THE EWOKS DID NOT DIE AT ENDOR!!!

>No it just depends on who's definition of long ago. For instance to the scientist who hypothesised >that theory, maybe 4-10 years before Endor was a long time, a scientist with a short life span >would find time to important and any loss of it to be a long time.

My suggestion is only what seems most likely to me. The way in which the line was presented in the novelization doesn't allow for theory, although that doesn't really matter, the planet's gone in any case.

>What are you talking about? How else would the DSII debris land on mon calimari?

Well, you know now. I can't confirm this (I don't have the DSS), but if it's true, it means no wormhole, which makes Hissa and Luke seem even more idiotic then usual in GODV.

TC

 

"Kettch, but he doesn't really exist."

What do you mean i dont exist?

 

The wormhole, however it was created, is what basically saved Endor from destruction.

End of story.

 

And there are no "Imperator-class" Star Destroyers. That is something that the TC made up.

 

It's certainly never been officially-referenced.

The TC has the right intent with it's articles, but it goes against too many official sources in many cases.

My idea is to use common sense, and not let my view of anything be ruled by science. I try not to ignore any official stories. They're all valid. I try and work together with the stories to provide an explanation.

I'm not going to say that the Ewoks are exterminated just because A equals B. I'm going to say they exist because A ends up at C, and I must use B to explain it. Or something like that.

Another example is the blatant ignoring of the ISD shield generators being on the domes of the bridge tower.

He provides good arguments, but they still have to be a prime aspect of shield generation on those domes. Otherwise it would discredit too many official sources and blueprints.

 

I agree. I like the Technical Commentaries, and he has enlightened me on a few aspects of the GFFA, but for all intents and purposes, his works are fan fiction and the canon is not bound by what he says.

 

"Well, you know now. I can't confirm this (I don't have the DSS), but if it's true, it means no wormhole, which makes Hissa and Luke seem even more idiotic then usual in GODV."

It's certainly not in my copy of the DSS. I think you fell for a sham.

 

All documentation aside,

Wouldn't you rather that those furballs ate some Death Star II debris? If I didn't know that it would die a certain death, I'd start "The *Official* Ewoks must DIE!" thread.

 

I like ewoks actually.

"And there are no "Imperator-class" Star Destroyers. That is something that the TC made up."

Actually there is, but it's like about a 400 meter long ship according to official blueprints. It is not to be confused with the Imperial-class ships which are much bigger, and a completly different ship altogether.

 

Yes. BUT, I think that this ship was just called the Imperator, and it was the first of it's kind. So if one goes by standard military naming conventions, all other ships in this line are Imperator-class Star Destroyers.

I think it's just a variation. There's tons of Star Destroyers. If you get some good photos of the Devastator, you'll see that it's bridge and communications tower is very different from the ESB and ROTJ ISDs.

 

Yeah, but since the class name obviously isn't Imperator (and SSDs are obviously not Executor-class), that means the people of the GFFA do not follow Earth's naming conventions.

 

No... because they're using - or rather, trying to use - English-language technical terms...

The places where SW 'technical' stuff doesn't agree with real-world usage (in terms of ship-classification, the size of SSDs, Imperial rank-structure, etc.) are mistakes made by people who were clearly trying to use the real-world terms... and in intrinsic terms (ie if we suspend our disbelief), they ought to be explained in the same way - as mistakes...

After all, several authors have used the correct terminology..

- The Imperial Ewok

 

Since the first Imperial-class ship obviously wasn't named Imperial, that proves that our naming system is not used in the GFFA.

 

Man, I'm so tired of the argument that SOME authors are right and SOME authors are wrong. Sure, the authors do a little research, but if they think they know something, they're not going to check it, they're just going to write it, and no one wil notice inconsistencies except the fans. There aren't all these hidden sub-groups and weird ship names, it's mostly just the authors screwing up. And obviously, anyone giving proof is going to give proof from the side of the authors who screwed up and put something that supports THEIR opinion. There isn't any right are wrong in Star Wars anymore, because there are too many interpretations of everything.

At least there aren't any TC zealots in here screaming about how we're idiots for not being psychic like them.

 

Bib: there are two alternatives...

1. The first ISD was called the Imperial...



2. The West End Games hack who first called ISDs "Imperial-class Star Destroyers" was wrong, because he/she/it lacked a perfect knowledge of the real-world military conventions they were trying to use...

I have no problem with either idea, but I think the second one is more likely to be right, and certainly has close parallels in some real-world recieved-ideas about, say, the ships of the Napoleonic Wars...

- The Imperial Ewok

 

The first ISD was called the Imperator. Therefore, the GFFA doesn't use Earth's naming conventions.

It's as simple as that. Anyone who says that the common 1.6-km ships in the movies and EU are called Imperator-class are just plain wrong.

 

"The first ISD was called the Imperator. Therefore, the GFFA doesn't use Earth's naming conventions."

Actually there is not official source that names the first ISD. That is not known.

Blueprints for one type of stardestroyer, called an imperator class star destroyer was 400 meters long, and 200 meters wide or so, and had a very small crew compliment onboard. Therefore a totally different ship.

"It's as simple as that. Anyone who says that the common 1.6-km ships in the movies and EU are called Imperator-class are just plain wrong."

Which is true. Yes an imperator class ship exists, it's just not the same thing as an imperial class ship.

One is 400 metters, the other is 1.6 Km. two classes of ships altogether.

 

Bib...

Basically, the EU contains contradictory claims:

1. : the first ISD was called the Imperator, and the correct designation of the ISD is the "Imperator-class Super Star Destroyer"



2. : the ISD is designated the "Imperial-class Star Destroyer"...

Of course, you can believe anything you want... but either way, you're going to have to ditch some EU statements...

- The Imperial Ewok

 

Your biggest mistake is assuming that the GFFA follows Earth's naming conventions. It doesn't. Imperial-class is correct, and unless you can come up with some real evidence, I suggest you drop the matter entirely.

 

Same Freken Thing!

 

OK... my bad, Imperator-class doesn't seem to appear in the EU...

But what evidence can you produce to show that military terminology in the GFFA isn't supposed to be understood in real-world terms...

What about 'commando' and 'intelligence officer' and 'Nebula-class Star Destroyer' and 'colonel' and 'Victory-class Star Destroyer?

- The Imperial Ewok

 

My point is, you can't use real world terms as the definitive way to figure out how the GFFA naming system works. The GFFA is free to do whatever it wants, regardles of how we do things here.

 

TC screwed every thing up!

 

So when almost all the existing references take the form "Name-of-First-Ship-of-Class-class Star Destroyer" (and yes, there are certainly EU references to Executor-class Star Destroyers)... you are insisting that things are generally 'different' just to explain away the idea - and where, incidentally, is there any reliable EU reference to it - that the first ISD was the Imperator?

- The Imperial Ewok

 

I don't have to explain it at all. The vast majority of the EU uses the correct name "Imperial-class."