When did Blair meet Marshall?

Blair dislikes Tolwyn. Reason: His treatment of Captain Thorn back on the Tiger's Claw. His launching suicidal missions that many of his friends died on. Taking over from Eisen during the Behemoth Mission. His use of valuable forge ships to build the Vesuvius and Mt. St. Helens instead of using those forge ships to rebuild the Inner Worlds hit during the Hakaga invasion. Tolwyn's crackhead attitude during WC3, where he acted like routs were successful withdrawals, victories in worthless systems more important than the loss of important Terran systems. The list goes on...

Tolwyn also dislikes Blair. Reason: Blair was a traitor to him for over 10 years due to the loss of the Claw. Blair actually questions orders, instead of merrily going "yes sir" and exploding in space an hour later. Blair wouldn't join the Black Lance. Blair was a farmer and had better food...

Its like oil and water. Tolwyn and Blair don't mix.

As for Maniac and Blair, they have different flying styles, personalities, etc. But when push comes to shove, as in WC2- SM2. WC3, or WC4, they put aside differences and work for common goal. So its more like clashing personalities but some respect for each others skill. After all, out of all the high-scoring Terran Aces, only Blair and Maniac were from the latter part of the war, where the Kats had shielding and didn't kamikaze...
 
Face it: the movie screws up the story bigtime.

Well, that wholly depends on what one is looking to get out of it. Some of us here–and welcome, by the way–enjoy coming up with explanations for the “conflicts” or whatever you’d like to call them. You may or may not enjoy that. In any event, the points you raise have been discussed many times before, and with a simple search or two you can find any number of such threads.

But as an appetizer of sorts (of course I’m trying to draw you in), you might consider the following . . .

. . .but the Maniac/Blair relationship just is not right! The're best buddies here! How is this possible?

Unless we’re talking about zombies, which we aren’t, I can’t see how it strikes you as so strange that relationships are sometimes apt to run “hot” to “cold” and/or vice versa. (And even that description is too simplistic.)

I think the best argument must be the Skipper however. Skippers were first used in WC3, long after Blair's enlistment. There is no way they could be used in the WC1 timeframe.

So taking the time line set out by WC2 alone (since your touchstone, for the moment, is the games), you seriously believe that the Kilrathi would be able to use skipper missiles for the very first time only around 2669 despite the fact they had developed cloaking technology and had successfully used it on some of their fighters well over ten years earlier? Come now.:)

But I do agree with you on one very important point–when you say “no way they could be used”; that is indeed the standard of proof any naysayer must meet.
 
Well, ladies and gentlemen, it would seem that Wedge's hopes have been dashed.

but the Maniac/Blair relationship just is not right! The're best buddies here! How is this possible?

Also Tolwyn/Blair. They are not exactly enemies too in the movie, now are they?

Both of these are weird complaints - because it assumes that relationships are completely static. The movie takes place before any other events in either pair of relationships - Maniac hasn't lost it fighting the Sivar, Tolwyn hasn't accused Blair of destroying the Tiger's Claw, the Dolos Sivar-Eshrad stuff hasn't happened yet.

I think the best argument must be the Skipper however. Skippers were first used in WC3, long after Blair's enlistment. There is no way they could be used in the WC1 timeframe.

What Eisen says in Wing Commander III is that the Kilrathi are testing "a new type of cloaked missile" - which, in my mind, has always implied that there are old types of cloaked missiles. It certainly makes sense, as someone else already pointed out - afterall, they've been cloaking far more complex *fighters* for fifteen years by the time the Skipper shows up in WC3.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
What Eisen says in Wing Commander III is that the Kilrathi are testing "a new type of cloaked missile" - which, in my mind, has always implied that there are old types of cloaked missiles. It certainly makes sense, as someone else already pointed out - afterall, they've been cloaking far more complex *fighters* for fifteen years by the time the Skipper shows up in WC3.

True. I would speculate that the WC3 Skipper was just the newest model of cloak-capable missile--maybe it had a harder-to-pierce cloak, maybe it had a longer range, maybe it was harder to spoof, or maybe it was capable of maintaining cloak for a greater portion of its inflight time.
 
Apologies might be in order ;)

Hi everybody,

First off, it was not my intent to insult anyone :).

Its just that I was disappointed by the movie (even more so after seeing it recently) and the fact that it did not fit in with the view I had of the story.

I've only really played WC3, WC4 and WCP. I only played a few missions of 2.

Many of you replied that relationsships change. True, very true, but I find the change from WCM (Maniac and Blair best buddies) to WC3 (Maniac and Blair on the same side when it matters, but totally not the best of friends) a little abrupt. But that's my opinion.

