Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television Entertainment

HBO's 'Chernobyl' is Now the Top-Ranked TV Show of All Time (variety.com) 298

"Chernobyl," HBO's gritty and horrifying retelling of the worst nuclear disaster in human history, has jumped to the No. 1 spot on IMDb's all-time TV rankings just days after the limited series concluded. From a report: As of Tuesday, "Chernobyl" had a 9.7-star (out of 10) average rating from about 140,000 users on the Amazon-owned IMDb site. The five-episode limited series finished its run on HBO Sunday, June 3. For now, that puts the critically acclaimed "Chernobyl" ahead of AMC's "Breaking Bad" (9.5), BBC's "Planet Earth II" (9.5), HBO's "Band of Brothers" (9.5), the original "Planet Earth" (9.4), HBO's "Game of Thrones" (9.3) and HBO's "The Wire" (9.3), according to IMDb's ranking of TV shows. (Fandango's Rotten Tomatoes currently doesn't provide an Audience Score for "Chernobyl.")

Variety TV critic Caroline Framke, in her review of the show, wrote, "Rather than bursting into shocking twists, writer Craig Mazin and director Johan Renck build a steadily creeping unease, allowing the scale of the atrocity to sink in with terrible, fitting gravity." "Chernobyl" dramatizes the story of the April 26, 1986, massive explosion of the nuclear power plant in Ukraise that released radioactive material across Belarus, Russia and Ukraine and as far as Scandinavia and western Europe.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HBO's 'Chernobyl' is Now the Top-Ranked TV Show of All Time

Comments Filter:
  • I remember. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Z00L00K ( 682162 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @03:04PM (#58714798) Homepage Journal

    Back in '86 the first news of a nuclear mishap came from the Swedish nuclear plant Forsmark, they thought they had a problem - until they realized that the contamination came from outside the plant with isotopes indicating a major disaster.

    So then they started to look elsewhere.

    To this day some wild animals in Sweden still exceeds the safe levels, so wild boar may be too contaminated to be suitable as food.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      Which has nothing to do with any such animals being actually "too contaminated", as those same animals have been used for food near ground zero for about a decade at this point. There was a great BBC documentary on it a few years ago.

      It has everything to do with long debunked LNT still being applied because "radiation scary".

      • It has everything to do with long debunked LNT still being applied because "radiation scary".

        You sure about that? Citations? Because the research I'm finding shows the effects of radiation on Chernobyl wildlife were worse than anticipated.

        https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]

        https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]

        • Re:I remember. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @04:42PM (#58715542)
          The mutation rate is higher (duh), but the overall consensus is that the deleterious effect of the radiation is less than the beneficial effect of the removal of humans. Animals in the region are thriving [nationalgeographic.com]. Basically, the presence of humans is worse than radiation from Chernobyl, which should give you some sense of the small scale of the danger from residual radiation (if the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today hadn't already convinced you).
          • by Knuckles ( 8964 )

            That may be the effect on wild life in Chernobyl, but the discussion was about eating wild boar from Sweden

          • Basically, the presence of humans is worse than radiation from Chernobyl

            One way to interpret this is to say that the danger of the radiation is small, as you have chosen to do, another way is to say that the presence of humans is terrible on wildlife. We already know [wikipedia.org] that the presence of humans is terrible on wildlife, so this seems like the more plausible explanation.

        • Re:I remember. (Score:4, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @04:43PM (#58715554)

          Papers by Anders Pape Møller [sciencemag.org] and Timothy Mousseau [rationalwiki.org]?

          "A Danish government committee has ruled that one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, Anders Pape Møller, is responsible for data fabricated in connection with an article that he co-authored in 1998 and subsequently retracted."

          "Unfortunately for Professor Mousseau, his work is now widely viewed as unscientific because nobody else has been able to find the damage he reports. Although he routinely speaks at anti-nuclear rallies rather than scientific conferences, unlike most anti-nuclear activists he still participates in the scientific community."

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Actually those animals living in the exclusion zone aren't safe to eat. I mean some of them are, but it's not easy to tell. If you consume some of those elements they can sit inside your body for decades, slowly irradiating your DNA until something breaks.

        Of course you will never be able to prove that a particular cancer was due to eating wild boar from the exclusion zone or not. It's very easy to deny there is a problem because of this.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @03:18PM (#58714898)
      These wild boar are eagerly sought after in Sweden as their meat stays fresh for several months without the need for refrigeration.
    • Cant wait to see what these crazy Russians and EU bureaucrats get up to next. Who will sit on the meltdown thrown?
      Iodine martinis for everyone!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @03:16PM (#58714872)

    Her courage and levelheadedness in the face of a nuclear disaster was inspirational.

