Author Topic: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?  (Read 3962 times)

Offline Jesse James

  • Staff Member
  • Grand Master
  • *
  • Posts: 31565
  • Slippery When Poopy
    • View Profile
    • JediDefender.com
Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
« Reply #15 on: June 5, 2005, 03:22 AM »
Quote
No, if anything, it was the other way around, since AT-PTs were present on the Katana Fleet several years before the Clone Wars (later put back into limited production during the Empire). In fact one of the ROTS guides mentions the RT's connection to the earlier PT.

The PT's existance in EU's sort of contradictory over various sources...  Some say it's not in service during the Empire, others say it's a highly utilized anti-personnel walker the Empire employs in staggered armored columns.  I choose the latter...

I think it may have been a Clone Wars era design though, to keep it in line with the OTHER view EU has on it, but I view it as the RT coming first in the Clone Wars (we just see it in ROTS...  nothing to say it didn't exist as a military vehicle even prior to the existance of "Clonetroopers" in a Republic military), and the RT perhaps evolved into the enclosed PT we see to some extent, but still served as a Recon Transport rather than a frontline walker whereas the PT does frontline duty in combat situations due to its enclosed cockpit...  And as a superior design the PT has a long life into the Imperial era, or perhaps both could survive into the Empire's service even (their design just seems semi-redundant to me, a bit, and the PT a much superior design due to the enclosed cockpit really).

EU's botched the AT-PT over the years though, bouncing the backstory on it all over the place...  I stick with the notion of it being a heavily used walker in the Imperial era, despite Zahn's writings that say otherwise.
2011 Rebel Fleet Trooper Gets My Seal Of Approval!  But Where's The Friggin' Holster On Him!?
Jedi Defender.com Contributing Editor, Twitter @JediDefender & @Jesse_James77

Offline Nathan

  • Jedi Knight
  • *
  • Posts: 3964
  • Destroying the hobby one EU figure at a time.
    • View Profile
    • The Clone Wars Unofficial Site (in carbonite)
Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
« Reply #16 on: June 5, 2005, 03:47 AM »
Yeah, you're right about the continuity being a mess.

That they were on the Katana Fleet is not in dispute, so clearly the AT-PT precedes the Clone Wars. But it's still possible the RT precedes the PT as you suggest.

Then of course there's the enclosed AT-XT (X for Experimental) from the Clone Wars video game, which apparently never got off the ground so to speak, since I don't recall it showing up anywhere else. Probably some features were incorporated into upgrades of the RTs, STs, and maybe PTs.

I was under the impression the sources that showed Imperial PTs were video games set in the New Republic era, but I could be mistaken on that....?

Incidentally, here's what the ROTS Incredible Cross-Sections says:

Quote
A lightweight body makes it faster than the rarer one-man AT-PT

So I guess there really isn't a chronological timeframe given.

Then the Official Databank says of the AT-AP:

Quote
A larger iteration of the successful All Terrain Personal Transport (AT-PT), the All Terrain Attack Pod

Implying the PTs were reasonably common....
Twitter: @OKeefeNathan
Blog: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Fanboy (in carbonite since '09, back someday)

Offline Jesse James

  • Staff Member
  • Grand Master
  • *
  • Posts: 31565
  • Slippery When Poopy
    • View Profile
    • JediDefender.com
Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
« Reply #17 on: June 5, 2005, 04:10 AM »
More goof-ups...  One says the PT's rare, one says it was successful and common.  ;D  Classic SW EU!

hehe

What I see there, and I'm disregarding the AT-AP Databank entry all-together at this point (Whoever wrote that is clueless I think), is that the AT-PT was "rare" compared to the RT...  It doesn't come out and say it, but that implies to me the RT's been in service longer, and still being utilized due to speed issues.  The PT could just become popular and "flourish" then as time wears on because anti-infantry support for troops is a growing concern for the Empire...

The AT-XT from the CW game DOES, basically, show up in EU over time...  There's like a 1000 (I'm exagerrating, but not by a lot, haha) different 2-legged styled Walkers throughout Comics, Games, etc...  I know that Tech Commentaries does a half-assed job of categorizing them as best they can, and some do look like the XT...  They could all just be a large variety of "armor" in the walker class that see service both public and private across the galaxy for long periods of time...

