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

Do they ever actually use the term Imperial Starfleet in any canon material? Because that just sounds too goofy and lame, like something from Trek. I've only ever heard Imperial Navy or "the fleet".
 
Although I appreciate the enthusiasm, this is all very wonky, in the weeds, and I consider myself a huge fan and I have never noticed any of this.

Which parts? It's all there on screen.

[ETA: Okay, a lot of the specific terminology is EU-adopted-as-canon, but the divisions are there.]

--Jonah
 
Last edited:
Do they ever actually use the term Imperial Starfleet in any canon material? Because that just sounds too goofy and lame, like something from Trek. I've only ever heard Imperial Navy or "the fleet".

From Star Wars:

[Motti]"Dangerous to your starfleet, Commander, not to this battle station"
[Dodonna]"The battle station is heavily shielded and carries a firepower greater than half the starfleet."

From Empire:

[Opening crawl]"Evading the dreaded Imperial Starfleet, a group of freedom fighters led by Luke Skywalker has established a new secret base on the remote ice world of Hoth."

Elsewhere, yes, it is just abbreviated to "fleet", but never called "Navy" that I've seen.

--Jonah
 
Yeah, I think I've only read it referred to as Imperial Navy in reference books that are probably no longer canon and old EU stuff. I didn't remember them ever using the term starfleet, though. Guess it seemed so lame to me that I just conveniently forgot it. Kinda like what I do with parts of the prequels. :lol
 
Tie looks ok, I like the incorporation of the bomber body shape. The rebel ship (what are they calling it?) looks ok in some of the angles we've seen before, but the toy doesn't do a lot for me. Kinda boxy and random looking in my eyes.
 
TIE looks ok, I like the incorporation of the bomber body shape. The rebel ship (what are they calling it?) looks ok in some of the angles we've seen before, but the toy doesn't do a lot for me. Kinda boxy and random looking in my eyes.

You mean the U-Wing? In addition to any other faults in the toy it's also undersized being too small to carry more than one figure. For whatever reason, they scaled it down to fighter scale, most likely they based it on pictures they were given without any reference to scale so they probably thought that it was a fighter. At least, that's what I hope they did and didn't decide that they wanted it to be a fighter on their own.
 
You mean the U-Wing? In addition to any other faults in the toy it's also undersized being too small to carry more than one figure. For whatever reason, they scaled it down to fighter scale, most likely they based it on pictures they were given without any reference to scale so they probably thought that it was a fighter. At least, that's what I hope they did and didn't decide that they wanted it to be a fighter on their own.

Neither, they just can't scale it up to the 3 3/4 line without the toy being too big and too expensive.
 
Tie Striker? Sounds like a sport version with faster artillery when I read it. Hope to see some amazing dogfights! Let's see the Imperial pilots in all their glory!
 
Neither, they just can't scale it up to the 3 3/4 line without the toy being too big and too expensive.

I don't know, while scaling it to 1:1 probably would be too expensive and possibly make it too large they probably could have scaled it up a it more so that you can put 2 figures in the cockpit and another 2 or 3 in the troop compartment.
 
I don't know, while scaling it to 1:1 probably would be too expensive and possibly make it too large they probably could have scaled it up a it more so that you can put 2 figures in the cockpit and another 2 or 3 in the troop compartment.

They do a lot of research into playability and cost and based on the age range of the kids this is targeted towards. Too expensive, too big, too complex can be problematic.
 
Not sure it makes a great deal of sense in my mind, but I do like that the TIE Striker is primarily an atmospheric craft. It does at least somewhat explain why we never saw them in the OT.
 
Or they can just call it experimental. That's how they sold the TIE Advanced (Avenger) and Defender in the EU. Not to mention why Vader had a special fighter (other than for the audience to ID him).
 
Neither, they just can't scale it up to the 3 3/4 line without the toy being too big and too expensive.
LOL that's what they want you to believe.They put a nerf launcher inside and is the reason it is out of scale.It will also retail for $50 not exactly aimed at the kid market.Hasbro has really dropped the ball in recent years.
 
LOL that's what they want you to believe.They put a nerf launcher inside and is the reason it is out of scale.It will also retail for $50 not exactly aimed at the kid market.Hasbro has really dropped the ball in recent years.

Including a Nerf feature is the nature of playability and demographic. Hasbro knows their target audience.
 
Including a Nerf feature is the nature of playability and demographic. Hasbro knows their target audience.
I always hated the gimmick stuff when I was a kid. I wanted my toys to be the same scale and posable. I wanted tons of vehicles of different sizes. I wanted playsets.

Superhero toys always bugged me when the had variants. I wanted one spiderman. I didn't need underwater spiderman, or medieval batman. Why would there ever be a superman variant?

In all honesty, 3 3/4 was even a bit big for me. I would have been fine with 2" figures so that the vehicles could have had way more accuracy and options.

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top