Page 71 of 103
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-04 05:16pm
by Elheru Aran
Galvatron wrote:Elheru Aran wrote:Unfortunately not having seen Rebels I can't say whether they've already shown Pellaeon or not...
Why haven't you seen Rebels?
No Disney. No TV actually apart from Netflix...
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-04 05:23pm
by eMeM
Elheru Aran wrote:Galvatron wrote:Yeah, he was retconned along with a lot of other Zahnisms, but he's still supposed to be an older man with white hair and amustache.
People can go grey at a fairly young age even in the Star Wars galaxy, I suppose...
So say he was a Republic Judicial for some time before the Clone Wars, served in the Republic Navy then, and became an Imperial officer afterwards. That works well enough, and they did introduce the Chimera when they brought Thrawn in.
Unfortunately not having seen Rebels I can't say whether they've already shown Pellaeon or not... I'm inclined to say the character is Yularen, mostly because most depictions of Pellaeon show him with his hat on while Yularen usually doesn't have a hat.
They haven't brought him so far, which is a shame, because Thrawn does need his Watson. Initially it looked like they were going make governor Pryce this type of character but they didn't, most of the time Thrawn works alone or with officers he considers failures and doesn't share any of his thoughts with them.
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-04 10:43pm
by Burak Gazan
"You're in the Wrong Place..."
Hate the idea, but the VA they got is DEAD on
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-04 11:01pm
by Rogue 9
Holy shit, they put guns on the Star Destroyers.

And wait a minute, is this the first time we explicitly see the main batteries firing on screen? And they're superfiring forward?

Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-05 03:54am
by eMeM
Rogue One shows the main batteries firing, although the crews over Scarif didn't think about tilting forwards so no superfiring there.
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-05 03:56am
by Shroom Man 777
Tilting forwards would also expose more hull surface to enemy fire - in the case of the Scarif battle they had LOTS of enemies!
Or the Imperial commanders there just didn't go to enough museums and gain an appreciation of art and thus understand how to fight battles in 3D on par with aquatic beings!
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-05 07:45am
by NecronLord
eMeM wrote:Rogue One shows the main batteries firing, although the crews over Scarif didn't think about tilting forwards so no superfiring there.
At least on the old model used in ANH, they actually can't superfire no matter how far down the prow goes; they are too close together; the guns will actually scrape their barrels on the back of the turret in front. Only the front turrets can fire forward.
The rogue one CGI fixed this a bit it looks like but still. ISD2 can do the dip thing though.
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-05 09:47am
by eMeM
I wish Rebels just abandoned the silly artstyle. I mean literally all the ships except for the TIE Fighter and ISD look "realistic". Look at this marvelous Nebulons in the trailer, the caricature ISDs are completely out of place.
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-05 09:51am
by Shroom Man 777
Huh? I don't think the TIEs or ISDs are cartoony... if you're thinking that they look thick or low detailed... I guess maybe it's because they are reusing models from the earlier season which had lower budgets? Even the Corellian corvette and the Hammerheads and A-Wings look cartoony... and Quarry's B-Wing!
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-05 11:08am
by eMeM
I'm not talking about less detailed models, I'm talking about proportions, the ISD has a giraffe neck and is much less bulky, TIE Fighters have huge balls ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° ) and tiny solar panels.
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-05 11:43am
by Shroom Man 777
Those are radiator panels and possibly anti-grav/art-grav repulsor panels not solar panels urgh QED gigajoules concession accepted!
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-05 12:50pm
by Sea Skimmer
Either that or Star Wars stars are x1000000.1 fold stronger then real stars, and everyone walking on the surface of Tatooine is actually immune to nuclear bombs.
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-05 01:51pm
by Galvatron
eMeM wrote:I'm not talking about less detailed models, I'm talking about proportions, the ISD has a giraffe neck and is much less bulky, TIE Fighters have huge balls ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° ) and tiny solar panels.
Don't forget about the stormtroopers and their exaggerated frowns.
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-05 02:16pm
by eMeM
Shroom Man 777 wrote:Those are radiator panels and possibly anti-grav/art-grav repulsor panels not solar panels urgh QED gigajoules concession accepted!
I agree that this is stupid but those
are solar panels according to the nu-canon cross sections, visual guides and various other sources.
Example:
http://i.imgur.com/uErijDm.jpg
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-05 03:16pm
by Galvatron
Maybe SW solar panels are like SW laser cannons in that neither of them function like the technology of the same name that we're familiar with. After all, Count Dooku's ship has a solar sail that can "absorb stray space energies as a source of almost limitless fuel." I presume that TIE fighters function more like that than the solar panels on the roof of my house.
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-05 08:55pm
by RogueIce
Galvatron wrote:Home One already? The
Profundity was supposed to be the first Mon Cal cruiser ready for combat at the time of the Battle of Scarif.
Maybe they used Home One as an unarmed carrier for a while?
Wookieepedia doesn't say that, where's this come from?
If it's true though: lol at the "superior" continuity of the New Canon
Elheru Aran wrote:Galvatron wrote:Pellaeon is
supposed to be old. From page 1, chapter 1 of HTTE:
Keeping his eyes on the engineering display, Pellaeon waited until he could hear the sound of the approaching footsteps. Then, with all the regal weight that fifty years spent in the Imperial Fleet gave to a man, he straightened up and turned.
...the Empire wasn't around 50 years for there to be an Imperial Navy that long? (albeit this is before anybody knew it had only been around twenty-ish years before Endor so Zahn gets a pass there, I suppose)
But I'm not sure the math adds up there.
I'm okay with Pellaeon being in the Clone Wars, say. Perhaps even the Yinchorri Uprising. But the Clone Wars only covered a few years. Then there's twenty-some years of Imperial rule up to Yavin, Endor happens a few years down the road, and in the old canon, the Thrawn Trilogy happens less than ten years after Yavin, so that can't be much more than say thirty, thirty-five years max.
Now if you backdate Pellaeon's career to have him being a Republic Judicial or something along those lines for a couple decades or so before the Clone Wars, then I suppose I can buy that. Wookieepedia says something like that, apparently, so it's not an original concept.
Zahn discusses it in the Anniversary Edition, but essentially yes, the dates he had for things way back in 1990 were at least a couple decades off. That wasn't on him, it was Lucasfilm not knowing George would be changing things later.
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-05 09:15pm
by RogueIce
RogueIce wrote:Galvatron wrote:Home One already? The
Profundity was supposed to be the first Mon Cal cruiser ready for combat at the time of the Battle of Scarif.
Maybe they used Home One as an unarmed carrier for a while?
Wookieepedia doesn't say that, where's this come from?
If it's true though: lol at the "superior" continuity of the New Canon
Found a quote from somebody on Spacebattles:
The Mon Calamari took to converting these transports and passenger liners into capital ships, with Admiral Raddus' Profundity one of the first ready for battle.
Inexact wording = continuity saved!

Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-06 12:09am
by Galvatron
RogueIce wrote:Found a quote from somebody on Spacebattles:
The Mon Calamari took to converting these transports and passenger liners into capital ships, with Admiral Raddus' Profundity one of the first ready for battle.
Inexact wording = continuity saved!

So the one in Rebels must the Profundity's sister ship: the
Perfunctory.
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-06 12:20am
by Shroom Man 777
That could be Raddus' ship itself.
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-06 12:22am
by The Romulan Republic
I'm just irked that of all the dumb ideas they could keep from the EU, the kept the notion that the Mon Calimari's ships, which are supposed to be good enough to challenge Star Destroyers, are converted passenger liners.

Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-06 12:25am
by Shroom Man 777
I thought they were literal skyscrapers or habitat segments.
Maybe the Mon Cals are such that their engineering emphasizes incredible shield generators and inertial dampeners and such so the major thing that allows them to compete with ISDs is the guts rather than the spaceframe/hull?
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-06 12:28am
by The Romulan Republic
Perhaps. But it still strains credibility that a converted liner could be a match for proper warships of the premier navy in the galaxy.
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-06 12:37am
by Shroom Man 777
Maybe actual Mon Cal warships are actually all shields, inertial dampeners, power generation and weapons and the hulls are really just 'eh. Sort of fits with their "ooooh we're sorta aquatic so we prefer fluid stuffs!" shtick. Kind of like how modern Japanese warships are, according to Sea Skimmer, using civilian standards for their hulls.
It would be nice if this was the case, if there was lore referneces to awesome Mon Cal structures held together with super-intricate shield and force field and repulsor systems. If their space habitats were like this.
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-06 01:16am
by Galvatron
The Romulan Republic wrote:I'm just irked that of all the dumb ideas they could keep from the EU, the kept the notion that the Mon Calimari's ships, which are supposed to be good enough to challenge Star Destroyers, are converted passenger liners.

I thought the new EU changed them to city ships.
Re: Star Wars: Rebels
Posted: 2017-01-06 01:29am
by Shroom Man 777
In my brain I will imagine that these Mon Cal "cities" are actually massive ships and the structures that detached and became the Mon Cal ships are components that are pretty much ships themselves. Or like, if the whole giant thing is a massive state or province ship, an Oblast ship, then the parts that detached and went to the Rebels count as city ships. Like giant robots that go GATTAI and combine. A ridiculous ultrastructure... supported by ridiculous repulsors, force fields, shields, internal dampeners and power plants! Because Mon Cal artwork!