Saga Unpopular Star Wars opinions!

@JA Boomer wrote

The naval strength of galactic government's are constantly undersized given the size/resources of the galaxy. The Empire likely had a million capital warships.

As a matter of fact that's a VERY popular opinion around here, but just an opinion / headcanon nevertheless.

According both to George Lucas Canon and NuCanon the films are "absolute canon" and that includes the information we can derive from onscreen dialogue like this one:

HAN The entire starfleet couldn't destroy
the whole planet. It'd take a thousand
ships with more fire power than
I've...

According to Solo's statement the Imperial Starfleet has less than a thousand ships. If that's considered "undersized" then it's clearly a lack of imagination on our parts. Looking at the Imperial Starfleet as a police force or some kind of national guard that's only called upon when the local forces are no longer able to contain an insurgence could help to understand its relatively small size, clearly suggested by

1. Solo's statement in ANH
2. the small size of the Imperial fleet taking care of the new rebel base in ESB (5 Star Destroyers and one SSD) and ultimately
3. the relatively small size of Imperial vessels actually confronting the entire Alliance fleet in ROJ.

Torib here we go again....

 

My method of resolving it in my head is - Solo wasn't thinking of anything smaller than SSDs when he said that - the SSD Annihilator existed around about the Battle of Yavin era (the SSD Executor was still under construction, but the Annihilator was being used by Tagge only a couple of weeks or so after ANH ).

Knowing about SSDs and their firepower, Han is thinking that it would take at least 1000 SSDs to reduce a whole planet to being an asteroid field, in a militarily relevant timeframe.

General Jan Dodonna also contradicted Han's statement slightly "The Death Star is heavily shielded and carries a firepower greater than half the starfleet" - with the implication that it does not carry as much firepower as the whole starfleet, and thus, that the whole star fleet could destroy a planet.

 

I just figure it's more a case of two things: first, it'd be impossible to get a thousand ships together in any one point at any one time, given their assignments all across the galaxy, as well as any other emergencies that might occur. Second, that many ships would be enough to devastate the surface of a planet, but to actually blast one to pieces would require more ships than the Empire can command, or, as it turns out, a secret weapon that no one suspected could actually exist.

 

I don't take Han's words at face value. He has a history of running his mouth without thinking things through. Not an entirely reliable narrator, IMO.

 

I prefer Vader's Mustafar scene over the hallway scene. I also think it has more rewatch value.

 

Oh, look... An Imperial officer acts completely stupid (as usual) and a couple of Star Destroyer looking ships get destroyed in the SWR Season 3 finale...

The last 3/4 SWR episodes were horrid.

Points off for Kanan's ridiculous optimism at the end.

 

The Clone wars micro series is the by far (except for maybe ROTS) the best depiction of the Clone Wars era. It's vastly superior to the Clone Wars TV show and fits perfectly between AOTC and ROTS

 

C'mon man, we've done this before http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...th-and-starfleet-size.50038996/#post-53301382

I think it's relatively split on these boards as to the size of galactic military strength.

 

JABoomer wrote

I think it's relatively split on these boards as to the size of galactic military strength.

You make it sound as if it were a matter of opinion, which it is not. Both George Lucas and Lucasfilm Story Group (new) "canon methodology" are crystal clear on the matter, i.e. the films are absolute canon.

So we have apparently one group that acknowledges, accepts or even embraces this official methodology, and one that doesn't and prefers to follow EU conjecture, instead. In my book that's the real "headcanon".

Sarge wrote

I don't take Han's words at face value. He has a history of running his mouth without thinking things through. Not an entirely reliable narrator, IMO.

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Luke Skywalker, the farmboy from Tatooine represents the audience which just learns about the SW Universe same as Luke, so Lucas utilizes Solo, the older guy and experienced smuggler, to tell Luke (the audience) about the size of the Imperial Starfleet so we get a rough idea.

It's a classic story telling tool. The most obvious example is the young sailor aboard the Ohio-class USS Alabama in Crimson Tide who wonders why they don't just fire the torpedo at the Russian Akula Sub and be done with it, which compells the other sailor to explain to him (i.e. the audience) that it takes a certain distance for the torpedo to arm itself and finishes his sentence "who let you onto this submarine"

Debasing a renowned Star Wars character to ensure the survival of an otherwise contradicting EU theory is definitely a no-go for me.

 

-
Lt. Hija - why do you not use the quoting function within the forums? It makes things a lot cleaner and easier to read.

1) You do not have the right to dictate what other people might wish to believe, be it "head canon" or not.

2) While I do not dispute that the movies are canon (and the #1 primary canon source at that), I do absolutely disagree that the size of the Imperial forces shown in the OT dictates a relatively small Imperial Military. In all engagements:

-the Imperial forces are at an overwhelming advantage - meaning they don't require any more forces in any of the engagements shown on-screen or they risk starting to stumbling over each other;
-there are tactical reasons for the force sizes (ie. Endor is a trap, and therefore having 200 star destroyers stationed there would not facilitate the springing of said trap).

