Movie Argument 8 (Was: Discussion of The...)

Spien

Spaceman
The movie has nearly nothing in common with the games except for the names of the characters and the names of the ships. And it doesn't even have that right if you consider "Tiger Claw"

Am I to assume now that Paladin is not Scottish and he was a Commodore in special operations long before you served with him as a pilot on the Tiger's claw because of the movie? The same goes for Angel, was she the wing commander of the Tiger's claw when Blair first showed up on board, long before she flew on your wing? Was Tolwyn's Concordia online that early in the war, long before the weapon that it was designed to be built for based on the Sivar's weapon was even known about?

The tech level of the Terran forces also seems to be a lot lower, this seems to be an artistic decision however. The only reason I haven't complained about the total differences in ship design is because I understand different artistic teams have different ideas of what things should look like, but the designs in the movie are completely different in any case.

While I'm talking about the ships, the Rapiers were not seen until later in Wing Commander I. They wouldn't be old beaten down designs already in mass use as soon as Blair comes aboard the Claw for his first time.

The Pilgrim thing is perhaps one of the only ideas that could be adapted to the game universe, but I think it will not be considering if they added it now they would have to explain why no one gave Blair crap about it in the past or why no other Pilgrim's were ever seen or why no one spoke of tactics used in the Pilgrim war that could be used against the Kilrathi. The only way you could explain why no one ever bothered Blair about it is because he basically saved Earth in the movie.

One of the things I did like about the movie was that jump points were actually stellar phenomena instead of just arbitrary areas of space that you could excecute faster than light travel in.

I could keep going but I think there's enough differences in the movie compared to the games, but you know all of this already I'm certain. I believe the movie intended to only be based on the games, not to be a part of their storyline.

It works like other movies like say Batman, or more recently the travesty that is Catwoman. They're based off of the original material of the comic books, but they have nothing to do with the storyline of those comics. Wing Commander works the same way. I severely doubt Chris Roberts wanted the movie to interferre with the games. The only reason I consider the novels a higher canon than the movie is because some events in the novels are referanced in the instruction booklets of the games.

So until someone gives me evidence to change my mind I'm going to stand by my opinion that the movie is a different timeline than the games.

Edit:

If we're going to consider the movie as a canon part of the game timeline, then we're forced to pick and choose what we want to accept and what we don't want to accept, then we're forced to speculate on all the things that contradict what we already know. I like the movie as a different take on the Wing Commander universe, a different beginning, not as a part of what's already established however.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I've split the thread, so we don't interfere with Firefalcon's story idea. (If he wants me to remix them, I'm happy to.)

Am I to assume now that Paladin is not Scottish and he was a Commodore in special operations long before you served with him as a pilot on the Tiger's claw because of the movie? The same goes for Angel, was she the wing commander of the Tiger's claw when Blair first showed up on board, long before she flew on your wing? Was Tolwyn's Concordia online that early in the war, long before the weapon that it was designed to be built for based on the Sivar's weapon was even known about?
Most of these are non-issues, though - things dealt with very clearly in the movie novel itself. Angel was a squadron commander - Halcyon was the Wing Commander.

The Concordia example is, perhaps, the best case of the movie/book double standard. You can accept that that Action Stations adds a 'first' TCS Concordia in 2634... but not that the movie adds a 'second' in 2645 (heck, a 'middle' Concordia was part of the WC canon long before the movie regardless - the Kilrathi Saga manual includes a set of transfer orders to a 'TCS Concordia' dated 2656.)

The fact that Paladin isn't Scottish comes from Claw Marks (he's from a space station) and the fact that he doesn't *really* have an accent comes from the Wing Commander IV novel. The fact that he's an intelligence operative all along has been hinted at throughout the later games and novels.

The tech level of the Terran forces also seems to be a lot lower, this seems to be an artistic decision however. The only reason I haven't complained about the total differences is ship design is because I understand different artistic teams have different ideas of what things should look like, but the designs in the movie are completely different in any case.
I guess I just don't see it - the movie pretty much as the same 'technologies' as the original Wing Commander: laser cannons, neutron guns, shields, etc. This is a new one for me - usually people claim the movie has too much 'later' Wing Commander technology (early Skipper missile, jump capable fighter, antimatter torpedoes, etc.)

