Talk:Wing Commander (film)

Untitled
Differences from other Wing Commander works: Deleted - this subject only exists because it is argued by fans interested in nitpicking - it is not a serious treatment of how the series works; both creator Chris Roberts' and (now former) Origin president Neil Young have maintained that the movie is part of the same continuity as the games. In that light, debating inaccuracies is an interesting passtime but moves no closer to "removing" an unpopular entry in the series from its canon. 66.112.225.82 03:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This subject most certainly exists. That the creator considers it the same is ultimately irrelevent. Such differences exist and that is sufficent. Alyeska 04:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

While sound does not travel through space, using ship-scans, you may be able to detect vibrations on the hull originating from within.

I was thinking that, but since the vibrations hull has nothing to interact with in space. with the only way you could detect vibrations is physically touching it. Joeyjojo 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Although...if you had a scanner capable of making out shapes in space - it might be powerful enough to detect movement or "ripples" on/within those shapes caused by vibrations within. Doctor Sinister 01:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean like a LASER or RADAR? Because that's exactly the kind of thing these pre-existing technologies are capable of.  You need a "scanner" capable of detecting range and measuring minute changes in it.  Once it's measured, it's a simple matter of running that information through software that turns it into audio for you to hear.  For 27th-century technology that should be child's play.   -Aclawson 02:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the 'differences' section. As noted before, it's not a real fact about the movie -- it's a (now largely abandoned) debate among sci fi fans.

The entry as written was entirely one-sided, and beyond that just plain incorrect. There are some legitimate points which might be made about the argument, but this was clearly the work of someone stretching facts to discredit the film. The bit about Admiral Tolwyn, for instance, had nothing to do with the movie -- it's a problem someone has with an obscure tie-in novel.

It would, perhaps, be reasonable to describe the various fan debates over continuity in the series (if this sort of thing is done for franchises like Star Trek -- it certainly doesn't *feel* apropriate for an encyclopedia to me)... but it would need to be fair and would need to point out simple facts like that the people in charge of the series do consider it "canon". We would also need similar entries for pretty much every part of the series, from The Secret Missions to EA Replay... because arguments about continuity errors are a *constant* among science fiction fans, not something special in this case. 68.55.131.108 18:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but those are valid facts. That you outright call most of them false show how little knowledge you have on the subject. Alyeska 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a reasoned response at all. 68.55.131.108 04:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The response is perfectly fine. The material is perfectly valid and will stay in the article. Alyeska 07:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact remains that Wing Commander the movie is using the name and reputation of what was then an already established franchise albeit in the gaming world. Many things are similiar like character names, basic plot setting, ship names and so on, it does no harm to show it's differences from the original source material.  Constantly deleting it suggests someone has an axe to grind. Douglasnicol 21:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how an argument among fans has any relevance to the movie itself. We could find similar 'continuity arguments' about any franchise, under any circumstances. This is all the more irrelevant now that we know that the next Wing Commander game is adopting the movie material as part of its background. 68.55.131.108 07:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Most other situations the movie comes first. In this case the movie came from the games and is directly tied to it. Alyeska 09:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed "*It has been suggested that the failure of this film is responsible for the loss of interest in the Wing Commander games". This clearly isn't true, since the film was released *after* development of Privateer Online was ceased.

I removed the trivia about the Star Wars trailer. The citations given do not say that people actually *did* -- they're reviews of the movie which joke that the trailer was the only good part of the film (and why are there four of them? That smacks of effort, and the fact that it didn't ultimately come up with anything solid rings pretty hollow).

In fact, it is not true (as these articles claim) that the Phantom Menace trailer was exclusive to Wing Commander. This was FOX's original plan which was dropped at the last minute due to a personal request from Lucas himself. Chris Roberts himself was very unhappy with this decision for exactly the reason the 'trivia' notes - if the trailer *had* been included then the opening box office would have been more impressive. The Menace trailer was sent to theaters separate from Wing Commander and was allowed to be attached to any film currently playing. LOAF 18:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Jump Freeze film technique/effect
You know that film technique where time freezes and the camera moves around the scene, through different angles and zoom levels, all in perfect clarity? That was, as far as I know, pioneered for this film (for when the ship "jumps"). It was part of the film's hype. They made a point of showing it in the trailers and highlighting it during the film itself (the characters setting themselves up for that frozen instant, talking about it afterwards, etc).

I was hoping to find mention of it in the article here. Both because it's arguably the film's best claim to fame and also because I was always curious about how they actually do it. It's well beyond the CGI capabilities of the time.

My guess was that it was done using a series of still cameras with high-speed film. All cameras are rigged to shoot at the same instant, and each picture then becomes a single frame of the film. Lined up correctly, 50 cameras would give you just over two seconds of frozen time. More if you dropped the framerate. ... But that's only my guess. Anyone know how it is/was actually done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.94.24 (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're talking about "bullet time", which was used to impressive effect in The Matrix. As far as I remember the effect appeared earlier in the awful film version of Lost in Space (1998), and Wikipedia's article dates it back to 1995 in the live-action realm. Wing Commander may have been one of the first relatively low-budget films to use it. I understand that, in the late 1990s, the technicians used fewer than one camera per frame of film and interpolated in-between frames with a big computer. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

ship combat
what was with the tiger claw? was she a super ship? she took out destroyers in one salvo but could take multiple salvos from a battleship, and broadside a cruiser. are kilrathi warships just really weak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.177.174 (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary incomplete
According to WP:FILMPLOT and WP:PLOTSUM, a plot summary should include an overview of key events, which by extension includes the ending. However, the current plot summary cuts at some arbitrary point before the ending. Please update the summary to reflect the Manual of Style. --Dmitry (talk•contibs) 18:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: American Cinema History
— Assignment last updated by Jhf0008 (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)