main
side
curve
  1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

Lit Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)

Discussion in 'Literature' started by AdmiralWesJanson, Sep 12, 2005.

  1. Thrawn McEwok

    Thrawn McEwok Co-Author: Essential Guide to Warfare star 6 VIP

    Registered:
    May 9, 2000
    Jello: By 'we,' I was referring to our friendly opposition here who prefers star dreadnought. :)

    :oops: Brain fart? :p [face_blush]

    My Ewok intellect fritzed a bit, I think... [face_tired]

    But anyway--yeah, it's tricky because some sources have said that Isard destroyed the entire Ruling Circle, which is odd. That's obviously not the case, as the remnants of the appear later on.

    Well, we know Carvin was in Lusankya... but I know you want 'em to be free and independent... so we can wait eagerly and see what Dan Wallace says the NEC?

    But as for the seats--I'm sure the seats weren't specially constructed at that instant. After all, Pestage used one of the Emperor's old throne rooms--who says that the Tribunal wasn't using a meeting place of the former Ruling Council? It doesn't indicate that there were more than three in the Tribunal.

    True, but as Rogue_Follower says below, the seats are all filled.

    The first frame shows a shot over the shoulders of a man in a hat; to his right, a man whose hand only is visible; on the far right of the arc is a man in purple with a gold decoration below his throat, with on his left, someone who may be in Imperial uniform. It's possible that there's a gap between Imperial uniform and the man whose hand is visible, and moreover, Isard is facing to the left of the foreground figure; that, and the gap in the ring of seats behind her, suggests all these people could be on one half of the circle.

    Thus, we have: R <- man in purple; man in uniform; [possible gap]; man with hands; man with hat; [gap] -> L

    The second shot shows Carvin, and the third shot shows that Carvin is wearing gloves (so he's not the uniformed man second from the right) and a bald man is on his left.

    Thus we have R <- [gap]; Carvin; bald man; [possible gap] -> L

    The next shot shows Isard turning well to her right to face the bald man, suggesting that both Carvin and the bald man are on the left of the man in the hat.

    We thus have R <- man in purple; man in uniform; [possible gap]; man with hands; man with hat; [possible gap]; Carvin; bald man; [possible gap] -> L

    The final shot, looking through the gap in the ring of seats, shows three seats to Isard's right, two to her left. The position of the gap, and the angle at which Isard is standing, shows that the centre of the ring is either between the three on the right and the two on her left, or centred to the man immediately to her left; but additional seats are possible on both ends of the arc. It's possible from where the speech-bubbles stand that Carvin is second from Isard's right (ie second from left) among the people seen.

    The minimum number of people present is thus: R <- purple with medallion; gloveless man in uniform; man whose hand is seen; man in hat; Carvin; bald man -> L

    There are possible gaps for extra people between the gloveless man and the man who's hand is seen; between the man in the hat and Carvin; and between the bald man and the left end of the row. If we place any stress on where the centre of the row is suggested to be by the angle of Isard and the gap in the ring (to the left of the man in the hat in the first shot, to the right of the man on Carvin's right in the final one), we would probably infer a group of at least seven, and perhaps even nine; but six is the minimum.

    The only question is, who are these people? :p

    Neither Challer nor Plumba is immediately identifiable, nor do any of them wear the distinctive robes worn by the Cabal members in both In the Empire's Service and Masquerade... but Challer and Plumba both change clothes more than once in the course of the issues in which they appear, and it's possible that Challer is a very differently-drawn version of the goatee'd and headpiece-wearing figure central among the Cabal...

    Isard opens with "I very much appreciate your attendance here", showing that she has summoned them; but Carvin later observes: "If Pestage is a traitor, then we are the state", suggesting that power devolves
     
  2. FTeik

    FTeik Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 7, 2000
    Not to mention that the InvisibleHand has most of her reactors replaced with hangars. The ship isn't even a third as strong as a Venator.

    I somehow doubt, that you will find bigger guns on the Dreadnought-Class Frigate. And if those forward-facing guns are not the
    main weapons and the most powerful cannons are elsewhere the "Dready" would be an even more ****** design.

    Of course size and armament are technical issues, but you have proven more than once, that you don't understand such things.

