Tantive IV retcon, caused by fan-investigations? 8)

Post by **Kuja** » 2006-10-02 10:37am

nightmare wrote:
Cao Cao wrote:The DVD commentary for RotS on that ship by Lucas implies it is actually the same ship, just extensively refitted for wartime.
It makes sense to me, it's prettied up in RotS because.. well.. if the Naboo senators are turning up in sleek silver spaceships Alderaan needs something to show them up with.
So much for Alderaan being a peaceful planet "we have no weapons".

That was never true. Even in the ANH novelization Tarkin comments after Alderaan's destruction that it had "defenses to match any planet in the galaxy." (or something to that tune)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-02 10:47am

One colleague once pointed out that Tantive IV might have referred to the fourth planet in a star system called Tantive, hence subsequent ships with the name would keep the same number.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-10-02 11:07am

Darth Wong wrote:One colleague once pointed out that Tantive IV might have referred to the fourth planet in a star system called Tantive, hence subsequent ships with the name would keep the same number.

In the X-Wing (1993) game, there's a mission where there's a whole bunch of Tantive ships you have to escort or something, with IV being the one with the plans. I much prefer it being named after a system, myself.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2006-10-02 11:15am

Vympel wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:One colleague once pointed out that Tantive IV might have referred to the fourth planet in a star system called Tantive, hence subsequent ships with the name would keep the same number.
In the X-Wing (1993) game, there's a mission where there's a whole bunch of Tantive ships you have to escort or something, with IV being the one with the plans. I much prefer it being named after a system, myself.

In that mission there are Tantives 1 thru 5. If its named after planets in a star system the mission still works. we just have at least 5 planets in the Tantive system. As such it could still be the ship from RofTS but after 20 years its highly possible it is a different ship of a similar class.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2006-10-02 11:55am

Darth Wong wrote:One colleague once pointed out that Tantive IV might have referred to the fourth planet in a star system called Tantive, hence subsequent ships with the name would keep the same number.

That's the canon explanation actually (the ship was renamed in honor of some diplomats from the system Tantive IV).

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-10-02 12:39pm

Yes, the Tantive IV was originally built by CEC for Alderaan as Star of Alderaan and then got the new name after the Tantive IV diplomatic visitors. There's also a Battle of Tantive V, which involved the New Republic and a rogue Imperial Admiral, so even the series of names work up to that number.

- Fixed now. Thanks, Schatten.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2006-10-03 01:00am

Speaking of the Tantive IV... It seems as if the scale is somewhat inconsistent in ROTS. The scaling diagram of the Tantive IV, Grievous' fighter and a person standing on the entry ramp which was shown on Hyperspace last year indicated that the scale was about the same as in ANH. The scale also seemed consistent in the scene in ROTS where Grievous' fighter approached the T:IV. However, the scene at the end of the movie (when it lands on Alderaan) seems inconsistent.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2006-10-03 01:17am

VT-16 wrote:There's also a Battle of Tantive V, which involved the New Republic and a rouge Imperial Admiral, so even the series of names work up to that number.

What's a Red Imperial Admiral? Is it a Zeltron or something?

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-10-03 02:16am

*rogue Imperial Admiral. :P

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2006-10-03 03:26am

Isn't it funny how the little bottom-feeders on sw.com who can't think for themselves and wait for the mighty Pablo or another sw.com boob to tell them about revelations have never really pointed out inconsistencies like this?

Yet the people that HAVE had an impact, are banned. sw.com also did a story on the fate of the Falcon after ROTJ. Thing is, my page was up first:

http://www.mrpoesmorgue.com/swds/falcon ... riggs.html

The even used some of the exact photos that are on my page. (Although they got Pete's permission, first.)

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2006-10-03 12:18pm

Lord Poe wrote:Isn't it funny how the little bottom-feeders on sw.com who can't think for themselves and wait for the mighty Pablo or another sw.com boob to tell them about revelations have never really pointed out inconsistencies like this?

Yet the people that HAVE had an impact, are banned. sw.com also did a story on the fate of the Falcon after ROTJ. Thing is, my page was up first:

http://www.mrpoesmorgue.com/swds/falcon ... riggs.html

The even used some of the exact photos that are on my page. (Although they got Pete's permission, first.)

Actually, I remember that the appearance of the Tantive IV in ROTS was being discussed over at the OS forums shortly after ROTS opened in theaters. I also discussed the issue with Chee who was quite adament that there weren't any real differences (I didn't agree on that).

EDIT: Here's a thread where someone was disappointed about the appearance of the T:IV in ROTS: +http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa? ... D=15057439

Also, here Chee says that the body, cockpit and the engines of the Tantive IV from ROTS and ANH "matches up perfectly" (he later changes to "matches up pretty closely") when pictures of the ANH practical model, the WEG Sourcebook blueprint and the ROTS CG model are overlayed:
+http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa? ... start=2025
I'd like to see that myself...