Does anybody take the movie seriously?

-danr-

Vice Admiral
In terms of Wing Commander plot, does anybody actually consider the 1999 film as being relevant?

I'm sure this has been debated over and over, but I for one as a lifelong WC fan and player was hugely disappointed by the sheer contradictions in the film, there are just too many to list them all but I guess the obvious ones are the Kilrathi not being furry, the Rapiers not having Lasers, Hunter hating Blair, "Charles" (not Kien) Chen - Bossman being dead, Paladin not being Scottish, or a popular seasoned veteran, the Tiger's Claw being renamed.

I read somewhere that Chris Roberts said this is how WC was supposed to be?? :eek:
 

Catnip

Spaceman
Yeah. Going by what Chris Roberts has said, it seems that during production the movie wasn't intended to be part of the same fictional universe as the games. The original relationship between the two was apparently like the relationship between the Spider-Man comics and movies, where the later compresses and incorporates various plot points from the entire run of the former. The Spider-Man movies had their own interpretations of stories like "The Night Gwen Stacy Died" and "Spectacular Spider-Man 200," like the WC movie had its versions of Bossman's death with Angel on his wing (SM2) and Paladin's work with Special Ops (WC2).

However, the movie was actually incorporated into the mainline Wing Commander. The manual for Arena is a good example; it includes stuff like the movie's events on its timeline and the movie's Dralthi in its Dralthi roundup. There're things that can't be reconciled without massive fanwankery, but it's not like the games don't have inconsistencies of their own.

Personally, I did not like the movie at all (not because it deviated from Wing Commander, because I thought it was a really shitty movie), but it doesn't hurt anything to integrate it with the rest of the series and have a little more background to the universe.
 

Dyret

Super Carrot!
As seriously as anything else sci-fi. :)

It's canon and most of the "contradictions" can be explained... Furless kilrathi are mentioned in star*soldier, and the movie Rapier is a different fighter class entirely.
 

Farbourne

Rear Admiral
Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!

You don't know the risks you run saying such heresy on this website!!!!

Just kidding. But you're right...this has been debated here a great deal, and there are definitely folks on this website that feel very passionately about the movie, and how it fits into the canon. A great many of the "inconsistencies" have been fit into the canon, some more believably than others (for example, the "Rapiers" in the movie are a predecessor fighter to the Rapier II's that appear in WC1 and 2, not the same ships, which is certainly plausible, but less plausible is that Bossman is only "thought" dead in the movie and somehow is found to only be MIA, not KIA, and comes back later... I'm not clear on how that could happen, though...)

I personally like to think of it more like a legend than a documentary...rather than taking each think in every source as absolutely, strictly accurate and then moaning about the inconsistencies, I instead think of them all as telling the same story, but as if different people are telling the same story and hence there will be some differences. Seriously...go on some exciting trip with four different people, and then listen to all four tell stories about it five years later...the general events will be the same, but many of the details will be different...and each person will think of their version as "right".
 

Catnip

Spaceman
Tolwyn bumped his head and forgot that Kilrathi cloaking devices existed! He did! He said it so many times everyone else went along with it, just to humor him!

I personally like to think of it more like a legend than a documentary...rather than taking each think in every source as absolutely, strictly accurate and then moaning about the inconsistencies, I instead think of them all as telling the same story, but as if different people are telling the same story and hence there will be some differences. Seriously...go on some exciting trip with four different people, and then listen to all four tell stories about it five years later...the general events will be the same, but many of the details will be different...and each person will think of their version as "right".

Good point.
 

J "Phantom" D

2nd Lieutenant
Personally, I don't mind the movie that much, provided I watch it thinking that it isn't the Wing Commander universe we know. It's not Shakespeare, but it's not garbage IMO.

Within the WC universe, some of the inconsistencies could be explained away as taking place on a different carrier (that maybe was later destroyed), as it's now the "Tiger Claw", Ian St. John is now identified as Lt. Hunter (no first name given) and Knight had similar treatment.