I prefer to believe the size of the Imperial war machine would be dictated by the size of the Empire, the number of worlds and populace under its control, and the vast resources at its disposal. This, combined with the fact that the Empire is a centrally controlled totalitarian regime which relies on an iron fist to maintain order - all of which can be clearly seen in the movies - leads me to believe the Imperial Military is quite large.

 

Han also says "Now don't get jittery Luke. There are a lot of command ships.". How to you infer what he means by this particular comment while looking at the Executor?

 

Not to worry, we have this same discussion every 6 months! Haha

 

JABoomer asked

Why do you not use the quoting function within the forums? It makes things a lot cleaner and easier to read.

I'd love to, but the computer where I'm currently sitting at will just reveal a blank post after I clicked onto the "reply" button. When I'm at home I can make use of the quoting function (and I find that much more convenient and better, myself).

You do not have the right to dictate what other people might wish to believe, be it "head canon" or not.

And I don't think I'm telling anyone what to believe or not. But both George Lucas and the Lucasfilm Story Group have gone on record, stating that the films are "absolute canon" (a wise decision, IMHO, because it enables new fans to participate in SW related discussions and provides these with a basic tool to do so). What I observe here at the Force.net way too often (that is my impression) is how "canon" or "newcanon" is invoked at the expense of "absolute canon". When I see this happening I feel compelled to talk about it.

I prefer to believe the size of the Imperial war machine would be dictated by the size of the Empire, the number of worlds and populace under its control, and the vast resources at its disposal. This, combined with the fact that the Empire is a centrally controlled totalitarian regime which relies on an iron fist to maintain order - all of which can be clearly seen in the movies - leads me to believe the Imperial Military is quite large.

If that's what you prefer to believe, I won't be standing in your way. But as Torib has pointed out, it's probably our lack of imagination to consider the possibility that the Imperial Starfleet doesn't rely on that many Star Destroyers (25,000) because they have delegated the bulk of navy support to the Imperial member worlds, hence Solo's "local bulk cruisers" and Tarkin's comments:

TARKIN
The regional governors now have direct
control over territories. Fear will
keep the local systems in line. Fear
of this battle station.

LEIA
The more you tighten your grip,
Tarkin, the more star systems will
slip through your fingers.

TARKIN
Not after we demonstrate the power
of this station.

Part of the Death Star's design is to discourage the local systems to hand their ships over to the Alliance or even fight for the Alliance's cause, because that could constitute a threat for the Imperial Starfleet.

General Taggi is too well aware of that, he feels that with the Death Star the Emperor is putting all his eggs into one basket (and would undoubtedly have preferred to built more Star Destroyers, instead).

 

Gotcha.

Right, I'm just saying many of us don't want to be bound by these "rules". We get more enjoyment from the GFFA by maintaining our own ideas, imagination, and head-canon then simply following along with the Disney canon. That doesn't mean we don't respect canon, but most times we're not arguing what is canon, just discussing ideas. In the case of fleet size, to me the movies do not provide concrete evidence that can accurately pin down the number of Imperial-class star destroyers for example.

There's a lot of contradicting information if you ask me:

-there's lines in the movies that support your theory or mine, and some that can support both depending on your point of view;
-we only see approximately 40 star destroyers in the entire OT, but my logic regarding the Imperial Navy size posted above is also relevant I believe;
-how many ships are seen in the Battle of Coruscant in ROTS?
-there's a canon video game which references the 25,000 star destroyer statistic, the new canon is supposed to be consistent (or ONE canon) if I'm not mistaken, meaning it has the same leverage as the OT movies.

My point is I believe there is room for debate. We're never going to agree, but that doesn't seem to stop us from trying.

 

JABoomer wrote

How many ships are seen in the Battle of Coruscant in ROTS?

IIRC, Snafu55 has recently addressed the issue. Here we have two large fraction of "local forces" (Separatists vs. "Republicans") battling with one another.
This is not the same stage setting as in ANH, where the Death Star is designed to avoid a repeat of this situation ("Rebels" vs. "Imperials").

There's a canon video game which references the 25,000 star destroyer statistic, the new canon is supposed to be consistent (or ONE canon) if I'm not mistaken, meaning it has the same leverage as the OT movies.

(bold emphasis mine) No, all the films - regardless of age or who made them - are "absolute" canon and all secondary materials are "supposed" to respect and consider that.

Where the issue gets complicated is that apparently the secondary materials according to George Lucas canon can be retroactively altered to suit the needs of EU fans so that newcanon can become a "Trojan Horse" to establish conjectural EU content as superior to George Lucas canon secondary materials (where some EU stuff was already not-canon according to George Lucas canon methodology).

This is a philosophical debate where I definitely advocate a "First comes, first serves" point of view. Bad or insufficient research shouldn't be rewarded by elevating it to canon status, IMHO.

