[TV] Chernobyl - TV series

[Stat Brother]

If you were talking about the show runner, I did read his responses to the criticisms of the show. I was still left with the nagging thing that too much was changed to live up the standards of Legasov’s speech on truth. No different to any historical drama of course

Honest to god I promise I'm not being an arse for arses sake.

But as someone who has listened too and championed the listening to the best part of 5 hours of the show runner discussing, in intrinsic detail, the writing process of a fantastic series.
It's tough to discuss the end result with someone who's read a few replies to some criticism.

At the end of the day it was a TV programme.
A programme that was painstakingly researched.
Possibly containing considerably more fact than you've been lead to believe.
But a TV programme nevertheless which had to make compromises, like creating an entirely fictitious character to represent 20 or so other main players.
Or how it goes about explaining nuclear reactors to thickos like me.

 

[Normal Rob]

The first two episodes were definitely the best thing I saw this year, by episode 5 I’d started to read commentaries about how much the writers had added and embellished and it put a damper on it for me. The issue was the show held up such a high standard of historical truth and the terrible nature of blurring invention and reality to a point where you don’t know the difference. The fact is when people remember Chernobyl they will now remember this TV drama instead of the real history, it’s an irony

Not sure I fully get your point but I'm fairly sure it's bollocks in an attempt to be contrarian.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Official report 31 dead but it could be 96000? Ffs

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

 

[London Irish]

Honest to god I promise I'm not being an arse for arses sake.

But as someone who has listened too and championed the listening to the best part of 5 hours of the show runner discussing, in intrinsic detail, the writing process of a fantastic series.
It's tough to discuss the end result with someone who's read a few replies to some criticism.

At the end of the day it was a TV programme.
A programme that was painstakingly researched.
Possibly containing considerably more fact than you've been lead to believe.
But a TV programme nevertheless which had to make compromises, like creating an entirely fictitious character to represent 20 or so other main players.
Or how it goes about explaining nuclear reactors to thickos like me.

I’ve got a different opinion to you. Is that ok? think the amount of fiction in the show jarred very strongly with Legasov’s speech on the nature of truth at the trial in episode 5, which he never made because he wasn’t even there in real life. Now you can be bothered by that or not, and debate that out. But to suggest it’s illegitimate or wrong to be bothered about that I think is a bit much, but I don’t know if you are suggesting that.

As I said I’m not knocking the show for the sake of it. I already said the first 2 episodes were my favourite watch of this year so far, so I think that’s high praise. At the start of episode 3 I felt a bit manipulated that the divers were fine as the final scenes of episode 2 appeared very much to signal their deaths. It was a over theatrical cliffhanger that again didn’t fit well for me with the very serious moral themes of the show.

The show was a fine achievement but also a flawed one at the same time. We don’t all have to think the same way, another point I think the show was trying to make.

 

[London Irish]

Not sure I fully get your point but I'm fairly sure it's bollocks in an attempt to be contrarian.

Good for you Mr Normal

 

[Stat Brother]

I’ve got a different opinion to you. Is that ok? think the amount of fiction in the show jarred very strongly with Legasov’s speech on the nature of truth at the trial in episode 5, which he never made because he wasn’t even there in real life. Now you can be bothered by that or not, and debate that out. But to suggest it’s illegitimate or wrong to be bothered about that I think is a bit much, but I don’t know if you are suggesting that.

As I said I’m not knocking the show for the sake of it. I already said the first 2 episodes were my favourite watch of this year so far, so I think that’s high praise. At the start of episode 3 I felt a bit manipulated that the divers were fine as the final scenes of episode 2 appeared very much to signal their deaths. It was a over theatrical cliffhanger that again didn’t fit well for me with the very serious moral themes of the show.

The show was a fine achievement but also a flawed one at the same time. We don’t all have to think the same way, another point I think the show was trying to make.

No that's not the point.

It's fine to disagree my point is:-

You are seemingly disagreeing because of some third party criticism and a comparatively short summary of the rebuttal.
I'm saying here's a full, frank and open discussion centered around the complexities of making this TV show, which goes some way to explaining what was truth, 'TV' truth and 'TV' fiction.

There's every probability you could listen to the podcast and it strengthen your opinion, which does have some merit.



