Fallout TV Series Is Likely Woke

[Peeratat]

As the Fallout TV series gears up, there's growing concern it's heading down the all-too-familiar 'woke' path. With a female lead at the helm, the show seems poised to follow the trend of other game adaptations like The Witcher and The Last of Us, which have been criticized for veering into woke territory.

Why the worry? The female lead character is a glaring red flag. Based on recent trends, she'll likely be an over-empowered, unrealistically flawless 'girl boss' archetype, echoing a pattern that's become a staple in modern adaptations. This approach often sacrifices complex character development for a one-dimensional portrayal that ticks the inclusivity box but fails to resonate with the essence of Fallout.

The cast ensemble further fuels these fears. If the trend holds, expect a lineup designed more to showcase diversity quotas than to capture the gritty, post-apocalyptic spirit of Fallout. The richness of the game's universe risks being overshadowed by an overt focus on representing every possible demographic, regardless of whether it fits the narrative.

History doesn't bode well either. Recent game-to-TV adaptations have leaned heavily into woke themes, often at the cost of the source material's integrity. It's a pattern that's left many fans disillusioned, questioning whether these shows are more about pushing a social agenda than staying true to the games they're based on.

But there's a sliver of hope. The series is under the direction of Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan's brother. Jonathan is known for his work on Westworld, a show that, while complex, managed to avoid falling into the woke trap. Christopher Nolan's reputation for deep, thought-provoking storytelling in films like Inception and The Dark Knight offers a glimmer of hope that Jonathan might bring a similar depth and avoidance of cliché to the Fallout series.

However, this hope is slim. The pressure to conform to the prevailing 'woke' culture in media is immense, and even a Nolan might find it hard to resist.

[davidb11]

Hope for the best, prepare for the Worst.
Is what I've heard.

It could be good, it could be bad.
Worlds will live! Worlds will die!

[DouglasGrave]

Publicado originalmente por nobalkain:

The reason why I see them using Buzzwords like this in Interviews is that often they use these Vague and Poorly Defined Words to distract from talking about the Show. They will spout about "Diversity" and "Inclusion" instead of actually talking about the Show itself.

If you mean "non-binary (morality)" it's no more imprecise than it would be to describe it as any given number of shades of grey. You don't get any meaningful amount of extra information from either in this context, beyond it being a statement that the morality isn't fitting to a binary state (typically good versus evil).

Not saying more than that is just playing coy in interviews, which you get regardless of any diversity ideals. Directors, writers, and actors will all typically give no more than hints to stir up interest, so that have a reason to watch the show and find out.

[DouglasGrave]

Publicado originalmente por Walta Gaming:

Exactly, and right now I am much more concerned about the shows writing then it's agenda or message behind it. I read an article this morning that mentioned the writers learned about Fallout through watching Twitch streams and lore videos. They also mentioned the franchise as being Todd Howards idea which makes me think the lore for the west coast is going to get completely redone or the NCR are just going to get blown off as a side faction. Probably also going to take the F4 approach where the world is still completely destroyed 200 years later and people are still living in wooden shacks drinking iradiated water. I am deeply worried about how the NCR is going to be portrayed as it's once of my favourite fictional factions of all time.

I would agree that not being well-versed in the existing lore stands out more to me as a significant concern.

Siding with the NCR isn't my preferred style, but I like them conceptually as a faction, and consider them exemplars of the power of people working together to rebuild. Plus, their success, the nascent micro-nation they've built, is well-founded in the events of the original games.

Publicado originalmente por Chunk Norris ☯:

At this point every show that's been called woke is already bad so obviously there are no examples of a good woke show. It's like saying there are no objective propaganda films. There are a countless amount of media that have handled social issues well but we don't call them woke because people like them.

There is something in that, since if you brand something a "woke show" you're suggesting that being woke is one of its primary traits. It is arguably rare in fiction that you'd want to put being a diversity showcase as the primary trait of a story, compared to its genre, dramatic qualities, and other traditional elements of storytelling.

There is a difference between a story incorporating a diverse cast and having one revolve around diversity (without diversity being its actual topic). Calling something a woke show is often going to suggest it's in the latter category.

Personally, I feel like the wasteland of Fallout does support a natural degree of inclusion and diversity in that people don't worry so much about age, race, or gender when they have bigger issues to concern them. Whether the show will represent that is anyone's guess.

[nobalkain]

Publicado originalmente por DouglasGrave:

Publicado originalmente por Walta Gaming:

Exactly, and right now I am much more concerned about the shows writing then it's agenda or message behind it. I read an article this morning that mentioned the writers learned about Fallout through watching Twitch streams and lore videos. They also mentioned the franchise as being Todd Howards idea which makes me think the lore for the west coast is going to get completely redone or the NCR are just going to get blown off as a side faction. Probably also going to take the F4 approach where the world is still completely destroyed 200 years later and people are still living in wooden shacks drinking iradiated water. I am deeply worried about how the NCR is going to be portrayed as it's once of my favourite fictional factions of all time.