I think the problems with the movie were:
1) They tried to fit way too many references in there and it was distracting. "Paladin"'s Covert Ops (WC2), Skipper Missiles (WC3), Mandarin Traitors (WC2), Concordia (WC2), The delaying action mentioned in, I believe, Claw Marks (WC1), WC1 storyline (WC1), Marines (WC4), etc.
2) Went with the wrong casting
3) Didn't spend enough time on the script
4) Changed the look too drastically
5) Changed the look of the Kilrathi for the worse (I understand why this was done, but there had to be a better way. Hence the reason why I think any further WC games need to be done with CG)
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
300px-Bateson.jpg


This thread gets the Captain Morgan Bateson Award for "Haven't I Seen This A Thousand Times Already?"
 

Farbourne

Rear Admiral
300px-Bateson.jpg


This thread gets the Captain Morgan Bateson Award for "Haven't I Seen This A Thousand Times Already?"

It's been debated before, but notice how many reasonably new posters are commenting? No harm in talking about it again--and maybe something new will come up. After all, this website is essentially THE Wing Commander community on the web, and is supposed to be a place for interesting discourse on the subject of Wing Commander. If you put a moratorium on any topic that longtime members have already discussed just because they have discussed it before, you're not going to encourage new folks to get involved in the Wing Commander community, and we all lose.
 

Farbourne

Rear Admiral
Personally, I don't mind the movie that much, provided I watch it thinking that it isn't the Wing Commander universe we know. It's not Shakespeare, but it's not garbage IMO.

Within the WC universe, some of the inconsistencies could be explained away as taking place on a different carrier (that maybe was later destroyed), as it's now the "Tiger Claw", Ian St. John is now identified as Lt. Hunter (no first name given) and Knight had similar treatment.

I think the problems with the movie were:
1) They tried to fit way too many references in there and it was distracting. "Paladin"'s Covert Ops (WC2), Skipper Missiles (WC3), Mandarin Traitors (WC2), Concordia (WC2), The delaying action mentioned in, I believe, Claw Marks (WC1), WC1 storyline (WC1), Marines (WC4), etc.
2) Went with the wrong casting
3) Didn't spend enough time on the script
4) Changed the look too drastically
5) Changed the look of the Kilrathi for the worse (I understand why this was done, but there had to be a better way. Hence the reason why I think any further WC games need to be done with CG)

I think the consensus is that it is the same "Tiger(s) Claw", but that it has a predominantly different fighter loadout in the movie.

I agree with many of your points. It always seeemed to me that when they made the movie, they made a conscious decision to throw in a bunch of references to the games that would be lost on the casual viewer but resonate with dedicated fans...hence, when they needed a recently dead pilot, they named him Bossman because he dies in the games. When they needed to name the fighters, they called them "Rapiers" because Rapier-class fighters feature prominently in the games. I would well believe the comment that originally the movie wasn't supposed to be a strict prequel with perfect continuity, but rather a re-imagining, and only after the fact (or after people who cared more passionately about the universe got control of things), did they try to fit it in.

It's just a shame that when they decided to throw in references, they didn't have someone who was more careful about continuity suggesting what references to throw in. For example, instead of having Bossman be the recently dead pilot, why not have "Tooner" or "Dribbles" be the recently dead pilot? Same hat tip to people that have played the game, but fits perfectly into the WC1 continuity without needing creative explanation. Or instead of calling the old obselete fighters on the Tiger Claw "Rapiers", and then having to explain that they are a different fighter than the Rapier II that the game players know and love, why not call them "Scimitars" or "Raptors"--which the game already established are aging fighters that were on the Tiger's Claw? And why call the secret Special Forces frenchman "Paladin", when the game has already established that Paladin was (probably) not in special forces at that time, that he was Scottish, and that he was a pilot that had served on the "Claw" for a long time. Why not make your cool frenchman an entirely new character...it wouldn't have detracted from the story of the movie, and hardcore WC fans would probably perfer it, because it requries less explanation within the universe continuity.

