JediDefender.com Forums

Multimedia => The Prequel Trilogy => Topic started by: Jesse James on May 23, 2005, 09:01 PM

Title: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jesse James on May 23, 2005, 09:01 PM
OK, this caught me off guard in all 3 viewings, but the Tantive IV didn't LOOK like the Tantive IV in ANH that I remembered...  I found this odd, but I noticed RIGHT away the major differences and so tonight I checked a site that I KNEW would be talking about it and I had my thoughts confirmed... 

The Tantive IV CGI Model in E3 isn't accurate...  at all.

It's main flaw is that a whole mid-section of the ship is gone.  Cut away...  ANH footage puts the length of the ship at about 150m compared to the Star Destroyers...  I agree with that, the films are canon.

The CGI guys at ILM today appear, to me, to have cut away the ship in the middle...  This happened to many sources as well because a publicity shot of the TIV in ANH has it at an angle where you can't see a mid-portion of the ship.

I'ts incredibly strange though...  There's other little subtle changes and things by the CGI guys... 

I'm not terribly irked...  Explanations can be fudged on it, but I'm sorta saddened that they did such a sloppy CGI model of a ship from ANH that would be easy enough to just research and make an accurate model of.  It appears (as I see it) though that the CGI guys at ILM just took some reference books and used those designs instead, in all their inaccuracy.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: SilverZ on May 23, 2005, 10:12 PM
Jesse, keep in mind you're talking about the same FX group that didn't bother to get the CG Falcon right for the Special Editions, where it's noticeably thinner and doesn't even match model shots that bookend it in the movie. 

Im not surprised at all. :)
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jesse James on May 23, 2005, 10:38 PM
Stuff like this makes me wonder, are these models NOT available for looking at? :) 

The Tantive IV is so clearly based on "resource" material like EGVV type books...  It's not even funny.  Where the hell was the model at?  Was it not available for photographing.

When I was in the LFL exhibit at C3, I went ape**** taking pictures so when I make customs of this stuff, I'm making it right...  Does ILM not realize, they can do that?
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Ryan on May 23, 2005, 10:45 PM
And they have the whole freakin archive. ::)

Oh well maybe it was the Tantive III.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Nicklab on May 23, 2005, 11:24 PM
Bail Organa called it the Tantive.  He made no reference to a number as I recall.  There are also signifigant differences based on some background on the Episode IV ship.  Notably, that by the time of A New Hope, the ship had been signifigantly armored.  DK's Incredible Cross Sections has some background on that.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: CorranHorn on May 24, 2005, 02:17 AM
Yeah I noticed too that the ship looked different, but until JJ said it I couldn't put my finger on it. Oh well easy to explain, as Nick said that's not the Tantive IV, a predecessor perhaps which gets traded in for a newer model during the next 18 years...
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Darth Broem on May 24, 2005, 08:23 AM
Apparently it was not painted red either.  The SW Insider has it painted a blue color.  I did not check to see what color it was in the movie though.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Scott on May 24, 2005, 09:45 AM
Apparently it was not painted red either. The SW Insider has it painted a blue color. I did not check to see what color it was in the movie though.
I was blue
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Xander on May 25, 2005, 10:31 AM
Apparently it was not painted red either.  The SW Insider has it painted a blue color.  I did not check to see what color it was in the movie though.
I was blue

Bummed about it too, eh?  :P

Those are some interesting differences Jesse James, and I think I can buy Nicklab's explanation. Actually I would prefer that one because it much more interesting to me to see the evolution of all the ships and designs which occurred in the SW universe. Making it an early Tantive model which later changed is kinda cool. I prefer that because I tire of the tendency Lucas has to make so many details connected directly to the OT.  Greedo, Chewie, other shots of cantina aliens I didn't need. (Ok, I like seeing Chewie, but I didn't need it).

I'm glad they had several interior shots of the Tantive - those just looked great. I was chomping at the bit to see the Tantive when those first production shots surfaced, and I like the idea that it wasn't the exact same ship.

On a more practical level, yeah I can see it as an oversite too. I get the feeling certain parts of the movie were rushed, probably just like on any production. Maybe they just didn't have the time to devote to full research for the designs, and were falling behind schedule for whatever reason.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Darth Broem on May 27, 2005, 08:57 AM
I did not really care that is was blue.  I just did not expect that.   
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Nathan on May 27, 2005, 05:06 PM
All the material so far (Visual Dictionary and so on) indicates it's the Tantive IV. (Of course that doesn't count for those that don't believe in EU.)
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Darth_Anton on May 31, 2005, 05:59 PM
Regarding the computer generated versions being smaller, the models were photographed, so I guess it's true what they say, the camera does add 10 pounds. :P
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: mutantpoo on June 4, 2005, 12:45 AM
Does anyone else think the " evolution " of so many ships, weapons , armor , vechs. , etc..... was a bit too much. Some is okay but it seems like almost everything in the orig. movies had an older equivilent version. Were there no original ideas  in the time span between the movies ? I think the designers just got to lazy to even look up stuff from the sketch books. A little disappointed in that.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jesse James on June 4, 2005, 01:08 AM
Personally, I don't view it as so much "evolution", but rather as simple similarity...

