Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Funny old world, speaking of Chernobyl and nuclear disaster films.

Family is from Edinburgh (mostly). My Mum’s cousin, Jerry, dabbled in acting in her youth, and landed a role in a BBC production called ‘The War Game’, partially filmed in a tiny town in West Kent called Tonbridge.

That was in the 60’s. Fast forward to 1991, and my (ahem) nuclear family moved from Edinburgh to that very town.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I'm not sure how that changes anything, honestly.

Several other production companies have managed to make compelling and accurate shows about Chernobyl, what does it say about this guy and his crew that he and they feel they have to resort to outright fiction to make it viewable? Who doesn't he trust? Himself, or his audience?

There is a BBC show called 'Surviving Disaster - Chernobyl' which stars Adrian 'Vivian' Edmondson as Valeriy Legasov, which is less than an hour long, which imparts all the same factual information, which does not feel the need to invent characters with superpowers and which is vastly superior to HBO's stab in the dark.

On the flip side, this is partially based on USSR records right? Trustworthy source there...
Also isn't the entire region still quarantined off?

I'm also just kind of confused, cause the HBO series embellishes sure, but it's fairly accurate to the history for a show that wasn't shooting for documentary. Most of the events in the show did happen, just not necessarily in the order shown or at the hands of the characters involved with a fair amount of embellishment here and there. As far as a dramatic tv shows, it gets most of the broad strokes right. Probably the most nakedly inaccurate part of the series is its depiction of internal Soviet politics, which in the show are very "western Cold War mentality" in depiction.

 AduroT wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Worst Comic Series: the Punisher 2099 relaunch seems pretty terrible so far.

Having just finished Doomsday Clock, I'd like to retract that above statement.

I feel that part of the letdown of Doomsday clock was that they had 3-4 months between issues, they over-hyped the heck out of it, and the ending was less than "OMFG!!!". If this was a monthly release as a general crossover it would have been all right.

I was generally alright with how it ended. I was also rather amused by him listing off future DC reboots and a Marvel crossover. The horribly delays in its writing was unforgivable though. The first couple issues Were monthly, but they keep getting further and further apart.

Loved the ending and given what it was, I'm glad they didn't compromise the creative team to have it out on time. One of DC's big strengths is that its events are generally satisfying on their own merits. I rarely read them out of a need to know how they'll affect the universe moving forward and DDC is no exception.

Necessarily it is partially based on records from the CCCP, yes.

Mostly not, though.

I'm pretty much entirely restrained in going any further by the 'no politics' diktat.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I'm not sure how that changes anything, honestly.

Several other production companies have managed to make compelling and accurate shows about Chernobyl, what does it say about this guy and his crew that he and they feel they have to resort to outright fiction to make it viewable? Who doesn't he trust? Himself, or his audience?

There is a BBC show called 'Surviving Disaster - Chernobyl' which stars Adrian 'Vivian' Edmondson as Valeriy Legasov, which is less than an hour long, which imparts all the same factual information, which does not feel the need to invent characters with superpowers and which is vastly superior to HBO's stab in the dark.

On the flip side, this is partially based on USSR records right? Trustworthy source there...
Also isn't the entire region still quarantined off?

I'm also just kind of confused, cause the HBO series embellishes sure, but it's fairly accurate to the history for a show that wasn't shooting for documentary. Most of the events in the show did happen, just not necessarily in the order shown or at the hands of the characters involved with a fair amount of embellishment here and there. As far as a dramatic tv shows, it gets most of the broad strokes right. Probably the most nakedly inaccurate part of the series is its depiction of internal Soviet politics, which in the show are very "western Cold War mentality" in depiction.

Disagree. Inventing Ulana Khomyuk and endowing her with superpowers to allow her to act as the conscious of a Western audience was by far the most egregious liberty taken, IMO. Or how about when the show depicts Lyudmila [Patronymic Unknown] Ignatenko - a real person who is really still alive - casually killing her unborn child for a few hours with Vasiliy? That didn't happen (per Ignatenko), doctors say it's utterly impossible (being exposed to radiation doesn't make you radioactive yourself) and it has led to her receiving real-life abuse and harassment as a child-killer.

