Hacker Cinema
The Fallout
2021 · Film · 96 min
Directed by Megan Park
In the wake of a school tragedy, Vada, Mia and Quinton form a unique and dynamic bond as they navigate the never linear, often confusing journey to heal in a world that feels forever changed.
1 negative3 neutralfrom 4 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
4 comments on Hacker News
Being a huge fan of the genre of "interactive narratives", I have to disagree. Games like Gone Home, Life is Strange, Mass Effect, Skyrim, Fallout, Deus Ex, and others have had a profound impact on me. The author doesn't seem to make a compelling point why they would be better as books or movies. I haven't really been able to derive a more coherent argument from the article than "they're worse because they're worse, so they should not be games". I think that is a bit harsh on the incredible achievements of the games that painstakingly build an interactive narrative on a medium that is both technically and artistically extremely challenging. Take Mass Effect for example, to me the whole franchise has been one of the most successful science-fiction stories ever. It rivals Star Trek, Star War, and The Expanse. Especially since Mass Effect came out during a period where Hollywood had pretty much given up on the genre as a whole. Mass Effect constructs this beautifully detailed and coherent universe set in a future where mankind discovers advanced technology from an ancient race. This propels mankind into a new era of exploration, conflict and intrigue. Te reason why Mass Effect "works for me", besides the "world building", is that you have the ability to construct a secondary narrative on top of the one presented by the game itself. You are allowed, and encouraged, to make decisions and reflect upon them. While it's all arguably superficial and closed-world, the moment you immerse yourself /in the character/ it offers something very few books and movies can: the ability to guide the story, and become a "person" in a complex world. Then again, I'm biased…but so is that author it seems.
Right now Hollywood make money out of the game by converting them to a movie. I think the next "big thing" would be creating artificial game polygon, where people can go in, pay the same amount of money as they pay for the ticket and play the game as player, not just watcher. People can were all artificial gadgets ( helmets, gloves, even the full suite) and be part of the action. Imagine you can create avatar and play Quake 3 arena death match, or be part of the Fallout, etc. Computer power is already there to create it, it's just a matter to allocate money and gaming developing will begin. It will be win-win scenario, since this new type of entertainment will attract all industry from software / hardware to graphic designed and script writers. And then it can be monetizing the same way as movie.
I'm not sure what you think this will prove, but if you're going to go this route it's going to make nuclear look even better. Much more confined mining operations, much smaller land use (something almost all "green" technologies are actually terrible with, IIRC nuclear is the most power-per-acre you can get with current tech), waste goes to uninhabited areas anyhow (and if we were less stupid about it there wouldn't hardly be any), and take a quick Google at "pictures of Chernobyl" [1] and note how it isn't a radioactive wasteland in the style of Fallout or anything.
Very little land has actually been rendered "unable to sustain life"; I'm not sure it measures in anything more than a handful of acres. Hollywood movies and video games are not a good way to learn how nuclear power works.
[1]: http://www.grcade.com/viewtopic.php?t=2217 - note the greenery all the way up to the plant itself
I voted no, because I don't really like zombie movies on balance. But I am a lover of film and cinema in general.
My beef with zombie movies is that they're usually cliche, and are going for "cheap scares" first and foremost. Often they're punctuated by gore for the sake of gore, and it's done tastelessly. Frequently there's a large cast that you feel no real attachment to and don't bond with, because they need lots of people to kill in a variety of ways.
But the upside: Apocalyptic scenarios in general give lots of options for plot and character development and interaction. I'd say take a look at something like Mad Max - it's a bit campy at times, but I remember some very interesting scenes. There was a relatively small cast that you developed some attachment to, and the sometimes slow pacing made the heavy action scenes really stand out.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a zombie movie with really exceptional acting and minimal cliches. (If someone who is a fan of this genre can recommend one, I'll check it out). What I'd want out of a zombie movie is focus on character development of just a few people who interact with a broken world. And the filmmaker resisting the temptation to have the "dumb, defiant, big-boobed blond girl who doesn't listen to the leader and thus gets impaled on a fence and eaten" - the zombie scenario itself isn't unsuitable for a good movie, but the execution in these films leaves a lot to be desired.
For inspiration into some unique elements, you might check out the first two Fallout games. It's been a few years and I've not checked out the third, but the first two had some interesting scenarios and plots. In particular, humans interacting with other humans during the apocalypse/zombies could lead to interesting dilemmas and development. In Fallout, the world had fallen apart, and yet there were still people being really petty and villainous instead of uniting. This jives with my understanding of human nature, and makes the games more interesting. Human/human conflicts amidst a zombie background could be a fascinating way to break from the cliches.