Fallout (Amazon Prime series) - Based on the games

[Neil]

0kQ8i2FpRDk

[MinionZombie]

This could either be great, or it could be a swing and a miss.

WestWorld (from the same people) got off to a good (albeit pretentious) start, but quickly unravelled, especially in the third and fourth (final) season, where the pretension and repetition ramped up to unprecedented levels at times, plus all the posturing ... ugh ... enough already.

Walton Goggins, at least, looks kick fucking ass in his role.

[Neil]

This could either be great, or it could be a swing and a miss.

WestWorld (from the same people) got off to a good (albeit pretentious) start, but quickly unravelled, especially in the third and fourth (final) season, where the pretension and repetition ramped up to unprecedented levels at times, plus all the posturing ... ugh ... enough already.

Walton Goggins, at least, looks kick fucking ass in his role.

Yes, I was one of those people for Westworld. It showed real promise at the start of s1, but just was too slow and a few episodes into s2 I gave up...

[MinionZombie]

Yes, I was one of those people for Westworld. It showed real promise at the start of s1, but just was too slow and a few episodes into s2 I gave up...

Probably for the best. Seasons 3 and 4 were, at times, a real fucking chore. Some good stuff in there, but geez, it then just became about 'sunk cost fallacy' as being the only reason to continue with it ... I actually started fast-forwarding during some scenes.

[Neil]

My mate made it to the end of S2 and gave up there...

[MinionZombie]

My mate made it to the end of S2 and gave up there...

IIRC, the penultimate episode, or one quite near the end, focused on the Native American character, and was really good - well written and performed - and stood out from the pack in a good way, one of the clear highlights of the series.

All the timey-wimey, changing aspect ratios cobblers got so overdone by the end of season two, and it was just being obtuse to appear clever, when in fact it was thoroughly muddled storytelling.

Seasons 3 and 4, while they had some strengths here and there, fell into an awful lot of cringey pandering and posturing, even if the production was indeed very slick and pretty and well designed, you just got sick of the characters and their stories and, again, the overload of pretentiousness and self-importance from the writers and showrunner who seemed as if they thought very highly of themselves and what they had to say.

The concern with Fallout is "heavy social commentary", which is a quote from one of those working on the show. Now, what specifically that phrase means, we are yet to find out, perhaps it's a very unfortunate turn of phrase that now is a big turn-off for audiences and it doesn't really represent the sort of things being talked about. There's good social commentary, and then there's bad social commentary - both can be "heavy" (e.g. perhaps the subject matter is very dark - hence the use of "heavy", or it deals in weighty themes so therefore "heavy") ... ... I just hope that "heavy" doesn't translate to mean bashing viewers over the head with the same fucking bollocks we've been getting bashed over the head with for years on end now, because that shit will sink the show faster than a nuke. Look at how poorly Prime's cack-handed LOTR show did, for example.

Meanwhile - the likes of Jack Ryan, Reacher, Upload, and the one with Christ Pratt (the name of which suddenly escapes me), all deal with big weighty themes and ideas and things that have real-world relevance, but they have all handled it in the right kind of way and have all been successful and well received shows.

It's not rocket science, is it? Mind you, to the sorts of people corporations like Disney have been hiring, it evidently is that difficult to grasp! :stunned:

[EvilNed]

I'm watching this.

I've played the first Fallout like 5 or 6 times, and then gave all the other ones at least one spin or two, except for Fallout 4 which I never really explored all that much.

[MinionZombie]

I'm watching this.

I've played the first Fallout like 5 or 6 times, and then gave all the other ones at least one spin or two, except for Fallout 4 which I never really explored all that much.

I'm more of a casual Fallout fan, particularly having not played the original couple of games, but I did play an awful lot of Fallout 3 (plus some of its expansions), and then similarly played the hell out of Fallout 4 (I particularly enjoyed the ability to custom-build your encampments, get them all fenced-off and defended and self-sufficient ... it was like post-apocalyptic Lego meets Dawn of the Dead or something, haha).

[EvilNed]

There's a pretty clear tonal shift between the first game and the others. The other games are set even further into the apocalypse, where civilization has recovered somewhat. Fallout 1 paints a bleaker and more sparsely populated world that's just beginning to rebuild after the nuclear apocalypse. It's darker as well, with not as much humor as the other ones. That's why I like it so. I like all of the games, but there's just something about the setting in the first game that makes it so much more fun.

