@kepford and @TNStacker, I just finished the first season of Fallout. If either of you wants to post about your thoughts on the series, I'd love to hear them.
I like it a lot. The music is awesome! Lots of parallels to current political discourse and Military-Induatrial complex madness. However, it is pushed too an unbelievable farness. It is impossible to recognize anyone with as long a time preference as those running that company.
I'll want to watch it again. I feel like there are kernels to be discovered.
reply
Exactly. I didn't use the phrase but I said it out loud while we were watching it.
reply
I don't have the time for a proper review. I liked the show overall. Here was the big annoyance to me.
I can't follow the logic of the story line.
Spoiler alert.
The company behind the fallout shelters is supposed to have fired the nukes instead of making profits off of a long stalemate. It appears that the men behind this company are living pretty great lives. They say time is the ultimate weapon I think. I find it hard to believe that they would destroy the surface of the earth only to be able to remake it hundreds of years later. There is a ton of risk that it won't work and they seem to be sitting pretty when they make this plan.
I get it as a backup plan. It makes no sense to me that a fat cat would destroy the world and go to sleep hoping his exponential tech will work in the future.
My son says they changed the plot for the series from the games.
That's my biggest gripe
reply
I largely agree with both of you. I want to flesh my thoughts out a bit in a longer write-up.
The style of show, which is very much drawn from the games, is fantastic. The vaults, the wasteland, and even the prewar society are all fascinating. The big problem is the rationale in the final episode for destroying the world. I want to think it through a bit more and see if I can't steelman it to some extent. Clearly, some writer was very proud of it.
My wife thought it was so dumb she didn't even finish the finale.
reply
I wonder if this was being produced during the writer's strike. That could explain the weird twist in the finale. Hoping they do better in season 2!
reply
Maybe. I think that would better explain Hank McClain's ridiculous story and reveal.
One of the difficulties is that there's no way to have a nuclear war without someone having insane motives that don't stand up to much scrutiny.
reply
Yeah. Nuclear war is so crazy that to start one intentionally must have crazy motives.
reply
76 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 17 Jul
It plays into the trope of anti-capitalism but it the most ignorant way I think I've ever seen.
I've entertained the possibility that maybe they didn't fire the bomb and it was one of the governments that did it. They could probably do a twist in a season two but I doubt they do that.
reply
Even if there is such a twist, and I bet there will be, this is still something that they were stupidly considering.
reply
Thanks
reply