I would agree that not being well-versed in the existing lore stands out more to me as a significant concern.

Siding with the NCR isn't my preferred style, but I like them conceptually as a faction, and consider them exemplars of the power of people working together to rebuild. Plus, their success, the nascent micro-nation they've built, is well-founded in the events of the original games.

Publicado originalmente por Chunk Norris ☯:

At this point every show that's been called woke is already bad so obviously there are no examples of a good woke show. It's like saying there are no objective propaganda films. There are a countless amount of media that have handled social issues well but we don't call them woke because people like them.

There is something in that, since if you brand something a "woke show" you're suggesting that being woke is one of its primary traits. It is arguably rare in fiction that you'd want to put being a diversity showcase as the primary trait of a story, compared to its genre, dramatic qualities, and other traditional elements of storytelling.

There is a difference between a story incorporating a diverse cast and having one revolve around diversity (without diversity being its actual topic). Calling something a woke show is often going to suggest it's in the latter category.

Personally, I feel like the wasteland of Fallout does support a natural degree of inclusion and diversity in that people don't worry so much about age, race, or gender when they have bigger issues to concern them. Whether the show will represent that is anyone's guess.

A good example of something that had is Roots in something Political without making it ABOUT the Politics would be the 80's-90's run of X-Men. It was basically a Metaphor for the Civil Rights Movement and Racism. Thing is it put the Story and World the Characters where in and let the Writers and Artists deal with those Messages in THAT World.

Fallout is a message about War and its Evils. I just hope that any Messages/Agendas that the Writers have will keep them Grounded in the World that Fallout is in. Messages and Morals are not a bad thing to put in Stories at all, it just HOW they are put in.

As for the Lore its pretty clear that Bethesda wants to Reboot with FO4 and 76. I am sure we will get inclusions of things like the NCR, as some point, it just may not be how we knew it in the Past.

I think having it be a Not so Black and White World is a good thing. Everyone is trying to Survive and to do that people will have to do some Bad Things, even if they are Good People. I hope the MC will also have to make tough calls to Survive, not just have them be some Perfect Moral Hero. People like that would never make it.

[davidb11]

The X-Men TV show back in the day was my jam growing up.
While I was never a huge collector of the comics, I did have a few.

[Walta Gaming]

Publicado originalmente por DouglasGrave:

Publicado originalmente por Walta Gaming:

Exactly, and right now I am much more concerned about the shows writing then it's agenda or message behind it. I read an article this morning that mentioned the writers learned about Fallout through watching Twitch streams and lore videos. They also mentioned the franchise as being Todd Howards idea which makes me think the lore for the west coast is going to get completely redone or the NCR are just going to get blown off as a side faction. Probably also going to take the F4 approach where the world is still completely destroyed 200 years later and people are still living in wooden shacks drinking iradiated water. I am deeply worried about how the NCR is going to be portrayed as it's once of my favourite fictional factions of all time.

I would agree that not being well-versed in the existing lore stands out more to me as a significant concern.

Siding with the NCR isn't my preferred style, but I like them conceptually as a faction, and consider them exemplars of the power of people working together to rebuild. Plus, their success, the nascent micro-nation they've built, is well-founded in the events of the original games.

Publicado originalmente por Chunk Norris ☯:

At this point every show that's been called woke is already bad so obviously there are no examples of a good woke show. It's like saying there are no objective propaganda films. There are a countless amount of media that have handled social issues well but we don't call them woke because people like them.

There is something in that, since if you brand something a "woke show" you're suggesting that being woke is one of its primary traits. It is arguably rare in fiction that you'd want to put being a diversity showcase as the primary trait of a story, compared to its genre, dramatic qualities, and other traditional elements of storytelling.

There is a difference between a story incorporating a diverse cast and having one revolve around diversity (without diversity being its actual topic). Calling something a woke show is often going to suggest it's in the latter category.

Personally, I feel like the wasteland of Fallout does support a natural degree of inclusion and diversity in that people don't worry so much about age, race, or gender when they have bigger issues to concern them. Whether the show will represent that is anyone's guess.

