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

KillerWave said:
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
Click to expand...

I agree with this as I've said before, this is pretty much the same way I feel about the movie and most move adaptations of things.

The difference between WCM and the WC games compared to Star Trek and Enterprise is that Enterprise is supposed to purposely be made to fit into the existing continuity of Star Trek even though it creates contradictions. I really don't feel the intention of the movie was to fit into the existing continuity of the games. I know I try not to harp on the ship designs changed for the movie, but I still feel if they did want to make the movie a part of the game universe they would've went with more game inspired designs.

After seeing the movie the first time a few of my friends had the same thing to say to me, "It was decent I guess but it's not Wing Commander." I guess that's the easiest way to sum up how I feel about how the movie should be taken. It's where I stood since the movie's release and it's where I still stand.

Anyway, I really did like the information provided in this little debate, and I will say that after learning a few things, and seeing things in a different light, I will look at the movie a bit differently from now on, and I'm willing to accept some of its backstory ideas.
 
I don't know, it's just weird to me that someone can talk about percieved intentions and then start going on about how there's a 'movie universe' and a 'game universe' (and a 'privateer 2 universe' and so forth), when to the best of my knowledge there's no sort of 'fourth wall' source that's ever used these terms.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
That's not a good way to go through life. There are plenty of people out there who enjoyed the movie.
Click to expand...

No, that's not a good way to go through life. I agree. It's just that I don't believe in causing unnecessary drama in my life. I like Wing Commander. All of them. A lot. But over the past couple of years on this forum, I have gleaned enough secondhand info about the movie that lets me know that whether or not I liked the film, (should i happen to see it) I would be very angry over where Chris Roberts decided to take this universe that we all love and share.

I guess it's sort of the way I am. To use another example in this thread, I've never seen either of the Spider-man movies. I used to read the comics rabidly as a child. I've never seen any of the Lord of the Rings movies either, though I've read the books repeatedly. It's not that I don't think that the movie can never surpass the book, (because it most definitely can) it's just that I get a view of a universe that's different than ours, and I start to fix it that way.

Usually this is not a problem. Really, in my life, the only problem that comes up is Wing Commander. I like the universe created by the games and novels. There are contradictions there, of course, but there's still the feeling that we're dealing with the same reality here. Considering what I know from the movie picked up from the threads here, it's just not something I want to see.

This brings up the larger questions. When you're dealing with a fictional universe, can you really blame someone for being blissfully ignorant? Can you blame a person for picking and choosing what they want to believe about a fictional reality? And when a person believes in this reality, can you really blame someone for deciding not to put this unreal controversy into their life?

I certainly don't blame anyone for seeing the movie, or liking the movie, or disliking the movie, or whatever with the movie. My point is, everyone who has seen the movie has had their viewpoint about Wing Commander changed at least slightly. My point at the end of this self-indulgent rant is, I just don't want to like Wing Commander less. Which I suspect would happen if I saw the movie.
 
Very excellent points, though the Movie hasn't really changed or damaged the way I look at Wing Commander, I can see where you're coming from.
 
Dragon1 said:
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!
Click to expand...
He makes a good point during world war 2 the USS Enterprise and the HMS Enterprise served at the same time
 
Choosing not to view the movies is a bit drastic.
In the case of the lord of the rings and spiderman, you're missing great movies.
I just consider them adaptations, they dont change the idea i have of a fictional universe.
 
The WC Movie isn't a parallel universe or divergent anything. Just because it smells and tastes different doesn't mean it can be completely discounted. We take the info and ideas that don't conflict with anything, and eat that up as pure, straight canon. Things that kinda sorta conflict with previous canon we try abd explain in the context of the universe (ANOTHER Concordia?), and that's the fun, ultra-nerd debate part.

And finally, everything that blatantly conflicts with prior canon and cannot be resolevd we chalk up to retroactive continuity, artistic design choices, or otherwise blissfully ignore using our powers of suspension of disbelief (we are fans of a series of computer games about flying space ships with laser cannons against cat-like aliens in the far future, after all).
 
