CT The lost pilots and scenes from the Endor space battle in Return of the Jedi

Without checking my notes... The early concept art for the Falcon comment refers to drawings by McQuarrie or Johnston immediately after the decision to switch from the pirate ship that was already built. The new concept art would have the hamburger fly in the vertical and land in the horizontal, with the cockpit rotating to maintain a level horizontal view. This vertical alignment was likened to a sunfish. The pirate ship studio scale model already inherited a cockpit style and turrets from the B-29 bomber. The cockpit (and radar dish) made the transition to the studio scale hamburger Falcon. Look for evidence in the 1976 hamburger model of a rotating cockpit, and you'll notice that the MF cockpit seals off from the rest of the ship, and has a train track / gear system around its neck, very similar to the B-Wing's train track / gear system. Because the B-Wing inherits an unused conception of the hamburger falcon, which inherits the B-29 cockpit style, the B-Wing inherits a quality of the B-29. The B-Wing's streamlined, upper half, longitudinal canopy resembles a portion of the B-29's canopy that the MF / original pirate ship front-facing canopy does not. The B-29 was a bomber. The B-Wing has one minuscule claim to being a "bomber" through this inside influence (prior to WEG). This is circumstantial, and I have not yet found contact info for William George, who is still an active ILM employee. So it is harmless to disregard this as complete coincidence and hearsay.

 

The top left image is an excerpt from Ralph McQuarrie's space battle painting I took from my ROJ Portfolio and scanned. The annotation "T.I.E. Fast Attack Craft" is my doing. The other matte painting from that scene (showing an angled front view of this particular TIE twin-pod variation) reveals that the bombing contraption (at the bottom port side module) is missing. Thus I concluded that it's neither a bomber or a shuttle (no outwards fins). And neither a scout or a boarding craft would have made a lot of sense aboard the second Death Star (IMHO), but MQuarrie's suggestion in his painting seemed rather clear to me (i.e. a TIE twin-pod that fires missiles or torpedos and therefore requires a new designation).

The way I see it the port side module front probably looks mostly the same in many variations beause it's a mass-produced craft that can easily be equipped or retro-fitted for various, specific purposes (i.e. the bomber probably features the missile or torpedo launch tube in the center of the port side module, but never uses it - unless the bombing contraption is removed and the port side module is loaded with missiles or torpedos).

I've heard that story, too, but frankly I don't buy it. The wings of an X-wing.fighter are much thinner than those of a B-Wing, yet I never heard these were a problem for blue screen photography. And I still have to see concept art for the Millennium Falcon that suggested a rotating cockpit.

The Millennium Falcon cockpit originated from Alex Tavoularis' early storyboards for Princess Leia's starship (no rotation necessary here) which also happened to be the candidate for the Millennium Falcon (i.e. the Corellian pirate starship). Ultimately the cokpit of that ship was put onto the "round" new design for the Falcon, but I'm not aware that a rotating cockpit was ever an idea in these early design stages.

 

I am not aware that I need to backtrack any statement I made (from recollection) on the MF rotating cockpit, other than that the grill I mentioned DOES NOT go the entire way around the neck.

This image shows how the cockpit system does have a perforation in the surface, that aligns with the hemisphere of grill, that does go the entire way (apparently) around the neck. The challenge to the observer is to convince ones self that there is no possible physical way that the cockpit system ahead of that crease or seam could have, at any time during its construction or early shooting, been able to rotate along some degree of freedom. Let it be a mere 90 degrees. Certainly, there are kitbash greebles that have been added that aid a knee jerk reaction that No! That's Impossible! Now, if one has solidly convinced themselves that it is impossible that the ILM 5-foot studio model had a cockpit that could rotate, check the statements that come from primary sources.

