Initial reaction to WC movie in '99

Well, wing commander's look has been altered the most from WC2 to WC3,
from the cartoon look to the FMV-look.
still, we saw the concordia(recognisable) crashed in WC3(as was the TC in
the intro of WC2). also the look of the dralthi was dramatically altered, from
a flying pancake into something resembling batman's boomerang...

Some things of the movie just did not fit in right from your computer screen
to what you saw in the movie. but if the rapiers looked like firefox's firefox,
and the tiger's claw was the bengal from WC or WCA(they do look similar
in a lot of ways), and not the one from SWC, would this have made
a better movie?
 
Honestly, for me it would have, because I still think the designs of the ships are awesome from WC1, even superior than designs from recent space sims. Basically, the way I saw fighters and capships alike in the games were ideal for a badass space navy look, having that "Firefox" appeal:cool: The Hakaga carriers are a perfect example for capships, and to me are more awesome than the Star Destroyers from Star Wars (I'd go so far as to say George Lucas should incorporate the Hakagas in another DVD release!! :p)! To see the same elements in the movie, with the dark-blue or black color schemes as it was shown, would have made it that much more exciting.

Here's my rundown on the movie...

PROS:

>The storytelling: The combination of Chris Roberts's direction and the editing was very commendable. Every scene fit together like knitwork, and had the flow that the games had. It always had my attention, and I was afraid to get up due to missing something.

>Soundtrack: There are few classical works I actively listen to...John Williams, those that my girlfriend and I tango with, and Wing Commander. I have nearly all the soundtracks from the games, and this movie's is a very nice addition;)

>Avionics/weapons effects: Definitely no complaints. The ship's computer being as interactive as it was is really something. I'd probably drive it nuts trying to figure out the extent of its usefullness! I like how the weaponry was done; not too exotic, but just enough to present a realistic assumption of how war could be conducted in space later on.

>The flight deck set: I think it couldn't have been done much better than it was. I felt at home!

CONS:

Rec room: Not much of a con, but it looked too constrictive the way it was constructed. No observation window, or jazzy music in the background. It reminded me more of my high school's cafeteria.

The "ending": It left a lot to be desired, and would be like a woman just getting up and saying,"OK, I'm done, now get out."

The hairless Cats: The attitude was there, but seriously...having them look like they were in WC3 and Academy would have been badass! The budget wasn't so low that they had to take their coat away from them:confused:

The ships: As mentioned above. I'd've loved to see the same dark paint jobs, but with the silhouettes of the classics touched up a little bit. I did like the Dilligent and the Dralthi though; kudos for those! I'd shoot the guy who did the Rapier. (Looking down, shaking head, rubbing forehead)

Continuity here and there, but that's with just about any movie.

All things said, I still watch it when I can catch it, and just hope for a day when there will be a TV series or another movie. With the amazing people doing these great fan projects over the recent years, my hope is growing! Wing Commander be with you...and you sir, and you ma'am...amen!
 
The best kilrathi are in WC2. RISE, GRANDSON....
But the best ship design is, surprisingly, in WC1.
 
Wulf said:
I forgot about that! Hehehe...poor Melek. He looks more like an ape in that style; should've stuck with WC3 costumes! Were you able to take that screen directly from WC4, or did you have to go somewhere else?

I get most of my pictures from the WC4 DVD.
 
Mace said:
Well, wing commander's look has been altered the most from WC2 to WC3,
from the cartoon look to the FMV-look.
still, we saw the concordia(recognisable) crashed in WC3(as was the TC in
the intro of WC2). also the look of the dralthi was dramatically altered, from
a flying pancake into something resembling batman's boomerang...

Some things of the movie just did not fit in right from your computer screen
to what you saw in the movie. but if the rapiers looked like firefox's firefox,
and the tiger's claw was the bengal from WC or WCA(they do look similar
in a lot of ways), and not the one from SWC, would this have made
a better movie?


I don't think it would be. I've always viewed the Wing Commander movie like this.
It's exactly what Doom 3 did to the Doom game series. It doesn't add to it, it replaces them all.
Doom 3 takes place as if the first 2 (and mission packs) never happened. It's base storyline is the same but there are LOTS of new additions and contradictions. But it's NOT a continuation of the series. It shouldn't even really be "DOOM 3". It's more like "DOOM". If you can understand what I'm trying to say.
That's how I think of the Wing Commander movie compared to the other games. If it WAS a game and not a movie, it'd be a remake as far as I'm concerned.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
I don't think DooM 3 is a prequel to DooM, though.