That Databank entry for the AT-AP/AT-PT is terrible...  First, the AT-AP is F'n big.  It's not a light anti-infantry weapon, it's not even on 2 legs, it sports a number of weapons including one big-ass gun...  Hell it looks like the front end of an AT-TE really. :)  I don't see a correlation between the AT-PT and AP besides them being "walkers" really.

To me, the AT-AP doesn't even remind me of anything in the OT, nor even EU really...  It's its own thing as I see it right now.  It's cool though...  A 3-legged walker, fair-sized (larger than a Scout Walker by a bit, and it seems to pack a bigger punch too) was a nice deviation from what we were used to...  So's the Juggernaught for that matter.

The EU that highlights the AT-PT's use in the Empire was a couple games at least...  In the Rogue Squadron games, AT-PT's act in support of larger armor to snuff out Rebel infantry which pose a substantial threat to the larger walkers (IE: Luke's ability to trash an AT-AT himself).  Some RPG stuff's elaborated on it as well, and then the Force Commander game also showed them in use extensively for perimeter defense, probing enemy emplacements, scout/patrol work, and simple staggered defenses utilizing armor.

I've come to just sorta ignore Zahn's comments ont he AT-PT other than the Katana Fleet had some on board the Dreadnaughts for planetary invasion work or whatever... 

The AT-PT's become one of my fav EU vehicles I think.  I'd kill for a Hasbro AT-PT, especially after the RT turned out to be such a nice toy (the walking feature blows, but it's got poseable legs and all, so they did it justice).
2011 Rebel Fleet Trooper Gets My Seal Of Approval!  But Where's The Friggin' Holster On Him!?
Jedi Defender.com Contributing Editor, Twitter @JediDefender & @Jesse_James77

Offline Nathan

  • Jedi Knight
  • *
  • Posts: 3964
  • Destroying the hobby one EU figure at a time.
    • View Profile
    • The Clone Wars Unofficial Site (in carbonite)
Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
« Reply #18 on: June 5, 2005, 04:35 AM »
More goof-ups...  One says the PT's rare, one says it was successful and common.  ;D  Classic SW EU!

hehe

Of course one way to look at it is that "succesful" could mean simply succesful from a technological/conceptual standpoint, even though not a lot were produced ... or something. ;)

Quote
The AT-XT from the CW game DOES, basically, show up in EU over time...  There's like a 1000 (I'm exagerrating, but not by a lot, haha) different 2-legged styled Walkers throughout Comics, Games, etc...  I know that Tech Commentaries does a half-assed job of categorizing them as best they can, and some do look like the XT...  They could all just be a large variety of "armor" in the walker class that see service both public and private across the galaxy for long periods of time...

Oy ... don't get me started on TechComm ... not a Saxton fan .... ::)

It really peeves me how he interprets every single tiny variation on Star Destroyers and walkers as a whole separate class. Like a walker that shows up in one panel of one comic suddenly becomes "Mid-heavy light walker #5" when maybe it's just a modification of an existing design or *gasp* artistic discrepancy.

As in-universe explanations, magical phrases like "mission customization" can take care of 95% of the unidentified entries in Saxton's Walkers list and Star Destroyer/Cruiser/Dreadnaught list.

To say nothing of the whole issue of artistic interpretation and artists' error (where the comic books are concerned). Just because an individual artist put the bridge tower too far forward, or made the SD too short proportional to its height, doesn't have to mean it's a whole new class. It can just mean the artist drew it a little differently. After all, Cam Kennedy's Han Solo in Dark Empire looks very different from Robert Teranishi's Han Solo in Union, but no one's arguing that they are two different characters. Should it not also be so with the vehicles and ships?

But I digress as usual....
Twitter: @OKeefeNathan
Blog: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Fanboy (in carbonite since '09, back someday)

Offline Jesse James

  • Staff Member
  • Grand Master
  • *
  • Posts: 31565
  • Slippery When Poopy
    • View Profile
    • JediDefender.com
Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
« Reply #19 on: June 5, 2005, 05:42 AM »
Without a doubt, I agree.

