Deleted member 82792
Would there be remakes of pre-Doomsday shows like Giligan's Island, Buck Rogers, Mr Ed or I Dream of Jeannie?
Post-Doomsday pop culture
- Thread starter CivoLee
- Start date
- Status
Any shows done on 35mm film can be digitally remastered to very high quality. Today we have a TV channel known as MeTV that specializes in shows from earlier decades. Similarly for music, anything recorded on master tapes with Dolby noise reduction, introduced in the early sixties, was easily upgraded to digital in the mid-eighties when CD’s replaced vinyl records. Older material can be restored with greater effort. The problem is, where are those original master copies stored? We can assume Hollywood and Nashville have been nuked away. Did planners have the foresight to put them in vaults far away from the vulnerable sites? If so, resources in the southern hemisphere can eventually bring them back to their full glory.
I think there would be great interest in shows that depicted the skylines of Manhattan and Chicago, the Golden Gate Bridge, Bourbon Street, the St. Louis arch, and of course, Liberty Memorial in Kansas City.
Last edited:
I'm not discounting that some pop culture, somewhere in the world would exist, but you all are seriously overestimating the quality of life in the northern hemisphere 20 years out from an exchange. There wouldn't be a remake of everyone's favorite 1970s sitcoms, there isn't going to be digital remastering of the classics, there aren't going to be new hits made by those that survived the first strike. I kind of feel like that scene in I am Legend where Will Smith yells at his new house guest that EVERYONE IS DEAD, but in this case for the things that we enjoy about living in modern western society. Post exchange, there isn't going to be a super concern about the morale of people, because there won't be any capital to finance any remedy.
Cochrane and Mileti have written specifically about the social affects and why a nuclear conflict is different from pretty much any other disaster scenario in, The Consequences of Nuclear War: An Economic and Social Perspective
But hey, eventually these little communities will start recovering and reaching out and forming little meccas right? Nope. For a 1983 level exchange, we don't have the resources to get the heavy industry necessary to rebuild back up and running. There's just not a way to get things up and running again. Even small towns that survive need easy transportation, electric, and sanitary levels that quickly degrade without being plugged into the US economy as a whole. By 1983, we're far, far past the threshold where general economic recovery is possible.
And even that projection, they acknowledge, is likely optimistic.
This is, in part, because we really have no great way to get energy production up and running again.
Perhaps, most importantly to this discussion, when you're starving (not in the sense we think of the word when we're looking forward to lunch, but in the malnutrition sense) how much food is that pop culture item worth? What is the market in which it's being exchanged? There's no foundation for currency any more after a 1983 exchange. It'd be a barter economy.
And as a final note, we're basing even these projections on recoveries which are much more rosy than any possible 1983 exchange.
I guess, this is also my gripe with 1983 Doomsday. It's a rosy outlook on a worst case nuclear war that's completely divorced from reality.
Cochrane and Mileti have written specifically about the social affects and why a nuclear conflict is different from pretty much any other disaster scenario in, The Consequences of Nuclear War: An Economic and Social Perspective
But hey, eventually these little communities will start recovering and reaching out and forming little meccas right? Nope. For a 1983 level exchange, we don't have the resources to get the heavy industry necessary to rebuild back up and running. There's just not a way to get things up and running again. Even small towns that survive need easy transportation, electric, and sanitary levels that quickly degrade without being plugged into the US economy as a whole. By 1983, we're far, far past the threshold where general economic recovery is possible.
And even that projection, they acknowledge, is likely optimistic.
This is, in part, because we really have no great way to get energy production up and running again.
Perhaps, most importantly to this discussion, when you're starving (not in the sense we think of the word when we're looking forward to lunch, but in the malnutrition sense) how much food is that pop culture item worth? What is the market in which it's being exchanged? There's no foundation for currency any more after a 1983 exchange. It'd be a barter economy.
And as a final note, we're basing even these projections on recoveries which are much more rosy than any possible 1983 exchange.
I guess, this is also my gripe with 1983 Doomsday. It's a rosy outlook on a worst case nuclear war that's completely divorced from reality.
IIRC, early on in the project it was all but stated that civilization had more or less collapsed in the Northern Hemisphere. Then more and more people joined in and pretty soon "survivor nations" started popping up all across North America and Europe.
Everyone's dead, dying or barely surviving as subsistence farming peasants usually makes a boring read and is depressing to write. Even when the setting is a true horror people want to see some hope.
Agreed, it's a quite unsatisfying answer! But if we're asking what would happen, unless we're over in Fandom, Shared Worlds or ASB, I like to ground these things in informed speculation.