    Almost overlooked the entry from the Databank: "... flaws that PREVENTED it from becoming a preeminent ship of the line." (does the happy dance). [face_dancing]

    What are you going to do now? Claim, that Curtis Saxton wrote that Databank-entry? [face_shame_on_you]

    And considering this you are surprised, that some people want to throw WEGs technical stats out of the window?

    Proof for what? Given the low reactor-power-output of the InvisibleHand it would be logical, if her designers decided to give her a sort of punsh, that isn't dependant on energy for the guns like torpedos.

    You must have read a different version of TLC than me, since the novel makes little mention of Dreadies at the battle of Bilbringi and the comic shows mostly the dagger-shaped ships. Aside from that, at this point of time the ISD had become the main ship of the line outside of the deep core.

    Thank you for reducing their speed and manouverability. That close together an enemy can't miss. You could concentrate the same firepower in a single ship with less problems.

     
  3. IceHawk-181

    IceHawk-181 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 1, 2004
    This is seems to be the crux of your argument about the scaling issues of the DSII.
    Specifically the statement, ?if they contain errors, they cannot be the accurate window on the GFFA that you are assuming they are.?

    You seem to understand Logical Fallacies, try this one.

    Fallacy of Exclusion.

    You sight limited examples of FX Errors and then claim that all visuals are somehow suspect and should be ignored.

    You are attempting an Inductive argument to discredit the use of G-Level Canon Visuals.

    You statement follows as such.
    FX Errors are known to exist in multiple shots.
    It is possible FX errors exist in other shots.
    Therefore, all shots must be considered suspect and discounted.

    That is by no means a logical statement.

    Principle of Total Evidence.
    What you exclude from your argument is the fact that these FX errors are isolated incidents and that almost every shot beside the three examples you had, shows consistent scale.

    Do FX Errors exist? Of Course.
    Is it possible that the DSII Scale against Endor is another FX error? Yes.
    Is it probable that the DSII Scale against Endor is another FX error? No.

    The vast majorities of shots throughout the Trilogy are free of FX Errors and, excluding those errors, are completely consistent amongst themselves.
    We therefore make a Deductive Logical Conclusion and accept that the majority of shots are visually accurate and, especially when there are separate and consistent scaling opportunities, accept them as such.

    We can use multiple shots of the Death Star orbiting Endor to scale it and compare those results with the independent Rebel Hologram showing a detailed orbit for the DSII around Endor.

    Either the highly unlikely possibility that two scenes are both in error and strangely in parity with each other has occurred, or the scale is simply correct in both images.

    Occam?s Razor.
    We accept the second theory, as it is most statistically likely.


    TNT-equivalency is simply an easier way of translating the power of these weapons.
    Listing the pre-fixes to find the proper terms for wattage would take to long.
    It is a measurement of power, and therefore the units used to describe the weaponry.
    The ESB asteroid shows us that TLs are energy weapons, which transfer heat energy into an object.
    The LTL bolts are capable of transferring at least 8-12 Megatons of TNT into an object in 1 bolt.


    Also, the corrections for the Executor?s length and the other Canon corrections is a result, not of fan manipulation, but of a new policy of Canon definitions meant to simplify and unite Expanded Universe Material and marry it to the movies.

    Basically, Lucas has declared the EU the ?Reality? of the Star Wars post-ROTJ, but maintains his movies are the only true depiction of the Universe.
    If you contradict the G-Level Canon, no matter how proliferated the contradiction is, it is incorrect and dismissed.

    The EU says Executor is 8km. Lucas?s Movies Say ~17.6 km.
    The EU says Death Star II is 160km. Lucas?s Movies say ~900km.

    Guess which one is Canon?.

     
  4. Sinrebirth

    Sinrebirth Mod-Emperor of the EUC, Lit, RPF and SWC star 9 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Nov 15, 2004
    "Occam?s Razor"

    Bless you? Translation?

    Apologies.
     
  5. QuentinGeorge

    QuentinGeorge Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 12, 2003
    "Occam?s Razor"

    Basically, the simplest solution is the best.

    (or in other words, don't jump through absurb hoops to justify something purely because you like it better than the more obvious answer)
     
  6. IceHawk-181

    IceHawk-181 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Please be careful with Occam?s Razor.
    Its interpretation over the years is rather colloquial.
    The best definition for the razor I have found was given by Isaac Newton, though George?s explanation is basically the core of it.

    And I Quote?.

    ?We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.?

