“Fallout” has received praise for its skillful blend of brutal action and absurd humor. However, it has also been criticized for being scattered and overwhelming due to the introduction of numerous characters and time periods from the very first episode. Both points are valid, but my judgment would be missing.
I support the themes of goodness presented in this drama. Lucy grew up in a subterranean facility, a vault, where people had survived a nuclear war. When she emerges to the surface to find her kidnapped father, she is immediately tested on her ability to trust and help others. Eventually, she is forced to transport the severed head of a scientist. She came out looking for her family, but the item she is transporting is not intended for family use.
What is important here is not how much Lucy becomes cynical. It is whether she retains a reason to help others, even after losing her safe home. The drama forces Lucy to experience violence and exposes her to moments where the rules she believed in no longer apply. I found this test uncomfortable, which is why I watched Lucy more closely. Kindness before knowing anything is different from kindness after being hurt. The latter includes a choice not to inflict what one has experienced on others. For me, the power of that choice is more important than the number of brutal scenes.
I like that “Fallout” portrays people who choose to be good, even though they know the world.
It is not good because it is cruel, but it is good because it tests goodness
I value the kindness that endures even in the face of the brutality in “Fallout” more than the brutality itself. The skill of blending absurd humor with emotional drama is at its best when it makes Lucy’s choices difficult.
Within the Vault, the rules Lucy learned are simple: help each other and keep your promises, and you can survive together. The surface world does not cooperate with that belief.
Even the desperate desire to get one’s father back cannot be a basis for trusting others. For the other person, their own interests are always paramount, regardless of Lucy’s circumstances. This means that the matter cannot be resolved simply through politeness and good manners.
The demand to bring back the severed head is therefore significant. It links the desire to save a family with a transaction that treats a body like an object. Lucy finds herself in a situation where, despite having good intentions, she is unable to act honorably.
If the drama had simply mocked Lucy, I would have disliked it. It is easy to put a good person in a dangerous situation and then ridicule them for being naive. A story does not automatically become profound simply because it portrays the world as a harsh place.
What I appreciate is the attitude of questioning whether Lucy’s faith is actually useful. Helping others can potentially cause one to suffer a loss. However, the moment it becomes important whether or not to help, kindness goes beyond simply being a personality trait.
Therefore, I do not recommend this work solely based on the fact that one must endure brutal scenes. What one sees after enduring the brutality is more important. Here, one witnesses what Lucy must sacrifice as she learns about the world.
The strange jokes do not alleviate this discomfort. Carrying a head may be absurd, but it is a way for Lucy to save her father. I laugh, but I am reminded that she is in a situation where she cannot laugh.
Of course, the complexity of the first episode can sometimes obscure this question. It momentarily shifts the focus away from Lucy’s predicament as it follows various characters and timelines. However, my criteria are not about how many different storylines there are. What is more important is the choices that each character makes.
If Lucy must become cruel in order to survive, then she is simply accepting the answer that the surface world teaches. Conversely, if one can live a good life without any cost, then the premise of the test itself is invalidated. So, where does this absurd journey lead, and what other answer does it offer, one that is different from a cruel spectacle, even when genuine kindness is put on the line?
The hand that leaves medicine behind is stronger than a gun
In episode 4, Lucy experiences the cruelty of the world, yet she still helps others. The moment she leaves medicine for the ghoul that harmed her, her kindness becomes a choice, not a habit born of ignorance.
A ghoul is a person whose body has been altered by radiation. The ghoul Lucy met here is a brutal bounty hunter. If necessary to survive, he uses the suffering of others without hesitation.
Lucy had already been victimized by that system. Having experienced organ trafficking and violence, she didn’t need further explanation that the surface world was dangerous. When Lucy leaves the medicine behind, she is not the same person who left home.
I felt relieved by that gesture. It wasn’t because Lucy wasn’t hurt. It was because the drama rejected the conclusion that someone who is hurt must necessarily learn the methods of the perpetrator.
Leaving the medicine behind is a small act. It does not immediately change the order of the wasteland, nor does it guarantee one’s own safety. Therefore, it is an act that inspires trust.
If the kindness is offered with a promise of reward, the choice is much easier. However, there is no guarantee that the other person will be grateful or that anything will change as a result. Despite this, he leaves the medicine behind.
I do not agree with simply calling this scene a display of naivete. Naivete implies a lack of awareness of danger, but Lucy experienced danger. Knowing the cruelty of others and becoming cruel oneself are two separate things.
Of course, this does not mean that I am not angry. It is certainly not the case that everyone has an obligation to help someone who has harmed them. I commend Lucy for helping, even though she has ample reasons to refuse.
When placed side by side, the differences in their methods become clear. He presents trampling on others as a rule for survival. Lucy, instead of giving a lengthy speech, leaves behind medicine, thereby challenging that rule.
Mr. Ghoul, I attended the survival lecture, but the student provided a different answer.
