2005-05-30

RoTS Venator: A-type and B-type

Aha . . . computer restored.

In the meantime, I was working on the RoTS tech review. Having re-watched the film again, I was able to note a little discrepancy that was interesting and which I wished to share.

The film opens with a close flyover of a Republic assault cruiser, Venator class. Interestingly, though, there is a difference between this vessel and others of her class. The one we see first has two pairs of white blocks on the main hull's upper spine . . . a small pair about the size of Obi-Wan's fighter and, about four small-pair's lengths back, a larger pair.

Later, we see Obi-Wan's fighter emerge from another Venator that has only one pair of white blocks. He emerges from doors on the upper surface, doors that are 4-5 small-pair's lengths in size.

So do we have multiple types of Venator, or perhaps an extendable structure? A door-like structure may exist on the opening-shot vessel, though this isn't clear yet. However, the bay Obi-Wan exits does not appear to have any objects within that could extend out like that, judging by the shot of his exit. Further, given the exposure of almost everything else on a Republic ship from bridge to engines to major guns to dorsal bay, it seems unlikely that any structure would be retained within the hull.

So, it would appear that there are two types of Venators. The "A-type" with four blocks and perhaps a smaller dorsal bay (if one at all), and a "B-type" with only two blocks and a large dorsal bay. It isn't clear if the Venator-A and Venator-B have different roles, but it might follow.

I'll be reviewing the lesser canon to see if there is any distinction made there.

23 comments:

  1. Great that you're back in action. We all look forward to the review.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think I've found an error in the ep3:ics. The republic star destroyer (the whole blah-ator for isd type ships is lame)pictured in the book is different from the ones seen in the movie:

    http://www.bothan-online.com/IMG/jpg/osb2.jpg
    http://www.bothan-online.com/IMG/jpg/osb3.jpg

    Here can be observed a third 'bridge' between the towers that does not appear in the venator drawing. Also the surface details of the towers structure of the ship is different, too.

    More: the hyperdrive ring used used in the movie by jedi interceptors (6 or 4 'boosters' in the ring ) is also not the same in the book (2 'boosters' in the ring)

    Sorry for my broken english :/

    ReplyDelete
  3. I guess the ep3:ics illustrators used unfinished cgi models as reference. Good and nice drawings anyway. Of course, is full of saxton wanking and fanboyism. Aclammator, Venator, Mandator, Tector, Imperator... blech

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'd be a bit surprised by artistic error in the ICS. Such events are usually reserved for the text.

    Those pics, though, are lovely . . . you wouldn't happen to have the whole movie in that quality, would you? I could use the head-start on the DVD analysis. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, sorry. I don't. However I've uploaded scans of the venator and the ring here:

    http://img22.echo.cx/img22/4250/republicstardestroyer10mw.jpg

    http://img160.echo.cx/img160/3213/hyperdrivering7at.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  6. What's with the Imperial/Republic obsession with seemingly fearsome names?

    Sovereign, Galaxy, Constitution... THEY'RE names for starship classes...

    ReplyDelete
  7. SW starship class names are fine. The only problem are the names invented by Saxton. Calling the ISDs 'Imperator' class was a reasonable good solution to the 'imperial-class name problem'. After that, Saxton took the moronic and fanboystic decision to give names ended in -ator to all unnamed rep/empire capital ships.

    Original Canon/EU:
    Victory,Imperial,Executor,Eclipse,Sovereing, Allegiance

    Saxton:
    Acclamator, Venator, Mandator, Tector, Imperator

    Note the pattern: It's lameness. The 'Venator' should have been called Victory I or something. Make the republic star destroyers the first Victory production model. Lets say after the clone wars they changed the tower structure and put the missile launchers in the sides of the hull.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Warsies at school should read this blog. They might learn something, hehe

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dont you people know much, I thought trekkers were intelligent.

    Acclamator, Venator, and Imperator are all canon, all created by the people behind Wars'. The Imperator was the name of the Imperial Class SD, then it was changed for some unknown reason. As for Acclamator and Venator, they were bother created by Lucasfilm.

    As for the other two, i have no idea.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Acclamator and Venator, and the other -ators except Executor and (maybe) Imperator, were named by Saxton in the ICS books.

    If you look at original lucasfilm material (art & making of books) they use names like 'republic assault ship' , 'republic cruiser', 'republic star destroyer' and so on, that also can be seen in a lot of licensed material.

    The names invented by Saxton are EU official, of course, and can be seen in cards and videogames, but the whole -ator thing is stupid and fanboyistic.

    And I love Star Wars. But I'm sad of the badly done prequels, and the Saxton cult trying to impose their bullshit on everybody.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nah, what the guy before you said was right, al those names are mentioned in the starwars databank,
    and are not fanboyistic impersonations.

    ReplyDelete
  12. How did Saxton gain so much influence? if what people are saying is true?

    ReplyDelete
  13. While I can surely leave this to the master, Schram, I can say for certainty that Saxton is only popular because he publishes books for the younger generations, and for those who think pictures are better for reading that words.