    When debating it is a logical method of differentiating between possible theories.

    In this case, I can claim that the Death Star is 900km in Diameter because it is sufficient to assume that the unlikely probability of FX errors did not occur.

    Sufficient, though not necessarily correct, most likely, not definetly true.
     
  7. Thrawn McEwok

    Thrawn McEwok Co-Author: Essential Guide to Warfare star 6 VIP

    Registered:
    May 9, 2000
    Crud. I keep losing posts here.

    Just one question: why should the movies be visually accurate...

    ... except the bits that obviously aren't, I mean?

    - The Imperial Ewok
     
  8. FTeik

    FTeik Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 7, 2000
    Why should the EU be literally accurate...

    ... except the bits, that obviously aren't?

    An eight and a twelve.eight kilometer long Executor anyone?
    15 meter high AT-ATs?
    Three different versions how Boba Fett escaped the Sarlac?
     
  9. AdmiralNick22

    AdmiralNick22 Fleet Admiral of Literature star 6 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    May 28, 2003
    FTeik, McEwok:

    Indeed, there are mistakes in both the movies and the EU. For example, the movies show a Neb-B frigate way out of scale, as well as a Corellian corvette. (During the scence where a frigate and a ISD exchange broadsides.) The EU also has numerous mistakes, like the size of a SSD, short AT-AT walkers, etc.

    Now, I have to ask my distinguished pair of colleages this- do either of you really think you can change the others mind. All one has to do is look at the past hundred or so pages of the last thread to see that we constantly refight old battles again and again.

    Why is it that in some instances we cannot just agree to disagree? You both are excellent posters, but I just feel that perhaps it is time to move on to a new topic of discussion. Perhaps one that can provide something a little more constructive than the "same old, same olds" of past months and years.

    Am I alone in this sentiment?

    --Adm. Nick
     
  10. AdmiralWesJanson

    AdmiralWesJanson Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 23, 2005
    I agree. Some of the debates have taken on the "form arguement" feeling that other debates here have.

     
  11. MercenaryAce

    MercenaryAce Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 10, 2005
    The movies said nothing about the size. Seriously, go watch them again.

    Anyway

    According to Luca's canon policy, both are. Hell, the movie trumps all thing is just common consenus amongst most fans.

    And yet people still believe that X-wings are way better than tie fighters and Y-wings are bombers despite the movies. The X-Wings much vaulted sheilds didn't help much did they, as the Rebels were getting their butts kicked pretty badly at Yavin.

    On that subject, speed and manuverablity are much more important to a fighter than armor and firepower, unless the pilots are stupid enough to fight head on. in Star Wars, Y-Wings can't stand a chance despite their sheild advantage. In real world, Zeros won many battles against larger numbers of heavily armored and armed fighters. We didn't beat them until we devolped diving tactics and planes just as maneuverible.
     
  12. Thrawn McEwok

    Thrawn McEwok Co-Author: Essential Guide to Warfare star 6 VIP

    Registered:
    May 9, 2000
    Thanks, Nick. For what it's worth, I know exactly how you feel.

    For the record, I'm always willing to "agree to disagree"; but I can't see some other contributors to this thread accepting that, any more than I can go along with their insistence that their hypotheses are right.

    Now, anyone can have problems distinguishing between the specific slant of a particular hypothesis and the wider range of possibilities that the evidence will allow, and anyone can create a hypothesis to fit a predetermined POV. I know I can be guilty of both those things.

    And anyone can get edgy or irritable, too. I know I can, and I apologize, for my part, for every time that I have done so in this thread or its precursor.

    The difficulty is, I'm not sure exactly how to negotiate my own sense of the possible with the apparent inflexibility of the "Objectivists"...

    I could certainly allow, I suppose, that it's possible that "Star Dreadnought" might be the correct Imperial designation for Ex, and I could also allow that Dreadnaught Cruisers might never have been more than small police/picket ships, and that the sources which claim or imply that they were are all wrong. But I just don't think either opinion is particularly likely, or particularly well-served by the evidence...

    One thing that I think would be very productive is if we tried to assemble all the sources for the role of each class/type, free of our own interpretation, and then considered the range of possible meanings that the sources might supply - an chance for all of us, myself included, to try to avoid porting in our own POVs/hypotheses/agendas.

    Or is that just my own POV gettng the better of me?

