Did you like the Wing Commander movie?

Do you like the Wing Commander movie?

  • Yes

    Votes: 30 61.2%
  • No

    Votes: 19 38.8%

  • Total voters
    49

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
While I was originally lukewarm to the second half of the film, I've learned to enjoy it despite a couple shortcomings. It certainly has a LOT of nostalgia value for me - being released right around my 18th birthday and during the last couple months of my high school education.

A lot of people don't like the movie and I guess thats fine. I just wish most of those people had better reasons than the silly ones we all have already heard. It has a great cast, good effects and a lot of energy. It reminds me of those great WWII movies like The Hornet's Nest, Hell Is For Heroes or Attack! where the story almost thrives under the b-movie moniker. Not all great war movies were big budget blockbusters, after all.
 

AD

Finder of things, Doer of stuff
LeHah said:
It reminds me of those great WWII movies like The Hornet's Nest, Hell Is For Heroes or Attack! where the story almost thrives under the b-movie moniker. Not all great war movies were big budget blockbusters, after all.

Here's a great youtube clip of a different movie. Since people wanted to know where the "never existed" stuff comes from, have a gander: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9qoTO_gJq8.

Don't forget to watch it right to the end.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I'm not sure if that's partly to do with the choice to recycle old aeroplane frames. When you're on a budget, you make do with what's available, I suppose.

I'm not really sure this was a budget issue. I laugh to myself a little bit whenever someone goes off about how they 'just' cut up some old jets--of course, fighter jets, everyone knows those the cheapest thing in the world! Contrary to popular assumption, buying retired Electric Lightnings, shipping them to Luxembourg and then slicing them up into Rapiers isn't the obvious discount alternative to making a cockpit out of plywood and scrap metal. :)

It also made the CGI much more difficult, as the effects group had to perfectly match the real sets instead of creating something that would be used for all the external shots (this was actually much more labor-intensive than expected--but was pulled off very well).

So why do it? Verisimilitude--I think that the thought was that the production would benefit from having 'actual' space fighters that could truly be used throughout the film. Remember this was when even the most expensive CGI was somewhat clumsy and very limited when sharing a shot with live action elements. The decision was to trade Rapiers that looked like the ones in the game for ones that could appear with the live action characters throughout the movie and still seem 'real'.

Here's a great youtube clip of a different movie. Since people wanted to know where the "never existed" stuff comes from, have a gander: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9qoTO_gJq8.

That's very interesting--was there a war movie that does the same thing? Twelve O'Clock High or Dawn Patrol, something in that vein.

I guess I do wonder if Chris Roberts goes overboard with these sorts of references. This one is an odd case, since it's apparently something that has fallen out of the public consciousness and is attributed to him by viewers... but there's the same intent with the opposite effect in the case with all the Das Boot material. I like the idea of Wing Commander being a pastiche of classic war movie parts, but it goes too far in some places and not far enough elsewhere.

Pilgrim stuff is just stupid in my eyes and not because we didn't hear about it before but the concept itself.

I think the concept is necessary--you need some reason for Blair to stand out and for the characters to have any sort of conflict with him. You go into the movie alerady knowing he's the hero--he's going to save the day and prove himself... so what are the stakes? You need some bigger idea--that he's proving that his history or his religion or his genetics don't matter.

In my mind the big problem with the Pilgrims is that it comes out of left field... not for confused Wing Commander fans, but for everyone. We never get a reason to *care* that this minority is being oppressed--we don't really understand what they are (still don't!) or what they are an allegory for.

The WCM Rapier is one of the ugliest fighter designs I ever saw and I am not too fond of the Tiger's Claw or the Broadsword either.

Well, here's my question--is it ugly or is it bad? Because those should be two very different things. If anything, my biggest problem with the Rapier is that the pilots don't really talk about it looking like it does (they ADR a line in that helps a little, but it's weak--"these Rapiers are beat to hell").

I think they should have introduced the idea that it was like one of those great World War II attack planes (or a Thunderbolt or somesuch)--ugly as hell, but beloved by the pilots because it gets the job done. I didn't leave the movie wondering why they didn't give me an especially pretty killing machine, I wondered why they didn't make more a point of what a great job they did of making it look like a real space fighter. (Think about the Falcon from Star Wars--it's ugly but beloved because of how the movie is written around it. She may not look like much...)
 

AD

Finder of things, Doer of stuff
That's very interesting--was there a war movie that does the same thing? Twelve O'Clock High or Dawn Patrol, something in that vein.

I guess I do wonder if Chris Roberts goes overboard with these sorts of references. This one is an odd case, since it's apparently something that has fallen out of the public consciousness and is attributed to him by viewers... but there's the same intent with the opposite effect in the case with all the Das Boot material. I like the idea of Wing Commander being a pastiche of classic war movie parts, but it goes too far in some places and not far enough elsewhere.
I'll have to look into that. It's quite possible. I came across that particular reference by accident. It's some kind of movie that came out arount 1939 I think about pilots or test pilots or something.

Well, here's my question--is it ugly or is it bad? Because those should be two very different things. If anything, my biggest problem with the Rapier is that the pilots don't really talk about it looking like it does (they ADR a line in that helps a little, but it's weak--"these Rapiers are beat to hell").