As for the Skippers: we all agree that WCM takes place before WC2 when Strahka's were first developed, right? Then there is no way in my opinion that they had Skippers before that. On WC3 Eisen does say "a new type of cloaked missile" but it could also be
"a new type of (cloaked) missile" if you catch my drift. Furthermore he says: "we call these NEW missiles Skippers", it does not really look like they used that name before. Well anyway, it is a thin argument why the movie is not "historically correct" but hey, it IS an argument.

Well PPL, I'll shut up now ;).
 
Grundius said:
Many of you replied that relationsships change. True, very true, but I find the change from WCM (Maniac and Blair best buddies) to WC3 (Maniac and Blair on the same side when it matters, but totally not the best of friends) a little abrupt. But that's my opinion.

And the fact that twelve years elapses between WCM and WC3 means nothing? Relationships change, and Maniac and Blair growing apart in twelve years (three-fourths of which were spent apart between SM2 and SO2) is not that far-out.

As for the Skippers: we all agree that WCM takes place before WC2 when Strahka's were first developed, right? Then there is no way in my opinion that they had Skippers before that.

Actually, Strakhas were developed ten years before WC2--the Tiger's Claw was destroyed by them, and it was because nobody believed Blair's story about "cloaked fighters" that he got stuck on InSys duty for all those years. The reason that they were not seen again until WC2 was because Thrakath destroyed the shipyard that produced them when Gorah Kar rebelled, and thus they had to be rebuilt completely. This means that there is actually only a couple of years between the events of WCM and the first sighting of the Strakha, which is less than the development cycle of most fighters.
 
One could also point out that, even as soon as parts of WC1, Blair seems a little less fond of Marshall. Of course, Blair was also under the influence of nearly all the crew whispering anti-Maniac suggestions in his ear. I suppose I can see how, by the time of SM1, anyone would be less than comfortable around someone who had, at one point, been their closest friend.

When you add the 'temporary insanity' of the Sivar encounter, the supposed betrayal by Blair (which, I suspect, Maniac at least partially believed), suddenly finding out that he's been out-ranked by someone he typically competed with (even though the competition started out as friendly), the failure of his pride-and-joy squadron, and (at some point, though I'm not sure if they happen after WC4 or not) two failed marriages, it's not hard to understand how Maniac had become a bitter person, and easily shifted blame for all his non-successes to people that he knew. Then, after WC3 (which had its own sour moments for the Maniac), he and Blair seem to ease into being somewhat-friends again. We see a few heartfelt moments in WC4 (along with at least one good chewing out) between the two of them. Oddly enough, in WCP, we only see one interraction between Blair and Maniac, at the end, where Maniac gladly volunteers to escort Blair, and Blair (goodnaturedly, I suspect) smirks.
 
I kinda agree with grundius, but I gave up this debate long ago. The "evidence" both sides trade always end up being nothing more than nitpicking. It's all very boring and counterproductive.

People who didn't like the movie and think it does not go well with the games will continue to do so, and vice-versa.
 
"I'm better than this discussion, but here's my point of view anyway."

I'm continually surprised by the number of people who 'switch sides' once you get a reasonable debate going - I don't think *anyone* starts off liking the Wing Commander movie. :)
 
"I'm better than the rest of the WC fans, but I magnanimously let them tap my unending wisdom on the subject" COULD have been my answer, IF I resorted to this kind of trick. Which I don't. So please, disregard the first sentence of my post. I find that belittling the other people to prove a point is not cool, and bad form too.

Anyways, I still think that the movie is a terrible cinematographic work, regardless of being WC related. I still think that it does not fit well with the games, which cannot be contradicted. And I do believe that nitpicking little sentences and slashing them until they mean whatever you want them to is boring.
 
"I'm better than the rest of the WC fans, but I magnanimously let them tap my unending wisdom on the subject" COULD have been my answer, IF I resorted to this kind of trick.

Point out one instance *ever* where I've made such a claim. I'm certainly regarded by some of the fanbase as some sort of expect - but every single time I'm ever pressed on the subject, I point out that I'm just a regular fan. Not that either stance would affect my ability to argue (you know too much! It's not fair to argue with you! is a stupid claim) the subject... I'm just curious as to where it freaking comes from.

Which I don't. So please, disregard the first sentence of my post. I find that belittling the other people to prove a point is not cool, and bad form too.

Good - because if you do it again, I'll ban you.

Anyways, I still think that the movie is a terrible cinematographic work, regardless of being WC related. I still think that it does not fit well with the games, which cannot be contradicted. And I do believe that nitpicking little sentences and slashing them until they mean whatever you want them to is boring.

Then I will ask again - why are you posting to this thread? If this *truly* doesn't interest you, why are you bothering to englighten us with your wonderful presence? You just stopped by to let us know you're not interested in what we're talking about? Kudos, go dig a hole.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
How can you tell? Does he nod derisively at him :)?

