Fallout official trailer

[Lemmy]

Last Jedi is over half-a-decade old. There's been a lot of Star Wars that's come out since then.

Ah, yes...

We also had gems like Rise of Skywalker, Solo, Ahsoka, The Book of Bobba Fett and the 3rd season of The Mandalorian...

Okay...

But I digress. My point is "it's not for the fans" is as red as a flag can get.

It's a preemptive excuse.
A shameless way to mindlessly dismiss any and all criticism.
A cowardly attempt to put the blame for the inevitable failure of their product on the very audience that the studio was trying to attract when they invested millions in the franchise.

And make no mistake... That audience is exactly what the studio paid for.
If they truly were trying to "captivate a new audience", they'd start a new IP, which would be much cheaper and be given much more leeway even if it turns out to be bad.

[Tyndmyr]

Not recently, no.

Remember the not-so-subtle "Let the past die. Kill it if you have to"?

Then, when they saw the pushback and their numbers going down, suddenly it was "we are in this together", but by then, it was way too little, way too late.

I suspect that quite a lot of people get into the movie industry because they want to work on their own ideas. Writing, directing, etc.

But when so much of the industry now revolves around existing IP, they don't actually get to do that. So, they resort to attempting to put their ideas into that IP. Many of them don't fit well.

The fan base wants the existing thing. That's what they're fans of. After getting the existing things, they want things that are at least related, and feel similarly. When one goes to a favorite Italian restaurant, one might branch out and try a new dish, but if you ordered lasagna and get tacos, you're going to be confused....even though tacos by themselves are pretty great.

The corporate system seems to be fixated on advertising what the fans want, but lack a way to actually provide that, overall. Sometimes it works out, but sometimes...it's tacos advertised as lasagna, or worse, tacos stuffed into a lasagna.

[Ramza00]

Fallout TV Series Creator Says Pleasing Fans Is A ‘Fool’s Errand’
Director and producer Jonathan Nolan also said Fallout 3 almost derailed his entire career

why did you rewrite Season 2 of Westworld for someone discovered the twist via a trailer and you feared the mystery box would not be “pleasing”

[Errorname]

We also had gems like Rise of Skywalker, Solo, Ahsoka, The Book of Bobba Fett and the 3rd season of The Mandalorian...

The worst moments in literally all of these are attempts to be fan-pleasing.

[Ramza00]

I suspect that quite a lot of people get into the movie industry because they want to work on their own ideas. Writing, directing, etc.

But when so much of the industry now revolves around existing IP, they don't actually get to do that. So, they resort to attempting to put their ideas into that IP. Many of them don't fit well.

The fan base wants the existing thing. That's what they're fans of. After getting the existing things, they want things that are at least related, and feel similarly. When one goes to a favorite Italian restaurant, one might branch out and try a new dish, but if you ordered lasagna and get tacos, you're going to be confused....even though tacos by themselves are pretty great.

The corporate system seems to be fixated on advertising what the fans want, but lack a way to actually provide that, overall. Sometimes it works out, but sometimes...it's tacos advertised as lasagna, or worse, tacos stuffed into a lasagna.

the master is not master of their own house, for as soon as they try to master an object that is not part of their own body

they quickly realize it is spooky and uncanny, given enough time and space, things change, and there are other peoples wishes inside that property.

=====

two people look an an image a third person draws, they find it beautiful and unified but did not articulate what it was, as soon as they open their mouth one says it is a duck, the other says it is a rabbit, but what is really is … is an image^{an imag•inary in which they did not share}

[Tyndmyr]

The worst moments in literally all of these are attempts to be fan-pleasing.

I dunno, the moped gang in Boba Fett isn't a fan callback, is it? Sure, sure, memberberries are a flaw, and those definitely are fan centric, but to me, those feel like attempting to quickly mollify fans with a token, rather than making the whole story something they would like.

Boba Fett largely ignores the history of the character and attempts to rewrite it.

Mandalorian is *most* successful when its fairly consistent with its past. Mando S1 was pretty well received, and was, from a story perspective, not anything all that new at all. Storm troopers were bad guys. Mandalorians are helmeted dudes who don't talk much and are badass. This sort of a perspective would be at home in Legends. Mostly, people liked it. Reactions got more mixed later, as things got broader and less connected. Dropping in a Jack Black and Lizzo cameo is many things, but certainly not traditional Star Wars.

