I play this game growing up and The One thing that I've learned about all of these little factions is that they're all screwed up, So in the end you're really just picking the faction that you think is the less screwed up one. There is capitalism in the wasteland it's just done by caps. That economic system has been going on for centuries it was just called a bunch of different things before it became capitalized.

Agreed about that moment being great, though I think the first part of her line is more like “may end up looking like you”.

Exactlyyyy

Thank you!!! It's all in Chandler, Qc where my artist residency is located ;)

That central question rests on Lucy, whether the events of the series changes her for the better ---- or worse. We haven't seen her make morally questionable decisions yet --- but we do in Maximus.

Ikr, same here. I always seen Fallout as a story of how humanity can manage to survive and thrive in the worst of conditions. Even if organizations are trying to stunt that recovery, it happens, it will always happen.

'Good' and 'bad' are silly words. We wouldn't number in billions today if we weren't cooperative, empathic and intelligent as a species. The thing I took away from this show is the moment leaders of monopolistic corporations agreed that a nuclear war was 'more profitable' than maintaining a status quo. Capitalism makes psychopaths out of us all.

There is zero anti Capitalism. There is anti Corporationism.

@@schm00b0 Agreed

The best comment I read about this concerning Andor was: "Why would Disney of all companies publish such a pointed critique of the status quo and enthusiastic endorsement of revolution?" To which someone responded "Do you think they're listening? They don't need to care about what we say, we are nothing to them. Nobody's listening. Nobody. Nobody's listening!"

As U2 once said in a song “love and peace or else”

Moldaver- Single most violent communist in the wasteland.

Personaly I would like to see a movie like that

So people wouldn’t immediately default to killing and stealing from each other during a crisis? Can you list more real world examples of people uniting in solidarity when the times get tough?

@@BigToody Most people seek some kind of stability, even if people arent all holding hands in peace it wont become a mad max type thing because most people want to live "normal lives" with as much stability as they can get.

@@Dontcare_life that makes more sense. We all generally want the same things

Well, real life disasters/war /any 3rd world county really, are pretty much the example you seek. Yes looting and crime and brutality does happen in such scenarios. But even in those scenarios it's not every person doing it all at once- usually it's when the very beginning happens and the novelty of the shock is causing only the most physically desperate and frightened of people to freak out and panic. Most people know this is not the rational action to take unless they actually need to do it to survive right in the moment. Most people know it's going to have repercussions if they loot or do crazy things or rape or rob other people, whether that's from law enforcement or just plain self-defense from the victims attempting to fight back. And most importantly of all, the general ethics of most people regardless of their religious upbringing won't allow them to do these kind of deeds just for their own hedonistic sake. Again some few individuals will, yes... That's why we have crime and unfortunate cruelty in the world from sadists who don't need to be that way. But again it's not the norm, because it wouldn't help our species to function if we all acted that way. We know collectively we like our creature comforts and we only can have those creature comforts such as shelter and good food and clothing if we all work together and just participate in the basics of civilization instead of gung-ho being lone wolves and relying completely only upon ourselves and nothing else. The benefit of being human and not a tiger or something like that, is that we don't all have the same shared physical skills and abilities and strengths and weaknesses. Every healthy apex predator such as a tiger is going to more or less be the same. They can only rely on their claws and speed and teeth. You break a tiger's leg, that tiger is screwed no matter, no matter how big and strong it is. You break a human being's leg though, even if that human being doesn't know a thing about paramedics, that human can call for help and another human can provide medical skills. And if that human doesn't have those skills the human can go out and seek other humans who do have those skills or go out and learn those skills. They can teach the person with the broken leg how to take care of themselves and pass on that knowledge of taking care of injuries to other survivors. This is what makes humans such dangerous but important animals and why we have such an effect on the planet. When we use these powers of community for self healing and communal good we prosper, and when we use these powers for selfish evil and hurtful propaganda, we don't. What human beings need to survive is a healthy bounce both towards individual survival and communal survival. We can't be lone wolves, and we can't be mindless work drones in service to a greater whole, like an ant, at the cost of our own meaningless lives and having to relinquish all freedoms to a caste system. Countries which have this ant mindset above individual comfort and freedom are barbarically cruel and dystopian, but countries that focus only on the individual and provide no sense of collective support whatsoever are also cruel and barbaric, in their own cynical greedy capitalistic sort of way. We in the US see ourselves as "free" because we don't have that respect for collectivism or universal socialist ideals that would more or less help us as a whole. We put it upon the entire responsibility of the individual to take care of the fate of the planet and their own lives, when really it's not a fair possible thing to do. On the other hand, you have countries like communist China or some former communist Soviet colonies, or capitalist theocracies such as Saudi Arabia and post Shah Iran: where you basically squeeze every citizen for the greater supposed "good' and collective identity of the country, meanwhile nobody has truly the right to be their own person making their own choices about things like owned vehicles/who can drive, or style of worship, gender norms and their clothing, and artistic expression. In a nutshell, every system can be corrupt and every system relies on a healthy balance of self-reliance and morally compelled communal cooperation.

I know!! Davinci crashed and I lost the whole project from it. It hurts so much to know the video won't be what it could be!

@@TheCanvasArtHistory It's a fine video. Well done. I only watch this channel for its content but your production values are a delight.

Yeah its a great vid, just wanted to make you aware ❤

@@TheCanvasArtHistory I thought that was done on purpose

Even imperfection can be a part of an art!​@@TheCanvasArtHistory

Thank you!!

Yeah… Like. I do see the jab that the video points out and acknowledge it as legitimate to our society, it only become clearer to my eyes these last few years. But… Those are people within OUR society. People who we need to uplift as our neighbors, etc. The raiders are… well that’s more like a targeted home invasion/homicide on a larger scale.

It's all nature

Thank you!!

Free Association… not hear that one before. Can you give me a short version?

Immersive fallout experience

Can’t it be about both?

Not all art needs to be political, and if the art is, it shouldn't reshape your beliefs, only offering a perspective.

Ah. No. You don't have to fully understand monarchy or slavery to overthrow it. I think you're suggesting that since getting to the inside definitely grants understanding, then it must be possible to change systems from the inside, especially if we assume that understanding is necessary to effect change... Except what are some examples of any of that being the case? - does getting inside grant understanding? - is understanding necessary for revolution? - is the kind of understanding that comes from being on the inside necessary or helpful for revolution? Edit: basically I'm arguing that smashing a system with a brick will change it without understanding

@@bgiv2010 even if you aim to dismantle a system entirely and replace it with something new, it is still valuable to understand how the new is different than the old; Otherwise, you may find that all that you achieve is great loss of life to end up with the same thing you already had.

@@BicycleFunk but that's not required for the change... that's just required for confirmation.

@@bgiv2010 I think your conclusion is too absolute. You don't need to fully understand a system to know it does not work for people. It is a good idea to understand how things work before trying to reinvent the wheel. If a system is not adaptable, that is a red flag that it could never work, as people are dynamic. Our current system is, at least, somewhat adaptable.

I think those failures are a few things…but the most likely real reason cooperation/moves back toward civilization past a certain point keeps failing is as simple as the makers wanting to keep making post apocalyptic wasteland games that fit the aesthetic and type of fractured society setting that’s been successful so far. I personally think exploring successes in rebuilding, without resetting things to chaos every time, would be great but some would argue it takes pressure/uncertainty things will work out away from what they decided draws people to the game world. I think I even saw a quote from someone involved with the game saying essentially that about nuking Shady Sands, they didn’t want to let things diverge too much from what they saw as the tone of the “Fallout World” set in failed society. And it admittedly wouldn’t “feel” the same so it would be a risk they’d lose a lot of their audience. So I don’t think it necessarily contradicts there being an underlying good human nature in the writing, just disinterest in exploring it from any other angle.

Real world writing decisions aside, I think it still works internally- it just includes the reality that even assuming people are fundamentally good, they are flawed and self interest or even altruism built from a radically different perspective/world view can lead to conflict and destruction at times anyway. The reason “war never changes” and also lining up with the Maxus line that “everybody wants to save the world, they just disagree about how”. Sometimes, as in the real world, both sides genuinely want to do what they see as better for the world but their different definitions of better (or acceptable paths to that better) lead to destructive conflict. Also, however much fundamental good there may be in people as a whole some people just actively choose self interest.

I think it says more about the state of the film industry, specifically video game media

I don't think you know what the word subpar means. If everything is garbage then that is the par. If the show is mediocre in a sea of garbage then it is by definition above par.

​​@@LLlapYou kinda proved his point. Everything is so garbage when something that is still shit comes out gets praised as a masterpiece.

@@thefemboyslayer I completely agree with the show being passable to alright at best. Just not that it is sub par :)

Why do you think its subpar?

I haven't seen the show, myself, so I must be suitably tentative in offering a response. Perhaps, if it can rightly be said that parts to the show take the form of conservative propaganda, or of a non-conservative representation of conservative propaganda, it is precisely because those whom we are debating either rehabilitating or executing are represented as nothing more than "drugged out, violent raiders." If that is the framing, then the answer is obvious. That is what makes it propaganda. In representing the will to rehabilitate those who cannot be rehabilitated as ridiculous-which, indeed, it may be-the will to rehabilitate anyone is likewise undermined. The question of how we can know whom we can actually rehabilitate before we have tried is set aside. Quite apart from this, the ideas put forward as to how the raiders might be rehabilitated and the basis upon which the vault dwellers think rehabilitation possible are plainly ridiculous. They are juxtaposed against the simple and serious proposition of execution. One response seems to be represented as more worthy of consideration than the other, here, independently of the impetus.

@@sammcgee8726 Yeah, you should probably watch the show or watch some lore videos. This comes after scenes of these raiders trying to kill all of the vault dwellers while actively taking amphetamines. And raiders are a specific faction in fallout of people who reject civility and string up corpses if not eat people as well. My point is that the show is following the logic of the games and how the games have set up the cultures of these groups. Vault dwellers are optimistic and naive, so many think they can rehabilitate raiders, and raiders are the worst of humanity from the surface where humanity is already brutal to have to survive. This isn't about modern day politics or any modern day propaganda, it's simply how these factions would react according to this fictional world. It's like when a conservative thinks it's woke propaganda that a society is accepting of gay people when most societies in human history aren't. No it's not woke propaganda, this group is simply just accepting of gay people. The vault dwellers are simply optimistic and naive, and the raiders are simply drugged out lunatics. also not to mention that later in this scene, the vault dwellers find out that their water will only last them 2 more months after it being fine for the last 200 years. so keeping these prisoners who will take months if not years to rehabilitate is not even a viable option.

This channel is a commie echo chamber, better stay clear from this place

It was obviously a joke...well, unless you only watch conservative media, because literally anything the government does is communosm according to them. He was making the point Shady Sands was a result of human cooperation, not communism.

It’s not a philosophical masterpiece, what it does do is blend a bit of depth with iconography and entertainment in a way that resonates with mass audiences. And when something has a captivating foothold that scratches the surface of some deeper commentary, why not explore it?

i don’t think the show warrants any deep analysis because the core themes are literally as blatant as possible there’s no subtlety or anything. this video’s for people who watched the show on mute with their eyes closed

@@brady9592 the problem i have is that when something is made for mass audiences then it is by definition slop. its made to please as many people as possible and to do that it has to keep a basic concept that doesnt challenge the viewer in any way, the classic games challenge the player.

​@@jg3875 "by definition slop" and you are by definition pretentious, good lord.

@@Arum638 that’s not an argument against anything I said also, you’re on an anarchists channel where he’s doing an in depth analysis on a tv show. you’re probably pretentious by just wanting to comment here

It’s an unpopular message because it’s delusional.

My brother you're in the wrong place