- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Chernobyl Episode 5 "Vichnaya Pamyat" - Season Finale
Posted on 6/6/19 at 8:13 am to ell_13
Posted on 6/6/19 at 8:13 am to ell_13
quote:
This role isn’t a reach at all. It’s fascinating and sad that we are even having this conversation.
Some of you on this board: She wasn’t a woman for the sake of being a woman.
The show’s creators: We specifically made this character a woman for our reasons.
So the show’s creators are wrong about their stated intentions?
2
Posted on 6/6/19 at 8:18 am to weagle99
quote:
Some of you on this board: She wasn’t a woman for the sake of being a woman.
The show’s creators: We specifically made this character a woman for our reasons.
the board: who gives a shite?
you: but she was a woman!!
Posted on 6/6/19 at 8:21 am to Salmon
it's a problem if it detracted from the story
it did not detract from anything
it did not detract from anything
Posted on 6/6/19 at 8:32 am to Salmon
You might read some more of the thread before being snarky 
This is the incorrect information in a earlier post I replied to.
Bolded section is at odds with what was stated by the show’s creators. Which is all I have been trying to say this entire time
This is the incorrect information in a earlier post I replied to.
quote:
If you can’t help but feel that a person was cast simply because that person has a vagina, no one can help you. She wasn’t a woman for the sake of being a woman. It was a great actress who gave a great performance for a role that was vital to telling the story. It’s not like they made the coal foreman female.
Bolded section is at odds with what was stated by the show’s creators. Which is all I have been trying to say this entire time
This post was edited on 6/6/19 at 8:33 am
Posted on 6/6/19 at 8:33 am to weagle99
How many days are you going to melt about this lady?
Posted on 6/6/19 at 8:37 am to ell_13
Women can’t be scientists.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 8:37 am to weagle99
quote:
Which is all I have been trying to say this entire time
and all anyone else has been saying is that no one cares
yet you keep bringing it up
why?
Posted on 6/6/19 at 8:59 am to weagle99
quote:Did you not watch the montage at the end of the series? They specifically explain why Ulana Khomyuk character was created.
Some of you on this board: She wasn’t a woman for the sake of being a woman.
The show’s creators: We specifically made this character a woman for our reasons.
So the show’s creators are wrong about their stated intentions?
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:33 am to JBeam
I couldn't care less about the creation of Ulana but if you don't believe a woman was injected in there for the purpose of powerful representation you're in denial.
What bothers me more is when unecesarry artistic liberties are taken such as Legasov's heroic but ahistorical testimony in court. This show was a testament that these kind of dramatics are not always needed. We loved this show with or without them.
I'm sure we all can agree this people need to work on more shows.
What bothers me more is when unecesarry artistic liberties are taken such as Legasov's heroic but ahistorical testimony in court. This show was a testament that these kind of dramatics are not always needed. We loved this show with or without them.
I'm sure we all can agree this people need to work on more shows.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:47 am to cattus
quote:Powerful representation of the many scientists that wanted to learn the truth about Chernobyl and the after effects. Mazin went over this numerous times in the podcast. I think you are splitting hairs over something that is in plain sight.
I couldn't care less about the creation of Ulana but if you don't believe a woman was injected in there for the purpose of powerful representation you're in denial.
quote:Mazin discussed why he took artistic liberties in the final podcast. Mainly, that the video and court documents that he reviewed were very boring and would not make for a good series finale. Also, it brilliantly crafted between the court trial and flashbacks to the hours leading up to the disaster.
What bothers me more is when unecesarry artistic liberties are taken such as Legasov's heroic but ahistorical testimony in court. This show was a testament that these kind of dramatics are not always needed. We loved this show with or without them.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:56 am to cattus
quote:
I couldn't care less about the creation of Ulana but if you don't believe a woman was injected in there for the purpose of powerful representation you're in denial.
There wasn't a powerful representation, she was just another lead character. There is no woman hear me roar moment or this whole thing happened because men were in charge speech. The creators decided they wanted a female lead to balance all but one female character, this is not some new idea filmmakers just came up because of wanting to be inclusive.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 11:08 am to JBeam
That powerful representation was not only for the scientists but for women( and yes dizz there was a "hear me roar" moment when she saved earth about the water flow and then made Legasov show nuts in court), it seems pretty obvious in the context of how many of them were women and the climate today. But again I honestly don't care and she should be applauded for her acting job.
Again, the last episode was awesome and we all loved the show before it, it's just my opinion that his testimony wasn't needed and the portrayal of actual events would have had benefits.
Anyway one of the best shows I've ever seen.
Again, the last episode was awesome and we all loved the show before it, it's just my opinion that his testimony wasn't needed and the portrayal of actual events would have had benefits.
Anyway one of the best shows I've ever seen.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 12:11 pm to Dam Guide
Credit to the show for doing a hell of a job with explaining nuclear power and radiation, in general. Even the technical stuff was presented so concise and understandable, especially the tug of war explanation with the cards. Because of that, I would say this show made itself much more available to people with no background for any of it.
I am a chemical engineer, but nuclear reactors were just one more process with a mass and energy balance taught in undergrad. For the most part, I have found that many engineers/people working in STEM fields have at least a general interest in nuclear energy, science, etc. It's fascinating as hell.
Kind of regret not going to power school/Navy after college, though.
I am a chemical engineer, but nuclear reactors were just one more process with a mass and energy balance taught in undergrad. For the most part, I have found that many engineers/people working in STEM fields have at least a general interest in nuclear energy, science, etc. It's fascinating as hell.
Kind of regret not going to power school/Navy after college, though.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 12:37 pm to Dizz
quote:That’s what I’m trying to say. They had a role and wanted a woman because it worked best for the story in their eyes. Not because they felt they needed to shoehorn in a show a feminism. There was no pandering with the role at all. The role existed first and they thought a woman fit it best. It wasn’t some generated character for the sake of inserting a powerful female lead.
The creators decided they wanted a female lead to balance all but one female character, this is not some new idea filmmakers just came up because of wanting to be inclusive.
This post was edited on 6/6/19 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 6/6/19 at 1:24 pm to ell_13
Started the freaking thread anf im finally in front of a computer screen to talk about it, and what do ya know, its a feminism debate going on 
Posted on 6/6/19 at 1:44 pm to weagle99
quote:
Bolded section is at odds with what was stated by the show’s creators. Which is all I have been trying to say this entire time
Great. We heard you every time you said it. We didn't care then. We currently don't care. We will not care in the future.
Now shut the hell up about it.
This post was edited on 6/6/19 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 6/6/19 at 1:58 pm to TigerstuckinMS
Nah, I will keep talking about it if I like. I didn’t say anywhere that it bothered me that a woman was used but some of y’all whipped out the Jump to Conclusions mat anyway.
If no one cared they certainly wouldn’t keep replying and getting emotionally worked up about it (you being a great case in point)
If no one cared they certainly wouldn’t keep replying and getting emotionally worked up about it (you being a great case in point)
This post was edited on 6/6/19 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 6/6/19 at 2:07 pm to weagle99
You're projecting. Simply replying to you doesn't reflect an opinion on the character in terms of her gender. Simply pointing out that many people weren't concerned with her genitals as they watched doesn't mean they care.
My total focus on her, and the writers' focus, was on what she was there to represent. A team of scientists. Period.
My total focus on her, and the writers' focus, was on what she was there to represent. A team of scientists. Period.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 2:08 pm to weagle99
quote:
. I didn’t say anywhere that it bothered me that a woman
It obviously had some kind of effect on you.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 2:12 pm to GetCocky11
This thread is derailed about a great mini series.
Page 9 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News