A Second Wing Commander Movie?

Well, with Quarto's insane ranting revealing that he is a Kilrathi sympathiser, I shall say this:

The Kilrathi look (to me) the EXACT same in WC1 and 2. I personally liked them best in WC3, as the only one to really appear in 4 was Melek (Who could have looked better), and you only see the helmeted heads of the cats in WCP.

Also again, I haven't seen the movie in about a year... but I do remember that all you see is their faces. WTF is there to complain about?
 
Oi... nevermind, it doesn't matter...

My point is that any Kilrathi look is as good as another. It was what CR made for his vision. Whether or not they fit his vision perfectly is for him to say. Why gripe about something you can't change?
 
Kilrathi sympathiser? Well... yes, but that's besides the point. I was merely (mis)quoting WC2 (Stingray's rant about Hobbes). And before that, WC4 (Melek's rant about getting attacked by pirates).

My point is that any Kilrathi look is as good as another.
Click to expand...
Some would disagree...
mad.gif


Anyway, the reason why we gripe is because we feel like it. Just because we can't change anything doesn't mean we can't gripe about which Kilrathi look best (WC2!). I couldn't care less what Chris Roberts' vision of the Kilrathi is, because we've probably never seen that vision in any WC product.
 
heh... perhaps you mistook my use of the word "good". I find it hard to believe that you're judging the asthetics of fictional walking cats.

In any case, I'm a Kilrathi sympathiser too, but I only blow them up, not help them in any good way. Does that make sense? Probably not, but niether does griping about the Kilrathi's appearances. You might as well complain every time someone you deem "ugly" passes you by on the street, and complain about how their parents traits should have made them more beautiful to you.

But, that's just my humble opinion. :)
 
heh... perhaps you mistook my use of the word "good". I find it hard to believe that you're judging the asthetics of fictional walking cats.

In any case, I'm a Kilrathi sympathiser too, but I only blow them up, not help them in any good way. Does that make sense? Probably not, but niether does griping about the Kilrathi's appearances. You might as well complain every time someone you deem "ugly" passes you by on the street, and complain about how their parents traits should have made them more beautiful to you.
Click to expand...
Man, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever - you're comparing the proverbial apples and oranges (actually, such a comparison would make sense, but never mind). I'm judging the aesthethics of the Kilrathi precisely because they are fictional - in other words, I'm judging the aesthethics of a work of art. And if you find that strange, then there are about six billion strange people out there... wait, never mind ;).
Anyway, that is the main reason why there is a point to my griping, and why your comparison of real versus fictional makes no sense whatsoever. Griping about art is perfectly normal. Griping about people... well, it's also normal, but it takes a slightly different form ;).
 
I see what you're saying. But I was not comparing reality and fiction... just likening a potential situation to the looks of the Kilrathi.
 
Yes, but your situation pitches the fictional Kilrathi against a real (albeit hypothetical) person on the street :).
 
heh... well, you're not innocent of that either. You can't compare cartoon Kilrathi with live action Kilrathi. :p It's the old apples 'n' oranges vernacular again.
 
I don't understand.

It's incredibly easy to compare apples and oranges.

Apples are red, whereas oranges are orange.

I mean, I just don't understand the cliche -- if you aren't supposed to compare two things that are different, what are you supposed to compare? Two things that are the same?
 
Well, it's one of those cliches that many of us have gotten so used to using that we don't even think about that, LOAF :).

But what the cliche is trying to say, methinks, is that apples and oranges serve a different purpose, and therefore there's no point comparing them. Perhaps a better analogy would be tanks and jetfighters... sure, tanks might be better armoured, but that doesn't necessarily make them better, because jetfighters don't need to be armoured.

You can't compare cartoon Kilrathi with live action Kilrathi.
Click to expand...
Oh yes I can, because the live action Kilrathi are just as fictional, just as much a work of art as the cartoon Kilrathi. Just because something's real doesn't mean it's... err... real :).
 
But apples and oranges do have the same purpose -- they're both methods for delivering a seed, and they're both delicious treats.
 
You can quite easily compare fighters to tanks... You can compare anything you want to.

TC
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Oh yes I can, because the live action Kilrathi are just as fictional, just as much a work of art as the cartoon Kilrathi. Just because something's real doesn't mean it's... err... real :).
Click to expand...

Well, you can, as long as you keep this in mind: The simple fact is that you can't do the same things with live action Kilrathi that you can do with cartoon Kilrathi. The opposite is true as well. Because of the different things that you can and can't do (Computers can augment a real live Kilrathi's appearance, etc.) with each type of Kilrathi makes a giant difference in the way they look.

IMHO, when they ask "In which game did the Kilrathi look best?", they should specify it to read "cartoon" or "live action" Kilrathi...
 
i thought apples were green and anyway the kilrathi in WC4 looked shabby compared to the ones in wc3, but yes the ones in wc2 are the best.

is the mace in WC4 cos in the CIC database it says it is?
 
Yes, the mace *is* in WCIV... play the 'capture a carrier' mission in Speradon, and you'll be able to mount it in torpedo hardpoints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top