I'm with Petey here (and LOAF a little farther back)--it seems very often that fans of a science-fiction or fantasy series make it their singular purpose to make sure that everything ties in with everything else, disregarding real-world circumstances like, A) It's a fictional universe; and B) The fact that not everything concurs with everything else may not be the viewer or fan's fault, the directors/creators/producers may just have flubbed. ;)
 
I like cheeseburgers. Other food that I've never had before might not be as good as cheeseburgers. I read on the internet about a guy who really hates clams. Therefore, I should only ever eat cheeseburgers rather than risk ruining the concept of food forever.
 
But the point I have been trying to make is I don't think they "flubbed" or anything, it's I don't think they tried or wanted it to fit together in the first place.

I like the way KillerWave puts it best, his explaination makes better sense than how I've been trying to get it across. The Wing Commander movie in my opinion is an adaption of its source material, not a part of it. This can be debated until the cows come home, and yes that's part of the fun of it, but I think it's ultimately chalked down to a difference of opinion.

He makes a good point during world war 2 the USS Enterprise and the HMS Enterprise served at the same time
Click to expand...

That kind of doesn't prove or disprove anything considering they're ships made independantly by different countries and in service in different navies that just happen to have the same name by coincidence.

That's like saying it's a TCS Concordia and a BWS Concordia in service at the same time or something like that, but there would not be two TCS Concordia's at the same time. The only reason I could figure it happening would be one Concordia ends up decommissioned and in drydock so a new ship takes its name, then later the first Concordia is pressed back into service. They most certainly wouldn't call both these ships the TCS Concordia though, one, probably the older one, would get a name change.
 
There's absolutely no overlap between the three Concordias, though.

The first (Concordia-class CV) is destroyed (and enters service) in 2634 (per Action Stations).

The second (Concordia-class CA) enters service in 2645 (per The Confederation Handbook) and last appears in 2656 (per the Kilrathi Saga Manual).

The third (Confederation-class CVS) enters service in 2661 (per Fleet Action) and is destroyed in 2669 (per Wing Commander III).

The only 'question' is what specifically destroyed the supercruiser after 2656 and before 2661 - and we're talking five years as a front line warship...
 
Bandit LOAF said:
There's absolutely no overlap between the three Concordias, though.

The first (Concordia-class CV) is destroyed (and enters service) in 2634 (per Action Stations).

The second (Concordia-class CA) enters service in 2645 (per The Confederation Handbook) and last appears in 2656 (per the Kilrathi Saga Manual).

The third (Confederation-class CVS) enters service in 2661 (per Fleet Action) and is destroyed in 2669 (per Wing Commander III).

The only 'question' is what specifically destroyed the supercruiser after 2656 and before 2661 - and we're talking five years as a front line warship...
Click to expand...

What evidence is there that the transfer orders apply to the supercruiser? Do we know for sure that only three Concordia's served during the Kilrathi War, or could there be even more Concordia's in there between 2645 and 2661? Granted, if the supercruiser didn't last long, like the first Concordia, its probably doubtful they would keep recycling the name, but 16 years in a war is a long time. Not that I'm saying we should think there are more Concordia's or anything, its just that applying the transfer orders to the supercruiser seems a bit speculative.
 
Sure, there could be a fourth Concordia. And a fifth and a sixth and so forth -- there could be hundreds of them. To decide that, though, would truly be acting on unsupported information. :)

"It's 16 years old!" isn't really much of an argument, either - it was already 14 years old in the movie.

Edited for math: in the movie it would be nine years old, as of the transfer orders it would be eleven years old.
 
Wolf Dog said:
What evidence is there that the transfer orders apply to the supercruiser? Do we know for sure that only three Concordia's served during the Kilrathi War, or could there be even more Concordia's in there between 2645 and 2661? Granted, if the supercruiser didn't last long, like the first Concordia, its probably doubtful they would keep recycling the name, but 16 years in a war is a long time. Not that I'm saying we should think there are more Concordia's or anything, its just that applying the transfer orders to the supercruiser seems a bit speculative.
Click to expand...

Considering that it takes several years to build a carrier or a cruiser, that doesn't leave much time for the movie Concordia to blow up and a new one to be built in its place, before being blown up so the Confederation-class dreadnought with the same name can take the name after it's sunk or retired. We see it last in 2654 in the movie, which means that it's nine years old at that point. If it blew up shortly after the movie ended, then we've got 2655-2661 to get another Concordia out, and that's where the problem begins.

