Talk:Pride of Tarlandia/Legends

Is there any canonical evidence to support the theory that the detailed stand-alone bridge model seen in the movie is the "communications ship" from the novel (eg, does it appear at the correct point in the movie narrative of the battle)? If not, the equation made at SWTC is overdressed spectualtion; and note the phrase "one of the larger Destroyers" (p. 191; cited here). Saxton has built a lot on the word "larger", but suppressed the unambiguous and semantically allied identification of this ship as a Star Destroyer. Until more evidence is forthcoming, I'm editing some caution into the article. --McEwok 16:34, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't beleive that the comm. ship was not in the movie because I examined that the DVD and noticed that the TIE explodes before hitting the ship.
 * You have a real hard-on for that 'Star Destroyer'-definition, don´t you?
 * No, I simply think it's pretty clear that's what the stories actually give us, and that we should respect that. In general terms, the term "Star Destroyer" does not translate directly to any of the various rl meanings of "destroyer"; and in this specific instance, the Comms Ship is cal led a "Destroyer" (capitalized); ie a Star Destroyer. --McEwok 13:34, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine, every dagger-shaped warship is a Star Destroyer, that´s true. But that is only a broad definition, and is supplemented with the more specific classes labled in the various movie-related factbooks. As for the Comm ship, if its bridge is any indication, the ship belongs in the 'Super'-subsection, along with the Allegiance and the Executor and most other ships bigger than Imperial-class vessels. In more specific terms, from Star Cruiser onwards. I´m also moving the picture back up. (Or do you have any better idea what those extra bridges do?) VT-16 12:42, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Combined close-ups of bridges belonging to the Executor, the comm ship and the two Imperator-subclasses: here
 * The Comm ship´s appear more massive than both the two Imp´s, like an intermediary between the classes. VT-16 13:27, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. The bridge of the Executor is identical to that of the Avenger (even if the latter ship's model lacks an identifiable node on the tower!!), and I don't actually think that the "extra bridges" necessarily "mean" anything at all. They could, in real-world terms, be nothing more than visually-interesting surface detail, and SWTC offers a very balanced analysis of several in-universe possibilities here: when it's good, it's very very good....
 * I can add, off the cuff, the alternative that these are viewports in senior officers' staterooms, representing the equivalent of the sternwalks attached to the stern cabins aboard a few twentieth-century battleships (taking the RN's Queen Elizabeth class; the name ship was completed with one, removed in 1916, while Barham, of the same class, had one added in 1920, and I think Warspite had one added in her 1930s rebuild). There is no need for the "nodes" to be significant except as distinguishing features of a single ship.
 * All in all, it may be that this model is supposed to represent a "Communications Ship", or it may not; and if so, that ship have been concieved by the production team as an ISD, or it may not. That, in our current state of knowledge, is IMHO all that it's safe to say. That said, I have zilch issues with your edit. --McEwok 13:34, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * I have issues with your attempt to deny distinct classes other than vague 'Star Destroyer'/'Super Star Destroyer' classifications. You seem to make a big fuss out of the diversity of Republic/Imperial warships every time the subject is brought up here.
 * My issue is with SWTC-based fanon being allowed to override established canon for no good reason. I have no problem with multiple distinct designations, but there is sufficient evidence that the original "Star Destroyers" are major combat warships; and also sufficient evidence that "Star Destroyer" is the correct designation for at least some "SSD" classes, as well. A more "rational" classification may satisfy some people's need for tidiness, but does not reflect the situation depicted, and attempts to force canonical sources to conform to this non-canonical pattern (eg. ItW and RotS:ICS) just mess up continuity. There was nothing wrong with the previous situation. --McEwok 14:10, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * "My issue is with SWTC-based fanon being allowed to override established canon for no good reason." That is actually not true, there was an old official source describing the Executor as a 'Star Dreadnought', which either Saxton and/or the editor of the ITW used as a reference. If I can find this source, it might prove that later works overwrote this early definition. VT-16 17:22, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * And the Executor-bridge is not only more detailed, it is constructed as being more massive than the Imperator-bridges. Just compare the scenes with the Falcon hiding behind the Avenger tower and the shuttle passing by the Ecexutor tower. The two constructs are wildly different in both size and volume. As is the Comm ship tower from the other three. VT-16 13:41, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting - thanks for explaining. Obviously, I have questions: is there a good discussion of this on-line; and how do these supposed scaling differences impact overall scaling issues? My initial thoughts - well, you probably already know about my argument that the Ex is upscaled on-screen; and where is the bridge node on the Avenger (considering it should now be significantly larger than the highly visible one on the Ex)? --McEwok 14:10, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)