An AT-RT has 2 legs as does an AT-ST, but to me I look at that as being no different than my car having 4 wheels the same as most other vehicles on the road...

The ARC-170, while having some similarity to an X-Wing, doesn't jump out at me as being an evolutionary step...  Backstory's laying claim that it's an Incom ship, and that's fine, but the S-Foils strike me as something more along the lines of a feature seen on many types of ships by many types of manufacturers...

EU shows many ships with a general "shape" like the X-Wing that really have no tie to the X-Wing...  The supposed role of the XW and ARC are completely different, so I see them on separate evolutionary paths...  Honestly, I see the ARC as a closer kin to the Y-Wing (though if you go by EU, it too was in service during the waning days of the Republic...  Perhaps the Y-Wing lead to the ARC instead?).

For my money's worth, these ships and vehicles more stand alone rather than "lead into" each other...  The AT-ST is in the walker class, but shares no heritage from the AT-RT.  To me, the AT-RT maybe evolved into the AT-PT instead which pops up in the Empire in EU materials...

The ARC, to me, doesn't lead into the X-Wing so much as the Z-95 does as EU's established, and the ARC simply fades from existance or goes into public service or whatnot.

I agree wholeheartedly that there was too much "effort" from Lucasfilm to tie looks of things between trilogies...  EU's fleshing it out some so that it makes a little more sense and isn't just the straight "Hey, the ARC has the same shape as an X-Wing, sorta, so it must be what they design X-Wing's off of!" kind of mentality.  Too simplified for my liking, personally, and treads too much on things I enjoy that were already established (The Z-95, which is a ship still in service under the Alliance, will forever be the true forebearer to the X-Wing, and the ARC will have had no influence aside from perhaps the S-Foils being a "good" idea for venting increased heat output during combat).

The Corellian Corvette(-ish) in ROTS, which I believe was wholely intended to be the ship in ANH from Lucasfilm's POV but which has become obscured, I'm torn on as to how to explain...  I agree with some guys at a site I know that debate ships a lot, that the large section missing in ROTS would be awkward as an "upgrade" to the ship that happens between 3 and 4...  On the other hand, as Nick noted, the ship's only referred to as Tantive in ROTS I guess, so that's possibly a whole other class of Corellian ship...  The basic design, in EU, is varied...  The Mysteries of the SIth game had a larger version of the Corvette in service in the New Republic Era that had a large/spacious hangar capable of holding a defensive force of Rebel fighters, for instance, but had the basic shape of the Tantive IV down exactly (only larger).  The Corellian Gunship from EU also sports an incredibly similar look to the movie Corellian ships.  So for what that's worth, it could very well be a sorta smaller version of the Tantive IV we see in ANH, but not the same ship...

Every source out there's continually referring to it as the Tantive IV though for some reason.

The ship/vehicle issue is really interesting...  What I find interesting is how EU's sorta blending things, or blurring lines all together.  For instance, AT-AT's were basically placed in the Clone Wars era EU now...  They look almost identical to the ESB AT-AT's, based on the late conceptual art for AT-AT's (basically, a slightly boxier looking AT-AT then).  AT-TE's have been spotted in the Imperial-Era EU now too, which I like the thought of them still seeing service...  The AT-AP now may show up as well, and all the other walker variants mixed in from all the EU from all the eras...  Lucasfilm intended visual tie-ins, but EU's debunking them as "evolutionary steps" somewhat.  I like that, personally.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Nathan on June 4, 2005, 11:44 PM
In this thread at TFN (http://boards.theforce.net/Literature/b10003/19909758/p1), this theory has been advanced:

Quote
Could it not be that after many years of faithful servis the Tantive was shall we say abit worse for wear.

Now Bail will probably have quite a sentimental attatchemnt to this ship, qhat with whats happend on board it over the past decade or so.

Would it not be feasible that he sent the Tantive back to Correlia for a full rebuild and upgrade?
The engineer's to, keep some continuity in the design, decided to use the same pre-empire decor. Also, the new conference room (seen in OT:ICS) is larger and more suited to its role as a diplomatic ship.

Now is this not feasible?

If you want a real world example look at the changes that occured to the Queen Elizebeth Battleships between 1915 and 1945. They are almost unrecognisable from the ships first commisioned.

