Continuity
- Thread starter vodka7
- Start date
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
You'd have to do the same thing with *every* product that has the same continuity issues... and that's *every single one*.
Well, it does matter in the context of our slowing down and perhaps one day reversing the aging process. This is now and will only continue to be a hot topic in bioethics as those who embrace the prospect of extended life battle those who assert that human nature and society (and so the human condition!) will be changed for the worse.
You talkin’ to me? I don’t think I actually said that, but I’ll argue against your point anyway.
On the contrary, that is exactly how “normal science” works, which is to say that is how science works most of the time. In general, a given “reigning” theory gets fleshed out, so to speak, for some period of time until it is “overthrown” by a new, rival theory. It is in the immediate aftermath of such a “scientific revolution” that we tend to speak of “erroneous facts” or falsehoods being exposed and disregarded, “facts” that were nonetheless previously taken to be facts or truths.
You know, that would stand as an excellent paraphrase of Einstein’s view of quantum mechanics (minus the “WC” of course).
I apologize for switching around the order of your comments, particularly here in pairing your early and later remarks, but I think I’m still being true to your views. Anyway, my point is to suggest you’ve made a false analogy. You appear to equate the movie with the essence of a theory or a set of erroneous facts. But a true analogy to your arguing we should disregard the movie would be Einstein’s having argued we should disregard the subatomic realm because it’s just too weird or hard to make sense of. Of course Einstein never argued that–his goal was only to find a “better” explanation for that part of the universe than quantum mechanics.
In sum, I think you want to pretend that the movie never happened or doesn’t exist in the WC universe. But that would be to endorse a falsehood, wouldn’t it?
Again, I think you make a bad analogy. First, many physicists are working to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, so I can only conclude you just don’t like string theory as a new explanation of our known universe. (I mean, surely you’re not arguing that if the two established theories can be unified they still shouldn’t be? To ignore such a “deeper truth”, if you will, is again to endorse a falsehood, isn’t it?) Second, and more to the point, how do you define “worthwhile”? I’m sorry, but it sounds to me like the real problem is you’re just not having enough “fun”.
dextorboot
Spaceman
Nemesis said:
What's to stop us from using the same techniques on Spot or Fluffy or any other animal? Once again, has nothing to do with being human.
By the way, I'm not saying you have to stop using it or that it offends me. The phrase just makes my skin crawl and if someone uses it I usually just roll my eyes and turn the channel (if they're on tv). No matter what you or anyone else says I will always think it's stupid. In other words, don't bother trying. To be honest, I don't even know why I wrote it in the first place. I guess I didn't think anyone would comment on it at all. Oh well.
Here's basically why I would lump the games together and everything else separately. The games came out as a series. 1,2,3,+ So they were meant to be part of a progression of a single universe. Much like any other game SMB, Sonic, Mega Man... All of them at some point contradict themselves or don't explain new developments with the characters. Movies made from games have never been spot on perfect. So the SMB movie is not considered to be in the same timeline as the games, simply because of how much it sways away from the source material (games). Even in comic to movie adaptations the same thing happens. Spider-Man and Blade are good representations of the comics, but they changed things enough to the point that they're not quite the same and, therefore, are no longer on the same timeline.
Actually - I currently RESEARCH string theory, and an a Quantum Gravity PhD in the making. I'm studying supersymmetry and Yang-Mills theory and believe I know what I am talking about when I claim that Relativity and Quantum theory are not reconcilable. I'm sorry but no, You're wrong.
The attempt to describe all forces of the universe with a unified field theory doesn't stem in a quest for the unification of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics; this is impossible since the two theories are mutually exclusive and inherently incompatible and cannot be incorporated into each other. What physicists are attempting is to discover a quantum mechanical theory which matches the predictions of relativistic gravitational theory by using the principles of quantum electrodynamics and quantum gravity. Such theories are complex and often involve mathematics believed to be beyond the scope of human reasoning, however the ancient myth of reuniting Bohr and Einstein has to be punctured. We are attempting to expand QM to cover all of physics. It's the only way.
As for "normal science" working in the explanation of false predictions or otherwise erroneous data, this is simply not so. When you notice that a falling object does not accelerate forever, You do not try to explain away this fact. You have to modify the theory to invlide the prediction that the object will now behave in this way. Like I said, modifying a theory which is inconsistent with evidence only for the sake of not chaning theories is a bad way to conduct science.
