Fallout sequels compared to movie sequels

R.Graves

R.Graves

Confirmed Retard
Bit of a pointless thread but id thought id give a comparison between the fallout sequels and what movie sequels they'd be.
For example, fallout 2 is definitely beyond thunderdome in that, most of what makes the original good is there with some definite improvements (tHunderdome feels more like a living breathing world than the other films with an actual town and everything.) But is tonally jarring when compared to the rest of the franchise and has some pretty dumb stuff in it.

Fallout tactics is terminator 3. It makes sense by itself but when previous entries are taken into account some continuity and logic problems arise.

Fallout 3 is terminator: salvation. It has numerous self-consistency problems and the plot and world actively contradict themselves a lot. Only really forgiving fans could actually enjoy terminator salvation or fallout 3.

Fallout: New Vegas is a lot like wes cravens new nightmare. We got a lot of shitty sequels/spin offs then out of nowhere we have the best one yet. Everything that makes the orignial good is there, the tone is on point, and both play with new concepts.

And fallout 4 is just highlander II.

what do you think? Are these accurate comparisons or are there bette comparisons to be made?
 
I always thought Fallout 2 was more Road Warrior, as in it's basically the first on steroids, many people consider it the best one but I prefer the first.

Not played much of tactics to really judge.

Fallout 3 is Star Trek 11, a good thing by itself, just when you put it in the rest of the franchise, it doesn't really fit.

New Vegas is more like... I'll get back to you on that.

Fallout 4 is Revenge of the Sith... where like half of it is good and the other half is awful.

Brotherhood of Steel is the room of video games in general.
 
@ R.Graves

After thinking about it, your list is actually kind of fitting.

I would say you could compare New Vegas a little bit to Fury Road.

It's more modern, it's fucking epic and amazing. But from the first second on, you can see the origin.
 
Fallout 2 is like Toy Story 2. Even more witty than the first one, and a great installment to the series overall.

Fallout 3 is the Ghostbusters 2. Ultimately not a completely bad sequel but Jesus Christ is it fucking boring sometimes.

Fallout: New Vegas is like Back to The Future III. After a confusing and disappointing sequel (BTTF II/Fallout 3), the subsequent title (F:NV/BTTF III) gets back to the original roots while adding some new, fresh material. Also New Vegas and BTTF III both have Western themes? Coincidence?

Fallout 4 is like Monsters Univeristy. Disappointing.
 
Millim said:
always thought Fallout 2 was more Road Warrior, as in it's basically the first on steroids, many people consider it the best one but I prefer the first.
Click to expand...
Beyond thunderdome is a much better comparison for fo2 than road warrior. For the reasons I listed.
 
I would say Fallout 2 is like Hostel 2. I has an extremely different tone, but yet has as much relevance.

Fallout 3 and 4 are like Robocop 3. Extremely gritty film followed by a sequel for children.

FoT is like the average sequel. Stand on its own, but can't compare with the original.

FoNV feels like Alien3. A great come back to the strenghts of the original, after an awfull previous sequel.

Can't remember actual examples, but FoBos is the sequel that everyone keeps forgetting it actually exist.

Beth stance on the Fo series also reminds me of the movies adaptation of the Impossible Mission TV series. No matter what you can say about them, there is no way to consider them as actual adaptations.
 
DerGogan said:
What? BTTF 2 > BTTF 3 ...
Click to expand...
Nah man. The plot for BTTF II was all over the place. They stop Griff from framing Marty's kid, then make the mistake of letting Biff change 1985 with the almanac, then go back to 1955 and get the almanac from Biff awhile trying not to mess up the Marty from the first BTTF's groove. It's a little difficult to wrap your head around, making it the weakest out of the trilogy.
 
YeeCop said:
Nah man. The plot for BTTF II was all over the place. They stop Griff from framing Marty's kid, then make the mistake of letting Biff change 1985 with the almanac, then go back to 1955 and get the almanac from Biff awhile trying not to mess up the Marty from the first BTTF's groove. It's a little difficult to wrap your head around, making it the weakest out of the trilogy.
Click to expand...
Not really. The plot is a pretty simple series of logical "next steps" to stop biff. You want a needlessly complicated plot look no further than pirates of the Caribbean 2&3. I do agree that BTFIII is better but thats just cause I like westerns.
 
naossano said:
Can't remember actual examples, but FoBos is the sequel that everyone keeps forgetting it actually exist.
Click to expand...

I might use AVP Requiem as an example. I am not sure people remember that AVP had a sequel.

By the way, i watched it recently. It reaches some deep level of awfull. This movie has absolutly no plot.
Two third of the movie is about creatures killing randoms people or minor characters, the Predator covering the evidences and fighting the aliens. The few characters with more than ten lines have paper-thin characterization and drift on without any real objective. Then, during the last 20 minutes, they suddenly decide that they should have a plan instead of just dying.

It was the directorial debut of two brothers whose main job is to make special effects. They use two majors licences and the film lenght to showcase their skills, which is pretty much irrelevant, as they were already hired to do super-productions special effects at the time...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top