1 Thing WC: Movie got right at least?

TopGun

Vampire Ace
1 thing that the Wing Commander: Movie got right was the fact that Lt. Rosie Forbes (where was she in the game?) said that Lt. Larry "Tooner" Dibbles was Killed. Lt. Dibbles was featured in Claw Marks. becuase he and Captain R.A. "Mule-Skinner" Skinner were killed on patrol, their Scimitar's, becoming the victims of a wing of Jalthi-Class Fighters (see http://blacklance.org/claw/4.html for details)
 
I agree.

There were many trivial things that had to refer to the game.

But here are some trivial facts about the movie:
1. There reference WC2 in terms of Blair being disliked by his fellow pilots
2. Reference to WC3 by Skipper Missile in the movie
3. References to WC1 in 'Lt Dibbles' being killed
4. Introduction of the Pilgrim race as totally a new concept in WC canon. Chris Roberts needed to insert them in order to add a different color and prevent being called a 'Star Wars' wannabe
5. Using a rather complex traitor sub-plot was misunderstood by the preview audiences, making the movie makers having to re-edit the movie and in result, reducing a complex movie story into a eye popping sci-fi flick
6. The Movie would've received positive regards hadn't the critics gave so many bad reviews. Most reviews were based on Freddie Prinze Jr. performance in She's All That, stereotype of The Movie being 'Starship Troopers meet Top Gun' and others.

Well... hope these trivial facts enlighten your understanding of The Movie.
 
Blair was disliked by his fellow comrades many times, isn´t a reference to WC2, because there he was disliked because the destruction of the Tiger´s Claw

There is a reference to Priv 2 ( the sound that the computer made at the very start of the movie)

And a reference to the Hornet fighter, when Blair and Maniac are in the flightdeck of the Tiger´s Claw for the first time.
 
You just reminded me of a question I forgot to ask, Ghost; those Rapiers...they aren't the 'new' models unveiled in WC1, are they?
 
IIRC the Rapier in the movie is the old model the CF-117 B, the new one is the one of the game (WC1) the YF-44 A.
And there a more variants here
 
Originally posted by Ghost
And a reference to the Hornet fighter, when Blair and Maniac are in the flightdeck of the Tiger´s Claw for the first time.

Its probably a good thing they didn't actually show a Hornet, though. Its a big enough pain having to deal with the early model Rapier and the Broadsword, already.
 
Originally posted by junior
Its probably a good thing they didn't actually show a Hornet, though. Its a big enough pain having to deal with the early model Rapier and the Broadsword, already.


troll.jpg
 
You mean you WOULD like to explain to people why there was a third fighter that had the same name as a WC game fighter, and yet looked nothing like it?
I understand how the movie Rapier and Broadsword fit into the overall continuity, but I'd like to see as few fighters as possible that are like that, particularly since the Hornet isn't quite as new as the WC1 Rapier.
Now if you want to fast forward to the Nephilim era, and introduce a new Hornet at that point in time, more power to you.
 
Damn you, you are fucking right!.
I wanted to see
wc1rapier.jpg
in the movie, and you know what?, Chris Roberts used something better :(
Why he didn´t used that lovely state-of-art little pic, why?!
 
The Rapier in the movie was the CF-117 Rapier... the Rapier in the game, which came later, was the F-44 Rapier II. They are completely different fighters, just like the P-47 Thunderbolt and the A-10 Thunderbolt II are different in real-life.
 
Originally posted by TheFraix

4. Introduction of the Pilgrim race as totally a new concept in WC canon. Chris Roberts needed to insert them in order to add a different color and prevent being called a 'Star Wars' wannabe

And in the end, just made it even worse. Now Wing Commander had people with mystical powers who were pretty much shut down by the current government....that sounds just slightly like another popular sci-fi universe I know of.....
 
