A place where fans of the content that Matt, Pat, and Woolie provide come to talk about their content and anything revolving around that.
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
The only thing i want from this show is one of the main characters trying to carry as much junk as possible and then becoming over encumbered.
Have it where they're carrying a ton of stuff just fine, no issues whatsoever. Then the pick up a random can and now suddenly they're super sluggish.
I'd have it where none of the characters question it despite how ridiculous it would be, it just happens because it's Fallout.
I only watched two episode and I wouldn’t be surprise if it does happen in a later episode as this show is 100% sticking to the weirdness of fallout.
I'd love a live action rendition of a cartoony oversized backpack.
It's in there.
You got it. It was comical.
Show looks awesome so far
Someone is going to punch the ghoul, and a bunch of desk fans will fall out of his duster.
Cans of beans.
Cans of beans.
Cans of beans.
Can of beans
Cans of beans.
Cans of beans
Me and the boys at 2 AM looking for B E A N S !
"Give me all your duct tape, and nobody gets hurt"
She picks up a single extra bullet and suddenly can't walk anymore
I believe in Walton Goggins.
If you’re unsure of who is going to win, always bet on Walton
I believe in Ella Purnell.
This girl has great taste. Arcane, Yellowjackets and now Fallout.
yeah she is a really good actress.
And big beautiful eyes.
That's Uncle Baby Billy to you.
Host of Uncle Baby Billy's Bible Bonkers?
Isn't that the hottest new game show sweeping the nation?
Soon to be a christian cultural phenomenon
I was originally against Walton Goggins (because the teeth) but he just keeps winning me over.
I don't think Goggins has ever not hit in any show he's been in.
Fr people just like to bee debbie downers on fucking everything, always knew the show would probally be good to ok. Its amazon, not a CW show lol
I mean...wheel of time...
I mean Rings if power
I mean, The Watch
wait, Amazon just sucks at fantasy stuff
Oh no no no no now you got me talkin po-litics… I didn’t wanna!
We dug coal together
Unlike other Amazon shows, the whole season will release at once, so no weekly episodes. They'll probably change that for season 2
S2 should be as good as long as Nolan stay away from Reddit this time.
I still can't believe a multi million dollar prestige show got changed DURING THE SEASON airing because REDDIT of all places figured the plot outEDIT: Turns out it was a case of mistaken sincerity as my source was a joke taking out of context, woops
What show?
HBO’s WestWorld, also by Jonathan Nolan, more specifically during Season 2, Reddit had an entire plot twist figured out ahead of said twist airing so the directing team changed it before it went up.
Westworld
Westworld
I have tried looking this up to see what the consensus is on what they coulda changed, and the general answer I found is that it was probably just a joke on Nolan's part that got taken too seriously.
Yeah, you're right, I did digging after making my initial comment and it was Jonathan Nolan making a joke at a panel that a lot of headline news took for sincerity.
I do think there's truth to the general idea that they felt burned by people figuring out the S1 twist and so did S2 in a way where it concealed more, to its detriment. But not the literal story of changing it mid-stream.
And if we start figuring out any plot twists just hit em with the Woolie "SHUT THE FUCK UP" gif
No, the correct thing to do when someone correctly guesses a plot twist ahead of time is to go "yeah, I guess that could be interesting," and then skate right on by.
Reading the reviews of people that have never played Fallout is super interesting.
Ironically juxtapose of happy 50's songs and nuclear holocausts is Fallout whole thing.
And it was probably heavily inspired by 1982 The Atomic Café.
As someone who was there, The Walking Dead was very similar when the first reviews dropped.
Not bad or anything, just interesting to see how non-fans react to certain elements. I remember having it really put into perspective how small something I had thought to be a major part pop culture (as it was in the comic scene) really was.
The reality is that there's a lot of people and a lot of stuff and limited time.
Even if someone has heard of fallout or the Walking Dead before doesn't mean they've played/read it or are that familiar with it.
Especially if someone is working in TV and/or Film, unless they play games as a hobby and play RPG's in particular (or in walking deads case read comics and zombie/post-apoc/horror); chances are they don't have the bandwidth to get involved with something so far outside their business.
I find it interesting how niche video games remain in the broader culture, despite being an even larger industry than hollywood. Some of it is down to unfamiliarity, but I'm not sure if games ever can or even should shed that outsider impression wrought by figures like Carmack being edgy dipshits during its formative years
I don't think that's the case with video games as a whole, just with specific brands and IPs, which is the case with works across all entertainment media. Some are just more well known and mainstream than others.
Maybe, but the same is true of hollywood. Not every movie is gonna be a DUNC, yeah?
The indie market is just much healthier for games than the indie film market, you're not likely to see some youtuber's passion project at the oscars but it's considered mandatory for most games awards to have at least one indie darling on display.
I wouldn't say that COD being bigger than God means everyone knows what fallout is about.
Sure, that wasn't my point. Games are a HUGE market, but there's such a divide between people who are nerds about games and the entire rest of society in a way that doesn't exist for things like movies or books. That's what I find interesting.
I suppose it is important to have reviews from the point of view of someone who has no clue about the source material since a lot of people watching it will be like that.
