Miracynonyx100
Swabbie
Banned
To Bandit LOAF
What were the differences between SWC and WC: Freedom Flight?
Then I'm confused. The Sivar/Goddard-weapon was said to be a type of graviton weapon. Well, in WC they can produce gravitons and anti-gravitons with little trouble, why was the Concordia's PTC plagued with all sorts of dangers... I mean it doesn't sound that advanced for that era...
So you used Bandit and LOAF on the forums to make sure everybody knew you were LOAF in the chatroom? Or vice-versa?
Well, LCDR Bondarevsky in WC:ER said "Mother of God" when the torpedo hit the front of the ship and part of the front came off and people were getting sucked out of the whole right in front of him.
Which one creates fewer continuity issues? (Not to sound retarded or anything)
Where are the shield generators on the ship even located? Was that ever mentioned in WC-1 through WC-3?
Still strikes me as a continuity error...
So it was continuously upgraded as it went. Then how come there were such limitation in fleet-carrier shortages. I remember they had so few they could name them all... Victory wasn't named...
There was no audience to be alienated -- pretty much everybody on the forum disliked it. For a number of reasons! The acting was bad the SFX was bad, some aspects of the plot made little sense, and there were a number of technical points that were in conflict.
We didn't decide to just cut Nemesis (which a lot of us called "Numbnuts") out of the picture out of spite or anything. We just felt that it would ruin our group with all this stuff, especially since we had previously had always been trying to make any of our stuff as realistic as possible, to the highest standards in terms of continuity and technical accuracy. So, we essentially agreed that we would refuse to acknowledge Nemesis's addition to our timeline. There were certain things which we kept into the equation, though, Janeway being promoted to Admiral -- we all felt it was well deserved after all the crap her, her crew and her ship was through in the show.
Maybe so, but even Bill Shatner said that it was largely the product of pure-panic hoping somebody else would know what to do.
I don't think I ever thought of Star Trek IV as bordering on parody. However I did sort of consider it a Star Trek / Comedy movie.
The story wasn't as big as they hoped because of a SAG strike. ILM wasn't available and they had to use a back up company to produce the visual-effects.
That also had a lot of technical errors in it -- for example there was a scene when they shot up the turbolift shaft and went past Deck 78 (which the ship only was supposed to have 21 - 24 decks depending on who's blueprint you're using)
Victoria Kent
No, just the opposite: Super Wing Commander replaced Secret Missions 2 with a different story.
What were the differences between SWC and WC: Freedom Flight?
Quarto already replied to this as well as I possibly can, but I should point out that the 'Proton Accelerator Gun' name doesn't come from The Secret Mission - it's from the later Voices of War timeline.
Then I'm confused. The Sivar/Goddard-weapon was said to be a type of graviton weapon. Well, in WC they can produce gravitons and anti-gravitons with little trouble, why was the Concordia's PTC plagued with all sorts of dangers... I mean it doesn't sound that advanced for that era...
Bandit is my callsign, LOAF is my online nickname. It's just something I started doing when I was a teenager posting far too often to Origin's Official Wing Commander Chat Zone.
So you used Bandit and LOAF on the forums to make sure everybody knew you were LOAF in the chatroom? Or vice-versa?
I don't think any of this is especially germaine to the Wing Commander novels. A quick search of the Forstchen-only novels shows 'God' used (over and over) to make Tolwyn sound like Hornblower. I don't think the novels address anything religious beyond that.
Well, LCDR Bondarevsky in WC:ER said "Mother of God" when the torpedo hit the front of the ship and part of the front came off and people were getting sucked out of the whole right in front of him.
That's exactly the point - there isn't anything established about Blair. His character is built entirely around retroactive continuity... making his mother a 'Pilgrim' in the movie is no differently than Wing Commander III giving him a name (though creates fewer continuity issues...).
Which one creates fewer continuity issues? (Not to sound retarded or anything)
Not really - the Tiger's Claw had 24 cm of armor in Wing Commander I... and the Concordia had 500 cm in Wing Commander II. There's clearly a shift in progress. As for shield generators... it doesn't seem hard - in Privateer it's just a matter of swapping an individual piece of modular technology.
Where are the shield generators on the ship even located? Was that ever mentioned in WC-1 through WC-3?
That's largely because Wing Commander IV involved *fighting* the kinds of ships you were protecting in Wing Commander III. The earlier game was balanced to let your wingmen and capital ships survive lengthy battles with dozens of enemy fighters... but Wing Commander IV, obviously, had to work differently.
Still strikes me as a continuity error...
The idea that the Victory was bought out of mothballs for WC3 is a common fan misconception - Eisen talks about serving on her for his (and her) entire career.
So it was continuously upgraded as it went. Then how come there were such limitation in fleet-carrier shortages. I remember they had so few they could name them all... Victory wasn't named...
There are some dangers in a fan group doing something like that, too. First of all, you alienate a potential audience for absolutely no benefit. There's a difference between not liking something and 'officially' pretending it didn't happen. What does such an odd blanket statement mean? You sure showed... the cast and crew of a movie who will never know or care what you think. It's pure spite - tilting at windmills without the romantic aspect. You anger only other fans who *do* like Nemesis and you have absolutely no effect on anyones ability to tell a story.
There was no audience to be alienated -- pretty much everybody on the forum disliked it. For a number of reasons! The acting was bad the SFX was bad, some aspects of the plot made little sense, and there were a number of technical points that were in conflict.
We didn't decide to just cut Nemesis (which a lot of us called "Numbnuts") out of the picture out of spite or anything. We just felt that it would ruin our group with all this stuff, especially since we had previously had always been trying to make any of our stuff as realistic as possible, to the highest standards in terms of continuity and technical accuracy. So, we essentially agreed that we would refuse to acknowledge Nemesis's addition to our timeline. There were certain things which we kept into the equation, though, Janeway being promoted to Admiral -- we all felt it was well deserved after all the crap her, her crew and her ship was through in the show.
I think Star Trek V deserves a little more credit than anyone gives it.
Maybe so, but even Bill Shatner said that it was largely the product of pure-panic hoping somebody else would know what to do.
It was almost certainly doomed from the start, tasked with following up a Star Trek movie that was succesful for all the wrong reasons (I enjoy the heck out of Star Trek IV, but it was a box office hit because it bordered on parody - not because everyone in the world suddenly liked Star Trek). Star Trek V could be another half-comedy and doom the franchise forever... or it could go back to serious drama and lose millions of dollars. They tried to build a happy medium and I think it hurt V and haunted every movie afterwards.
I don't think I ever thought of Star Trek IV as bordering on parody. However I did sort of consider it a Star Trek / Comedy movie.
As a result we got a movie that was kind of bland. The jokes didn't work, the story wasn't as 'big' as they hoped. Beyond that, a lot of the criticisms people have of it are far overblown. It was definitely a Star Trek story - boiling it down to 'Kirk fights God' is all well and funny, but that's actually a pretty standard Star Trek commentary.
The story wasn't as big as they hoped because of a SAG strike. ILM wasn't available and they had to use a back up company to produce the visual-effects.
That also had a lot of technical errors in it -- for example there was a scene when they shot up the turbolift shaft and went past Deck 78 (which the ship only was supposed to have 21 - 24 decks depending on who's blueprint you're using)
Victoria Kent