Talk:Threads (1984 film)

Our old IP friend back again

Given that they edit and add to other people's talk page comments, I think it is safe to revert on sight. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Have you a citation for the operating frequency range of a radio set in a work of fiction ? 86.176.57.151 (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Threads. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111193031/http://falloutwarning.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/threads-select-references-and-bibliography-by-kevin-hall/ to http://falloutwarning.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/threads-select-references-and-bibliography-by-kevin-hall/

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Blu-Ray interviews

Any details on the film's production from the interviews we could add to the article? Mariomassone (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jamesluckard: Are there more details we could use from the Blu Ray commentary? (Casting, production, plot changes, deleted scenes, special effects, working with Hines, etc.) Mariomassone (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mariomassone: Your article here is quite thorough, I didn't notice any big revelations from Jackson that aren't covered in what you've written. You should definitely get the new DVD, it's the best the film has ever looked. I'm sure if you listen to the commentary, you'll notice things that I didn't, which you can include in a revision of the article here. I updated the details of the Severin Blu-Ray and the Simply Media DVD. Jamesluckard (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mariomassone: I remembered two things Jackson mentions. Sheffield was chosen because it's in the exact center of England, which is the same reason Lawrence, Kansas was chosen for "The Day After." It was also chosen because there was a large series of old houses that the town council intended to demolish, and the production was able to use them and then destroy them for filming. Jamesluckard (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Threads → Threads (film)Threads (film) – WP:ASTONISH no clear primary topic given that Threads (Sheryl Crow album) got 4,942 views (though that might be recentism) compared with the film's 12,959 views which probably doesn't meet "much more likely than any other" which would probably be more like 10x. Thread (computing) also gets 10,369, Screw thread gets 9,755, Thread (network protocol) gets 2,650 and Thread (yarn) gets 1,752 []. By long term significance if anything many of the terms titled in the singular would be primary if anything. See similar cases like Cars, Cats, Bones, Bookends, Pixies and Parachutes which no only does the specific meanings not take precedence, the general meanings do. I propose that like Dockers and Cuts we redirect "Threads" to Thread per WP:DABCOMBINE since there are quite a few meanings that would be on both DAB pages if split. While its true that per WP:PLURALPT users can be expected to use the singular more often they are still full matches and anyway it gives the examples of Cars and Bookends redirecting to the singular named article. Also as noted in the Bookends, Suites, Dockers and Peanuts discussions (and probably others) we can't distinguish between "threads" and "Threads" since the 1st letter is always capitalized in titles even though we can with the likes of Common sense and Common Sense. And even if we could we can't tell if its at the start of a sentence since we can see that in the Thread (computing) article the plural term appears over 100x and in some cases it appears as "Threads" (when its at the start of a sentence). WP articles are generally out of context (unlike WT entries) and thus an initial capital could easily be expected anyway. Also note that the category is at Category:Threads (computing) which also shows that its common for things to be plural even though we don't in the article space, see WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. A Google Images search for threads returns most results for Thread (yarn) which is very well known and the plural form appears 14x in the article. Threads (TV series) is another option. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's a TV play or drama, not a "film," which in British-English is generally reserved for feature films. There is already a link to Thread (disambiguation) at the top of the page, so it's not like anyone is going to get "lost." Nick Cooper (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  It could be moved to something like Threads (TV play) or Threads (drama) but others in Category:1984 television films use film anyway. I have no objection to a different qualifier. Only a link to the DAB would be appropriate if this was clearly primary but it isn't. Instead people searching for "Threads" (or "threads") should be taken straight to the DAB where they can find the other uses and click on the link for this article if that's what they still want, see WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the examples that show that topic name being plural does not make it disambiguated enough. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Netoholic @ 21:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nomination, Ortizesp, Erik and Netoholic. As for the parenthetical qualifier "film", television films, especially those designed to run in a two-hour time slot are indeed qualified as "(film)" especially, as in this case, when the production is originated on film, rather than kinescoped from a live broadcast or videotaped. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to one of Threads (film), Threads (TV play), Threads (drama) or anything else; needs disambiguation. Dicklyon (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the album is enough to split it. BTW, WP:PLURAL all but forces categories to be plural, so that argument doesn't really apply. The rest do, though. Red Slash 23:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  That was my point, PLURAL specifies that categories use the plural form but the singular titles are still ambiguous which is why Category:Bridge is a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Book

Does anyone have access to the book Barry Hines: Kes, Threads and beyond? The google books preview has some interesting insights into Hine's earlier, more openly political drafts of the plot, including major character changes (Sutton originally being a cartoonishly evil military dictator etc.). It could be used to expand the production section. Mariomassone (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The baby at the end

People keep adding text saying that the baby Ruth delivers at the end is stillborn.

There is nothing in the movie that says the baby is stillborn. It could be grossly deformed, stillborn, Siamese, who knows? The fact that the baby is silent does not mean it is dead.

Since we don't know the baby's status, it is inappropriate to say what it was.

Something should be added to the article code to prevent people from imposing their theories to the article and positioning them as fact. 98.97.37.44 (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

True, it is left to the viewer's imagination what she sees. I've made that clear and added a footnote from a retrospective article that addresses that very point. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"added to the article code"? Do you actually know how coding works? Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's obviously stillborn. It doesn't need to be spelt on screen, although the fact it's completely wrapped in a sheet, not moving, and not making any sound makes it pretty clear. Dan100 (Talk) 11:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. It's not ambiguous. You don't wrap a baby entirely in a sheet, covering its face, if it's alive. Richard75 (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If the baby was dead, why would the nurse hand it over to Jane? 2001:9E8:4610:9F00:C489:8D5D:E106:6F1B (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The look of terror on Jane's face says something else. She can handle death — remember her reaction, or lack thereof, when her mother died — but not …. whatever the baby was. 2001:9E8:4610:9F00:C489:8D5D:E106:6F1B (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, a Wikipedia synopsis isn't the place to make any claims - the synopsis needs to avoid theories or speculation. We know that the baby is silent and that the sheet is bloody, and you could just as easily argue the birth has traumatised Jane into emotion, that she has learnt what death is only by having a stillbirth, or any number of other claims. The film is deliberately ambiguous. Becsh (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Little White Lies and the AV Club

The 2017 reviews from these publications are utterly histrionic and overwrought, and quoting them makes the entire section look foolish. Leaving the EU is not remotely the same as nuclear holocaust and you don't have to be an advocate of it to see that.

I do hope Wikipedia editors one day get round to deleting this sort of drivel. It's endemic throughout the website - silly hot takes whose inclusion owes more to the political beliefs of individual editors than devotion to Wikipedia's mission. 80.189.187.221 (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Including comments from critics on the contemporary relevance of the drama does not in any way go against Wikipedia's principles, nor does it show bias for or against Brexit. There exists a review that compares the events of the film to Brexit's economic impact.

You may think that comparison is ridiculous, and I would agree with you, but that such a review exists and is noted does not violate WP:NPOV. The whole point of that section is to show critical consensus, and if that's what critics are saying, Wikipedia can't exactly sidestep the biases of those critics by contriving opposing views. This "drivel" should not be deleted simply because you disagree with it. Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 10:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Ed Bishop

About twelve to thirteen minutes in: we see one of the girls — Alison Kemp, I *think* — doing her homework whilst listening to the radio.

The voice of the US President?

Is actor, Ed Bishop.

But?

Is there any way of verifying that? And adding him to the credits?

Cuddy2977 (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Spurious description of "rape" again...

Yet again, 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) 14:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Just an observation, but I have Threads and other Sheffield plays, and in all honesty it looks more like a transcript of the film rather than the original screenplay. Mariomassone (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly not formatted as a transcript. It includes directions for the actors, descriptions of the scene, and other things that cannot actually be definitively gleaned from the film, such as that the town at the end is still Buxton.

If it is merely a transcript instead of the original script, whoever transcribed has a fantastic eye for making their transcript look like a screenplay. That's not to say it's not possible for it to be a transcript, it just seems vanishingly unlikely. GreatBritant (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You're right about the directions, but the reason I bring it up is because, unlike other screenplays I've read, the dialogues, without exception, are word for word exactly like in the film (normally the actors are given some leeway in uttering their lines), and there are no lines in the book that didn't make it into the final product (just look up the screenplays of Highlander 2 or Star Trek: Insurrection, available as pdfs online, to see how much dialogue was ultimately scrapped).
Heck, what really sticks out is the absence in the book of some lines, in particular those of the radio/TV announcers. You have to really fiddle with the audio settings in order to hear them, but there are whole sections in the film where additional exposition is given in the background while the main characters are talking (including the fact that the Iran coup was an attempt to restore the Pahlavi monarchy, that the nuclear attack on Mashad caused the mass evacuation of cities in Pakistan due to fallout, etc.). It really gives (me) the impression of having been written by someone assigned to transcribe the dialogue, but whose audio settings were no better than those of the average viewer.Mariomassone (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Really? Such extraneous detail is far more indicative of a working or pre-production script than a post-production transcript. If you Google them, you can easily find the post-production script that were made by the BBC to aid foreign buyers of Doctor Who to dub them. The Threads script looks nothing like them. The absence of missing scenes or dialogue in the script reflects nothing more than the director and actors sticking to what was presumably the final draft of many. Hines may well have had a choice of exactly which version to publish, and ultimately chose the shooting one, hence it very closely matches what is on screen. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

My copy is currently boxed up pending a house move, but I'm rather stunned by this suggestion. It's a compilation of three plays by the author, and there is not reason to think that the Threads one is a post-production transcript, not least because it includes details of intent and interpretation that do not appear in BBC post-production scripts, e.g. the explanation of the degraded English of the children in later scenes. Nor, for that matter, is it in the same format generally used by the BBC for post-producion scripts. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Cooper You are intentionally being obtuse, I can't for the life if me figure out why what is obviously a rape being depicted makes you so uncomfortable. 2600:1008:B128:7D96:0:5A:41C0:DA01 (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

As has been explained time and time again: the closest thing we have to the word of god on this is that script, which states clearly that it is not intended as a rape scene. I think it's an uncomfortable scene, and I'm not surprised people interpret it as rape. The reason it is listed as "crude intercourse" is because that is what appears in the script, and so ultimately we should operate off that basis and not an interpretation.

From the Manual of Style's section about writing about fiction:

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. ... Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

In this case, what is being done is taking a primary source (the script) and making a straightforward descriptive statement of fact (that the scene is not intended as rape but instead as "crude intercourse"). There is no analysing, evaluating, interpreting, or synthesising being done by ourselves. Just the use of a primary source for a statement of fact.

I'll note that every single time people make the edit to that section, they do so without actually changing anything about the citation, which strongly suggests they are not actually bothering to check the citation at all (the screenplay is available on the internet archive, so there is no excuse). Thus, what we have is people changing a cited section of the text to their interpretation, and leaving up the citation that actively refutes their interpretation. You can see why it's rather annoying. GreatBritant (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

What makes me "uncomfortable" is people making their own interpretations that have no factual basis. The script does not describe the scene as "rape," and what appears on screen fits the description in the script, i.e. "crude intercourse" between two young people thrown together in the devastation. If you can find a statement made by the author that they actually intended it to be rape, or that the director decided to depict it as such - but then produced something that is, at best, ambiguous - then go ahead and cite it. You choosing to interpret the scene as such, and doubling-down even when you have been aware that it isn't, doesn't count. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Plot summaries do not follow sceenplays but rather the film itself. We need to be guided by the film. In this case, since it isn't clear what happened, we should go with reliable secondary sources on the film itself, reviews etc., not primary sources as is currently footnoted. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed this notation as I don't believe it is appropriate for a plot summary. Screenplays and transcripts are not dispositive. An editor may have a very good reason to make changes, which are never frozen in place. Right now the cited source is the best we have but it is a primary source, the screenplay. Directors and actors of course have their own ways of interpreting and implementing screenplays. Better would be secondary sources of critics and others who have seen the film, as "crude intercourse" could indeed mean rape as carried out on the screen. It looks that way to me, but my opinion doesn't count. It's not our job to resolve ambiguity. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't be the only person here that thinks this is a really, really weird thing for OP to get hung up about, leaving policy aside for a moment. When it comes to policy, I'm a strong advocate for NPOV, but there are at least three sources I've found with a cursory Google search (see: , and ) that call what happens "rape" or "implied rape". It's clear that at least some critics and audiences interpret it as a rape. As other respondents have said, synopses are of the film as filmed, not of the intentions of the screenwriter, except where the film is entirely lost (as with many silent films and early Doctor Who episodes). In that light, I feel like the dubiousness of the consensuality should at least be noted. --Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 10:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Three misinterpretations aren't proof, especially when two of them similarly misinterpret the birth of the baby in a way that the script does not describe, as well. Try reading the script. Hines is meticulous in describing what he wanted to appear on screen, and most of the time the end result mirrors that. He doesn't describe what some people are intent on imagining, and he doesn't even indicate that there should be ambiguity in those instances. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Nick Cooper: Following your reversion, I think it would be helpful to point out that a text does not necessarily have to describe a sex act as rape for it to be justified to interpret it as such. I'd actually consider it very unusual if the script said "they tussle over the bread, then he rapes her", and it is only a misinterpretation if the script explicitly describes the act as rape. Your edit summary if it's not in the script, then it clear is misinterpretation is inductive reasoning: it is only misinterpretation if it is explicitly mentioned as not being rape in the script. It suffices to say that critics have interpreted the act as rape. Becsh (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