From: http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=266866


Primary sources:
I. Cinefex 65 March 1996 quoted on Millennium Falcon fan website
http://www.synicon.info/SW/mf/sunfish.htm
“Kevin H. Martin is quoting ILM staffer and model maker Lorne Peterson: "Among the largest [of the blue screen models] was the Millennium Falcon - whose redesign by Joe Johnston was purportedly inspired by Lucas' idea of a hamburger in space. 'The original concept called for the Falcon to sail like a giant sunfish,' explained Lorne Peterson. 'It would lift off on its horizontal axis, then rotate into a vertical configuration and fly upended on edge with the front mandibles pointed forward. We never actually shot it that way, though, because George decided he liked the look of it flying horizontally. But because of that original notion, the cockpit was capable of rotating so that the crew would be in the correct alignment for looking ahead in flight.””

Parse this passage carefully. Why is "original" used twice? What "the" "model" is being referred to? By rules of grammar, what "the cockpit" is a result of the cause, "that original notion"? Is it 'the model' "the cockpit", or, 'that original notion' "the cockpit"? The grammar is unmistakable to me. Issue can be taken with Lorne Peterson doing an interview 20 years after those hasty days of building the model - he may have mis-remembered something. Going solely by the grammar-based implication of that quotation, the next primary source makes the connection that ought to be emphatic.

II. www.starwars.com archived Data Bank entry on B-Wing Starfighter
http://web.archive.org/web/20110819...databank/starship/bwingstarfighter/index.html
“The rotating cockpit assembly was inspired by designs originally planned for the Millennium Falcon.”


This image has the earliest hamburger MF concept art I have seen. I believe the upper left sepia tone images are also McQuarrie. Notice that the cockpit is level or centered with the seam of the upper and lower clam shells. (Similar design concept used in a 1970 Ferrari.)


http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-cinema/cc-cinema-yt-1300-millennium-falcon-a-long-time-ago/

Joe Johnston quote on the matter.

From: http://www.joejohnstonsketchbook.com/millennium-falcon/

Now as for the Millennium Falcon being inspired by the B-29. It appears to be a broadly repeated hearsay conjecture based upon apparent similarity. Alternative ww2 period cockpits do exist that someone else could claim inspired the MF cockpit. As it stands right now, I cannot (tonight) place George Lucas at the scene of the B-29 cockpit, through period film that would have been available during the time up until about 1976. It's even harder to place Joe Johnston, who led the design of the MF, at the scene of the B-29 cockpit. A period film would do it. The B-29 was the thing that did the thing that the Death Star did. It would be apropos and poetic that the American ushering in of technological terror be quietly echoed in certain lines of the hero ship. Without a film placing Lucas (or Johnston) at the B-29, it is harmless to disregard similarities between the B-Wing and B-29 as complete coincidence and hearsay.

 

Hernalt

Outstanding, commendable research, thanks for sharing it! (I will cover some of it in my upcoming new part for the Tantive IV where I will showcase the design evolution and examine the hints regarding its accurate in-universe size).

Here is another item which IMHO provides an answer:



That hemisphere of grill is also noticable on what's probably another Corellian product, i.e. the lifepod of the Tantive IV. Here, however, it's definitely the separation line between the Service Module on the left (heat shield and major fuel storage and containing the smaller and actual Lander Module) and the (deep-space) Travel Module on the right.

I.e. the similar structure just behind the Falcon cockpit rather suggests that in an emergency scenario, the cockpit itself can detach as a lifepod of its own, IMHO.

Nevertheless, I find the Lorne Peterson anecdote very interesting, sounds like a bold idea they had but Lucas probably felt it was too bold at this stage of the SW franchise.

 

That life pod absolutely looks intentionally two-stage. And so its grill is not to be dismissed as a cheap space-filling greeble, but an representation of a specific function (hold two stages together sufficiently). On a B-Wing the grill is not a representation but an indication of a functional rotation gear system. There is no obvious functional reason for the MF to have a grill behind its cockpit. The reductive reason is that grills may be a subtle leitmotif among rebel ships that have round features. Neither the larger rebel ships with round features nor the small Imperial fighters with round cockpits have a grill leitmotif I am aware of. So on the MF it is suggestive of indicating function, and not being merely ornamental.