The "look" changes didn't bother me--a movie will look different than a game developed with outdated technology. And I liked most of the casting a lot (Angel and Maniac especially)--but I think anyone would have made a better Blair that Freddie Prinze. But that's just my personal opinion.
 

J "Phantom" D

2nd Lieutenant
It's been debated before, but notice how many reasonably new posters are commenting? No harm in talking about it again--and maybe something new will come up. After all, this website is essentially THE Wing Commander community on the web, and is supposed to be a place for interesting discourse on the subject of Wing Commander. If you put a moratorium on any topic that longtime members have already discussed just because they have discussed it before, you're not going to encourage new folks to get involved in the Wing Commander community, and we all lose.
Listen to this poster, he's got a very good point. Not all of us have been here as long as others and discussion is kind of limited to 7 Main Series games, 4 add-ons, a handfull of books and manuals, and 1 movie, unless we start getting into conjecture territory.

The point is that this kind of discussion could very well be helpful and bring up points that others may not of thought about in the other 1,000,00 discussions before.
 

J "Phantom" D

2nd Lieutenant
I think the consensus is that it is the same "Tiger(s) Claw", but that it has a predominantly different fighter loadout in the movie.

I agree with many of your points. It always seeemed to me that when they made the movie, they made a conscious decision to throw in a bunch of references to the games that would be lost on the casual viewer but resonate with dedicated fans...hence, when they needed a recently dead pilot, they named him Bossman because he dies in the games. When they needed to name the fighters, they called them "Rapiers" because Rapier-class fighters feature prominently in the games. I would well believe the comment that originally the movie wasn't supposed to be a strict prequel with perfect continuity, but rather a re-imagining, and only after the fact (or after people who cared more passionately about the universe got control of things), did they try to fit it in.

It's just a shame that when they decided to throw in references, they didn't have someone who was more careful about continuity suggesting what references to throw in. For example, instead of having Bossman be the recently dead pilot, why not have "Tooner" or "Dribbles" be the recently dead pilot? Same hat tip to people that have played the game, but fits perfectly into the WC1 continuity without needing creative explanation. Or instead of calling the old obselete fighters on the Tiger Claw "Rapiers", and then having to explain that they are a different fighter than the Rapier II that the game players know and love, why not call them "Scimitars" or "Raptors"--which the game already established are aging fighters that were on the Tiger's Claw? And why call the secret Special Forces frenchman "Paladin", when the game has already established that Paladin was (probably) not in special forces at that time, that he was Scottish, and that he was a pilot that had served on the "Claw" for a long time. Why not make your cool frenchman an entirely new character...it wouldn't have detracted from the story of the movie, and hardcore WC fans would probably perfer it, because it requries less explanation within the universe continuity.

The "look" changes didn't bother me--a movie will look different than a game developed with outdated technology. And I liked most of the casting a lot (Angel and Maniac especially)--but I think anyone would have made a better Blair that Freddie Prinze. But that's just my personal opinion.
I agree with a lot of your points for the most part, but I don't think I can with the casting.

Freddie Prinz was pretty good for Blair (possibly could've done better, but oh well)
Saffron Burrows made a great Angel
Tcheky Karyo would have made a great anybody but Paladin (I like Tcheky, but he didn't quite fit as Paladin)
and they really could have got somebody better for Maniac (Maybe I'm jaded by Tom Wilson's amazing performance as the character. Maniac is supposed to be nutty and over the top, but not annoying)
And I think they could have done without the Rosie character for Maniac, it was bad enough that they shoehorned in the Angel/Blair romantic subplot from WC2 so early, as I thought it was perfectly done in WC2 (a slowly developing friendship that is thrown together through tragedy befalling both protaganists).

