Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Now Playing on /mtv/tube -

What did y’all think of Chernobyl?

Reply
- Thu, 20 Jun 2019 13:46:07 EST bJDqR/V8 No.408214
File: 1561052767771.jpg -(77669B / 75.85KB, 678x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. What did y’all think of Chernobyl?
I know it ended a couple weeks ago, but I went a few pages back and couldn’t find a thread for it.

I thought it was pretty much flawless. I’ve heard some criticisms of its accuracy Like scherbina would have never threatened an established member of the soviet science community like legasov out of a helicopter, this was 1986, not 1946; and that a speech like that at the show trial by legasov would have never happened. But pretty much all sources agree they got the setting of Pripyat and the lives of its citizens right on target, and they were some of the most compelling parts.

I’d be interested to hear from people who think it’s overrated though, considering how much critical fellatio it’s getting.
>>
The Joker - Thu, 20 Jun 2019 17:16:11 EST qBF1usAu No.408216 Reply
It's pretty great. I think the biggest criticism I have is about the mix of exacting accuracy and creative license. The tagline is "What is the cost of lies?" and it's praised for its realism and accuracy. Maybe they should have towed that line a little harder. Oh well, it's still good. Reportedly, a Russian TV company is kicking around the idea of a Chernobyl series where the CIA is responsible for the disaster. While you wait for that train wreck, here are some videos you can watch:

>Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster Surviving Disaster [Full] (BBC Documentary Series)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk3-XUe0oEU

>Why Chernobyl Exploded - The Real Physics Behind The Reactor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3d3rzFTrLg

>Inside RADIOACTIVE Basement Prypjat Hospital CHERNOBYL Firefighter Clothes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4g3FkXUhx0

>The Babushkas of Chernobyl (2015)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBPIbFJeE98

>The Last House In The Chernobyl Village
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcOS4q0RD-w
>>
Dipper Pines - Thu, 20 Jun 2019 18:25:50 EST zx1q0Nl5 No.408217 Reply
>>408216
Of course Russians would like that.

Fuckers. They had 30 years to cleanup Chernobyl, with French help after the Soviet Union fell. And all they did was line their own pockets.

The moment the Ukrainians kicked all pro-Russian politicians out in 2014, they finished "30 years of planning" in what three, four years?
>>
Max Rockatansky - Thu, 20 Jun 2019 19:20:46 EST RrFeXdjJ No.408220 Reply
>Reportedly, a Russian TV company is kicking around the idea of a Chernobyl series where the CIA is responsible
In Russian media, they are calling Chernobyl HBO propaganda. It's sort of unforgivable of them to do so; you can be critical of the events portrayed, but to outright lie that it happened doesn't instill confidence that they take responsibility for anything
>>
Tom Baker - Thu, 20 Jun 2019 20:51:32 EST zIMNQ80B No.408225 Reply
Just started the first episode and holy shit the accents. We they not aware that there are actors in Ukraine? This is going to take a bit to get used to.
>>
The Re-animator - Thu, 20 Jun 2019 21:10:31 EST bJDqR/V8 No.408226 Reply
>>408225
I thought it was a great decision to just stick with the accents the actors had. Much better than hack Russian accents, or trying to fill the whole cast with exclusively Ukrainian actors. Have you seen Death of Stalin? Granted that’s a farce, but I had no problem with Steve Buscemi just talking like Steve Buscemi. Same with Jared Harris as Legasov in this, and all the rest of the cast. You’ll get used to it.
>>
Legolas - Thu, 20 Jun 2019 21:24:41 EST +rKPQS4x No.408227 Reply
>>408225
This is very typical for a British production. And it's not a Ukrainian story. The central characters are Russian and Belorussian with other characters coming from all over the Soviet Union.
>>
Murray Futterman - Thu, 20 Jun 2019 21:54:33 EST RrFeXdjJ No.408230 Reply
>>408225
Nobody wants to hear fake russian accents. This series is an historic dramatization and an effective allegory, not a ken burns documentary
>>
Peregrin 'Pippin' Took - Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:27:35 EST XVrowht5 No.408231 Reply
>>408230
>Nobody wants to hear fake russian accents.
That's why I said Ukrainian actors.
>>
Murray Futterman - Thu, 20 Jun 2019 23:14:34 EST RrFeXdjJ No.408233 Reply
>>408231
Just stop watching. The series clearly isn't meant for you. Go watch the actual documentary on the Chernobyl disaster
>>
Terry Jones - Thu, 20 Jun 2019 23:48:34 EST iVzJdsXO No.408234 Reply
>>408233
>Just stop watching.
You must have missed where I said I would be getting used to it. That barely even registers as criticism, and your panties are getting knotted up.
>>
Vic Vinegar - Fri, 21 Jun 2019 05:08:00 EST +NJfiIXF No.408236 Reply
Show looks boring as shit and I assume all the "acclaim" it gets is just because it's currently hip to shit on Russia (not that they don't deserve it)
>>
Tetsuo Shima - Fri, 21 Jun 2019 05:45:00 EST +OFZtSYI No.408237 Reply
>>408236
Only if you reduce it to it's most basic form.

