PDA

View Full Version : Would You Buy Asajj Ventress' Fan Blade Starfighter?



Tycho
05-04-2010, 03:09 AM
I am continuing my thread series.

This will discuss ONLY the vehicle in the title of the thread (in this case Asajj Ventress' Fan Blade Starfighter From Clone Wars).

I will cover several unmade vehicles for the action figures per week, choosing them from a rotating schedule through the movies and the Expanded Universe.

I'll order it TPM, AOTC, ROTS, ANH, ESB, ROTJ, EU, and then keep going back through the order in that manner.

So here I'm only asking you if you'd buy Asajj Ventress' Fan Blade Starfighter From Clone Wars?

This ship (pictures below) could be made for the $24 starfighter assortment which has successfully sold EU vehicles.

The vehicle should have a manually rotating cockpit bubble so when the ship turns, the cockpit can be turned so the pilot is right side up, whether the wings are vertical or horizontal. I personally don't want a gravity controlled realignment, but a stiff turning cockpit that requires you to manually do it.

The fan wings should fold inward for landings and lightspeed, obviously. They can probably be made from light folding plastic with seams built into it.

Landing gear could manually be extended from underneath either side of the ship's body.

A softgoods Ventress would fit in the cockpit to fly the vehicle.

The cannons on each side of the fanblade should feature 1 firing missile and one non-firing cannon there just for appearances.

That would do it. The softgoods Ventress might be a pack-in for an exclusive and the ship might have a compartment to store her double lightsabers.

Do you want Asajj Ventress' fanblade starfighter made?

What other features would you want on this?

Why would you NOT want it?

How do you think it would sell if produced?

Darth Metalmute
05-04-2010, 09:53 AM
Nope. This one does not interest me to the least.

DarkJedi5
05-04-2010, 11:03 AM
Yeah I'd buy it. I kinda liked it and I could do something cool with it since I already have the Azure Angel and a couple other ships from that dogfight scene. I always thought it was a pretty neat design also. Unfortunately the ship is already taken from Asajj at this point in the CW shows so unless she gets a new one and it sees some screen time, I don't think we'll see it. Speaking of, I haven't even seen Asajj in an episode in a long time.

El Chuxter
05-04-2010, 12:55 PM
I'm on the fence. My first instinct was "no," but, then again, I do have Anakin's sweet custom "podracer" Jedi Starfighter to display with it, so, sure, if it looked like it was worth the price.

mtriv73
05-04-2010, 12:58 PM
No, not a chance.

DarkArtist
05-04-2010, 01:35 PM
sorry Tycho but it's a no for me.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
05-04-2010, 01:39 PM
It's really not all that interesting, and I'm not sure the fanblade aspect would work that well. They're not likely to do any more big items from the microseries, and she doesn't use the ship in the current show, so I'm not asking for it.


Speaking of, I haven't even seen Asajj in an episode in a long time.
Wow, you're right - she wasn't in season two at all. I heard she'll be back in season three and they're going to go deeper into her character, which should be interesting.

JediTricks
05-04-2010, 02:54 PM
I do like the idea of another $20 vehicle, but I am having a very hard time getting behind this particular design. It's not Star Warsy at all to me like a few other Genndy-only CW designs, and it's ridiculously thin. And I don't understand these designs where the guns are WAAAAAY far out on wide wings, and there's nothing closer, that would make close-up fighting a big disadvantage, since your weapons aren't even in your sight range, you can't aim them at the enemy that close. I also don't think there's a way to deliver the folding fan wing system in a practical measure, and this thing has no space for engines or anything of that nature.

I'm going to say NO. I want to say otherwise, but the reality is that I think it'd make a lousy toy.

El Chuxter
05-04-2010, 03:10 PM
Really?

I think it seems a lot more Star Wars-y than a lot of prequel ships. Particularly the corporate dropships.

JediTricks
05-04-2010, 03:24 PM
Really?

