Detective Ausir Finds Fallout Movie Info

Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:39 am

Ah ha ha ha how about you

Get Out ? icon_drunk

Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:56 pm

can somebody here explain to me why they went for this stahl fellow in t3 when edward furlong was still around and even the right age and stuff? never really understood that decision

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:21 am

At the time I think Furlong was in drug rehab and was known for getting wasted and stuff. I don't think the studio wanted to risk having the project get all messed because Furlong decided to snort coke out of someones butt crack last night.

I also don't think Furlong was interested in doing a T3 movie for whatever reasons.

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:45 am

makes sense, thanks pooper

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:22 am

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by that - I gather there's been discussion in other forums regarding Fallout 3's merits as a worthy/unworthy successor to 1 & 2, but that debate's outside the scope of what I'm talking about right now. Let's just say that, overall, yes, I think Fallout 3 was "done right" but done right IMHO - I mean, it works for me (but then, my panties get all creamy for anything post-apocalyptic [which is why I bought & sat thru that crap-ass Deathlands movie, as well as certifiable ghoul-feces like The Ultimate Warrior, DefCon 4 and Cyborg]); I enjoyed it immensely & have no major complaints other than not being able to ride one o' them motorcycles you see everywhere (or a horse, à la Oblivion or The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time).

Now, even if I had a harsher opinion or whatever (of the game, i.e., Fallout 3), I'd still say there's enough material there upon which to base 2 kick-ass seasons of Fallout: The Series, starring Nick Stahl. You wouldn't be trying to ape what's essentially a gaming experience in a television series format, see? Because you'd be working in a whole other medium, your criticisms re: Fallout 3 wouldn't necessarily hold - you can't criticize a TV show's "gameplay" - see what I mean?

Of course, I don't know what your specific complaints about the game are (by asking me if I'm implying that Fallout 3 was "done right," you're implying that you think it wasn't), so the preceding paragraph's of a more rectal origin than its reasoning might at first suggest. So I guess before I tender any more responses, I should hear what you think the game's shortcomings are (are we allowed to talk about that here, or will the Topic Police crash in thru our respective bedroom windows tonight & whisk us away to Guantanamo?).

Ain't nothin' but a vault thang,
D.

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:25 pm

Jericho was horrible enough, no thanks.

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Ah ha ha ha how about you

Get Out ? icon_drunk

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:29 pm

Sorry to cut it down to that, but that's what you took three paragraphs to say.

I personally found nothing wrong with the basic gameplay of Fallout 3 taken on its own merits - it's a first-person shooter with badly acted and repetitive voice actors. What is wrong with Fallout 3, from a standpoint to base television or movies off of, is that the story is not compelling; the story has no internal logic; the ending has no emotional resonance, it just kind of happens.

Fallout 1 and 2, conversely, had an interesting main story and subplots. And they weren't first-person shooters with terribly voiced, poorly written dialog - there was a lot of wit in the original games, and what characters had to say was rarely boring. It was also possible to sneak, steal, shoot or talk your way through the game in any combination. You also had complete freedom of choice, which made anything possible and made it so main characters could never be guaranteed to be alive later.

With how dynamic and unpredictable the original games were, it would make a far more compelling starting point for a movie, instead of Fallout 3's M-rating for nothing more than everything-but-fuck-beacuse-we-can't be-politically-correct-and-use-that language and exploding heads.

Of course, since lowest common denominator (i.e., you) is what entertainment is aimed at, the latter would win.

The original Fallouts were about unpleasant situations and how humanity can raise itself out of the mired slop that's basic survival. Fallout 3 is about following waypoints and shooting what you meet there.

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:18 pm

Fallout 3 could become a television show solely on the grounds of it being railroaded nearly as bad as a Final Fantasy game.

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:09 am

I guess a Fallout movie would be exciting. If the rumors are true than I hope the movie takes place somewhere different from the games, and maybe have a small group of intelligent super mutants hunted by the BoS, I don't know, I'm not good with coming up with plots. I just hope that they do a good job since its going to be a big undertaking if they do. Even if they don't it'll introduce people to the Fallout series, maybe not as much as Fallout 3, but that's still something.

Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:55 am

Stop.

Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:53 pm

Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:30 pm

Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:02 am

Uh.... you realize that movies have a long process whereby most of the end result has absolutely nothing to do with the original content, much like any Uwe Boll (?) film?

Therefore, there is a very good chance that the shit game Bethesda produced could very well be a (marginally) decent movie, right?

o_O

Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:17 pm

Uh.... you realize that movies have a long process whereby most of the end result has absolutely nothing to do with the original content, much like any Uwe Boll (?) film?

Therefore, there is a very good chance that the shit game Bethesda produced could very well be a (marginally) decent movie, right?

o_O