct image - blurred because the midwife is wiping the dead baby down - you can't have your speculation both ways. You've claimed that the baby is so hideously deformed that it causes revulsion in a emotionally and educationally stunted child who has grown up in a world surrounded by deprivation, death, and the physically and mentally damaged survivors of a nuclear war. And yet because the baby is wrapped up, the only part visible to her will be its face. This and this show the face of the very obvious dummy used, but it clearly lacks the "deformity" you think you're seeing. Give it up. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No, they are different images, and although the baby is slightly obscured, it is obvious to anyone (who isn't bent on making some silly point out of long-held and lost-cause position on a minor detail of the film) that it is deformed, quite badly in fact. The face isn't deformed, but the torso clearly isn't normal, and unless you back down now (and since the last administrator hasn't got back to me) I will refer this to as many people as possible in order to resolve it because it's getting rather silly. I now have visual as well as logical proof. And just to clarify, I was initially convinced that I had seen a deformed baby, both by what I had thought was on screen (and as it turned out I was correct after watching the final minutes again), Jane's reaction, and the fact that it was based in a post-nuclear wasteland.

The baby was not "completely wrapped up" when it was handed to her. And given that there is now visual evidence of what I already knew, your justification has changed to whether or not Jane could in fact see the baby (which in fact she could), when the issue in contention is whether or not the baby was deformed, which is demonstrably the case.

On a side note, if she were "mentally stunted", surrounded by "deprivation, death", burns and horrific illnesses all her life it would take something pretty unpleasant to cause her to react in that way, wouldn't you agree (silly question, of course not, because it's inconsistent with the conclusion you arrived at and have now spent months attempting to retrospectively justify)? Hayek79 (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. What you have screen-grabbed is the very brief view of the dummy baby being vigorously wiped down, and thus blurred. You simply cannot claim that "torso clearly isn't normal" because it's not clear in the first place. Oh, and it is a single view, given that the "three links" you posted are identical. Good that you now admit that the closer and more clear view of the dummy baby's face shows no "deformity" at all.

Did I say "mentally stunted"? No, I didn't - another example of you seeing what you want to see. Likewise you nonsensical claim that my, "justification has changed," given that pointed out that Jane would have only been able to see the dummy baby's face in my post above of 29 March. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah apologies, they are the same, here are the others [6] [7] [8] [9], the last one is particularly good.

The fact that the baby's face is normal proves nothing (somatic mutations are rare, they usually involve the spinal column), I have never suggested that it was anything other than that. Despite the fact that it is being rubbed down, and that the picture quality is poor, the baby can be seen. Or are you denying that the baby's torso is present on-screen in these shots? By "justification has changed", I was referring to your adamantine assertions last week concerning the condition of the baby, your more recent reluctance to deny that the baby in the screen-shot is deformed, and your later insistence that whether or not the torso was deformed was an irrelevance given that Jane would only see the face. It is rather inconsistent no? Perhaps you'd like to deny that?

Why not respond to my argument rather than pick out a misquotation, given that it makes no difference whatsoever as to the validity of the point? Hayek79 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Because you haven't got an argument. The screen-grabs you think prove "deformity" simply show a fake blood-smeared dummy baby - with its legs nearest the camera - being vigorously wiped down. The "lumps" you've bizarrely think you can see are actually its legs, presumably because that's what you want to see. The shots of the face, however, are closer and hence more obvious, but that doesn't stop the rest of the dummy from being normal, as well.

Of course, all this goes without saying that there is no contemporary evidence of the intention - or even the interpretation - of the baby being "deformed" in the first place. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't responded to that point; perhaps you lack a response? Does this mean that I am correct by default? "show a fake blood-smeared dummy baby" one that is visibly deformed, the "lumps" are not consistent with the physiology of a healthy human child. "but that doesn't stop the rest of the dummy from being normal" the reverse is also applicable, it doesn't prove that the baby isn't deformed, rather the evidence I have provided proves quite the opposite; you're now in denial. We have established that the image isn't of the best quality, but that doesn't make it useless as evidence, in fact you're being inconsistent by claiming it is too blurry for you to make anything out, whilst simultaneously contesting that the bizarre lumps are in fact legs. You're wrong, please give it up.