[MinionZombie]

V-mugKDQDlg

I just hope they don't fuck it up like they did with Westworld (i.e. overly complex and kinda wanky storytelling, cringy pandering, pretentious self-importance, etc).

Visually, at least, it's looking the part. And Walton Goggins' character looks like he'll be a really enjoyable watch. :thumbsup:

[shootemindehead]

Well, they nailed the look anyway.

All that's needed now are for the characters not to be trash and take part in a decent story.

[MinionZombie]

Well, they nailed the look anyway.

All that's needed now are for the characters not to be trash and take part in a decent story.

Ah, yes - the easy part! :lol:

[shootemindehead]

Hmmmm...so the creator of this TV show has said it's not being made for the fans.

What the actual fuck?

:confused:

[MinionZombie]

Hmmmm...so the creator of this TV show has said it's not being made for the fans.

What the actual fuck?

:confused:

Do you have the source of this?

Some of these things could be misinterpretations, to play devil's advocate. The meaning could be that it's a show that wouldn't exclude those unfamiliar with the Fallout games.

Then again, it could just as easily be like, say, The Witcher et al, where you've got people making the show who actively dislike the source material. The number of times unfamiliarity with the source material (or even an active dislike of it) has been seen as a good thing within the Disney/Marvel camp has been documented in an embarrassing compilation of interviews.

I'm willing to give some benefit of the doubt, though. I recall reading some quote about the showrunner's liking of the games. Mind you, I think that was focused more on Fallout 3 and 4 and not to the original two games (which I've not played). There are hardcore fans who quite dislike (or outright hate) any of the games after Fallout 2.

[shootemindehead]

Do you have the source of this?

Only what Ive subsequently found when I typed fallout not being made for the fans into Goggle. I first heard it when a mate of mine told me when we were discussing the trailer. It could all just be the usual interweb storm in a teacup and looking at his direct quote "I don't think you really can set out to please the fans of anything, or please anyone other than yourself", it can be interpreted in a number of ways. Probably a case of some people seeing that and losing their shit to create some drama.


I'm willing to give some benefit of the doubt, though. I recall reading some quote about the showrunner's liking of the games. Mind you, I think that was focused more on Fallout 3 and 4 and not to the original two games (which I've not played). There are hardcore fans who quite dislike (or outright hate) any of the games after Fallout 2.

Ah that's just contrarian claptrap. I wouldn't pay any mind to that kind of nonsense. The modern iteration of Fallout is light years ahead of the old isometric games.

[MinionZombie]

Only what Ive subsequently found when I typed fallout not being made for the fans into Goggle. I first heard it when a mate of mine told me when we were discussing the trailer. It could all just be the usual interweb storm in a teacup and looking at his direct quote "I don't think you really can set out to please the fans of anything, or please anyone other than yourself", it can be interpreted in a number of ways. Probably a case of some people seeing that and losing their shit to create some drama.



Ah that's just contrarian claptrap. I wouldn't pay any mind to that kind of nonsense. The modern iteration of Fallout is light years ahead of the old isometric games.

1) Indeed. The internet will hop on the tiniest thing and speculate absolutely anything and everything from it.

2) I've never understood some folks dislike for Fallout 3 and 4. Admittedly, I haven't played the original isometric games, but F3 and F4 were thoroughly enjoyable and immersive games, and they certainly reached a wide audience.

Some of it seems to be rooted in a heated disdain for Bethesda.

[shootemindehead]

1) Indeed. The internet will hop on the tiniest thing and speculate absolutely anything and everything from it.

2) I've never understood some folks dislike for Fallout 3 and 4. Admittedly, I haven't played the original isometric games, but F3 and F4 were thoroughly enjoyable and immersive games, and they certainly reached a wide audience.

Some of it seems to be rooted in a heated disdain for Bethesda.

Oh well, Bethesda are dicks no doubt (well, at least the higher ups). But I think a lot of the whining just comes form people being stuck in the mud. How any gamer could dislike something like New Vegas is beyond me. But ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ feck em anyway.

[MinionZombie]

Oh well, Bethesda are dicks no doubt (well, at least the higher ups). But I think a lot of the whining just comes form people being stuck in the mud. How any gamer could dislike something like New Vegas is beyond me. But ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ feck em anyway.

