Flare Sci-fi Forums
Flare Sci-Fi Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Flare Sci-Fi Forums » Sci-Fi » Star Wars » The Force is strong in this one... (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: The Force is strong in this one...
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256

 - posted      Profile for Cartman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cliched line but what the heck. Check this out... definitely not your typical fanboy production.

--------------------
".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO

Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yeah, not typical fanboy, and certainly filled with bad acting and cheese.

spoilers for broken allegiance
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
i find it hard to believe that 2 pupils would be adept enough to use force lightning after a mere year of training. and the light saber in the blaster seemed dumb to me. and a quick search of the star wars technical commentaries that are hosted on theforce.net would have shown the script writer that calling the executor a super star destroyer is inappropriate. the production is far better than anything i've seen before, fanboy wise, but it had TERRIBE acting. the darth vader voice was pretty good, though [Smile] .

--jacob

IP: Logged
Nim
The Aardvark asked for a dagger
Member # 205

 - posted      Profile for Nim     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"...when Darth Vader engages the Super Star Destroyer Executor and a vicious bounty hunter to track them down."

He must be one hell of a fighter pilot, then. But how would engaging an SSD help him with the tracking? ;-
And the male lead on the poster looks like Rowan Atkinson, but that's just me.

--------------------
"I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!"
Mel Gibson, X-Men

Registered: Aug 1999  |  IP: Logged
Malnurtured Snay
Blogger
Member # 411

 - posted      Profile for Malnurtured Snay     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wasn't the Executor a Super Star Destroyer, Epidis? After all, Akbar did say "concentrate all fire on that super star destroyer" in ROTJ.

--------------------
www.malnurturedsnay.net

Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Matrix
AMEAN McAvoy
Member # 376

 - posted      Profile for Matrix     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Its just a term to call a ship like we called battleships after the Dreanought was launched dreadnoughts.

The Executor is an Executor class Star Destroyer.

--------------------
Matrix
If you say so
If you want so
Then do so

Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
no, being that it is 11 miles long it is CERTAINLY NOT A DESTROYER. ackbar, in a moment of stress, called it a super star destoyer. in every other instance it was called a command ship. it's my opinion that it is a battleship. star destoyer doesn't mean a ship destoys stars. it means that it is a destoyer class starship. the imperial navy uses designations very close to modern navies. you guys you check out the star wars technical commentaries at www.theforce.net/swtc

--jacob

IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256

 - posted      Profile for Cartman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Executor (Vader's ship) *was* a Super Star Destroyer, though [Razz]
Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
no, it wasn't. that's like saying the USS Nimitz is a super sea destoyer.

--jacob

IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709

 - posted      Profile for capped     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
it is though!

--------------------
"Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"

Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nim
The Aardvark asked for a dagger
Member # 205

 - posted      Profile for Nim     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, it is. And about the SSD, Edipis, the Super is what signifies that it is more than just a destroyer, Edipis.

I wouldn't call a "regular" star destroyer a destroyer either, and yet there it is, going around, getting called that. The insolence, grr! ;.

Aren't the french military authorized sea destroyers? "Take that, you stupid sea! One A-bomb, right up your arse! Weee!"

[ May 03, 2002, 04:12: Message edited by: Nim Pim ]

--------------------
"I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!"
Mel Gibson, X-Men

Registered: Aug 1999  |  IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
argh! read the damn technical commentaries! how can something be a super anything when it doesn't fulfill the role of that said anything? the imperator class ships are star destroyers because they fill the role of a destoyer. they are medium sized ships who screen larger ships. the executor class is a command ship, which it is called the vast majority of the time in the movies. as i said, read the damn technical commentaries! most of these terminology problems came about due to some dumbasses writing second generation stuff for star wars, and subsequent people were too dumb to look at the material.

i don't get something, though. if this was trek, and a ship was called something 5 times, but then one line called it something else (and that aberration of a line happened in a time of stress and was said by a non native english speaker and there was no universal translator involved), you wouldn't be arguing for the aberrant line. one more thing, read the damn technical commentaries! www.theforce.net/swtc

end of crazy ravings.

--jacob

IP: Logged
Matrix
AMEAN McAvoy
Member # 376

 - posted      Profile for Matrix     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Star Destroyer is just a term like battleship or Destroyer. It does not mean that the ship can destroy stars. [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Matrix
If you say so
If you want so
Then do so

Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256

 - posted      Profile for Cartman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nebulon-B class *Frigates* -- medium sized (frigates / destroyers?).

Imperator class *Star Destroyers* -- large (destroyers / cruisers / battleships?).

Executor class *Super Star Destroyers* -- extremely big (battleships / battlecruisers?).

I think you'd do good to read those technical commentaries yourself, ER.

Oh, and you do realise that any vessel could be called and/or considered a "command ship" if it was coordinating a battle and/or carrying an admiral? Heck, even a bulk freighter could temporarily fill these roles.

And as Matrix pointed out, "SD" and "SSD" aren't official Imperial designations, but simple descriptive terms which denote the type of the starship in question.

[ May 03, 2002, 07:48: Message edited by: Cartman ]

Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Matrix:Star Destroyer is just a term like battleship or Destroyer. It does not mean that the ship can destroy stars [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] .
gee, thanks a fucking lot. i can see how you got your reputation, Matrix.

Cartman, don't try to use my own sources against me.

quote:
The colloquial term "super star destroyer"should be avoided. This is not mere pedantry; the term is actually misleading. In addition to its connection with the confusion over Executor's length, the term is also applied to some vessels which clearly belong to different classes: eg. Allegiance and Eclipse in Dark Empire, which only share little more than the distinction of being slightly or greatly bigger than one-mile destroyers.
that is STRAIGHT from the entry on the Executor [Razz] . my uncle was a commander in the navy, and i asked him if a destroyer could ever be called a command ship, regardless of its role. his answer (albeit after several beers that evening)was "Fuck no". apparently (according to him) in order for a ship to be designated a command ship it has to have certain attributes. a destoyer could lead an operation or even (it's possible) be the conveyance of an admiral, but in those cases it would be a "lead" not a "command" ship. i never said that the official designation for the executor class was "command ship", but they certainly aren't "super star destroyers".

--jacob

[ May 04, 2002, 18:01: Message edited by: EdipisReks ]

IP: Logged
Malnurtured Snay
Blogger
Member # 411

 - posted      Profile for Malnurtured Snay     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
but they certainly aren't "super star destroyers".
So Akbar is a moron?

Look, Akbar called the Executor a "Super Star Destroyer." On screen. That's good enough for me.

--------------------
www.malnurturedsnay.net

Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3