With us moving into the new year and the upcoming Fallout show looming over us like a particularly zealous Brotherhood Paladin leering over our brand new iPhones, I think it fair to analyse exactly what it is that awaits the Fallout fanbase as perhaps their only fresh product for the next half decade. (Given Bethesda's lamentable fear of all things 'spin off'.) Fallout 5 is a far off proposition that not many people have the energy to seriously contemplate, least of all myself who fears to look more than a few weeks into the future with hope- so this TV show of questionable canonicity will have to suffice in the meantime, which means us fans our placing all of our hopes and dreams into the hands of the talented Mr Johnathon Nolan, showrunner of that Westworld show that everyone watched for a bit and then dropped off on. (Turns out I don't care about the plight of androids that look human- now please stop presenting me with that exact same 'moral quandary': every near-future sci-fi show ever made!)
Johnathon Nolan is no fresh spring chicken with no idea what he's doing, the guy seems to have nurtured talent just as his Brother has- but talent does not always translate to every task, especially for the very complicated and multifaceted job of an 'adaptation.' Even Westworld, bearing the name of a classic sci-fi movie, pretty severely veered away from the base concept to such a degree that to compare the two and call them the 'same franchise' feels genuinely laughable. Sure, that original concept absolutely did not have the legs to last as long as the show did, but I would struggle to call where the show went a 'natural evolution'. It feels a bit more like that age-old problem of a show runner who wanted to make a certain kind of show but lacked the funds and backing to mount it and so attached it to a more profitable brand. But even then- Westworld was that more profitable brand? I don't know how I feel about the man as an adapter. His team are not as shameless as the Halo team, at the very least.
Video game Adaptations have always been a minefield of cringe, typically assaulted by creatives who consider themselves intellectually superior to the original material and the fans of that material by merit of being a filmmaker- resulting in total irreverent trash that turns away franchise fans and is too stupid for fresh fans. (Like Halo.) Johnathon Nolan is no fool, he probably knew all of this very well when accepting the job to adapt Fallout and yet took the plunge anyway- why? Because he thought himself capable of handling it. But unfortunately that isn't really up to the Nolan to decide, now is it? No, we are going to break down right now whether or not Nolan knows his stuff. As card-carrying Fallout veterans (Barring a spin-off here or there I need to get around to. And I've only ever played both DLCs for Fallout 4 once. And I just learnt I never 'actually' finished Nuka World- there's a secret ending I never triggered.) And it all starts with that original announcement.
Now I have to admit, seeing Nolan sitting in that desert being handed a fresh glass of Nuka by a screen-accurate T-45 hand: that was pretty cool. And perhaps I blanked out a little on what was actually being said in order to bask in the wonder of the moment. But looking back, at that 'funny' little back and forth where he pretended not to know what the franchise even was whilst sitting on the set, (That's humour for ya!) his feedback was a little odd. "Fallout! Yes. The Post Apocalyptic- humourous, dark, bleak- brilliantly written- annoyingly playable.. video game franchise." That's the first we hear Nolan talk on the franchise and it's full of affectations and pretty surface level observations, if we're being pedantic. (And you know we're all about the pedantises here!) First off 'Post Apocalyptic'- yes, the genre- you can read a summary, good for you. No mention of the unique aspect of that Apocalypse- that it happens in a fifties-tinted retro-future. 'Humorous, dark, bleak'- two of those descriptors are being used as synonymous, but otherwise- sure, to the point. "Brilliantly written"? Seriously? I get we're giving a little bit of 'under the table hand service' to Bethesda here, but 'brilliantly'? That needs a bit of closer inspection.
So I can't think of a game in the Fallout canon, outside of New Vegas (Which was not a Bethesda game) which I would call 'brilliantly written'. Fallout 3 presents a pretty straight forward tail stretched out over a long winding plot that stands on the shoulder's of the quality world building, to be decent. Fallout 4 trips over itself in a flurry of factions that withers and ends up failing to say or go anywhere significant by the end of the game. Side quest lines aren't that much better. DLC is pretty hit or miss. And the less said about 76's main storyline, the better. Bethesda aren't really known for their writing- and in fact the best Fallout story was told in the Honest Hearts DLC for New Vegas, that of Randall Clark- and something tells me Johnathon Nolan isn't familiar enough with this franchise to be thinking about a optional note-quest storyline in the second DLC of a spin-off game. Just doesn't seem his speed.
And besides, if the 'writing' of Fallout is so darn brilliant, why does this show seem so eager on changing it? The Prydwen from Fallout 4 found itself copy and pasted into this new show despite the fact that airship was actually a one-of-a-kind custom build from the remains of the Enclave carrier destroyed at the end of Broken Steel. The Brotherhood themselves are described as post-war military in press snippets- without any mention of their tech zealotry- which is, you know, their defining characteristic! Also, the idea that there's still vaults that haven't been opened this long into the timeline (the show is actually the furthest along we've had so far) is supremely questionable. It's all enough to make a guy wander just what Johnathon Nolan thinks Fallout is anyway.
I would describe the Fallout franchise somewhat similarly to how I would describe Star Wars. Neither are brilliantly formed works of storytelling mastery on the main face, but they triumph in the worlds of recognisable design. The power armour, the monsters, the retro-futurism, the iconography- Fallout is a visual icon and that- at least- Nolan has replicated to considerable success. The show looks like the game should. Arguably a little too much like the game, considering this is supposed to be a totally original story but appears to be borrowing hyper-specific scenes from the games and simply transporting them over to LA where this show is set, such as the scrap-yard city built out of the ruins of a downed airliner, or the aforementioned floating fortress for the Brotherhood of Steel. Of course, looking like the real thing is only part of the struggle, Nolan also has to make sure the show feels like Fallout- and that is going to be the thing to look out for.
There's certainly something here, in this Fallout show. Something that wasn't present for the Resident Evil adaptation, which is good- because we don't want a repeat of that. However, there was a visual parity for the Halo TV show, and we all know how Season 1 of that turned out! (Poorly) I just hope that Nolan knows how to make his show feel independent of the Fallout games that we know whilst still remaining in that universe without spiralling off into existentialism like Westworld did, or collapsing under the weight of it's own lore. (Like Bethesda would have done if they were in charge of making this show) I want something original, and good, and I'm asking for too much, aren't I? If this is a low-key Fallout 3/4 remake, like I'm half-certain it is- then we'll just chalk this up to another chunk of wasted potential, won't we?
No comments:
Post a Comment