While I'm talking about the ships, the Rapiers were not seen until later in Wing Commander I. They wouldn't be old beaten down designs already in mass use as soon as Blair comes aboard the Claw for his first time.
While I understand the need to change the designs for the movie, this is a case of two completely separate ships. The movie takes place some time before the original game's Rapier shows up in the Gimle System... and the supporting literature gives it a vastly different background. It is, in fact, the aging CF-117 Rapier... while the game Rapier is (and this is per the Kilrathi Saga manual!) the F-44 Rapier II. Completely separate ships with no connection whatsoever... like how the P-47 Thunderbolt and the A-10 Thunderbolt II are completely unrelated.

The Pilgrim thing is perhaps one of the only ideas that could be adapted to the game universe, but I think it will not be considering if they added it now they would have to explain why no one gave Blair crap about it in the past or why no other Pilgrim's were ever seen or why no one spoke of tactics used in the Pilgrim war that could be used against the Kilrathi. The only way you could explain why no one ever bothered Blair about it is because he basically saved Earth in the movie.
There's two ways to deal with that. The 'low key' option is to do what you've just said - Blair's saved everyone's ass a dozen times over throughout the games, so of course he's earned his respect. It's an interesting line of thought, because it leads to all sorts of interesting concepts. The GE program used Blair's DNA before he'd even left the Academy, per WC4... is that because he had good SAT scores, or because he had some sort of known genetic advantage? The Confed Handbook does show us that Tolwyn had a psychologist looking after Blair during Flight School - because he served with Blair's father or something sinister? Did the vehemence with which Tolwyn (and everyone else) pusued Blair in WC2 come only from the fact that Blair was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or was there some inherent reason to believe Blair could be a traitor? And so forth. There's plenty of other similar ways to look at it - racism against Pilgrims will eventually vanish alltogether, anyway. We don't still hate the Germans and the Japanese for World War II - but we did for a decade or two afterwards.

The other way, of course, is the high concept method - Peter Telep's 'Pilgrim Truth' pretty much gets rid of all Pilgrims from the Wing Commander Universe post-2654.

One of the things I did like about the movie was that jump points were actually stellar phenomena instead of just arbitrary areas of space that you could excecute faster than light travel in.
While I'd love to see the movie earn some credit for something, the elaborate jump physics which appeared in The Confederation Handbook were actually developed in 1994 as part of the 'in house' background to Wing Commander III.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
The movie has nearly nothing in common with the games except for the names of the characters and the names of the ships. And it doesn't even have that right if you consider "Tiger Claw"
I missed this one, so I'm adding it. The Tiger's Claw/Tiger Claw thing is a sad story that isn't really the fault of anyone in particular (save, perhaps, for whoever did the second draft rewrite of the movie). Basically, the movie had three scripts. In the original, the ship was "Tiger's Claw" in every instance... except for one. Whoever did the second draft rewrite apparently used that single typo in all his changes: the second script is half Tiger's Claw and half Tiger Claw. In the third version, the shooting script, they fixed it so that everything read the same - they just picked the wrong one. (There is one instance of "Tiger's Claw" left in the version of the movie script that was filmed - as for whether it's actually said in the movie... it's fairly impossible to say, as there's very little vocal difference between Tigerclaw and Tigersclaw.)

(Of course, nitpicking the carrier's name goes back to Wing Commander 1 - which uses both 'CSS' and 'TCS' at the same time...)
 

Spien

Spaceman
The Concordia example is, perhaps, the best case of the movie/book double standard. You can accept that that Action Stations adds a 'first' TCS Concordia in 2634... but not that the movie adds a 'second' in 2645 (heck, a 'middle' Concordia was part of the WC canon long before the movie regardless - the Kilrathi Saga manual includes a set of transfer orders to a 'TCS Concordia' dated 2656.)
The movie Concordia seems to have the same big floating gun idea as the Confederation class Concordia though. Other referances of the size of the ship in the movie seem to intend that it's probably based on the Confederation class of the game timeline, but not the same ship. Also, being called a Concordia class super crusier clashes with the already existing Concordia class fleet carrier. It's common that new ships take on the names of their older ancestors in the real world and apparently in the Wing Commander universe, but the same shouldn't be true with ship class names, especially those that should still be in service. That would cause unnecesary confusion.

If I had to speculate however on the side of the movie and the game timeline being one and the same, perhap the Confederation gave the ship the common Concordia class name to confuse the Kilrathi. They would intercept a transmission about a Concordia class ship and think it's a fleet carrier, they'd set off to attack it and get a nasty surprise when they meet up super cruiser instead. It seems pretty unlikely since it would equally confuse the Terran listeners to transmissions, but that's all I could think of.