In the BR thread you cited Joe Johnston referencing the pirate ship's debt to Captain Nemo's Natuilus. This here from Lorne Peterson on the MF is a third reference to fish. Taking Leia out of the equation, there could have been a notion that Han Solo's smuggling ship would carry a peril of being caught and released at various points, and this quality transferred over to the hamburger. Instead of a flatfish that flew like a sunfish, Lucas said, no, just keep it horizontal. That could have been a very science-fiction leaning departure and reduced the effectiveness of ww2 analogues.

http://www.galactichunter.com/image_bank/misc/110716bwing8.jpg

 

Hernalt wrote

That life pod absolutely looks intentionally two-stage.

I dare to say that we are probably the only two Star Wars fans in this world, who feel that way. In the Star Wars Battlefront video game it still landed as a whole.

But seriously:



Pabawan

PLEASE have that fixed in the Lucasfilm databank and/or archives.

Back to the OT I realized making the visualizations for the Tantive IV size discussion that I forgot to feature another lost scene from the ROJ space battle, I erroneously believed I had already provided for this thread:

 

With what I'm putting together for the BR thread I'm seeing additional Apollo DNA in SW77.

I do not recall seeing those SBoE BR storyboards, so thank you. It occurs to me several formations in SBoE which some poster assigned as "task forces", are a visual sampler like in the game Battleship (1 CV, BB, CC, DD, SS), that does not obey any realistic partition function.

 

Hernalt and Lt. Hija - I hope you'll forgive me for upping this thread, which I've been reading with much delight and interest.

A propos of the curious absence of B-wings in the 1981 script and the novellization, I thought of a possible way to explain it, which I wanted to run past you - they were originally the ones called A-wings.

That's what the blueprint for the cockpit calls this fighter, and that's what the novellization says is the third type in the Rebel fighter mix, and that's what we see performing the "A-wing" role of attacking the sensor/shield domes in one of the storyboards you shared earlier - a role, if I'm following the discussion right, that was originally scripted for torpedoes, for which they're much more suitable platforms than the little interceptor.

They have a literally A-shaped wing, too. It would be more obvious if they were designed to fly with the wing swung upwards above the hull - just like the Falcon was originally meant to, which might mean they were conceived as a more modern design from the same (Corellian?) background.

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/starwars/b_top.jpg

When the problem of filming the very slender VFX model effectively was starting to become apparent, I'd infer that they switched the "A-wing" designation and most of its intended role to the smaller interceptor type, and gradually dropped the original type from most of the Endor sequence, as well as dropping the wing below the cockpit to make them look less A-shaped.

I'd also wonder whether the fighters we now call A-wings were the "interceptors" which Ackbar called for the launching of in a cut (but filmed) dialogue line, after arriving at Endor - i.e. they weren't supposed to have a hyperdrive, and their role was dogfighting. That would also explain why they lack obvious torpedo launchers, and why the finished movie has them attack with guns and ramming...

You two are much better-placed than me to work out if this fits with the chronology of the script development, cockpit filming, storyboards, pilot costumes, and the revision of the Endor battle sequence... or to just decide I'm wrong.



In general, thanks for being here - I might not always agree with absoultely everything, but it's always a good read, and it makes me think.

- The Imperial Ewok

 

A question I've been asking myself recently has to do with Han's foreboding about never seeing the Falcon again in ROTJ. Many people take this as evidence that Lando was originally supposed to die in the Death Star II battle, but I'm not sure that's a valid inference: all Han's line suggests is that he might never see the Millennium Falcon again.

The difference? Very possibly to do with what Lt. Hija points out above: detailing on the Falcon cockpit that suggests it can detach from the rest of the ship in an emergency. (An idea that itself was probably inspired by the real-life process of sawing off the original pirate-ship cockpit and gluing it on the new Falcon model.)