Ahsoka is literally Filoni's OC that has become increasingly decoupled from the original story.

Solo and Rise of Skywalker were both kind of insane. By this point, the story had progressed to the point where there simply was no good way to make a tale both consistent with the remainder of the sequel trilogy and also the original trilogy, and maybe not even a good way to make coherent films altogether.

Did the fans really ask why Han Solo's last name was what it was? Did anyone need a movie to explain this? I had never heard of such a fan demand before the movie came out. It was just his name.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: I love talking Star Wars as much as the next person, but this thread didn't even get a full page on the thread topic. Discussing trends with franchises is fine, but lets allow the Fallout thread to have at least 50% of the discussion be related to Fallout, please.

[Lemmy]

I suspect that quite a lot of people get into the movie industry because they want to work on their own ideas. Writing, directing, etc.

But when so much of the industry now revolves around existing IP, they don't actually get to do that. So, they resort to attempting to put their ideas into that IP. Many of them don't fit well.

There' s nothing wrong with adding your ideas to an existing IP (most of them, Fall Out included, are big and/or flexible enough to accomodate them), as long as you do it while respecting the original work and its author.

The worst moments in literally all of these are attempts to be fan-pleasing.

I disagree. But even if that were the case, you can't simply add a couple a few bits of nostalgia after completely ignoring, insulting and downright undermining the original work, and expect that to work... Just like you can't sprinkle a few chocolate drops on a turd pie and expect it to taste good.

I fully expect this series to be Fall Out on its most superficial level only. At its core, it's probably going to basically ignore (or worse: try to undo) any an all characters and lore that gets in the way of whatever crappy idea the producer has in mind...

It'll get the visuals well enough... And then disregard the main themes and atmosphere of the games. The stuff that actually kept people coming back to Fall Out.

And when it fails, the fans will be blamed, as usual.

"How dare these commoners not appreciate the work and ideas of the enlightened showrunners? The only possible explanation is that they are ignorant close-minded bigots!"

*sigh*

I hope I'm wrong... But I'm not optimistic (obviously).

[Callos_DeTerran]

I hope I'm wrong... But I'm not optimistic (obviously).

So I agree with you that hearing that something 'isn't made for the fans' is a massive red flag because well...look at what's been done with that phrase in mind. As you said, a lot of soulless or needlessly reinvented series that then turn around to blame the fans and make it their fault to excuse a poor product. Its obvious that Bounding Into Comics has a similar pessimistic outook from reading the article (though with the addition of a different reason), but the context in said article is pretty important.

Coming from a guy who helped write the Dark Knight Trilogy (generally well regarded movies that, at the very least, can't be accused of not being Batman enough), he says that you can't write a movie/tv series with the explicit goal of making fans happy, you have to make a project that you yourself are proud of. He is largely right about it in the context he says it, that being he's trying to make a good Fallout series and the hope is that it will make most Fallout fans happy, as opposed to just mindlessly going for fan happiness which could lead to a directionless mess or soulless cash grab. I can agree with the man on that. If he enjoys Fallout (no reason given to believe he doesn't) then if he makes a show that he's personally proud of then the series should resonate with fans on some level.

Bounding Into Comics point of contention (aside from your red flag) is that the director is specifically a fan of Fallout 3 and onward and cites disagreements between people who like Bethesda Fallout and those who like the feel of the original two Fallout games as why fans might be let down by the series. I haven't heard of such disagreements myself, but I'm not super deep into the Fallout fandom largely because I like Bethesda games on a surface level for their cool worlds and occasionally good stories but largely find them..shallow and disconnected from each other because of the nature of their open world games. So having an actual story in a setting I find cool but a director who's work I can be excited for, has me casually optimistic.

I do have to ask though, is there a sharp divide between Fallout 1/2 fans and Fallout 3/4 fans? And where do New Vegas fans fall in that civil war? Lol.

[Tyndmyr]

I do have to ask though, is there a sharp divide between Fallout 1/2 fans and Fallout 3/4 fans? And where do New Vegas fans fall in that civil war? Lol.

Possibly, in that they are very different sorts of games. There's lore overlap, of course, but the style of game is wildly different. Might not matter for appreciation of this show, though.

