"On the beach"

tones

Wammer
Wammer
Apr 10, 2006
3,572
84
93
Baselland, CH
AKA
Tony
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
Came across by accident on YouTube, a remake of the old Stanley Kramer/Gregory Peck/Ava Gardiner film based on Neville Shute's novel:

[video=youtube;wv_OJBBaF48]

Nearly all of it is there.

I'd never heard of it, and on further investigation, I find that it often gets panned by critics. Yet to me it seems a whole lot more realistic than the stiff-upper-lip-to-the-end novel and Kramer film, where everyone behaves like proper chaps as extinction of all life on the planet approaches. On the other hand, it loses something in its portrayal of US submarine captain Cdr. Towers, who, in the book, mentally refuses to accept that his family is dead and buys toys for his kids. As a result, there is never the passion for Moira that one sees in this version.

Interestingly, unlike the novel and earlier film in which the cause of the nuclear war is never spelled out, it reflects contemporary perceptions and postulates a Chinese blockade and invasion of Taiwan.

I rather enjoyed seeing Melbourne without a Holden Kingswood in sight!

 

tones

Wammer
Wammer
Apr 10, 2006
3,572
84
93
Baselland, CH
AKA
Tony
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
I find On the Beach pretty upsetting tbh. For all I like N war as a subject , this one is highly depressing. It's unrealistic of course - the human race would go on. Horrible concept shown in the film.
But would it? We don't/can't know that. Later thinking has been of the "nuclear winter" variety, of the enormous amount of stuff blasted into the upper atmosphere blocking out the sunlight and killing off all but the most hardy plant life, meaning the stuff that forms the base of our food chain. This would in turn kill off most animal life and what remains of humanity would starve in very short order. And the planet would finally know peace - the peace of the graveyard. We are now reasonably certain that the winter arising from the meteor impact 65 million years ago killed off the dinosaurs, a successful race of reptiles that had dominated the planet and its life for over 100 million years, rather longer than we've been around. A major nuclear exchange would produce the same effect, with the additional problem of radiation. Here's one possible scenario.

http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/

 
G

Guest

Guest
Eeeeek, and I had rose tinted memories of watching this on TV:

[video=youtube;lVv-9XxrGtE]


 

tones

Wammer
Wammer
Apr 10, 2006
3,572
84
93
Baselland, CH
AKA
Tony
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
Therefore, nuclear war is not very harmful really.
Provided that you can guarantee to be one of that tiny band of survivors ekeing out a miserable existnce on the verge of survival:

[video=youtube;TIoBrob3bjI]


 

tones

Wammer
Wammer
Apr 10, 2006
3,572
84
93
Baselland, CH
AKA
Tony
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
Eeeeek, and I had rose tinted memories of watching this on TV:[video=youtube;lVv-9XxrGtE]

This reminds me of the winner of a New Scientist Christmas carol competition some years ago:

Away out of danger

In our block of lead

We're thankful our father

Converted the shed

The glow in the south sky

Tells us all's not well

Two-thirds of the country's

Been blown to hell.

We thank you, Lord Jesus

For making Dad rich

So that we don't have to

Vomit and twitch

Bless all the fried children

In your tender care

And tell them we're sorry

We'd no room to spare.

 

Forum statistics

Threads
113,444
Messages
2,451,263
Members
70,783
Latest member
reg66

Today's Birthdays

Latest Articles

Wammers Online