Picture this scenario: after triggering the destruction of the second Death Star, Lando realizes that he doesn't have enough thrust to escape the fireball in time. So what does he do? Well, Lando was the previous owner of the Falcon, and perhaps he knows things about it that even Han Solo doesn't know. So he engages the super-secret cockpit jettison system, which separates the glazed cockpit area from the rest of the ship. The resulting ejection gives the already accelerating cockpit module enough additional thrust to escape the fireball and save Lando's hide... but the Millennium Falcon as we know it is destroyed.

I have absolutely no idea whether this was actually planned and/or scripted at one point: all I know is that it'd be a reasonable solution to the problem of destroying the Falcon (and fulfilling Han's foreboding) without killing Lando.

 

Thrawn McEwok

Hernalt is currently busy with other things, but I found your explanation proposal (i.e. the B-Wings were the original A-Wings) regarding the cockpit blueprint oddity discussed here - http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...urn-of-the-jedi.50041047/page-2#post-53641846 -
most intriguing.

I guess we'll have to track down (were possible) the date of the storyboards to see where B-Wings were replaced by A-Wings.

However, the original Ackbar line was "Launch all interceptions" (whatever that means in Mon Cal or Alliance lingo).

Nibelung

That thought had never crossed my mind, but perhaps you are on to something here.

 

Why I'm now more convinced than ever before, that the "Empire's main communications ship", a "larger Star Destroyer", from the deleted ROJ Endor space battle was another Super Star Destroyer

Following a discussion in the "Star Destroyer bridges" BTS thread - http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...riginal-trilogy.50044307/page-8#post-54588254 - JCF member Mange first suggested the existence of not only two but three large VFX Star Destroyer conning tower models, i.e. one without the support tower platforms but a larger balcony bridge module, one without the support tower platforms but a smaller balcony bridge module (illustrated below), and one with the support tower platforms and the small balcony bridge module (featured in the Tydirium shuttle approach scene), but essentially it was just one ROJ VFX model with various modifications.



Above is a BTS shot (first published in The Art of ROTJ) that features the variation with the "plain" support tower but the smaller balcony bridge module, usually associated with the Emperor's Super Star Destroyer ("Executor") and the scene where the vessel ultimately crashes into the Death Star.

As you can see, they had one of the deflector shield power generator domes actually explode, but this shot never made it into the film, because they used a close-up larger model to film the explosion that ended up in the film.

That's nothing really to write home about but then I started to think. Was there ever any screenplay or storyboard reference that actually did suggest, that one of "Executor's" domes was taken out first to sink the ship?

The answer is NO. An earlier storyboard suggested that one (or both) of the separate deflector shield power generator domes - located on the superstructure but behind the conning tower - had been taken out and the storyboard of an attacking X-Wing - http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...urn-of-the-jedi.50041047/page-3#post-53649538 - and (more importantly) Ken Ralston's videomatics NEVER suggested that any domes of "Executor" had been taken out prior to the attack:





Can we really exclude the possibility that the footage of the main communications ship conning tower being hit wasn't simply cannibalized and reused for the sinking of the "Executor"? In ESB we do have a paragon where this happened: It wasn't originally Luke's grenade that made the head of the Snow Walker explode, but Hobbie's snowspeeder crashing into General Veers' cockpit. However,the death of Hobbie and Veers was deleted, so the VFX of the head exploding could be used with more dramatic impact as the result of Luke's grenade.

