That was pretty good

It depends on who the actors are, who the Director is, and whether or not the writers were from Obsidian, Interplay, Bethesda, or a third party. Hopefully, the writers were from the guys who had experience making a fallout game.

But I'd watch it if it ever came out.

i though the prince of persia movie was boring, but i did play the game years ago, but i thought the max payne movie was good. :flamethrower:
And i also liked the wing commander movie.

Expect to see a great series ruined.

The number of bad movies based on games greatly outstrips the number of good ones... In fact I cant think of a single one (although someone needs to tell Knomai that their Metal Gear Solid games aren't really games but movies).

Maybe something like Inglorious Bastards

I can imagine the posters for it now

"Once Upon A Time in NCR occupied New Vegas"

With a knife and a NCR flag on the knife

I'd watch it, as long as it had unknown actors, and (hardly any) CGI. Put the emphasis on acting, human struggle for survival etc

Then again, it would be of DLC proportions. No way you could fit something like New Vegas into 2 hours, it would have to be a serial.

Does this movie include FO3 because it'd be stupid if it randomly jumped across the continent, but it if it followed 1, 2 & NV then it'd great.

Pray. Perhaps God will spare the Fallout Series a terrible film adaption in exchange for a life of pious devotion.

I would go see it if they made a Fallout movie.

That said, it would almost deffinatly svck and blow.

I'd likely throw up in my mouth and abort the memory with a rusty coat hangar.

I suppose if it was an animated film or show I would give it a shot. The environment of Fallout would send budgets thru the roof if it were not animated. Otherwise some dike-cheese like Michael Bay will just CGI the crap out of it and call it a movie, despite whether or not the plot made sense. So if it were animated and written by the team who did New Vegas, a definite maybe.

There is already a Fallout film out, of a sort, which predates the video game franchise. A Boy And His Dog, starring Don Johnson, was released in 1974 (and it is pretty bad, but mostly because the dog talks...). This film was adapted from one of Harlan Ellison's short stories (of the same name) contained in his collection of stories titled The Beast That Shouted Love at the Heart of the World, published in 1969. The Fallout Universe is based on this collection of stories.

Wikipedia Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Boy_and_His_Dog

Watch it when it came out.

Shake my head and groan at all the people that suddenly start saying the Enclave is a bunch of cool, misunderstood good guys because their uniforms look neat. It happened in Star Wars and the Empire, and it's happen here too.

That. I like when no-names get to shine. I like Sharlto Copley in District 9, I like Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds.
I also hate CGI, at least when you almost base a movie on it. Ugh for Avatar... Sci-fi Pocahontas with pretty graphics.
I'm ok when you maybe CGI-enhance effects that you had when you filmed a scene.
I think film makers should do as much as they can with trick filming, make-up, dolls et cetera, before they need to go to CGI.
I notice more and more movies where something as easy as blood is CGI. A bullet wound, a little splatter. It looks bad, use fake blood, make-up and a pump to make it gush.

Then it shouldn't be a movie, either. 90-120 minutes is too short time to tell enough about Fallout for a newcomer, and to cover our needs for lore, story and canon.
It's this thing, that I think most game movies do and that many people may hate, that the movie should have an unique story from the game. If you try to adapt the game's story to the screen, people will complain "you made that wrong, that thing is against canon, you didn't include that part and who the hell is that?!" The same story ain't gonna be the same, and you'll be ticked off. Unless it's a really pro film maker that can please us with other parts. But all I ever see are people bashing films adapted from games.

That's why it should be a TV-series. 45 minutes/episode x maybe 16 episodes/season = 720 minutes. That'll be plenty to cover Fallout, to include everything in the story that'd make us happy. Then you also have to think of the film maker's needs to do something different, to use his fantasies and add new things. Or rather the people who write the episodes. They just don't want to copy the entirety of Fallout, turn it into a film. They want to use their own ideas and put them in somewhere in the production, in the already existing story/lore. Kind of like the series The Walking Dead. I've read most of the comic books before it turned into a TV-series. It follows the story pretty good, but many things were changed and many things were new that they added. If it was a copy of the comic, then I'd know everything that's gonna happen before it does and that ain't fun, is it? I still kind of do, though, but I never expect these new things that pop up.

What I would like, though, is that if they made a unique story anyways, as a series. Maybe put it between Fallout 1 and 2, telling the stories of a bunch of people that aren't even in the game, but how they live in the Fallout world with things and people that are in the game, like the NCR with Tandi as president. There'd be New Reno with mobsters and drugs, Broken Hills and Marcus, Vault 13 and 15 or just the mention of them, Vault City with the [censored] First Citizen Lynette or maybe her predecessor. San Francisco and maybe the Shi, even? Tribals, raiders, dark humor, drugs, six, gritty wasteland, violence... references to the games all the time, maybe mention of the Vault Dweller.

Note, that if that series would take place between Fallout 1 and 2, it would most likely follow Fallout 1's canon the most, and break some canon of Fallout 2 because the characters need to be interesting and may effect things in the world that would have a different outcome in Fallout 2, maybe messing with the families in Reno, helping Broken Hills or whatever... Unless the film maker is really good, has played the games alot and love them, and is flexible with his own story and the games, so that they won't contradict too much and still be very interesting.

Otherwise, the easy path - series takes place, err, after New Vegas. But I rather have it closer to Fallout 2.

Eh, The Book of Eli was pretty close.

Barring the religious element.

Which, admittedly, is a pretty big element.

I think that the only way a fallout movie would ever work out EVER is if it had nothing to do with any of the main characters in any of the games. I play halo for master chief, but I don't play fallout for the 101 wanderer. The movie would have to be completely about the universe and the atmosphere it creates. They would have to include already existing factions and place it way before, way after, or in between games. If they tried to base the movie on a game that already exists then they would be missing things that alot of us have learned to love. Like maybe if they based it in dc they wouldn't include under world or may be even megaton. Or if it were in new Vegas maybe they'd find no use for the boomers. The bottom line they would probably do a bad job of it is because the people making the movie would cling to the past and do a bad job of it.

I feel like Fallout 3 is the only one that would make a good movie. It's not that 3 is better than all the other games but 3 has all the elements of fallout in one game and its feels the most like a movie plot.

Definitely celebrate first! Then I'd see the trailer and likely be disappointed... Then watch the film itself and be fully let-down...
In all reality, a setting with such deep lore and fervent followers deserves an HBO style maxi-series or ongoing series. (See; Game of Thrones)