This is also interesting because it masks the fact that they moved the scene around. Blair is supposed to go see Gerald and Sansky *after* they arive on the Tiger Claw flight deck. (Why do they go back there when they landed in the Diligent on the flight deck in the first place?). In the workprint, maniac's line is something like "I don't see the XO anywhere... You know what I do see? Blonde!!" Blair and maniac land not only with the disk but transfer papers/orders... hence the reason they need to find Gerald. So to hide the fact that they go back to the flight deck for some reason (without stowing their gear) the line "these Rapiers are beat to hell" gets added and then the xo line is changed to"I don't see any of the Hornets we flew back at the academy".
 

G Man

Rear Admiral
Well, here's my question--is it ugly or is it bad? Because those should be two very different things.

I didn't leave the movie wondering why they didn't give me an especially pretty killing machine, I wondered why they didn't make more a point of what a great job they did of making it look like a real space fighter.

I think it looks ugly and bad. They look like they'd come apart if you sent them into space. This film is set 650 years in the future, I know it's impossible to predict what things will look like then but do these things look remotely like futuristic spacecraft? No!

At least the Millenium Falcon is an original, interesting design, not something that looks like the hacked-up front end of old plane with stubby wings and a giant minigun stuck on the front. I think it's a terrible design.

I'm sorry but I think we're starting to make too many excuses for this film's shortcomings.
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
I'm sorry but I think we're starting to make too many excuses for this film's shortcomings.

Ten years of discussing the film in long debates and explanation refute the term "excuses" as you're using it. We're way, way ahead your perceived curve on this.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
So to hide the fact that they go back to the flight deck for some reason (without stowing their gear) the line "these Rapiers are beat to hell" gets added and then the xo line is changed to"I don't see any of the Hornets we flew back at the academy".

Which, of course, ended up being the exact moment in the novel where Peter Telep chose to mention that Blair saw Hornets, Scimitars and Raptors elsewhere on the flight deck. :)

I think it looks ugly and bad. They look like they'd come apart if you sent them into space. This film is set 650 years in the future, I know it's impossible to predict what things will look like then but do these things look remotely like futuristic spacecraft? No!

You're setting an unfortunate standard here because you want to criticise the movie--since when does Wing Commander care whether or not its spaceships are realistic? What would this restriction leave us with, if we applied it to the games? The Avenger, maybe, and nothing else. Wing Commander's fighters aren't supposed to look like Gemini capsules, they're supposed to feel like familiar aircraft.

At least the Millenium Falcon is an original, interesting design, not something that looks like the hacked-up front end of old plane with stubby wings and a giant minigun stuck on the front. I think it's a terrible design.

The gun does go a step further than the Broadsword or the Morningstar ever did in reminding us it's an air war story set in space--it's a stand-in for a World War II prop engine.

I do think they should have considered a different paint scheme for the Rapiers. Working military aircraft don't get "dingy" because they're constantly tended to by air crews. The obvious first thought--blue like a Hellcat or black like the space equivalent of a Hellcat--doesn't work very well because it either wouldn't make any sense or wouldn't show up well on a space backdrop respectively... nut I wonder why they didn't give them that familiar World War II European theater 'reflective' unpainted look and highlighted them with colored unit markings (ie, make the gun barrel cowling red, have a checkerboard tale, etc.) They had great nose art for each pilot in the movie that you never see because it's too small a detail...

I'm sorry but I think we're starting to make too many excuses for this film's shortcomings.

I don't think someone liking the Rapier is really an 'excuse'--nor are we especially defending the movie.
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
You're setting an unfortunate standard here because you want to criticise the movie--since when does Wing Commander care whether or not its spaceships are realistic?

Certainly not since the inception of the gaming series - where fighters are painted kelley green, gunmetal grey and fire engine red. Not to mention the use of "wings".
 

iCe

Vice Admiral
Although i don't consider it something to fit in the WC timeline, i do like to movie despite of the alterations. It's action packed and contains some very nice CGI shots!
 

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
Although i don't consider it something to fit in the WC timeline, i do like to movie despite of the alterations. It's action packed and contains some very nice CGI shots!

Fortunately we don't have to worry about how to fit it in. Star*Soldier (and really the novelization of the movie itself) incorporates it over two days in mid March 2654.
 

G Man

Rear Admiral
You're setting an unfortunate standard here because you want to criticise the movie--since when does Wing Commander care whether or not its spaceships are realistic?

I know it sounds like I'm just trying to criticise the film, but here I'm just being honest, I don't like the fighter designs. Just my opinion.
 

t.c.cgi

Vice Admiral
On release day I hated the movie for a lot of really stupid reasons and wrote an incredibly asinine e-mail that has been eternalized in the CIC mailbag somewhere.

Now I just don't care for it because it's an average film.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
That's awesome, I'm going to find it right now.

I think there's some weird e-mails from early LeHah, too.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I looked through a bunch of mailbags before deciding that the mailbag is hopelessly embarrassing. I hope regular people don't ever find it.
 

Lt.Overload

Rear Admiral
I liked the movie actually. I didn't LOVE it and think it was a great super movie, but I liked it enough to say it wasn't a failure.
 

boringnickname

Rear Admiral
Remember this was when even the most expensive CGI was somewhat clumsy and very limited when sharing a shot with live action elements.

This may be slightly off topic, but I find today's CGI sometimes worse than the effects in Jurassic Park or T2.

Today's CGI in movies looks often very uninspired and "quick". As if they don't put much effort into it any more. In opposite to when the technology was new.
 
Top