Originally posted by Ladiesman^
And in the end, just made it even worse. Now Wing Commander had people with mystical powers who were pretty much shut down by the current government....that sounds just slightly like another popular sci-fi universe I know of.....
Except totally not, because the mystical powers were neither powers nor mystical, nor were the Pilgrims crushed by an evil totalitarian coup. There's also lots of other differences, such as the nature of public opinion concerning Pilgrims as opposed to that concerning Jedi, etc... but any intelligent people get the idea already.

You choose to make such a connection because you're desperate to find legitimate reasons to dislike the movie, since you're tired of being laughed at by people like me.

The whole Pilgrim thingy makes it a lot more fun.
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
The Rapier in the movie was the CF-117 Rapier... the Rapier in the game, which came later, was the F-44 Rapier II. They are completely different fighters, just like the P-47 Thunderbolt and the A-10 Thunderbolt II are different in real-life.

I understand that. It doesn't mean that I particularly like it, but I understand that.
And just to clarify, what I don't like isn't the fact that there are multiple fighters with the same name. Its the fact that you've got different fighters from pretty much the same time period with the same name (i.e. the CF-117 is active pretty much right before the F-44 comes into service).
Be that as it may, the two Rapiers are explainable, and work.
I'm just glad we don't have to also explain why there are two Hornets, two Raptors, and two Scimitars.
 
Originally posted by Frosty
Except totally not, because the mystical powers were neither powers nor mystical, nor were the Pilgrims crushed by an evil totalitarian coup.

They weren't "mystical powers" but "genetic powers" then? Anyway I liked it better without the whole Pilgrim thing, but it really doesn't bother me that much.
 
Well it seems impossible to say a bad word about the movie here as you'll get pictures of trolls hurled at you. I can't justify a lot of things in the movie like character's nationalitys or the "Tiger Claw" being ever so seriously wrong. I think trying to itegrate the movie into the games just makes it all seem very bad 'cos it doesn't match up.
 
Well, you wouldn't be the first to say that, and you certainly wouldn't be the first we all ignore. Have a nice day. :)
 
I'm not going to ignore him. I like to keep the games and movie seperate myself. Just a lot cleaner for me. I just feel that it's a personal preference really. And I do agree (as I stated in another post) with Royal_Marine about certain people instantly taking a defensive mode when someone thinks differently about the movie. I mean, come on, let people have opinions. It's not stupid, and it's not wrong, it's not right either, it's just what they want to believe. And there is nothing that firmly states that they are incorrect in their beliefs. Let them be.
 
Originally posted by Royal_Marine
Well it seems impossible to say a bad word about the movie here as you'll get pictures of trolls hurled at you. I can't justify a lot of things in the movie like character's nationalitys or the "Tiger Claw" being ever so seriously wrong. I think trying to itegrate the movie into the games just makes it all seem very bad 'cos it doesn't match up.

Ok, you know what is the problem of people complaining about the movie, is that they complain about stupid little things, why the Rapier or the Broadsword look different.Rosie Forbes, who is that pilot she can´t be there she isn´t in WC1!!.
Is the Tiger Claw the same ship, because in WC1 is the Tiger´s Claw.
Well, let´s make a big deal about Top Gun, they used F-5 not Mig-28!
Oor better let´s make a big deal because in every movie of the King Arthur (except the one of Hallmark) everybody used armors...in the 400-500 A.C.
And you know what? in Henry V (Brannagh) the Battle of Agincourt was horrible, they used 200 or 300 soldiers not thousands.
 
And I do agree (as I stated in another post) with Royal_Marine about certain people instantly taking a defensive mode when someone thinks differently about the movie. I mean, come on, let people have opinions. It's not stupid, and it's not wrong, it's not right either, it's just what they want to believe.

The problem isn't as he would so like to believe that he doesn't like the movie -- there's like a 99% chance that some one doesn't like the movie and we don't kill any of them -- the problem is that he's a grade A jackhole about it.
 
Back
Top