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.
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.