I agree. As long as the facts are not misrepresented to make that political message (which they weren't in this show as far as I can tell). That ruins everything, IMO.bobinator said:
Yeah that's fine. I don't really want to argue about what messages we were supposed to take away from the show because that's kind of missing the point. All I'm saying is the show can have a political message AND also be a great show that was committed to the truth of the original event.
I don't think those two are mutually exclusive.
"Don't compromise on the truth" is not really a political lesson. It's a moral lesson that BOTH political parties have a huge problem with.aTmAg said:If the overt lesson was meant to be, "don't compromise on the truth" then I doubt anybody would disagree with that sentiment. Perhaps those within the producer's political bubble think that clearly means to warn against Trump, but for the rest of us who live in the real world it means something completely different.bobinator said:
Sure, it could, but the fact that they chose to end the series on that particular line sure seems to indicate that they wanted the audience to think about the 'lessons of Chernobyl' (said right before these words) and ask themselves if we've actually learned any of them.
That seems like a pretty blatant comment on the current state of affairs if you ask me. That's not exactly reading between the lines or anything.
Now, how people choose to interpret those lessons and what their 'truth' is is debatable of course.
If he was trying to bash Trump, then he failed miserably. If anything, it's a great example on the evils of big government, which is 180 degrees from the producers ideology. I guess that is what tends to happen when the focus of the show is on presenting the facts.
I agree both sides have a problem with it, but there is a difference in degree. For example, lying about how many people showed up at an inauguration is far less damaging than lying about being able to "keep your health plan" if you like it, but that is not an argument for this thread.BQCadet said:"Don't compromise on the truth" is not really a political lesson. It's a moral lesson that BOTH political parties have a huge problem with.aTmAg said:If the overt lesson was meant to be, "don't compromise on the truth" then I doubt anybody would disagree with that sentiment. Perhaps those within the producer's political bubble think that clearly means to warn against Trump, but for the rest of us who live in the real world it means something completely different.bobinator said:
Sure, it could, but the fact that they chose to end the series on that particular line sure seems to indicate that they wanted the audience to think about the 'lessons of Chernobyl' (said right before these words) and ask themselves if we've actually learned any of them.
That seems like a pretty blatant comment on the current state of affairs if you ask me. That's not exactly reading between the lines or anything.
Now, how people choose to interpret those lessons and what their 'truth' is is debatable of course.
If he was trying to bash Trump, then he failed miserably. If anything, it's a great example on the evils of big government, which is 180 degrees from the producers ideology. I guess that is what tends to happen when the focus of the show is on presenting the facts.
While I agree with the transparency in government as a lesson it isn't the whole lesson. The real lesson is truth and intellectual honestly. Political correctness and terms like "settled science" are just as dangerous. When anyone that states something that is uncomfortable or disagreeable is shouted down simply for the statement that's a problem. If they are calmly and rationally discussed and facts are separated as right or wrong even if they are uncomfortable or against conventional thought. The goal should be facts, logic and truth win out and the open discussion of ideas is the way to get there whether it is Right or Left, Liberal or Conservative, Republican or Democrat, or whatever else.bobinator said:
Yeah I'm not really arguing about what it means or how effective it was, I'm just saying that I disagree that the show had nothing "to with do with modern America and our current political climate."
I think it very much had to do with it. The consequences of lying or obfuscating the truth, of lack of transparency in the government, the need to place blame instead of fixing the problem, etc, etc. I think these are all things that resonate with our current political climate.
I think that's part of what makes the show great. It took something that happened in a place that's very easy to think of as an 'other.' The Soviet Union was so vastly different from the U.S. that it's easy to think 'nothing like that could ever happen here.' But that's the message that the director wanted to convey. (To me) It could happen here if we aren't vigilant. The further people get from the truth, the less we demand transparency of the government, the less of a commitment we have to the truth, the more likely it makes a disaster like this to happen.
Great photo series. The radiation chart helped me put the doses in perspective. I'll never be scared of a cellphone again.yukmonkey said:
Here's a great photo overview of the whole situation. Some really crazy shots in there: https://imgur.com/a/TwY6q
I can't recommend this enough. Shows what an amazing job the show/crew did at replicating everything, from the looks of the town/people to the reality of the disasteryukmonkey said:
Here's a great photo overview of the whole situation. Some really crazy shots in there: https://imgur.com/a/TwY6q
Huh? I found that tweet funny because I remember thinking it was funny that that Russian soldier scurried up there to move the mic.mazzag said:
Why is this blue starred?
Edit to Add. It's Hollywood... And a fictional recount of true events. Done well... but collapsed for TV drama...
I wonder why they (seemingly) went so hardcore on accuracy in previous episodes, but took so many liberties with this one?Teddy Perkins said:
Legasov wasn't even at the real trial according to the podcast.