IMO, the whisker-thin veneer of historical veracity is actually worse than if it was just openly nonsense. We now have an entire generation of people in the English-speaking world who got everything they know about Chernobyl from five hours of corporate media product.

It's not a good look.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

IMO, the whisker-thin veneer of historical veracity is actually worse than if it was just openly nonsense. We now have an entire generation of people in the English-speaking world who got everything they know about Chernobyl from five hours of corporate media product.

Indeed, as well as a ton of misinformation about radiation and nuclear power in general. People are already profoundly ignorant on the subject, misinformation doesn't help.

 John Prins wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

IMO, the whisker-thin veneer of historical veracity is actually worse than if it was just openly nonsense. We now have an entire generation of people in the English-speaking world who got everything they know about Chernobyl from five hours of corporate media product.

Indeed, as well as a ton of misinformation about radiation and nuclear power in general. People are already profoundly ignorant on the subject, misinformation doesn't help.

This is not a criticism. Can you point me to something public with good information? I read the Wiki on it. I remember watching the videos of the helicopter and the guys on the roof throwing materials over the side.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Disagree. Inventing Ulana Khomyuk and endowing her with superpowers to allow her to act as the conscious of a Western audience was by far the most egregious liberty taken, IMO.

The series directly notes in its end sequence that Ulana Khomyuk is a fictional character standing in for the hundreds of Soviet scientists who were helping with Chernobyl. I don't think that's all that great a sin, cause a six episode series doesn't really have room too juggle a bunch of one off characters. I do agree she speaks with a bizarrely western look on things, but that kind of backs the main character's progression through the story which is itself somewhat accurate so *shrug*

Anyone looking at a TV drama for accuracy is looking in the wrong place. On the whole, Chernobyl is one of the least offenders I can thing of.

Or how about when the show depicts Lyudmila [Patronymic Unknown] Ignatenko - a real person who is really still alive - casually killing her unborn child for a few hours with Vasiliy? That didn't happen (per Ignatenko), doctors say it's utterly impossible (being exposed to radiation doesn't make you radioactive yourself) and it has led to her receiving real-life abuse and harassment as a child-killer.

Okay, people keep saying this all over the place, and all I can ask is did you bother looking this up yourself? This has spread throughout the internet, and all I can say is do your research.

Natasha Ignatenko died hours after being born due to radiation because her pregnant mother hung around her dying father. Here's an article about it from 2011.

Two months after Vasily died, his 23-year-old bride rode back up to Moscow by train to visit his grave. She was eight and a half months pregnant. While talking to his spirit at the cemetery, she went into labour.

She named their baby girl Natashenka — the name he’d chosen. The infant died four hours later of cirrhosis of the liver and congenital heart disease.

The army took her body too.

This story is famous (or infamous). HBO didn't make it up, and I have no idea how the series has managed to spawn something bordering on a conspiracy theory about it.

The baby in fact did die. Her story is probably the most accurate in the entire series cause the producers actually sat and interviewed Mrs. Ignatenko for it. EDIT: I have after poking around, found that there is apparently a dispute between Mrs. Ignatenko and HBO. She accuses them of never getting her permission to tell her story. HBO counters that "regional representatives" had multiple meetings with her to talk about it and she never expressed opposition to the story being told. I wonder if maybe she was mislead by the people she was talking to, but I've found not one rebuttal of the fundamental story by the woman. At worst she complains about donkey-caves going after her and being complete dicks, which really sucks. She's been harasses about this story ever since it first appeared in print 30 years ago. You'd think people would have better things to do with their time.

No, a human body itself doesn't become radioactive just by being exposed to radiation. But firefighters who first responded to the fire, such as Ignatenko, at the plant inhaled radioactive dust and smoke. They inhaled so much of it that it got stuck in their systems and the techniques to counteract that were completely untested then. The sun is radioactive, but just strolling by isn't going to make you a walking biohazard. Breath in enough radioactive dust however, and you basically are because your body is carrying irradiated material everywhere you go. Most of the firefighters who died were the first responders who got real close and inhaled lethal radioactive dust that no one could get out of them.

The series didn't make that up. At worst the series bungles the explanation by leaving it to a single line from a random nurse character.