What the script actually says is quoted at the head of this section. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't respond to my point. Becsh (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The script describes something mutual, not forced by one party. There is nothing on screen that implies anything different. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

But the way the film is played certainly seems to lead people to interpreting it in a different way. I personally don't think it is rape exactly, but I can see why someone would interpret it as such. There are plenty of scenes out there that are not explicitly written (or even acted) as rape scenes but which can be validly interpreted as such: Streetcar's Stanley carrying an unconscious Blanche to his bed is never described as rape in the script, but it is hardly a misinterpretation of events to call it rape.

I think this isn't worth a massive debate given the contention here is over whether this is an "interpretation" or a "misinterpretation". Personally I think "interpretation" is fine while "misinterpretation" takes the script as gospel, which is contrary to the ways most critics and commentators tend to approach scripts and screenplays (i.e. taking it straight from the horses mouth does not necessarily mean the horse is telling the truth or is an authority on the matter in ways viewers are not). I'd be happy to seek a third opinion. Becsh (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I saw the first when it first went out in 1984 (coincidentally, I had spent the previous night in Sheffield); I never interpreted the scene as rape. I watched it again when it was repeated in 1985; still didn't see the scene as suggestive of rape. Bought it on VHS when it was released in 1987; still didn't see the scene as anything other my previous impressions, through repeated viewings. The film was widely reviewed and discussed at the time, particular in the circles I was in, as I was active in CND. I never heard anyone describe the scene as rape, even in the context of political discussion amongst people who would have been more ready than others to pick up on such a reading.

Checking the British Newspaper Archive, no contemporary reviews mention it as such, and the only sources that have been cited here date from 24 or more years after the film was first broadcast. It is certainly interesting to contrast them with this site dating from no later than February 2001, which in an otherwise pretty detailed synopsis simply states, "Ruth's daughter becomes pregnant," (essentially the same synopsis was still being used in 2005 on this site). As an aside, I would suggest the the Unconsenting source is not neutral, because the site is specifically dedicated to, "sexual violence in broadcasting," and could thus be seen to be prone to confirmation bias. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that just because people originally interpreted a work one way that makes subsequent interpretations invalid (this becomes increasingly problematic the further back you go through time). There are two sources besides the Unconsenting source that are cited as calling the scene a rape scene, and these seem perfectly appropriate.

I'll request a third opinion on the matter as I don't think one of us will end up changing their mind. I will briefly point out that I'm a staunch opponent of describing the baby as "deformed", but I don't think it is a misinterpretation for people to think the baby might be deformed; the issue with including it in the article is because it is never explicitly shown, and the most information we have is that it doesn't cry (which may otherwise mean it is stillborn). But it isn't misinterpreting the screenplay or film to say the baby might be deformed, because there is no evidence to the contrary. Likewise, it isn't misinterpreting the screenplay or film to say the boy rapes Jane because there is no explicit evidence that suggests consent. Becsh (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I've requested a third opinion; I'll just briefly note that although more editors have been involved in this subsection, this was two years ago now and the editors haven't come forward to express their current views. If helpful, the film is currently available on Youtube; the scene begins at roughly 1:51:25. Becsh (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:3O:

1. Strictly speaking, this should be discussed in a new section, since it's merely about "interpreted" vs. "misinterpreted", not about "rape" in the plot.