You say in your remark "reason we should disgregard the movie" - I made no such claim. I simply stated the reason I do it. Everyone is free to think whatever they want and if this is fun for people then by all means they are welcome to engage in it to their heart's desire! I told noone to disregard the movie!
I guess that at heart I believe that if say, Blair is a Navy rank in one thing and a SF rank in another, the easiest way to see this is as two separate stories, and not part of the same one. The same way the easiest way to think of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as two separate, irreconcilable, methods of describing the Universe, each correct in its own way, but not worthwhile uniting. The problem isn't that of fun, it's one of unnecessary explanations. When I come across armor that's 17 cm in one game and 250 cm in another, I choose not to engage in discussions of tungsten versus durasteel, I just choose to admit this is just a game and they didn't think too hard when they made it. Basically, spending more time on a made-up universe than the designers bothered to do is not healthy in my eyes...
The attempt to describe all forces of the universe with a unified field theory doesn't stem in a quest for the unification of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics; this is impossible since the two theories are mutually exclusive and inherently incompatible and cannot be incorporated into each other. What physicists are attempting is to discover a quantum mechanical theory which matches the predictions of relativistic gravitational theory by using the principles of quantum electrodynamics and quantum gravity. Such theories are complex and often involve mathematics believed to be beyond the scope of human reasoning, however the ancient myth of reuniting Bohr and Einstein has to be punctured. We are attempting to expand QM to cover all of physics. It's the only way.
As for "normal science" working in the explanation of false predictions or otherwise erroneous data, this is simply not so. When you notice that a falling object does not accelerate forever, You do not try to explain away this fact. You have to modify the theory to invlide the prediction that the object will now behave in this way. Like I said, modifying a theory which is inconsistent with evidence only for the sake of not chaning theories is a bad way to conduct science.
You say in your remark "reason we should disgregard the movie" - I made no such claim. I simply stated the reason I do it. Everyone is free to think whatever they want and if this is fun for people then by all means they are welcome to engage in it to their heart's desire! I told noone to disregard the movie!
I guess that at heart I believe that if say, Blair is a Navy rank in one thing and a SF rank in another, the easiest way to see this is as two separate stories, and not part of the same one. The same way the easiest way to think of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as two separate, irreconcilable, methods of describing the Universe, each correct in its own way, but not worthwhile uniting. The problem isn't that of fun, it's one of unnecessary explanations. When I come across armor that's 17 cm in one game and 250 cm in another, I choose not to engage in discussions of tungsten versus durasteel, I just choose to admit this is just a game and they didn't think too hard when they made it. Basically, spending more time on a made-up universe than the designers bothered to do is not healthy in my eyes...
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Once again, however, these are all 'character' universes with a retelling (basic or complex) of an origin story. Wing Commander does not fit this stereotype. The Wing Commander movie is launching from the background created in the games - not retelling or replacing their stories.
Well it does retell some things - Blair meeting Maniac before they are introduced in WC1 is one thing they're replacing in the movie. Granted - even in some games, novels and WCA but the fact stands. How about Blair and Sosa? If I play WC3 and pick Flint - am I now in an alternate dimension?
Face it, the various stories in WC are all independent of each other, for the exact same reason You say - they're not facets of an origin story, but separate instances which happen to share basic premises. It's like WC fanfic to me - it takes place in the WC universe but not on the WC timeline. To me, there IS no WC timeline.
Face it, the various stories in WC are all independent of each other, for the exact same reason You say - they're not facets of an origin story, but separate instances which happen to share basic premises. It's like WC fanfic to me - it takes place in the WC universe but not on the WC timeline. To me, there IS no WC timeline.
Frosty
a full fledged GF
Look, let's try to separate concessions to gameplay mechanics from the actual story. Pilot introductions are just necessary concession to a smooth experience, not some universe-altering plot point.gryphon said:
But wait! ...
How do you want it, gryph? Do you want to shield yourself behind the "everyone has their own opinion" plea and never be wrong, or do you want us to "face it?"
Not only does that not make sense, since it would *have to* take place in the timeline if it took place in the universe, but it's also technically incorrect, because fanfic is made by fans, not creators.