In terms of the look, I perfectly understand the change in the look of the ships and everything, however that doesn't mean I have to like it ;) . That being said, what would've been preferable to me (after all, this is my post) would be to have had similar designs to the original games, but not as clean. That is to say that you would have the same kinds of designs, but make them look like they've been through hell and not all clean like in the games. So, esentially I'm advocating a mix between game and movie looks. Game design with movie looks. That would have been the perfect combination IMO.

Anyways, I always overlook those shortcomings and continue to watch the movie on a regular basis to this day. I just like conjecturing as to what I would do differently if I were in control of it.
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
If you put a moratorium on any topic that longtime members have already discussed just because they have discussed it before, you're not going to encourage new folks to get involved in the Wing Commander community, and we all lose.

I've been here long enough to know that discussion of the topic - let alone when the topic has as terrible, passive-aggresive and "internet clever" a title as this one does - tends to dovetail into bad posts and a locked thread. You're welcome to call me out on my cynicism but its ... shock of shocks! ... based on actual events.
 

J "Phantom" D

2nd Lieutenant
I've been here long enough to know that discussion of the topic - let alone when the topic has as terrible, passive-aggresive and "internet clever" a title as this one does - tends to dovetail into bad posts and a locked thread. You're welcome to call me out on my cynicism but its ... shock of shocks! ... based on actual events.
Then we just need to all watch our posts and not let this turn into an arguement.
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
And the road to Hell is paved with posts like yours.

But please, do prove me wrong. This is one time I would revel in it.
 

Farbourne

Rear Admiral
I agree with a lot of your points for the most part, but I don't think I can with the casting.

Freddie Prinz was pretty good for Blair (possibly could've done better, but oh well)
... and they really could have got somebody better for Maniac (Maybe I'm jaded by Tom Wilson's amazing performance as the character. Maniac is supposed to be nutty and over the top, but not annoying)

We'll have to agree to disagree on Freddie. I think he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag, and the only way his performance as Blair could have been worse would have been if George Lucas had written his dialog.

Regarding Lilliard's Maniac: I agree that Tom Wilson was a fantastic Maniac, but you have to agree that he strayed a bit from the Maniac character as establisyhed by WC1 and 2. That Maniac was young, cocky, and dangerous, true, but he was also likeable and exciteable and came across as a little bit crazy. Wilson's Maniac was jaded, overbearing, arrogant (which is a little different from cocky), insulting, and lewd...all of which made for a great and memorable character, but none of which were present in the original Maniac. Plus, Wilson's Maniac never came across as unpredictable and crazy...just irresponsible (in a way, there was an awful lot of Biff Tannon in Wilson's Maniac). Now it would make sense that living for a years through the hell of war (and especially losing his entire Wild Eagle Squardron in SO2, along with letting his new prototype fighter get stolen) probably could change a guy, so the change in personality between the WC1 Maniac and Wilson's doesn't bother me, but the Maniac in the movie is supposed to be the young one.

And I think Lilliard's Maniac was far closer in spirit to the Maniac we see in WC1. I particularly like the "losing Rosie" subplot...we see a young kid coming to grips with the horrors of war and realizing it's more than just a video game (pun intended). I thought part of the reason why I found Prinze's acting so wooden was because I liked Lilliard's portrayal so much right beside him.

All this said, I've only seen the movie a few times, and none of them particularly recently, so maybe I'm just projecting my own opinions on my memory and distorting things...
 

AD

Finder of things, Doer of stuff
While I personally love the movie and it's not a *bad* movie, it definitely isn't a "good" movie either. But the potential was there, and what pains me more is not that people don't like it but that they chose to disrespect it with crap like "so and so pissing on my childhood" and "they ruined everything..." etc.