It takes a narrative view about a horrible man-made disaster in our near-past and presents it in a way that sufficiently horrifies the viewer. It's not anti-Trump or any of the shit you're alluding to.
>>
The Re-animator - Fri, 21 Jun 2019 06:03:13 EST bJDqR/V8 No.408238 Reply
>>408236
Boring is the only criticism levied against it I won’t stand for. You may find it over-politicized, or inaccurate, or maybe you don’t give a shit about its story, but in its bones the show is full of hellish tension, body horror, secrecy, mystery, etc. If you said, like, Downton Abbey was boring, I’d disagree, but I could definitely see how people could find it sterile and poncey. This show doesn’t go that route at all.
>>
Vic Vinegar - Fri, 21 Jun 2019 06:12:08 EST +NJfiIXF No.408239 Reply
>>408238
I mean, I said up front that I haven't seen it and it just "looks boring". TV shows based on the news always strike me as something I'll be bored through since I feel I already know the spoilers of what will happen. Like what's the fun in a 9/11 movie when you know the tower is 100% going to fall, no chance of them maybe saving it at the last second?

Another reason I've avoided this show is the fact that it's already ranked as the IMDV top show of all time. I hate reactionary high ratings for newer series, when even if the show might be good, there's no fucking way it's actually The Wire level good. Plus it's a miniseries instead of a standard TV show so honestly it shouldnt even get listed on IMDB's TV list, this thing is a long movie (from what i hear, maybe HBO will get greedy and make season 2 now that it's a hit)
>>
Murray Futterman - Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:45:48 EST RrFeXdjJ No.408243 Reply
>>408240
I enjoy that image. The best thing about having a smart tv is just watching shows as they come, well before their saturation into the public mind. Seeing chernobyl first before the acclaim and funny memes makes sense. Watching the memes and critical praise before seeing the series would actually irk me. With tv apps, that never really becomes the case anymore
>>
Alyson Hannigan - Fri, 21 Jun 2019 17:35:56 EST 85CKJa+i No.408252 Reply
>>408214
Chernobyl is of course, impeccable drama and the greatest fucking thing HBO has done in years besides the Deadwood movie.

But MY GOD the resurgence of overblown proejections about the damage is disgusting.
People are taking all of the worst-case scenario shit as gospel and it's probably also overblown from what they actually said, who knows?
But since I'm not an expert I'll be quick: The Uranium they used in that reactor was not only not weapons grade, it was PARTICULARLY unrefined, which they mention in Chernobyl. You almost certainly can't get a thermonuclear detonation out of it and even if containment and cooling efforts had failed it wouldn't have rendered half of Europe uninhabitable for 100 fucking years. It certainly wouldn't have blown up FUCKING MINSK.

The containment efforts were obviously extremely important as the limited explosive power of the radioactive slag would have thrown a HELL of a lot more dangerous material into the atmosphere and done a huge amount of damage and killed many more people. It ultimately would have leeched into groundwater and the river which was the real serious threat of the disaster.

But cheapo soviet reactor fuel is by far the least likely to cause a devastating nuclear explosion. That part of it was bullshit.

I watched a fucking youtube video with a bagillion views that said the elephant's foot is "slowly eating through the concrete and if it ever reaches the water below it will RESULT IN A THERMONUCLEAR EXPLOSION"

How fucking stupid sensationalist can you be? That fucking thing is room temp. The most dangerous byproducts of the meltdown in it decayed years ago and what's left is past its half-life at this point. HOW DO YOU GET A THERMONUCLEAR EXPLOSION AT ROOM TEMP DIPSHIT? THE CLUE IS IN THE WORD THERMO.

