The Verge: Westworld showrunners are creating a Fallout show for Amazon

UnknownSouljer said:
I have news for you: the purpose of 100% of all science fiction is social commentary and the exploration of moral or ethical topics. "Theoretical future technology" is just a framework to explore implications of said technology and explore the ramifications which always have a moral or social element to them. Just say you don't like sci-fi. It's faster.
Click to expand...
Are you admitting that you've been conditioned to think that social commentary must be exclusively neoliberal and pro-social justice? Or are you choosing to miss the point?

Art doesn't have to exclusively be a vehicle for left-wing propaganda, ya know? Makes for boring content with recycled tropes.
 
t1337duder said:
Are you admitting that you've been conditioned to think that social commentary must be exclusively neoliberal and pro-social justice? Or are you choosing to miss the point?

Art doesn't have to exclusively be a vehicle for left-wing propaganda, ya know? Makes for boring content with recycled tropes.
Click to expand...
I figured you're respond this way. Here you go: what is talked about through sci-fi is often the topics of the day.
The framework you have for looking at all of this is just trying to slap a left wing or right wing as if every writer of science fiction can collectively be called a certain type of politics.

And I personally think that that viewpoint is boring. Because you're making the assumption that if a certain form of sci-fi talks about a topic it immediately has to be categorized as one or the other.

Again, I would tell you that we could've done the same thing throughout all of sci-fi, ironically using a lot of the same terms. Oh, that's socialism or communism. That's totalitarianism. That's feminism. That's slavery. And that would be talking about every piece of sci-fi from the last 100 years. Written or in some visual medium. The irony there being if 1984 was written today and featured modern times, you'd also probably call it liberal. You'd say the same thing of Frankestein and say that it's perpetuating victim mentality. You'd watch the original Star Trek and mention how dare they talk about feminism and inter-race relations! Star Trek's whole society is communism and socialism and utopia! The liberal idiots! They comment on different aspects of society and culture by having aliens on the show! How dare they?

Writers are not a collectivist blob. They all have their own independent things to say and their own views on the topics they're exploring. So I'd start there. Maybe if you could see individuals as individuals and that the goal isn't about 'some agenda' you could view sci-fi as exploration and commentary about a topic.

Or just admit you don't like sci-fi, which again I think is easier. Because you can't stand anything with commentary on topics you don't like, when that was kind of always the point in the first place. A framing device to talk about subjects that people are uncomfortable with or otherwise explore.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
Or just admit you don't like sci-fi, which again I think is easier. Because you can't stand anything with commentary on topics you don't like. When that was kind of always the point in the first place. A framing device to talk about subjects that people are uncomfortable with or otherwise explore.
Click to expand...
I love sci-fi, I hate most modern sci-fi. Sure, social commentary was always a part of sci-fi, but before a good story came first then came the social commentary. Today the commentary comes first, second, and third, and then you get a story - maybe.
 
rinaldo00 said:
I love sci-fi, I hate most modern sci-fi. Sure, social commentary was always a part of sci-fi, but before a good story came first then came the social commentary. Today the commentary comes first, second, and third, and then you get a story - maybe.
Click to expand...
You're kidding right? I just posted multiple examples of previous works made in the 20th century that all were very social commentary forward. In fact you will struggle pretty hard to find something that isn't. Well perhaps said another way, something of any quality and lasted the critical test of time that isn't.

rinaldo00 said:
Nah, the messages are always the same.
Click to expand...
pendragon1 said:
not anymore.
Click to expand...
Okay, well again I would submit to you that you have a problem discussing the issues of the day and therefore don't like sci-fi.

Because if you were born in 1940 and lived through the 50's and 60's you'd be annoyed by the constant discussion of communism and feminism. You'd also get sick of the commentary about social equality (Jim Crow, etc). Those topics were talked about in those works over and over and over and over and over.

Succinctly, you're just saying you don't like sci-fi. Because it's a way of talking about the current social topics. So until the social topics change, those are the things that will get talked about. And then the next social topics will be talked about and explored ad nauseum and so on.


EDIT: Part of this is just literal denial that these are the subject topics in the world. I constantly see people get upset that a show has a gay character or whatever. And hey maybe I do or don't like that. But also at the end of the day, people are out there practicing homosexuality. So is it more honest or dishonest to have a gay character in a show or not? There is a huge swath of people that see that and think it's a political move. Or it could just be that the show writer has a gay friend. Again, I would suggest it's all of you forcing social commentary down a political pipe. You may simply not like that a certain type of person even exists, but they do.