As another poster aptly put below, the movie events are 'canon' and the beauty and maybe the flaw is that the movie really goes out of it's way to avoid affecting the rest of the series at all in any discernable fashion. They even wrote a whole novel trilogy (third book unreleased mind you) about why the Pilgrims don't matter in the Wing Commander universe. And face it, no one would care about "mr hunter" if the movie was an awesome success. It would just be a fun footnote that people bring up.

Now the movie is something I've spent a great deal of time with and a great deal of time reseaching to understand. I've been working with the deleted scenes recently and I think I'm begining to understand exactly what the issues with the movie are. I think, as shot, there may even have been a movie there that is more true to the feeling of the WC series as a whole even and that more fans may have embraced.

Here's the thing though. Almost all the crap that people complain about regarding the movie doesn't matter. It's not what's wrong with it. It could have been a better movie perhaps if some of that stuff was different, but even the acting as a whole doesn't sink anything in the film. There are definite cringeworth moments in the dialogue in places, but I'll get to that more in a second.

The main issues with the wing commander movie stem ultimately from the script. That, coupled with one particularly unfortunate editing choice and further editing bashing and a limited effects budget that resulted in simplifying a number of sequences are almost entirely to blame here.

Ultimately the script needed one more pass. That would have cleaned up some of the dialogue and exposition and possibly some of the main complaints like Hunter being a call sign and 'Tiger's Claw'... But the other thing a rewrite would have fixed would be that editing choice I mentioned. Namely, Merlin.

Merlin was supposed to be a holographic PDA of sorts for blair, a personal computer and sidekick. Possibly it might have worked like an interactive version of the holomessage that blair plays in his locker in WC3 except with a bit of an attitude. I don't know why they ultimately decided to drop merlin but it seems most likely that they dropped it fairly early on. Apparently they filmed the movie to allow for it to be added but they decided not to use it early in the game since none of the workprints include any of that. That means that a number of scenes of exposition and a few key plot points had to be moved to other characters in *editing*.

Now was dropping Merlin a good idea? Almost definitely, but only if they had decided to do so before the final draft of the script. As it stands, and anyone that has the movie novelization should know, that Merlin was supposed to mostly lead Blair to search out more info about Pilgrims from Paladin... to find out more about himself... he was supposed to have been wiped clean of Pilgrim info since Merlin actually belonged to Blair's father, but apparently not. Removing Merlin and those bits pretty much does nothing to the film.

Now the other and only other key thing that Merlin does has to to with the Traitor subplot. This is all stuff that could have been resolved easily with a little thought and a rewrite. However they decided to get rid of Merlin *After* shooting. Merlin is the one that detects a weak ULF signal from the claw transmitting to the concom during Blair and Angel's reconaissance mission. He can tell that it's a pilgrim code apparently. It's a scene that pretty much solidifies the idea of a pilgrim traitor being on the Claw. Instead they removed the mention of the signal being a pilgim signal and have Blair's fighter pick it up. No problem, that works fine. The issue - and it's a big one - comes later.

During the concom raid when the Diligent launches an assault on the ship Blair was originally the turret gunner. He even gets a few kills... a little too starwars though. While the marines are boarding the Concom, Merlin picks up the ULF signal again. Except that the signal also has executive level incryption, which implicates only either Gerald or Sansky. Blair leaves his post to go looking for the source without telling anyone and Gerald ends up going and looking for him because he deserted his post. Gerald of course is already predjudiced against Blair and (spoiler???) is not the traitor so thinks Blair must be. The problem of removing Merlin is that Blair now had absolutely no reason to leave his post. It made *no sense* without merlin. So they started to fudge things around. All of the sudden blair has still left his post for no reason but then Paladin secretly knows too and his quietly trying to warn Blair of Gerald, and tell him of the signal... but apparently Angel is on the airwaves too and knows all about executive codes... and her voice is overlayed on scenes of Gerald looking for Blair with his pistol....

