Chernobyl
Chernobyl
Out of context: Reply #56
- Started
- Last post
- 71 Responses
- colin_s-4
https://www.newyorker.com/news/o…
I find it quite distressing that everyone is lauding this show, especially its 'accuracy' - when Emily Mortimer's character was a complete invention. there's a scary trend in American entertainment to want to "learn history" through fictitious stories, actualized for screen drama... we wonder why we have a reality TV show president, well. It makes for great TV.
- Emily Watson, excuse mecolin_s
- it's a single person, ffs ... it's impossible to have a ton of character development if you're going for 100% real people and interactions onlymonospaced
- it's lauded because it's a good show, and happens to be incredibly accurate to history big picturemonospaced
- incredibly accurateshoes
- strange example to get distressed about. It's really good and seems to be well researched and intelligently made.Fax_Benson
- also seems lots of people have actually been intrigued enough to find out the facts, and test how authentic the show really is.Fax_Benson
- Chances are that this fictitious character had experiences that were very likely to have had occurred.monospaced
- lol - Mortimer
To Fax's point, it spurred me to learn as much as I could outside of the show.Vandal7 - DIdn't they explain that her character was an amalgamation of lots of people. There were over 100 dedicated boffins and they can't show them all,Morning_star
- yes, her character was meant to represent the group of scientists/experts that were involved in dealing with the crisis, what's wrong with that?ernexbcn
- People like historic re-creation. Peaky Blinders, Westworld, etc. It’s not about “learning history”, but enjoying efforts to re-create nicer moments thanmaquito
- ...the actual shitty present we live in.maquito
- And besides, the art and cinematography are splendid. Really nice to watch. I enjoyed every single second of it.maquito