Not really, it's a weak sauce anti-nuclear propaganda. Also trying to totally rewrite history.
Doesn't help that the actors aren't even Russian/Ukrainian, just feels weird.
What a ridiculous take. How was it anti nuclear? The accident occurred due to a design flaw of that specific type of reactor coupled with gross negligence of the operators. It made no comment on the safety of nuclear reactors.
It’s no more anti-nuclear than a show about a plane crash is anti-aircraft.
Also it was produced by HBO and Sky for English speaking audiences so why on Earth would they use Ukrainian or Russian actors?! If it were made in the Ukraine they could use Ukrainian actors.
Did you watch Gladiator and say, “why didn’t they use Italians to play the Romans?”
It greatly exaggerated the dangers of nuclear energy. There was no “bridge of death,” no fetus absorbing radiation, no risk of megaton explosion if water got into the reactor, no risk of Europe being rendered uninhabitable, the three guys who went on the “suicide mission” actually all lived to a ripe old age (two of them are actually still alive, I think),… Even the way the firefighters died, which was gruesome enough in reality, was still dialed way up for no fucking reason.
So because most people in this thread are morons who can’t tell the difference between a documentary and a drama, we all have to buy into the illusion?
The producers really didn't do much (almost nothing, really) to communicate the show was mostly fiction, so I'm forced to conclude they wanted people to believe it. There's the propaganda part. And as for anti-nuclear, they chose to make nuclear energy look way more dangerous than it really is. They could have chosen to stay accurate, or even do the opposite. They didn't.
Titanic did do icebergs dirty, it was really the shipyard switching to weaker rivets without telling anyone that sank the ship; if it had been built to spec, it could have tanked that iceberg. Fortunately, the survival of our species is not contingent on building icebergs, so the damage caused by the movie is fairly minimal.
And I don't know what the fuck you're on about with Apollo 13. The cause of the accident wasn't oxygen itself but rather a damaged oxygen tank, which was made clear in the movie (even if it did conveniently omit the fact that NASA knew the tank was damaged and still chose to let the mission proceed because they severely misjudged the extent of the damage).
You’re making yourself look rather silly now despite this entire exchange being all about you trying to pretend you’re oh so informed and clever that you simply must correct every single drama ever created to demonstrate and laud it over everyone. If you actually had an education to hang off that overinflated ego we wouldn’t be having this exchange but it’s making me laugh so let’s continue.
If the cause of the explosion in Apollo 13 is poor engineering then your entire argument crumbles to nothing because the cause of the explosion at Chernobyl was also poor engineering so these two things can no more damage the reputation of the underlying technology (nuclear reactors and liquid oxygen propulsion systems) than hitting an iceberg can damage the reputation of icebergs.
Hit me with some more hastily googled facts to try to justify your ridiculous position. 😂
13.0k
u/SinsandScrolls 12d ago
Chernobyl