Chernobyl

[ill]

 

[gob]

Wood



(My dick wouldn't get radiation would it?)

 

[Mannyrules]

(My dick wouldn't get radiation would it?)

Does it really matter?

 

[R.J. MacReady]

So reality was that she lost the baby due to exposure. In the show they leave it open that she lost the baby due to being exposed by her husband.

But reality could be that she lost the baby due to being in Pripyat and exposed environmentally, as opposed to by visiting her sick husband?

I admit still being confused as to the contagious aspect of radiation.

The show made it appear that the plastic bubble those guys were in was to protect others from radiation exposure.
That is false. Once you have been exposed to radiation and stripped and cleaned of the clothes you had on ...You cannot expose anyone else to radiation. Those guys were in plastic bubbles because of weakened immune symptoms.

It was a great show. I wish it was longer. But the show is full of inaccuracies or parts are just made up.
The lead woman in the show ...she does not exits. The Character is made up.



.

 

[gob]

Does it really matter?

 

[ill]

The show made it appear that the plastic bubble those guys were in was to protect others from radiation exposure.
That is false. Once you have been exposed to radiation and stripped and cleaned of the clothes you had on ...You cannot expose anyone else to radiation. Those guys were in plastic bubbles because of weakened immune symptoms.

It was a great show. I wish it was longer. But the show is full of inaccuracies or parts are just made up.
The lead woman in the show ...she does not exits. The Character is made up.



.

that's your biggest "inaccuracy"?

they explained why they funneled it down to just one scientist. That doesn't make it an inaccuracy.

 

[gob]

that's your biggest "inaccuracy"?

they explained why they funneled it down to just one scientist. That doesn't make it an inaccuracy.

But it would have been more entertaining watching him collaborate with a dozen or so other scientists.

 

[Orlando Eagles]

that's your biggest "inaccuracy"?

they explained why they funneled it down to just one scientist. That doesn't make it an inaccuracy.

This! There is maybe some decision (made to fit the scope of the show) that can be debated. But the show runner has owned her character from the start. And for good reason....it just made sense to have this character helping to tie things together.

 

[Orlando Eagles]

people are stupid

The picture in the upper right is not even recent. That is the old leaky sarcophagus over the plant, not the much larger new one thats been in place for a short bit.

 

[ill]

This! There is maybe some decision (made to fit the scope of the show) that can be debated. But the show runner has owned her character from the start. And for good reason....it just made sense to have this character helping to tie things together.

I think he has an issue with them using a woman to represent the dozen+ scientists because he hates women

 

[R.J. MacReady]

This! There is maybe some decision (made to fit the scope of the show) that can be debated. But the show runner has owned her character from the start. And for good reason....it just made sense to have this character helping to tie things together.

She played a great part. It fit very well into the story line.

But if you make a movie about a real event, you just can't go and rewrite history.


.

 

[ill]

She played a great part. It fit very well into the story line.

But if you make a movie about a real event, you just can't go and rewrite history.


.

so by not using a bunch of Russian scientists that you never knew the names of or will ever remember?

who cares? They aren't important to the story and just makes it more confusing.

 

[gob]

She played a great part. It fit very well into the story line.

But if you make a movie about a real event, you just can't go and rewrite history.


.

Negates every movie (not documentary) ever made...ever

 

[Orlando Eagles]

She played a great part. It fit very well into the story line.

But if you make a movie about a real event, you just can't go and rewrite history.


.

I can see viewing this as rewriting history. I just prefer to see it what it actually is....a dramatic device.

Script writers use them when they have a finite time to work with. While this series was 5 whole hours, that’s still finite.

If I were concerned with perception of rewriting history I would not be stuck on Khomyuk. I would be stuck on how the trial that was 1/5 of the series was something that neither Legasov, Sherbina or Khomyuk was even at.

 

[BusSport]

Russia isn't a fan, however:

AVClub: "Russia Hates HBO's Chernobyl, Decides to Make Its Own Series" Focusing on Conspiracy Theory That American Spies Sabotaged Reactor

To add to that:

"Russian Communist Party Calls for Ban of HBO's Miniseries Chernobyl"

 

[ill]

You know when you can't hear your speakers, and you keep turning various volume controls up higher and higher in confusion, and then someone hits the mute button and there's a deafening blast of sound? That's basically what happened at Chernobyl.

 

[YankeeRebel]

I thought this was great.

 

[wazzu31]

Negates every movie (not documentary) ever made...ever

Well, I mean Philly did take Chuck Wepner’s life story and built a statue in his honor.

 

[Cowboyinexile]

Great show. It was truly compelling.

 

[night]

I enjoyed the series quite a bit. I don't know the history of it well enough to comment on the accuracy. That being said, it was a gripping story.