I never got around to playing New Vegas. IIRC when it first launched it was massively buggy, so I never bothered, then time just ran away and I played #4 instead - however, I have heard a lot of good opinions on New Vegas over the years (from from some of the whiners, incredibly).

Bethesda dropped the ball with Fallout 76, though. I mean, for starters - where are the intervening 72 Fallout games, I mean come on! ;)

Online only? Fuck that. It's the single player experience in a massive open world that works best.

[EvilNed]

Having played 1 and 2, I can easily understand why many were disappointed with 3 and 4 - and at the same time feel like New Vegas was a step in the right direction. And I agree with all of that, in parts. I think New Vegas is a massive improvement over 3, and 4 is incredibly shallow compared to 1 and 2. Having said all of that: I enjoy all of them to some extent.

The roleplaying aspects are toned downed considerably in 3 and onwards, and especially so in 4. The world setup is different, and more fun to explore I think, but it also suffers from being loaded with very generic houses, caves, loot and villains. It also ignores many of the things that were cemented in the previous games and tries to include stuff that shouldn't be there. The super mutants, for instance, are the main enemies in the first game and an anomaly. They are created at a specific military base north of Los Angeles, which is destroyed at the end of Part 1. Super mutants aren't some kind of result of the post apocalyptic wasteland, they're a deliberate experiment by that game's villain in order to establish a new master race. By the time Fallout 2 rolls around, the few super mutants that are left are trying to find a place for themselves in this world. There shouldn't be any super mutants in DC, or Boston or Chicago (Fallout Tactics) for that matter because they're the result of very specific circumstances that are explored in Fallout 1.

The same goes for the Enclave, the main villain in Fallout 2 and 3 - and The Brotherhood of Steel in a way which is a very mysterious organisation in both Fallout 1 and 2.

But from 3 onwards it's as if every Fallout game just tries to include "the best of"- the first two games and not really bothering to introduce new elements to the world that are specific to their geographic region. This, together with the toned down roleplaying elements, make for a comparatively flavorless experience. 3 and 4 also present a world where there, to a greater extent, seems to exist a struggle between good and evil, whereas in the original two it was much more morally gray. The Brotherhood of Steel are not the good guys, they have their own agenda which just happens to suit our protagonist in his struggle against the mutants. It's almost impossible to be "good" in the first two games, as there are no real good guys around. Just varying degrees of survivors or bad guys.

New Vegas corrects some of this and feels much more like a successor to 1 and 2, even being set closer geographically.

EDIT: I just want to point out that if I were still playing games, I could easily see myself going back and replaying any of these games. I love to explore in these kinda games, and Fallout 3 in particular had a lot to explore.

[shootemindehead]

I never got around to playing New Vegas. IIRC when it first launched it was massively buggy, so I never bothered, then time just ran away and I played #4 instead - however, I have heard a lot of good opinions on New Vegas over the years (from from some of the whiners, incredibly).

Bethesda dropped the ball with Fallout 76, though. I mean, for starters - where are the intervening 72 Fallout games, I mean come on! ;)

Online only? Fuck that. It's the single player experience in a massive open world that works best.

New Vegas was excellent. The best iteration of the game as far as I'm concerned and really funny. 3, NV and 4 were great games all round. The original 2 were good as well, but putting the player in a proper 3D environment was a vastly superior way to play the game compared to the isometric setting of the older games.

Played 76 for about 2 hours, though, and just wasn't feeling it. Uninstalled and never bothered with it again.

[EvilNed]

I think the new trailer looks great. I don't know if it's just trying to reference the first games or not, but going by what we see I'd say it's set in and around the world of the first Fallout game. We Shady Sands and LA, both places featured there. If I'd speculate, seeing as the Brotherhood doesn't seem to mind making it's presence known, it appears to be set after the first game, maybe in the 80 years between 1 and 2. That's a good setting! Those are the years when the Shady Sands village of Fallout 1 organized itself into the New California Republic we see in Fallout 2 and New Vegas.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's just a new story that completely disregards the events of the game. But it'd be a weird move to have it set in California, then, so I doubt it.

[MinionZombie]

I was reading some of those quotes from Nolan RE: 'pleasing the fans' ... I can easily see how it could be a misinterpretation, especially in these days of so many projects that have disregarded the source material and/or sought to deliberately piss off fans.