Here, what Lucy demonstrates is not the claim that being kind always leads to victory. Rather, it is an attitude of deciding for oneself what must be abandoned in order to survive, and what must never be abandoned. She refuses to relinquish that decision-making power to the wasteland.
Therefore, this scene highlights the weight of kindness after being hurt. Although it is easier to ignore the suffering of others, Lucy chooses not to take that easy path.
The scene cannot come to life simply from the plot of leaving a medicine behind. Now, it is necessary to examine how the three actors, portraying Lucy, Maximus, and the Ghoul, embody those differences.
The three actors distinguish between goodness and weakness
Purnell, Morton, and Goggins do not portray goodness or cruelty as fixed character traits. Watching these three actors reveals how a person’s background and current desires can shape their actions.
Ella Purnell, who plays Lucy, does not turn her cheerfulness into foolishness. In the early scenes, her cheerful facial expressions reveal a belief that others will also keep their promises, just like her. Therefore, her vulnerability in the wasteland does not end with mere surprise.
It is good that even when Lucy leaves a medicine for the ghoul, that cheerfulness is not erased. The characterization suggests that Lucy has not lost the ability to help others. Thanks to this acting, I can distinguish Lucy’s kindness from the habit of being unaware of reality.
Aaron Morton, who plays the character of Maximus, who dreams of becoming a knight, emphasizes inexperience over authority. When he gives himself over to the comfort of Vault 4 is particularly well-executed, showing a visible release of tension in his body. It reveals that this young man, who seemed to want to become stronger, was actually desperately seeking a place where he could be comfortable.
Sir, it seems you preferred the accommodations more than the armor.
The way he clumsily tries to get close to Lucy also reveals the same underlying sentiment. Morten portrays both a young man who craves power and a young man who wants someone to reassure him. Morten isn’t poorly acting as a hero; he is a young man who is learning how to appear strong, just like Maximus.
Walton Goggins, who plays Cooper and Ghoul, creates a contrasting sense of time. The father, facing the first nuclear explosion with his daughter, embodies the urgency of protecting his child. The current hunter dismisses the suffering of others with mocking facial expressions and a brutal demeanor.
Goggins does not separate them as if they were strangers. Because he saw the person who was once kind, she cannot accept the current cruelty as an inherent truth. The mere fact that the ghoul has survived for a long time does not make his methods right.
In the board meeting, Frances Turner, who played Cooper’s wife, Barb, calmly described a horrifying plan, which made it even more frightening.
The difference between the three actors ultimately reveals what the person who loses their safety grabs onto. Then, was it absolutely necessary to have them alternate following each other?
While the term “scattered” is accurate, reducing the three to fewer also diminishes the scope of the questions
I agree with the criticism that the initial explanation is overwhelming and scattered. However, I disagree with the judgment that the very act of dividing the perspective among the three characters is a failure.
The first episode covers underground life, military organizations, and the time leading up to the war all at once. Before a viewer can decide who to follow, the scene shifts to another location. Because the scene changes before a viewer can fully understand one person’s situation, it is not easy to follow the story from the beginning.
Would simply keeping only Lucy solve the problem? While the story might become simpler, it also reduces the reasons why it’s difficult to be kind to others to a single factor. It only leaves a story about someone who didn’t know the dangers of the world and is now learning the reality.
Maximus is a different case. He doesn’t lack awareness of risk; rather, he desires the power of the organization because he desperately needs the strength to protect himself. It demonstrates what choices people make when they are willing to help others, but are afraid of losing their own position.
A ghoul already knows how to survive. The problem is whether it can accept a different path, even after becoming accustomed to its own methods. Lucy’s kindness represents a possibility of a different life for Maximus, while it serves as a counterpoint to the ghoul’s own way of life.
I accept that this difference leads to situations where the scene passes to another character. Even in the same wasteland, some people lose their sense of security for the first time, while others try to gain it. And some people, with an attitude of not caring about security, harm others.
“The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” also places three people side-by-side, each pursuing a common goal. Whether to trust someone depends not on the goal itself, but on what they are willing to do to achieve it. In “Fallout,” this judgment extends to encompass trust in family and organizations.
I also support choices that do not simply replicate the plot of a specific game. By introducing new characters into the same world, we avoid placing the responsibility of finding the answer to the question of “goodness” solely on one protagonist. Lucy’s chosen answer gains persuasiveness through its interaction with the actions of the other two characters.
Of course, the fact that three stories are needed does not encompass all the transitions. While I would have liked to linger longer on Lucy’s emotions, the transitions to other parts are regrettable. The reason for showing so many people, and the skill with which they are connected, are separate issues.
Even so, the issue I am more concerned with is not the number of viewpoints. Does this drama hold the character who intends to save others accountable for the pain they inflict throughout the process?
The violence of those who claim to be saving others must also be held accountable to the fullest extent
The most painful flaw in this work is that it fails to adequately connect Moldaver’s purpose with the initial massacre. While evaluating the character’s desire to save others, it often overlooks the suffering of those he has harmed.
Moldaver is the person who kidnaps Lucy’s father, Hank. In the first episode, the raid he leads does not end with a kidnapping; instead, the residents of Vault are victims of indiscriminate violence.
It is important to distinguish between the reasons for taking Hank and the reasons for killing the residents. Explaining the former does not automatically make the latter acceptable. However, the latter part focuses on revealing Moldaver’s larger goals.
I will leave the specific purpose for the ending. However, simply stating that it is a plan for many people does not justify the violence of the initial attack. The fact that many people may benefit does not erase the loss suffered by those who were sacrificed.
I am not saying that Moldaver must be a good person. A character who possesses both good intentions and cruel methods can be quite compelling. The important thing is to show what they were thinking and what they were ignoring in the space between those two extremes.
This drama directly placed the responsibility on Lucy. It questioned whether someone could harm others simply because they had experienced danger, and forced her to answer through her actions of leaving the drugs. The same question should have been posed to Moldaver as well.
If his violence had been examined more closely, Lucy’s resolve would have been even stronger. Here, people claim to be saving someone while trampling on others. Lucy rejects this excuse and helps others. The difficulty in maintaining goodness is more evident when someone with a righteous cause acts cruelly, rather than when the enemy is cruel.
Therefore, I partially agree with the criticism that the latter half of the program was overly focused on preparing for the next season. Following the newly introduced questions, the time available to address the violence that has already occurred is reduced. The expectation that further details will be revealed in the future cannot replace the explanations that are currently needed.
However, I will not describe Lucy’s transformation as “incomplete” simply because not all conflicts have been resolved. She is not someone who blindly repeats the rules he knew in the past. Even after being hurt, he chooses what he will protect.
It is important to distinguish between the shortcomings of not fully exploring the responsibilities of the remaining characters and the achievement of Lucy in finding her own answers. The fact that Moldaver was not examined closely enough is a flaw, but it does not diminish the value of the choices Lucy made.
Even in a broken world, there are reasons to choose kindness
My rating is 4 out of 5 stars. It is well worth spending time on the 8-episode first season of “Fallout.” It shows not how a good person becomes cruel, but what is preserved even after experiencing cruelty. Lucy does not give up her kindness as a price for learning about the world.
The drama reaches its most poignant moment not when a grand secret is revealed, but when Lucy leaves a medicine for the ghoul that harmed her. It is in that moment that the answer lies: that even without forgiving the other person’s actions, one can choose a different course of action.
The reason for the high evaluation is the contrast between the fourth episode, which proves that choice through action, and the three main characters. The reason for the deduction is that the responsibility for Moldaver’s violence was not fully addressed. The frequent scene changes in the early episodes and the conflicts left for future storylines are also drawbacks.
This series is recommended for viewers who want to find reasons why people help others, even within a context of cruel jokes. However, viewers who are sensitive to depictions of physical harm and organ trafficking should avoid it. Even if you desire a single person’s journey and a neatly resolved ending, you may find it frustrating.
You don’t need to know the game in advance. Instead of memorizing names from the setting, observe what each of the three characters is sacrificing in order to achieve safety. In particular, avoid prematurely judging Lucy’s brightness as naivete; otherwise, the choice to leave the medicine behind will become clearer.
Next, I recommend watching “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” It’s a good way to compare which of the three people pursuing the same goal you end up trusting. The two works are connected in that even though the goals are the same, the actions are not always the same.
“Fallout” does not promise that being kind will always be rewarded. I trust Lucy’s choices more because of this lack of promise. The fact that the world has ended does not mean that I must be broken too.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Can you understand it even if you haven’t played the game?
Even if you don’t know the game, you can follow along. Just follow Lucy as she experiences the surface world for the first time. In the beginning, it’s easier to focus on the goals of the three main characters rather than the setting.
Was the original game’s story faithfully adapted?
This work does not recreate the plot of a specific game. Instead, it tells new stories about Lucy, Maximus, and Ghoul within the game’s world. Rather than looking for differences from the original story, it is more interesting to compare the choices made by the three characters.
Does it contain many violent scenes?
The content includes depictions of physical harm, organ trafficking, and indiscriminate violence. While it contains absurd humor, the intensity of the violence does not diminish. This content is not recommended for those who are sensitive to such depictions.
Does the story end after watching only season 1?
The first season of 2024 consists of 8 episodes and does not resolve all conflicts. While it becomes clear what Lucy will protect, questions remain about the surrounding characters and the world. Those expecting a completely resolved story may be disappointed.
If you enjoyed Fallout, what should you watch next?
I recommend “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” It is a good film for comparison because it features three characters who pursue a common goal but act in different ways. Pay attention to how their actions reveal who you can trust, rather than focusing solely on their stated objectives.