I'd say that generally, New Vegas falls with 3/4. I enjoyed all three games. 3 the most, largely because I love the setting. I live near DC, and it's really cool to see real world landmarks so transformed. New Vegas is probably more highly regarded in general, though.

The real controversial one is Fallout 76. That game didn't even start on launch, requiring massive amounts of patches just to play it, and was also buggy as all hell, even by Fallout standards.

[Whoracle]

I do have to ask though, is there a sharp divide between Fallout 1/2 fans and Fallout 3/4 fans? And where do New Vegas fans fall in that civil war? Lol.

Hi, F1/2 fan here! I personally couldn't stand F3 and F4, and didn't even try New Vegas, although that's more or pedigree reasons (Bethesda won't get another dime off me if I can help it).
My Problems with 3 and 4 were that they matched the superficialities, but not the "heart" so to speak. Bethesda, for my tastes, jumped the gun right after Morrowind, and it shows in each game they released since.

Now, as for the series: Matching the looks will happen, and I kinda hope that they don't match the "flavor" of the Bethesda Fallouts. That way there's at least a chance they'll create something palatable for my tastes.

All that being said: F1/2 are so long since that I don't care if the series (or a F5) disrespects the franchise. The franchise is not for me anymore, and has not been for a long time, and I've moved on, so I'll just sit by the sidelines and enjoy the fireworks. best case they'll create something the current fans will like, so at least someone will have fun with it.

[Errorname]

I do have to ask though, is there a sharp divide between Fallout 1/2 fans and Fallout 3/4 fans? And where do New Vegas fans fall in that civil war? Lol.

Kind of in the middle? I'd say it's generally liked by both sides.

Hi, F1/2 fan here! I personally couldn't stand F3 and F4, and didn't even try New Vegas, although that's more or pedigree reasons (Bethesda won't get another dime off me if I can help it).
My Problems with 3 and 4 were that they matched the superficialities, but not the "heart" so to speak. Bethesda, for my tastes, jumped the gun right after Morrowind, and it shows in each game they released since.

For the record, New Vegas is generally considered the one that best matched the feeling and writing style of the classic Fallouts. Like I've seen a lot of people who can't stand the Bethesda titles who still go to bat for New Vegas.

[Trixie_One]

For the record, New Vegas is generally considered the one that best matched the feeling and writing style of the classic Fallouts. Like I've seen a lot of people who can't stand the Bethesda titles who still go to bat for New Vegas.

Hi that's me. It's not a Bethesda title to me, it's an Obsidian one. New Vegas is easily, easily the best 3d open world rpg, it's not even close for me, and a lot of that is down to the quality of the writing.

(Shame that took such an unfortunate dive in the last dlc, rest is good to incredible though)

[Whoracle]

For the record, New Vegas is generally considered the one that best matched the feeling and writing style of the classic Fallouts. Like I've seen a lot of people who can't stand the Bethesda titles who still go to bat for New Vegas.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm halfway or more convinced that I'd like New Vegas. I like Obsidian's writing and adore Grounded for example.

But I won't give Bethesda any money. If there was a way to pay Obsidian and make sure Beth doesn't see a dime, I'd go for it.

[Lemmy]

The real controversial one is Fallout 76. That game didn't even start on launch, requiring massive amounts of patches just to play it, and was also buggy as all hell, even by Fallout standards.

Fallout 76 is the most fun I've ever had with a Bethesda game!

Not by playing it, of course... By god, no! That game is garbage!

...But it was such a disaster, that everyday we had downright comedic bad news about it to talk with friends! Every little thing even slightly connected to the game failed to the point of hilarity! Good times...

Every piece of merchandise independently failed in hilarious ways! And the glitches just kept getting more and more absurd!


It was amazing! Every week we had lots of ridiculous news to talk about! It's like the game was a multimedia slapstick comedy! It was ridiculous and hilarious!

Ah... God bless Fall Out 76! No other game could entertain me that much without me playing a single second of it!

[oudeis]

I can remember the fanboy shrieking when Bethesda won the case that allowed them to buy the Fallout IP, so I think Nolan should ignore their opinion. Wasn't there a petition- nay, a demand- that Interplay give the fans the source code to Van Buren so they, the true defenders of the franchise, could craft a faithful sequel? And by faithful, I mean turn-based, 2D, and isometric instead of the blasphemy of real-time, 3D, and first-person.

