FANDOM


Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Pride of Tarlandia/Legends."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

  • 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.

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)

  • 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: image shack dot U S )/img378/6679/towercomparisonsred5db.jpg 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. I also find the reasoning "It wasn´t like this before" to be poor. Let me use an IU-example: since all ships above Imperial-class seem to be labled 'Super Star Destroyers', what would a scout ship report back to the Rebel command? "I found the fleet, they have 16 star destroyers and three super star destroyers!" "Great, what kind of SSDs?" "The big ones." "What class?" "SSDs." "What kind of SSDs?" "The ones that look like daggers but not quite as dagger-y as the smaller ones!" See how long-winded it would be without proper classification? VT-16 17:22, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
            • That early reference would be appreciated, certainly. Thanks! Although I doubt that it outweighs other references to Ex as a Star Destroyer, I'd definately like to see it!! However, SSD is not a "class"! It's a (not fully formal) type designation. "One Executor-class with two Allegiance-class ships in close escort, eight Imperial Star Destroyers, four Tectors, three VicStars and an old VenStar, sir". I find the "I think it was wrong" reasoning very poor indeed. Without even getting into the continuity mess Saxton has created, why shouldn't it be the way it was? --McEwok 19:09, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
              • Oh, yeah, sorry about that. Designation=/=class :P
Anyway, there has never been any proper designation for the big Executor-type ships apart from Star Dreadnaught. That´s the problem. Only the loose description 'SSD' every time something big pops up that the authors don´t want to deal with. Using this to describe a wide variety of ships is just silly and lazy, IMHO. Would it make any sense to call US aircraft carriers Sea Stormers and every ship that´s not a carrier Super Sea Stormer? If you want a diverse navy (or army for that matter) in a fictional work, you have to bite the bullet and think up more names every time you decide to add something that serves a different purpose. VT-16 20:11, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Untrue. There's plenty evidence that they're obscenely large "Star Destroyers". It may be YHO that it's "silly and lazy"; it may even be "silly and lazy": but that cannot countermand canon. If the evidence says they were designated as Star Destroyers, then they were. Also, your analogy is false; I'm not saying that every ship in the Imperial Starfleet was a Star Destroyer - just those canonically shown to be so designated. --McEwok 11:12, 21 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)
          • If you want discussion, by all means, start one at Stardestroyer.net. As for models, I´ve checked out the Executor site on Technical Commentaries. Most scenes measured show a length around 11 times the size of an ordinary destroyer. There´s only a few that don´t (one showed 25 times as big as an ISD), and they are discarded. The idea is to go with the size that is seen the most, which is 11 times an ISD. (This was also stated to be the intent by the filmmakers, so there´s both visual evidence and model-maker´s statement. None of this "upscaled on-screen" nonsense.) As for bridge node (English is not my first language so I don´t know if this is what you mean), it appears the bridge "windows" on the ISD II are simply viewscreens, because I certainly can´t find any protuding from the model. VT-16 09:21, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
            • I'll think about that discussion. But for now: (1.) the idea of going with "the size that's seen the most" is simply a fan methodology, not in itself canonical (so can you justify it? is it the best option?); (2.) isn't it equally possible that the ISD-II model is simply inaccurate in small details? And you're not a native English-speaker? I'm impressed! --McEwok 11:12, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
              • I doubt you´re serious about that, they can actually give you some proper competition in debates. But, by all means, go and state exactly what you do here. No-one´s stopping you.
"is simply a fan methodology"
And it is also known as "doing research", the only way to resolve things when various written material is in conflict with each other. VT-16 11:35, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
                • Well, yes, from past experience, my gut reaction is "they don't want to question their beliefs, so there's no point spitting against the wind". But I will think about it. As to resolving contradictions, my gut kicks badly when people ditch evidence simply because it doesn't fit their hypothesis. Everyone does it, up to a point, but we should all be prepared to reassess our decisions and reconsider when things are pointed out to us. --McEwok 18:14, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • "they don't want to question their beliefs, so there's no point spitting against the wind"
A classic bulls**t excuse for people too afraid to be proven wrong in public. Nice to see you´re smart enough not to go up against people who could best you in an argument, thus being able to maintain your quasi-intellectual cool.
Um, no. I'm not afraid to be proven wrong. I'm just not convinced that a lot the people disseminating SWTC hypotheses actually care about reexamining their own opinions. Which makes it pointless to argue with them. And we seem to have gone well off-topic here, too. --McEwok 00:13, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
"but we should all be prepared to reassess our decisions and reconsider when things are pointed out to us."
That´s the spirit! Go and point at them, set them straight!! VT-16 21:16, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Um, I was talking about everyone there, myself included. For what it's worth, talking this back and forward with you has made me revisit a couple of old sources... and realise that WEG had solved the problem already in the earliest sourcebooks... --McEwok 00:13, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

