Subject:
|
Re: how large would the ISD be compared to the Enterprise-D?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars, lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:57:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1428 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Adrick Tolliver writes:
> > Alright you are completely missing the point here.
>
> I don't think that *I'm* missing the point, actually. :)
>
> > Most of the 'crap' you mentioned is contradicted by the
> > movies and is therefore ignored.
>
> There is no need to be rude; we're all friends here. I rather enjoyed
> Splinter of the Mind's Eye, and the Droids comics are hilarious.
Ok well, I wasn't trying to be rude, and I appologize if that is how my message
was recieved. I certainly agree that there is plenty of entertainment value in
'ignored' sources.
>
> > (This is the official Lucasfilm policy)
>
> Actually, Lucasfilm policy has been to come up with a "continuity fix" for
> EU items that seem to contradict the films. The Sith history was expanded
> upon to
> account for new additions when TPM was released, and the same thing happened
> to the history of the Death Star when AOTC was released, for example. For
> the most part, though, only small fixes have been needed, as very few EU
> products directly contradict the new films.
>
> > The Droids comic, Splinter of the Mind's Eye, etc. are contradicted by the
> movies.
>
> I think this statement makes it clear that you haven't actually read either • the
> comics or the novel. I have, and I can assure you that neither one
> contradicts any of the movies. One of the Marvel Star Droids comics contains • a
> statement that has been brought into question by TPM, but that is easily
> fixed. The Dark Horse comics don't contradict the films at all.
Droids was not originally published by Dark Horse (comics that were, are
considered higher than 'official' but lower than canon.) Episodes 1, 2, and
presumably 3 replace what happens in the Droids comics, therefore invalidating
them.
> The
> characterizations in Splinter are slightly off, but that can be attributed
> to the fact that Alan Dean Foster only had access to the ANH script when he
> wrote the book. There are no direct contradictions between the book and any
> of the movies.
Are we talking about the same book? Empire Strikes Back replaced Splinter of
the Mind's Eye in the continutity. They can't both happen at the same time.
>
> > Just because some editor uses them as a refrence does not make them
> > legitamate, in fact is simply makes whatever said editor creates an ignored • (or at least
> > seriously flawed) source as well.
>
> No, it doesn't. Splinter and Droids are widely referenced. In fact,
> practically *any* well researched reference book contains some material from
> one or both sources, and one of the EU's more common slang terms comes
> directly from Splinter. LFL does *not* consider Splinter *or* Droids to be
> Infinities. I'm curious, where did you get this idea?
Because it was the stated policy of LFL as of a year ago. Perhaps they have
since changed this policy, but that would create some continuity problems.
(which is why they are/were 'ignored' in the first place)
>
> > Where do you think the 8km Super Star
> > Destroyer, 120km Death Star 1, and 160km Death Star 2 numbers came from?
> > Well it certainly wasn't from watching the movies.
>
> I would think that the people coming up with those numbers would have
> watched the movies at least once, but that's just me. Even if not, I wasn't
> aware that one could tell the *exact* length of a spacecraft by merely
> watching the movie in which it appears.
Yeah, but it is really easy to see in Empire that 8km or even 12km is way too
short without doing any calculations. One can get a fairly accurate range for
which a ship could be no bigger or smaller than. In the case of the Super Star
Destroyer: we see Han attach the Millenuim Falcon to a Star Destroyer bridge in
Empire Strikes back, we see Han fly a Lambda-class shuttle past a Super Star
Destroyer bridge in Return of the Jedi. From the up close fly by shots we
clearly see both bridges are identical, making a point of reference from which
we can calculate the "actual" size of the Super Star Destoyer. Watching the
movies shows this same "actual" size scale being used consistantly. (And for
complete absolute proof that the two bridges are identicle, the same oversized
bridge model was used in both fly by shots.) Obvious flaws like this of and in
themselves prove just how unreliable most 'official reference materials' are. I
am not trying to be rude, I am just telling like it is. I mean I doubt either
of us take this all that seriously. I just like to be precise and perhaps I get
over zealous in that regard.
>
> > I'll agree with you that Curtis Saxton Does sometimes run off on his own
> > tangent and stamps it with a "this is the end of the argument" seal...
>
> > It's definitely useful for lots of stuff. As long as you follow what he's
> > saying and make sure he's not ignoring something obvious and that his
> > sources are backed up accurately (or accounted for), it's well worth a read.
>
> Quite right. I've found his discussions of Imperial ranks and the Holiday
> Special to be quite useful.
> One particularly interesting section is the one on the injuries of Darth
> Vader. That is one of my favorites.
>
> > and I emailed him with lots of praise and some constructive criticism only to • be
> > ignored, making me wonder if he thinks he's above question.
>
> I know several people who have e-mailed him, and even recived a response,
> and that was the impression they got too. ;) However, he has gone on to
> bigger and better things, which is why he no longer updates the site or
> responds to e-mails as often as he used to. He is now the author of the
> Episode II: Incredible Cross Sections, and I assume that he will soon be
> busy writing the Episode III Cross Sections. His work in the former book
> (which includes as its source material several sources that he previously
> considered non-canon) was quite excellent, as a matter of fact.
>
> So, getting back to the topic, I've compiled a list of several Star Trek
> ship lengths in meters, along with the two larger Imperial Star Destroyers:
>
> Enterprise (?) (Enterprise [Archer's]) Class Starship 225 m
> Constitution Class Starship (Enterprise [Kirk's]) 289 m
> Intrepid Class Starship (Voyager) 345 m
> Galaxy Class Starship (Enterprise-D) 641 m
> Imperial Class Star Destroyer 1,600 m
> Super Class Star Destroyer 12,800 m (official length) OR 17.6 km (fan
> fiction extrapolation by Dr. Curtis Saxon)
>
> Either way, both classes of Star Destroyers dwarf the Federation Starship
> lines.
Yup. Now if you want to have some real fun. Who would win in combat the
Enterprise (any) or a Star Destroyer. (ignoring the good guys always win rule)
:-)
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
83 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