I think it seems a lot more Star Wars-y than a lot of prequel ships. Particularly the corporate dropships.
What dropship are you talking about? I have no idea.

I think this looks absolutely nothing like Star Wars. It's a lazy design with just a bubble cockpit, 2 very small engines, and 2 ridiculous, thin wings on a fanblade. It does remind me a little of Dooku's Solar Sailer, but while I thought that thing sucked too, at least it tried to give a little more vehicle to its design.

El Chuxter
05-04-2010, 03:31 PM
I was thinking this one (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Techno_union_ship) and especially this one (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lucrehulk-class_Core_Ship).

Mr. JabbaJohnL
05-04-2010, 03:57 PM
You're right, Chux - a big, gray ball? That's never happened before in Star Wars! :p

El Chuxter
05-04-2010, 04:10 PM
As a planet, it works. :p

Mr. JabbaJohnL
05-04-2010, 04:22 PM
Since when is the Death Star a planet?

Neuroleptic
05-04-2010, 05:07 PM
What the heck is that?

That's my first thought when looking at the fighter. I'v never seen it before so it is obviously not iconic enough to start with. And that's before looking at the desighn.

. . . that's a No.

The Space Outlaw
05-04-2010, 05:17 PM
Reminds me a lot of the "Bubble Fighters" from the Lost In Space movie.

Frankly though, I'm a little surprised we haven't already seen it--the thing was practically tailor-made to be turned into a toy. Moving wings, moving guns, moving cockpit, potential for spring-loaded features... It's got "Mommy, I want that!!" written all over it.

bigbarada
05-04-2010, 06:06 PM
No. Lame design. Do not want.

Darth Jax
05-04-2010, 07:45 PM
i'd buy it if they can work out a reliable mechanism for the expanding wings. not on my list of things that need to be done. but it's a cool enough design that i'd get one.

JediTricks
05-04-2010, 09:18 PM
I was thinking this one (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Techno_union_ship) and especially this one (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lucrehulk-class_Core_Ship).
Both are pretty meh, I don't see the Fanblade as more SWy though, they're all lame in that department. None of them are dropships tho'.


You know, I can't figure out what the point of the Fanblade is supposed to be, it's got to be tough to shoot at targets, and it seems totally useless when folded up, since now the guns are at the back and facing up and down. I guess it's one of those "Don't think about Genndy designs too long" things.

El Chuxter
05-04-2010, 09:56 PM
Yes. It helped me watch every episode of Samurai Jack that I've seen. Question it, and your head explodes.

JediTricks
05-04-2010, 10:38 PM
That makes it something I don't want to own, though. And Samurai Jack wasn't playing in a universe full of existing things that held up better to scrutiny.

Darth Jax
05-04-2010, 10:57 PM
i'm not seeing how the laser cannons being at the ends of the fans would make combat any more difficult that for a X-wing or TIE interceptor. all of them have multiple lasers which converge on a point in space in front of the fighter. granted it would be quite difficult to engage in combat if the fans weren't extended.

JediTricks
05-04-2010, 11:02 PM
i'm not seeing how the laser cannons being at the ends of the fans would make combat any more difficult that for a X-wing or TIE interceptor. all of them have multiple lasers which converge on a point in space in front of the fighter. granted it would be quite difficult to engage in combat if the fans weren't extended.Those vehicles have shorter wings and their wings are within visual distance, where the Fanblade is not. The closest I could think of similar would be the B-wing, but it has those shorter wings in the midsection, and I think the cockpit capsule has a blaster or something as well. The V-19 Torrent is another vehicle where the cannons are so far away from the pilot that I just can't conceive of them being useful. It's not practical since you can't visualize a vector your fire would be taking, and up-close fighting it's fully useless since you're essentially now shooting over and under your enemy's head, and banking up or down to try to get your enemy in line with your guns, which only makes the cockpit further pointed away from your target.

Darth Metalmute
05-05-2010, 07:56 AM
I'm pretty sure with their technology it's just point and shoot. Force or no Force, the only thing Luke had flown before the Battle of Yarvin is a T-16 with is basically a faster landspeeder. If flying and shooting was anymore difficult that point and shoot, there is no way the Rebel Alliance would let Luke (someone who has never flow an starship, let alone a starfighter) fly a X-Wing without extensive training. He would be considered a liability.

JediTricks
05-05-2010, 03:46 PM
Yeah, "point and shoot", only THIS HAS NO WAY TO POINT. And I loved those scenes in Star Wars when Biggs died because he forgot the "shoot" part, or maybe the problem was Vader was better at "pointing". If you look at the ANH and ROTJ battles, there is some computer help but they are doing a lot of the work, they are lining up shots before taking them, and some are very close range. Just because the prequels have space battles where people magically get where they're going and shoot whatever they need to (or miss) based on nothing at all doesn't mean that's how it was intended to be. If you'll notice, all their ships have weapons well within range of the pilot's peripheral vision, the Jedi Starfighter the blasters are right in front of them.

Ever play the Star Wars Arcade game? Notice how the wing cannons are in your view on either side? Now imagine lasers coming from WELL BEYOND THEIR RANGE instead.

BTW, the T-16 is not a landspeeder, it's the 3-winged aircraft, it's supposed to be their version of a civilian crop duster going into a WW2 fighter plane. The controls are roughly the same, as is the firing scheme.


Oh, and another annoying ship to shoot would be the ARC-170.

The Space Outlaw
05-05-2010, 04:27 PM
JediTricks, I think the "aiming" part isn't as difficult as you're making it out to be. Even many modern-day fighter planes mount their guns in positions that are outside the pilot's field of vision; the F-15 and F-16 being notable examples (both mounting their guns a considerable distance from the aircraft's centerline as well). It doesn't really matter, because the aircraft's targeting computer does the work for the pilot. He doesn't need to line the guns up with his own line of sight--all he does is keep the dot on his HUD, which shows where the bullets will actually go, lined up with the target. He doesn't need to calculate trajectories or get in close because the computer does the hard work for him.

I would assume the Star Wars universe, with ships that fly in hyperspace, would have something of equivalent utility. What we see on screen is theatrics to enhance the drama of the scene.

Darth Jax
05-05-2010, 07:46 PM
JediTricks, I think the "aiming" part isn't as difficult as you're making it out to be. Even many modern-day fighter planes mount their guns in positions that are outside the pilot's field of vision; the F-15 and F-16 being notable examples (both mounting their guns a considerable distance from the aircraft's centerline as well). It doesn't really matter, because the aircraft's targeting computer does the work for the pilot. He doesn't need to line the guns up with his own line of sight--all he does is keep the dot on his HUD, which shows where the bullets will actually go, lined up with the target. He doesn't need to calculate trajectories or get in close because the computer does the hard work for him.

I would assume the Star Wars universe, with ships that fly in hyperspace, would have something of equivalent utility. What we see on screen is theatrics to enhance the drama of the scene.

that's essentially what i was trying to say.

Tycho
05-06-2010, 02:46 AM
I want to point out that some of these ships in question have different uses - that's why not all the fighters are the same (besides to sell more toys).

But I also want to say I agree with JediTricks' point and have often wondered about the same subject myself.

Here's how I rationalized it though:

V-19 Torrent is a heavy assault starcraft used to attack enemy captial ships. You'd assume it was designed to fire from further away and not be used in close quarters dog-fighting. When they were launched in Gennedy's Micro-Series, I think their purpose was to destroy the Techno-Union base ships. They weren't much good against Geonosian fighters up close, I figure.

V-wing fighters were dog fighter / escort and patrol ships. That's self-explanatory.

The Jedi Starfighters (both versions) were designed for similar purposes as the V-wings, except the Delta-7 was stealthier and the newer E3 versions were more manueverable for dog fighting.

