Chernobyl Diaries: Tasteless?

[Engel]

I was just wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this. You can see the trailer and movie information here. Overall, I think it's a neat concept, although perhaps a little too farfetched for my liking. The casting, so far as I can tell is a disappointment. I mean really, Jesse McCartney!?!?! But what bothers me to an extent about the film is that it is making a profit off a disaster that has permanently altered an entire region. People have to remember that Chernobyl isn't just an abandoned city in the northern Ukraine, it's also a grave for many people. Although only 31 people died immediately from radiation exposure, most experts believe there have been at least 25,000 excess cancer deaths in the region as a direct result of the disaster. I look forward to your intelligent replies.

[Paul the Human]

Japan made monster movies based on the radiation from the atomic bombings. That's how legends and 'tall tales' enter a society. They begin with a truth.

[Cyberman]

I don't know about tasteless; consider how many films have been made about the Titanic, the location of which is also a gravesite for many people. Can't comment on the casting as I've never heard of any of them.

[Phil]

I was just wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this. You can see the trailer and movie information here. Overall, I think it's a neat concept, although perhaps a little too farfetched for my liking. The casting, so far as I can tell is a disappointment. I mean really, Jesse McCartney!?!?! But what bothers me to an extent about the film is that it is making a profit off a disaster that has permanently altered an entire region. People have to remember that Chernobyl isn't just an abandoned city in the northern Ukraine, it's also a grave for many people. Although only 31 people died immediately from radiation exposure, most experts believe there have been at least 25,000 excess cancer deaths in the region as a direct result of the disaster. I look forward to your intelligent replies.

It's a damn movie. Movies were made about the Titanic, World Trade Center, Flight 93 and the list goes on.

[Nine]

I don't think its tasteless to do movies about events in the past. Look at all the films on wars and other awful things. Would you call a war film war profiteering? It would be different maybe if they were belittling the events.

[Anomalocaris]

I was just wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this. You can see the trailer and movie information here. Overall, I think it's a neat concept, although perhaps a little too farfetched for my liking. The casting, so far as I can tell is a disappointment. I mean really, Jesse McCartney!?!?! But what bothers me to an extent about the film is that it is making a profit off a disaster that has permanently altered an entire region. People have to remember that Chernobyl isn't just an abandoned city in the northern Ukraine, it's also a grave for many people. Although only 31 people died immediately from radiation exposure, most experts believe there have been at least 25,000 excess cancer deaths in the region as a direct result of the disaster. I look forward to your intelligent replies.

Nothing more tasteless about it than James Cameron's Titanic.

[Engel]

I don't know about tasteless; consider how many films have been made about the Titanic, the location of which is also a gravesite for many people. Can't comment on the casting as I've never heard of any of them.

Yes, but the movie Titanic didn't make the victims of the disaster out to be blood-thirsty mutants. I will probably go see the film, however I do think it would have been a nice gesture by the filmmakers to give a portion of the profits to the Children of Chernobyl Foundation or some other like-minded charity. But I'm probably just making a big deal out of nothing.

[Cyberman]

Fine, I shall take my invited opinion elsewhere.

---

Apologies, that was rude of me. As I understand it, this film is using the Chernobyl setting and its history as a backdrop to the story. If the plot involved radioactive mutants causing the disaster, or emanating from the rubble, then you might have a point. Similarly, James Cameron told his story against the historical backdrop of the Titanic's voyage. If he'd had running gun-battles around the decks, or the US Navy steaming over the horizon and saving the day, I would say that was tasteless as well. As it is, he misrepresented certain historical facts regarding events and people in a way that borders on tasteless, if not actually tearing through that border.

[Tiberius]

People have to remember that Chernobyl isn't just an abandoned city in the northern Ukraine

It's not even that. Chernobyl is the name of the power plant. The abandoned city is Pripyat.

Yes, but the movie Titanic didn't make the victims of the disaster out to be blood-thirsty mutants.

They are late to the party in that area. There is an entire series of video games based around the same concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.T.A.L.K...._Chernobyl

[Tempus]

I'm more worried about people who watch movies based on actual events and then believe the dramatised account rather than researching it. It's like people thinking humans walked with dinosaurs because many movies and cartoons have depicted it as so. Of course, I'm not suggesting this is the film maker's fault, it's just an unfortunate by-product of an ignorant person encountering fiction / dramatised accounts.