Cliched line but what the heck. Check this out... definitely not your typical fanboy production.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
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 .
--jacob
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
"...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.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Wasn't the Executor a Super Star Destroyer, Epidis? After all, Akbar did say "concentrate all fire on that super star destroyer" in ROTJ.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
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.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
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
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
The Executor (Vader's ship) *was* a Super Star Destroyer, though Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
no, it wasn't. that's like saying the USS Nimitz is a super sea destoyer.
--jacob
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
it is though!
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
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 ]
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
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
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Star Destroyer is just a term like battleship or Destroyer. It does not mean that the ship can destroy stars. Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
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 ]
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Matrix:Star Destroyer is just a term like battleship or Destroyer. It does not mean that the ship can destroy stars .
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 . 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 ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
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.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
But, to the credit of Jacob here and Mr. Saxton over at the SWTC's, General Calrissian almost exclusively referred to the Executor as 'the command ship'. IIRC the Tydirium crew also called it a command ship.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:So Akbar is a moron?
no, he was a very stressed, non native english speaking fish.
--jacob
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yes, but when he said "target that SSD", nobody said "huh?"
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i'm sure they were just like "oh that ackbar, always screwin' up the english. i'd correct him, but if i didn't do my job controllin' this here deflector screen we'd be fried". maybe someone took him to task after the battle.
--jacob
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Dude, I don't think they really speak English in "Star Wars."
And, er, sorry, you've got as much evidence the ship wasn't an SSD as it was -- calling something a command ship is a refernece to its job, not what it is. A police car is a police car regardless if its a Mustang or a Crown Vic.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i give up. i will have to go the way of koy'peled Oy'tio and start speaking gibberish. obvisouly they don't speak english. it was a joke. about the executor, believe what you like. but you are wrong Snay, and you will have to live with that knowledge *bwa ha ha ha*. man, i need to get some sleep.
--jacob
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
OMG. I'm in an arguement with a guy who refuses to believe the Executor is a Super Star Destroyer.
OMG.
William Shatner sketch now, please.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, you do realize the, uh, "respected majority opinion," such as it is, is on his side, yes? Personally, I've always found this sort of attention indescribably creepy when applied to Star Wars. And yet, look at how I spend my days. So what do I know?
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Well, the Star Wars contingent has the whole aspect of encylopediae, books, reference materials, reference websites, discussion forums and other media available to nitpick to the tinest detail the agonizingly little points about Star Destroyers and whatnot. So, I suppose, there's where the creepiness kicks in.
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
The typo-maiden aided me, I now proclaim the correct term to be "Superb Star Destroyer"!
It was called SSD simply because it was a bigger version of the only known ship that resembles it, don't read anything else into it or you'll turn grayhaired overnight. And walking in stairs and masturbating will become straining. As separate events, I mean. Yes, combining them would be dangerous.
[ May 05, 2002, 01:48: Message edited by: Nim Pim ]
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
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.
Question for you, EdipisReks.
Which source of information do you find more thrustworthy: Ackbar's line -- which is canon -- or a comic written by a bunch of obsessed fanboys?
Walking in stairs is straining? You must have a weird staircase.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
well, dark empire is crap, and ackbar's line was a mistake. read into it what you will. the quote talks of non-canon (but official) items to illustrate how "super star destroyer" is a term that is rife with misunderstanding and encompasses far to many ship types. yes, ackbar's line is canon, but that does not make it correct. dark empire is about a time frame that is not protrayed in movies, so unless movies contradict the comic it is correct to address ships designations that the comic uses in the same light as any canon. star wars doesn't work quite the same was as trek. can we get back to talking about that fan movie now?
--jacob
Posted by DeadCujo (Member # 13) on :
Yay for bad acting!
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
This one's worth pulling a deck chair up to and watching.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
the acting is bad, but it was a lot better than most fan films that i have had the bad luck to see.
--jacob
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Nothing to see here, Tom. This isn't the thread you're looking for. Move along.
ER: let's just agree to disagree, 'mkay? We obviously aren't going to convince eachother, and I'd like to avoid an endless and pointless debate...
[ May 06, 2002, 06:21: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
ah, but pointless debate is SOO cool! agree to disagree=EdipisReks teh 4gR33.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)