    ***

    But, to try something slightly different, I'm simply going to ask for clarification on a few issues.

    What sources (if any) are there for the "Imperator-class" designation apart from the Mandell blueprints and ICS:RotJ?

    Is there any official source discussing whether G-canon's "true story" status extends to visual accuracy of the sort necessary to allow it to be used confidently for scaling calcs.?

    Is there any direct evidence that the [link=http://theforce.net/swtc/dagger.html#commship]Endor communications ship[/link] was ever intended by ILM as a distinct class, or any evidence for her scale or distinctiveness beyond the [link=http://theforce.net/swtc/novels/rotj.html]novel[/link]'s description of her as "one of the larger Destroyers"?

    I've been told that [link=http://theforce.net/swtc/dagger.html#wermis]this[/link] "battlecruiser" and/or [link=http://theforce.net/swtc/dagger.html#tagge]this[/link] one is also called a "Star Destroyer" where shown in the Marvel comics: is this true?

    Is there any canon precedent for SWTC's repeated, lowercase "star destroyer" and "destroyer", or is this choice discussed/explained anywhere on the site, or on any other fansite?

    At least some of these questions might seem like implied criticisms of SWTC; but it's really more that I'm looking for clarification. If they do turn out to be mainly more-or-less legitimate, then that's fine, and I can leave this thread forever, with my tail between my legs, and the knowledge that if I'd asked direct questions quicker, we could have avoided a lot of grief... :)

    How's that for a challenge!? :D

    - The Imperial Ewok
     
  13. IceHawk-181

    IceHawk-181 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 1, 2004
    I take it you did not read any of my post beyond that snippet Ace, because I demonstrated clearly that you can scale these vessels.

    How many times do I have to go through this?
    We use the visuals within the movies because, strangely enough, movies are almost entirely visual to begin with.

    Lucas Canon Policy states that all EU material is considered C-Level Canon, unless it contradicts the higher Canon.
    ESB visuals establish a length for the Executor, which is consistent throughout the Trilogy.
    Basic scaling provides approximately 17.6 km for the length of the vessel.
    That is in the movies, can be found by using only primary source data, and is therefore G-Level Canon.
    The C-Level Canon, which contradicts this, is considered immediately wrong and is slated for eventual fixing.

    Yes, clarification would be nice.
    I can help somewhat with that, but am myself looking for a few things.

    G-Level Canon is defined as the Original Trilogy.
    The definition is inclusive including both dialogue and visual sources.
    There has never been a stipulation in Lucas Canon Policy deriving a difference between visuals and dialogue; therefore we have no need to inject such a possibility into the debate.

    Lucas says the movies themselves are canon, the scale is in the movies, and therefore the scaling is canon. (We already dealt with FX errors.)

    SWTC?s case-sensitive class designations might be derived from the novelization of the movies, which by the way are also considered G-Level I believe, and might be in the actual books. I am however, not sure. Saxton has taken some liberties with his technical data.

    As far as the communications vessel is concerned, it would appear that it was indeed intended as an individual class, or at the very least a highly modified KDY class.
    The Communications vessel is the cause of the jamming field in the book, and as it is present in the ROTJ scenes.
    Assuming that Lucas hasn?t stated something to the contrary, it would seem the Communications ship was an intended vessel.

    Also, it looks larger than the standard ISD when compared to the Executor in multiple scenes. Some of this may be due to angle and depth issue, but Saxton seemed convinced and the novel seems to imply the same.

    Captain Wermis?s vessel and General Tagge?s Flagship both seem to be KDY designs but also seem to be unique to their commanders.
    The pictures Saxton used are scans from the comics in which they appear, though I never found the comics myself.


     
  14. MasterControlProgram

    MasterControlProgram Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Dec 24, 2003
    McEwok, you have more questions, and no answers. Color me surprised.

    I'll leave you with one answer; star destroyer is in lowercase in the STAR WARS novelization.
     
  15. jSarek

    jSarek VIP star 4 VIP

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2005
    . . . and "'droid" is spelled with an apostrophe, and "the force" is lowercased. I wouldn't put too much faith in the spelling/case conventions of the early novelizations (or Splinter, for that matter).

    The Annotated Screenplays capitalizes Star Destroyer.
     