That was one of the many issues with racial inequality. A bunch of racists had a problem with black people wanting equal rights and existing in their towns affecting their property values etc. And guess what, politics were divided on those sci-fi works during that time. So if you don't see that sci-fi has always been polarizing in its day, you've entirely missed the point. Star Trek was bold by putting an Asian man and a black woman in positions of power. In retrospect you don't see it that way, but back then that was not something taken for granted. Turns out black people and Japanese people exist. Turns out gay ones do too. Right or wrong, like it or dislike it.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
You're kidding right? I just posted multiple examples of previous works made in the 20th century that all were very social commentary forward. In fact you will struggle pretty hard to find something that isn't. Well perhaps said another way, something of any quality and lasted the critical test of time that isn't.



Okay, well again I would submit to you that you have a problem discussing the issues of the day and therefore don't like sci-fi.

Because if you were born in 1940 and lived through the 50's and 60's you'd be annoyed by the constant discussion of communism and feminism. You'd also get sick of the commentary about social equality (Jim Crow, etc). Those topics were talked about in those works over and over and over and over and over.

Succinctly, you're just saying you don't like sci-fi. Because it's a way of talking about the current social topics. So until the social topics change, those are the things that will get talked about. And then the next social topics will be talked about and explored ad nauseum and so on.


EDIT: Part of this too to me is just literal denial that these are the subject topics in the world. I constantly see people get upset that a show has a gay character or whatever. And hey maybe I don't like that. But also at the end of the day, people are out there practicing homosexuality. So is it more honest or dishonest to have that in the show or not? There is a huge swath of people that see that and think it's a political move. Or it could just be that the show writer has a gay friend. Again, I would suggest it's all of you forcing social commentary down a political pipe. You may simply not like that a certain type of person even exists, but they do.

That was one of the many issues with racial inequality. A bunch of racists had a problem with black people wanting equal rights and existing in their towns affecting their property values etc. And guess what, politics were divided on those works during that time. So if you don't see that sci-fi has always been polarizing in its day, you've entirely missed the point.
Click to expand...
In the past the story was good, today the story, and the writing, sucks.
 
rinaldo00 said:
In the past the story was good, today the story, and the writing, sucks.
Click to expand...
Matter of opinion. Both critically and popularly that isn't how people feel about the genre at large. Or else they'd stop producing it as fundamentally all of this has to bring in money. Same as it's always been.
If you want to side step that and just say: "critics are wrong, people are wrong", okay, great. You don't like sci-fi. Just say that. It'll be faster for everyone involved.
Otherwise, go build a show and do better.

EDIT: I also think it's laughable that you're painting this with this wide a brush. There is great and terrible in every genre, but I suppose if you're going to put it like that, then yeah it's not your genre.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Matter of opinion. Both critically and popularly that isn't how people feel about the genre at large. Or else they'd stop producing it as fundamentally all of this has to bring in money. Same as it's always been.
If you want to side step that and just say: "critics are wrong, people are wrong", okay, great. You don't like sci-fi. Just say that. It'll be faster for everyone involved.
Otherwise, go build a show and do better.

EDIT: I also think it's laughable that you're painting this with this wide a brush. There is great and terrible in every genre, but I suppose if you're going to put it like that, then yeah it's not your genre.
Click to expand...
Critics are wrong, and much of the crap put out is not popular. Streaming companies are losing tons of money. But hey, enjoy.
 
rinaldo00 said:
Critics are wrong,
Click to expand...
Kay, thanks for the predictable hand-wave.

Just to also let you know, like I said before, sci-fi has always been polarizing. Turns out a huge amount of people haven't liked it because of commentary in literally every decade. And also as I noted, there is great and garbage in every genre.
rinaldo00 said:
and much of the crap put out is not popular. Streaming companies are losing tons of money. But hey, enjoy.
Click to expand...
Tell me about action, adventure, or horror for 10 minutes. And how successful any of those highly popular genres are based on what Netflix is releasing. Either critically or via popularity. Seems to me regardless of genre companies are losing money and also producing trash.

So it becomes, by what metric? You lack nuance.
 