If you prefer:-

Currently you're believing what's written on the bus.
I'm believing 40 years of sound economic union and growth. .

 

[dazzer6666]

I’ve got a different opinion to you. Is that ok? think the amount of fiction in the show jarred very strongly with Legasov’s speech on the nature of truth at the trial in episode 5, which he never made because he wasn’t even there in real life. Now you can be bothered by that or not, and debate that out. But to suggest it’s illegitimate or wrong to be bothered about that I think is a bit much, but I don’t know if you are suggesting that.

As I said I’m not knocking the show for the sake of it. I already said the first 2 episodes were my favourite watch of this year so far, so I think that’s high praise. At the start of episode 3 I felt a bit manipulated that the divers were fine as the final scenes of episode 2 appeared very much to signal their deaths. It was a over theatrical cliffhanger that again didn’t fit well for me with the very serious moral themes of the show.

The show was a fine achievement but also a flawed one at the same time. We don’t all have to think the same way, another point I think the show was trying to make.

Wouldn’t be at all surprised if the divers WERE told they faced almost certain death.......that they didn’t is frankly amazing.

 

[Lethargic]

Wouldn’t be at all surprised if the divers WERE told they faced almost certain death.......that they didn’t is frankly amazing.

According to the surviving diver they were told it was essentially a suicide mission but he felt it was his obligation to do it. Obviously he could be painting a hero's picture for himself but a pretty sound source.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Just finished watching it.

Not great not terrible

 

[Normal Rob]

Just finished watching it.

Not great not terrible

I pity you as i believe that you will spend the whole of your life a little disappointed.

 

[London Irish]

Wouldn’t be at all surprised if the divers WERE told they faced almost certain death.......that they didn’t is frankly amazing.

Yep I get that bit, it was laid on pretty thick for a lot of episode 2. My issue was separate to that, the Batman style cliffhanger ending at the end of episode 2 when you are manipulated into thinking they are dead. Episode 3 starts and ummm, the day is saved, they get out some spare flashlights. Ok.

Just too out of keeping with the otherwise serious tone of the show, these kind of shlocky borrowings from horror/thriller genres didn’t work for me

 

[London Irish]

No that's not the point.

It's fine to disagree my point is:-

You are seemingly disagreeing because of some third party criticism and a comparatively short summary of the rebuttal.
I'm saying here's a full, frank and open discussion centered around the complexities of making this TV show, which goes some way to explaining what was truth, 'TV' truth and 'TV' fiction.

There's every probability you could listen to the podcast and it strengthen your opinion, which does have some merit.



If you prefer:-

Currently you're believing what's written on the bus.
I'm believing 40 years of sound economic union and growth. .

Genuinely baffled. What criticism isn’t third party criticism? Are they going to dig up Legasov’s bones and ask him what he thinks?

Some of the book author sources that the showrunner used have also voiced implicit criticisms of the show.

Think I’m up to reading about a dozen articles positive and negative on the show and still wondering when I’m going to be allowed to form an opinion.

I’m not picking on the show runner, everything I’m saying applies in some degree also to every other historical dramas from Shakespeare onwards.

What is particularly problematic in this instance is the high bar this show sets itself in stating how terrible it is when you forget what is real and what is invention. A speech many will now think Legasov made, but which was an invention

 

[Easy 10]

Yep I get that bit, it was laid on pretty thick for a lot of episode 2. My issue was separate to that, the Batman style cliffhanger ending at the end of episode 2 when you are manipulated into thinking they are dead. Episode 3 starts and ummm, the day is saved, they get out some spare flashlights. Ok.

Just too out of keeping with the otherwise serious tone of the show, these kind of shlocky borrowings from horror/thriller genres didn’t work for me

But ultimately is IS a TV drama designed and presented as a piece of entertainment, not a dry by-the-numbers documentary.

Its like when people criticised the film Bohemian Rhapsody, because it played a little fast and loose with the facts and chronology of Freddy Mercury and Queen. Some artistic licence can always be expected, some facts will be skewed to help the narrative of the film.

I certainly came away from the Chernobyl series knowing far more about the events of the disaster than I ever knew before. If they bent the truth a little here and there for dramatic effect then so be it - its a drama, not a documentary.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

But ultimately is IS a TV drama designed and presented as a piece of entertainment, not a dry by-the-numbers documentary.

