Now don't go postal with this

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

Originally posted by WildWeasel
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.
Click to expand...
Oh sorry, I forgot to thank you for that very valuable contribution of yours to the debate...
Originally posted by OriginalPhoenix
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.
Click to expand...
Now we're getting somewhere...

Fine then, repeating names are common, but BY COMMON SENSE, why on Earth would the WC movie makers decide to name the other ship "Concordia" knowing perfectly well there's already a Concordia in the WC series, mmmh?
For the sake of confusion?

The same applies for the Iason problem.

Remember people, this a work of fiction, why is it impossible to admit that the movie guys simply made a... mistake?
 
Originally posted by mpanty
Oh sorry, I forgot to thank you for that very valuable contribution of yours to the debate...
Click to expand...
Not any less valid than the irrelevant conjecture you spew with aplomb.




[Edited by Frosty on 07-09-2001 at 13:03]
 
Originally posted by mpanty
Oh sorry, I forgot to thank you for that very valuable contribution of yours to the debate...
Click to expand...

Wow. If that's sarcasm, it's completely unjustified. I provided explanations to many of Wolfman's points.


Remember people, this a work of fiction, why is it impossible to admit that the movie guys simply made a... mistake?
Click to expand...

Maybe they did make a mistake. But that mistake became a part of Wing Commander canon. There are multiple Concordias and Iasons. Get used to that fact.

[Edited by WildWeasel on 07-09-2001 at 13:10]
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: (etc) Response to Frosty

Originally posted by mpanty
Fine then, repeating names are common, but BY COMMON SENSE, why on Earth would the WC movie makers decide to name the other ship "Concordia" knowing perfectly well there's already a Concordia in the WC series, mmmh?
Click to expand...
Why not? There are two very compelling reasons that I can see: 1) it's a name we are familiar with, and therefore easily identify as part of the WC universe, and 2) to show the strong tradition of th eWC universe, just as the Navy hasa strong tradition in its naming of ships. There have been...what?...seven or eight ships named ENTERPRISE in the US Navy to date.


Originally posted by mpanty
For the sake of confusion?
Click to expand...
Mmmm....can't speak for everyone, but I'm not the least bit confused. *shrug*

Originally posted by mpanty
The same applies for the Iason problem.
Click to expand...
I've never been a particular fan of the "two IASON" theory myself, but neither am I so adamant about it that it really bothers me. I think....I'll leave my comment on this subject at that.

Originally posted by mpanty
Remember people, this a work of fiction, why is it impossible to admit that the movie guys simply made a... mistake?
Click to expand...
Mistakes are, of course, completely possible. We see quite a few of them in game documentation (the Victory Streak is LOADED with them), and the novels. But I would have to agree with the majority here on this subject, that the naming of the ships/fighters has a very clear and acceptable explanation, and therefore can't really be regarded as a mistake.

My three pennies....
 
It might also be prudent to note that maybe the movie isn't meant to tie into the games... that it's a seperate story of its own, made to be shown on a movie screen. Whether or not is features Blair, Maniac or the Kilrathi, it would still be its own story, in its own WC universe.

It's like the X-Men movie. There are many many differences in characterization in the movie than in the comic, yet it's done on purpose. It's to make the viewer realize that the movie doesn't HAVE to tie in with the comic, and in truth it doesn't. The same, I think, can be applied here. There are many differences, even though it is pre-WC1, and even though those differences exist, it doesn't really matter. The movie is its own story apart from the games, and hence does not have to tie into them in any way.
 
You are the weakest link....

There's only one Wing Commander universe, though. And the movie is as much a part of it as the games are. :(
 
But it is obviously not very prudent to try and tie it in with the games... I mean, is Blair a Border Worlder? Did Maniac and Blair meet before their assignment on the Tiger's Claw?

The movie may be part of the WC universe in whatever way, but it shouldn't be tied into the continuity of the games. That's ridiculous. Besides that, the movie doesn't HAVE to tie into the games to be good; X-Men proved that to me.
 
You obviously just completely disregarded everything I said earlier. That seems to be a common tactic among those who aren't correct.
 
(shrug) Say what you want. But it's a ridiculous idea to think that the movie would or should have any bearing on the continuity of the game. The movie is its own story, not a movie version of WC1. That's just a ridiculous and stupid idea.
 