Last edited:
TMCM said:
If you really enjoy thinking sci-fi checck out The Expanse and For All Mankind. Excelllent shows and The Expanse I think is one of the best sci-fi shows ever made.
Click to expand...

The Expanse was top tier but it loses points for not completing the books...they ended the TV series with 3 books remaining so the TV series never answered the central mystery at the heart of it- the protomolecule

I've haven't watched For All Mankind yet but I hear good things about it...it's from showrunner Ronald D Moore who also oversaw the Battlestar Galactica reboot...something about For All Mankind just seems a bit boring to me...I hear it's a slow burn series so I need to be in the right mindset to start it...another very good alt history series on Amazon was Man in the High Castle...not top tier but close

I'm also watching Foundation on Apple TV+ (based on the Isaac Asimov books) which I like mainly for the big budget visuals...they changed some things from the books which as usual upsets the book purists...I also like Invasion on Apple TV+ which deals with the global aftermath of an alien invasion...it has its issues but overall I like it (the Japan storyline is the most interesting)

Silo on Apple TV+ recently finished its first season and I loved it...very interesting story...it's another TV series based on a series of sci-fi books
 
Are they going to make an Oblivion show and reuse all the sets and actors? Because that's how you make a new Fallout show.
 
polonyc2 said:
The Expanse was top tier but it loses points for not completing the books...they ended the TV series with 3 books remaining so the TV series never answered the central mystery at the heart of it- the protomolecule

I've haven't watched For All Mankind yet but I hear good things about it...it's from showrunner Ronald D Moore who also oversaw the Battlestar Galactica reboot...something about For All Mankind just seems a bit boring to me...I hear it's a slow burn series so I need to be in the right mindset to start it...another very good alt history series on Amazon was Man in the High Castle...not top tier but close

I'm also watching Foundation on Apple TV+ (based on the Isaac Asimov books) which I like mainly for the big budget visuals...they changed some things from the books which as usual upsets the book purists...I also like Invasion on Apple TV+ which deals with the global aftermath of an alien invasion...it has its issues but overall I like it (the Japan storyline is the most interesting)

Silo on Apple TV+ recently finished its first season and I loved it...very interesting story...it's another TV series based on a series of sci-fi books
Click to expand...
It would have been fantastic if they could have finished the last 3 books but the 30 year time jump between book 6 and 7 I could see it being a little tricky. The other thing is that the show really needed more than 10 episodes per season to flesh out the books...Like 13 episodes per season would have been the sweet spot.
Yeah man Ronald D Moore is a fantastic show runner. For All Mankind is a slow burn but it's really good and very much along the same lines as Man in the High Castle. I
Foundation... yeah I haven't watch season2 yet but the first season I didn't know wtf was going on but damn the production value was so high I didn't care cause it was so pretty lol. I'll watch S2 over the holidays lol
Silo was fantastic and I hope they get a S2. I need to read the book/s cause I got them on my kindle several years ago and haven't gotten around to reading them.
 
TMCM said:
It would have been fantastic if they could have finished the last 3 books but the 30 year time jump between book 6 and 7 I could see it being a little tricky. The other thing is that the show really needed more than 10 episodes per season to flesh out the books...Like 13 episodes per season would have been the sweet spot.
Yeah man Ronald D Moore is a fantastic show runner. For All Mankind is a slow burn but it's really good and very much along the same lines as Man in the High Castle. I
Foundation... yeah I haven't watch season2 yet but the first season I didn't know wtf was going on but damn the production value was so high I didn't care cause it was so pretty lol. I'll watch S2 over the holidays lol
Silo was fantastic and I hope they get a S2. I need to read the book/s cause I got them on my kindle several years ago and haven't gotten around to reading them.
Click to expand...
Wool books are very different from the TV show Silo. Be prepared.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMCM
like this
If they make this suck, I will drive somewhere and repeatedly kick someone in a something.

(* - No not really cybercops. I'll just sigh and put it on a shelf next to Alien, and dream about days where we didn't destroy great franchises)
 
Last edited:
I am looking forward to it, Fallout was always a fascinating look at America and how it became more and more military first as resources dwindled. Then there is the whole vault experiments itself and how much everything changed while they were tucked away in the vaults. Plus I don't see how you can do Fallout without social commentary, was all over the game if you read the stories left on the terminals.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
It really was a brilliant show on a lot of levels. And I think at its most basic the first two seasons worked whether you were more cerebral or not.
If you're the type to shut your brain off, then it could just be a show about robots vs humans, some sex-ploitation, and murder/mayhem. And then season 4 is like "reverse" season 1-2. Again for people not thinking about the show.