2. I'm not sure if it's relevant, but I think the meanings of the word "rape" have shifted somewhat since the making of the film, from strictly forcible to including any non-consensual sexual intercourse.

3. I read the script snippet at the top of this section and I watched the scene. I think it's unclear to what extent the authors of the film intended the sex to be consensual or forced. As others pointed out above, the script's description "crude intercourse" does not exclude some kind of coercion or force.

4. The plot section currently says "their struggle degenerates into sex". I think that's a neutral and valid description.

5. We shouldn't take a stance on whether it is or isn't rape. That means we shouldn't say "misinterpreted", because that implies it definitely isn't rape. But if we say "interpreted", we're not saying these interpretations are correct.

I'll go ahead and change it back to "interpreted". I'll also remove "however" from the sentence quoting the script, because this also implies that the interpretations are not in line with the script.

— Chrisahn (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

As noted, I don't believe that Unconsenting is a reliable source, as it's basically just a tick-box exercise, and a potentially biased one. The AV Club piece dates from well after the film was made, and it almost certainly contaminated by what we could describe as the "rape myth," which leads new viewers to see the scene as such, only because they have previously read the false claims that it is. As regards the BFI synopsis, the actual accompanying analysis (not necessarily by the same writer) states merely, "When Ruth's daughter also falls pregnant..." Nick Cooper (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I was about to respond here, but then I found an important piece of informantion and started a new section: #It is indeed rape. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

More sources saying it's rape:

• The Telegraph, Sep 2024: "Teenage Jane is raped and has her own baby."
• Byline Times, Oct 2024, written by Duncan Campbell, who worked as an adviser on the movie: "Ruth’s child is later raped"
• Prospect (magazine), Oct 2024: "Ruth’s daughter is, it seems, raped by someone she had been stealing food with."
• KQED Inc., Sep 2019: "The film ends with a teenage girl having a stillbirth after being raped."
• a blog post, Dec 2016: "one of the young men is shot dead whilst the other rapes Jane in a desolate barn as they fight over food"

I agree that Unconsenting probably isn't a WP:RS, but we could replace it by several other reliable sources. But all of this doesn't matter much anyway, we should probably change the plot and the "interpretation" wording, since the director says it's rape. See section below.

— Chrisahn (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Article length

Hello,

I have just made the most recent edit to the page. I am conscious of article length as an issue. Previously, WP:FILMPLOT has been cited to argue that the article's length must be kept below 700. However, I will point out that said link states "the summary should not exceed the range ... or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range." MOS:PLOTSUMMARIZE also states "Necessary detail, however, must be maintained", and that "particularly complex plots may need a more lengthy summary than the general guidance".

The current revision, minus references and other stuff that is unseen by the reader, is 876 words. That is really not very much above the 700 hard limit, and it is my belief that this extra length is absolutely important to maintain the page. The prior version, despite being 20 words shorter (and therefore, in theory, "better"), had a partially inaccurate timeline of events and wrong information about them. Thus, I feel as though this is roughly the best possible marker for the length of the page, and that attempting to boil it down significantly further is only going to compromise it. I am sure minor tweaking could get it down, but I do not believe 800 is an achievable length cap for the page, let alone 700. I welcome further, accurate, edits that can manage to reduce the plot length without compromising the accuracy or usefulness of the description

Furthermore, on the "rape" issue: as has been pointed out by @Nick Cooper, the script directly states that it is crude intercourse, not rape. While I am well aware that this is a common misconception about the film, and I can very much understand where the idea comes from, the fact remains that the script intends it as crude intercourse. Thus, the article should continue to phrase it as such, unless someone is able to identify an alternate source stating it is intended as rape. People are perfectly free to interpret the scene as rape, but this plot summary is not a place for interpretation about the events of the film, it is a place for describing the plot as occurs. GreatBritant (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Jimmy's friend

I'm pretty sure Jimmy's friend survives and meets Ruth later. 2A02:A46A:2C29:1:14D6:C7DF:D1FE:83C5 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That's correct. Idehill01 (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Jimmy's dad

Jimmy's dad is seen dead at the end of the graveyard scene, in the still black and white image. Richard75 (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that he dies, but I don't think the plot summary for this film can be entirely comprehensive - there are lots of characters we simply never see again or only see briefly, who do not contribute to the 'plot'. Note that the bunker scenes are summarised very briefly and without reference to individual characters; the plot summary is not supposed to explain everything that happens, but should give an overview that gives the general idea. As I say, it is very hard to do this with the right level of detail in a film with a large cast who become separated. Perhaps the most iconic character from the film, the traffic warden, is not mentioned, for example, because he does not contribute to the plot. That's my view, at least! Becsh (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

"not widely reviewed" ?

