When did Blair meet Marshall?
- Thread starter Joshua
- Start date
Edfilho
Cry some more!
Well, LOAF, I was just JOKING with my last post (I think it was pretty obvious). I do not think you feel or act superior to other fans (though this has happened with different people, other than you). I really harbor no evil or grudgy thoughts about you whatsoever. I wouldn't be hanging here if I did.
It's just that I like to take all this off-shots with a grain of sand and evaluate them in their own right, and I find some of the WC related products to be of sub-standard quality. And sometimes it bugs me a little when an author mix up a few facts. But I usually don't fret over this stuff, I just ignore it for my greater enjoyment, while acknowlegding that they aren't 100% consistent.
But sometimes the obsession to prove that every last single bit of information on all things Wing-Commander come together to form a flawless diamond of storytelling bother me a bit. Not much, though.
I think you are right to say I shouldn't show up in this thread just to say I dislike the movie blah blah, BUT the point is that these particular debates have been going on forever without getting anywhere, and that's kinda anoying. BUT, if you people like to keep it going, good for you, I'll just keep posting on other threads =)
BTW, I really do not think consistency is anathema to good storytelling as someone said, but this is another subject.
It's just that I like to take all this off-shots with a grain of sand and evaluate them in their own right, and I find some of the WC related products to be of sub-standard quality. And sometimes it bugs me a little when an author mix up a few facts. But I usually don't fret over this stuff, I just ignore it for my greater enjoyment, while acknowlegding that they aren't 100% consistent.
But sometimes the obsession to prove that every last single bit of information on all things Wing-Commander come together to form a flawless diamond of storytelling bother me a bit. Not much, though.
I think you are right to say I shouldn't show up in this thread just to say I dislike the movie blah blah, BUT the point is that these particular debates have been going on forever without getting anywhere, and that's kinda anoying. BUT, if you people like to keep it going, good for you, I'll just keep posting on other threads =)
BTW, I really do not think consistency is anathema to good storytelling as someone said, but this is another subject.
Sorry to hear that. I don’t like golf, but I see no reason why it should “bother me” that others do.
Then you haven’t been paying attention. Probably because you’re not at all interested, which is fine as far as it goes (to each his/her own), but again you can’t resist criticizing those who are.
Except that no one said that.
Edfilho
Cry some more!
Nemesis said:
this example is so poor and so unrelated to the subject...
I can understand from you answer that you have no idea of what I'm talking about.
----------
BTW, I really do not think consistency is anathema to good storytelling as someone said, but this is another subject.
----------
Except that no one said that.
Erm, YOU did say it. look:
Nemesis said:
I think that saying one can't achieve consistency AND good story is very stupid. Go read some books.
No, the point of my example is all too clear, as is the reason you want to dodge it.
I’m terribly sorry! I understood you to be saying that the debates on canon were not getting anywhere (which of course I now understand you were not and are not saying), and that you found this situation annoying (which I now understand you certainly did not and do not find annoying). I’m delighted to know that you believe in the pursuit of canon as well as respect those who enjoy doing that.
Naturally that still leaves me (and I’m sure more than a few others) confused over what you were really trying to say. Perhaps you’ll elaborate. (Then again, I sense that maybe we shouldn’t hold our breaths?)
Read some books? Well, always a great suggestion, but in this case our disagreement can be swiftly resolved by your finding a dictionary and simply looking up the word “context”. As should have been obvious anyway, I was talking about WC canon and how harmonizing the plotlines developed or approved by EA/Origin sometimes results in an arguably less exciting, enjoyable, or “artful” story. The skipper missile is a good example. (Please let me know if you’re still confused on this point.)
Delance
Victory, you say?
Since there's no rule to decide what is "canon" and what isn't, the debates to wheatear the movie "fits" or not won't really be productive. This isn't Star Wars, with an "expanded universe".
Since there's the a priori notion that everything on an official product is "canon", you either accept this or not. But an inconsistency won't make something not "canon" no matter how hard someone argues it.
That status won't be lost even if an inconsistency is proved. Fan-made theories explaining those situations are an interesting exercise, but they also don't really make anything more official.
Since there's the a priori notion that everything on an official product is "canon", you either accept this or not. But an inconsistency won't make something not "canon" no matter how hard someone argues it.
That status won't be lost even if an inconsistency is proved. Fan-made theories explaining those situations are an interesting exercise, but they also don't really make anything more official.
Haesslich
Spaceman
I think the arguement still comes down to this:
Basically, if it appears in the game, in a novel, or in a game-related official reference (WC game guides, WCM-related merchandise, the movie itself), it's considered canon.