Here is the original deleted scene featuring the enigmatic "main communications ship" as far as we've been able to reconstruct it: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...urn-of-the-jedi.50041047/page-2#post-53639124

• the ROJ screenplay refers to a "larger Imperial ship", the novelization (Chapter Nine) refers to a "larger Star Destroyer" > "larger Star Destroyer" used to be an ESB synonym for Vader's Super Star Destroyer Executor
• the beginning of the deleted scene refers to a broadside exchange between vessels > in the film we see that fire exchange between a Rebel "Nebulon" Cruiser and the lateral port side section model affiliated with the Super Star Destroyer model seen near the end of ESB
• the duration of the deleted dialogue from the attack run on the main communications ship appears to suggest an Imperial vessel much longer than your standard Star Destroyer
• following Ackbar's (earlier) recommendation Lando ordered attacking the "main power tree" which IMHO is Alliance pilot's lingo for a (deflector shield) power generator which ultimately gets destroyed (see BTS image on top).

As we hopefully all agree, the space battle movement is rather two-dimensional, but I also think that the usual nature of a "trap" is still that you are at least surrounded by two sides. Since the "main communications ship" was responsible for the Alliance being unable to get any reading on the Death Star's protective shield, I wouldn't exclude the possibility that we also got the first view of the main communications ship after the Alliance fleet had turned around (with the Emperor's Super Star Destroyer or "Executor" closing in from the other side and seen in the Imperial fleet shot where Lando is wondering).

Of course, two Super Star Destroyers would have been rather confusing for general audiences, so I think from that perspective Lucas made the right decision to eliminate all references to a confusing second Super Star Destroyer, but from a fan's point of view that of course remains a story we'd (still) like to learn more about.

At least for myself, I think I can put these "Tector-class" musings to rest, please feel free to disregard my former comments on the Tector-class issue in this thread.

Hernalt

 

P.S.

I meant I'm putting "Tector-class" musings to rest, regarding a different (new) kind of Star Destroyer.

Since the name has been somewhat hanging in the air for segments we saw (like the underside of the ESB Star Destroyer model photographed upside down with ventral bulb removed), I'm confident it should be the official name for the enigmatic "main communications ship".



https://vgy.me/D0HJdf.jpg

I did my first count of Star Destroyers on a video projection screen back in May 1987 and arrived at 36, looked like a nice opportunity to do that again 30 years later with state-of-the-art high-def screencaps, but comparing the elements (with TIE interceptors covering up Star Destroyers and not) I only arrived at 34 this time.

 

Later yesterday I realized I had completely ignored to collate the above observations with the ROJ script at our disposal. Of course, all we do have is what looks like the genuine 2nd draft of ROJ from December 19, 1982 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B06TkKwbjluubm5DX0NBQkZ0NWs/view - which is word by word the same as the one available at IMSDB and the transcript within The Art of Return of the Jedi, published November 1983:

97 INT REBEL STAR CRUISER – BRIDGE

CONTROLLER
Admiral, we have enemy ships in sector 47.
On the screen can be seen the moon, Death Star, and the massive
Imperial fleet. Ackbar moves to the comlink.

…
There is much excitement on the bridge as the attack begins.
The Millennium Falcon and several squads of Rebel fighters head into an
armada of TIE fighters. The sky explodes as a fierce dogfight ensues in
and around the giant Rebel cruisers.
…

102 EXT SPACE - IMPERIAL FLEET
The giant Imperial Star Destroyer waits silently some distance from the
battle. The Emperor's huge Super Star Destroyer rests in the middle of
the fleet.

103 INT SUPER STAR DESTROYER - BRIDGE
Admiral Piett and two fleet commanders watch the battle at the huge
window of the Super Star Destroyer bridge.


When I compared the two screenplay passages (highlights in bold) I couldn't help but wonder. The first shot / screenplay description of the Imperial fleet qualifies as the "establishing shot" which IMHO should have contained everything we see there (e.g. Emperor's Super Star Destroyer), so that later on the screenplay can just refer to "Imperial fleet" (to avoid repetitions of what's there because everything should have already been stated and described the very first time).

However, that's not the case here! It's only for the second shot of the Imperial fleet that the Super Star Destroyer we see here is established to be "the Emperor's Super Star Destroyer" (with which he arrived at the Death Star according to a storyboard not implemented in the final film) while the Super Star Destroyer in the first shot is not identified!