But see I personally can't see the Wing Commander movie as a prequel to the first game. I mean it starts in the Enyo system like the first game. We meet a couple of the pilots from the actual game (unlike the Academy series which I assume takes place just before Wing Commander 1). Bossman is dead (well into Wing Commander 1), Angel relationship (well into Wing Commander 2). It's just sooooo much story thrown together.

Doom 3 never included "Hell on Earth". Do we assume at the end of Doom 3 that they did get to Earth like the game? If so why didn't we see the continuation of this story at the end of the game etc.

It's just the way I've always seen it. Not trying to say it's right or anything.
 
DyNaMiX said:
But see I personally can't see the Wing Commander movie as a prequel to the first game.

You have to look carefully at the movie - and read the novelization - but everything falls neatly into logical place. It may look like it has some contradictions at first but I think everything has been explained by now.
 
I don't really know anything about DooM, other than what I read in DooM novels. Which were craaaazy.

The movie is a prequel because it takes place in March, 2654 and tells the story about Blair and Maniac arriving on the Tiger's Claw.

The original game stats in April (?) and starts with Blair and Maniac having been onboard for a while (Maniac has just scored his fifth kill when WC1 starts).
 
LeHah said:
You have to look carefully at the movie - and read the novelization - but everything falls neatly into logical place. It may look like it has some contradictions at first but I think everything has been explained by now.


I'll admit I haven't read the novels OR the apparent "script" that was going around which explained a lot of stuff cut from the final movie. So I assume the stuff I'm missing is in those books/documents.

As for the dates, that's making sense. I can't remember off the top of my head what the date was in the movie. Whether it said march or the star date. If it was the star date I'd have missed it as I'm not sure what the 2654."110" stands for.
 
The number is the day of the year - 1 is January 1st, 2 is January 2nd and so forth. We know because the original Claw Marks sometimes listed both at once -- and then the Kilrathi Saga came with a calendar that had both regular and 'star dates'.

The movie started on 2654.074.
 
Awell. I suppose that throws my argument out the Window. Only thing I can up with really is that Chris Roberts decided to change the dates which is a piss weak argument hehe.

Just a couple little things though, how do the novels and all that explain the smaller inconsistencies such as Hunter's personality and Bossman? Is there a really good thread in particular that clears this up? I'll search the name myself but "movie" will turn up A LOT of threads.
 
Well, whether we like it or not, thw WCM is part of the WC continuity as much as any game or book. Just as the new movies are part of the Star Wars Canon, whether you like the midichlorians or not.

I personally don't care much for a few things in the movie, but I don't DENY its status as integral part of the history of the Kilrathi War.

The official WC1 and 2 guide has just as many or even more stuff that can be regarded as "conflicting" or "wrong" as the movie (erm, carl lafong?) and still we don't get many people complaining about it.

and AFAIK, Doom 3 is not a story continuation of the original games. Not to mention that the gameplay in Doom1 was more advanced...
 
DyNaMiX said:
Just a couple little things though, how do the novels and all that explain the smaller inconsistencies such as Hunter's personality and Bossman?

There isn't much to clear up. Hunter didn't like Blair at first, but by the time the movie ends, things are just fine relative to the game. The personality is the same. The movie takes place over less than two days. Many pilots have turned up after having been missing for longer periods than that.
 
ChrisReid said:
Many pilots have turned up after having been missing for longer periods than that.

Bossman showing up would be pretty good reason for Blair and Angel to "cool it," keeping their feelings pent up untill the strain of the WC2 events
 
Bossman showing up would be pretty good reason for Blair and Angel to "cool it," keeping their feelings pent up untill the strain of the WC2 events

Well, the movie itself says very little about a Blair/Angel relationship. With the exception of our most recent exile, we've all kissed girls before without ending up in relationships -- it's something that's particularly common given the extraordinary circumstances under which Blair and Angel were reunited.

(Furthermore, the reverse is just as easily true; there's no evidence in Wing Commander II that Blair and Angel were never together... they certainly fall into eachothers arms fairly easily.)

Now, obviously, I'm sitting with my back to Pilgrim Stars. I implore you, lovers of the movie debate, to finally raise this to the last level and start a grand Pilgrim Stars thread. There are many elements of the novel that I haven't yet worked out in my own mind - if we put it to the test of a Forums debate, we can work out the kinks and put it to rest forever.