That's largely as a result of your personal blindness. You probably believe the world is flat, and that photographs steal your soul.
I see You're still the same ####### that got me tired of this forum a year ago... Stop attacking my personality, since I didn't attack Yours. To stoop to such levels is not only immature but indicative of a childish propensity toward detail-oriented tunnel vision. "He misspelled 'concept' - thus he must be wrong!"
Pilot introductions are essential to any plot, yes, but lets not forget the order in which the storied were written. WC1 came first, after all, and when they wrote it, Blair and Maniac just met. Then they CHANGED this. So they're changing the universe. They did the same thing when they turned WC3 into Confed losing the war.
As for making up my mind, I was stating fact and not opinion. I still believe everyone has a right to attempt to reconcile timelines all they want, but LOAF and I stated the same fact - that WC doesn't have a central storyline on which there are spinoffs, but that everything is a spinoff of sorts. You can either choose to make them part of the same universe, or see them separately, that's up to You.
On the Timeline/Universe thing, do You really believe that a WC fanfic story I wrote in 1997 has a place in the WC timeline since it takes place in the WC Universe?! What if I killed Blair off in 2679, we must change Prophecy or make Blair rise from the dead... This is the stuff that I don't want to do...
I don't see the difference between Holding the Line and False Colors. Both were written by a human being with an interest in literature, focus on concepts outlined in the WC games, and are great pieces of literature. To make the point that one is more valid than the other just because person A wrote it and not person B is not logical. There is far too much, in MY opinion, talk about "canon" and "non-canon". To me, it's all worth the same. If I read a story in which the COncordia is still alive in 2673, it doesn't bother me!
Because, much like I believe cameras take Your soul, You seem to believe that if Blair and maniac didn't go to the academy together, the heavens will fall and the world beneath them. I'll just sit here on my flat earth and concern myself with REAL physics. Lets see who's done the most worthwhile thing in 20 years.
Pilot introductions are essential to any plot, yes, but lets not forget the order in which the storied were written. WC1 came first, after all, and when they wrote it, Blair and Maniac just met. Then they CHANGED this. So they're changing the universe. They did the same thing when they turned WC3 into Confed losing the war.
As for making up my mind, I was stating fact and not opinion. I still believe everyone has a right to attempt to reconcile timelines all they want, but LOAF and I stated the same fact - that WC doesn't have a central storyline on which there are spinoffs, but that everything is a spinoff of sorts. You can either choose to make them part of the same universe, or see them separately, that's up to You.
On the Timeline/Universe thing, do You really believe that a WC fanfic story I wrote in 1997 has a place in the WC timeline since it takes place in the WC Universe?! What if I killed Blair off in 2679, we must change Prophecy or make Blair rise from the dead... This is the stuff that I don't want to do...
I don't see the difference between Holding the Line and False Colors. Both were written by a human being with an interest in literature, focus on concepts outlined in the WC games, and are great pieces of literature. To make the point that one is more valid than the other just because person A wrote it and not person B is not logical. There is far too much, in MY opinion, talk about "canon" and "non-canon". To me, it's all worth the same. If I read a story in which the COncordia is still alive in 2673, it doesn't bother me!
Because, much like I believe cameras take Your soul, You seem to believe that if Blair and maniac didn't go to the academy together, the heavens will fall and the world beneath them. I'll just sit here on my flat earth and concern myself with REAL physics. Lets see who's done the most worthwhile thing in 20 years.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
The difference between False Colors and Holding the Line is that False Colors is a licensed product - meaning that Baen Books paid for the Wing Commander name and that when the next Wing Commander game is made, its writers will take into account the events of False Colors on the Wing Commander universe.
But we've seen time and time again that they don't do that... Meaning, take previous products into account... If they did then there wouldn't be a problem with reconciling anything... If WC3 designers took a look at WC2 armor stats wouldn't have been magnitudes greater, Blair and Maniac wouldn't have met at the Academy, and so on and so forth...
I think what we need is to make a difference between argumenting "in universe" and "IRL". I realize False Colors is a licensed product, but just because it is doesn't mean everything in it has to be taken as "real", especially when there is no reality since the whole universe is fake!
To me, this is like the famous scene in Top Gun where Iceman puts his watch on twice due to an editing error. My solution is to say "editing error, nevermind". Your solution is to say "He had time to take his watch off again, and put it on again, never mind why".