 

Has that been officially announced/discussed by LucasFilm?

 

It's more a case of "something in a movie cannot be outright retconned out of existence in a book - the movies are (since Lucas left) unchangeable."

But character statements can still be played with, with characters in-universe not being infallible, and not always choosing their words precisely.

 

JABoomer asked

Has that been officially announced/discussed by LucasFilm?

Yes, regarding the question whether Star Killer Base works as described in Alan Dean Foster's novelization or in the film itself, Pablo Hidalgo confirmed that the film is absolute canon and takes precedence over secondary sources.

Iron_lord wrote

But character statements can still be played with, with characters in-universe not being infallible, and not always choosing their words precisely.

I'm not aware of such an official statement, please identify source so I can bring it to the attention of someone in charge at Lucasfilm. IMHO this is and remains a poor excuse to elevate conjectural, poorly researched EU contributions to the point so that these can compete with the reliability of established characters in the SW Universe.

 

It's pretty hard to say from the way the camera jukes and dives as we follow the jedi starfighters, and probably someone has done a more thorough count somewhere, but my count is around 37 visible star destroyers (including the very distant ones that are just barely visible as smidges of white in the distance). To break it down a bit, at the moment the fighters first dive into the battle, there are 6 Venator SD's visible and around 8 Separatist ships. Later as the camera pans to a horizontal view there are at least 12 more SD's clearly visible at various distances (with possibly as much as 15 more in the very far distance, but it's hard to tell), and at least 15 more Separatist ships. Then, on the run on Grievous' ship there are another 5 SD's and 10 Separatist ships. At this point Grievous' ship appears to be located at the edge of the battle (there are no distant ships visible beyond). I probably counted some ships twice. But of course we aren't able to see the entire battle. My personal feeling is that there were probably somewhere around 60-80 Venator SD's participating somewhere in the battle, against a similar number of Separatist ships (generally it was easier to count more separatist than republic ships, but I think that may be due to them defensively concentrating together, while groups of 3-5 SD's can be seen moving in from different directions, so that I would suspect the numbers are actually fairly equal).

 

Of course I can't pull it out right now but I have the old legends Star Wars: Complete Locations which included the battle of Coruscant and not sure if it gave exact numbers but it showed a gigantic hologram of the battle and there were surely about 37 star destroyers but seeing as this is such a gigantic battle in the Clone Wars over the Republic capital I'd suspect probably 80-100 star destroyers and considering in the old canon that it took 4 Comerence Guild Destroyers to take on a Venator Star Destroyer I'd say the separatists has double or triple as many warships to match the republic and get through their capital enough to kidnap the Chancellor and try to escape
though I don't know the new canon and could be totally wrong

 

Incredible Cross Sections: ROTS gave much larger numbers ("thousands of Republic battleships") on one side, "thousands of frigates and destroyers led by a few dozen battleships" on the other.

It's not been updated for the new canon though. The canon page for the Battle of Coruscant is pretty vague:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Coruscant

Given that Complete Locations has been updated for the newcanon and includes the same hologram, you're probably right about the minimum figures.

It's possible that they're larger, but not certain given that Complete Vehicles and other sources didn't receive proper updates.

 

No one's ever tried to slay me for saying I liked something about Star Wars. It's always when I say "I don't like X" that someone takes offense.
For instance, I made clear that I I had grown tired of certain sorts of annoyingly ridiculous names that were popping up in SW media, as in there was a progression of events that built to a point where I was not accepting of these certain types of names.

For example, In 1977 there was Darth Vader. A creative name, but nonetheless his name marked him as a likely villain. Fine. Not many characters with names like that in SW yet.
Then in ROTJ there was perhaps Jabba the Hutt who could be considered one of those characters.
By the time you come to the prequels there's Darth Maul, Darth Sidious, Darth Tyranus, General Grievous etc...
I thought their names were hokey, but I hadn't come to a breaking point where I wasn't going to accept their validity as interesting characters yet.
After the prequels SWTCW came out, and eventually there was Savage Opress, and Morallo Eval.

I found the names completely uninspired, and found the characters lacking as well, but I made the mistake of saying so publicly,
forgetting that there's an element within the SW fanbase that will pounce if you say you don't like something about SW.
Apparently since these sort of names have always been part of SW, I'm not allowed to grow tired of them when I feel that SW has become over-saturated with them, so I shouldn't expect creators to come up with more creative and inspired names for characters, because, I guess, the character's names should have nothing to do with what drew me to SW in the first place. Or maybe this sort of thinking means no one should ever grow tired of anything.

 

To be fair, counting every single ship, that's not an unreasonable number. If you consider the numbers of not just the destroyers and frigates on each side, but also the number of fighter craft each ship cares, it's not unreasonable for there to be that many ships present at the Battle of Coruscant, especially considering if you look at the wide shots, it seems to be the entire planet's orbital range to be filled with ships, not just a localized battle over the capital city.