Now don't go postal with this

After watching the movie (a while back) and a few times after, I still feel as if it changed the series , history etc far too much, and didn't have the 'feel' that WC1 had.

I'm probably in the minority here but thats my view.

Please feel free to challange this (thats the point of the chat zone i guess).

 

Just use your imagination and stuff will fit better than you think it does.

 

I agree completely it didnt have the same feel as WC1. But they were going for completely different things with both. WC1 was a WW2 carrier game in space, the movie was a WW2 submarine movie in space. Or so im told.

 

both very good IMHO

 

You feel that it "changed the series , history etc far too much..." eh? That's really odd, since it didn't.

That should be a good thing, no? I mean, why should it feel like WC1? Consider this:

• WC the movie precedes WC1 in the timeline.
• No WC game has "the 'feel" of any other.

From this information we can assume that the movie is right on track in the feel department.

No... WC1 was a space game about Wing Commander. The movie was a movie about Wing Commander.

I wonder if anyone is keeping track of how many times this has been brought up? This has gotta be the 900-kajillionth time some thread with this topic has sprouted up here.




[Edited by Frosty on 07-09-2001 at 04:56]

 

Response to Frosty

Well the movie does change the time line, history etc.

One: Skipper missiles BEFORE the Kilrathi made cloaking fighters!

Two: the Concordia ten years early

Three: Angel a Pom not French

Four: Paladin French not Scottish

Five: The Movie shouldn't be before the game as the Rapiers were test craft DURING WC1.

Six: As five however Blair and Maniac weren't that good a mates.

Seven: It all 'looked' wrong.

Eight: I feel it mocked WC1.

Sorry if this hurts anyone but this could just be one groups opinion.

 

Re: Response to Frosty

It doesn't change anything. It just gives us some more information.

Where in the games does it say that there weren't cloaked missiles before the Kilrathi had cloaked fighters?

The Concordia in the movie is a totally different ship than the one we see in Wing Commander II.

The Rapier that was seen in the movie was the first Rapier model. The second model was tested during Wing Commander I.

No, it didn't.

 

Re: Response to Frosty

1. Irrelevant: That has nothing to do with anything, and I doubt you could substantiate that claim in any case.
2. Incorrect: Many Confed ships have borne the name of Concordia.
3. Incorrect: Angel isn't French to begin with.
4. Incorrect: Nowhere in the movie is it said that Paladin is a Frenchman. Besides, Paladin has no accent, the ones we hear are just foolery.
5. Incorrect: The WC1 Rapiers are newer versions than those in the movie.
6. Prove it.
7. Irrelevant: That should have no bearing on whether the movie is accurate or not. Besides, to CR, it looked more right.
8. That makes no sense.
   [/list=1]
   
   Well then it's a good thing that opinions don't matter. Whether the movie is true to WC is not up for debate, nor is it up for one's personal judgement. It is, no matter how much people wish it weren't. If your personal view differs from the truth, that doesn't make you different, it makes you wrong.
   
   
   
   
   [Edited by Frosty on 07-09-2001 at 08:15]

 

I tip my hat to Frosty. You are a scholar and a gentleman 5 times over the legal limit.

 

Re: Re: Response to Frosty

Or perhaps it was a typo, like for Tiger Claw...

 

Well, FWIW, I agree with Wolfman, but then I don't care much for the books, either. So sue me. (Well, except for the mocking part. I don't get where that came from.)

OTOH, Wolf, what do you propose be done about it? I'd think most WC fans have their minds made up one way or the other on this particular topic. If you don't like the movie, ignore it. It's not like there's going to be another one.

-The Gneech

 

Re: Re: Re: Response to Frosty

Or perhaps not, since it wasn't a typo.

 

Frosty said: I wonder if anyone is keeping track of how many times this has been brought up? This has gotta be the 900-kajillionth time some thread with this topic has sprouted up here.

Hey, that's sound like a boring, time-consuming project. I'll do it later! No, I probably won't...

Wolfman said: One: Skipper missiles BEFORE the Kilrathi made cloaking fighters!

To that I say: Wing Commander Movie Novelization, page 209: Paladin says, "It's a skipper missile. Must be a prototype." To this, Commander Gerald replies, "That technology is years away from the Kilrathi." Also, in WC3, Eisen says something along the lines of, "The Kilrathi are developing a new type of cloaked missile." This could mean there were earlier variations, such as the one seen in the movie. Now the only question this brings up is why Tolwyn was so reluctant to believe in cloaked fighters in WC2.

Wolfman also said: Two: the Concordia ten years early.

The WC2 Concordia is the Confederation-class dreadnought, while the movie Concordia is the Concorida-class supercruiser, which is a little shorter than the WC2 Concordia (CHIEF WIGGUM: Stop saying "Concordia". MARGE: Will you stop saying saying "Concordia" so much?). And, as people have said, there have been many Concordias. Three, that I know of. The carrier destroyed at McAuliffe, the supercruiser from the movie, and the dreadnought from WC2.

Five: The Movie shouldn't be before the game as the Rapiers were test craft DURING WC1.

Yes, Rapiers were being tested during WC1. But those were the F-44s, not the CF-117 seen in the movie. These were made in 2545, over a hundred years before the movie takes place, so it would make sense that we'd see a new type of Rapier in WC1. Now, the only problem I can see with this is in Pilgrim Stars, where the F-44 is the old fighter, and the CF-117 is the new one. Seems to me that, since PS coincides with the events of WC1 at certain points (for some reason), it should be the other way around, but whatever.

Six: As five however Blair and Maniac weren't that good a mates.

Eh, what do you mean by that, Wolfman? That in Prophecy Blair and Maniac weren't as chummy as they were in the movie? Well, they were always friends, just rivals. Play WC4, and you can see glimpses of their friendship. They're most hostile to each other, though, in WC3. Perhaps too hostile, IMHO. Maybe, they get distant after so many years, I don't know.

<wipes sweat from brow>

Whew, that was the longest post I've done in a long time.

[Edited by Dralthi5 on 07-09-2001 at 11:09]

 

Re: (etc) Response to Frosty

"Tiger Claw" was a typo...

And as for Concordia, I was being sarcastic... It's quite convenient to say there were several ships named Concordia as there were "two" different Iason's...

Can you tell just how many ships in the US navy history (or in any navy history) had the same name?..

 

Re: Re: (etc) Response to Frosty

No. I can't. It's a stupid question, anyway.

 

Re: Re: Re: (etc) Response to Frosty

Good thing you gave a stupid answer too!

 

As well as an invalid comparison, considering the differing ages and sizes of the fleets in question. But validity was never a concern before, I suppose...




[Edited by Frosty on 07-09-2001 at 12:35]

 

Re: Re: (etc) Response to Frosty

At the same time...very, very rarely. However, repeat ship names carrying through the Navy is quite common. I can think of several examples with the WWII ships alone: YORKTOWN (CV), LEXINGTON(CV), ENTERPRISE(CV), INDIANA (BB). Currently, you have the VIRGINIA, a guided missile frigate, in service, and in a few years the new attack sub class, nameship VIRGINIA, will be online as well.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: (etc) Response to Frosty

I gave a perfectly valid answer. You asked if anyone could name how many ships had the same name. I said that I couldn't. No need to get nasty about it, mpanty. You're so mean.