We now have an entire generation of people in the English-speaking world who got everything they know about Chernobyl from five hours of corporate media product.

It's not a good look.

People will be stupid about radiation with or without a TV series to give them a reason. It's not really a criticism of the series so much as the human species.

Best Series, The Boys

Best Movie, Parasite (Korean) or maybe Knives Out or Ready or Not... but I might be forgetting something from earlier in 2019.

Worst movie? 6 Underground was pretty disappointing and TBH Hellboy was better than the last golden army installment... dunno how this could be worst of yr year but OK...

 LordofHats wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Disagree. Inventing Ulana Khomyuk and endowing her with superpowers to allow her to act as the conscious of a Western audience was by far the most egregious liberty taken, IMO.

The series directly notes in its end sequence that Ulana Khomyuk is a fictional character standing in for the hundreds of Soviet scientists who were helping with Chernobyl. I don't think that's all that great a sin, cause a six episode series doesn't really have room too juggle a bunch of one off characters. I do agree she speaks with a bizarrely western look on things, but that kind of backs the main character's progression through the story which is itself somewhat accurate so *shrug*

Anyone looking at a TV drama for accuracy is looking in the wrong place. On the whole, Chernobyl is one of the least offenders I can thing of.

Or how about when the show depicts Lyudmila [Patronymic Unknown] Ignatenko - a real person who is really still alive - casually killing her unborn child for a few hours with Vasiliy? That didn't happen (per Ignatenko), doctors say it's utterly impossible (being exposed to radiation doesn't make you radioactive yourself) and it has led to her receiving real-life abuse and harassment as a child-killer.

Okay, people keep saying this all over the place, and all I can ask is did you bother looking this up yourself? This has spread throughout the internet, and all I can say is do your research.

Natasha Ignatenko died hours after being born due to radiation because her pregnant mother hung around her dying father. Here's an article about it from 2011.

Two months after Vasily died, his 23-year-old bride rode back up to Moscow by train to visit his grave. She was eight and a half months pregnant. While talking to his spirit at the cemetery, she went into labour.

She named their baby girl Natashenka — the name he’d chosen. The infant died four hours later of cirrhosis of the liver and congenital heart disease.

The army took her body too.

This story is famous (or infamous). HBO didn't make it up, and I have no idea how the series has managed to spawn something bordering on a conspiracy theory about it.

The baby in fact did die. Her story is probably the most accurate in the entire series cause the producers actually sat and interviewed Mrs. Ignatenko for it. EDIT: I have after poking around, found that there is apparently a dispute between Mrs. Ignatenko and HBO. She accuses them of never getting her permission to tell her story. HBO counters that "regional representatives" had multiple meetings with her to talk about it and she never expressed opposition to the story being told. I wonder if maybe she was mislead by the people she was talking to, but I've found not one rebuttal of the fundamental story by the woman. At worst she complains about donkey-caves going after her and being complete dicks, which really sucks. She's been harasses about this story ever since it first appeared in print 30 years ago. You'd think people would have better things to do with their time.

No, a human body itself doesn't become radioactive just by being exposed to radiation. But firefighters who first responded to the fire, such as Ignatenko, at the plant inhaled radioactive dust and smoke. They inhaled so much of it that it got stuck in their systems and the techniques to counteract that were completely untested then. The sun is radioactive, but just strolling by isn't going to make you a walking biohazard. Breath in enough radioactive dust however, and you basically are because your body is carrying irradiated material everywhere you go. Most of the firefighters who died were the first responders who got real close and inhaled lethal radioactive dust that no one could get out of them.

The series didn't make that up. At worst the series bungles the explanation by leaving it to a single line from a random nurse character.

We now have an entire generation of people in the English-speaking world who got everything they know about Chernobyl from five hours of corporate media product.

It's not a good look.

People will be stupid about radiation with or without a TV series to give them a reason. It's not really a criticism of the series so much as the human species.

Res ipsa loquitur.

This is what happens when you learn history from HBO. Your whole spiel is riddled with inaccuracy.

It also relies largely on a strawman. I didn't say Natashenka survived. I'm well aware she died. Four days later, FYI, not four hours. I'm saying Lyudmila didn't kill her; which the show depicts her doing. Knowingly and casually.