And it still gets better. Now, we have seen in the course of this thread that James Kahn had acess to additional screenplay pages for extra senes shot (which however didn't make it to the final cut of ROJ) which he used in the original ROJ novelization. This is what he wrote in the novelization about the first sight of the Imperial fleet in Chapter Seven:

The large central view-screen was coming alive. It was no longer just the Death Star and the green moon behind it, floating isolated in space. Now the massive Imperial fleet could be seen flying in perfect, regimental formation, out from behind Endor in two behemoth flanking waves – heading to surround the Rebel fleet from both sides, like the pincers of a deadly scorpion

Admittedly, it's not entirely clear whether he used extra screenplay descriptions that were ultimately deleted or embellished parts of the materials at his disposal (e.g. the origins of the various Alliance spacecraft), but he made it abundantly clear that the Imperial fleet attacked from two sides, something that's in perfect compliance with what the VFX composers apparently also suggested deliberately, when they illuminated the Imperial fleet parts from two different sides.

So this is what we have:

1. Two noticably different shots of the Imperial fleet, one with a Super Star Destroyer accompanied by 34 standard Star Destroyers, the other one by 19
2. Both are illuminated from different sides
3. Only the second shot establishes that the Super Star Destroyer seen there is the Emperor's command ship
4. ROJ novelization author suggests that the Imperial fleet approached in two waves from opposite sides (George Lucas Canon)

The obvious conclusion is that the Super Star Destroyer we saw in the first shot was not the Emperor's Star Destroyer, thus probability is high that it was actually the enigmatic "main communications ship" that in all these years was "hiding in plain sight".

P.S. And we can now be certain that at least 53 standard Star Destroyers and 2 Super Star Destroyers participated in the Battle of Endor.

 

Great thread!

 

testing

 

Ford wanted the Solo character to die midstream during ROTJ. The script that Lucas gave Khan did not have Lando dying. This script from December 19, 1982 introduces that option. I understand that those lines for Lando were filmed and a version of the film with Lando dying was played for test audiences, who did not like it.

Can anyone tie the two events together - that Ford wanted Solo to die, and Lucas decided after the novelization was underway to try out Lando dying? Lando was certainly a hero, and certainly could sell toys, but, Lucas would be able in theory to achieve his caution against 'dead Han toys' while still being able to address, if not achieve, the principled intention by Ford of adding weight to at least one of the heros.

 

An interesting thread that I will be watching with great....interest.

 

Hernalt wrote

This script from December 19, 1982 introduces that option.

Good thing you decided to check it out, yes, it's there in broad daylight on Page 101 (Scene 135): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B06TkKwbjluubm5DX0NBQkZ0NWs/view

Looks like the date given for the "official" script at IMDB ("December 1, 1981") is erroneous.

I believe Lucas ultimately wanted to have a true happy ending satisfying everybody in the audience. With a sullen Solo (and Chewie) sitting apart from the rest of the group, mourning over the death of Lando (and the Falcon) it might have been the kind of bittersweet ending Gary Kurtz would have proposed but not the kind of ending Lucas had in mind.

 

In the context of another discussion the authenticity of the script from December 19, 1982 has been doubted: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/plot-holes-in-the-ct.50010529/page-22#post-54622283

For the reasons I mentioned there, I do not think that is the case.

 

I'm composing on this topic and rl interruptions are ceaseless.

 

Iron_lord
Art of ROTJ was released in 1983 and re-issued in 1994. One assumes there was no change in script.
On page 133 the script says "The Falcon and several fighters attack one of the larger Imperial ships."
Do you know of a newcanon modern exegesis on what that 'larger' Imperial ship is? Which was asserted in 1983. I cannot think it is the Tector, because the newcanon claim of a Tector is based on a ship hull, in the film, that is same size as an ISD. And/or/also, does newcanon have a variation of a 'main communications ship' that it asserts was present at space battle of Endor?