N-1s, X-wings, and A-wings were also dog-fighters, with the X-wings most capable of being re-assigned to large scale assault work.

Y-wings were bombers obviously.

B-wings were heavy capital ship assault fighters - an improved model that is easily superior to a V-19 Torrent.

Overall, by the way, you'll note that the X-wing is the most superior starfighter in all of Star Wars and I'm not just saying that because I'm the executive officer of an X-wing squadron. :pleased:

Darth Metalmute
05-06-2010, 08:06 AM
Yeah, "point and shoot", only THIS HAS NO WAY TO POINT. And I loved those scenes in Star Wars when Biggs died because he forgot the "shoot" part, or maybe the problem was Vader was better at "pointing". If you look at the ANH and ROTJ battles, there is some computer help but they are doing a lot of the work, they are lining up shots before taking them, and some are very close range.

The "pointing" is done on the computer screen. You line up the target in the screen on your dashboard and fire.


Ever play the Star Wars Arcade game? Notice how the wing cannons are in your view on either side? Now imagine lasers coming from WELL BEYOND THEIR RANGE instead.

But your still pointing and shooting. I imagine it's alot like X-Wing Alliance. (Now I got to find that game. I love that game.)


BTW, the T-16 is not a landspeeder, it's the 3-winged aircraft, it's supposed to be their version of a civilian crop duster going into a WW2 fighter plane. The controls are roughly the same, as is the firing scheme.

What I was getting at was that flying within an atmosphere is not even close to flying in space.

Cane_Adiss
05-06-2010, 11:36 AM
Yeah I'd buy one! This is something i expected to come out around 2006 or 2007 but since Hasbro missed the chance to do it when it would have made sense I doubt they'd go back to this unless she uses it in the new cartoon.

As for it not looking "star warsy" take one look at either the gungan sub or dooku's solar sailor and tell me they look any more star warsy. At least this one is the starfighter of a major villain!

Snowtrooper
05-06-2010, 12:29 PM
Nope. No interest. Easy pass.

JediTricks
05-06-2010, 03:11 PM
JediTricks, I think the "aiming" part isn't as difficult as you're making it out to be. Even many modern-day fighter planes mount their guns in positions that are outside the pilot's field of vision; the F-15 and F-16 being notable examples (both mounting their guns a considerable distance from the aircraft's centerline as well). It doesn't really matter, because the aircraft's targeting computer does the work for the pilot. He doesn't need to line the guns up with his own line of sight--all he does is keep the dot on his HUD, which shows where the bullets will actually go, lined up with the target. He doesn't need to calculate trajectories or get in close because the computer does the hard work for him.

I would assume the Star Wars universe, with ships that fly in hyperspace, would have something of equivalent utility. What we see on screen is theatrics to enhance the drama of the scene.The F-15's guns are on the wing cowling, not the tips of the wings. No fighter plane has its guns anywhere that far away from the centerline of the vehicle as the Fanblade, or V-19, or ARC-170, because it's not practical for aiming and it leaves the plane exposed. Having guns on long wingtips also makes it more difficult to properly aim and track fire while maneuvering, you're banking the vehicle towards your enemy but your fire is still playing catch-up.

(The F-16's gun is mounted directly under the cockpit on the left side, it scarcely gets closer to the centerline than that.)

I'll give you a physical example of why this doesn't work. Hold your hands just below your head, pretending to hold laser pointers or flashlights (or really do it, that would be better), then turn to aim your lights at something, then something else. Now, move your arms straight out to their maximum length, still holding or pretending to hold lights, and turn to aim your lights at something, then again something else. See how much more time it takes to aim your lights at your targets now See how slower it is also because of how much more adjustment is needed since you can only focus on 1 at a time? See how much more you'd have to turn to defend yourself in close-range combat if those lights were blasters?



N-1s, X-wings, and A-wings were also dog-fighters, with the X-wings most capable of being re-assigned to large scale assault work.

Y-wings were bombers obviously.