This still leaves the "Tiger Claw"/"Tiger's Claw" debacle. The easy way out is the name and design changed for the movie, the same as the Kilrathi capital ships which don't resemble any of the Kilrathi ships we've ever seen before. Despite chalking this all down to artistic decisions I still find it hard accepting it as the same ship and explaining away contradictions. (edit: posted before post above was read so you can forget about the naming error.)

The fact that Paladin isn't Scottish comes from Claw Marks (he's from a space station) and the fact that he doesn't *really* have an accent comes from the Wing Commander IV novel. The fact that he's an intelligence operative all along has been hinted at throughout the later games and novels.
I can't argue that one really, especially since I haven't read most of the novels yet, except why would he pretend to be somewhat French only to change his mind and go Scottish, though I mostly meant of Scottish lineage and not neccesarilly having to come from Scottland on Earth. Sure he could've been an operative all along and he probably was, but in the movie he sort of gave that away to everyone way too soon, before you would've learned about it in Wing Commander II. In the first Wing Commander you just knew he was an old pilot who wasn't quite ready for retirement.

We don't still hate the Germans and the Japanese for World War II - but we did for a decade or two afterwards.
I did consider that, but I'd expect there to be at least some referance of the Pilgrims somewhere else. I felt like it was just thrown into the movie for no reason than for what most people bash it for, the "use the force Luke" idea, but hey... Blair does grow up to be Mark Hamill after all... :) I have high doubts that the Pilgrims even existed in the game timeline. The idea of a faction of man going out and doing the initial exploration of space is a good one, but I don't think it was executed as well as it could've been with the Pilgrim idea. I find it hard to believe that people are born with their brains hardwired to navigate jumps. In the games it doesn't seem much like an issue since navigation is really no problem at all.

The movie looks, sounds, and smells like a different timeline. There's things thrown in here and there to give homage to its source material, but I just can't accept it as part of the same timeline. It's too hard to work all the things we've seen in the movie into the story of the games without causing changes in the way the games played out. I feel that the movie was made for Wing Commander fans and other general sci-fi fans to enjoy but not to infiltrate itself into an already concrete universe even though it's fun to try to explain it into the game timeline, people don't try to do the same thing with the Resident Evil film, or the Mario Brothers... thing...

I think the fact that Chris Roberts directed it instantly makes people believe that it has to fit into the pre-established universe somewhere.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
The movie Concordia seems to have the same big floating gun idea as the Confederation class Concordia though. Other referances of the size of the ship in the movie seem to intend that it's probably based on the Confederation class of the game timeline, but not the same ship. Also, being called a Concordia class super crusier clashes with the already existing Concordia class fleet carrier. It's common that new ships take on the names of their older ancestors in the real world and apparently in the Wing Commandr universe, but the same shouldn't be true with ship class names, especially those that should still be in service. That would cause unnecesary confusion.
The specifications for the ship don't list any sort of big gun, though - just a mess of anti matter guns like you'd expect on any sort of battleship. Not that "this ship is a similar idea to another ship!" really holds much water when we're talking about a series of games that invents a new light, medium, heavy and bomber fighter each time around... :)

I can't argue that one really, especially since I haven't read most of the novels yet, except why would he pretend to be somewhat French only to change his mind and go Scottish, though I mostly meant of Scottish lineage and not neccesarilly having to come from Scottland on Earth. Sure he could've been an operative all along and he probably was, but in the movie he sort of gave that away to everyone way too soon, before you would've learned about it in Wing Commander II. In the first Wing Commander you just knew he was an old pilot who wasn't quite ready for retirement.
Oh, I think the French thing was silly - but he was being played by a French actor, for better and for worse. I think they remained true to the core idea - that he's a spy with an outrageously foreign accent. :)

I did consider that, but I'd expect there to be at least some referance of the Pilgrims somewhere else. I felt like it was just thrown into the movie for no reason than for what most people bash it for, the "use the force Luke" idea, but hey... Blair does grow up to be Mark Hamill after all... I have high doubts that the Pilgrims even existed in the game timeline. The idea of a faction of man going out and doing the initial exploration of space is a good one, but I don't think it was executed as well as it could've been with the Pilgrim idea. I find it hard to believe that people are born with their brains hardwired to navigate jumps. In the games it doesn't seem much like an issue since navigation is really no problem at all.
Eh, Wing Commander III ended with Mark Hamill flying a death defying trench run to deliver a single desparate torpedo - Blair being good at math is the least of people worrying about ripping off Star Wars' worries.