I live in both constant fear and continual hope of the Pilgrim Stars thread, which I predict will someday come to begin again and end all movie debate forever.

(As an aside, there's some other evidence for an earlier Blair/Angel situation - if Angel dies in Super Wing Commander, her 'ghost' quote at the end of the game is about how she was in love with the main character.)

Now, Bossman... obviously, we don't yet have a 'canonical' explanation of Bossman, but I do have a favorite theory. I'll readily admit that it's the loosest of the movie points still discussed today - and that's saying a lot, to be honest. I never thought I'd feel good about the Iason or the or (for a time) even things like the accents. In general, though, I do. Time and debate has worn them smooth, and I'm proud that we've accomplished that here.


So, Bossman:

Here's the rub: The Confederation Handbook gives us a detailed explanation of Bossman's death, in the form of a letter from Angel to Bossman's wife.

Now, just watching the movie you should notice that there's obviously something odd about the situation. Even if we had only the movie to go by, we would have to ask ourselves this question: how likely is it that a pilot will be killed on a combat mission... but that his single person fighter will survive and return to its carrier?

I would wager that it was fairly uncommon for Wildcats and Hellcats to outlive their pilots all the way to fighter recovery in World War II... and space is an infinitely larger and more complex landscape upon which to perform recovery operations.

So, then, what's the story? The aforementioned letter makes the following case (or retcon, depending on how spiteful we're feeling about the movies script): "However, the enemy managed to damage his engines in a way as to cause an overload in the reactor core. Your husband died of radiation poisoning from the core overload. The radiation was of sufficient intensity as to kill him instantly. The Kilrathi did not make any attempt to salvage your husband's Rapier."

Very pat -- but does it remind you of anything? Yes! End Run deals with just this sort of letter home:

"I'm sorry, I forgot your brother was part of the defense team that got caught."
"It's all right," Jason said quietly, "the letter said it was quick and clean."
"Of course," and her words were a bit too hurried, though sincere.
There were certain things in life that you clung to, even when you suspected they were lies. The letter to his mother from Joshua's sergeant, which described a heroic death, cut down painlessly by a neutron blast, was one of them. He didn't want to think of the alter-native, the fact that his brother might have been taken alive.

It shows up again in the same novel, when Jason writes a letter home telling a mother that her son died heroically (when in fact he actually panicked during a training exercise.

But there's our in -- the idea that the letter home is a lie to console the loved ones. Angel tells Bossman's wife that he died instantly because that's how such letters are written and not because it's necessarily true. He could, in fact, have been captured.

So, I posit that Bossman was in fact captured by the Kilrathi - and his fighter was abandoned in space by them afterwards (in fact, this sequence of events happens in one of the Wing Commander III news sequences!). The story of his escape is one that can be told by some better writer with some official blessing in the future.

On the other hand, he may simply have ejected and been lost - consider Vanderman in Fleet Action. The crew of the Tiger's Claw (!) had long thought him dead, when in fact he ejected and survived for a time on an uninhabited planet before being recovered. So too could be the fate of Bossman.
 
That's a good explanation. I'll go with the capture and fighter abandoned. The reason for that is if he did eject, wouldn't the cockpit be missing from his fighter?
 
That's a good explanation. I'll go with the capture and fighter abandoned. The reason for that is if he did eject, wouldn't the cockpit be missing from his fighter?

Presumably at least *something* about the fighter had to be repaired -- otherwise there'd be no reason for him to eject or be shot down in the first place (whichever theory you choose). Swapping out a damaged engine or a blown off wing is presumably at least as complex as replacing the ejection seat.

(For those interested, the movie takes place four days after Bossman's supposed death, and the fighter is just being put back into service. This implies that it's been under repairs for a while... but also that Bossman really hasn't been missing for very long.)
 
Bandit LOAF said:
Presumably at least *something* about the fighter had to be repaired -- otherwise there'd be no reason for him to eject or be shot down in the first place (whichever theory you choose). Swapping out a damaged engine or a blown off wing is presumably at least as complex as replacing the ejection seat.

(For those interested, the movie takes place four days after Bossman's supposed death, and the fighter is just being put back into service. This implies that it's been under repairs for a while... but also that Bossman really hasn't been missing for very long.)

Ah that makes more sense. I assumed he had just before Maverick and Maniac arrived.
 
Back
Top