Anyway I'm far to worked up about this. Contamination is a very real threat and that's what the recently completed and STUNNINGLY expensive containment efforts were for. Fearmongering is fucking despicable.

Chernobyl's a great show though. But the main thing to take away from it isn't a doomsday attitude about nuclear. It's that Soviets were fucking heroic too when they needed to be. Salute those comrades.
>>
Alyson Hannigan - Fri, 21 Jun 2019 18:08:51 EST 85CKJa+i No.408253 Reply
>>408252
>You almost certainly can't get a thermonuclear detonation out of it

I may have misspoken here, as there is a credible theory that the explosion that blew up the reactor and plumbing actually WAS a small thermonuclear detonation and not simply steam overpressure, though ultimately the result is the same. It's a subject of a lot of conjecture but it's very possible and if I paid more attention in university I might be able to speculate how explosive soviet reactor fuel would be based on all of the math I forgot immediately the next semester.

Oh well though. If we got any physicists on the board I'd love to hear more about it in detail.
>>
Krusty the Clown - Fri, 21 Jun 2019 20:21:41 EST RrFeXdjJ No.408255 Reply
>>408253
Honestly shut the fuck up. There were people who died in scotland because of chernobyl and I'm supposed to take your word because you took university physics? Lol get fucked, you have your head so far up your ass that even you took yourself by surprised. Reading your posts is like seeing someone supremely unqualifiec becoming immediately self conscious about declaring themselves an authority on something they themselves haven't been convinced of. It's as if you suddenly realized that shooting off bullshit on 420chan is only once removed from doing so in real life, and how horribly mocked you would be for doing so
>>
Louis C.K. - Fri, 21 Jun 2019 20:37:45 EST rnRTQdNm No.408256 Reply
>>408252
>The Uranium they used in that reactor was not only not weapons grade, it was PARTICULARLY unrefined, which they mention in Chernobyl. You almost certainly can't get a thermonuclear detonation out of it and even if containment and cooling efforts had failed it wouldn't have rendered half of Europe uninhabitable for 100 fucking years. It certainly wouldn't have blown up FUCKING MINSK.
I don't think they had any idea how much fuel was melting down or what it would look like for it to boil all that water. I can believe there was enough *energy* to fuck Kiev's shit up, maybe Mink too. I don't know. If the blast vaporized the fuel in the other reactors though, it would have done a hell of a job in Europe.

>I watched a fucking youtube video with a bagillion views that said the elephant's foot is "slowly eating through the concrete and if it ever reaches the water below it will RESULT IN A THERMONUCLEAR EXPLOSION"
The first problem is you're watching a shitty youtube video. The second problem is that people don't know the difference between a thermal explosion with nuclear material and a thermonuclear explosion.

>>408253
The theory is that the fuel became prompt critical. The only difference between this and an atomic bomb is that bombs are engineered to use up their fissile material before they fling themselves apart. This does not however make it thermonuclear, short for thermonuclear FUSION also known as the power of the fucking sun.

>>408255
Knock it off with them negative waves.
>>
Pier Paolo Pasolini - Fri, 21 Jun 2019 21:04:13 EST 85CKJa+i No.408257 Reply
>>408255
>There were people who died in scotland because of chernobyl

Bullshit. Nobody died of acute radiation poisoning from that shit outside the soviet union.

If you're blaming cancer on chernobyl, you DEFINITELY don't get to say fuck off. That's a statistically significant, but not provably causal link.

>you have your head so far up your ass
Not remotely as much as doomsday pop science dipshits making money off megasensationalism.

>horribly mocked you would be for doing so
The thing about that is I would be mocked by a misinformed mob with no basis for doing so, as their undestanding is no more valid than mine.
A scientist who understands the physics and mathematical models wouldn't mock me without attempting an explanation.
So explain, bitch. Or STFU. You don't get to defer to popular opinion as if it's some kind of scientific authority. It fucking isn't.

>>408256
> I can believe there was enough *energy* to fuck Kiev's shit up, maybe Mink too
It's not about the energy, it's about how quick and self-sustaining the regulation is. But the highly unrefined fuel itself when starts melting and boiling regulates the reaction (which admittedly is otherwise out of control) There just isn't enough density of reactive atoms in the isotope they used. It's all about the chances of the neutrons hitting the right atoms, and the probability is nothing like it is for weapons grade or even refined fuel.

