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.
Entire parts of the show are made up out of whole cloth. Other parts are massively sensationalized, or distorted. The helicopter crash happened, but not in April and not like that. The Red Forest didn't form overnight.
It's never explained how Khomyuk (who never existed) got access to Jon Snow's raven and was able to freely travel the oblasts at near light-speed.
That all tends to lower the show in my estimation.
That's why it's a drama and not a documentary. Viewers have the ability to understand that. And their own podcast breaks down a lot of what was truth, what was condensed, and what was invented.
From the writer himself:
Spoiler:
The thing about truth is, in its best version, it’s not narrativized, and it’s not viral. What you can do, though, is attract people to a truth through something that is narrative or viral, and then say, “In all honesty, what you have seen is sort of, kind of the truth. But look at all this other stuff.”
That’s why I’m doing the companion podcast. The last thing I ever wanted to say to people was, “Now that you’ve watched this, you know the truth.” No, you don’t. You know some of the truth, and you know some of the stuff that’s been dramatized.
For instance, Legasov was not in that courtroom. The truth is he was not there. But I can’t tell the story without him being there because nobody’s going to want to watch that. They know this guy; they want to hear from him. But it’s important, then, for me to go on the podcast and say, “Okay, but in reality, here’s the real truth-truth, which is not narratively interesting.” So in the context of what you’ve seen, you’re now interested in going further and getting more. And that stuff is not a story. That stuff is just truth.
And ideally, through this, we start to maybe find a new way to present things to people where we’re not so worried as artists, that people are going to question whether or not we, quote-unquote, “got it right.” We can’t get it right; we can only get it sort of right. That’s the best we can do.
But if we can share everything else, including things that challenge or undermine the narrative we presented — because we are dealing with an imperfect process that boils two years down into five hours — then I think they will appreciate what we do more, not less.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/05 15:31:31
So it doesn't lower the show to you, you don't care that it resorted to fiction and you're oddly defensive about it.
All you had to say.
Again, it lowers the show to me, 'cause I prefer to watch something that's complex, believable and well-written rather than something that condescends to me by oversimplifying the story with lies and hackneyed tropes, expecting me to forget the words 'suspension of disbelief' even exist.
It's never explained how Khomyuk (who never existed) got access to Jon Snow's raven and was able to freely travel the oblasts at near light-speed.
It explains it by stating explicitly that she was created to represent the hundreds of scientists across the USSR that played important roles but could not be included in a five hour narrative. That said, she doesn't flit about that much, does she? I'd need to rewatch to check (and don't care so wont) but I thought it was an initial journey between Kiev, Chernobyl, and Moscow over the course of a month and then an unknown number of trips over the course of another 7 or so?
Transpires the show is actually more accurate than I assumed it was. This doesn't change my opinion of what is an utterly tremendous piece of television in either direction.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/05 17:38:57
Excommunicatus wrote: So it doesn't lower the show to you, you don't care that it resorted to fiction and you're oddly defensive about it.
All you had to say.
Again, it lowers the show to me, 'cause I prefer to watch something that's complex, believable and well-written rather than something that condescends to me by oversimplifying the story with lies and hackneyed tropes, expecting me to forget the words 'suspension of disbelief' even exist.
YMMV.
It's significantly more accurate than just about any other comparable show, and the showrunner has taken great pains to research and be transparent about the background and resulting media. Several individuals and groups with first hand context for the event and its effects have given it ringing endorsements for its accuracy in particular.
Excommunicatus wrote: So it doesn't lower the show to you, you don't care that it resorted to fiction and you're oddly defensive about it.
All you had to say.
Again, it lowers the show to me, 'cause I prefer to watch something that's complex, believable and well-written rather than something that condescends to me by oversimplifying the story with lies and hackneyed tropes, expecting me to forget the words 'suspension of disbelief' even exist.
YMMV.
If you're replying to me, I don't understand where any 'odd defensiveness' was in my post. My reply was about how the writer has been remarkably open about what parts were condensed or dramatized for effect. And to be fair, even the most grounded, well-researched documentaries will have their distortions and inaccuracies, some of which are done in the name of brevity and/or watchability not unlike dramas.
I haven't read it yet, but "Voices from Chernobyl" is supposed to be excellent. Perhaps it would scratch your itch better than the show.
I agree, the writers have been very open about the fact they could not/couldn't be bothered to write the show properly so they took liberties and told lies instead.
So?
There is in fact a BBC version of this show, mentioned on the first page, that is vastly, vastly, vastly superior. It tells the story accurately, engagingly and concisely.
As for the audience being able to magically tell the facts from the fiction, I suggest you spend a few minutes having fun with google auto-suggestions to see the kinds of thing that audience is googling.
I'm not saying it's a bad show. I'm saying I didn't care for it, for all the above reasons, and that there are much, much better shows about Chernobyl out there, dramatized or not.
Excommunicatus wrote: I agree, the writers have been very open about the fact they could not/couldn't be bothered to write the show properly so they took liberties and told lies instead.