They didn't think of the consequences of not including Merlin. It becomes evident in the rough cut that they must have realized it wasn't working and by then it was too late to either go back and reshoot anything and there wasn't the money to go back and complete the Merling effect. Merlin stayed out, and the ConCom raid - while better than what's in the finished film... (it's well shot and whatnot even if you don't like the way the Kilrathi look) got trimmed down. They couldn't make it work quite right. In fact in the version I saw, they must have trimmed stuff out and forgot that they didn't explain how they turned off the autodestruct on the concom after the Kilrathi turn it on. I think it would have been better to leave it in somewhat confusing though rather than trim it like they did. Ultimately they decided to cut out hte whole traitor subplot.

Cutting out the entire subplot because of Merlin was somewhat silly. But it may have been the only way to make the movie work the way it was, even if that didn't particularly make it good. As a result stuff is mashed up, moved around, and edited crudely to hide the fact that there was more there. Some lines are ADRed over to change the context even. That extra context gave the film a whole different layer. Smiles and quick glances in the film are often about totally different things than they ended up being in the theatrical cut. Maniac's performance is actually almost more sane.

There were other editing choices that messed with things too though. there's a few major ones at the start of the film. I understand why it needed done. Otherwise it would have taken too long to get back to the story. The whole sequence where Blair and maniac arive on the claw got switched around . There was supposed to be a quick scene where we see a masked traitor on a kilrathi ship just before the diligent arrives at the Claw. But with that gone, they needed to get the story of the race for earth back in front view. So that meant changing when Blair meets with Sansky and Gerald on the bridge. Originally, the Diligent lands on the Claw, and then Paladin, Blair, and Maniac have an interchange on the flighdeck as they come off the ship, and then blair plays with himself in a Rapier... Meanwhile they're supposedly looking for the 'XO'. After getting embarrased by Angel she directs them to Gerald who is off on the side talking to some people... cut to the bridge with Sansky and Gerald. Blair gives them the disk... and then he's complaining about the 'XO' to Maniac on the way to the mess hall (after obviously having stowed their gearin their cabins.

But now, the film cuts directly to Sansky and Gerald on the bridge after the Diligent lands. Blair gives them the disk and then they go *back* to the flight deck... No Paladin, and no talk of XOs... but we get really really wierd and bad edits to hide the fact. It's so bad that they fudged manaics smile into looking like it was the m sound on the end of the work Maam. Then they're going through the halls to the Mess hall complaining about the "CO"....k


Within the WC universe, some of the inconsistencies could be explained away as taking place on a different carrier (that maybe was later destroyed), as it's now the "Tiger Claw", Ian St. John is now identified as Lt. Hunter (no first name given) and Knight had similar treatment.

I think the problems with the movie were:
1) They tried to fit way too many references in there and it was distracting. "Paladin"'s Covert Ops (WC2), Skipper Missiles (WC3), Mandarin Traitors (WC2), Concordia (WC2), The delaying action mentioned in, I believe, Claw Marks (WC1), WC1 storyline (WC1), Marines (WC4), etc.

I've addressed some of this above but I'll try and get to a few relevant points. Most of the people that would have seen a WC movie in theaters wouldn't have been familiar with the games. Skipper missiles don't matter to them. That said, there are explanations for most of these things, of which Skipper missiles is actually one of the least objectionable. Don't forget that we're only maybe a year or two away from the kilrathi having working strakha fighters in the WC2 intro. They must have been developing the tech *long* before the Claw was destroyed. Don't forget that the claw wasn't destroyed 10 years later. Isn't it more likely that the skippers in WC3 are a new kind of skipper rather than the actually technology or concept being new?

2) Went with the wrong casting

Theres a few oddities... again nothing that would have mattered if people actually thought the movie was good.

3) Didn't spend enough time on the script

I think I addressed this enought above

4) Changed the look too drastically
No more than SWC or the difference between WC2 and 3
 

AD

Finder of things, Doer of stuff
We'll have to agree to disagree on Freddie. I think he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag, and the only way his performance as Blair could have been worse would have been if George Lucas had written his dialog.