And Minsk is so far away they wouldn't have even heard the blast. You could drop a fat man and a little boy on Pripyat and they wouldn't have heard it in Minsk.

THE ENTIRE ISSUE WAS ABOUT CONTAMIATION. CONTAMINATION COULD HAVE KILLED MILLIONS AND MILLIONS and poisoned a main water supply.

All this hubbub about the enormous explosion is bullshit and you actually don't have to be that well versed in physics to figure that out if you understand the history of the RBMK reactors and materials involved.

Plus if the theory is true that the explosion was actually a small thermonuclear event, that disproves the idea that it would go off like a nuclear bomb.

>This does not however make it thermonuclear, short for thermonuclear FUSION
We can't do very useful things with fusion. It's thermonuclear fission in this and just about every case.

The problem of the material blasting itself apart before it can react is a big problem if you're predicting a thermal explosion of the nature they were in Chernobyl.
It certainly would have caused a great deal more damage, but the hubbub is orders of magnitude beyond realistic. Beyond a worst-case scenario even.

But that's not the point of the piece. The point is "What is the cost of lies" Well what is it? Should we be more accurate in the telling? Probably. It's not quite as dramatic but in my opinion it doesn't diminish the heroism of those who risked and sacrificed their lives to protect millions of others.
They didn't have to save half of Europe to be that heroic. They're fucking megachads as it is.
>>
Louis C.K. - Fri, 21 Jun 2019 21:30:23 EST rnRTQdNm No.408258 Reply
>>408257
  1. If you're so sure, show your work.
  2. What the fuck is thermonuclear fission, school boy?
>>
Sean McNamara - Sat, 22 Jun 2019 18:38:26 EST Rz2Izdon No.408277 Reply
>>408257
Why didn't they hire you as a consultant. I mean surely they knew they wouldn't get all this incorrect information passed the great Pier Paolo Pasolini
>>
Scatterbrain Jane - Sat, 22 Jun 2019 18:46:55 EST nMqqAR8c No.408278 Reply
1561243615640.jpg -(368892B / 360.25KB, 1920x3969) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Fukushima miniseries when?
>>
Andrew Melon - Sun, 23 Jun 2019 15:29:00 EST bJDqR/V8 No.408297 Reply
>>408278
I think the Bhopal disaster would be cool too. Fukushima would be good, cause as far as I remember it was caused at least in part by being unprepared and human oversight, but Bhopal had such ridiculously evil levels of bad practice I think it’s more ripe. Plus it’s an example of the cost of error that doesn’t have to do with nuclear energy.
>>
Ferris Bueller - Sun, 23 Jun 2019 18:47:55 EST B3usVqkg No.408304 Reply
>>408255
> There were people who died in scotland because of chernobyl

I actually know what you're talking about now but you're still full of shit.

Radiation detection systems were triggered in Scotland and nuclear submarines scrambled to self-test as this would normally reflect some kind of malfunction and radiation leak. But it was external.
As far as I know, specific figures are not available, but those alarms will go off well before dangerous levels of radiation.

And speaking of dangerous levels of radiation, as far as I know nearly all of the bus drivers executing the evacuation of Pripyat were dead within 20 years. Kiev had a fucking mayday parade down wind of Chernobyl and they were being pelted with something around 1 rem per fucking hour, which will get you the maximum safe rated dose for a year and a half of nuclear plant work before lunchtime.

What Scotland had were a few very unfortunate stillbirths, a lost crop of livestock and an uptick in cancer rates not even close to what Kiev and the surrounding regions experienced.

>>408258
>What the fuck is thermonuclear fission, school boy?
It's when the nucleus splits, fusion is when the nucleus comes together. The nucleus splits spontaneously in radioactive materials, and is precisely why they're radioactive. It can also be caused by getting smashed with a neutron, which are also a byproduct of nuclear fission, that's how when you refine Uranium-235 up to 80-90% it becomes weapons grade as the density of the reactive uranium isotope becomes able to self-sustain an explosive chain reaction before all of its material begins to melt, boil or fragment, which would halt the reaction.

