Is this meme appropriate to use when
?
You can’t just leave it there and not elaborate what the inaccuracies were.
Here’s a podcast from the show writers on the compromises and consolidations they needed to do for the mini series.
- The reactor’s kill switch worked fine, but another reactor reacted to it
- None of the Soviet’s spoke fluent BBC english at the time
- All the scientists were squashed into a single organism called “supafrique” who was the main antagonist
- The level of radiation blasted into the atmosphere was greatly exaggerated by captain planet
- Superman sealed up the hole in less than 10 minutes
- Chernobyl is actually pronounced “Churro-nob-yell”
- Everyone who was underwater and worked to kill the reactor actually gained telepathy later on
- It was actually hard to write this list. This was a great tragedy.
Check out this YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@thatchernobylguy2915
That’s a historical drama, not a documentary, tho. Like complaining about vikings or gladiator or whatever.
You are indeed correct, some artistic freedom is definitely expected from that kind of series. But relying on Russian propaganda sources and making Legasov a hero doesn’t qualify as artistic freedom but misinformation. Also the representation of the soviet reality was at least inaccurate - my dad who was raised in the former soviet block summarised it as “representing how Americans think it was not how it truly was”.
Chernobyl is a good and very interesting series and it’s good that it raises at least some awareness about the catastrophe. But imo it could be more technically and historically accurate without losing its attractiveness.
Ever since my father told the teen me that “based on a true story” doesn’t mean it’s a documentary I stopped watching those things altogether, since then I only engage with historical fiction if it’s so out there it’s obvious it’s not real.
That’s a pretty narrow way to cut yourself off from a LOT of great storytelling.
Some works will outright lie about it. For example, the TV show and movie Fargo specifically tell you it’s a true story, and even that names have been changed but ‘the rest has been told exactly as it happened’.
To me that’s weird. It doesn’t really add to the end result in my opinion, but would breed distrust when people discovered it was wholly fictional.
Still, even with things that are meant to be accurate portrayal of an event, it’s always good to check the facts. Hollywood just can’t help but fiddle with reality to tell a more interesting story, even when it doesn’t need it.
Yeah, that wording is so misleading. “Inspired by real events” is the more accurate wording, but I feel like I haven’t seen anything with that in ages.
“Inspired by” is way more loose than “dramatization of historical events”. The former can be pretty much anything even loosely based on some idea, but the latter has a more strict set of rules, although still rather subjective.
Chernobyl was definitely a dramatization, not just “inspired by”. It really did tell the events much as they happened, only taking liberties in things that truly required it for the show to work as drama. Like one thing they did was replace what was a large panel of scientists with one character who made the points the panel did. Does that take away from the veracity of the events? I think not much at least.
Is this a Chernobyl joke?
are we talking about the HBO show? The one that’s not a documentary?
yeah, i too like that documentary.
