Continuity

[Col.Dom]

I'm always surprised when someone casually mentions they've played it... a lot of people who grew up with Macs simply treat it like the original Wing Commander in discussions.

Huh. That's pretty interesting.

I'll never understand why they didn't just port over the outstanding WC Sega CD over to the 3DO and Mac. I would've been happier with that. I regard WC Sega CD in the same way I do WC3DO- it's superior to the PC in its presentation.

 

[Nemesis]

I mean good enough to convince someone that they're right.

But that’s just a tautology. Let’s back up a second. I assume you’d agree that, as a kind of “first principle”, every inconsistency that arises among the WC sources must have an explanation, regardless of whether it’s ever “uncovered”. Yes?

 

[gryphon]

I think he's voicing that he'd rather consider IRL explanations than in-universe explanations.

 

[dextorboot]

But that’s just a tautology. Let’s back up a second. I assume you’d agree that, as a kind of “first principle”, every inconsistency that arises among the WC sources must have an explanation, regardless of whether it’s ever “uncovered”. Yes?

If by "must have an explanation" you mean something even along the lines of "the writers decided they wanted to do it some other way" or "they paid no attention ot how it was previously done" then yes. Otherwise no.

 

[Manic]

If by "must have an explanation" you mean something even along the lines of "the writers decided they wanted to do it some other way" or "they paid no attention ot how it was previously done" then yes. Otherwise no.

Dex, you hit the nail on the head. This is why I tend to disregard the movie as "canon evidence," not because the movie was bad(Well, it had some b-movie qualities), but because it was rewritten to entertain. Saving Earth is something more people can relate to, instead of destroying a space station somewhere that the average Joe would know nothing about(or care). Same thing with the Pilgrims, the "race card" draws a lot of heartstrings, even if the race is made up. That, and Star Wars fanboys could relate to the whole "you have a special power that others don't" thing.

 

[Bob McDob]

Dex, you hit the nail on the head. This is why I tend to disregard the movie as "canon evidence," not because the movie was bad(Well, it had some b-movie qualities), but because it was rewritten to entertain.

So, because something is intended to entertain it can't be considered canon? Bye-bye, Wing Commander IV! (and every other WC product, incidently)

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Saving Earth is something more people can relate to, instead of destroying a space station somewhere that the average Joe would know nothing about(or care).

Oh, absolutely - to think that society has degraded to a point where those more intellectual pursuits such as BLOWING UP A SPACE STATION are ruined by the mere street vermin!

Jolly shame, I say. But what is one to do? Oh, I shall be dining with the Queen in a fortnight - we should both very much like it if you would attend, as you are clearly the sort of quality person who can appreciate the lost art of FIGHTING WITH TALKING SPACE CATS

Same thing with the Pilgrims, the "race card" draws a lot of heartstrings, even if the race is made up. That, and Star Wars fanboys could relate to the whole "you have a special power that others don't" thing.

Yup, if there's one thing Star Wars fans look for in a movie, it's characters with the ABILITY TO DO MATH QUICKLY.

 

[Frosty]

I think Manic just exposed the whole fallacy behind the separatist point of veiw.

You have you see by now what's going on here, guys. You're taking the random sputters of your imagination, and from them fabricating this elaborate fiction about other peoples' thought processes. You've taken it upon yourselves to decide that what so-and-so's intent was. And then from this entirely fake assumption, you've gone and made this leap of personal logic where you determine that well, if they didn't intend for the movie to fit, then it doesn't.

Even when totally disregarding the childish assumption that intent has any modifying affect on end-result, you're still prancing around making broad assumptions about what people wanted. People you don't even know.

Let's face it, this boils down to certain folks not liking a part of WC (let's say the movie,) because their personal image of something in it (Such as who Christopher Blair is) is rigid and inflexible. And so in order to reconcile this strange and new thing with their limited personal interpretation, they simply decide, "Oh I know, this thing that I don't like is part of another universe entirely!!" Yet this has no basis in reality at all.

 

[Col.Dom]

As always, LOAF, pure gold

 

[Nemesis]

If by "must have an explanation" you mean something even along the lines of "the writers decided they wanted to do it some other way" or "they paid no attention ot how it was previously done" then yes. Otherwise no.

For what I had in mind, your answer’s no. And that suggests in general you don’t really respect any storyline that introduces an inconsistency. (Maybe you have other “prejudices” besides.) So when you say the explanations haven’t been “good enough”, what you’re really saying is that as often as not (or perhaps most of the time) you’d prefer to just ignore or “edit out” the particular fact or facts (in the movie or whatever) that cause an inconsistency.