Furthermore, for that reaction to become self-sustaining the density of the fissile Uranium must be increased by being encased with high explosives which are detonated. This compacting of the fissile material is what's known as reaching critical mass.

And beyond these basics I really can't speak to anything else, but from what I do know, popular estimations that insinuate that Minsk would have been blasted off the face of the earth are overblown by a factor of hundreds of thousands.
There's lots of nuclear testing data you can look at for comparison. I'm sure a real scientist could do the real math. But I dropped out of that major for engineering and ended up in a CAD design lab.
>>
Ferris Bueller - Sun, 23 Jun 2019 19:38:12 EST B3usVqkg No.408307 Reply
>>408306
I didn't define radioactivity, I defined fusion and fission.

And "Split" in this case doesn't mean in half, in a fuel reactor it's generally just bleeding neutrons and ionizing radiation as the various isotopes decay into their more stable forms.
That's what radioactivity is.
>>
Catelyn Stark - Sun, 23 Jun 2019 19:57:32 EST zNWYaT9u No.408311 Reply
>>408307

The nucleus splits spontaneously in radioactive materials, and is precisely why they're radioactive.

these two sentences are wrong
>>
Andrew Melon - Sun, 23 Jun 2019 20:34:31 EST B3usVqkg No.408312 Reply
1561336471623.png -(7310B / 7.14KB, 620x151) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>408311


The extra neutrons emitted are considered part of the nucleus and this is literally why it's called nuclear fission, and nuclear fission is spontaneous by definition, meaning it will happen even without external cause. This does not mean it can't be caused by external means, which is exactly what a chain reaction is.
I can google this one for you too if you want.

But I don't have to to tell you, no it isn't. And from now on you'll need to say something a hell of a lot more substantive if you want to get another reply.

Otherwise everyone else can assume you're just repeating nonsense, which is ironic since I've had to explicitly repeat all of my sense twice just to close the door on any false syllogisms someone might draw otherwise.
>>
Xenia Seeberg - Sun, 23 Jun 2019 22:26:55 EST XgsH7nii No.408314 Reply
It's really great nobody's tried to take a crystal skull down there yet
I sure wouldn't want anybody to bring a crystal skull near to the elephant's foot
>>
Bernie Mac - Mon, 24 Jun 2019 06:59:38 EST u+SQmS1M No.408322 Reply
>>408313
just look that shit up on wikipedia
>>
Big McLargehuge - Tue, 25 Jun 2019 16:29:37 EST /B5F2YPb No.408353 Reply
1561494577337.jpg -(249918B / 244.06KB, 1200x816) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>408338
>Try a more recent photo with the deputy director of Chernobyl containment standing right next to it.

He wouldn't even be there if 500 seconds would prove lethal. Also the radiation of the cesium 137 is at half, the radiation coming off that thing from Iodine 131, the most radioactive and lethal of the fission byproducts was completely gone by 1989.

However, that grain in this photo is probably not down to the contrast and white balance. It's probably radiation. Still not a nice place to be.

Still that caption is based on the idea that the Iodine wasn't a significant portion of the radiation coming off that thing, which it very much was.
I'd hate to reply without the radiation readings coming off the elephant's foot at the time of this photo but I LITERALLY CAN'T FIND THEM through all the pop science bullshit. Y'know, the kind of shit that just makes claims about how fast it'll kill you without citing any actual readings, or only citing the original 10,000 figure which needless to say, would fucking kill you.

But look at the thing. It looks exactly like the old radioactive rock it is. The thing is, as someone who has grown weed in the past, I learned about the inverse square law, and if you want to die from that thing in 500 seconds you'd have to try to fuck it. Being in the room for that long is probably just gonna give you cancer some day.
But that's not enough to call it lethal.
Or the deputy director wouldn't even be that close to it wearing only a respirator.
>>
Skylar White - Tue, 25 Jun 2019 20:57:32 EST DO4Z3epi No.408360 Reply
>>408353
this may be /tinfoil/ territory but...
what if they doctored the image and he's not actually there and they shopped it in as a PR-stunt?
Silly me thinks the more people believe it's "somewhat safe" but still "very risky" the more people would sign up for guided tours of the area.
>>
Principal Scudworth - Tue, 25 Jun 2019 22:31:42 EST s1mVnqYh No.408361 Reply
1561516302856.png -(5336B / 5.21KB, 301x167) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>408360
Well inside containment is an entirely different kettle of fish from touring the area.