If we assume they started a new ship from scratch to use as the Concordia, following a new building contract, then they've got 2-3 years to finish it, which means that it's out in 2656 or 2657... and then it has to get blown up almost just after it leaves the dock if they're to allow time for it to be built given that carrier construction takes 5 years given the figures in End Run (ten to build a yard and train the construction crew, five more to build a carrier).

But if we assume they recomissioned a ship under construction so it could ship out in 2654 assuming (again) the Concordia super-cruiser died just after the movie, then we've still got to blow it up in 2656 or so just so we have enough time to build that dreadnought. Again you've got a problem here, since it's still a very short period of time for the ship to exist in, and we've got transfer orders in 2656 according to the Kilrathi Saga manual... which brings us back to the same quandrary. Being honest, I'm having difficulty with the idea that they'd recontract a dreadnought under construction to be the Concordia, even if she got blown up just before this new hull was commissioned, and it's overly complicated.

If you want to keep it simple, then the Concordia listed in the KS docs is the same Concordia that exist in the movie, and that she died in 2656 or 2657 in order to allow the dreadnought time to be contracted for and built in.
 
It's the best interpretation, but it's not a fact. I know people are going to fill in the gaps, its just when its an interpretation a footnote or asterisks is in order, IMHO. It's not really a problem in casual discussions on the board per say, I just find it annoying when interpretation is taken as WC canon.
 
Wolf Dog said:
It's the best interpretation, but it's not a fact. I know people are going to fill in the gaps, its just when its an interpretation a footnote or asterisks is in order, IMHO. It's not really a problem in casual discussions on the board per say, I just find it annoying when interpretation is taken as WC canon.
Click to expand...

We know there are three Concordias - fact.

We know when three of them began operation: 2633, 2645, 2661 - fact.

We know when two of them died: 2634 for the first Concordia seen in the books, 2669 in WC3. The second one was either killed or decomissioned before 2661, to allow the one destroyed in 2669 to be comissioned with the name - fact.

We know that it takes five years to build a carrier, from End Run - fact.

We also have transfer docs from the Kilrathi Saga manual for around 2656 in the KS manual - fact.

Given that we know there's a Concordia which was built in 2645 and was active in 2654, and that another Concordia was comissioned in 2661... that Concordia has at least 11 years to be active in. It's a conjecture that the one we see in the docs for Kilrathi Saga is the same Concordia that was in the movie, but it's a strong one which is backed up by the above facts to a decent extent. If they built another Concordia-class supercruiser, it would take years to construct, and if they built another carrier, that would take almost as long to build (assuming they started a new contract for it) as it would to get the Confederation-class dreadnought into service. There's no reason to assume that it's not the movie Concordia in this case, unless you're stating that this was referring to a Concordia Base somewhere.

We've got a simple interpretation and a hard one. Personally, I'll go for the one which requires the fewest extra factors to work.
 
Yeah - I mean, there's no *conclusive* evidence that the Concordia in the WC3 intro is the Concordia in WC2 -- we're pretty sure it is, though.
 
Yeah, I guess there are some base assumptions I don't even think about. For example, 650 years of human evolution, unless it is explicitly stated you don't know that even the "humans" are anything like us. We might assume they are like us, same average heights for example, but until stated somewhere this is interpretation. And when does our real world timeline diverge from the fictional WC timeline? Actually, who is to say our timelines were ever the same, even though they share some events. Assuming any real world events not acknowledged in WC occurred in WC is really interpretation since any perceived continuity with our own timeline is speculation. I would argue it was the intention of the writers (how many WWII references are there in the books) that there is at least some degree of continuity but using author intent as proof of something is a matter of interpretation too.

I don't know, I guess my anal sense of order likes to be able to separate hard facts from soft, interpreted facts. Why I care about facts in a piece of fiction probably is indicative of some sort of weird dysfunction I have, so I won't question that for fear of discovering I have mental problems I'd rather not know about.

I don’t know though, I think there is at least a little bit of difference in issues like these and taking WC canon and using that information to speculate and then stating the speculation as if it were canon. Once again, not a problem here because this is an informal discussion where we don't have to footnote things and saying something doesn't mean you are stating it as canon. But in the goal of a complete, canon WC encyclopedia, for instance, I think undocumented speculation would be really bad. If speculation and canon become fundamentally intertwined to the point you can't separate the two, you have to go back to square one and start over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top