Another is a car that someone really like, it would be cheaper to buy a new one than repair it but instead they repair it at a greater cost than a new car would cost.
Got to factor in Human nature. May not be the most rational thing to do but it felt like the right thing to do.

--sheep21

I have to say I like this theory.

Another is that it was later swapped for another model but kept the same name for some arcane reason.

To me, the AT-RT maybe evolved into the AT-PT instead which pops up in the Empire in EU materials...

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.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jesse James 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.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Nathan 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....
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jesse James 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).
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Nathan 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....
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jesse James 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!).
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Napoleon on June 5, 2005, 01:14 PM
Yeah and it's just so small compared to the first version
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Darth Broem 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. 
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jesse James 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
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Ner_vod 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.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Darth Broem 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. 
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jesse James 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.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Nathan 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.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jayson 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
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jesse James 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.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jayson 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
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jesse James on August 18, 2005, 12:29 AM
So TOS one and TMP one were the same?  Was TMP one the 1701-A or was it just 1701?  I wasn't into TOS enough to remember (and TMP doesn't tickle my pickle much either...  never liked it much).
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jayson on August 18, 2005, 12:46 AM
The TV show was Enterprise 1701 the TMP Enterprise was also 1701 but there were cosmetic changes (new bridge and engines). 1701-A was introduced at the end The Voyage Home (ST:IV) after Kirk destroyed 1701 at the end of Search for Spock. (ST: III)
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jesse James on August 18, 2005, 01:18 AM
OK so the ship from TOS which saw actual refits was offed in in Search For Spock...  Then the A came in, but didn't have a sequence showing it get destroyed?  And then the B's the one they commissioned at the opening of Generations in the prologue.  The C's only seen in TNG's one episode, and then of course the D throughout, and then the E in First Contact...  Dunno what the tri-nacelled one's designation was in the final episode of TNG though, but that's another.

I'm really fascinated by this. :)  Sorry for the off-topic Star Trek nerdiness Jay and I just had.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jayson on August 18, 2005, 01:35 AM
The Tri Nacelle one was 1701-D was from an alternate timeline.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jesse James on August 18, 2005, 02:04 AM
No, that's the war refit one right?  I'm talking about Adm. Riker's Enterprise from "All Good Things..."
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Nathan on August 18, 2005, 03:03 PM
Adm. Riker's ship in All Good Things was the Enterprise-D, simply with a third nacelle added. It's from an alternate future (for one thing, we later learned in Generations that the real D was destroyed before that).

"War-refit one" -- are you talking about the episode with the C where they were at war with the Klingons? That only had the two nacelles I believe.

Apparently the A was scheduled to be decommissioned shortly after The Undiscovered Country.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jesse James on August 18, 2005, 05:47 PM
The entire structure of the Enterprise in AGT was different, wasn't it? I thought I'd seen it listed as a different Enterprise as well somewhere ( a model kit I thought, but I can't recall).

The one with the C didn't change on the outside other than damage, and the interior was refitted for combat situations.

The one I'm referring to was a 3-Nacel Enterprise I'm sure...  I don't recall where though.  I easily lose track of episode names, etc.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Nathan on August 18, 2005, 06:00 PM
(http://www.m-nomura.com/st/images/alt_enterprise.gif)

(http://startrekpics.cc/agtenterprised.jpg)

And an unofficial page (http://www.inpayne.com/models/agtd/agtd.html)

I guess there's some sort of cannon under the saucer, and some turret thingies next to the bridge.

Modifications aside, it's still very much the Enterprise-D and not a new ship (according to the Star Trek Encyclopedia book).
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jesse James on August 18, 2005, 10:52 PM
Well now that's interesting.  Nice pics...

Looks to me like only the saucer section's completely original though.  The neck looks a lot bigger than others...  I see the D in there though I guess.  And that timeline was altered or whatever since it's destroyed in Generations, so you're right that's not even an in-universe Enterprise I guess.
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Nathan on August 18, 2005, 11:07 PM
BTW, I just remembered, Captain Beverly Picard's ship in the alternate future in AGT was the USS Pasteur:

(http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/images/thumb/1/10/200px-USSPasteur2.JPG)

(http://www.culttvman.com/assets/images-STAR_TREK-2005/pgouldpasteur03.JPG)
Title: Re: The Tantive IV is... NOT the Tantive IV?
Post by: Jesse James on August 18, 2005, 11:18 PM
I loved that ship of hers. 

The Enterprise though, in AGT, I remember it ripping right through the hull of a Klingon Warbird like it was a hot knife through butter.  Sweeeeeet.

ST:TNG and DS9 (at their respective ends) had probably the best Space Battles short of Star Wars.