He could easly just be saying that you shouldn't be worried about trying to please everybody, because that's simply not possible, and if you did try and please everyone then you're going to fail. Indeed, trying to please everyone is exactly what 'made by committee' junk is (e.g. Madamme Web).

However, getting your intentions across accurately to a committed fanbase is also crucially important. It's amazing how much "respecting the source material" means to a fanbase. Of course, you actually have to do just that if you're going to say those words - but look at how popular Netflix's "One Piece" ended up being. The key message in the promotion of it was being accurate to the source material and respecting the material (and having its originator involved and approving).

So for Fallout it's very much still in the air. We'll just have to see in a few weeks time. I hope they've done it right ... but at the same time you've got the spectre of how WestWorld turned into pretentious, expensive, pandering wankery. The pedigree of some writers on the show also raises an eyebrow, considering some less-than-well-written projects they've been involved with.

Still, talented writers can still work on something that ends up being junk and then make something really special. Craig Mazin has utter dreck like "Superhero Movie" and "The Hangover 3" on his resume, and then he came along with "Chernobyl", so ... what a friggin' turn around that was, eh?

[EvilNed]

Don't knock Superhero Movie. That's not a bad film. It's not great, but it's surprisingly clever in it's silliness.

[Neil]

Talking of super hero movies, give "The Return of Captain Invincible" a watch on Amazon. You can thank me later...

ps: Fallout is out :) - One episode in, and pretty good so far as long as it 'builds up' now...

[MinionZombie]

Talking of super hero movies, give "The Return of Captain Invincible" a watch on Amazon. You can thank me later...

ps: Fallout is out :) - One episode in, and pretty good so far as long as it 'builds up' now...

I just finished watching the first episode and it's off to a good, solid start. The tone and style seems pretty on-target, too.

The opening section at the birthday party was very well done and so damn chilling as the bombs began to explode ... gave me shivers all over.

Really looking forward to checking out another episode or two this evening. :thumbsup:

[Neil]

Catch up! I've just done ep2, and it's definately moving in the right direction. Really enjoyable episode, and especially nice to see Michael 'super unhinged and toxic' Rapaport not doing well :)

[MinionZombie]

Catch up! I've just done ep2, and it's definately moving in the right direction. Really enjoyable episode, and especially nice to see Michael 'super unhinged and toxic' Rapaport not doing well :)

Okay, four episodes deep now and loving it.

Well written, good characterisation (flaws, complexity, humour etc), no out-of-place pandering, true and respectful of the source material ... not a hard concept to grasp, is it?

Really looking forward to watching the remaining episodes. I was almost wondering from the first episode if they were slightly soft-pedaling the gore, but then there's been some juicy kills since then (e.g. a T-60 armour hand vs someone's head - and with added character development thrown into the mix, haha - or The Ghoul's two-for-one chest/head double kill in Filly).

[MinionZombie]

Annnnd finished. :cool:

Thoughts?

Sure, there's areas to nitpick at and there'll be logic holes here and there, but I really enjoyed it.

[EvilNed]

Started watching this today. Like already mentioned, big fan of the first few games in particular. I think it's good! Both as a show, and as an homage to the games.

One minor gripe, I don't think Walton Goggin's ghoul makeup is as nasty as it could have been. Ghouls in the games are much, much nastier. In particular in the early games, when they're shriveled up to such an extent they're barely recognizable. But his ghoul makeup looks like a normal human with third degree burns over his face, hardly the inhuman zombies of the games.

The music is awesome.

[MinionZombie]

With The Ghoul, it's probably a case of keeping enough of Goggins' face recognisable to help the audience connect with him in that state and to allow for a fuller performance, especially as he's one of the main characters.

We see other Ghouls who are much nastier looking, including ones who have gone full-Ghoul, so it's not as if they all look like him. In fact most of them don't.

I think it's a fair decision to make RE: Goggins' character IMHO.

[EvilNed]

Yeah it's just a minor gripe. And another thing that struck me, which makes it feel even less important; I have never before seen a video game adaption that so completely adopts the aesthetic of the games. The jumpsuits, the shape of the vault doors, the brotherhood of steel power armor: It all looks exactly like in the games. And many of these things were designed in 1997, for the first game! That's kind of incredible.