  16. GrandAdmiralJello

    GrandAdmiralJello Comms Admin ❉ Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque star 10 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Twenty battleship commanders--> ESB. :)
     
  17. Senator_Cilghal

    Senator_Cilghal Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jul 19, 2003
    stardestroyer as one word in movie credits;)
     
  18. FTeik

    FTeik Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 7, 2000
    If you take a close look you will notice, that those debates are usually started by McEwok making a claim that "oh, but the Executor could be eight kilometers long, if we use an impressionistic view at the established material" or other such nonsense.

    I don't repeat in the hope to change his mind (in fact i suspect he is just doing what he does to drive me crazy [face_laugh] ), i do repeat in an effort to keep his bu....it contained and to prevent him from confusing poor newbies and less knowledgable members of the board. They are free to make up their own mind, but they should know as many facts as possible for their decission.;)
     
  19. Sinrebirth

    Sinrebirth Mod-Emperor of the EUC, Lit, RPF and SWC star 9 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Well, one could also easily point out that the information we recieve on the Executors is constantly being updated, so such arguements are needed again to refresh the sides. I for one was an 8km, 17.6km devout of separate classes, but have since been convinced there is one length - 19km.

    So the arguements have merit. However, the root of all these evils is whether to agree that the Star Destroyer is an uber-ship or a class.

    *shrugs*

    And Jello, I'd taken it to simply mean there are twenty Tectors at Hoth. Nice idea, actually.
     
  20. FTeik

    FTeik Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 7, 2000
    Constantly updated?

    It took twenty years for something resembling the lenght shown in the movie to become printed.[face_laugh]
     
  21. Rogue_Follower

    Rogue_Follower Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Just to get us away from the Battle of Saxton for a moment...

    WotC has given us some more information on their future Starships game.

    -it will be based on the d20 system

    -it will be separate from the current minis game, but similar

    -the ships will not be to exact scale, but rather "relative scale"
    [blockquote]<beyond667> If there are fighters and capital ships in the starship game, can we expect some not-so-realistic scale of the models in relation to each other, like between tanks and infantry in AAM?
    <WotC_BillS> Our plan is to do a game that is more relative in scale than realistic ... otherwise we can't get the ships we want into the game.[/blockquote]


    So it looks like we may see capital ships. :D And I reallyreallyreally hope they come out with some sourcebooks to add. [face_praying]


    Here's the entire [link=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=506474]chat transcript[/link].

    :)
     
  22. AdmiralNick22

    AdmiralNick22 Fleet Admiral of Literature star 6 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    May 28, 2003
    I imagine that the first series of ships that will be issued will be those from the movies. The ususal mix of X-Wings, Y-Wings, TIE's, Star Destroyers, Mon Cal cruisers, corvettes, frigates, etc. Then I imagine that future sets will incorporate EU warships and fighters as well. I am curious if the minatures will be similar to the Micromachines series of Star Wars ships and vehicles.

    Which would be cool, given the fact that I have like a hundred or more of those suckers.

    --Adm. Nick
     
  23. Rogue_Follower

    Rogue_Follower Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Yeah, I'm thinking they will be like Micromachines (I really miss those things :( ). If they follow the scheme of the current minis game, they'll come in three to five sizes. Small (probably starfighters), medium (freighters and shuttles), large (smaller capital ships, like CR90s) and huge (ISDs, Mon Cals, etc.) Colossal (SSD) is also possible since the minis game has the AT-AT. However, they could change it arround to better suit this new format.

    I'm looking foreward to it. :D
     
  24. Thrawn McEwok

    Thrawn McEwok Co-Author: Essential Guide to Warfare star 6 VIP

    Registered:
    May 9, 2000
    IH: it's not "visuals" vs. "dialogue", it's narrative (the story being told) vs. image (the way it's told)...

    In simple terms, the idea that because the movies are the "true story", then they should be visually superior, does seem to make sense.

    The trouble is that when you actually examine the movies, you find that they're full of visual inconsistencies. To insist that they're straightforwardly superior is simply unworkable.

    So what then? Well, so far as I can see, there's nothing explicit in canon policy to help us decide: canon policy is concerned with the "true story", narrative, not image. It gives us a framework in which the story of the movies is "true", ie asks us to pretend they're actually records of events rather than a set of movies... that doesn't in itself mean they're accurate, and analysis of the movies proves categorically that they're not.