However, for those of us who take the idea of canon seriously, we accept inconsistency (because the WC universe is EA/Origin’s creation, not ours), and our goal, frankly, is to try to figure out an explanation that essentially protects the “troublesome” fact or facts. (In fairness, you could say we have a “bias”.) Any such explanation that is in the least bit plausible is good enough by definition. The only time it technically isn’t is where there are two or more possible explanations and one can be judged better or best.

 

[dextorboot]

For what I had in mind, your answer’s no. And that suggests in general you don’t really respect any storyline that introduces an inconsistency. (Maybe you have other “prejudices” besides.)

I respect all storylines. Even those with inconsistency. I enjoy the new Star Wars movies (well, not as much as the originals) even though they introduce huge inconsistencies. Granted, that's probably not the best analogy considering most of the inconsistencies are coming out of secondary sources (books, games...) and these are actually being done by the originator. It's all GL and he can change whatever he likes. All are licensed and most are pretty good, and just because certain things don't mesh doesn't mean I consider them entirely separate and don't respect them.

I'm really not sure what you mean by "prejudices" but I'm hoping it's good natured and your'e not accusing me of something heinous.

So when you say the explanations haven’t been “good enough”, what you’re really saying is that as often as not (or perhaps most of the time) you’d prefer to just ignore or “edit out” the particular fact or facts (in the movie or whatever) that cause an inconsistency.

Not necessarily, my crappy Star Wars analogy illustrates what I mean. As far as the movie, I would consider it a separate universe/timeline but still canon. I would just modify it by saying it's movie canon.

However, for those of us who take the idea of canon seriously, we accept inconsistency (because the WC universe is EA/Origin’s creation, not ours), and our goal, frankly, is to try to figure out an explanation that essentially protects the “troublesome” fact or facts. (In fairness, you could say we have a “bias”.)

I'm gonna have to disagree there. First, I do take it seriously. I'm just more exclusive than you would like. I also don't like making my own judgements about what the creators of (insert any series here) were trying to do. If they have their own answers then that satisfies me greatly, but if it's just a bunch of fans offering up their own ideas (while interesting) I wouldn't consider it canon until the creators either confirmed or denied it.

Any such explanation that is in the least bit plausible is good enough by definition. The only time it technically isn’t is where there are two or more possible explanations and one can be judged better or best.

I'm more of a reasonable doubt kind of a guy. If I can still say, "well, that still really doesn't convince me of anything. It just offers up a decent explanation and those are a dime a dozen."

Yup, if there's one thing Star Wars fans look for in a movie, it's characters with the ABILITY TO DO MATH QUICKLY.

If fairness, a lot of people (other than WC game fans) saw the Pilgrim thing as a mystical/magical/religious thing.

You're taking the random sputters of your imagination, and from them fabricating this elaborate fiction about other peoples' thought processes. You've taken it upon yourselves to decide that what so-and-so's intent was. And then from this entirely fake assumption, you've gone and made this leap of personal logic where you determine that well, if they didn't intend for the movie to fit, then it doesn't.

That's exactly what people who are trying to make everything fit together are doing. You've assumed that this stuff, regardless of inconsistencies even you see, are supposed to fit together into one cohesive unit.

Chris Roberts may not want the new Punisher movie to be a part of the WC universe, but I bet that most of what happens it would fit in perfectly without contradicting anything. But still, people won't consider it a part of WC. So if he doesn't want it as a part of the WC universe, then guess what, it's not. My entire life would probably fit in with any timeline people are trying to do for WC, but I never see it on any of the proposed timelines.

Even when totally disregarding the childish assumption that intent has any modifying affect on end-result, you're still prancing around making broad assumptions about what people wanted. People you don't even know.

Once again, people making one timeline are doing the same thing.

Let's face it, this boils down to certain folks not liking a part of WC (let's say the movie,) because their personal image of something in it (Such as who Christopher Blair is) is rigid and inflexible. And so in order to reconcile this strange and new thing with their limited personal interpretation, they simply decide, "Oh I know, this thing that I don't like is part of another universe entirely!!" Yet this has no basis in reality at all.

I like all parts of WC (even the movie). It's not about not liking something. It's about how cohesive it is. I didn't bitch when Blair didn't have blue hair, or when Freddie Prinze Jr. played him in the movie. I actually liked him as the main character.

Look guys, I accpet all things with a WC license as canon. But I don't have a problem with having more than one timeline of canonimity (yeah, I don't think it's a word either).

 

[gryphon]

I really like this post. Nice to see there are people here who view the thing the same way I do...

