seancdaug
Sean Daugherty
seancdaug

The Fallout universe diverged from our history in 1961, if I remember correctly. Since that was a year before Scollay Square was redeveloped, I guess the implication is that it kept the original name in the Fallout timeline.

There was a Vault 112 (the Tranquility Lane simulation) in Fallout 3, and a Vault 11 (the “election”) in Fallout: New Vegas, but I’m pretty sure they’ve not used Vault 111 before.

I actually hope there aren’t any Nightkin in the game. I found the lengths to which Bethesda bent over backwards to justify the inclusion of so many familiar faces and situations from the first two Fallout games in Fallout 3 a little silly as it is: the fact that Dogmeat, Harold, the Brotherhood of Steel, and the

The damage is already done at that point, though. Writing is inevitably handled differently when dealing with a voiced versus non-voiced character. The latter almost always involves shorter dialogue and frequently uses less direct player prompts. Compare something like the two Baldur’s Gate games with the Mass Effect

Batman Eternal is very much broken into arcs of no more than 3 issues each. They all feed into a longer subplot, yes, but that’s not really any different than the way a TV show with a seasonal arc works, or from how Marvel will structure an ongoing series.

That’s simply not true, though. Structurally, DC and Marvel don’t differ much. Both generally structure their comics in arcs of 3 to 12 issues. Occasionally both will do longer subplots, but those are rarely the main attraction. The most significant recent “massive” story arc from either of the two publishers has

In all seriousness, I think Disney was too secretive about what Tomorrowland was actually about. They started hyping the movie over a year ago, but treated the story itself like some big secret. When they finally began talking up the plot, there was only a month or so until release, which is a precious little amount

John Carter was a better movie, but Tomorrowland wasn’t the disaster people are making it out to be. I think the first three-quarters of the movie were excellent, and though it failed to stick the landing, it wasn’t unwatchable by any means.

Forever Evil basically relies on a much less “mature” universe than the pre-Flashpoint one. It falls apart if everyone is already familiar with the Crime Syndicate, or if the allegiances of people like Lex Luthor or the Flash’s Rogues Gallery aren’t even slightly in doubt. Which, to be fair, doesn’t necessarily speak

Literally the only DC reboot to have occurred since the early 2000s is Flashpoint. Characters get retooled (changes without retroactive modifications), but DC is no more guilty of that than Marvel, which has seen similar modifications to Captain America, Captain Marvel, Thor, Ms. Marvel, the X-Men, the Fantastic Four,

I disagree. It’s true of most, but there are some exceptions. The current, TV show-inspired run of Green Arrow couldn’t really have happened in the old continuity. And Forever Evil (which I actually liked) would have been a difficult fit, too.

Hardly. DC has technically rebooted its universe more, sure, and Secret Wars is certainly better than the mess that was Convergence, but Marvel has historically been just as into event storytelling and “shaking things up” as DC. Arguably more so. There have been more big name Marvel crossovers than DC ones over the

Marvel/Disney already have the rights to the Hulk. They got them back shortly after the first movie failed to catch fire at the box office, and Universal declined to start working on a sequel. They distributed the reboot (The Incredible Hulk) in 2008, since this was the days before Disney’s buyout gave Marvel Studios

They already did a movie with both Galactus and the Surfer. I assume they retain the rights to this day.

The movie really didn’t mythologize Cold War-era culture, IMO. Clooney’s character is pretty much a jaded washout, and the villain is just as much a product of that society as he is. The story isn’t about modern cynicism destroyed early sixties idealism: it’s how early sixties idealism devoured itself, and tarnished

Honestly, I don’t feel like the movie really puts the 1950s on a pedestal. Stylistically, the movie is a smorgasbord of retro-futurism. The ‘50s/60s stuff is part of it, but the late 19th/early 20th century Jules Verne aesthetic plays a big part, too. And it’s certainly not mythologizing Cold War-era culture: other

People criticize a lot of these stories unfairly, not understanding (or deliberately misrepresenting) what they were. Only one or two of these “replacements” (teenage Tony Stark, Ben Reilly) were even arguably intended as permanent changes to the status quo. Everything else was a story arc, and the new heroes were

I don’t really disagree with you. The Alien movies really aren’t about the Xenomorphs, after all: they’re about Ellen Ripley. And the Predator movies are about “Dutch” and Lt. Harrigan, respectively. But that approach was never going to work in either AvP movie. The very idea there is overstuffed: short of turning out

Really, I don’t think Convergence is quite the sort of “event” it was being hyped to be. The main series is basically fluff, and the central plot itself is really just an excuse, a way to provide a basic blueprint to the various tie-in issues. Those tie-in are formulaic, but that’s pretty much the point. They serve as

Let’s be honest: no one wanted to go see either AvP movie for the human characters. The fact that the first movie spent so much time on its utterly forgettable, poorly conceived and developed human cast is not, IMO, a mark in its favor. Nor is the ridiculous, puzzle-like scenery porn the movie seems more interested in