More EvidenceEdit

"the description of the Communications ship as a "larger Destroyer" need not indicate anything larger than an Imperial-class variant." Did you guys forget about this? That's evidence for an Imperial ship that's too slender to be an ISD, and is likely greater than one mile in length (possibly several miles long). JimRaynor55 19:23, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Judging from the position of that ship, and the fact that it can't be seen when the fleet is viewed straight on at the start of the battle, leads me to assume that it's directly behind the Executor, making it less than a third of its length when viewed from the side like this. Would be over 6000m with a 19000m Executor. VT-16 07:40, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Gauntlet-class?Edit

I know this is just wild speculation, but wouldn't it fit nice if the Comm-ship was retconed as a Gauntlet-class Star Cruiser? Since they are both of similar size and we know that one Gauntlet did serve as a long-distance communication ship. Anybody else thought about the similarities? Charlii 15:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm, that's true. Never really thought about it like that. Would add up why it can't be easily told apart from the rest of the fleet from afar, since the shape would be generally the same as a Imperial or Victory SD when viewed from a distance... VT-16 14:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think we've found the Imperial Communications Ship class. That's why the Allegiance would be used as a comm ship. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, these two ships could also be part of the Tector-class. The Allegiance didn't have a hangar bay, so, if this ship was a Gauntlet, they could all possibly be Tectors. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
        • The only problem is the area immidiately following the area where the hangar would have been didn't have a protruding reactor-bulb. The Gauntlets all have protruding bulbs... VT-16 14:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Good point. Oh well, there goes my second idea... Admiral J. Nebulax 14:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is just beautiful. I'm sure this was not deliberate on Cam Kennedy's part, but it just works so well. I'd put it in "Behind the scenes" for both ships. And I have just invented a new term for this: axcon. For "accidental continuity." —Darth Culator (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Both ships? Do you mean this one and the Gauntlet, or another page? Admiral J. Nebulax 15:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Saxton says that this ship can't be the same as the Allegiance: "A cargo bay of some kind is located near parts of the ship's internal power tree. This area became a critical vulnerability when it was exposed by a shield failure (which was inflicted by a rebel cruiser). Since communications ship has significant hangars, it doesn't match the hangarless [anonymous destroyer #5]. For the same reason, it cannot be an example of the bayless Allegiance (seen in the Battle of Calamari) even though they performed similar coordination roles in their respective battles." Unsigned comment by JimRaynor55 (talk • contribs).

Dammit, I hate it when reality screws up a good idea. To be more specific, the RotJ novel says:
"That opens it up for us!" yelled Wedge. "Cut over. The power reactors are just inside that cargo bay."
"Follow me!" Lando called, pulling the Falcon into a sharp bank that caught the horrified reactor personnel by surprise. Wedge and Blue followed suit. They all did their worst.
"Direct hit!" Lando shouted.
"There she goes!"
"Pull up, pull up!"
They pulled up hard and fast, as the destroyer was enveloped in a series of ever-increasing explosions, until it looked finally just like one more small star. Blue Leader was caught by the shock wave, and thrown horribly against the side of a smaller Imperial ship, which also exploded. Lando and Wedge escaped.

So more than likely, AD5/Tector, Allegiance/"Gauntlet", and Endor Comm Ship are all different classes. Oh well. —Darth Culator (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Dammit indeed. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Since diversity in SW fleets adds a touch of realism to them, I'm fine with this. >D VT-16 21:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.