I'm not a fan myself...  I think Tech Commentaries make a nice resource, but he's someone who I've learned doesn't care to be contradicted or have other suggestions pointed out.

I agree that some walkers from comcis are (IMO) probably only an artist's interpretation of something...  I tend to ignore the umpteen different walkers that all appear to serve the same purpose but are all different "variants" notion myself.  Some I try to include though here and there...  The XT's design will stick, and being that it was so close to the AT-ST in design (at least for what its intended role as a piece of armor on a battlefield would be anyway), then I see it as being a good "in universe" design...  Something maybe that opened the way to a fast, light, but well armed Walker design that could take moderate punishment, could be used for multiple roles, etc... 

I agree wholeheatedly that some things are best left alone though...  Comics are something I've always looked at with a grain of salt as to what looks like what...  For instance, the Spacetroopers of the HTTE series comics are vastly different from their RPG counterparts started by West End Games.  The comic versions aren't even really physically possible given that their weapons come from where the man inside's forearm would be.  The RPG version is much more logical, much more "real" looking, and looks like it actually wuold cost so much you couldn't outfit every trooper in that super armor, just who you trained to work Zero-G combat like that.  Classic instance where an artist's interpretation in a comic is null/void in my opinion.  I just pretend that "spacetrooper" doesn't exist in Star Wars, and the ones in the story were the RPG design (I love that one, it's just so neat looking!).
2011 Rebel Fleet Trooper Gets My Seal Of Approval!  But Where's The Friggin' Holster On Him!?
Jedi Defender.com Contributing Editor, Twitter @JediDefender & @Jesse_James77

Offline Napoleon

  • Youngling
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • I'm a llama!
    • View Profile
Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
« Reply #20 on: June 5, 2005, 01:14 PM »
Yeah and it's just so small compared to the first version

Offline Darth Broem

  • Jedi Knight
  • *
  • Posts: 3001
    • View Profile
Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
« Reply #21 on: June 6, 2005, 02:08 PM »
The Rebel Blockade Runner is one of those ships where I can't really tell how big it is supposed to be.  In ANH it looks so small because of the Star Destroyer.  In ROTJ I thought we saw one get obliterated by the Death Star.  It looked fairly big like the a Medical Frigate.  Then in ROTS sometimes it looks like a fairly big ship.  Another scene it looks like the size of an X-Wing fighter. 

Offline Jesse James

  • Staff Member
  • Grand Master
  • *
  • Posts: 31565
  • Slippery When Poopy
    • View Profile
    • JediDefender.com
Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
« Reply #22 on: June 6, 2005, 06:03 PM »
The model's a pretty well documented item...  So is the Destroyer from ANH...  This is one of those times that the anal-retentiveness of Tech Commentaries comes in handy because they do nail an appropriate size to the Blockade Runner (in ANH, and assuming they're the same class in ROTJ then you can cross it over I guess) by drawing comparisons agains the Destroyer whose size is known already just by eyeballing it in the hangar bay...  Then there's just so many shots of the model from ANH...  It just shows funny on film in some scenes.

In ROTJ no Blockade Runners are shot by the Death Star...  2 large Mon Cal Cruisers are though.  The Blockade Runner shot I think you're thinking of Broem (where it appears larger than a Frigate) is the camera playing tricks.  The BR's actually in the foreground of the Frigate I think (if it's the shot I'm thinking of) and it does appear larger, but that's because it's closer is all.  I'm trying to think if a new BR was even built for ROTJ or if it's the Tantive IV model reused for the shots.  I can't recall off-hand but I think it was just produced off the same "bases" that were used for the Tantive IV model which would basically put it at the exact size even if they are new models. 

I used to have a great link to a site just on the Tantive IV but I've lost it...

I think we need to put our mullets on about this one!   :-X  :P
2011 Rebel Fleet Trooper Gets My Seal Of Approval!  But Where's The Friggin' Holster On Him!?
Jedi Defender.com Contributing Editor, Twitter @JediDefender & @Jesse_James77

Offline Ner_vod

  • Jedi Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • HAHA!
    • View Profile
Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
« Reply #23 on: August 7, 2005, 08:36 PM »
I had just read in Art of Star Wars: Rots that Lucas wanted The Tantive IV to be able to be reverse-engineered, meaning that the bulky armor, weapons, and other parts were removed to show peacetime. It also said that the Tantive IV wasn't really archived when they made A New Hope so they had to rely on photos only. Even the inside of the ship was rearranged. The blue on the blockade runner was to show peactime also.