Originally posted by Saturnyne
(shrug) Say what you want. But it's a ridiculous idea to think that the movie would or should have any bearing on the continuity of the game.
Click to expand...
Y'know, no matter how many times you repeat that, it won't come true.
The movie is its own story, not a movie version of WC1. That's just a ridiculous and stupid idea.
Click to expand...
Of course it's a stupid idea, no wonder you're the only one who brought it up.




[Edited by Frosty on 07-09-2001 at 23:21]
 
So... despite the fact... that they made the movie about the game... and with the same characters... same ships, same names, same politics, same enemy, same sciences, same technologies... it shouldn't be the same as the game?

What a mind bogglingly interesting sense of logic you have.
 
Well thats that

Well I think we've convered this one pretty well.

I will from now on view the movie as an alternate WC universe.

I should have noticed or expexted their to be more than one vessel to have the Concordia name (I still think it is wrong in the movie though).

Frosty you may want to read up on the time line a bit. And Frosty is right, Angel is not French though she has Frenchish dialogue in WC1 & 2 and the accent in WC3

Going by the WC Kilrathi Saga manual Blair and Maniac were at the Acadamy together.

If you want to keep disscussing this Frosty please do, its been fun.
 
It does take place before the game... but for what reason should everything else about it tie into WC1, 2, 3, etc.? The movie is a seperate story from the series. It should not be considered as a prequel to WC1, because there are too many differences between the movie and games for the movie to be considered in any way consistent with the games. It is simply too different, hence once again, "it is a stupid idea to tie the movie into the games". Especially since you can't expect consistency on any front.
 
How does it not fit in?

This is how Blair and Maniac first arrived on the Claw, which they were assigned to after WCA episode 1. The movie takes place just after that episode, then the rest of WCA, then WC1, etc. The only inconsistencies are relatively minor. You can't expect the ships to look identical, but you notice that they use all the right names, etc. So what if they screwed up some accents? They changed a little about a very minor character, too... so what? The bulk of it fits just fine.

I bet you're one of those idiots that says P2 isn't WC, aren't ya?
 
Originally posted by Saturnyne
The movie is a seperate story from the series.
Click to expand...
Just because you say that too much doesn't make you right. I get my arguments from people a lot smarter and more knowledgeable about WC and how it was made than you. Where do you get your arguments? Oh yeah, your own obstinate and twisted mind. Go spout your meaningless conjecture elsewhere.




[Edited by Frosty on 07-09-2001 at 23:33]
 
You guys can argue that the movie universe fits perfectly well with the game universe all you want, but that's pointless. It has been stated that the movie was not supposed to go with the games by people who actually worked on the movie. Here's just one quote of many that proves this. If you guys want more just search the 1999 cic archives for telep and McCubbin, they have proof that many have ignored.

"I must take exception to one of the main points you made - that I disregarded, forgot or altered continuity in the book. It's not the ConfedHandbook that changed continuity, it's the movie itself. Everything in the Confed Handbook follows RELIGIOUSLY from the continuity of theMOVIE. However, that continuity is deliberately, extensively and consistantly DIFFERENT from the continuity of the games.

I like to explain it by reference to Batman. Batman has a comics series, a series of movies and an animated series. Each one uses the samecharacters, basically the same motivations, and all have certain benchmark events in common. However, things fit together differently - they aredifferent, although related -- realities. That's the way it is with the movie and the games (and the animated cartoon too, for that matter). They arenot part of the same story, they are different stories about the same people." --Chris McCubbin
 
heh... don't become a gambler, TyeDyeBoy. :p

As per your question... how does the X-Men film fit in with the comic? How do the Mortal Kombat film fit in with the games?

I'm just trying to make you see my point... I think the movie should be considered as a different story, and as such, should not be considered as any part of the game. Did Chris Roberts intend it to be tied into the games?
 
Originally posted by Terrorizer
If you guys want more just search the 1999 cic archives for telep and McCubbin, they have proof that many have ignored.
Click to expand...

You know, it's interesting that you say that, since NEITHER of them worked on the movie, just on book adaptations afterwards.
 
Think before you speak.

Oh, look at it this way- Jurassic Park, Interview with the Vampire, Phantom of the Opera... all my favorite books. You can't necessarily take something from print, etc. and make it into an EXACT movie. It would take extra time, things that are there aren't good movie material, etc. Just because it's not exactly the same doesn't mean that it's not as good or doesn't fit in with the other forms.

It's not that hard of a concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top