Whatever the loyalists felt about Bethsoft, Oblivion, and Todd Howard, Fallout 3 was a huge critical and commercial success. This allowed the development of New Vegas, also a huge success, and thus the inevitable Fallout 4, the most successful title in the series and one of the biggest-selling PC games of all time. The stripped down gameplay and simplified lore in F4 that fans decried as 'Doom-like' in comparison to the depth of the first two games? These were features, not bugs to the general populace, and significantly responsible for the popularity of the game.

Fallout 4, with the lore-breaking real-time 3D first-person gameplay it inherited, is why we are seeing a flagship AAA adaptation on Prime instead of some doomed B-grade miniseries on SyFy we would have gotten if the purists had their way with the IP.

[t209]

Also aesthetic wise, Fallout 3's retro theme would remain the only symbolic one.
(Like previous ones did those, but it does follow more "modern" ones like contemporary fire arms like P90 and Desert Eagle, Mad-Max style leather jacket, and futuristic combat armor that resembled more 90's look--ignoring energy drink product placement like Brotherhood of Steel...now I think Fallout 4 might be leaning hard on retro-futurism).

[Lemmy]

I can remember the fanboy shrieking when Bethesda won the case that allowed them to buy the Fallout IP, so I think Nolan should ignore their opinion. Wasn't there a petition- nay, a demand- that Interplay give the fans the source code to Van Buren so they, the true defenders of the franchise, could craft a faithful sequel? And by faithful, I mean turn-based, 2D, and isometric instead of the blasphemy of real-time, 3D, and first-person.

"Some fans were obnoxious 20+ years ago" is a far cry from "it's better to not listen to fans".

Those fans are the whole reason this series is being produced. They are the reason the franchise is still relevant. The whole reason the showrunners even have a job in the first place... And the very audience the studio is attempting to attract.

There will always be fans that are a bit too passionate, but for every time a part of a fandom is accurately called "toxic", there're two dozens where the word is just casually thrown around by studios and their lackeys just as a cowardly way to mindlessly dismiss any and all criticism.

And if they start saying that before the show has even debuted... Well, sounds like a preemptive excuse. The good ol' tired excuse of "The show isn't bad... The fans just don't like it because they're bigots!".

Just like what the She-Hulk producers did: "We knew you'd say our crappy show is crap, but instead of making it better, we'll literally spend millions of dollars adding scenes full of strawman arguments and downright lies just to point out that we knew you'd say our crappy show is crap! We are so clever!".

That certainly worked for them, huh? How's that 2nd season coming along?

[warty goblin]

There's a meaningful distinction between the very large group of people who like something with mass market appeal like Bethesda Fallout and the small hardcore
of dedicated fans. Targeting the first is smart because there's a lot of them and they are mostly possible to please and sane. Given the previews, exactly what the show is doing.

Targeting the second is dumb, both because there's not enough of them, and because hardcore fan bases tend to be twitchy, difficult to please, and prone to extremely loud outbursts over any changes to their core object of obsession. Or the vision of that thing they have built up in their heads, which may have... limited connection to any reality outside obsessive fan groups. Creatively, ignoring this group is exactly the right move, in no small part because the sort of reactionary "they changed it, therefore it sucks" thinking common in such spaces is pretty much the death knell of actually creating something. And adapting something is still fundamentally creating something new.

[Errorname]

Fallout 4, with the lore-breaking real-time 3D first-person gameplay it inherited, is why we are seeing a flagship AAA adaptation on Prime instead of some doomed B-grade miniseries on SyFy we would have gotten if the purists had their way with the IP.

The purists would not care if the franchise had remained a critically acclaimed but relatively obscure CRPG franchise instead of a flagship AAA series that gets big budget TV adaptations. If you don't like the more mass market version of something you are unlikely to care that the franchise remained in it's pre-mass market state.

I don't hate Bethesda Fallout, Interplay had already ruined the franchise as hard as it could possibly have been ruined so Bethesda making some okay games and letting Obsidian do a standalone expansion that tied off the west coast games into a neat little trilogy is about as good as I could have hoped, but I find this argument bad. I am an audience member, not a shareholder, I have no monetary investment in the IP, it's financial success means nothing to me save for how it might effect the production of future entries, and if it's financial success comes in the form of compromising those entries such that they lack the heart of the series, that's ultimately not much different to me than if they stopped making them.

[Lemmy]

There's a meaningful distinction between the very large group of people who like something with mass market appeal like Bethesda Fallout and the small hardcore
of dedicated fans. Targeting the first is smart because there's a lot of them and they are mostly possible to please and sane. Given the previews, exactly what the show is doing.

Targeting the second is dumb, both because there's not enough of them, and because hardcore fan bases tend to be twitchy, difficult to please, and prone to extremely loud outbursts over any changes to their core object of obsession. Or the vision of that thing they have built up in their heads, which may have... limited connection to any reality outside obsessive fan groups. Creatively, ignoring this group is exactly the right move, in no small part because the sort of reactionary "they changed it, therefore it sucks" thinking common in such spaces is pretty much the death knell of actually creating something. And adapting something is still fundamentally creating something new.

The problem is that they don't simply ignore the "hardcore" fans. They completely ignore all fans (and the source material and its creator). And then lump all of them together with the "hardcore" ones to justify their decision...

An 9 out of 10 times, we end up with a product that not only ignores, but downright insults the fans, undermines the source material and/or disrespects the original creator.

Usually so that the show-runners can tell a really crappy story that at best is at the level of fanfic written by a particularly immature amateur who has barely had any contact with the source material and is only using it to trick people into reading about their self-insert OC.

There are exceptions, of course... But that's what they are: exceptions.

[Tyndmyr]

I can remember the fanboy shrieking when Bethesda won the case that allowed them to buy the Fallout IP, so I think Nolan should ignore their opinion.

As someone who absolutely loves Fallout 3, NV and 4, naw. Hating on Bethesda is an absolutely core component of the Fallout fandom. I wasn't even paying attention back then, but Bethesda absolutely puts out some of the craziest, buggiest stuff, even their biggest fans will roll their eyes at them. And that's before we even get into their legal controversies.

Liking a game doesn't mean one necessarily likes the corporation behind it. Not everyone who enjoys The Boys is going to be a massive fan of Amazon, yknow? This world ain't Shadowrun, we don't have to be into entire corporations.

[Trixie_One]

Look I generally like Fallout 3 (well if you ignore the main plot, and especially the ending), New Vegas is one of the best games ever made, but I'm sorry, Fallout 4 was terrible, and should never be used as an example of why Bethesda was good for Fallout. It fails at being an rpg entirely. There's just no option there to play a character that's not a hero or a slightly snarky hero.

[Rynjin]

I feel like referring to any variant of Nate as a "hero" isn't even accurate. He's just kind of a friendly dope, no matter how you play him. Sometimes this is endearing, but usually it's just...bemusing.

[Errorname]

Look I generally like Fallout 3 (well if you ignore the main plot, and especially the ending), New Vegas is one of the best games ever made, but I'm sorry, Fallout 4 was terrible, and should never be used as an example of why Bethesda was good for Fallout. It fails at being an rpg entirely. There's just no option there to play a character that's not a hero or a slightly snarky hero.

I actually think Fallout 4 is probably better than Fallout 3. It's barely an RPG, but it's a thoroughly competent action open worlder. Fallout 4 is a game that if you take it on it's own terms is good at what it wants to be

Fallout 3 is kind of a mess. It's trying harder to be an RPG, but it's not succeeding, and I just find it a lot less fun to play

[LibraryOgre]

Gameplay wise, I prefer Fallout 4, partially due to the ability to build and link settlements... to have an impact on the game through your actions.

But the plot is bad, and all factions except the Minutemen are actively working against their own stated ends.

*The Railroad kills synth personalities in order to save their bodies... they would be perfect dupes for the Institute to deal with runaway synths.
*The Institute wants influence above ground, but decided to do it by being as mad scientist as possible. "Sure, we set up wandering traders to gather information around the Commonwealth. Let's also send out hit squads of faceless robots for no apparent reason."
*The Brotherhood of Steel shows up and does... what. Yes, they want to raid some places for military technology, but they mostly do absolutely nothing except establish a 300 mile supply line, then piss off the locals.