Offline Darth Broem

  • Jedi Knight
  • *
  • Posts: 3001
    • View Profile
Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
« Reply #24 on: August 16, 2005, 05:50 PM »
That all makes sense except for the blue meaning peacetime.  Why is the Republic Cruiser red in TPM?  If it's peacetime and all that?  Why is that not blue as well.  Eh, it does not matter.  I get what they mean. 

Offline Jesse James

  • Staff Member
  • Grand Master
  • *
  • Posts: 31565
  • Slippery When Poopy
    • View Profile
    • JediDefender.com
Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2005, 02:29 AM »
The lack of research on the T4 shows clearly with the complete omittion of a portion of the ship's fuselage.  That's not reverse engineering but a complete structural redesign.  A faux pau on the part of ILM, and if fans can find complete shots of the original ship then their screw up is so inexcuseable.  Like has been said though, look at their version of the Falcon...  They bungled that thing pretty good.   :-\

The armor plating and weapons make some sense...  Easily explained away.  A whole portion of the ship missing though really goofs things up and starts to stretch my ability to "explain" things reasonably to myself.  I think I'm leaning towards it being simply an earlier ship, a different model of Corellian Medium-Sized ship.
2011 Rebel Fleet Trooper Gets My Seal Of Approval!  But Where's The Friggin' Holster On Him!?
Jedi Defender.com Contributing Editor, Twitter @JediDefender & @Jesse_James77

Offline Nathan

  • Jedi Knight
  • *
  • Posts: 3964
  • Destroying the hobby one EU figure at a time.
    • View Profile
    • The Clone Wars Unofficial Site (in carbonite)
Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2005, 09:26 PM »
Red = the Republic colors -- seen on clone gunships, ANH Tantive, etc. etc. A full-on red paint scheme (TPM cruiser) means it comes straight from Coruscant. (TPM Incredible Cross-Sections)

The blue = Alderaanian colors.
Twitter: @OKeefeNathan
Blog: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Fanboy (in carbonite since '09, back someday)

Offline Jayson

  • Jedi Sentinel
  • *
  • Posts: 10131
  • DONT TREAD ON ME
    • View Profile
    • www.yakface.com
Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
« Reply #27 on: August 17, 2005, 10:20 PM »
What if… the Tantive IV was kind of like the Enterprise where each refit was given the same number 1701, 1701-A, -B, -C and so on, but the Tantive IV  refits gave no such "alphabetical" designation?

Holy geek out. :P
Yakface.com Owner/Content Manager
Follow me on Twitter - @yak_face / @JediJaybird

Offline Jesse James

  • Staff Member
  • Grand Master
  • *
  • Posts: 31565
  • Slippery When Poopy
    • View Profile
    • JediDefender.com
Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
« Reply #28 on: August 18, 2005, 12:07 AM »
And a hardy Nerd Counter!

I don't think the Enterprise was a refit...  at least not all the time.  Most of those (if not all) were completely new ships that carried the same designating number and their own letter.  For instance the C was destroyed defending a Klingon Outpost...  The B I forget what happened to it.  The A was destroyed by Kirk to prevent it being taken over.
2011 Rebel Fleet Trooper Gets My Seal Of Approval!  But Where's The Friggin' Holster On Him!?
Jedi Defender.com Contributing Editor, Twitter @JediDefender & @Jesse_James77

Offline Jayson

  • Jedi Sentinel
  • *
  • Posts: 10131
  • DONT TREAD ON ME
    • View Profile
    • www.yakface.com
Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
« Reply #29 on: August 18, 2005, 12:12 AM »
True. but the Enterprise from the TV show was 1701, just as the one from ST:TMP was; minus the wierd red/orange orbs on the leading edge of the engine nacelles and the 60's era radar dish
Yakface.com Owner/Content Manager
Follow me on Twitter - @yak_face / @JediJaybird