    Any other thoughts, people?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I reckon G2k can sort this out

    ReplyDelete
  15. \\
    Those pics, though, are lovely . . . you wouldn't happen to have the whole movie in that quality, would you? I could use the head-start on the DVD analysis. ;)
    \\

    ROTS DVD is yet unavaible here.

    However, how about some guest place on your website to make comments from TESB DVD?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well, I'm not sure who named what. Some of the non-Latin names are canon, though, and should not be subject to replacement.

    That said, however, I'm heavily biased toward the use of Latin anywhere it can reasonably be used. "Venator", for instance, means "hunter" and as such it may very well be the perfect name for that ship. Even beyond the meaning, the word just sounds good . . . it gives me a vague sense of something avian and bloody for some reason, perhaps a bird of prey still messy after that last meal.

    "Acclamator", however, was a crappy name both in meaning and sound. The Latin origin simply refers to shouting, though the word has evolved into meaning a loud expression of approval. It would be like naming a ship class "Applauder". Thus, in both sound and meaning the ship is about as unthreatening as you can get.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  18. No one has the DVD yet, because it won't be released until Christmas. While I'm sure some people are trading things online, I'd rather they not be discussed here.

    Feel free to make observations, just be careful what you attribute your source to.

    ReplyDelete
  19. " The only problem are the names invented by Saxton. Calling the ISDs 'Imperator' class was a reasonable good solution to the 'imperial-class name problem'. After that, Saxton took the moronic and fanboystic decision to give names ended in -ator to all unnamed rep/empire capital ships."

    How on Earth is that "moronic and fanboyistic"? Firstly, he only gave the names ending in "tor" to three observed rep/empire ships- the vaguely named "republic assault ship" and "jedi attack cruiser/ republic star destroyer" as well as the "imperial star destroyer". Those names, by themselves are too vague, and would be like calling Federation ships "Federation cruiser" and leaving it at that.

    "The 'Venator' should have been called Victory I or something. Make the republic star destroyers the first Victory production model. Lets say after the clone wars they changed the tower structure and put the missile launchers in the sides of the hull. "

    Now, THIS is "lameness". The looks and dimensions of the Victory-class is *well* established in the EU (having been taken from abandoned ANH concept art, like all the best EU designs)- what you're proposing here is not only a design that looks nothing like a Victory-class being called a variant of same, it's also actually about 100m shorter.

    The whole reason behind making more than a few "tor" names was to establish a pattern to give Imperator some sorely needed EU credibility in the face of the Imperial-class stupidity that infests EU sources like a plague. (Luckily he used the RotS:ICS to say that Imperator was the original class name prior to a political change). You're also forgetting that Executor-class (formerly "Super-class" until Saxton fixed that as well) falls into that pattern, like so:

    Acclamator I/II
    Venator
    Imperator I/II
    Tector
    Executor
    Praetor
    Quaestor
    Mandator
    Procurator

    (these are of course all the "tor" names in the EU thus far)

    What's wrong with some consistency? It's like the Federation's Galaxy/Nebula/Nova scheme (of which Sovereign annoyed me, incidentally).

    I will never fault the man for adding some much needed consistency and cooler names to those ships than the utter excrement we previously had to put up with.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Why is everyone picking on the names of the Wars' Ships anyway? You don't see Warsies attacking trek ships for their use of names. If i came across a ship by the name of Enterprise or even the Akira, i'd be "Shaking in my little space Boots". Both names arent the least bit threatening, even if the federation ships arent meant for war.

    Wars' uses threatening names (with a bit of consistency), trek uses names that sound like they have a problem dealing with violence.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well Defiant sounds 'ard, but then, it should, given the design and role. I'll take Executor over that any day of the week, though. (Even though a lot of people get it wrong and think its pronounced "exEcuter" as if its a bastardisation of "executioner" rather than being ExECUtor a legal term regarding wills and estates). It denotes authority and action though, which si cool.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I list myself as aonymous because I am too young to give away personal ID. I would like to point out that according to the Insider magazine(Pablo Hidalgo's own words), that clone wars literature including the Episode III cross sections count.With this said,one should hope that Poe doesn't use the data. Sorry, but I'm a warsie who really likes the clone army. Correcting the incorrect weapon deignations and ignored weapons that contradict the movies, here is the Venator's mighty arsenal:52 turboasers simiar to the Death Star's tiny emplacements(not the superlaser),8 ship vaporizing turbos(they were in a lower setting in the films),many "window lasers", 6 tractr beams (explaning why Invisible Hand fought one)and 4 proton torpedo launchers.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Half of the Imperial ships don't have the Ator ending in their names, Victory, Dreadnaught and so on. Saxton and his cult are losers looking for fame. It's Imperial even in EU check out Star Wars Empire at War for the PC, it even says Imperial and that game takes place during the early years of the empire to ANH.

    ReplyDelete