Again, 'Surviving Disaster - Chernobyl' manages to do in less than one hour exactly what you claim HBO could not do in five hours and it did it without resorting to cheap, lazy tricks. The historical inaccuracies are not an inevitable result of the format; they are conscious decisions taken, IMO, to let a bad show with bad writers off the hook.

 Excommunicatus wrote:


Res ipsa loquitur.

Oh look latin. Clearly, you are unquestionable and right.

It also relies largely on a strawman. I didn't say Natashenka survived.

For a guy who can quote some sick latin lines, you're memory is really damn shot.

And I quote;

That didn't happen (per Ignatenko)

This woman has done dozens of interviews, spoken to numerous authors, and appeared in several documentaries. I have found not a single one where she denies the cause of her daughter's death. Produce it if you have it. She's regularly said in interviews she didn't know the effects of radiation, and admitted she lied to doctors who warned her about being near her husband (I don't see why she'd make that up). Radioactive material doesn't just flutter away. It doesn't magically become unradioactive by virtue of being in the not designed for it radiation barrier that is the human body. One of the biggest risks of these kinds of disasters is inhalation.* Inhale that gak and it stays in you and just keep irradiating. She was directly warned of this and lied to radiologists about being pregnant. I think people are being donkey-caves hounding her to the point she has to move out of her home, but the women herself doesn't deny what happened in anything I've seen.

*EDIT: I'm just going to cite the CDC which literally says this.

Four days later, FYI, not four hours.

This interview says hours. So does this one, which cites Svetlana Alexievich's 1997 oral history. I have found a few that say four days though, including a BBC documentary. The conflict is probably the product of conflicting witness testimony. From what I can tell Ignatenko says hours.

I'm saying Lyudmila didn't kill her; which the show depicts her doing. Knowingly and casually.

Because her actions did kill the baby. The heart and liver defects Natasha was born with have been irrevocably linked to radiation exposure, and of the 30+ people who died in the immediate aftermath of the disaster only one was baby who went nowhere near the reactor complex.

You need to get over yourself and do your research.

IMO, to let a bad show with bad writers off the hook.

Quot homines tot sententiae

Alrighty.

Accurate sources correcting pretty much all those claims are freely available via a search engine of preference.

There's nothing to be gained from veering this thread further off-topic in these circumstances.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Accurate sources correcting pretty much all those claims are freely available via a search engine of preference.

I don't see them, and I'm on page 10 of search results. Maybe don't spread inaccuracies about lethal radiation that's still killing people today if it offends you so much, cause I thought you were talking out your ass before.

There's nothing to be gained from veering this thread further off-topic in these circumstances.

Now I know it. Run along. It's only the second time I've found you on these boards blatantly talking out your ass about radiation and how it kills people.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:


Res ipsa loquitur.

Oh look latin. Clearly, you are unquestionable and right.

God that fething killed me. Well played, lord of hats.

To the topic at hand, I'd say...

Favorite film: I guess I'd have to say Endgame? i don't think I watched anything this year that really blew my mind. I didn't enjoy Endgame as much as I wanted to, but I liked it more than anything else I saw I think.

Favorite TV series: I think I have to go with Chernobyl on this one. Really captivating stuff. Man in the High Castle gets an honorable mention, though I haven't yet watched the most recent season.

Worst TV series: Thrones. I know it's easy but it's so deserved. What an abomination.

Worst film: Rise of Skywalker. Haven't laughed so much through a movie since The Hangover. Very entertaining, though I suspect not in the way JJ intended.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Accurate sources correcting pretty much all those claims are freely available via a search engine of preference.

I don't see them, and I'm on page 10 of search results. Maybe don't spread inaccuracies about lethal radiation that's still killing people today if it offends you so much, cause I thought you were talking out your ass before.

There's nothing to be gained from veering this thread further off-topic in these circumstances.

Now I know it. Run along. It's only the second time I've found you on these boards blatantly talking out your ass about radiation and how it kills people.

If you like, dear.

 Frazzled wrote:

 John Prins wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

IMO, the whisker-thin veneer of historical veracity is actually worse than if it was just openly nonsense. We now have an entire generation of people in the English-speaking world who got everything they know about Chernobyl from five hours of corporate media product.