Regarding Lilliard's Maniac: I agree that Tom Wilson was a fantastic Maniac, but you have to agree that he strayed a bit from the Maniac character as establisyhed by WC1 and 2. That Maniac was young, cocky, and dangerous, true, but he was also likeable and exciteable and came across as a little bit crazy. Wilson's Maniac was jaded, overbearing, arrogant (which is a little different from cocky), insulting, and lewd...all of which made for a great and memorable character, but none of which were present in the original Maniac. Plus, Wilson's Maniac never came across as unpredictable and crazy...just irresponsible (in a way, there was an awful lot of Biff Tannon in Wilson's Maniac). Now it would make sense that living for a years through the hell of war (and especially losing his entire Wild Eagle Squardron in SO2, along with letting his new prototype fighter get stolen) probably could change a guy, so the change in personality between the WC1 Maniac and Wilson's doesn't bother me, but the Maniac in the movie is supposed to be the young one.

And I think Lilliard's Maniac was far closer in spirit to the Maniac we see in WC1. I particularly like the "losing Rosie" subplot...we see a young kid coming to grips with the horrors of war and realizing it's more than just a video game (pun intended). I thought part of the reason why I found Prinze's acting so wooden was because I liked Lilliard's portrayal so much right beside him.

All this said, I've only seen the movie a few times, and none of them particularly recently, so maybe I'm just projecting my own opinions on my memory and distorting things...


I like your take on Maniac. I think we (in general) have discussed that aspect in the past to some extent. Regarding Prinze. He definitely has a few awful moments but I think he might have come accross a little better if a lot of the context of his scenes had stayed in tact. A lot of his hostility and anger is misplaced and he huffs at nothing now when before, a lot of that was supposed to be reactions to stuff that was cut.
 

Mekt-Hakkikt

Mpanty's bane
I am more or less at peace with the movie, now. I can watch it for fun and I really enjoy the space fights.

Though I thouroughly dislike the Pilgrim stuff - not because it changes somewhat Blair or does not fit in the universe but because I think that the story around it is extremely stupid.
I also dislike most of the aesthetical changes made to the Confed ships (the Kilrathi ships are fine). While the Broadsword IMO just looks boring but kind of ok, I think the movier Rapier is one the ugliest designs I ever saw. And not loveable ugly but really ugly. I also dislike the Tiger's Claw, it looks boring and I am absoultely not a fan of ships that "open up" like a clam.

Of course I was bothered by the lack of fur for the Kilrathi and this strange green grass but what bothered me mostly was that they looked so damn cheap, like very bad stop motion puppets from decades ago. I was embarrassed.

When I first saw the movie, I was tremendously disappointed and embarrased by it. My friends who saw it withe me made fun of it and I couldn't defend the movie in any way.

But time heals wounds, I came here and read about many things that bothered me and saw how they could be explained, things made more sense. I gained some distance to it and was able to focus on the better aspects of the movie. As I said, I really like the space fights, the music is awesome, I have the OST and love it.

The movie is still not my most love addition to the WC universe but I am glad that it exists. It brought us some more novels and the TCHB so it expanded the universe and that's always worth something. I may not like everything but all in all, it's good that it's there.
 

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
While I personally love the movie and it's not a *bad* movie, it definitely isn't a "good" movie either.

I don't think that conceit is even really necessary. This isn't a movie site where we have to consider it next to the order of great classic movies out there. It's like Privateer 2 or Super Wing Commander or Arena, the style is certainly different and there are definitely different things to adjust to, but all of these things are responsible for thousands of hours of fun to the people here, and each of them also has the honor of being the first Wing Commander product that some of the people here experienced. Particularly the movie, with its broad reach, has brought a lot of new fans into the fold who later started playing the games and reading the books and becoming Wing Commander fans because of it.
 
Top