    There is no need to assume that the movies are accurate visual sources; there are some instances where they are clearly not accurate visual sources. So we should assume that they are accurate where we can't prove otherwise, and then press ahead regardless with a process of scaling and retconns... why, exactly?

    At this point, I frankly confess, I can't follow your side's logic. [face_blush]

    Yes, it's possible to make a case that the Ex is ~10mi., DS2 is ~900km, etc.; but the movies don't display strict and consistent schematic accuracy, and I'd be accordingly inclined to treat them with extreme caution as a source for things like this, especially since they conflict with the EU material...

    You have two choices:
    [ol][li]Admit that the movies and are full of inaccuracies, decide (why?! how?!) that the material you have left once all these elements are removed is accurate, and then dismiss large chunks of the EU because they say different things...[/li]
    [li]Admit that the moves are full of inaccuracies, infer from this that the movies eschew precise visual accuracy, treat consistent EU figures as precise, and preserve the overall consistency of the officail material...[/li][/ol]

    Whichever you prefer is up to you.

    Personally, I think that (1.) is illogical, and based on arbitrary assumptions about the nature of the movies as "documents", and creates unneccessary inconsistencies within official material... but maybe that's just me. All I'm saying, really, is that in my personal judgement, (2.) is in every sense the more sensible approach. It preserves consistency, minimizes retconns, and allows us to treat the movies as "documents" with an internal integrity, rather than arbitrarily bowdlerized "documentary footage" full of inexplicable bloopers.

    You may disagree; but your personal judgement is, just like mine, your personal judgement.

    Does that make sense? :)

    As far as the communications vessel is concerned, it would appear that it was indeed intended as an individual class, or at the very least a highly modified KDY class.
    The Communications vessel is the cause of the jamming field in the book, and as it is present in the ROTJ scenes.
    Assuming that Lucas hasn?t stated something to the contrary, it would seem the Communications ship was an intended vessel.

    Also, it looks larger than the standard ISD when compared to the Executor in multiple scenes. Some of this may be due to angle and depth issue, but Saxton seemed convinced and the novel seems to imply the same.


    Um, compared with the Ex where? There is a longer "blob" visible [link=http://theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/zs/rotj/webview1x.jpg]here[/link], but, as you say, this, could simply be nearer the camera; or it could be two ships overlapping. It could even be a Nebbie-B oriented left-to-right... :p

    The suggestion that this is the comms. ship is based on the idea that the comms. ship is "large and physically distinctive" ([link=http://theforce.net/swtc/dagger.html#commship]SWTC[/link]); the only evidence I'm aware of that might support this idea consists of the description of her in the novellizatio
     
  25. Borleias

    Borleias Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Dec 26, 2003
    And this is an arbitrary method of discrimination - really an excuse to class every datapoint you don't like as "image" and everything you like as "narrative".

    Actually, it does, because neither is the EU. All we know is that the movie is of higher reliability than the EU, though it is obvious it is not perfect, so you can stop trying to gain that ground.

    And the distinction is meaningless and arbitrary. For instance, I can argue that when they show the 11 mile length, part of the so called true story itself is that the Executor is 11 miles long. I can also argue that the EU's continued 5-mile portrayal is also a "true story" with meaning - a story of the incompetence of Rebel intelligence.

    There is a mandate to assume they are more reliable sources, which you have no firm information to refute other than that none of the sources are themselves perfect.

    A film is fundamentally a bunch of visuals. If the visuals are not presumed to be generally accurate, you basically have no film.

    Bingo. That's exactly what you do. You take higher reliability sources over lower reliability sources, even though life is not perfect. When two sources of equal reliability contradict, then it is a judgment call.

    Let's start with the fact there were several sets of EU figures on this issue (including a set that matches up with the film), so the "consistent" idea goes flat unless you close your eyes (of course, Arbitrary Data Rejection is your strong suit). Furthermore, there is ultimately no such thing as "impressionism" other than a feeble self-justification for data-rejection. Either the film is RIGHT. Or it is WRONG. Understand that. Do you have any info the film is wrong on that point? (The EU does not count because it is established they are of lower reliability and in any case they've just realigned the two and seem particularly intent on keeping it that way). I bet you don't.

    And because you already decided it is a reproduction, a small error can no longer be used as a counterpoint.

    The so called "arbitary assumption" is actually generated from the canon prioritization order given. For example, if we were discus