Or rather made narrative choices with which you disagree. This comes across as hilariously entitled.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/05 21:27:00
Excommunicatus wrote: I agree, the writers have been very open about the fact they could not/couldn't be bothered to write the show properly so they took liberties and told lies instead.
Or rather made narrative choices with which you disagree. This comes across as hilariously entitled.
What's entitled about it?
They're not narrative choices; they're excuses for poor-writing.
Excommunicatus wrote: I agree, the writers have been very open about the fact they could not/couldn't be bothered to write the show properly so they took liberties and told lies instead.
Or rather made narrative choices with which you disagree. This comes across as hilariously entitled.
What's entitled about it?
They're not narrative choices; they're excuses for poor-writing.
There isn't an eye-rolling gif on the internet big enough for this.
I enjoyed the show, I didn’t even feel like I was lied to!
It’s one of the few things I remember from my early childhood in Germany. I remember playing outside and it started to rain, and we had to go into the garage until the rain stopped and our parents were worried about us getting wet with radioactive rain.
So far I've listened to the Podcast first before the show. I know of the events already, and the extra context the Podcast brings for the show's choices is enlightening. Of course now I have to actually watch the program.
I'm fine doing it in this order as its the same with other historical dramas. You know what's going to happen, its how its portrayed why you're watching the show. The Podcast goes into some of the decision making process of the show, though it spends a good amount of time discussing the background of events which are shown and scenes which were deleted (it seems largely as they would bring down the tone, rather than pacing. Being too gruesome for their portrayal - going into the realms of exploitation).
And yet they included multiple scenes of workers, at Chernobyl and at Hospital No. Six, absolutely covered in blood as a result of ARS. Which definitely would not and did not happen. One guy starts heavily bleeding immediately, 'cause he lent on a door. Total arse-gravy.
Meanwhile the Russian media's been discrediting the show, whilst promoting their own one. ...Which puts forward that it was all an American spy's doing. So ah, I know which show's more credible.
Chernobyl's meant to be largely positive towards the Soviet people. Whilst negative towards the themes of governance which led to the disaster. Given that the current Russian leadership are heavily involved with the FSB - the successor the the KGB - its natural that they'd not like the show. Considering that they're practising the same attitudes which the disaster took place within.
The show has been well received by the average Russian / Ukrainian, etc. Its just the Russian State run media which isn't happy with it - citing it as Russiaphobic. Odd considering that the writer of the show said in that Podcast that he tried to avoid that sort of sentiment. Rather its the State run media trying to spin the show as being Russiaphobic as they know they're just as bad as the Soviets were and don't like the perceived criticism.
Meanwhile the Russian media's been discrediting the show, whilst promoting their own one. ...Which puts forward that it was all an American spy's doing. So ah, I know which show's more credible.
The existence of astrology lends no support to the credibility of phrenology.
Meanwhile the Russian media's been discrediting the show, whilst promoting their own one. ...Which puts forward that it was all an American spy's doing. So ah, I know which show's more credible.
The existence of astrology lends no support to the credibility of phrenology.
I think at this point you are just reaching in an attempt to make it seem like a work of fiction should be entirely based on truth. If you cannot separate fact from fiction, you are going to have issues with every drama out there. Every. Single. One.
We all get it, you don't understand the difference between a dramatization and a documentary. I'm not sure another dozen posts belaboring that point are totally warranted.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Excommunicatus wrote: It isn't me who who is having a hard time telling the fact from the fiction, in a show that does not at all bill itself as fiction.
And see, that's the part we apparently need to come back to, Ex. Because you're the one dropping bombshells like 'Khomyuk never existed' as if we didn't already know - as if the showrunners were trying to hide it, and hadn't said she was a composite character multiple times before and after the first episode aired, as it it wasn't explicitly stated at the end of the last episode.
We understand that it is a drama and not a documentary. That its purpose is not to provide a dispassionate factual account of events as agreed upon by authoritative sources, but rather to spend its limited time exploring the human impact of the disaster (drawing largely from Voices from Chernobyl as its source) to engage its audience and make them care about their protagonists' quest to mitigate the damage and track down the cause. In so doing, it convinced hundreds of thousands of people who are more preoccupied with the motives and morality of a fantasy dragon queen than those of their own heads of state and made them care about a nuclear accident that happened before many of them were even born.
Amongst those people, some will seek out more information, they'll see the dispassionate factual account and have a better understanding of the big picture - one they wouldn't have bothered with if the show hadn't piqued their interest. Those that don't pursue it further at least wind up knowing the name Valery Legasov, have a concise and easily repeatable explanation on how RBMK reactors could explode, and maybe, just maybe, an opinion on the value of politically inconvenient scientific knowledge.
Meanwhile the Russian media's been discrediting the show, whilst promoting their own one. ...Which puts forward that it was all an American spy's doing. So ah, I know which show's more credible.
Was going to post that the Soviets, er "private Russian media" are coming out with their own series, focusing on heroic KGB looking for an evilz American Spy. Seriously.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