But the real themes of the show were <minor/major spoilers ahead, but just bullet points and not spelling out plot points>:
-Is artificial intelligence sentient, and what are the ramifications of that?
-If you create something do you have the right to destroy it or enslave it?
-If it is 'moral', then is the reverse equally as moral? (The nature of power and under what circumstances it's okay to wield it, and by what standard is open rebellion also moral).
-Is the primary issue not whether or not a robot can be sentient, but rather sentience itself? That is to say: does sentience by nature give rise to greed and selfishness? (explored a lot in S4).
-How much of life is nature vs nurture. Depending on what you "remember" and what your "past was" how much does that shape what you will become? (multiple copies of Deloris, Bernard, amongst others)
-Are humans in actuality just machines like what they've created? That is to say, is life deterministic (philosophical idea of determinism)? This is explored through Delos himself and whether it's possible to predict what every individual will do via a super computer (Rehoboam/Serac). And also in S4 a literal interpretation of humans being controlled like machines.
-What does all of this say about the nature of the soul? Is there a soul? Can we simply place the brain scans of a human into a machine and have there be no real difference between the two? Can a soul be created? Can a soul be transferred? (Delos, Bernard, amongst others)
</minor/major spoilers behind, but just bullet points and not spelling out plot points>

Season 5 likely would've explored the nature of hope, selflessness, sacrifice, goodness, etc. I mean, if I had to predict what "Benevolent Deloris" was after for her final test.

It really was a brilliant show. S3 just introduced too many threads that get started off of literally single lines of dialog. And even for someone really trying to pay attention and unravel things, it was just too hard to follow. It was Jonathan going full Nolan. While I know the point was to push into the extremes, I would say for basically everyone it was convoluted and just needed some thoughtful trimming. I'm guessing that after S3, it was hard to get viewership numbers back for S4, even though I think it was much more of a pared down season. I also think that there was some level of expectations that things would finally "get back to the park", which S5 I suppose finally would have. However, good writing evolves the story and gets to the heart of things rather than repeats the same stuff. However it's also very hard to get people to want to take that journey and follow along through all of that.

If I had to criticize Westworld (other than S3), it would be that shows such as Breaking Bad were able to get the audience to follow the evolving story more than Westworld was. However, that is a very delicate and incredibly hard trick to pull off. And requires a lot of thoughtful time in the writing room to really be consistent in tone and what the goals are for the season and for the overall arc of the show so that viewers whether they're cerebral or not can follow the path of the story.

On the other end, there were other elements in the show too that just made it fun. How conspiratorial the show was, how many secrets lurked in the park. The various mysteries. etc etc. A shame it just wasn't appreciated. It's unlikely I'll get to enjoy another sci-fi show to the degree I did on Westworld for a long long time.
Click to expand...
Eh, I was bored with it by the third episode so I stopped watching it.
 
polonyc2 said:
The Expanse was top tier but it loses points for not completing the books...they ended the TV series with 3 books remaining so the TV series never answered the central mystery at the heart of it- the protomolecule
Click to expand...

It was excellent, it got cut off too early. The last season essentially stopped partway through the season. There are talks they might revive it, but that remains to be seen.

polonyc2 said:
I've haven't watched For All Mankind yet but I hear good things about it...it's from showrunner Ronald D Moore who also oversaw the Battlestar Galactica reboot...something about For All Mankind just seems a bit boring to me...I hear it's a slow burn series so I need to be in the right mindset to start it...another very good alt history series on Amazon was Man in the High Castle...not top tier but close
Click to expand...

I've been interested but also heard it is very heavy handed with social justice warrior type stuff. I usually binge watch TV shows, and it seems like there are a few more reasons left so I may wait another year or so.
 
Gideon said:
I am looking forward to it, Fallout was always a fascinating look at America and how it became more and more military first as resources dwindled. Then there is the whole vault experiments itself and how much everything changed while they were tucked away in the vaults. Plus I don't see how you can do Fallout without social commentary, was all over the game if you read the stories left on the terminals.
Click to expand...

I'm curious what they'll do here. Without that, you mostly just have generic dystopia.

It's a pretty intrinsically political yet simultaneously caricature-y look at Americana taken to the occasional comical extreme.

