3 ms·
Came here to post this. It's a movie that really bothered me on a visceral level enough that it's stuck with me and consistently makes me pause every once in a
by heavyset_go 4y ago
Came here to post this. It's a movie that really bothered me on a visceral level enough that it's stuck with me and consistently makes me pause every once in a while when I remember it.
That movie would have been terrifying with just firebombing alone, something that has/had happen all over the world. Nukes somehow surpass the hell on Earth that is conventional total war.
It's also impressive what they made on such a small budget, with something like ~$500k.
- 29athrowaway 4y agoIt is the best nuclear non proliferation and arms control ad.
- Radim 4y agoFrom what I remember, Threads was even broadcast in the Soviet Union – with a little disclaimer that Soviets never did (and never would!) strike first, so that that part of the movie was "western propaganda". But the rest of the film is so apolitical, and so hauntingly well done, that even the "bad guys" in it liked it. It's really a testament to the film's quality.
- heavyset_go 4y agoSeemed to me like the US and allies were equally painted as aggressors and "bad guys" in the movie. The protagonists were even negatively affected by the US using the UK as a launchpad for war before any bomb had dropped. Allied states actively suppressed anti-nuclear proliferation movements with violence in the movie, as well. I think a point that they were trying to drive home is that there are no "good guys" or winners in a nuclear war, especially when it comes to those who perpetrate it on any side.