Debunking the Myths of the HBO Chernobyl series (2023)

It was a well-done show. I've re-watched it a couple of times. The actors are excellent, and it's well-done.

I take it for granted that a lot of it was amped up for drama, but other sources (several documentaries) seem to agree on a lot of the actions and timelines. The show added motivations, and some fictional characters.

I also enjoyed Dopesick, and that's a subject that I have direct experience and knowledge of. I have pretty much the same issues with that show.

But I still enjoyed both of them as dramas.

If I want facts, I'll do my own research.

It's funny that this series seems as if it is being confused as a documentary. It was a dramatic telling of a story. Creative licensing was in full effect. The first item in the "Series VS tapes: point by point" is a very common use of that creative licensing. Trying to follow multiple people in a work like this gets tiring and a bit boring. The details are kept, but it's easier to follow when those multiple people are written as one character. It's why the term "littleuns" was used in Lord of The Flies as the individuals were not important to the story, just the fact they were there and needed to be considered allowed the story to not get bogged down.

The series was also told completely in ~8 hours of content, yet this event clearly took longer than 8 hours to play out. Why no critique on that?

> Legasov commended the swiftness and efficiency of the government response at all levels

Sure, but in those times, he would be compelled to say such things. That doesn't mean he believed it.

It seems the main faults that OP finds in the show are that Legasov had issues with his government, when in "reality" he thought they were great. But is that "reality," or oppression?

I also don't see the fault in highlighting him as the "main" scientist; it's a show.

To be honest, I find most of these inconsistencies to be inconsequential for enjoying the film. The ones that really get to me though are the dramatic overestimates on the devastation caused by Chernobyl, and the effects of the radiation itself. Most of the effect of the film comes from this belief that the radiation really is that dangerous. When you know it isn't, it takes quite a bit away from the premise.

I'm currently writing my own expose on the historical inaccuracies in the Harry Potter series.

It's a dramatization, of course there are going to be liberties taken and creative license used to further the (TFA might say contrived) story.

One thing not mentioned in TFA, though, is how those suffering from radiation sickness (first responders like the firefighter Ignatenko, etc.) are portrayed almost as if they are contagious, and so should not be touched. The Chernobyl series is not the only one to do this, either, and it can lead to viewers thinking radiation sickness is something you can "catch" from someone else.

I don't know why they never make it clear that it's for the sake of the sickened themselves that contact should be minimized (assuming all contaminated clothing etc. has already been discarded), since their immune and other internal systems are totally compromised by radiation poisoning.

I think we need to also debunk the debunking.

You know, some of us were already living then and it is not some distant event we have no knowledge of.

For example:

> Re: The soviet government did not want to evacuate the town of Pripyat

> Debunking: Legasov indicated the opposite. He said that the decision to evacuate was made quickly, even though the levels of radiation in the town were not considered to be dangerous.

WTF? The level of radiation was not considered to be dangerous when your reactor was blown open? Are you fucking kidding?

> Re: The government made an effort to conceal everything regarding the accident and what was happening.

> Legasov stated that this was not the case, and that information was not provided at the time because it didn't exist. The situation was very confusing, and information was scarce, coming from multiple conflicting sources and estimates, making it difficult to collect, filter, and access the correct information.

The accident happened on 26 April 1986, and on the 1st of May, _4 days later_ there was a celebration of Labour Day - a mandatory parade in Kyiv within just 100 km. And no-one knew about the disaster from the official sources. Only people with access to foreign radio knew about the disaster, others were happily marching with red flags on the streets breathing polluted air.

And so on, and so forth...

He claims that they had all the equipment ready and knew the actual levels, but at the same time were confused and information was scarce, and the level of radiation were not that bad - it this some type of propaganda for the dumb?

This kind of "for the drama" variance is very common. Look at archaeologists reaction to Coogans film about Richard III which went to court.

Films, even documentary, don't always get it right and often don't even try because "based on" admits a lot of change.

People often don't understand history. "The KGB regiments shot deserters in ww2 Stalingrad" since the KGB was formed in 1954, that's a serious mis-statement of history. Should we be surprised the role of soviet structural agencies is misunderstood by an american dramatisation? (This kgb comment is a generalisation for illustration not a dig at anything in the doco)

Still. It's a pretty egregious list.

At the end of the day, creators want an entertaining show and that usually requires intrigue, interpersonal conflict, character growth, good vs. evil, etc.

Biopics/dramatizations of events often bring multiple minor characters together into a single person.

I would be more bothered by the change of small details irrelevant to the narrative than I am by larger character changes. I would prefer that the mainline details stay the same - chain of events, impact to the town, aftermath - but I am not watching the series in order to write a paper. I appreciate the articles which document the fiction vs. reality of historical dramas, but I do not share in any anger. Then again, I'm not related to anyone whose character was represented in the series.