Its like when people criticised the film Bohemian Rhapsody, because it played a little fast and loose with the facts and chronology of Freddy Mercury and Queen. Some artistic licence can always be expected, some facts will be skewed to help the narrative of the film.

I certainly came away from the Chernobyl series knowing far more about the events of the disaster than I ever knew before. If they bent the truth a little here and there for dramatic effect then so be it - its a drama, not a documentary.

[emoji106]

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

 

[Stat Brother]

But ultimately is IS a TV drama designed and presented as a piece of entertainment, not a dry by-the-numbers documentary.

Its like when people criticised the film Bohemian Rhapsody, because it played a little fast and loose with the facts and chronology of Freddy Mercury and Queen. Some artistic licence can always be expected, some facts will be skewed to help the narrative of the film.

I certainly came away from the Chernobyl series knowing far more about the events of the disaster than I ever knew before. If they bent the truth a little here and there for dramatic effect then so be it - its a drama, not a documentary.

I came away from the podcast with a good understanding of where and why the TV programme took 'liberties'.
But to me, more importantly than that, I also came away with far more factual knowledge than ever before.

 

[London Irish]

But ultimately is IS a TV drama designed and presented as a piece of entertainment, not a dry by-the-numbers documentary.

Its like when people criticised the film Bohemian Rhapsody, because it played a little fast and loose with the facts and chronology of Freddy Mercury and Queen. Some artistic licence can always be expected, some facts will be skewed to help the narrative of the film.

I certainly came away from the Chernobyl series knowing far more about the events of the disaster than I ever knew before. If they bent the truth a little here and there for dramatic effect then so be it - its a drama, not a documentary.

But isn't that the point, Freddie Mercury is entertainment so if you apply entertainment techniques to his life, shrugged shoulders who cares. But Chernobyl?

I take your point that the show will massively increase extra study and real knowledge of the disaster. But many will not bother and live on with Hollywood fairytales in their heads and think them real. It's a difficult trade off.

 

[Easy 10]

But isn't that the point, Freddie Mercury is entertainment so if you apply entertainment techniques to his life, shrugged shoulders who cares. But Chernobyl?

I take your point that the show will massively increase extra study and real knowledge of the disaster. But many will not bother and live on with Hollywood fairytales in their heads and think them real. It's a difficult trade off.

I don't think they took any massive liberties with Chernobyl though. In fact its received high praise from Slava Malamud, a journalist who grew up in Moldova during the time of the disaster, and who's stepfather was involved in the liquidation programme and evacuation at Pripyat. Its an interesting read.

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2019/05/30/i-was-there-and-i-don-t-want-to-watch-this-anymore

Here he talks about the accuracy of the Chernobyl TV series, compared with what many Russian film-makers do:

"Why don’t Russian screenwriters respect their own history as much as some American from Brooklyn? My colleagues talked to the writers [of those Russian sports movies], and they said: hey, we’re not making a documentary film here. But there’s a difference between artistic license and the unabashed distortion of facts and details. I think Craig Mazin understands the boundary here, whereas Russian screenwriters deliberately overstep it, for their own reasons. It probably has something to do with politics or whatever messages they want to communicate. But Mazin, who had no motivation to invent his own version of events, decided by virtue of his own convictions to create a high-quality product." [Mazin told The Chernobyl Podcast that the show’s extreme attention to detail is meant as a tribute to the nuclear disaster’s survivors.]

Personally, when watching a TV series or movie about real events, I have in mind that not everything will necessarily be 100% accurate, because its not a narrated documentary but an interpretation. From what I've read following watching Chernobyl though, I'm satisfied that its a pretty close depiction of the real events that happened.

 

[Nathan]

Watched the final episode last night, amazing TV. Will check out the podcasts to find out more about some of the decisions made to make the show.

Can't wait for season 2.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Under 2 days left now to watch this on NowTV Entertainment.

Well worth it.

 

[Stat Brother]

Apropos of nothing:-

Cool History
@history2cool

The radiation levels at Chernobyl was so high after the blast that it destroyed the film in cameras within a short period of time...the haze along the bottom of this photo is the radiation messing with the camera.