Lt. Hija
Something weird. If you can shed any light on it from your Star Destroyer bridge knowledge...
The word "intensify" occurs exactly once in the Gerald Home script, Scene 113 A, and exactly once in the identical appropriate place in the Khan novelization, chapter 8 verse 17.
The word "intensify" occurs exactly twice in the sanitized script, (forward batteries / forward firepower) in scene 128.
This scene from the film is an elaboration upon the scene from the novelization at chapter 9 verse 105, 106, which only has Green Leader firing torpedos and going up with the explosion, but, no commentary from the Imperial bridge and no send-off for Captain-turned-Admiral Piett.

I have a complete first unit call sheet # 21 for Feb 8, 1982 Stage 1 INT. BRIDGE VADER'S STAR DESTROYER
It lists on page 1 scene numbers 59, 61, 62pt, 64, 106
It lists on page 2 the Advanced Shooting Schedule for the next week, and Only Monday, Feb 8 is listed for INT. BRIDGE VADER'S STAR DESTROYER, and again Only scenes 59, 61, 62pt, 64, and 106.
2/9 and 2/10 go to Interior Jabba Barge, several scenes. 2/11 and 2/12 go to Mon Mothma briefing in studio 54. 2/15 goes to Ackbar bridge scenes.
So this scene 128 is not referenced or listed in call sheets I can locate.

Peecher Making of (1983) lists Tuesday 9 February INT. BRIDGE VADER'S STAR DESTROYER 59, 61, 62pt., 64, 106.
No 128, or scene in the region of 128.

Rinzler Making of (2013) lists Feb 8 and a range of Feb 9 to 11. So he's talking about Feb 8 and 9. He lists only scenes 59, 61, 106, 111.
No 128, or scene in the region of 128.

Note that a hypothetical scene 111 in the script would represent Admiral Piett and Co doing/saying something AFTER the point where Piett says Wait here Emperor has something special, but BEFORE the point where Green Leader hits the bridge.

From what I can tell, scene 128 was NOT in the script that was given to Khan. Scene 113 A with Gerald Home lines was, so the date of transfer to Kahn may have been after that. And/or there may have been piecemeal transfer, and the script for scene 128 just never made it over. Or, it can mean that scene 128 was NOT shot during the scheduled slot Feb 8 and 9. Maybe is was a scene that was knowingly scheduled for later because of the pyrotechnics involved. but then why did it not get captured by the record-keepers, especially with that much pyrotechnics? I theorize that that scene 128 might have been shot as a pick-up scene, AFTER Lucas had put some more thought into how to tie up certain loose ends. It is a well-worn complaint of ROTJ that one fighter takes out Manhattan...

What can you share about scene 128, or the set on Elstree Stage 1, that bears on the question of why Kahn's novelization does not have scene 128?

 

It does - the battlecruiser Pride of Tarlandia - which the EU first named in The Essential Guide to Warfare - with new canon reusing the name in The Levers of Power (short story). It also names the Tector in the Endor fleet, as Harbinger.

It does not tell us what class the battlecruiser is though. If they were to reuse Saxton's interpretations, where it looks much like a regular Star Destroyer (in having a bridge tower) but with a longer hull, that might work, if a "high detail" model of the Pride of Tarlandia is ever to be depicted.

 

Hernalt asked

What can you share about scene 128, or the set on Elstree Stage 1, that bears on the question of why Kahn's novelization does not have scene 128?

I'm afraid not that much at this point. I can only repeat my confusion regarding the demise of Green Wing aka Green Leader who dies in the novelization during the attack on the "main communications ship" only to return in the Death Star attack run, then split and join the others above, and ultimately firing proton torpedos at the Super Star Destroyer Bridge with an ambiguous "The first bridge explosion took Green Leader with it".
Neither does the novelization feature the scenes on the SSD bridge nor does it reflect the reactions on Admiral Ackbar's flagship.

It almost does look as if those particular screenplay pages didn't make it to Mr. Kahn's desk.