See what I mean?
I think what we need is to make a difference between argumenting "in universe" and "IRL". I realize False Colors is a licensed product, but just because it is doesn't mean everything in it has to be taken as "real", especially when there is no reality since the whole universe is fake!
To me, this is like the famous scene in Top Gun where Iceman puts his watch on twice due to an editing error. My solution is to say "editing error, nevermind". Your solution is to say "He had time to take his watch off again, and put it on again, never mind why".
See what I mean?
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Neither of those are valid complaints, though - Maniac and Blair having met at the Academy is both the focus of the original WC1/2 Official Guide *and* noted in Maniac's pre-WC2 'bible' entry.
... and the armor is a result of Privateer (released between WC2 and 3) - both for 'in universe' (enhanced materials sixty times as strong as Plasteel appear in Privateer) and for 'gameplay' purposes (military hardware needed to be more impressive than the civilian hardware of the same era).
No - because your solution would be "we should ignore everything Iceman does with his arm, because they showed him put his watch on twice". Continuity errors are a given - develop a mass market game with a hundred plus other people and you'll have dozens of such errors. They aren't enough to say "this entire game/movie/book/etc. doesn't exist".
Edited better analogy: "We have to ignore any effect anything Iceman does with his arm would have on the rest of the movie."
Nah, LOAF Your analogy suggests I care what happens to the movie because of Iceman's arm! It's also an attempt to explain away a discrepancy. By ignoring Icemans arm completely I would be recognizing defeat in my ability to overlook this. My analogy to the Top GUn scene is one of simply realising it's a movie and not thinking more of it. I refuse to let problems like that take up my time. And for that matter, threads about problems like these. I only keep discussing this because I want someone to say I'm entitled to this opinion!
WildWeasel
Spaceman
gryphon said:
You're entitled to that opinion.
Death
gh0d (Administrator)
(reference)
Too bad (for gryphon) that even the HTL writers don't try to claim their work is WC canon or in any way is supposed to represent "official" WC.
Part of the idea behind HTL was to build down the WC Aces Club UBW, which prior to WCP's release was rather upgraded by WCAC writers who thought WC4 was the end of the line as far as games go, to something that would bring the WC universe of WCAC back into line with official WC canon as stated by Origin/EA, which has a minimal "native" militia force suplemented by Confed forces.
Too bad (for gryphon) that even the HTL writers don't try to claim their work is WC canon or in any way is supposed to represent "official" WC.
Part of the idea behind HTL was to build down the WC Aces Club UBW, which prior to WCP's release was rather upgraded by WCAC writers who thought WC4 was the end of the line as far as games go, to something that would bring the WC universe of WCAC back into line with official WC canon as stated by Origin/EA, which has a minimal "native" militia force suplemented by Confed forces.
*pretends he didn't hear the word canon*
"it's all a game, it's all fake, it's all made up, it's not important, people who spend more time and money on discussing games than the people who made them did making them are l00nee"
*dances out to much applause from a relieved Chat Zone. Sorry, Forum.*
"it's all a game, it's all fake, it's all made up, it's not important, people who spend more time and money on discussing games than the people who made them did making them are l00nee"
*dances out to much applause from a relieved Chat Zone. Sorry, Forum.*
Frosty
a full fledged GF
Nobody is trying to steal your precious opinion.gryphon said:
You know, there's absolutely nothing wrong with claiming that each is entitled to his own opinion, only you're not sincere about it. You bitch and bitch at us about how you're more correct, and only when you lose do you cry "I'M ENTITLED TO MY OWN OPINION!"
You're willing to argue 'till the cows come home if you think you can win, but when you're proven wrong, you plead opinion; we're oppressing you, we're making personal attacks on you. You want to talk childish, that's a fairly definitive example right there.
Are you going to sit down and have a logical discussion of fact with others, and listen to what they have to say, and how they back it up, or are you going to keep regurgitating the same ignorant goop about how "SEE, SEE!@!!! THEY WERE JUST INTRODUCED JUST THEN!! IN WC1!!!!@@!$#!! NEVER SAW EACH OTHER BEFORE!@#!>$@!JJ#@J@#" until you get tired, and then feign personal injury and run off like a scolded child?
The choice is yours, but we don't have to tolerate you if you make the wrong one.