Indeed, as well as a ton of misinformation about radiation and nuclear power in general. People are already profoundly ignorant on the subject, misinformation doesn't help.

This is not a criticism. Can you point me to something public with good information? I read the Wiki on it. I remember watching the videos of the helicopter and the guys on the roof throwing materials over the side.

Here's the UN Chernobyl report. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/chernobyl.pdf

Nightlord1987 wrote:Walked out of: Terminator. Knives Out. Jumanji 2.

What?! I really quite enjoyed Knives Out! I don’t believe I’ve yet heard a single other person who didn’t.

LunarSol wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Worst Comic Series: the Punisher 2099 relaunch seems pretty terrible so far.

Having just finished Doomsday Clock, I'd like to retract that above statement.

I feel that part of the letdown of Doomsday clock was that they had 3-4 months between issues, they over-hyped the heck out of it, and the ending was less than "OMFG!!!". If this was a monthly release as a general crossover it would have been all right.

I was generally alright with how it ended. I was also rather amused by him listing off future DC reboots and a Marvel crossover. The horribly delays in its writing was unforgivable though. The first couple issues Were monthly, but they keep getting further and further apart.

Loved the ending and given what it was, I'm glad they didn't compromise the creative team to have it out on time. One of DC's big strengths is that its events are generally satisfying on their own merits. I rarely read them out of a need to know how they'll affect the universe moving forward and DDC is no exception.

My issue with the way drawn out specials is when they initially have other books referencing the goings on, but then the main book drags out so bad that those tie ins get left hanging. Doomsday Clock started out main universe story stuff with the lead in, but obviously didn’t finish that way.

Here is my half arsed list.

Best Film: Endgame. Entertaining and was probably the best ending to a series of films in a long time. Not perfect, but a lot better than I was expecting.

Best TV Series: Gonna have to say Chernonbl. Well shot, acted and tried to stay in the relms of fact. Was it perfect? No. Was it better than anything else? Yes.

Worst Film: The latest Terminator. What a massive disappointment. Far to idealistic in its message and as a result, the whole thing was a shambles. It only narrowly beat Rise of the Skywalker, but only because RotS entertained while being crap, than being boring AND crap.

Worst TV Series: The war of the worlds. First two episodes were great. Deviated from the book but as a whole solid. Then episode 3 spoiled the lot by being a crap ending. A shame.

 AduroT wrote:

My issue with the way drawn out specials is when they initially have other books referencing the goings on, but then the main book drags out so bad that those tie ins get left hanging. Doomsday Clock started out main universe story stuff with the lead in, but obviously didn’t finish that way.

The series started with Batman in a new costume that put it so far ahead of the the current Batman comics it wasn't really worth following that way. Obviously, it ended far after, and has a clunky problem because DC decided to alter City of Bane awkwardly to retcon a resurrection, but.... honestly DC doesn't have all that much overlapping continuity lately. Maybe I'm just reading the wrong books, but Batman and Green Lantern have been in significant bubbles lately. Watchmen is a "crossover" but it clearly wasn't affecting other stories in real time and was fine being in a bubble of its own for all I cared.

 LunarSol wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

My issue with the way drawn out specials is when they initially have other books referencing the goings on, but then the main book drags out so bad that those tie ins get left hanging. Doomsday Clock started out main universe story stuff with the lead in, but obviously didn’t finish that way.

The series started with Batman in a new costume that put it so far ahead of the the current Batman comics it wasn't really worth following that way. Obviously, it ended far after, and has a clunky problem because DC decided to alter City of Bane awkwardly to retcon a resurrection, but.... honestly DC doesn't have all that much overlapping continuity lately. Maybe I'm just reading the wrong books, but Batman and Green Lantern have been in significant bubbles lately. Watchmen is a "crossover" but it clearly wasn't affecting other stories in real time and was fine being in a bubble of its own for all I cared.

I mostly just read the Batman’s and the Superman’s at the moment from DC, and they don’t hugely cross over so much as they just repeatedly reference what’s going on in the others. Like in Superman hell comment that he was busy doing the thing, and mention current events from Action Comics.