Chernobyl miniseries - coming to Sky and HBO in May 2019

Looks like there are more podcasts on the way. I'm glad I stayed subscribed to that feed.
 
Started watching this. Production values are through the roof; it looks and sounds amazing. But the atrocious historical and scientific inaccuracies are really grinding my gears.
 
Jimbeam3678 said:
I thought this was meant to be true to the events as possible?
Click to expand...

More like 'within the general vicinity of the true events, but only when we can be arsed.'

For example, they portray people with radiation sickness as 'contagious' and capable of passing it on to others. That is absolutely not true.

They show a party official threatening to throw a scientist out of a helicopter. IN 1986! Those kinds of shenanigans hadn't happened since the 1930s.

Destination said:
It is a drama rather than a documentary.
Click to expand...

It could still have been an accurate drama. There's simply no excuse for some of the nonsense they try to get away with.

They incorporate many scientists into one created character and say as much in their final credits.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that, it's the least of their problems.

'10 Times HBO's 'Chernobyl' Got the Science Wrong.'
 
Evangelion said:
More like 'within the general vicinity of the true events, but only when we can be arsed.'

For example, they portray people with radiation sickness as 'contagious' and capable of passing it on to others. That is absolutely not true.

They show a party official threatening to throw a scientist out of a helicopter. IN 1986! Those kinds of shenanigans hadn't happened since the 1930s.

It could still have been an accurate drama. There's simply no excuse for some of the nonsense they try to get away with.

I have no problem with that, it's the least of their problems.

'10 Times HBO's 'Chernobyl' Got the Science Wrong.'
Click to expand...

A lot of that list isn't the show getting the science wrong, some of it is purely conjecture too... just because the heat sink the miners put in may not have been needed or the divers may or may not have needed to go in doesn't mean they didn't do those things and also think it was absolutely critical for it to be done at the time. Despite thinking there was a risk it would lead to an early death.

Where did it show victims as contagious? It made a point of showing their irradiated clothes were dangerous and the most severe cases were kept in isolation. Again, was the show taking liberties here or did the doctors/nurses think at the time it might not be prudent for a heavily pregnant woman to be next to someone with severe radiation poisoning? I'm guessing the latter.

The only real liberty imo was the chopper crash, which did happen but for a different reason. Sounds like you need to finish watching it and then watch their summary at the end.

And the Soviet party hadn't gotten up to any naughty shenanigans since the 30s?!? Stalin says lol.
 
Evangelion said:
More like 'within the general vicinity of the true events, but only when we can be arsed.'
Click to expand...
Part of the problem is that there are many cases of conflicting official versions and also first hand accounts of what did or did not happen.
When faced with such things, they generally went with the most substantiated version, but did try to keep things to first-hand accounts wherever possible.

Evangelion said:
For example, they portray people with radiation sickness as 'contagious' and capable of passing it on to others. That is absolutely not true.
Click to expand...
Well, that's not absolutely true...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2006/11/is-radiation-sickness-contagious.html
"That means that anyone who came into contact with his urine, feces, or sweat might be at risk."

Evangelion said:
They show a party official threatening to throw a scientist out of a helicopter. IN 1986! Those kinds of shenanigans hadn't happened since the 1930s.
Click to expand...
Scherbina would probably have threatened to have him fired, but the social impact of that in 1980s Soviet culture would likely have had no meaning to a modern Western audience. Instead they used a trope that would have been understood.
Same for having that fat minister at the Minsk party HQ - No-one would have been that fat and still able to function in Soviet society, but the character is a literary stereotype that has been around since Falstaff and serves to illustrate things that may not be apparent to those not already familiar with the society and culture. Same for Dyatlov being such a bell-end. He wasn't (well, not outright), but the intricacies of his character would have taken too long to establish for such a short drama.
But that's why it's a drama and not an all-out documentary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom