Talk:Hornet-class interceptor
Back to page
1st Appearance?
Edit
- Anyone know where the hornet first appeared?Tocneppil 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- According to the CUSWE, Jedi Search, though I'm not familiar enough with either the book or the starship to confirm that's its first ever appearance - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 20:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. That's where the Millennium Falcon is shot down over Kessel. I remember now.Tocneppil 21:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- According to the CUSWE, Jedi Search, though I'm not familiar enough with either the book or the starship to confirm that's its first ever appearance - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 20:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Behind the scenes section needed
Edit
The official artwork does not match the original descriptions in "Jedi Search". Originally the ship was described by Kevin J. Anderson as:
- "One sleek, insectile ship, which Han recognized as a black-market-built Hornet Interceptor, peeled off, streaking downward in the Falcon's backdraft."
- ―Jedi Search - Chapter 1
...and in the next paragraph.
- "The ship, aerodynamically perfect, slid through the atmosphere like a vibroblade, ignoring the heat generated on its hull."
- ―Jedi Search - Chapter 1
..and further down on the next page it says:
- "An aileron strut in the delicate insectile wing snapped off, and the Hornet spun into the cyclone."
- ―Jedi Search - Chapter 1
Does this sound like the description of the ship we see in the "official" artwork or is it something far more "sleek" and "perfectly aerodynamic" with aircraft control surfaces (ailerons). The original descriptions sound more like a high speed atmospheric aircraft. The "aerodynamics" of a hornet work just fine when they are 2cm long insect, on a 14 meter interceptor, something more "vibroblade-shaped" would seem much more logical. What do you think? Do you think some behind the scenes comments are appropriate? -- Frank V Bonura - The Bane of Revisionism 03:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- The pictures don't contradict the quotes to me. The ship is described as insectile in the first quote; few insects look like vibroblades, which is describing specifically how the ship is cutting through the air, not the ship's appearance. "Aerodynamically perfect" might be a little off, but not too much, since insects ARE aerodynamically suited to their roles, even if an upscaled one wouldn't be. And you can SEE an aileron in the profile pic, so there's no contradiction in the third line. jSarek 07:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep in mind in the same novel ("Jedi Search") on the first page of chapter 26 Kevin describes the Z-95 Headhunter as "wasplike". I suspect no one here would draw a Z-95 Headhunter like a real wasp (insect-shaped). The word "insectile" does not mean "insect-shaped" but likened to an insect in some way. The Hornet interceptors of chapter 1 are essentially doing the same thing as the Headhunters of chapter 26 which is harassing the Millennium Falcon. They were harassing the falcon like pesky insects but did not necessarily look like insects. Yesterday I did manage to get a hold of Kevin J. Anderson on his Myspace page and I am waiting for a response to this question. We will see what he thinks about it. -- Frank V Bonura - The Bane of Revisionism 18:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- When asked about the Artwork of the Hornet interceptor in the The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels as compared to his original vision, Kevin J. Anderson had the following to say:
- "In my mind I envisioned something that had the sleek ellipsoidal feel of an elongated hornet body, but very streamlined...not precisely a robot insect."
- ―Kevin J. Anderson
- The defense rests. -- Frank V Bonura - The Bane of Revisionism 02:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't suppose this comment was made on a public part of his or your MySpace? If so, we can cite it for a Bts section in the article itself. jSarek 01:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- I could forward you the message if you would like? That is if you have a myspace account. -- Frank V Bonura - The Bane of Revisionism 02:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I know, author's intentions and author's OOU comments are not canon unless specifically reflected in a work, and then not contradicted by any other source. I agree that a BTS section would be fine to explain the shape Anderson originally wanted for the Hornet, but IMHO the originally intended shape has already been override in canon (Something similar happened with the Sun Crusher). --Skippy Farlstendoiro 06:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think the topic has always been a BTS section. Previously, the question was what Anderson's intent was; now, the question is whether we have a legitimate source, since there are some definite problems citing private communications for articles, which is part of the reason we instituted Wookieepedia:Interviews. jSarek 09:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)