    • by hnjjz ( 696917 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @03:33PM (#58715002)

      Her courage and levelheadedness in the face of a nuclear disaster was inspirational.

      While almost all characters in the show portray real people that were involved in the Chernobyl disaster and its aftermath, the character you are referring to, Ulana Khomyuk, is the one notable exception. Her character was used to represent the great many scientists who investigated the accident.

  • The? (Score:5, Informative)

    by DigitalisAkujin ( 846133 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @03:18PM (#58714902) Homepage

    Why do people insist on calling Ukraine "The Ukraine". There's nothing "the" about it. It's just "Ukraine" guys.

    No one says "The Germany".

    Was born in Crimea in '87 and it's a pet peeve.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Nobody says "The Germany", we say "The Reich".

    • Re:The? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @03:30PM (#58714988)

      "The Ukraine" is an abbreviation for "The Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic". So, it is certainly inappropriate to call Ukraine that now.

      • This is not true. It's been "The Ukraine" in English since long before the establishment of the USSR. And by your logic, we would all have been saying "The Russia", "The Armenia", and so on, but we don't.
        • The timing is not the issue here. Before the USSR was formed Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire. It's the Russians themselves who referred to that region as "The Ukraine" before it became a separate country.

          Language has momentum, especially when the names of things in common use around the world change, and when they are treated differently depending on language. Just the other day I cringed when I was speaking English and referred to it as "the English" as you do when you refer to languages when speaki

    • by mykepredko ( 40154 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @03:36PM (#58715024) Homepage

      I grew up with everybody in my family (all four of my grandparents are from Ternopil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternopil) and the people that emigrated with them calling it "The Ukraine". Other Ukrainians I've met over the years have always referred to it as "The Ukraine".

      So, why are you surprised when non-honks refer to it this way?

      • Because in the late 19th, early 20th centuries the linguistics were very much dictated by immigrant peasants so they were really referring to the region which I can understand. However we live in a technologically advanced modern culture now where countries are very distinct. Sure you can talk about it as a region by saying "the" but these days when I say Ukraine I mean the country. When calling it "The" Ukraine you can actually be referring to parts of land in or out of the distinct country. Crimea for exa

      • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @04:35PM (#58715474)
        I suspect the term dates from before the breakup of the Soviet Union. "The Ukraine" was meant to signify the Ukraine region, since Ukraine as a country didn't exist (and historically hasn't for most of history). Ukraine as a country is relatively new, but the proper term for it would now be "Ukraine" without the "the".
        • by ve3oat ( 884827 )
          Oh, you mean like The Gambia? Or The United States of America? Or ki swahili? I am sorry but if that's what the inhabitants call it, then that is what the rest of us should call it. How would you like some ignorant foreigner to redefine your culture, your history, your language?
          • How would you like some ignorant foreigner to redefine your culture, your history, your language?

            It's not the foreigners who are redefining it. It's the official title from the country itself. Just because locals historically called that region "The Ukraine" doesn't mean the country isn't officially called "Ukraine" by the locals.

    • It's Seinfeld's fault: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
    • by Livius ( 318358 )

      Language is funny that way. It became a tradition. And also it was the official English name for a long time.

    • Because for a long while the Ukraine called itself "the Ukraine". That the modern state is only called Ukraine, I learned on /. ... erm, is that actually true? I never checked it. Same like with Kosovo, in German it is "das Kosovo", no idea if they call them self that way. But I'm 100% sure it is "Die Schweiz".

      • by fazig ( 2909523 )
        Depends on the language I suppose. Not every one has the same quirks as German (or quirks of other languages)

        I know it as "der Kosovo", but both is officially correct in the German language: https://www.duden.de/rechtschr... [duden.de]
        In German it is also "die Ukraine": https://www.duden.de/rechtschr... [duden.de]
        Other examples would be "der Iran", "die Türkei" etc.

        For our language we probably need these articles in order to make the words roll off our tongues correctly, because we are used to to apply arbitrary ma
      • How 100% sure are you that it's called "Die Schweiz" rather than "Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft" which is the official name in German ;-)

    • Note that it is standard to use 'the' on plural countries such as the United States or the Netherlands.

    • Do you also get worked about about the Gambia? The Netherlands? The Ivory Coast? In English, the definite article has historically formed part of some countries names, and others not. Maybe this seems strange to a speaker of Russian or Ukrainian, which lack definite articles, but it's perfectly normal in English and is not meant to be any sort of value judgment on the country.
  • "Public opinion" is so easy to forge that I have no faith in any survey conducted over the web.
    • indeed. isn't it dreadful when you have to waste five hours of your life determining if you like something or not? time you could have spent whining on slashdot?

      ... ".What a long time life takes! Sometimes I think it's hardly worth encroaching on." - Clarice Gormenghast

  • by RogueWarrior65 ( 678876 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @03:35PM (#58715018)

    It's an excellent series. IMHO, the most disturbing shot is in the first episode where one of the lead plant workers goes up to the roof and looks down into the burning core of the reactor. If you believe in Hell, that's probably what it looks like.
    That said, what should trouble people watching is not nuclear power because nobody makes second generation reactors anymore. Fourth generation reactors are going to be the only way to satisfy the demand for electrical power going forward. No, what should trouble people watching is the culture of fear and blind obedience to political ideology. No dissent is tolerated. Facts are irrelevant if the political elite say so. Furthermore, the ass-covering and blame-shifting that accompanies such deeply entrenched political ideology should scare the crap out of people in the U.S. today who buy into it. It won't but it should.

    • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @04:17PM (#58715344)

      That said, what should trouble people watching is not nuclear power because nobody makes second generation reactors anymore. Fourth generation reactors are going to be the only way to satisfy the demand for electrical power going forward

      The generation of nuclear reactor had nothing to do with the accident. The Soviet-era nuclear reactors used a design with a positive void coefficient [wikipedia.org]. Basically, water is the moderator (slows down the nuclear reaction). If the water gets hot enough to boil into steam, the steam bubbles have much lower density than liquid water, which reduces its moderating capability, allowing the nuclear reaction to proceed even faster. This is what killed Chernobyl - they let the temperature get to hot, and the moderating water began to boil. The moment that happened, within a fraction of second the multi-fold increase in fission rate created enough heat to generate a thermal explosion which blew the reactor core (and building) apart, spewing vaporized fuel into the atmosphere. Only after the fuel (chunks and vapor) were dispersed (thrown far enough away from each other) did the rate of fissioning decrease.

      Western nuclear plants have never been designed with a positive void coefficient for precisely this reason. The typical boiling water reactor contains the water in a pressurized chamber (hence why they're sometimes called pressurized water reactors), and is always boiling. If the fissioning starts to speed up, more water boils. The addition of steam to a constant volume vessel causes the bubbles to actually become smaller than in its normal operating state. Thus decreasing the void coefficient and slowing down the fission reaction, rather than speeding it up as with Chernobyl. The Soviets used the dangerous reactor design because it was cheaper to build, and allowed them to use unrefined uranium as fuel. Safety be damned.

      Pointing to Chernobyl as an example of the dangers of nuclear power is like pointing to Banqio as an example of the dangers of hydroelectric power. What's Banqio you ask? Just the worst power generation-related accident in history [wikipedia.org]. A series of earthen dams in China meant to hold water for a hydroelectric plant failed during history rains. The subsequent flooding killed an estimated 170,000 people, destroyed 6 million buildings, and left 11 million people homeless. Fukushima and even Chernobyl sound downright tame in comparison. But it's not a valid criticism of hydroelectric power because the West never used earthen dams for hydroelectric power, just like the west never used positive void coefficient reactors for nuclear power.

      • by russotto ( 537200 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @04:37PM (#58715494) Journal

        Basically, water is the moderator (slows down the nuclear reaction).

        No. In the RBMK reactor, graphite is the moderator (slows down the neutrons, but speeds up the nuclear reaction). The water is coolant, and absorbs rather than moderates neutrons. Water does moderate, but in the RBMK the dominant effect is absorption, so water slows down the nuclear reaction.

        The typical boiling water reactor contains the water in a pressurized chamber (hence why they're sometimes called pressurized water reactors), and is always boiling.

        Boiling water reactors (BWR) and pressurized water reactors (PWR) are two different designs (neither of which is similar to Chernobyl) A PWR keeps the water in the primary loop under pressure so it does not boil.

        • Positive Void Coefficient, and a control rod design that increased reactivity as they were inserted, not so much.

          The fact that it blew the Fuck up when they Scrammed it, shows just how much of a fuckup it was.

          Neat fact: they changed several things in the rest of those reactors, but those two "FEATURES" remain to this day.

          Read the report by the IAEA: Pub913e_web.pdf

          I pusha de button, and it all blow up!

      • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @04:37PM (#58715498) Journal

        On /., I have read many times that the accident was caused by rogue engineers performing an unsanctioned test.

        The series makes it clear that the test was sanctioned, but was not performed correctly.

        However, the ultimate cause of the accident was that the emergency shutdown actually increased reactor activity, instead of reducing it. This was because the reactor design was compromised in order to reduce costs (positive void coefficient, graphite tips on the control rods). Because of this cost cutting, the emergency shutdown mechanism could not work.

        Bottom line: the accident was caused by a structural focus on reducing costs. These problems were known about for years and ignored, again: costs.

        The test that the engineers were performing was intended to see if another design flaw could be overcome. Again, cost cutting.

        • by dunkelfalke ( 91624 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @05:59PM (#58716094)

          Don't need the miniseries to know it
          http://digitalarchive.wilsonce... [wilsoncenter.org]

          • Part of my point was to highlight the falsehood that some people here in /. have promulgated: that the Chernobyl disaster was entirely the fault of rogue engineers performing an unsanctioned test and unrelated to the reactor design.

            • Nuclear nuts, like gun nuts, always insist it is not the fault of their object of worship.
              The operators have their share of blame, but the reactor design was, indeed crap, as was the manufacturing quality of the power plant. Put these factors together and add some nuclear fanboi figureheads who insist that nuclear reactors are inherently safe and simple to operate (this is how that particular design was allowed to be manufactured despite concerns of some scientists) and you'll get a boom at the first oppor

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          However, the ultimate cause of the accident was that the emergency shutdown actually increased reactor activity, instead of reducing it

          Not quite. It's difficult to pin this on a single cause. The RBMK was safe to operate so long as it was operated as designed. The concepts of a water-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor are well understood. One of the downsides of the design is instability at low power levels which, again, was well understood at the time *but ignored*. The upside of the design is the ability to run on unenriched Uranium, cheaper to construct, and the ability to change out fuel assemblies without shutting down the reacto

          • Aren't we clever. Remove any accident condition and it wouldn't have happened.
            Except that is true for any accident.

      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        Please Solandri,
        just stop it.
        Just for everyones sake: stop it.

        You have no clue.

        A moderator slows down neutrons. Not the nuclear reaction. It speeds up the nuclear reaction by making neutrons slow enough to interact with the uranium ... WTF ... go back to school.

        And the Chernobyl reactor in question was not moderated by water but by graphite ... WTF go back to school.

        You are so annoying in your ignorance and your stupid spilling of it, it really hurts me. To bad /. has no block function.

        I don't dare to read

  • It's not a TV show, it's a mini-series. They're two different things. It's easy to produce a 5-episode top-quality series, compared to a TV show with 50-100+ episodes.
    • by Quarters ( 18322 )

      t's a show. It was produced to air on a service that is (majorily) viewed on televisions. It's a television show.
      Saying a 'series' is 50+ episodes and anything less than that is a 'mini-series' is a very American-centric world-view. It doesn't take into account that the BBC and other broadcasters call a 'series' what American television generally refers to as a 'season' and quite often those other series will have only 3-6 episodes in it, compared to American television's approximately 22.

      • Breaking Bad played out over 62 episodes. The Wire was 60. Five episodes of great TV is impressive - but LOST had a lot more than five hours of great TV, even though it lagged at times and collapsed into a pile of crap at the end. Hell, the first season of Dexter was pretty damned amazing, and that was twelve episodes.

        Making great TV isn’t easy, but it’s a lot easier to make five hours of a self-contained story than to put on a semi-open-ended arc that runs over five or six seasons.
  • Is Slashdot becoming E News or something, but yeah it was great. Almost worth having the accident just so we could have this. Great acting. Great atmosphere. Truly great television. Easily worth being seen in a cinema but of course it would have been too long I guess. Maybe an art cinema would show a 5 hour movie but not the gigaplex chains. Would have been nice to see it projected on a big screen though. HBO seems like they are trying to out-movie AMC and they did a fine job of that with this one. They eve

  • ... can have this achievement?
  • But I'm sure it will show up on Amazon Prime, or "other" places you can download it from. From the reviews I've read, the takeaway to me is the FAILED CORRUPT SYSTEM of the soviet union, ie: communism/socialism/dictatorship.
  • https://www.themoscowtimes.com... [themoscowtimes.com]

    "The fact that an American, not a Russian, TV channel tells us about our own heroes is a source of shame that the pro-Kremlin media apparently cannot live down. And this is the real reason they find fault with HBO’s “Chernobyl” series."

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Working...