Hacker News Reader

Comment by latexr | Hacker News Reader

That series was a historical drama, not a documentary. Ulana Khomyuk, the woman speaking at the start of that video, didn’t even exist. As acknowledged in the series itself, she was a composite of several Soviet scientists for narrative purposes.

It’s not misleading to take artistic liberties in a work of fiction designed to entertain, even if based on true events. That would be damming for a documentary, but this was not one.

View on HN

Pretty much any biopic or historical documentary struggles with the tension between the realities that, on the one hand, they can't completely make up everything out of whole cloth and, on the other, the writers don't want to let facts get too much in the way of a good story.

But some number of people get POd when not everything is literally true.

I think people get angry when something turns out being different in nature than what they expected, especially when it comes to accuracy. If I start watching a show, and most of the information matches with my understanding of the topic, I might start to believe that it's more of a documentary. Then something comes up that unrealistic, or I know to be false, I might feel tricked.

I'd love it if instead of saying "The following story is based on true events", they were obligated to say "The following story is based on true events, and has been modified for your entertainment".

A lot of series now cheekily start with a screen that states something along the lines of:

"This story is based on true events, except the parts that aren't".

Can't think of any examples at the moment, but I've noticed it quite a bit.

Then there's the TV Series Fargo, which is made out of whole-cloth but starts with a claim that it's a "true story", which I think is great.

I’m pretty sure the Coen brothers are trying to say something like this with Fargo

That should have been historical drama, to be clear.

But some number of people get POd when not everything is literally true.

By pandering to irrational fears about nuclear power, 'Chernobyl' and similar works have consequences that translate, more or less directly, into fossil-fuel pollution.

I'm inclined to be more forgiving towards a Borges manqué who uses his talents to defraud hipster travel websites than I am towards people who are successful enough at spreading FUD and bullshit that they make the world an objectively-worse place.

Chernobyl seems like an odd target for such overwrought criticism. It's not like it was dramatizing a nuclear reactor accident that didn't happen. By general consensus, it was pretty true to life as far as the main points were concerned.

A related thing I 'learnt' (or rather 'realised' having not thitherto thought about) via Fargo was that 'true story' are just words you can say, they don't mean anything and there's no regulatory oversight or whatever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com