What I like most about the NCR is that it adds a sense of progression to the Fallout world. In Fallout 1 the world is truely a mess where just walking between settlements can get you killed by wildlife or rouge mutants. The Brotherhood ruled the wastes because they had the best tech. The NCR's rise to power showed that the world was really being rebuilt and developed since trade and cities were coming back. In F3 and F4 the world is once again portrayed as being a total mess just like it was in the 2100's. One main thing I love about fallout (1,2 and NV) is it shows how the southwest US was rebuilt and fundimentally changed when the NCR took control. I wished this plot continued so we can see where the world goes when larger factions appear with there own ideas on how to rebuild. It's a real shame Bethdesda is just playing into the whole end of the world stuff because as I mentioned earlier in this thread that market is pretty saturated.

Yea if a show jams diversity as a plot point for the sake of it being there it's just bad writing and nobody likes it no matter what political views you have. It's 1 dimentional writing that only has a place in children's shows. At it's core its poor writing mostly caused by shows chasing trends rather then being origional. Happens (and has happened) a lot due to production companies trying to play things safe but the end result is slop that will be forgoten in a few months.

I am all for shows that discuss progressive politics if it's handled correctly and fits in with the world it's set. I also love Star Trek which might have been considered a woke show if it was released today with how it portrays it's world but how it handles social issues fit well so it's still enjoyable as a piece of fiction. I think Discovery was labbled as woke but that show suffered from bad writing which is why I gave up on watching it.

[HancockismyGhoulmate]

blah blah blah, cry more then go touch grass <3 appreciate life. you could be dead.

[cody]

It should be fine. In fallout 4 you can play the game as a woman and that wasn't woke. Trailers they've released look interesting.

[DouglasGrave]

Publicado originalmente por Walta Gaming:

What I like most about the NCR is that it adds a sense of progression to the Fallout world. In Fallout 1 the world is truely a mess where just walking between settlements can get you killed by wildlife or rouge mutants. The Brotherhood ruled the wastes because they had the best tech. The NCR's rise to power showed that the world was really being rebuilt and developed since trade and cities were coming back. In F3 and F4 the world is once again portrayed as being a total mess just like it was in the 2100's. One main thing I love about fallout (1,2 and NV) is it shows how the southwest US was rebuilt and fundimentally changed when the NCR took control. I wished this plot continued so we can see where the world goes when larger factions appear with there own ideas on how to rebuild. It's a real shame Bethdesda is just playing into the whole end of the world stuff because as I mentioned earlier in this thread that market is pretty saturated.

Something I never got from the earlier games was any impression of the Brotherhood ruling the wastes (maybe Fallout: Tactics). They were these scattered bases of knights with powerful old-world technology; individually strong, but not a dominant army as such.

Fallout 3 and 4 moved away from that, and while it was tolerable in Fallout 3 as a really strong showing of concentrated Brotherhood force and an emerging desire to use it for good, Fallout 4 takes them past seeming like rare elites to become an army who could be doing more to help ordinary people, but isn't for ideological reasons. With the exception of New Vegas, they're no longer an order of mysterious tech-knights.

The NCR in contrast was doing its best to grow and thrive, and as you say, I likewise loved that they changed and grew from appearance to appearance. It feels more natural than the Brotherhood's growth.

Publicado originalmente por Walta Gaming:

Yea if a show jams diversity as a plot point for the sake of it being there it's just bad writing and nobody likes it no matter what political views you have.

There are two different reasons for it, too. One is a genuine desire to promote diversity by using the show as a vessel. It still isn't good for the show (because it puts the diversity message ahead of the story) but is arguably more honest in its intent.

The other is wokexploitation, where diversity is included because exploiting a popular trend gets views. Worse because even its diversity is likely to be shallow.

Publicado originalmente por Walta Gaming:

I am all for shows that discuss progressive politics if it's handled correctly and fits in with the world it's set. I also love Star Trek which might have been considered a woke show if it was released today with how it portrays it's world but how it handles social issues fit well so it's still enjoyable as a piece of fiction. I think Discovery was labbled as woke but that show suffered from bad writing which is why I gave up on watching it.

I agree that Star Trek in general is a show that is progressive without making it overbearing or noxious. It contrasts the Federation's attitude with alien races at times, but for the most part embraces diversity by being diverse without emphasis or comment.

[lungcao100]

Publicado originalmente por davidb11:

Yeah, I have heard of Non-Binary being used a long time before Woke became a big issue.

What even is a non-binary?

[Goose]

Publicado originalmente por lungcao100:

Publicado originalmente por davidb11:

Yeah, I have heard of Non-Binary being used a long time before Woke became a big issue.

What even is a non-binary?

a person who identifies as neither male nor female.

it is 100% valid and recognized by formal medical studies.

[DouglasGrave]

Publicado originalmente por Goose:

Publicado originalmente por lungcao100:

What even is a non-binary?

a person who identifies as neither male nor female.

it is 100% valid and recognized by formal medical studies.

Noting that this is specifically non-binary gender (or non-binary sex or some equivalent). With no given context, non-binary literally just means something that doesn't just have two distinct states.

