Fallout and Hollywood’s Slowly Shifting Attitude Towards Fans
That new Fallout show appears to be a pleasant surprise for fans of the video games. It’s got good audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb, and the Critical Drinker seems to like it (I haven’t watched his video yet because I haven’t seen the show; I never played the games, but Walton Goggins is there, so I’m in.) It’s also generally getting good critical reviews, with a 94% RT score. Could it be that they actually tried to please Fallout fans with this series? Well, it depends on who you ask. Jonathan Nolan, who produces the show with his wife, Lisa Joy, doesn’t paint a pretty picture of their approach to pleasing fans – at least not if you read the cherry-picked morsels various entertainment news sites are highlighting. Nolan spoke at a press conference last month and said this, via T3:
“I don’t think you really can set out to please the fans of anything… Or please anyone other than yourself… I think you have to come into this trying to make the show that you want to make and trusting that, as fans of the game [ourselves], we would find the pieces that were essential to us… and try to do the best version.”
“It’s kind of a fool’s errand to try to figure out how to make [other] people happy… You’ve got to make yourself happy. And I’ve made myself very happy with the show.”
That sounds bad, doesn’t it? But it leaves out a big section in the middle:
“It started, for me, with Fallout 3, which devoured about a year of my life… I was an aspiring young writer at that point, and it almost derailed my entire career. It’s so ludicrously playable and fun… seriously, the games were just incredible… The first go-round for me was Batman, and this time with Fallout – a series of games that I absolutely loved.”
Jonathan Nolan did come to Fallout as a fan of the games (or so he says), which makes his other comments a bit odd. He seems to be trying to say two things at once, that he didn’t make the show for fans because they can’t be pleased, but he also approached it from the perspective of a fan who wanted to honor the lore and characters. Since fans mostly seem to like the show, I assume the latter is the more accurate description of his approach, which is good for the show. But why play reindeer games instead of just coming out and saying it? I think some of these headlines may be clues:
“‘Fallout’ Showrunner Jonathan Nolan Says Appeasing Fans Would Have Been ‘A Fool’s Errand’”
“Why Fallout’s Director Jonathan Nolan Is Right to ‘Ignore Fans’”
Maybe Nolan knew that saying he didn’t want to please fans would get him good press from an entertainment media that wears its hostility towards fandom on its sleeve, its pant legs, its socks, and has it tattooed on its forehead. Nolan didn’t use the words “appease” or “ignore,” but The Playlist and Movieweb put them in their titles, assuredly with glee. Was this a miscalculation? I think so; out of the gate, people expected the worst from Fallout, and saying things like this didn’t help. It’s word of mouth from those who gave it a try that’s propelling this series.
On the other hand, there’s actress Ella Purnell, who plays Lucy MacLean, one of the lead characters on Fallout. Here she is talking about her approach to adapting an existing IP, courtesy of Asmongold Clips:
That has to have been music to Fallout fans’ ears because I never played the games and it was music to mine. What a perfect answer, not only because of what she said but because she sounded genuine when saying it. She’s proud of how much work she put into getting it right for fans, and she doesn’t obfuscate it when that smarmy little tick tries to get her to insult the games and their fans. This is being compared to Henry Cavill doing something very similar a couple of years ago, and that fits because she’s refusing to be baited, just like he did. They almost come across as champions for the fans these reporters love to insult, and I’m positive she got a tremendous amount of goodwill from that.
So, why did Ella Purnell understand, this but Jonathan Nolan didn’t? Or, probably more accurately, why did they take different approaches to questions about pleasing fans? I think it’s because of their professions. Nolan, as a producer, is thinking about Fallout specifically, trying to get good press for the show he probably has a lot riding on, especially now that Westworld went down in flames. Purnell, on the other hand, is thinking about this job, and the next one, and the one after that. She’s not a big name, so she’s got an opportunity with Fallout to craft an image and get a fanbase. I also think actors are starting to see what attacking the audience gets you, and they’re slowly moving away from it, especially ones like Purnell, who are just starting their careers. Look at Sydney Sweeney and Dakota Johnson and the way they reacted to Madame Web’s impending doom; they defended fans, admitted (in so many words) that the movie sucked, and made themselves as appealing as possible. The result was that people ended up liking them even more, despite their starring in an awful film. The other end of that spectrum is Rachel Zegler, who alienated everyone who’s ever even considered watching a movie with her stuck-up attitude.
I’m not saying these actresses are insincere; maybe Ella Purnell really does love the Fallout games, and I’m positive Dakota Johnson and Sydney Sweeney think Madame Web is a disaster. But they probably also see what being antagonistic towards the audience gets you, and they’ve decided they’re not going to let a bunch of shrill entertainment reporters ruin their careers for a catty quote. I hope we see more of this in the near future, and that the more hesitant ones like Jonathan Nolan don’t feel like they have to play the press’ game.