Anything by the Aces, or various fan clubs or projects are not canon. Therefore subspace compression guns, the Andorran Republic, and blackfuel do not exist.
While some sources tend to contradict one another (WC2 shows Blair trying to blow Jazz away after he ejected, WC2:SO2 has Blair claiming he didn't WANT to blow Jazz away but will do so later), they're still official and should be treated as such.
It's when preconceptions do not match the presented material that we get issues.
Basically, if it appears in the game, in a novel, or in a game-related official reference (WC game guides, WCM-related merchandise, the movie itself), it's considered canon.
Anything by the Aces, or various fan clubs or projects are not canon. Therefore subspace compression guns, the Andorran Republic, and blackfuel do not exist.
While some sources tend to contradict one another (WC2 shows Blair trying to blow Jazz away after he ejected, WC2:SO2 has Blair claiming he didn't WANT to blow Jazz away but will do so later), they're still official and should be treated as such.
It's when preconceptions do not match the presented material that we get issues.
Edfilho
Cry some more!
WHAT!!??
What do you mean by "blackfuel doesn't exist"???
Seriously, everything is canon and nothing is, nowadays. IMHO, only games and related (manuals and official guides) are canon. But LOAF and several other people think otherwise. In SW debates everything is clearer. Lucas said: Only the Movies are canon and screw the rest, bang, the matter is closed. Remember there is more material for the SWU in every possible medium, including games.
For instance, the way fighters launch and land in WC 3 and 4 is different in the books, but I don't think this difference is importante, for it's a detail, while LOAF maintains that they're identical on all products.
The point here is, it all boils down to opinions. Granted, most people around these foruns seem to agree that everything fits fine, but the situation wasn't so concordant in the newsgroup, for instance.
I never ever said I wasn't interested in these subjects, I just said that there isn't a final end-all evidence that everything is one way or another. BUT you can have you opinions, and I can have mine, without any loss for anyone. I just don't want to enter one endless argument over the finer and smaller details of the interpretations of every single WC product.
Even the history of our world isn't free of controversies and entirely different POVs and "truths". I woudn't pretend that a fictional work crafted by many different authors will be perfectly coherent and consistent in every last detail.
What do you mean by "blackfuel doesn't exist"???
Seriously, everything is canon and nothing is, nowadays. IMHO, only games and related (manuals and official guides) are canon. But LOAF and several other people think otherwise. In SW debates everything is clearer. Lucas said: Only the Movies are canon and screw the rest, bang, the matter is closed. Remember there is more material for the SWU in every possible medium, including games.
For instance, the way fighters launch and land in WC 3 and 4 is different in the books, but I don't think this difference is importante, for it's a detail, while LOAF maintains that they're identical on all products.
The point here is, it all boils down to opinions. Granted, most people around these foruns seem to agree that everything fits fine, but the situation wasn't so concordant in the newsgroup, for instance.
I never ever said I wasn't interested in these subjects, I just said that there isn't a final end-all evidence that everything is one way or another. BUT you can have you opinions, and I can have mine, without any loss for anyone. I just don't want to enter one endless argument over the finer and smaller details of the interpretations of every single WC product.
Even the history of our world isn't free of controversies and entirely different POVs and "truths". I woudn't pretend that a fictional work crafted by many different authors will be perfectly coherent and consistent in every last detail.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
No, it doesn't. Something is canon if the powers that be will take it into consideration for future products. Someones "opinion" has nothing to do with this.
The distinction you draw between a “rule” and a “notion” seems to be that the former is something everyone is obligated to agree with while the latter is not. Regardless (since for those who agree on a definition of canon the distinction doesn’t matter anymore), I agree that no one is obligated, as a matter of principle anyway, to accept all the work of EA/Origin and its licensees as “canon”.
But there are important practical differences that explain why many of us believe there is no real choice except to follow where EA/Origin leads. Let’s consider a “what if”. Several WC fans form a rival group with a definition of canon that is limited to the games. (Certainly that would have instant appeal among those who don’t like the movie. EDIT: I actually wrote this post before seeing Edfilho’s latest comments. Sweet.
) So far, so good. But then say a new game is produced that is based on many of the facts presented in the movie. What then? I don’t think it stretches the imagination to predict a debate erupts within our new group. Some will argue the new game is canon (“That’s our definition!"), others will argue it isn’t (“No, our definition applies only to the original games, period!"). So maybe a few people leave to form yet another rival group that embraces all games no matter what. (Note, by the way, that the first group has increasingly reduced WC lore to a pretty stagnant set of facts, which raises the question of what the real point was to their exercise to begin with.) So now a new movie comes along, and it’s dead-on consistent with the original games and adds several new facts that are also perfectly consistent except for just one or two that derive from the prior movie and the new game. “Well dammit!” is the curse most likely to be heard from members of both groups.Meanwhile, the rest of us are happily extending and building up official WC lore. And that’s productive.