Real-world biology is kind of slipshod about its details, so while the traditional male/female binary a lot of societies have used to describe someone's physical sex is a working approximation that fits the majority of people, there's a substantial minority that doesn't fall neatly into either category. And then you've got attraction, gender identity, and other factors where the details of reality also routinely diverge from being a simple binary state.

But there are also plenty of non-gender/sex things to which you can apply the term non-binary. Our counting system is non-binary (doesn't use just two digits like computers do) because it's decimal (using ten different digits), and with the interview on the Fallout series it was used to describe their intended approach to morality as not just being one of two states (good or evil).

[nobalkain]

Publicado originalmente por DouglasGrave:

Publicado originalmente por Goose:

a person who identifies as neither male nor female.

it is 100% valid and recognized by formal medical studies.

Noting that this is specifically non-binary gender (or non-binary sex or some equivalent). With no given context, non-binary literally just means something that doesn't just have two distinct states.

Real-world biology is kind of slipshod about its details, so while the traditional male/female binary a lot of societies have used to describe someone's physical sex is a working approximation that fits the majority of people, there's a substantial minority that doesn't fall neatly into either category. And then you've got attraction, gender identity, and other factors where the details of reality also routinely diverge from being a simple binary state.

But there are also plenty of non-gender/sex things to which you can apply the term non-binary. Our counting system is non-binary (doesn't use just two digits like computers do) because it's decimal (using ten different digits), and with the interview on the Fallout series it was used to describe their intended approach to morality as not just being one of two states (good or evil).

And thus you both just proved my point. Its a Buzzword that has Multiple "Definitions" that can vary person to person, just like WOKE. If they had just used Shades of Grey, then the Majority of people would have understood, but this way it distracts people and causes them to talk about that instead. Again this is why I consider this kind of Wording to be an issue and a reason why its something to be Cautious about.

[DouglasGrave]

Publicado originalmente por nobalkain:

Publicado originalmente por DouglasGrave:

Noting that this is specifically non-binary gender (or non-binary sex or some equivalent). With no given context, non-binary literally just means something that doesn't just have two distinct states.

Real-world biology is kind of slipshod about its details, so while the traditional male/female binary a lot of societies have used to describe someone's physical sex is a working approximation that fits the majority of people, there's a substantial minority that doesn't fall neatly into either category. And then you've got attraction, gender identity, and other factors where the details of reality also routinely diverge from being a simple binary state.

But there are also plenty of non-gender/sex things to which you can apply the term non-binary. Our counting system is non-binary (doesn't use just two digits like computers do) because it's decimal (using ten different digits), and with the interview on the Fallout series it was used to describe their intended approach to morality as not just being one of two states (good or evil).

And thus you both just proved my point. Its a Buzzword that has Multiple "Definitions" that can vary person to person, just like WOKE. If they had just used Shades of Grey, then the Majority of people would have understood, but this way it distracts people and causes them to talk about that instead. Again this is why I consider this kind of Wording to be an issue and a reason why its something to be Cautious about.

The variation is by context, not person. Saying its definition varies is like saying that the definition of "black" varies because different things can be described as black.

And it's the same with "shades of grey" potentially referring to different things being graduated (i.e. characterized by degrees, not passing a course), instead of always talking about graduated morality. Or some book character with a fetish.

What it means is that people should pay attention to context, instead of just hearing that someone said "non-binary" in an interview and assuming it must be about gender politics.

[nobalkain]

Publicado originalmente por DouglasGrave:

Publicado originalmente por nobalkain:

And thus you both just proved my point. Its a Buzzword that has Multiple "Definitions" that can vary person to person, just like WOKE. If they had just used Shades of Grey, then the Majority of people would have understood, but this way it distracts people and causes them to talk about that instead. Again this is why I consider this kind of Wording to be an issue and a reason why its something to be Cautious about.

The variation is by context, not person. Saying its definition varies is like saying that the definition of "black" varies because different things can be described as black.

And it's the same with "shades of grey" potentially referring to different things being graduated (i.e. characterized by degrees, not passing a course), instead of always talking about graduated morality. Or some book character with a fetish.

What it means is that people should pay attention to context, instead of just hearing that someone said "non-binary" in an interview and assuming it must be about gender politics.

All your doing is continuing to prove my point. You have a Definition of what you THINK it is. Others see it as just being about Gender. Others still see it as a Scientific Term that it Originated from. Its become a Hodge Podge of Different Meanings.

You look up Shades of Grey and its an easily Defined Meaning. Its use in the name of a Book doesnt change that meaning. The fact that we have already shown that Non-Binary has been Defined Differently, Questioned, and Argued about proves my point. It is not Properly Defined in current day and is just a Buzzword.