I actually found the the discussions on pilot introductions on WC1 sort of amusing. The lengths at which You people go are sometimes funny... Paladin didn't introduce himself and so the timelines fit together. Sure, I can buy that, I really can! But I think that in real life the WC1 dialogue was written as an introduction and Chris Roberts had hardly intended Blair to have such a long and illustrious history when he coded WC1. I can see where You get the pieces together but to me it's just a little bit funny.

It just seems to be so much more plausible that when Bossman died he died, and when they made the movie, they picked his character for one of the roles, and didn't think more of it. I don't think Chris Roberts sat at home and went "OK, what were Angel's exact words - I need to make these things consistent". He'd certainly have done a better job at it. Basically I think Your efforts at explaining away inconsistencies by nitpicking and ignoring reasonability (Blair kisses Angel -> Blair and Angel hardly talk) is somehow reminiscent of the comic book guy in the Simpsons and the question

"In Itchy anbd Scratchy we saw the same note produced when Itchy hit two different ribs of Scratchy's skeleton. Are we to believe this is a magic xylophone?" This sums everything up. Nitpicking to explain away an even bigger problem.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

If fairness, a lot of people (other than WC game fans) saw the Pilgrim thing as a mystical/magical/religious thing.

People can be pretty stupid, though - that doesn't really affect the Wing Commander universe or my argument. Blair's "power" is that he can (with the aid of a calculator!) add up numbers really quickly. That's all we see him do in the movie. Woooo, mystical! Woooo, Star Wars! Wooo, scary ghost! It's one of those "I'm looking for something to complain about, I'll make up this!" items.

That's exactly what people who are trying to make everything fit together are doing. You've assumed that this stuff, regardless of inconsistencies even you see, are supposed to fit together into one cohesive unit.

No, it isn't. People trying to "fit" the movie into the "normal" timeline (ugh) are taking into account that the movie is considered part of the Wing Commander canon.

Chris Roberts may not want the new Punisher movie to be a part of the WC universe, but I bet that most of what happens it would fit in perfectly without contradicting anything. But still, people won't consider it a part of WC. So if he doesn't want it as a part of the WC universe, then guess what, it's not. My entire life would probably fit in with any timeline people are trying to do for WC, but I never see it on any of the proposed timelines.

That's a silly, entirely-out-of-the-blue point. I'd bet that 90% of all fiction can fit fairly seemlessly into the Wing Commander universe... but without licensing the Wing Commander name and universe, no one cares - and no one is under the obligation to worry about it when telling future Wing Commander stories. It's entirely a non-issue.

I actually found the the discussions on pilot introductions on WC1 sort of amusing. The lengths at which You people go are sometimes funny... Paladin didn't introduce himself and so the timelines fit together. Sure, I can buy that, I really can! But I think that in real life the WC1 dialogue was written as an introduction and Chris Roberts had hardly intended Blair to have such a long and illustrious history when he coded WC1. I can see where You get the pieces together but to me it's just a little bit funny.

(... snipped for space...)

"In Itchy anbd Scratchy we saw the same note produced when Itchy hit two different ribs of Scratchy's skeleton. Are we to believe this is a magic xylophone?" This sums everything up. Nitpicking to explain away an even bigger problem.

This is the death throws of the pot calling the kettle black. After you've argued about movie continuity for SEVEN PAGES it's suddenly "amusing" and 'below' you? Yeah, I buy that.

(And drawing the 'Simpsons' analogy is even dumber - the comic book guy is the one bitching about 'continuity' in the first place, not the one trying to "explain" it.)

 

[Nemesis]

Okay, some of our differences lie in semantics. The rest lies in the pragmatic. (And yes I do mean to be good-natured.)

I respect all storylines. Even those with inconsistency. I enjoy the new Star Wars movies (well, not as much as the originals) even though they introduce huge inconsistencies. . . . All are licensed and most are pretty good, and just because certain things don't mesh doesn't mean I consider them entirely separate and don't respect them.

Well, when we like or enjoy a storyline we certainly respect it, even if it has some kind of artistic shortcoming. But when I spoke about “respect” before, I meant that I respect the storyline regardless of whether I like it and especially regardless of any artistic flaws. Think of respect more in terms of blind acceptance; I take EA/Origin at its word. So, for me, when “things don’t mesh”, I have no freedom whatsoever to even consider that such facts are or that I could/should treat them as “separate” or excludable. You, on the other hand, do claim that freedom (at least to some extent). To me though, that’s heresy.