As I tried to point out in an earlier post, the only way the debates are not going to be productive is where people make much of a given inconsistency but their true gripe is simply that they do not like the movie (or whatever it is that EA/Origin has otherwise blessed). This sort of debate, you see, is not about which explanation best accounts for which inconsistency, it’s really about how canon should be defined in the first place. And that will likely prove fruitless, first because those pressing the matter aren’t being honest about what they’re really about, and second because we’re unlikely to be persuaded to abandon our current definition (certainly in part for the reasons just above).
If and until EA/Origin recognizes them, that’s true. But those explanations still qualify as candidates for canon, and that’s a very important distinction all the same, as LOAF notes.
Edfilho
Cry some more!
Well, until an actual game is made which takes in considerantion the movie stuff (used here as an example) I do not HAVE to consider it canon. Once it happens I'll have to re-evaluate my opinions; but I think that unfortunately that shall not happen.
LOAF, I agree with what you said, but with the exception of Priv2, I never ever complained about anything INSIDE a game being wrong or inconsistent. I may gripe with stuff in novels, movies etc. but that doesn't happen with "core" material.
LOAF, I agree with what you said, but with the exception of Priv2, I never ever complained about anything INSIDE a game being wrong or inconsistent. I may gripe with stuff in novels, movies etc. but that doesn't happen with "core" material.
overmortal
Bearded Person
And the last thing we need is a clone of Christopher Walken.
ChanceKell
Rear Admiral
I have a continuity question/problem/paradox that I wanted to point out for a few months now, but I didn't want to be the starter of another continuity thread.
In the WC Movie, just about everyone makes a big deal about Blair's heritage, and the fact that his parents died when he was only a kid. Yet, in the WC Academy cartoon, throughout the series Blair makes video letters to his father, and makes mention of his parents and such. I don't think Blair has that much of a problem with denial and acceptance, so won't that point out another flaw in the "WC canon" school of thought?
In the WC Movie, just about everyone makes a big deal about Blair's heritage, and the fact that his parents died when he was only a kid. Yet, in the WC Academy cartoon, throughout the series Blair makes video letters to his father, and makes mention of his parents and such. I don't think Blair has that much of a problem with denial and acceptance, so won't that point out another flaw in the "WC canon" school of thought?
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Erm, no, because once again, whether or not something is canon has *NOTHING TO DO* with past consistency.
(Not that that really matters - Blair's parentage has been explained to death... including internally on WCA...)
(Not that that really matters - Blair's parentage has been explained to death... including internally on WCA...)
AdmiralHuang
Spaceman
In reference back to Page 1... Chen is one of the most common Asian names.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
To comment in further depth on the family situation - the contradiction has nothing to do with the movie; it's just one of those things that people only happen to notice when they're looking for something to complain about (regarding the movie). Wing Commander Academy {TV} and Wing Commander Prophecy establish Blair's father differently... the movie simply has the misfortune of going with the Prophecy established story rather than the one from Academy.
That said, the Confederation Handbook works towards a solution - suggesting that the 'parents' Blair is contacing in Academy are his aunt and uncle who raised him. (This makes a considerable amount of sense, given the inconsistency within Academy itself - the man Blair is writing to opposes war (and, in fact, in the second season would have been an anti-war senator)... but the show also establishes that the 'ghost' of Blair's dad is a military officer who wants Blair to follow the family tradition. If the former is the man who raised him and the latter is his biological father, all is right with the world.)
That said, the Confederation Handbook works towards a solution - suggesting that the 'parents' Blair is contacing in Academy are his aunt and uncle who raised him. (This makes a considerable amount of sense, given the inconsistency within Academy itself - the man Blair is writing to opposes war (and, in fact, in the second season would have been an anti-war senator)... but the show also establishes that the 'ghost' of Blair's dad is a military officer who wants Blair to follow the family tradition. If the former is the man who raised him and the latter is his biological father, all is right with the world.)
overmortal
Bearded Person
His father's ghost? . . . and he was raised by his uncle . . . and his uncle doesn't want him to be like his father? . . . hmm . . . and Mark Hamil is playing the character . . . So, by all of this, we can come to the conclusion that Blair's father was an excellent pilot, and a former slave. . . . And his mother was a queen.
I suppose it would also make sense that Rachael is his sister.
I suppose it would also make sense that Rachael is his sister.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
It's not really a ghost... there's a WCA episode where he's dying of oxygen deprivation and hallucinates talking with his father (G)