$$$ movie

AD

Finder of things, Doer of stuff
Looking through IMDB... http://www.imdb.com/Charts/video991003 This page indicated that as of the first week of october 1999 the wing commander movie had made atleast 18.9 million US dollars in rental revenue. That means that when combined with the world box office total of at least 12 and a half million dollars, that The wing commander movie has made over 30 million dollars...

What I dont know is whether this total includes dvd and video sales to that point, and I do know that it doesnt include video sales after october 1999, and that the rental figure is for the US only, not international.
 
AD said:
That means that when combined with the world box office total of at least 12 and a half million dollars,.

It did more than 12 million in the US domestic theater run, not world box office total.
 
A great deal of the money goes to the distributors and such, though. Altogether, the film would have to, IIRC, make back about twice its budget in order to be even remotely profitable.
 
The movie was so lame. God, I stopped counting the mistakes in the movie. For a start, where are the shields of fighters? What the hell was that "submarine vs destroyer" scene? Its space for gods sake, sound doesn't travel in space! And then, the scene where they have to push(!) down the wreckage of the fighter from the landing path? What was that about? Since when there is gravity in space? When that fighter crashed with the carrier, it should have bounced right off.

As a WC fan for myself, that movie ticket was the worst spending for any WC product so far.

And the acting? I think only "Fast and Furious" acting could be worse than the WC movie...
 
Murray said:
The movie was so lame. God, I stopped counting the mistakes in the movie. For a start, where are the shields of fighters? What the hell was that "submarine vs destroyer" scene? Its space for gods sake, sound doesn't travel in space! And then, the scene where they have to push(!) down the wreckage of the fighter from the landing path? What was that about? Since when there is gravity in space? When that fighter crashed with the carrier, it should have bounced right off.

As a WC fan for myself, that movie ticket was the worst spending for any WC product so far.

And the acting? I think only "Fast and Furious" acting could be worse than the WC movie...

Most of your "mistakes" are in your Imagination.I dont want to discuss it right now and I dont think anyone else wants cause there have been million threads for the WCM before...You didnt like it....fine :D
 
Murray said:
... And then, the scene where they have to push(!) down the wreckage of the fighter from the landing path? What was that about? Since when there is gravity in space? When that fighter crashed with the carrier, it should have bounced right off...
I'm no fan of the movie, but IIRC that, since the fighter was in the landing bay, it would be subject to the artifical gravity existing within the airlock of the bay (once it had passed thru ship's shields.

BTW, I thought the visual effect of having the fighter pass thru the landing bay's shields was nicely done. That'd maybe be a good idea for future mods, if it's technically do-able.
 
TCSTigersClaw said:
Most of your "mistakes" are in your Imagination.I dont want to discuss it right now and I dont think anyone else wants cause there have been million threads for the WCM before...You didnt like it....fine :D

Oooppss, sorry about that than... :rolleyes:

My mistake :p :p
 
Murray said:
Oooppss, sorry about that than... :rolleyes:

My mistake :p :p

You're encounting a little frustration here, because if you read back over the last four years, each and every one of your gripes has been fully explained about 800 times. :)
 
Chris Roberts' has apparently never gotten a look for the Kilrathi that he really liked -- hence the re-imagining of them for both WC4 and then the movie.

As for the WC3 Kilrathi -- they look great in the compressed low-res glory of WC3, but even at a normal video resolution they look awfully corny (G)
 
Murray said:
Chris Roberts' has apparently never gotten a look for the Kilrathi that he really liked -- hence the re-imagining of them for both WC4 and then the movie.

As for the WC3 Kilrathi -- they look great in the compressed low-res glory of WC3, but even at a normal video resolution they look awfully corny (G)

Thanks for the info but I am a bit confused.

Why did the moderators replaced the message I wrote? The one above is clearly from somebody else. Was there something on my message against the forum rules?

Or am I missing somethin'?
 
D'oh, I'm sorry -- that was supposed to be my reply... I must have hit edit instead. Sorry... trying to get used to the new boards :)
 
Murray said:
Oooppss, sorry about that than... :rolleyes:

My mistake :p :p

Well Its not your fault,just go read the old Threads.....back then there were interesting debates...Ive read lots and lots of old threads before I registered here :)
 
There is one thing I don't get about the movie. Why in h##l did Chris Roberts use the same names, but a different story! This the one problem that really ticks me off. And what was with the Kilrathi looking like human sized goblins?
 
The story is the same.....he just couldnt put all WC fiction in a 90 min. movie..... so he made someeee changes ;) .Its still WC though....
 
There weren't any Pilgrims, Manaic never had a girlfriend, Blair was by the book, Taggart was a pilot-veteran-he joined intel shortly before WC3. Lastily, space fighting was done differentily. You cannot launch multiple torps at once. The Rapier looks like an early WWII fighter with jets at the back and missiles on the wings. I could go on forever ripping to shreads this PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A WC1 MOVIE!!!!!
 
Back
Top