This is why like, Normal non-gaming magazines and newspapers are some of my favorite places to read game reviews and analysis. It's a fresh, often more well-rounded perspective that feels interesting and frankly refreshing. I don't really care what IGN thought of The Beginner's Guide but I'm really interested in what someone who usually reviews films for the LA Times thinks about it.
Also, not to say journalism as a whole doesn't have crushing systemic problems but I feel like a lot of the reason "games journalism" is the way that it is has to do with it's roots as hobbyist press and the relationship between publications and game publishers still relying on that foundation. Plus, if you're a general publication, you don't have this expectation of covering Every Game as it comes out. You can choose to focus on games you have clear insightful thoughts and feelings about.
Sometimes when I see normies "miss the point," I take that as a prompt to reflect. "Maybe we're fixating on the wrong point, or taking things for granted that we shouldn't." Often the conclusion is "no, they're just unfamiliar" but sometimes it's "oh wow we really are myopic about this, huh?"
The review doesn’t read to me like they don’t “get” the use. It reads more like they just find it a bit trite.
The idea that certain songs are due for retirement from all soundtracks seems so anti art
I don't think they literally mean that though. It's just another way of saying it's overused.
That's fair I doubt they're pulling out a pat take that songs should be removed from existence
Suddenly remembered when Pat said that having All Along The Watchtower play in the Watchmen movie was too on-the-nose and silly.
The song's lyrics were directly quoted on the page of the original comic the scene was from.
The way far too many media reviewers throw around that kind of snide hyperbole grates on my nerves.
"Isn't we time we did away with ironically juxtaposed soundtracks in works that aren't aiming for an explicitly comedic tone?"
No, but it is time we did away with your worthless profession and stuck you behind a grill, flipping burgers. I like ironic soundtracks; don't talk down your nose at me, asshole.
I am very confused about that point in general what are they even saying really other then old should be retired
It's kinda like how every animated movie (especially Illumination and Dreamworks ones) seems legally mandated to have an action sequence set to "I Need A Hero", usually the climax. It's overdone to the point of parody, except it's not a parody, it's always played straight, and it's just lazy. Hell the Mario movie was a stand out by only having the song for the training montage instead of the final battle. These movies would be better if they just stopped using that song, at least for a good long while. That's what they mean.
I think films would be vastly improved if they took the videogames approach to music in general, it's kind of wild how much more freedom games musicians have in their tracks for comparatively fewer dollars.
Wishful thinking though, the corporate ghouls that run hollywood don't like fresh music because fresh music doesn't tickle the funny nostalgia center of the brain. blegh.
They’re saying it’s become tropey and trite and they should find fresher and more interesting ways to pull it off. Think of it like hearing Fortunate Son in some kind of war media. That’s a good example of a song and setting/tone pair that’s been memed to the point of feeling stale and uninspired.
That's easily the best example. I mean, when aeronautics equipment manufacturers are getting in on the meme, you know it's time to stop using the song.
do you really want to live in a world where they're playing who let the dogs out anytime a dog is having antics on-screen again
because I sure don't, lmao
I mean, there were plenty of people in this sub last year with the same attitude regarding "Take On Me" being in the Mario movie for the same reason, not just because it wasn't some version of a classic Mario theme. The issue people had was that it's become such an overused song and is just 80's nostalgia bait--even though Super Mario is from the 80's as well and the movie was deliberately leaning into that, much like Fallout is set in the 50's and that's the point.
But I agree with the "anti art" issue in this reviewer's attitude, because it seems more like the reviewer's attitude is just that these songs are outdated (not understanding that the series is about emulating culture/society of the 50's) and misplaced (not understanding the unique tone of Fallout, as though all satire/comedy has to include quips and gags).
Basically, it sounds like the reviewer is confused because they expect this type of ironic/comedic tone and music has to be like Guardians of the Galaxy, rather than any different recipe of elements.
worth remembering the mario movie was doubly upsetting because we had remixes of actually relevant orchestralized koji kondo music being removed to put in these dated pop tracks.
christ but putting that into perspective depresses me. Yeah, Guardians would be the big cultural landmark for this kind of thing, huh.
This... using licensed music to denote tone even when the tone is contradictory, thing. That Guardians came up with. And nothing else, as far as modern media is concerned.
fuck that lowers me blood pressure.
Well now I'm really curious to see my parents reacting to fallout
it has been very interesting seeing television go from the silver screen where the ideas are made, to the box where adaptations go to use their well-tested aesthetics and ideas from mediums where they're considered ordinary on a new public that never left their comfort zone.
Honestly, i think the 50s happy music to gory violence is a bit overused by Fallout. But that's just me.
I always find myself wandering the wasteland to the classical station...gotta love Frederick Fuc*ing Chopin
I somehow missed the Fallout train and didn't play the games, but I'm really loving the show. I went into it knowing there's an apocalypse, there's satire, and Nuka-Cola and that's about it. My partner is a classic fan and thinks they did a great job with the tone and environments especially.
The IMDB review that said it's too funny and not serious enough actually caused me psychic damage.
