Chernobyl miniseries - coming to Sky and HBO in May 2019

Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
31,991
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
I thought this was meant to be true to the events as possible?

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 is a drama rather than a documentary.

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.

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

'10 Times HBO's 'Chernobyl' Got the Science Wrong.'
 
Associate
Joined
2 Jul 2003
Posts
2,436
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.'

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.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Sep 2013
Posts
12,310
More like 'within the general vicinity of the true events, but only when we can be arsed.'
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.

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

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.
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom