Something that confounds me is this need to "adapt" established intellectual properties for new audiences. Yet the means in which they do so not only ignore the source material, but attempt to manipulate it in such way to generate the maximum amount of profit. While the likes of Shakespeare have indeed been adapted in more modern imaginings, those still remain true to the original source material. I bring this up because from my perspective art, is art. A narrative, experience, and the meanings we as human beings derive from exposing our senses to these man made creations not only impact who we are, but how we as people consider the world around us. I use Shakespeare as a comparison as his works are either remade true to their intention, imagined in more modern comprehensible ways, or referenced. While there are plenty of "garbage" attempts to completely derail the source material, in this case they fail due to the robust nature of the source material. Then we come to Fallout, while it sure isn't Shakespeare it is an intellectual property that we here (from my perspective) consider a worth while work of art, and possibly consider protecting the source material a worth while endeavor. My question is "why?"; Why is it necessary to not only ignore an intellectual properties' source material, but change it in such a way that it is no longer recognizable? The argument could be made that this could possibly be due to the IP itself not belonging to it's original creators, but instead a company. However I find myself asking: "Is that really a fair assessment to make?" From my perspective any time an IP loses it's source or core material then the IP itself is crippled. There are so many examples of well received stable franchises utterly decimated all in the push to incur additional profit. However those that maintain the source material tend to weather through difficult times often resurfacing to recapture their fan's imaginations. Have we as consumers, content creators, and business men/women become so artistically bankrupt that no matter the cost or what is lost. Would we prefer an IP to be rendered defunct all in the name of short term profit? To be honest I wish I was making this all up, yet the various husks of profound and influential intellectual properties that were adapted and changed to such an unrecognizable degree say otherwise. Do I personally think that "accepting" an established intellectual properties adaptation for the sake of modernization unacceptable? No, not at all. However what I do find unacceptable is to ignore the source material, basis of design, and it's original intention in the effort for greater profit. Once the core of the IP is gone, is it really the same IP?