Huh, weird - I didn’t have much hope/expectations for this but Netflix One Piece being good was way crazier so guess I shouldn’t be too shocked. Will take a look when it comes out
The One Piece Live Action had the creator working on it with a kill clause in the contract. He wouldn't allow it to be bad.
In the last five years or so, we've finally crossed a threshold where the people in charge of these adaptations are more likely to do justice to the source material, rather than just take the IP and do their own thing in contempt of the source material.
The first Sonic film is a really great example of seeing the battle between both of those attitudes. It's like half the team/crew wanted to be faithful to Sonic, and the other half wanted to just take the character and slap a bunch of safe, cliché movie tropes all over it. So many adaptations exist on this kind of spectrum, but Sonic made that tension so explicit.
Which side any adaptation lands on nowadays is anyone's guess, but at least you can have some confidence that it won't automatically be butchered by people who just funnel and filter an IP through basic film conventions and archetypes.
Original creators who want the adaptation done properly is one thing, but part of me wonders if "brand damage" and future sequel potential is something that is becoming more into consideration (at the corporate level) now.
If I recall, when the original Eldritch horror Sonic concept came out, Sega's lawyers and execs were just as mad as the dev team, and they were threatening to pull the license over it. Also, given Sega's "less than legal" connections, I'm 1000% sure that had they stuck with the bad Sonic concept, Sega probably have sent whomever the Japanese equivalent of the Pinkertons to Paramount headquarters with orders to kick the snot out of Brian Robbins.
Then if we take the Mario Movie and Illumination Entertainment for example: Illumination's whole MO is repeatable box office hits, their CEO (Chris Meledandrii) has previously said in press events that they don't want to spend money on one hit wonders that don't have sequel potential; so it's actually pretty clear to see why they put so much real effort into the Mario Movie. Besides the fact that I don't think there are lawyers more powerful anywhere in the world than the ones int he Nintendo offices.
As far as I know, stuff like that comes down to whatever the licensing agreement is between the owner of the IP and the studio making the adaptation, and it varies. Best example of this is Halo's adaptations.
Microsoft was really pushing for a Halo film in the mid 2000's when the series was at its peak, and a lot of pre-production work was done on it, but eventually it got cancelled, and Microsoft couldn't make another agreement with any studios to fund the project. The main issue was over creative control, as Microsoft/Bungie wanted 100% creative control over it to make sure it was faithful to the series, but then you're asking for these Hollywood studios to pour millions of dollars into a project they have no control over, which just isn't how the industry works.
And that seems to be the major reason why the Halo TV series is such a disaster. It had similar issues of them struggling to find anyone to fund and make it--it started as an Xbox TV thing, then it was supposed to be on HBO or Starz, until finally finding a distributor with Paramount--so they were basically desperate to get anyone to fund/make it. Which means they probably sacrificed a lot of creative control and let them twist the source material into something else entirely.
Same as what happened with the live-action Mario film and TriStar Godzilla films in the 90's where the directors are who screwed it up, but they literally couldn't find anyone else who would sign on for those projects.
The Sonic film was probably similar, where Paramount (hey, same studio as the Halo series) agreed to take up the project (after Sony originally had the rights but gave up), but they had some serious creative control, which meant they didn't want to just adapt the games, but needed to make it more broadly appealing and "realistic" by setting it in the real world with human characters and military and all those clichés. And with Sonic's design, Sega was probably aware of it before it was public, but it wasn't actually changed until the public reaction, meaning Paramount's creative control probably overruled Sega's opinion.
With Nintendo and Illumination, it seems like Nintendo specifically sought Illumination out for whatever reason. But not with just any IP, Mario itself, and Nintendo likely demanded a creative control that other game IP's can't usually get away with. So while Illumination's business strategy is on stuff that's cheap and without taking risks, they clearly had a different attitude with this project and were willing to work under Nintendo's authority. Miyamoto/Nintendo seemed really happy with all the decisions and casting, so they probably weren't too overbearing, but it was a more unique circumstance given the IP.
After all, Nintendo reportedly pulled out of projects for Zelda and/or Star Fox adaptations on Netflix just because news of their existence was vaguely leaked. But that's not common in most of these projects, where you're basically giving away control to someone else, because no one is going to invest so much into a project otherwise.
So it's less about lawyers, and more about who has the bargaining power with the business side of things.
This is one of the few adaptations that I honestly expected to be good from the get-go. It's really hard to mess up a Fallout TV show because you literally just have to get the environment correct? Fallout is a world. Not a story. They can make the story whatever they want. As long as it just sticks to the overall Fallout world, it doesn't really matter. It's not like other adaptations like Halo where you have to get all the characters correct. Same with The Witcher. In Fallout they are free to make new characters with new stories and have it work just fine with no one complaining
This feels like something I’m just going to have to judge for myself. The core concept of the setting is still strong and I could definitely see that sort of novelty adding value to the show that it wouldn’t really for me.
The problem for me is that Bethesda has basically made the setting nothing but a novelty. So I’m hoping the show avoids that.
That's what keep me from believing anything of these reviews. It's the show REALLY understand Fallout or just understand the ''iconics'' elements of it.
I don't want a series of references that need check in a list.