Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Pre-release)

Re: Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One

But are the special editions canon now?

If they brought out the unaltered blurays and said "this is how it was, and this is how it is" Then the SE additions could vanish overnight.
 
Re: Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One

But are the special editions canon now?

If they brought out the unaltered blurays and said "this is how it was, and this is how it is" Then the SE additions could vanish overnight.


The SE ar considered the ONLY canon version of the films at this point.
 
Re: Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One

Yeah, that and the aforementioned landing craft. I think an Action VI transport (like the Wild Karrde) is seen in the PT too.

Anyway, I do find it odd that filming has already begun on Rogue One and, besides Felicity Jones, we haven't had any cast announcements. I figured as soon as Rogue Nation came out, we'd start hearing some things. Maybe they are waiting for D23 next weekend...
 
Re: Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One

I'm not sure why they chose to make a new lander when they could have used the cool shuttle design in the ANH:SE. If this one is the same one from TFA, that thing looks like a flying box. It looks like the designers were told to make something equivalent to a WW2 landing craft so they literally made a spacefaring Higgins Boat.
 
Re: Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One

Any one notice the thermal detonators look bigger....almost looks like they took the TFA detonator and put it on the OT troopers...
 
Re: Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One

Who says they didn't use more than one type of landing craft at that time?

Well yeah I agree they could. I just think, from what we can see, it's not a really inspired design. People complain about some Prequel designs, but nothing in them was that lazily designed. I just hope that in making the new movies, they don't ignore existing cool designs whether from the movies or things they could pluck from the old EU, just because they can.
 
Re: Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One

I always imagined the Empire being pretty standardized in equipment and assets and I wouldn't think they had multiple types of landing craft at once that did the same thing unless they varied considerably in payload. From what I can tell, it looks like the TFA lander and the Sentinel lander carry around the same number, more or less. Considering we already saw a Sentinel lander in the OT, it'd just make sense to go with that in a OT-era movie rather than retconning the new lander from TFA. This does now make the TFA lander design pretty old, ranging from sometime before ANH to 30+ years after ROTJ. Of course, this was all done for budgetary reasons rather than creative reasons.
 
Re: Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One

Well knowing the EU is out we can still take a wild-arsed guess about a few things:

The SW universe is old,very old so having ships around that could be hundreds if not thousands of years old is possible.

The Empire may have the best-and-latest but considering the size of the SW universe who's to say the farther out units don't have older gear? it's still good and I don't see the Empire selling off stuff surplus.

The thing could be from the Clone Wars for all we know,maybe a secondary lander that was used in remote ports,hell maybe it's a native design they used in backwaters and isn't really standard.
 
Re: Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One

Well knowing the EU is out we can still take a wild-arsed guess about a few things:

The SW universe is old,very old so having ships around that could be hundreds if not thousands of years old is possible.

The Empire may have the best-and-latest but considering the size of the SW universe who's to say the farther out units don't have older gear? it's still good and I don't see the Empire selling off stuff surplus.

The thing could be from the Clone Wars for all we know,maybe a secondary lander that was used in remote ports,hell maybe it's a native design they used in backwaters and isn't really standard.

Overall, what you say makes a lot of sense except about it being from the Clone Wars era, considering that it's been shown (possibly) in TFA that would mean that the New Order is using some really old transports since by the OT they would already be on the old side. Of course, this doesn't rule out that the possibility that the design originally dates back to the Clone Wars or some time after but has seen improvements over time, sort of like the venerable Huey and Cobra helicopters. Both of these choppers date back to the Vietnam war but are still in use today by the Marine Corps but in newly built and heavily upgraded forms and are most definitely not the same airframes as the ones from Vietnam.
 
Re: Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One

I don't mind them changing the lander because the SE lander was a stupid, ugly design. It was like some modeling kid's first kitbash. Sticking a Lamda cockpit and wings on a big, out of scale blob. Laaaaazeeee.
 
Re: Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One

I kinda liked the similarity to the Lambda and always viewed the oversized hull to reflect the fact it was a troop carrier. That's how I justified it, at least...
 
Re: Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One

I don't mind them changing the lander because the SE lander was a stupid, ugly design. It was like some modeling kid's first kitbash. Sticking a Lamda cockpit and wings on a big, out of scale blob. Laaaaazeeee.

It's completely different from the Lambda shuttle. The cockpit and wings are different. It's supposed to be made by the same company. It makes a lot more sense than making a scifi WW2 landing craft. I could do that in 5 mins.
 
Re: Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One

C'mon, they're the same for all intents and purposes. The scale of the wings is disproportionate, and having the lower ones way back on the back looks stupid. Just MO.
 
Re: Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One

Or maybe just the ramp looks similar? Maybe the ship itself is modified. They could even slightly touch up the ramps with a bit of CG to change them a bit.
 
This thread is more than 7 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top