Well, you can certainly see the disdain in Blair's eyes :p. Actually, I don't remember much of pre-SM1 interaction with Maniac in which Blair responds, but I assumed that, since other characters seem to dislike Maniac, Blair probably does, also. I guess I assume too much.

Bandit LOAF said:
I'm continually surprised by the number of people who 'switch sides' once you get a reasonable debate going - I don't think *anyone* starts off liking the Wing Commander movie.

I'm an example of that statement :D Now the constant debates have made what I once considered to be a useless movie into something intriguing and multi-faceted.
 
The Movie's main reason to be non canon is the skippers.

Remember from WC2 Intro:

Tolwyn: Without your flight recorder as evidence, the court couldn’t convict you of anything but negligence. But I know the destruction of the Tiger’s Claw was your fault. And I still believe that you’re guilty of treason. Your ridiculous claims about a Kilrathi ‘cloaking device’
Maverick: It’s true, sir. The Kilrathi have invisible fighters–

Tolwyn said "cloaking device" which applies to anything that cloaks, including missiles. Since the skippers are in the movie and that is 2654, this conversation is in 2656 so the movie isn't canon.
 
And you'll notice Blair cut him off as soon as he said "cloaking device". For all we know, that sentence would have continued as "Your ridiculous claims about a Kilrathi cloaking device on a fighter-sized craft" or something similar.
 
Well, the battle scenes of the movie are good.

And when, since the Return of the Jedi, did we see such a big, complex space battles with fighters and multiple capital ships? It’s a rare element on movies. And, as the space battles forums unintentionally prove, hard to be done well.

There’s some cool space action on The Phantom Menace, but no really big battle occurs, just on fighter engagement against a battleship. So WC still stands well on this matter.
 
The Movie's main reason to be non canon is the skippers.

Read the damned thread - we already talked about skippers.

That said, a *contradiction* (implied, stated or made up) doesn't really affect whether or not something is 'canon'.
 
Tolwyn said "cloaking device" which applies to anything that cloaks, including missiles. Since the skippers are in the movie and that is 2654, this conversation is in 2656 so the movie isn't canon.

Okay, this and several of the other variations in this thread of “it isn’t canon because . . .” strike me as coming down to just one thing, which I’ve noted before. A question of aesthetics. And the skipper “controversy” is a pretty good example of the fact. The topic continues to come up time and again when the movie as canon gets debated. But as LOAF and others have shown time and again, it isn’t hard at all to see that the movie’s storyline and WC3’s storyline about the missiles are compatible. So why do some people keep bringing it up?

I think the answer is that it represents the very thing that bothers some people most about the pursuit of canon–that canon sometimes diminishes the drama or “jazz” that attracted them to WC in the first place. And that is probably all too true. One of the mainstays of the sci-fi genre is of course the new, unknown, and unexpected tech that must be figured out, adapted to, and survived. So sure, when the plot in WC2 goes from a concern over whether the Kilrathi possess a mysterious “cloaking” device to whether they’ve managed to improve their already existing cloaking know-how so that it now covers fighters in addition to missiles, I can see how for some that would deflate the drama and their enjoyment of the story.

But that’s just the way it is. Canon is not about telling a “pretty” story, it’s about telling a consistent story. Period. And that is the case not because those of us who pursue canon don’t like good storytelling, but because it is not possible to achieve both. If our respective senses of what did or didn’t make for a “good” WC storyline ever became a standard for canon, there would be no canon because we would never agree. The only way to build a stable canon is to have a stable source of reference, and the only such source is EA/Origin and those it legally licenses to develop the WC universe.

So for those who just don’t like some of the “places” where the WC universe has gone, you’re entitled to be disappointed (indeed, each of us is as to one plotline or another), but please stop trying to use that disappointment as the basis for an argument about what is or isn’t canon. It’s a non-starter and always will be.
 
Very good point, captain.

One thing you've missed, though: These canon-vs.-anticanon debates are kinda fun to discuss. This community, and this forum are for discussing all things Wing Commander, and, honestly, unlike RL, there are only so many things WC to be discussed, and so we kinda have to chew our favorite cuds every so often. If we settled the issue "once and for all", and never spoke of it again, we'd miss out on part of the fun of being a WC fan in a WC fan community. If we continued eliminating topics as "Been there, done that, and never going back", we'd soon have nothing left to do but sit around and stare and the pretty black and blue layout of the CZ, and occasionally brag about how good we are at WC. After a while, even that would get old.

"Well, kids, what have we learned today?"

"Ooh, ooh, I know! We should all learn to enjoy debates and discussions, even if we've had them before, because we still enjoy them . . . and because there's always a newbie who'll perpetuate the 'devils advocate' role for us and end up with his butt stomped."

"Very good, Susie. Class dismissed!"
 
Back
Top