"this goes without saying that there is no contemporary evidence of the intention", you're grasping at straws now, I'm sure I can find some. I'm also going to attempt to contact Mick Jackson. Would the harrowing effect of the film be as great if the child were merely dead? Also, your assertions about "self-perpetuating urban myths" is nonsense, it's entirely conjectural, unsubstantiated, and cannot be used as evidence. 31.55.37.27 (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you're just talking crap now. There are no "lumps" and certainly no "deformity." It's a dummy baby - probably actually just a commercially-produced doll - and that is clearly visible in the actual moving footage. Showing a few blurry screen-grabs in an almost completely obscured shot does not prove your ludicrous claims. Ultimately, though, the script proves your claims wrong, since it does not describe or even hint at a requirement for the dummy baby to be "deformed" in any way. I mean, seriously, do you think that was just something the writer forgot to mention, or the director slipped in contrary to the writer's wishes, and then neither of them publically commented on it?! We actually know that there were some disagreements between Hines and Jackson during the making of the play, but this sure ain't one of them, because it never happened. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is we cannot use what is in the script as part of the plot summary because scripts are subject to change and interpretation (scripted scenes get changed or even cut during production all the time). We can only state what was seen onscreen. In the last scene, Jane gives birth and the screen freezes on her face as she is about to scream as she looks at the baby she has just given birth to. It is implied that the baby is deformed (which would certainly be a symptom of exposure to radiation) but it may also be stillborn, though that isn't made clear either. It is very likely both, but the fact is we don't know, so I've worded the sentence to reflect simply the look of horror on her face. 88.104.29.128 (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Shah" reference

Listen to the newscast when Ruth reveals she's pregnant, and when the news presenter mentions Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko: He [the Soviet foreign minister] warned the United States of the dangers of what he called "an easy return to the reign of the Shah".

Mariomassone (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Presumptions in the plot

People continue to make an awful lot of presumptions when documenting the plot of the movie. Stillborn/deformed babies, Ruth's parent's being killed by looters, etc. The movie never states any of this stuff, but it keeps appearing in the plot section.

Tinsley Viaduct

Where is the information referenced that the Tinsley Viaduct is the target of the Sheffield blast? Where is stated that it is a one-megaton blast? The Tinsley Viaduct is far off the centre of Sheffield, rather halfway between Sheffield and Rotherham. Wouldn't this be a rather ineffective target for an attack on Sheffield?--SiriusB (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The Tinsley Viaduct is ground zero, as shown on the map the emergency team scribbles on during the attack sequence. Furthermore, the script "Threads and other Sheffield Plays" specifies the yield of the missile on Sheffield as one megaton. Mariomassone (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of this script, but the ground zero on the map you mentioned is the Finningley Airbase (I checked via Open Street Map). I cannot find any scene where the Tinsley Viaduct is shown (Youtube version of the film -- maybe the scene is missing there?). Maybe you got this info from the script as well?--SiriusB (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I made a mistake: the viaduct reference occurs AFTER the attack, just before Sutton points to his home village on the map (around 58 minutes into the film). Mariomassone (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. This scene also shows a note on the map indicating the yield as 1 MT. I must have overlooked the scene when I watched the film before.--SiriusB (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Stillborn baby revisited

So we're back to the stillborn baby thing again.

Someone listed the following references:

Mangan, Michael, ed. (1990). Threads and Other Sheffield Plays. Critical Stages 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. p. 235. ISBN 978-1-850-75140-3. ISSN 0953-0533.

The Guardian: "Most Grim of Reapers", 24 September 1984, page 12.

The Guardian is an opinion piece and is thus disregarded.

Threads and other Sheffield Plays I don't know. I can't find the reference. There is only one "stillborn" mentioned, and it isn't Jane's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.168.160.50 (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)