Not necessarily, my crappy Star Wars analogy illustrates what I mean. As far as the movie, I would consider it a separate universe/timeline but still canon. I would just modify it by saying it's movie canon.

But you say “not necessarily”, which can only mean that sometimes you do regard the given fact as excludable, which is precisely what you do with the movie. I, on the other hand, am not free to do so. The movie is part of one and only one universe, and so any “inconsistencies” stand as facts to be accounted for, not edited away. Also, when I speak of “canon”, I mean all the facts in that single universe. So when you speak of a “separate universe” or “movie canon”, I can only cringe.

I'm gonna have to disagree there. First, I do take it seriously. I'm just more exclusive than you would like. I also don't like making my own judgements about what the creators of (insert any series here) were trying to do. If they have their own answers then that satisfies me greatly, but if it's just a bunch of fans offering up their own ideas (while interesting) I wouldn't consider it canon until the creators either confirmed or denied it.

Now here’s the rub. You’re responding directly to what I’ve articulated as my and many others’ philosophy regarding the WC universe and its canon (something I’ve often described as a kind of game that we like to play). You say you don’t agree with my philosophy (which means you don’t want to play our game) and indeed you don’t. (Still, maybe like gryphon you do like to watch.)

In general, that’s all fine. No one’s obliged to “join the club” as it were; this site is designed to accommodate any variation of interest, wide or narrow, in WC. But I confess I totally lose the sense of your response when you say you take canon seriously and further that you effectively prefer to wait (as opposed to what many of the rest of us do) until EA/Origin gets around (or not) to explaining the inconsistencies. To continue this point . . .

I'm more of a reasonable doubt kind of a guy. If I can still say, "well, that still really doesn't convince me of anything. It just offers up a decent explanation and those are a dime a dozen."

How then do you take canon seriously? From all that you’ve said, I can’t see how canon matters to you at all. Oh sure, you’d be happy (and probably all of us would) if “the creators” always created consistent storylines or always cleaned up any inconsistencies, but it seems you’re just as happy (unlike many of the rest of us) either to live in mystery and doubt or to toss an inconsistent storyline into another universe, which is the same as asserting it didn’t really happen in the first place. (I mean, it’s not like you’ve been busy fleshing out all the other facts that make up your “second” universe or time line. It’s an artifice, nothing more.)

So when you do any of that, what are you doing? What’s the point? The goal? It can’t be to take canon seriously. Canon is supposed to comprise and promote shared understandings. If you (or anyone) feels free to accept an inconsistency “as is” or to cast it off as you see fit, that may be great for you but it’s not going to lead to anything in the way of canon, just chaos. In fact, it’s really no different from fanfic, which is a good thing in its own right, but still not canon.

 

[gryphon]

This is actually a very good post - we need to differentiate between people who dislike the movie because it clashes with their idea of canon Wing Commander, and people who dislike the idea of canon itselff. I count myself to the latter group. People can't claim to take canon seriously and still explain away things by claiming they're separate.

Myself, I just don't give a domn *lol* It's all fake characters in an impossible future so it doesn't bother me at all, which is why I disliked LOAFs reference to me as the Simpson character - I'm really not that bad. I got into this discussion more for the sake of explaining my views and shamelessly upping my post count.

I realize that the canonification of WC fiction is a passtime for some people but You have to realize how it looks for the rest of us. It's like watching someone collect bags of Sweet'n'low from every restaurant in the US. To an outsider the collection seems entirely meaningless and You wonder why the person is wasting their time and money, but to the collector it all makes perfect sense and is justified. This thread has given me many insights into a mindset I am entirely unfamiliar with. To me WC has always been and will always be just a pastime - but I suppose that without diehards there wouldn't be a community.

 

[The_Gneech]

Real life is full of bothersome inconsistencies, why shouldn't fiction be the same?

-The Gneech ("I don't seem to recall ever owning a 'droid...")

 

[Bandit LOAF]

which is why I disliked LOAFs reference to me as the Simpson character - I'm really not that bad. I got into this discussion more for the sake of explaining my views and shamelessly upping my post count.

Lets be fair - I didn't bring up the reference... you did. I just pointed out that it didn't make sense in this situation.

(Also, anyone who cares about their post count here is that bad.)

(And, for the record, I'm pretty darned excited that I'm about to hit 10,000. )

 

[gryphon]

True dat

True dat

And true dat.

 

[Meson]

All I can say is: Go LOAF! Only a little over 200 for you to go!

I'm closing in on 1500.

 

[Bob McDob]

And, for the record, I'm pretty darned excited that I'm about to hit 10,000. )

Go! Super Secret Thread 10,000!