Hopefully they lean into that and it doesn't just become goofy Mad Max. I'm really not sure how well it'll translate.
 
Fun said:
"The Acclaimed"
Click to expand...
I know I'm in the minority here, because basically all of Todd Howard's projects from the past 10 years have gone to the moon, but all of his work is the absolute definition of mid.

He really is the CoD of RPG's. IMO he ruined the Fallout franchise (there's a lot of reasons here, but the short version is is that Todd Howard doesn't understand what makes Fallout, Fallout. He only superficially understands the themes of the games. Could've had Brian Fargo, Leonard Boyarsky, or Chris Avellone be sited for writing...). Skyrim was a game that you had to invent your own fun in. Starfield is basically the same thing in space. And those aren't even criticisms of the Gamebryo/Creation Engine, which are also a trash pile.

Nolan himself might be able to save it, if he actually digs at and understands the themes himself. But that will be despite Todd Howard, not because of him.
 
I am also who is very jaded about modern TV and the in-your-face political agenda first, story and coherent writing be damned approach but after seeing the trailer I am cautiously optimistic. That actually looked really good. Maybe a little too clean, not enough rust and grime but otherwise I am actually looking forward to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M76
like this
Sadly the show has a a high probability of being bad due to the terrible writers and show runners that are currently being hired for pretty much everything. I'm sure it'll look nice though.
 
zehoo said:
Sadly the show has a a high probability of being bad due to the terrible writers and show runners that are currently being hired for pretty much everything. I'm sure it'll look nice though.
Click to expand...

yeah if we're really being Fallout accurate there'd be a scene where the protagonist not only punches a rat in the groin, but some children as well.
 
pendragon1 said:
https://hardforum.com/threads/fallout-prime-video-series.2016857/ where it should be...

if you dont have access, its time to upgrade your account...
Click to expand...

you do this with every post...why is so hard to understand that not everyone has access to Genmay...do you pay for every forum or website's premium membership?...you literally do this with every single post...do you get paid a commission or something?

almost every News post can technically go into another hardware appropriate section or Genmay...it can exist in both places...otherwise force everyone to upgrade and the problem is solved...I don't see any Mods posting about it...only you and 1 other member
 
polonyc2 said:
blah blah blah.... do you pay for every forum or website's premium membership? blah blah blah... almost every News post can technically go into another hardware appropriate section or Genmay
Click to expand...
no, you do, support the forum, ffs.
ive said that myself but there are forum sections for a reason.
 
pendragon1 said:
no, you do, support the forum, ffs.
ive said that myself but there are forum sections for a reason.
Click to expand...

there are other ways of supporting the forum...posting itself is considered supporting a forum...visiting a forum, viewing ads, affiliate links etc
 
polonyc2 said:
there are other ways of supporting the forum...posting itself is considered supporting a forum...visiting a forum, viewing ads, affiliate links etc
Click to expand...
posting doesnt keep the lights on, what ads?, ill give you that one IF your actually use it..... why are you so upset by me suggesting people use the proper forum sections and support the site with a membership?
 
pendragon1 said:
posting doesnt keep the lights on, what ads?, ill give you that one IF your actually use it..... why are you so upset by me suggesting people use the proper forum sections and support the site with a membership?
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem supporting the site...but even if I had a subscription to Genmay I would not go OCD and constantly tell people they should not post the same article in the regular forum...let others be able to discuss the topic instead of walling off topics...it's not like people are discussing cars or boats...that belongs in Genmay...but if someone posts an article about the Fallout movie which relates to the game or AMD or Nvidia then it shouldn't be restricted to Genmay
 
polonyc2 said:
I don't have a problem supporting the site...but even if I had a subscription to Genmay I would not go OCD and constantly tell people they should not post the same article in the regular forum...let others be able to discuss the topic instead of walling off topics...it's not like people are discussing cars or boats...that belongs in Genmay...but if someone posts an article about the Fallout movie which relates to the game or AMD or Nvidia then it shouldn't be restricted to Genmay
Click to expand...
and neither do i, or youd have even more to be upset by.
amd and nvidia sections arent in genmay, the movie(entertainment) section is, this is a movie. if its news about amd or nvidia, it would fit. if is news about a gpu, it should go in the gpu section. but as we both said before, technically anything can be news, but that doesnt mean it should all go there. kyle built the forum with sub-sections for a reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top