I see there are two different settings to address with this issue. One deals with the near term aftermath, the other with the culture years later once society stabilizes. I thought the intent was to address the latter. What would pop culture be like today, after a WW3 in 1983. That would have been 36 years ago and most people today would not have any recollection of prewar society. By now, there would be an interest in films, pictures and a revival of the life of the period.
The near term aftermath is a very different situation. We must remember how many will survive the nuclear exchange. Bombs on Chicago will leave millions of suburban survivors who will desperately use what fuel they have to drive into the countryside and then what? You get to Iowa and there are very large sections of undamaged territory filled with farmers who are quite well armed and now facing a flood of refugees. Will the military mobilize to keep order? There will be plenty of livestock and animal feed, as well as silos full of cereal grain. But soon the fuel supply will run out. What happens when rail cars full of coal to power plants find the tracks blown apart at the Missouri River? And the port facilities? The big ones will be gone. The only saving grace would be if Red River Landing is spared and the Mississippi River remains where it is and shipments can move north from the gulf. Some cities will be spared, as the missile goes off course or does not detonate.
Last winter, a foot of snow was forecast and the grocery store was out of bread, milk and bananas Friday evening. But on Saturday, they were restocked as the snow fell. That tells you how dependent we are on abundant fuel.
How many will die without essential medication? How cold will it get in the winter? You are dealing with a mass starvation scenario if the infrastructure to move food from Kansas and Iowa to the coastal cities will not be functioning. But maybe, just maybe, there is a plan. The military allocates scare fuel to the movement of food. Railroads move back and forth over intact tracks while the military commands the trucks around damaged sections. Despite the suffering, I would like to think society will eventually survive.
The near term aftermath is a very different situation. We must remember how many will survive the nuclear exchange. Bombs on Chicago will leave millions of suburban survivors who will desperately use what fuel they have to drive into the countryside and then what? You get to Iowa and there are very large sections of undamaged territory filled with farmers who are quite well armed and now facing a flood of refugees. Will the military mobilize to keep order? There will be plenty of livestock and animal feed, as well as silos full of cereal grain. But soon the fuel supply will run out. What happens when rail cars full of coal to power plants find the tracks blown apart at the Missouri River? And the port facilities? The big ones will be gone. The only saving grace would be if Red River Landing is spared and the Mississippi River remains where it is and shipments can move north from the gulf. Some cities will be spared, as the missile goes off course or does not detonate.
Last winter, a foot of snow was forecast and the grocery store was out of bread, milk and bananas Friday evening. But on Saturday, they were restocked as the snow fell. That tells you how dependent we are on abundant fuel.
How many will die without essential medication? How cold will it get in the winter? You are dealing with a mass starvation scenario if the infrastructure to move food from Kansas and Iowa to the coastal cities will not be functioning. But maybe, just maybe, there is a plan. The military allocates scare fuel to the movement of food. Railroads move back and forth over intact tracks while the military commands the trucks around damaged sections. Despite the suffering, I would like to think society will eventually survive.
The OP of this thread was about pop culture, the values of society and entertainment. Well, in the near-term aftermath of an apocalyptic war, there is no pop culture, there is only survival. But at some point, society will stabilize and recovery will ensue. Vast stretches or rural and semi-rural America will be intact. Hard copy records will still be there, as electronic data bases were only in their infancy in the eighties. We will again be banking in dollars, though the new ones will have been redefined as old currency had inflated to worthlessness. As of 2019, nobody under the age of 40 remembers the “old life.”
Consider the crisis created by World War 2. The governments (US and UK) took command control of the economy. They told farmers what to grow, factories what to make and wages were controlled. In many ways, Orwell’s 1984 was an extrapolation of the controls of 1944, as he feared economic and personal freedom might not return. But they did return, and did so before that book was published in 1949. And while the post-WW3 version of 1984 will be harrowing, society can recover. So, it is perfectly valid to discuss the values of a society that recovered from a nuclear holocaust some 36 years earlier.
So what is the mood of this ATL 2019? We can assume society has taken on a very anti-war, anti-nuke stand. The American political parties will look more like those of 1976 (cooperation) they those of today. How will the spirit of rugged individualism match with the recognition of the need for infrastructure? By this time, there would be some interest in pre-war entertainment. There might be a culture of speculation as to what the world would be like without the war, perhaps very futuristic and fanciful. Perhaps 2001: A Space Odyssey would be viewed as a realistic projection of that year.
Consider the crisis created by World War 2. The governments (US and UK) took command control of the economy. They told farmers what to grow, factories what to make and wages were controlled. In many ways, Orwell’s 1984 was an extrapolation of the controls of 1944, as he feared economic and personal freedom might not return. But they did return, and did so before that book was published in 1949. And while the post-WW3 version of 1984 will be harrowing, society can recover. So, it is perfectly valid to discuss the values of a society that recovered from a nuclear holocaust some 36 years earlier.