Yeah, they kind of combined two different things into one thing for the show. The trial, and this big 'come to jesus' meeting about the soviet nuclear program that Gorbachev had around the same time. If I'm recalling right, at that meeting it was Gorbachev himself who was often asking different people in the room if other people in the room were telling the whole truth.Teddy Perkins said:
Legasov wasn't even at the real trial according to the podcast.
For those still curious about Mazin's "political activist" angle, I looked up his IMDB and lets just say his background before this is the definition of non-political Hollywood popcorn humor. He is the writer of Hangover 2 and 3, Scary Movie 3 & 4, and Rocketman (not the Elton John biopic, but the Harland Williams "comedy"). What a career pivot by him to make this fantastic show.TCTTS said:
For those "concerned" with Mazin's comments, re: Trump and all that crap, it's worth listening to Mazin's interview yesterday from The Big Picture podcast at The Ringer. The interview starts around 37:30, and at one point Fennessey broaches the political angle, and Mazin briefly talks about it all in a way I don't think anyone here will have a problem with. Seems fairly both sides-ish/level-headed. Really good interview all around...
https://www.theringer.com/2019/6/3/18651729/a-chernobyl-deep-dive-with-creator-craig-mazin-and-mallory-rubin
Yeah, the show is still great, and I've recommended it to a bunch of people. I probably will watch it again soon.NukeAg10 said:
Honestly, my guess is so that they could dumb down explaining how a reactor works and how it all went down, while using a character everyone had grown to enjoy and respect through the past four episodes. It's Hollywood, so they're still going to dramatize and change things. That doesn't change how great the episode was.
Edit to say that I really enjoyed it as someone who has spent my last six years in the Navy learning about and operating reactors on a carrier. The same principles apply with fission and whatnot of course, but those RMBK reactors were much different than ours, so I loved hearing it explained.
Talked to my dad about this last night who has worked at STP since it opened and in high positions. He said that the backup generators are stored in water-tight buildings that sit 26 - 29' above sea level. That were designed in the scenario of a direct hit by a Category 4 hurricane, with flooding that included every dam along the Colorado river giving way.pocketrockets06 said:
As far as the plant in Matagorda and it's prep for Harvey, the plant ran through it with its storm crew. That facility is designed to still be safe with the entire site under 15' of water from a dam failure. Below is an article that even has positive comments about their prep from the Union of Concerned Scientists who are usually anti nuke.
https://www.tpr.org/post/how-did-south-texas-project-nuclear-power-plant-weather-harvey
In the podcast I think Mazin said it was going to be difficult to bring in a bunch of characters who the audience wasn't vested in to lead the trial scenes. He was worried they would lose people.aTmAg said:I wonder why they (seemingly) went so hardcore on accuracy in previous episodes, but took so many liberties with this one?Teddy Perkins said:
Legasov wasn't even at the real trial according to the podcast.
You could not have understood those tweets any less.mazzag said:
Why is this blue starred?
Edit to Add. It's Hollywood... And a fictional recount of true events. Done well... but collapsed for TV drama...
I read it yesterday as well and had the same thought. the title of the article - what the show got TERRIBLY wrong - makes it sound as if there were all of these egregious errors, when the text of the article really just listed a bunch of nuanced things about the Soviet Union that weren't really portrayed. the article even admits that it would be hard to demonstrate on filmTCTTS said:
I started to read that article yesterday and I was like, "Wait, this is what you're griping about?" Seems like fairly inconsequential stuff, or yeah, impossible to include.
Ranger222 said:Talked to my dad about this last night who has worked at STP since it opened and in high positions. He said that the backup generators are stored in water-tight buildings that sit 26 - 29' above sea level. That were designed in the scenario of a direct hit by a Category 4 hurricane, with flooding that included every dam along the Colorado river giving way.pocketrockets06 said:
As far as the plant in Matagorda and it's prep for Harvey, the plant ran through it with its storm crew. That facility is designed to still be safe with the entire site under 15' of water from a dam failure. Below is an article that even has positive comments about their prep from the Union of Concerned Scientists who are usually anti nuke.
https://www.tpr.org/post/how-did-south-texas-project-nuclear-power-plant-weather-harvey
We also talked about the speed at which those backup generators can turn on -- they talked in the last episode how it would take a minute before the diesel generators kicked on (thus the reason for the safety test). At STP they turn on in 5-6 seconds, with injection into the reactor not occurring until 25-30 seconds.
He also made the comment that while Chernobyl was bad, Fu--kushima is much, much worse of a disaster as multiple cores melted down compared to the just one at Chernobyl. However, the Chernobyl explosion was an aerosol explosion, with almost all of the radionuclides being dispersed in the air. A lot of the contamination at Fu---kushima was released into the seawater aside from some aerosolized due to a hydrogen explosion. Thus, there has been less coverage because the threat wasn't as visible as Chernobyl, however the story might change in time.