But still that guy and anyone else who works on radioactive sites has a safe radiation exposure quota, and can't go anywhere near the site if it's exceeded.
Yet there he is snapping a quick pic of the elephant's foot.

The Elephant's foot was measured at 10,000 Roentgen at its discovery, which is 8770 rem per hour.
I dunno about Ukraine's regulations on the matter but for American nuclear sites it's 5 rem per year, while a lethal dose of radiation is 200 rem minimum, with a good chance of survival.
The earlier caption is acting like you're gonna catch a 1000+ rem lethal acute radiation sickness dose within 8 minutes.

One tenth of 8770 rem per hour is 877, so according to that image's own claim if you spent a minute in that room you'd take in 243 milirem. If you spent 8 minutes in that room you'd take in just under 2 rem. Now this is going to blast through 4 months of your radiation quota as a worker in a nuclear zone. But it's so far off lethal it's not fucking funny.

What's more, that's assuming you spend 8 minutes at the location the readings were taken. 1 meter away further away that exposure is reduced to 1 quarter, 2 meters away, 1/9th and so on according to the inverese square law.

TL;DR that fucking caption is absolutely full of shit.

>what if they doctored the image and he's not actually there and they shopped it in as a PR-stunt?
Well he's only there to take the close-up of the elephant's foot, which is another image you can probably find.

It's traditional every time people bring up this subject to parrot almost every fear and the most extreme projection anyone has ever had about it as if they were sacred fact. But these pictures were taken to compare the position of the Elephant's foot and confirm that it is actually NOT continuing to eat through the concrete below, as was feared long ago (and parroted by many a youtuber and pop-sci writer dipshits this very year) The mass is only slightly warmer than ambient temperature. It's safe in its containment, it's safe to snap a picture of.
It's not going to eat through a concrete slab on its own, it's not going to explode when it hits water. Everyone calm the fuck down.

Just don't try to fuck it. It's very important that you don't try to fuck it...
>>
Principal Scudworth - Tue, 25 Jun 2019 22:38:53 EST s1mVnqYh No.408362 Reply
>>408361
It's also relevant to take the other side of the inverse square law into account, however far away they took their radiation readings, even if they turned out to be relatively low, move one meter closer and you're looking at drastically more radiation.

This is the specific reason you don't try to fuck it.
>>
C-Higgy !lfsExjBfzE - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 14:19:46 EST jRjEOvBm No.411222 Reply
Also finally watched this but it's definitely my pick for best show of 2019. It was weird that it was all English accents instead of at the very least Russian accented English but overall the acting was very good especially from Jared Harris and Stellan Skarsgard.

I think that the Chernobyl meltdown is a great example of the importance of crew resource management (remember the Tenerife disaster?) and why guys like Dyatlov, while under pressure from his superiors to do this safety test, should always listen to his subordinates. Too bad the USSR was way too egotistical to fix their own damn reactors.
>>
Logan 5 - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 19:08:04 EST 7VuehaRW No.411228 Reply
>>411222
It was an allegory. Also it's much less weird to have actors talk in their natural accents than to put on fake Russian accented English. I have not heard one person besides you find it weird because of that, but had they been talking in Russian accented English it would have hurt the dialogue-heavy story and turned it into a lampoon
>>
C-Higgy !lfsExjBfzE - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 19:11:37 EST RBdu29nx No.411229 Reply
>>411228
There was other people in the thread that noticed it too >>408225. I didn't have an issue with it though, just was different I suppose.
>>
Steve Buscemi - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 19:15:41 EST 36LjXesk No.411230 Reply
>>411228
Yeah, it'd be like dubbing a serious foreign film from a country like France with voice actors who are doing Steve Martin's Inspector Clouseau.
>>
Jason Penopolis - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 20:14:35 EST PzzK75Kh No.411231 Reply
>>411228
>put on fake Russian
Then don't use fake Russians.There are incredible actors all over the world, including Ukraine and Russia.
>>
Logan 5 - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 20:46:02 EST 7VuehaRW No.411235 Reply
>>411231
They weren't "fake" Russians. You don't need to use Ukraine and Russian actors to depict this story. In fact, that's sort of the point of the whole allegorical meta-narrative. You're incredibly confused if you think Chernobyl is a stringent documentary. If that's what it was supposed to be then using fake Russians would come across as weird but that's not what this mini series was.
>>
Jason Penopolis - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 21:15:59 EST PzzK75Kh No.411237 Reply
>>411235
>They weren't "fake" Russians.
I didn't say they were, try to keep up.
>You're incredibly confused if you think Chernobyl is a stringent documentary.
I posted a two sentence reply that made no allusions to any such thing. You're pulling shit out of your ass.
>>
Malcom Reynolds - Mon, 04 Nov 2019 00:13:35 EST udEHKSz9 No.411242 Reply
>>411239
>Also it's much less weird to have actors talk in their natural accents than to put on fake Russian accented English
(speaking of the English actors that were cast)
>Then don't use fake Russians.
(e.g. cast actual Russians)
>They weren't "fake" Russians.
(he clearly did not call them fake Russians)