So what is the mood of this ATL 2019? We can assume society has taken on a very anti-war, anti-nuke stand. The American political parties will look more like those of 1976 (cooperation) they those of today. How will the spirit of rugged individualism match with the recognition of the need for infrastructure? By this time, there would be some interest in pre-war entertainment. There might be a culture of speculation as to what the world would be like without the war, perhaps very futuristic and fanciful. Perhaps 2001: A Space Odyssey would be viewed as a realistic projection of that year.
In the immediate aftermath of a nuclear war, there will be no electronic communications, but you would still have some cultural transmission in writing and orally. Eventually (maybe after 40-50 years) things will stabilize to the point that you can begin recreating electronic communications. As for the content of what gets transmitted, I would expect a mixture of total escapism and a bleak emphasis on death and destruction. The closest historical parralel is probably Europe after the Black Death.
In 1983, there was virtually no electronic communication. Some computers used phone modems, but that's about it. Desktop computers were just getting started. Phone lines were around, but long distance calls were expensive and after the nuclear war as described, major hubs would be down for a long time. Postal service? It would be highly interrupted. Keep in mind, major hubs are nuked out. The most "normal" life might be in parts of Iowa or Nebraska, but with sporadic electricity and little fuel. I would think by 1990, essential supply lines would be back and by 2000, a new functioning society would be going. Not until today would you have a stable functioning society.
By electronic communications, I mean radio and television. Basically, people's entertainment for a few years would be sitting around a fire listening to someone recount what he remembers from the plot of Star Wars.
You do know that governments had plans for the aftermath of a nuclear war and that radio was an essential part of them? They may not be making new radios for a few years but there will be radio stations on the air and people listening to them.
The problem is that electricity will be sporadic. Yes, the Emergency Broadcast System was in place and it would be invoked. I live in a community (Quincy, Illinois) that is not a nuclear target. The power plants at Meredosia and Thomas Hill are likely to survive. But what about the coal supply? There's plenty of water in the Mississippi River two miles away, but will the water and the fish be contaminated with the blasts in Minneapolis and Rock Island? So, water will be a problem as rural districts reliant on wells will be needed. I sure hope the emergency planners out there have something worked out. They didn't do so well with Katrina in New Orleans. A few years down the road, the surviving industry will be fully mobilized. Shuttered factories and abandoned slum houses in towns along the Mighty Mississippi will be running again. Shale and limestone from Iowa will be rolling in to the cement plants south of Hannibal, Missouri. Abandoned rail sidings, not yet dismantled, will come back to life. The late eighties will be survival years. The nineties for rebuilding. 2000 will be the symbolic beginning of a new era. Today will see a new version of a stable economy. Each interval will see its own unique flavor of popular culture.
A possible scenario mentioned in Fear Loathing & Gumbo could arise - some out there may have somehow saved older media. Movies from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s (musicals, Westerns, war movies, screwball comedies, classic comedies like the Three Stooges, Little Rascals, Buster Keaton, etc) could be popular to those with access to them; same with TV shows from the 1950s and early 1960s. Besides entertainment and a morale boost to those in a devastated world, the older media can evoke a simpler time where things were happier.
Impossible, you say? Statistically speaking, at least some media would have to survive the massive worldwide nuclear holocaust. Look at a forest fire - it would burn brightly for a brief time and then die out quickly. It misses a lot of the fuel that it could have found if it had burned slower and gives plant-life an opportunity for quick recovery in enriched soil.
Also, while survival would initially be the top priority for any people left, after the first few months when things start to stabilize, people would quickly become bored by "all work and no play". Nobody can spend their whole existence eating, sleeping and working. They will want some sort of entertainment, be it cards, board games, music, television, movies, etc.
Impossible, you say? Statistically speaking, at least some media would have to survive the massive worldwide nuclear holocaust. Look at a forest fire - it would burn brightly for a brief time and then die out quickly. It misses a lot of the fuel that it could have found if it had burned slower and gives plant-life an opportunity for quick recovery in enriched soil.
Also, while survival would initially be the top priority for any people left, after the first few months when things start to stabilize, people would quickly become bored by "all work and no play". Nobody can spend their whole existence eating, sleeping and working. They will want some sort of entertainment, be it cards, board games, music, television, movies, etc.
Last edited:
Kids around a fire while two people act out the "Luke, I am your father" bit from Star Wars
If it takes century's to recover movies might be simply about history for the first generation or 2 because it has all the blue prints you need for a good movie (there must be at least 1 movie about WW2 each year) and for part of the population its educational for others its fun but the culture might push it as a matter of preservation because people may use history as a point of fascination with and the preservation of the old world but also prevent making the same mistakes by learning from history.
- Status