Darth Windu Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 luke - I expected better from you. That's just as daft as calling a captured Star Destroyer a "Rebel Star Destroyer". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Alec Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 LOL!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 luke - I expected better from you. That's just as daft as calling a captured Star Destroyer a "Rebel Star Destroyer". No it's not. If it's captured it's no longer in the possession of the Empire, thus you can't say it's an imperial star destroyer anymore cause that would be a false statement. Just like a captured imperial corvette can't be called that any longer cause they don't control that ship any more. Just like etc ... You can say it used to be an imperial controlled star destroyer, which is what it means. Is it wrong to call an Iraqi tank an Iraqi tank? No. Was it made by the Iraqis? Certaintly not. It's a russian tank (mostly, I don't know if they used any other countries tanks, but that's irrelavent). So why do we call it an Iraqi tank then? To distinguish who's using that specific tank from who made the tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BattleDamage Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 lol im surprised none of you have also remembered that imperial is also the class of star destroyer being mentioned like super or eclipse class star destroyers, it does not refer to the faction of its owner. Or if you want a real world analogy, the fletcher class destroyer or a kaguro class destroyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 lol im surprised none of you have also remembered that imperial is also the class of star destroyer being mentioned like super or eclipse class star destroyers, it does not refer to the faction of its owner. Or if you want a real world analogy, the fletcher class destroyer or a kaguro class destroyer. That's highly debatable. Originally, it was called an Imperator-class Star Destroyers. Later, in various video games, it was changed to Imperial-class. It is of no matter though, as various ships like the Frigates, Corvettes and Shuttles need the word Imperial in front so as to indicate the owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxDude Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 lol im surprised none of you have also remembered that imperial is also the class of star destroyer being mentioned like super or eclipse class star destroyers, it does not refer to the faction of its owner. Or if you want a real world analogy, the fletcher class destroyer or a kaguro class destroyer. I was wondering about that. Regardless of what it was originally called, it is now an Imperial - class Star Destroyer. And it's regardless of who owns it, it is still an Imperial Star Destroyer. Just because the Rebels capture an INT doesn't change its class...it's still an Immoblizer 418, regardless of its ownership. The Rebels still call their captured ISDs and ISDIIs (if they are so lucky) Imperial Star Destroyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 That's highly debatable. Originally, it was called an Imperator-class Star Destroyers. Later, in various video games, it was changed to Imperial-class. It wasn't changed to that. It was poorly research and lack of understanding how class names are decided upon that lead to the erronomous Imperial-Class designation. Just like games did poor research on the lenght of the Executor. And it took over 20 years before that error was finally corrected by LucasFilm, Licensing, or whatever the division that is in charge of keeping Star Wars "uniform" is called. Something fans of Star Wars has been aware of since the mid 90's. But that's another discussion. The Eclipse is a Super Star Destroyer too, but of the Eclipse-Class. Just like the Executor and all the other of its kind (the Lusankya, Iron Fist, Guardian, Terror, etc ...) is a Super Star Destroyer, but of the Executor-Class. In later publications the error has been tried to be fixed, but an explaination to why the Imperial Imperial-class star destroyer (look how silly that looks ) was renamed from Imperator, is what we so far is stuck with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 Jan - so, if a Star Destroyer was then captured by a certain group, you would call it an "Ewok Star Destroyer" huh? Come on, it's not rocket science - ships aren't named by their owner, they're named by type. You use the example of an Iraqi tank. They are never called 'Iraqi tank'. Take for example the Iraqi T-72's. They were built by the Soviets and have served in a large number of armies, but everywhere they go they are still called T-72's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 Of course they're never called Iraqi tanks on the field. I think it's quite obvious. However, when talking about various armies, you'd call a T-72, owned by Iraq, an Iraqi T-72. so, if a Star Destroyer was then captured by a certain group, you would call it an "Ewok Star Destroyer" huh? Yes. That isn't even an argument, it's only saying :"Hey, if things are like that funny little teddy bears that everyone hates can own Star Destroyers so that proves my point." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 I'll take an example from the gundam series. When an enemy unit is captured and used it takes on the name of the capturers side. A Zaku would effectively become a Federation Zaku, no longer alligned with the Zeon forces. Just like when US troops would capture points and various vehicles they attach US such and such to it. Because it's much easier than saying "it's a ******-tank that was officially built by ******* and ******* bought it, but ***** captured it so it's now theirs" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 They are never called 'Iraqi tank'. Take for example the Iraqi T-72's. Try not to contridict yourself in the same thread. If you truly believed what you are saying you would say: "They are never called 'Iraqi tank'. Take for example the Russian T-72's." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 Jan - I didn't contradict myself. I explained that 'T-72' is the name of the unit, and the Iraqi's used them. Similar to me saying 'Rebel Imperial Star Destroyers'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 No, similar to Rebel Imperial Star Destroyer would be Iraqi Russian tank, or if you are more specific, Iraqi Russian T-72. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxDude Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 "Hey, if things are like that funny little teddy bears that everyone hates can own Star Destroyers so that proves my point." Could you imagine a Star Destroyer run by Ewoks?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Could you imagine a Star Destroyer run by Ewoks?!? Actually yes. I'm picturing it right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 O. T.: It wasn't changed to that. It was poorly research and lack of understanding how class names are decided upon that lead to the erronomous Imperial-Class designation. Thank you. Yes, earliest sources are the ones that count. And the earlier sources say it's an Imperator-class. And the "Super Star Destroyer" is an Executor-class ship, not a "Super-class" ship. As a side note, video games should never be used as sources. I once actually listed all the errors the Rogue Squadron developers made and they took up more than one MS Word A4 page:rolleyes:. Could you imagine a Star Destroyer run by Ewoks?!? Oh my G...[hurls]... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.