English isn't even my first language and I followed this perfectly.
>>
Steve Buscemi - Mon, 04 Nov 2019 01:16:10 EST 36LjXesk No.411243 Reply
>>411242
>(he clearly did not call them fake Russians)
>Then don't use fake Russians
>>
Duff Man - Tue, 05 Nov 2019 11:07:56 EST MX0xZFix No.411260 Reply
>>411231
You still want the best actors possible. I’m certain there are native Russians and Ukrainians that are every bit as good at acting as Jared Harris, but just like he is a top-tier actor, with few peers, I’d imagine there’s only a handful of Jared Harris’s in Russia and Ukraine as well. How many of that handful would also be fluent enough in English to carry over that gravitas to English dialogue? Unless you wanted the whole show to be in Russian or Ukrainian with subtitles. And if that’s the case, where are you going to find writers as skilled as the ones that did Chernobyl who could write those scripts in non-English? Directors and editors that would also be able to handle that narrative in Russian as well?

If you wanted it to be authentic in its use of language and actors, the logistics of it necessitate that it would essentially have to be an almost entirely Russian and/or Ukrainian production. Which wouldn’t have as much money, and wouldn’t be airing on HBO. Also in response to this series there indeed was a Russian production in the works - that has American espionage as the source of the disaster. So, yeah, so much for total authenticity.

Ideally yeah they’d have perfect language and/or accents in any movie or show that concerns non-English speakers, but the number of things that would need to change to keep essentially the same piece of work with authentic language make it impossible to have the same product. So if you enjoyed it all except the accents then sorry, this is the best they could do, and if the accents totally ruined it for you then I’m really sorry, cause you’re letting that one thing make you miss out on a great piece of television.
>>
Brian Griffin - Tue, 05 Nov 2019 11:21:09 EST oa2mmJAW No.411261 Reply
> It was weird that it was all English accents instead of at the very least Russian accented English
why would they be speaking english with a russian accent? they spoke russian. except this is a show for english people, so they speak english. why is everyone in star wars an american why does everyone in westeros speak english with english accents holy shit have you never seen a tv show
>>
Nicola Bryant - Tue, 05 Nov 2019 12:20:49 EST 7VuehaRW No.411263 Reply
>>411260
>there's a Russian production that has American espionage as the source of the disaster

Ah, see It's all our faults. What with our Chernobyl-causing and Call of Duty Modern Warfare. I'm sure their outrage about a video game isn't disingenuous in the slightest.
>>
Dipper Pines - Thu, 07 Nov 2019 09:39:39 EST Sj0kf/wq No.411290 Reply
1573137579180.png -(106442B / 103.95KB, 427x280) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>411263
Are you implying that people shouldn't be pissed that media is attributing a specific case where Americans bombed a highway full of refugees to Russia?

It's about a decade late, but any outrage over blatant imperialist propaganda in media is good. When there's no pushback to inform people, you get Texas making an official holiday to honor a wife-beater who thought it was heroic to murdering "looters" during hurricane Katrina and women and children in Iraq.
>>
Andy Serkis - Thu, 07 Nov 2019 13:24:35 EST HiXAUGyX No.411293 Reply
>>408237
> It's not anti-Trump
Not directly, but you know that the creators of the show spout the Trump got elected because of Russian hackers conspiracy theory, and the show itself exists as a tool of anti-Russian propaganda. You can't deny that even if you like the show.

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.