Seriously, though, Pilgrims are just your average everyday retcon - you can't really expect them to show up in things written five and ten years earlier. (It'd be like expecting Colonel Blair to show up in WC1 or 2, despite the fact that he didn't have a name until 3. :)).

The movie looks, sounds, and smells like a different timeline. There's things thrown in here and there to give homage to its source material, but I just can't accept it as part of the same timeline. It's too hard to work all the things we've seen in the movie into the story of the games without causing changes in the way the games played out. I feel that the movie was made for Wing Commander fans and other general sci-fi fans to enjoy but not to infiltrate itself into an already concrete universe.
The exact same reasoning can be applied to the difference between WC1/2 and WC3/4, though. They have a different look and feel to them - so are they a different universe? And what's the ultimate point in fracturing WC into untold invidual universe pods? Killing any sort of continuity or overall enhancement just for the sake of avoiding a contradiction or two? The Wing Commander movie wasn't good - but it's great that because of it we have a book that lists Blair and Maniac's academy scores and which pilots were killed in the first half of 2654 on the Tiger's Claw and all sorts of other fascinating stuff that belongs in the greater WC canon.
 

Spien

Spaceman
The games however have their continuations with each other thanks to the continuing storyline that they share. If the movie was intended to be a prequel included in the game universe, then it turns into the same kind of problem Star Trek is having right now. You have a lot of Trekkies calmouring about why Enterprise shouldn't be considered canon, and those who fight to defend it. In any case it's the reason I don't really like prequels in general, they will usually always interferre with what came before it, especially if the original is several years old.

In all honesty I think it's up to the viewer to interpret their own opinion, I don't really want to continue this particular debate because I'm sure everyone else here is poking their eyes out having seen this so many times before. There will always be those who will include the movie with the games, and those who will take it as departure from the games.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
See, and there's a valid example - of course Enterprise is a Star Trek show... all sorts of elements from the other shows appear in it. If you separate them, the entire endevaour loses any sort of purpose.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
That's not a good way to go through life. There are plenty of people out there who enjoyed the movie.
 

KillerWave

Spaceman
My guess is that movies are adaptations of things, not cannon stuff.
If you take all movies to be cannon material, well, take spider-man for example. Its quite faithfull to the comics, but it does changes parts of the storyline. Same for movies like the vampire chronicles, resident evil, blade and so on...
Thats just my guess tough, fell free to disregard it :p
 

Dragon1

Rear Admiral
I like to give and take from both like a salad bar.

For example:

Concordia-class carrier named after the first unit of the series TCS Concordia, launched prior to the war (about 2633), lost fighting at the Fleet Battle, McAuliffe 2634.
-This opened the name for a new Concordia, even though the class name was still in use with the fleet carriers.

Concordia-class Super Cruiser (WCM), 1st unit launched in the mid '40s. Perhaps in commemeration to the lost carrier of the 1st battle of the war.
- Either lost or decommissioned between 2654-2657.

Confederation-class Dreadnought, TCS Concordia (second or third ship of the class) being completed sometime around 2660, lost in 2669.

There could have potentially been Concordia-class Carriers, Concordia-class Super Cruisers and a Confederation-class TCS Concordia all in service at the same time!

Nice and neat. Take what you want and leave the rest!
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I like to give and take from both like a salad bar.
You're not supposed to give things to a salad bar.


Concordia-class carrier named after the first unit of the series TCS Concordia, launched prior to the war (about 2633), lost fighting at the Fleet Battle, McAuliffe 2634.
Concordia (1) had just entered service that year (2634), per Action Stations.

Concordia-class Super Cruiser (WCM), 1st unit launched in the mid '40s. Perhaps in commemeration to the lost carrier of the 1st battle of the war.
- Either lost or decommissioned between 2654-2657.
Entered service in 2645, per the Confed Handbook. Must have remained in service through at least 2656, to justify the pilot tranfer orders in the Kilrathi Saga manual.

Confederation-class Dreadnought, TCS Concordia (second or third ship of the class) being completed sometime around 2660, lost in 2669.
Entered service in 2661, per Fleet Action.
 

rampage3057

Spaceman
Despite every one else's seemingly obligatory whining about yet *another* WCM-debate thread, I for one am glad to see one played out civilly and with good logical arguments, not just random "W1NG M0V13 SUCK7AZ!!!!" posts.
 
Top