Talk:Burn Up (TV series)

docudrama

I only see "docudrama" being used to describe this by Sam Wollaston of the Guardian. Even he doesn't say so explicitly, but refers "recent dramamentaries (docu-dramas, dromedaries? You know, the ones that go on for ever and generally end up with London under water)." that seems unclear. It's explicitly refferred to as a drama everywhere else. So, I think it's best to use the word "drama", and only use "docudrama" if it's in quotes. The miniseries isn't based on real events. If I'm wrong, and there's adequate sources to show this is a docudrama, it would be worth mentioning in the docudrama article, as it would be distinct example there. --Rob (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It can be very difficult to define where the line between drama and docudrama should be drawn, especially as many program makers shy away from the label in the belief that it will lower viewing figures. True it’s not based on real events but this just means it’s not a historical docudrama. It is according to the creators based on real science; in the press pack Beaufoy makes a major point of this and the amount of research he put in, Tranter calls it a potent cocktail of fiction and fact, and Garrett states that he hopes that the film will enlighten as much as it will entertain. It is this dedication to factuality that differentiate a drama from a docudrama and this is certainly not unusual Wollaston obviously refers to Flood (film) and other examples of similar docudramas that spring to mind are The Day Britain Stopped, The Man Who Broke Britain, Oil Storm, Smallpox 2002, Superstorm (docudrama) & Supervolcano (docudrama). I think this at least justifies putting it back into the docudrama category, everything else I'm happy to leave as is. Mutt (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, we could include all crime dramas that the writers claim to have some realism. For instance, Law & Order is "ripped from the headlines" while actually avoiding names of real people. Being "based on real science" really means nothing. Are the CSI franchise shows all docudramas? They clearly pretend to be based on real science (with mixed results of real and fake). It seems rather normal for fiction to based on some reality and try to convey some truth (from the perspective of the writer). Anyways, I haven't reverted you, as I'm still open to the potential that this is a normal British use of the term, albeit inconsistent. Ultimately, the docudrama article should better explain the varying uses of the term. --Rob (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference here comes to a great degree from the intentions of the makers. With this film I think it is clear in the quotes from the writers and producers that a major part of their motivation was to educate the viewers about the science and the issues within the format of a drama. With CSI and Law and Order the makers’ primary intent is clearly to entertain and any true science or history used is just a back-drop to this. The docudrama article (which I agree needs some re-writing in that it currently concentrates merely on the historical docudrama) states “Docudramas, then, are distinct both from the main line of historical fiction, in which the historical setting is a mere backdrop for a plot that could be set in many periods.” If you replace the term “history” with “science” I think it is clear the difference between Science Fiction and Science Docudrama. CSI and Law and Order therefore don’t qualify as Docudramas as the “facts” are not key to the plot, in this film the “facts” are key to the plot. I've already given a number of other examples where the term is used in this way, so I don’t see anything inconsistent in this. Mutt (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We should settle this with sources. Most sources say this is a drama. Some also call it a thriller. One source suggests it is a docudrama (in a very ambiguous manner). I think if there are more docudrama sources, you should re-add "docudrama" to the body of the article, and add a cite. Otherwise, it shouldn't be in the docudrama category. I think it's reasonable to ask for just a couple decisive cites to support the docudrama label. --Rob (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Drama and docudrama are not mutually exclusive terms, docudrama is just a sub-genre within drama, just like thriller is. So just because most references refer to it as a drama does not mean it isn’t also a docudrama or indeed a thriller. And so as I have said I’m happy for it to be listed as Drama as it is now. But I would also like it to be included in the docudrama category as it has commonly been referred to as such here in Britain. Here are two forum postings I read that I know aren’t decisive but I think show common (British?) usage of the label.[1][2] Mutt (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course docudrama is a subgenre of drama. I don't dispute that. My point was really to suggest that there's ample reliable sources available that discuss what genre this is. So, if it's accepted as a docudrama, it should be easy to find reliable sources that say so. This shouldn't be settled by my personal opinion, your opinion, or some forum opinions. We should be going with reliable sources. Also, I don't see why you think it's good to use a category for docudrama, with the body saying just "drama". To me, that's the inverse of what we should do. Categories are good for binary facts. The body of the article is good for things that are opinion, as you have freedom in how you phrase something, whether you use quotes, and how you attribute the source. Also, just to clarify, by "decisive", I mean something as simple as stating "Burn Up is a docudrama". Anyways, I've left the category alone, and think it's best if we take some time to see if appropriate sources can be found to settle this. --Rob (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burn Up (miniseries). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080614093512/http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/reallife/greenguide/story.html?id=d213ebcd-6192-49a3-a6c6-1b25dc82e36b to http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/reallife/greenguide/story.html?id=d213ebcd-6192-49a3-a6c6-1b25dc82e36b

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)