Under "Reception" we currently say Threads was "not widely reviewed". This claim was added in 2018 (diff), and seems to be based on the contributor not having found many reviews online at Rotten Tomatoes.

This can be contrasted with the intro of an episode of the BBD's Did You See...? television discussion programme, tx 30 September 1984 (YouTube), which calls Threads "the most talked about programme of last week", and goes on to cite reviews from the Financial Times (3:45), Daily Mail (4:00), The Times (4:17), Sunday Times (4:31); before perspectives from various talking heads and then a studio discussion with Mary Midgeley, Edwina Currie and Alan Plater. I'm sure there were also reviews across the rest of the press, and many of the weekly periodicals; as well as in look-back pieces reviewing the year, and contemporary assessments of the state of television.

It might be useful to look at more of this original response. In any case, it is surely not sustainable to say Threads was "not widely reviewed". I've added a {{cn}} tag. Jheald (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I would just delete that sentence. It's an editorial observation that does not belong. Is 12 reviews on par for a 1984 British film or not? Did RT do its due diligence to find all pre-Internet reviews? Who knows? We should not use RT to claim a contemporary reception but rather a source that actually studied how the film was received then. Without that, we can stick with sampling individual reviews and not WP:SYNTHesize any conclusions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Modern reboot

The creators of the widely successful UK series Adolescence are rebooting Threads into a modern series.

"A spokesperson for Warp described the 112-minute original as "groundbreaking" and added: "This adaptation will explore prescient issues through rich, character-driven storytelling.""

More information about this would be great.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm24nedy37ro Astro reeceeboii (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it really a "war" drama?

Seeing as how the film focuses entirely on civilians and the only fighting we see on screen goes for just 10 minutes, I don't think it qualifies as a "war" film. 2600:8800:2FE1:1D00:74AD:693:F575:33A3 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

War films don't necessarily have to have a focus on actual combat, cf. The Small Back Room. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Length of synopsis

Per MOS:PLOTLENGTH, the synopsis should not be more than 700 words. This is not a particularly complex film, even if it features a wide range of characters. I propose cutting some of the details that do not help readers understand the primary plot - Ruth and Jane's story - namely the highly specific details about the outbreak of war. A lot of this is just repeating what the newscasters say in the film itself, so there isn't justification for their inclusion here. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

The article currently stands at *836 words*. Cutting 136 would help keep this synopsis slick. Becsh (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Word count is now at *733* words - I am considering removing or trying to somehow trim down User:Editor510's paragraph on the tactic's used. I think this is a good paragraph but it might be going too far for a plot summary - maybe including this information elsewhere in the article would be to the benefit of this synopsis? It is a very efficient way of describing the tactics used but it is information that is just relating how nuclear warfare works, if that makes sense. Becsh (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

It is indeed rape

The producer and director of the film says Jane is raped. I did another search and found this 2024 interview in which Mick Jackson says:

The main thing we agreed on in the movie was the structure, which is to use the imagery, the iconography of life, as the backbone of the movie. It starts with an act of conception, which leads to a birth, which leads to a baby, who grows up, and there's an act of conception – rape – which leads to a birth at the end. So life and death and birth is threaded through the movie that's about death.

Maybe we should use the word "rape" in the plot. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

What a great find! I will say that a director/writer's intentions are not necessarily the magic key to a text or work (per Barthes' Death of the Author), and there are often cases where a director or writer's interpretation of their own work is subject to change - especially over the course of 40 years. I'm neutral on whether this should be described as rape in the plot summary for this reason as the present wording does cover a wide base, but this is certainly useful and would be worth mentioning in the section given the 'themes' subject. Becsh (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Funny how Jackson only says this 40 years after the fact, and nine years after the writer died. As noted above, there was no contemporary interpretation of the scene as "rape," and no evidence that either Jackson or Hines expressed it as such at the time. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

At this point, however, I think arguing that the director has misinterpreted his own work would be tricky. Becsh (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)