Minor, minor, minor gripe that struck me:
Vault 33s is depicted laying around the Santa Monica area, quite unhidden and out in the open. This area is thoroughly explored by the time the series is set. Parts of LA have been repopulated for over 150 years, as depicted in Fallout 1. Basically, Vault 33 would have to have been remained untouched inside the New California Republic for around 100 years at this point, which is just highly unlikely. I get that the series is probably going to dwelve into the NCRs being (or not being) but by the time the series is set this general area is pretty civilized and rebuilt, by wasteland standards.

[Neil]

Well, okey dokey... That was good :)

Second series - as long as it can build on a story - can't come soon enough.

ps: And luckily, hardly any adverts during the episodes too!

[MinionZombie]

And luckily, hardly any adverts during the episodes too!

Indeed!

It kinda varies on Prime lately. Sometimes you get nothing at all (fine by me!), and other times you get a little bit too much. Last night I watched Cinema Paradiso and there were several adverts that were just telling me about dedicated 'channels' on the platform for the likes of He-Man and She-Ra ... like, jog on, will ya?

Far better than ITVX or Discovery+, mind you ... the latter is particularly awful when it comes to adverts.

...

Anyway! Like Ned was saying, how they faithfully captured the aesthetic of the games was great - moments like hacking a computer terminal were straight out of the game ... ... I never really understood the rules of how to hack in Fallout, mind you, so those always pissed me off, haha.

One random infinitessimal gripe - I did see a vault door wobbling when it opened up one time. :lol: It's rolling towards the camera and you can see it jiggling about, heh.

And the Ghoul's line about getting sidetracked by bullshit all the time was hilarious. Although, I have to say, one of the things I like most about sandbox games is getting lost in all the side activities and missions. While you still enjoy the main stories, they somewhat feel like an obligation on occasion, but you can't make a compelling game out of just side missions - you'd never get the emotional impact of RDR2's main story conclusion, for instance.

...

I've heard that there are various instances across the games where pieces of lore don't quite add up, so some criticism out there from hardcore Fallout gamers feels a bit unfair on that front.

Mind you, I did think Vault 33 was a bit 'exposed' out there by the sea. I mean ... it's just right there.

But then again, like the shopkeeper woman seems to suggest, it's as if the people on the surface just think they're all filled with skeletons ... they're almost a joke. And, to be fair, you'd want your fallout shelter to be pretty impregnable anyway. You can't just rock up and knock on the door or slip in an open window, heh.

[Neil]

Not being familiar with the games, is there a narrative/story from the games that lends itself to season 2 now?

[EvilNed]

Not being familiar with the games, is there a narrative/story from the games that lends itself to season 2 now?

Short answer is yes. The series doesn't adapt any of the plots in the games, but instead tells a story set in the same world. You could argue that there are 5 different video game plots, Fallout 1, 2, 3, New Vegas and 4. I'm disregarding Tactics and some of the other offshoots. All of the above mentioned games is set after the previous one, and the tv-show is set after Fallout 4. So any new season would probably tell an already untold story set even further into the future.

But if they were to adapt a game, then Fallout 1 would make the most sense. That's set in roughly the same area as the tv-show, but 150 years prior. It's got a pretty good plot.

edit: Also, just wanted to reiterate that I really like this show.

[MinionZombie]

Not being familiar with the games, is there a narrative/story from the games that lends itself to season 2 now?

Well, the show is more 'another story' within that world. While the show is adapting the world of Fallout, even referencing specific characters at times (e.g. corporate bosses), it wasn't adapting any of the games specifically, if that makes sense? So they can tell their own story within this setting that is familiar to players.

To be fair I've only played Fallout 3 (plus some DLCs) and Fallout 4, so I'm not massively up on the overall lore.

[EvilNed]

Okay I just finished. Initial gut reaction? This is the best possible Fallout-adaption we could have ever hoped for, and a great tv-show as well. Wow. It nails fucking everything. I'm also surprised at how bold they go, considering it's mostly based on ideas presented in the first two Fallout-games, and foregoing the more popular part 3 and 4. It almost wraps up the mystery of the Vaults and the experiments, which were hinted at in the first game and then presented in Fallout 2. Equally, Shady Sands might just be another name for most viewers, but it's the very first settlement you stumble upon in Fallout 1 and the only settlement we ever revisit in any of the games as it's again featured in Fallout 2 but 80 years later.

And that ending shot... Can't wait for season 2.