Jump to content

Talk:Testament (1983 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EMP

[edit]

Following through Electromagnetic_pulse to Electromagnetic_bomb, I see that damages to electronics, "are usually not noticeable beyond the blast radius unless the device is nuclear or specifically designed to produce an electromagnetic pulse".

The functioning of the air raid sirens and radios should be taken as confirming evidence that the bombs near Hamlin were not EMP. 66.27.98.44 15:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't EMP have to be high altitude to affect a large area? Besides, this movie wasn't meant to be accurate. After all, in a nuclear war, there is no way the SF Bay Area would only suffer a single hit. (Only one bomb was shown to go off.) Lighthope (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there were 7 light pulses shown in very short series suggesting multiple hits - all apparently far enough away from the town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E9:4F3E:5083:389C:5E2E:EC9B:7A9D (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reception

[edit]

I was thinking of adding a critics reception section to this article, several articles are here:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=testament+%22Jane+Alexander.%22&cf=all

But I am dismayed at how much critics like this movie, I thought it was god awful. You never saw the effects of radiation, the mom/daughter talk about sex was uncomfortable, there were no survivors who traveled through the town. The deaths and crisis was so generic and bland, it could have been any disaster, the creators just placed a post nuclear label on it. I kept wanting to go outside this town, or at least have the outside come in, and I waited vainly for 90 minutes for this, but was disappointed. The Day After is a million times better movie.

Threads and The Day After, the two post-nuclear-war movies that appeared around the same time as Testament, both took place entirely within relatively small geographic areas and in neither one did the characters have much information about the rest of the world. One interpretation is that this reflects what likely would confront the survivors of an all-out nuclear war. Knowledge of the outside world would be lost as communications break down and travel becomes impossible. User:PROSA —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

So if anyone wants to add a critical reception, there are the links. Ikip (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Hamlin

[edit]

While Hamlin's specific location is never given, it is within a 90-minute drive from San Francisco, as Tom says in one of his telephone messages that he's leaving work and hopes to be home in an hour and a half. Hamlin evidently is further away from the city than is Santa Rosa, which is about 50 miles from San Francisco, as Henry loses contact with Santa Rosa's ham radio operators even while conditions in Hamlin are at least semi-tolerable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PROSA (talkcontribs) 21:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who kisses Carol Weatherly passionately towards the end of the movie . After she is crying in front of the funeral pyre ???

[edit]

Who kisses Carole Weatherly passionately towards the end of the movie Testament??? Is it her husband back or just some random dude ? 2601:81:8400:2760:9413:B469:CD9D:4C1E (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The kiss scene features Carol passionately kissing the local reverend, Father Hollis, who is having a crisis of faith and portrayed as looking very pale and unkempt, suggesting that he is going mad from radiation poisoning. According to most info I've seen on the film, the kiss was not intended to be erotic. Carol still loves her husband. Her kiss with Father Hollis was more-so an act of mutual desperation for human comfort and compassion. It's quite an important scene in the film but I don't know if it's worth mentioning on Wikipedia or not. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Book cover image??

[edit]

As far as I can find the "book" cover image uploaded to this page is completely fake. The only official publication of the story that this film was based upon was in 2 separate magazines (neither of which depict any book cover) and an eBook with a completely different cover. That image of the "book cover" uploaded is just a screenshot from the film itself with text from Microsoft Paint pasted under it... common trick on Goodreads (the apparent source??) for readers who don't want a blank placeholder where a book cover on their digital "bookshelf" should be, so they create a fake "edition" with some sort of placeholder image to fill it in. Goodreads never did crack down on that problem. Here is another example: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25298429-happy-family No such actual publication of this title exists, but somehow a cover artwork for it does! Or this one where they didn't try as hard; they literally just pasted red text onto a pre-existing poster for the film: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25939620-my-bloody-valentine ...Yeah, Wikipedia might want to keep an eye out for these. They usually have no ISBN and will list either "Createspace" or just nothing at all in the "Publisher" field. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]