I feel compelled to comment again on the main communications ship. It is there, in the screenplay, and described as a "larger Imperial ship" which ultimately can only mean one of these two things:

• Either it is a regular shaped Imperial Star Destroyer "larger" than the others (there goes the popular belief that all Star Destroyers are built with a length of 1 mile) or
• it is another Super Star Destroyer (as "larger Star Destroyer" was a synonym for the Executor in ESB)

While I have repeatedly presented evidence that not all standard Star Destroyers have a universal length of 1 mile (it's just the lowest common denominator of the different lengths), I remain certain that it was another SSD instead for simple IRL production considerations.


http://hdwallpapers2013.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Battle-of-Endor.jpg

What you see here is most likely ILM's lesser known publicity still for the space battle.

BEWARE! SPOILING POTENTIAL! Continue to read at your own risk.

Now, if you actually put all the scenes of the space battle - featuring the Death Star in a geostationary orbit over a part of Endor - under a 'microscope' you have to come to realize that in all these shots it's the same background setting you see in the above image (the only exception being the broadside exchange shot because a) the Death Star isn't in it and b) the Endor matte painting's sky formations have been slightly altered / retouched).

The reason for doing this was either that a) Lucas felt that the space battle was already disorientating for the audiences as it is (audiences back in 1983 did find the space battle disorientating, VFX element combination work of that magnitude hadn't been presented before) so at least to have the same background setting provided one point of static reference or b) that it was done to save unnecessary VFX costs or - of course - c) as a combination of both.

Cost saving was a factor Lucas was concerned about (after his experiences with ESB), but then, to commission two different shots of the Imperial fleet (as every single one consisted of several elements that had to be brought together in the optical printer, which was a time and money consuming assembly process) - where it would have sufficed to show the same one in the two different scenes - was undoubtedly the proverbial exception to the rule:



It was a known production technique to reuse shots and mirror-invert them (get two different items for the price of just one), add to this that in post-production the camera could have simply zoomed into one master shot to suggest objects being (then) closer to the viewer.

None of the above is evident in the screenshots, therefore I remain confident that all the extra work was meant to convey the noticable distinction of two different parts of the Imperial fleet (the first one with the main communications ship, the second one with the command ship) having surrounded the Alliance's.

 

Given that it's the same ship whose windows we're looking out of - the Falcon - the idea that it changed direction, and visited two different "fleet wings" - one in the first shot, one in the second shot, stretches credibility somewhat.

Given that they mirror shots, it seems more likely that they just overlooked things in compositing, and not that the fleet has two wings each with its own SSD.

 

^

Both fleet shots are from different scenes, I don't understand what the Falcon's point of view has anything to do whether we are looking at two different "fleet wings" or not, especially considering that the Falcon changes its position quite a lot in those scenes

Besides, I didn't think that that up myself, the notion of two different "fleet wings" has been explicitedly described in the original 1983 ROJ novelization:

The large central view-screen was coming alive. It was no longer just the Death Star and the green moon behind it, floating isolated in space. Now the massive Imperial fleet could be seen flying in perfect, regimental formation, out from behind Endor in two behemoth flanking waves – heading to surround the Rebel fleet from both sides, like the pincers of a deadly scorpion.

Suffice to say "pincers of a deadly scorpion" is undoubtedly James Kahn embellishing the original (missing) screenplay description as that's not the kind of material you usually find in SW screenplay scene descriptions, but as for the rest it looks to me as if we are looking at a genuine screenplay element and an (abandoned) VFX element where we would have seen the described things in the hologram projection aboard Ackbar's ship.

I.e. the "large central view-screen" is in fact the tactical hologram as revealed here:

133 INT REBEL STAR CRUISER - BRIDGE
Ackbar and other Mon Calamari lean on the railing of the bridge,
watching the large screen showing the Death Star in the main briefing
room.

ACKBAR Move the fleet away from the Death Star.