Minutemen? "Hey, wouldn't it be great if we mutually supported each other with defense and trade?" They then do that. Preston may be annoying, but he's actually working towards the goals of his organization, and achieving them in a concrete manner (through the agency of the player, to be sure).

EDIT: The Mod Ogre: You sly dogs, you got me monologuing! Let us remember that this is the media section, not the games section. As I clearly forgot just now. Obviously, discussions of the Fallout IP are going to include the games, but if we get too deep into it, remember the Other Games forum exists about 30-40% just to explain why Bethesda is wrong.

[Lemmy]

Well... I'll be pleasantly surprised if they make the protagonist actually compelling, and not just yet another super dull girlboss... And I'll be downright shocked of they at actually create use atmosphere and themes that actually fit the franchise beyond surface level...

Then again, not even FO does FO well these days, so who knows?

[Peelee]

remember the Other Games forum exists about 30-40% just to explain why Bethesda is wrong.

Spoiler

Show

[Rodin]

Well... I'll be pleasantly surprised if they make the protagonist actually compelling, and not just yet another super dull girlboss... And I'll be downright shocked of they at actually create use atmosphere and themes that actually fit the franchise beyond surface level...

Then again, not even FO does FO well these days, so who knows?

That's my biggest fear. When was the last time we had a good Fallout plot? That would be Fallout New Vegas, nearly 15 years ago. Even then there isn't a whole lot of over-arching plot to it. You go find Benny, you talk to Mr. House and Caesar, you get the control chip, then you decide how to use it. The good storytelling in New Vegas comes from all the little side stories and worldbuilding. That brings us back to Fallout 2, and again the strength of the storytelling is in the world rather than the main plot, which doesn't really get going until the Enclave show up close to the end of the game.

Unlike The Last of Us there isn't a strong existing story for them to pull from, they're going to need to tell a fully original story. And they need to do it while matching the style of the original games, not the games that are currently in the cultural consciousness.

Even as a big fan of the games I don't know that this TV series is going to be written with me in mind.

[warty goblin]

The narrative structure for a TV series has to be entirely different than that for an RPG. Most RPGs hit you with a single goal early on (get the water chip, find your family member, etc) and then just stack up obstacles between you and that goal. The standard videogame plot really is "your princess is in another castle," i.e. a method to justify the next set of gameplay obstacles for the player. You can complicate this a lot by letting the player choose different routes and methods of overcoming those obstacles, and there's certainly games that don't use this structure, but for an open world RPG it's really, really common. You can summarize this as lots of plot, not a lot of (character) conflict.

A TV series needs characters and conflict and character arcs, generally for the protagonist(s). Since the Fallout model of RPG is about a blank slate protagonist whose actions and personality you get to construct (to degrees varying by developer) the protagonist doesn't have any personality or character arc, and the plot as written therefore can't reflect and work with their wants and needs. You can RP those things (in games that allow that level of granularity) but the plot structure can't mirror or reinforce those because they don't have to be there. RP is in your head, not in the script. You can write a perfectly fine TV series that has essentially zero plot and runs entirely off of character interaction, but even a more plot heavy approach is still structured around characters doing things and having conflicts because of who they are.

This means that any adaptation of a game with a Fallout-ish structure pretty much requires a new plot and set of characters to work. A direct adaptation will end up unwatchable, as it'll be tons and tons of stuff happening, but none of it means anything to the characters, because the purpose of that part in the game isn't to develop the characters, it's to give the player something fun to do. It would also be unfilmable, as it would be stupidly long and consist of mostly very expensive action scenes. This doesn't mean the game part can't contribute anything, it has lore and aesthetic and tone, all of which are very important. But the actual story is extremely poorly suited to adaptation because it isn't designed to function for an audience, it's designed to function for a player. This is a case where making it "for the fans" as in, as close to the original in plot and structure as possible, is a terrible idea because the result would be simply bad.


(You often see this sort of thing in reverse with videogame adaptations of books or movies, where the character conflict and arcs get compressed and sidelined, while the action bits get massively extended. The old EA Return of the King hack and slash game is a perfect example of this, it took the movies, which already amped up the action from the book, and just went totally nuts because, I guess, the movie didn't directly say that Sam didn't kill like 300 orcs in the sewers of Osgiliath. But because of this it was a very good game. )