Aha, but because the movie should be considered part of the WC timeline by default, it is you who must provide the solid proof.Originally posted by Terrorizer
I don't see you or anyone else who is arguing that the movie is part of the game universe in there either Frosty. Give me a quote from Chris Roberts proving your argument and I'll stop thinking of the games and the movie as separate.
Originally posted by Frosty
Originally posted by Terrorizer
So if you read several different stories that told the tale of King Arthur, you would conclude that there were several different camelots?
Sorry, I edited that. I meant to say different versions of the story. There were many different takes on the tale, some even moved the location of where it takes place. But since these are all tales of King Arthur, do we assume they are part of the same timeline? No.
And King Arthur is only faintly based on real life. It is mostly fiction.
[Edited by Terrorizer on 07-10-2001 at 00:11]
Originally posted by Terrorizer
"I must take exception to one of the main points you made - that I disregarded, forgot or altered continuity in the book. It's not the ConfedHandbook that changed continuity, it's the movie itself. Everything in the Confed Handbook follows RELIGIOUSLY from the continuity of theMOVIE. However, that continuity is deliberately, extensively and consistantly DIFFERENT from the continuity of the games.
I like to explain it by reference to Batman. Batman has a comics series, a series of movies and an animated series. Each one uses the samecharacters, basically the same motivations, and all have certain benchmark events in common. However, things fit together differently - they aredifferent, although related -- realities. That's the way it is with the movie and the games (and the animated cartoon too, for that matter). They arenot part of the same story, they are different stories about the same people." --Chris McCubbin
Originally posted by Saturnyne
Did Chris Roberts intend it to be tied into the games?
Originally posted by TyeDyeBoy
This is how Blair and Maniac first arrived on the Claw, which they were assigned to after WCA episode 1. The movie takes place just after that episode, then the rest of WCA, then WC1, etc.
Originally posted by Wolfman
Going by the WC Kilrathi Saga manual Blair and Maniac were at the Acadamy together.
Wow... that's a helpful quotation... especially since McCubbin does not exactly have a wealth of knowledge about the Wing Commander games and the universe they take place in. Metaphors are nice... too bad they only go so far. Batman is not Wing Commander.
[/b]
Originally posted by Frosty
Aha, but because the movie should be considered part of the WC timeline by default, it is you who must provide the solid proof.
Innocent until proven guilty, friend.
If you really want to get technical...two similar reasons, one judicial, one administrative.
Innocent until proven guilty would not be true in this case. One always accept the status quo, that is, the timeline CONSISTED ONLY of WCI, unless there is proof on the balance of probability that it consists of WCM.
If anything, it is the movie that has to give proof of its existance within the timeline (I'm not saying it didn't). The party supporting the movie could be considered the plaintiff, and the party supporting the timeline, the defendants, therefore the burden of proof would be on the PLAINTIFF, ie THE MOVIE, to prove that it is part of the timeline.
That my friends, is a technical note.
In MY (highlight my before I get ripped apart by the hooligans) honest opinion, I didn't feel the movie to be part of WC. Too many inconsistancies and the feel was of a submarine, not a carrier (like the game obviously suggests).
Also, with regards to the skipper missile:
Originally posted by Dralthi5
To that I say: Wing Commander Movie Novelization, page 209: Paladin says, "It's a skipper missile. Must be a prototype." To this, Commander Gerald replies, "That technology is years away from the Kilrathi." Also, in WC3, Eisen says something along the lines of, "The Kilrathi are developing a new type of cloaked missile." This could mean there were earlier variations, such as the one seen in the movie. Now the only question this brings up is why Tolwyn was so reluctant to believe in cloaked fighters in WC2.
Firstly, if there HAD been cloaks developed beforehand and in fairly active use (ie in a major battle as the Tiger Claw was involved), Tolwyn wouldn't have been so hard on Blair in the first place would he. There was a REASONABLE explanation. However Tolwyn makes it appear UNREASONABLE.
Secondly, "The Kilrathi are developing a new type of cloaked missle" could suggest that it is in fact a NEW missile utilising a cloaking device, in that it was the FIRST missile to use a cloak. This would depend on the grammar of the sentence. If the object of the sentence was 'type of cloaked missile', then the Kilrathi would have had them before.
However, as I believe, the object was 'type of missile', and cloaked was an adjective included due to poor grammar (as is usual with spoken English), one could state that the adjective new applied only to the (new) type of MISSILE, not a (new) type of CLOAKED MISSILE.
It all boils down to what the original author intended. The basis of English literature always invovles the audience's own personal interpretation. Many thought that Shakespeare was the greatest playwright to grace the world. However I feel he was just producing mainstream Hollywood styled productions to appease the masses. The point of this argument is to state there are ALWAYS two sides to the story...
[Edited by redwolf on 07-10-2001 at 08:39]
I don't care if this guy isn't listed in the credits, he's the one that has made the most sense to me until now...Originally posted by Terrorizer
"I must take exception to one of the main points you made - that I disregarded, forgot or altered continuity in the book. It's not the Confed Handbook that changed continuity, it's the movie itself. Everything in the Confed Handbook follows RELIGIOUSLY from the continuity of the MOVIE. However, that continuity is deliberately, extensively and consistantly DIFFERENT from the continuity of the games.
I like to explain it by reference to Batman. Batman has a comics series, a series of movies and an animated series. Each one uses the same characters, basically the same motivations, and all have certain benchmark events in common. However, things fit together differently - they are different, although related -- realities. That's the way it is with the movie and the games (and the animated cartoon too, for that matter). They are not part of the same story, they are different stories about the same people."
--Chris McCubbin
Dougie, I absolutely 100% agree with you! Glad that your first post was one of awareness!Originally posted by Dougie
In my mind, there are too many gaping mistakes that show it is not meant to be accepted as canon. Sure you can if you want to, and most of the CIC staff seem to, judging by their timeline. I'm afraid however that I can't see that as being in any way possible by whatever stretch of the imagination.
How on Earth can you ignore such blinding differences?
What hurts is seeing what other people "think" being thrown in your face as the absolute "TRUTH""...Originally posted by The_Gneech
If you think it is, surely it can't hurt you that other people think it isn't, and vice versa...