B-wings were heavy capital ship assault fighters - an improved model that is easily superior to a V-19 Torrent.

Overall, by the way, you'll note that the X-wing is the most superior starfighter in all of Star Wars and I'm not just saying that because I'm the executive officer of an X-wing squadron. :pleased:I noticed this recently while watching ROTJ's hangar scene: the B-wing is the same size as the X-wing and Y-wing, not as big as some EU sources have suggested. In fact, in ROTJ's hangar you can see one below the Falcon and it's pretty small-looking, not even as significant as the X-wing next to the Falcon. So it's not the size of it that makes it a heavy-hitter. I guess it's the weapons it carries and the oddball configuration of the vehicle, it's bad for close-range fighting.



The "pointing" is done on the computer screen. You line up the target in the screen on your dashboard and fire. Except in the movie that rarely was the case, mostly what you saw was standard WW2-style aiming of the vehicle. Targeting was only used for stationary hard targets like the exhaust port. The only time I can remember any computer screen targeting like what you claim is Vader's TIE Fighter, and his was the only ship where the blaster bolts seemed to sweep from aiming other than straight ahead.


But your still pointing and shooting. You're moving the reticle and the ship aims at that, both the cannons and the ship itself. And the game cheats heavily in the physics department, the game mechanics matching fire to any distance, and not moving the ship more than a little bit. Anyway, my point wasn't about that aiming system, but about having to imagine the fire coming in from well outside the range of your visible cannons, having to figure out fire coming in from higher and lower and well outside your vision on the screen, just coming in from way out there, trying to deal with close-range ships coming at you. My "flashlights in hands" example above does a better job.

Any modern game uses the reticle only as a concept of where the fire is going to be. Firing guns on a modern fighter plane game requires firing in front of the reticle so as to hit the moving target, it requires understanding where your fire will be in relation to that distance, not about the reticle.


What I was getting at was that flying within an atmosphere is not even close to flying in space. In Star Wars, it is meant to be. The space battles have banking turns and standard air battle styles rather than the vacuum/no-gravity battles seen on something like Babylon 5 where the StarVipers use thrusters to fight momentum at any angle and can aim the ship regardless of its velocity.

El Chuxter
05-06-2010, 03:30 PM
No fighter plane has its guns anywhere that far away from the centerline of the vehicle as the Fanblade, or V-19, or ARC-170, because it's not practical for aiming and it leaves the plane exposed.

Or the X-Wing. This configuration is hardly without precedent in SW. Just saying.

(There's also the jet intakes on the X-Wings to consider, even if they were retconned to be something else. Star Wars is hardly the place to look for useful military designs.)

JediTricks
05-06-2010, 03:34 PM
Or the X-Wing. This configuration is hardly without precedent in SW. Just saying.

(There's also the jet intakes on the X-Wings to consider, even if they were retconned to be something else. Star Wars is hardly the place to look for useful military designs.)
I addressed the X-wing's relationship to that group in an earlier post: it is somewhat in the same league but the wings being much closer to the cockpit, plus the cannons being in peripheral view of the pilot, mitigate it somewhat. If we are to accept the X-wing as practical in the SW universe, the V-19 and Fanblade are still well beyond that practicality due to longer wings and odder configurations, and the ARC-170 may only get a pass due to having a second higher up gunner, but even then it still looks mighty wonky.

El Chuxter
05-06-2010, 03:37 PM
I'd think a bigger issue for this (and the Solar Sailer) is, although theoretically a ship could be powered by solar winds, how does this enable them to travel at faster-than-light speeds without entering hyperspace? Or do they have to have separate hyperdrive engines, and, if so, where would this fit, and why bother with the sails?

The Space Outlaw
05-06-2010, 04:16 PM
The F-15's guns are on the wing cowling, not the tips of the wings.

It's behind the pilot, with no visible barrel, and it's still off the centerline by a significant amount. Which means, the pilot can't see it and aim along it like he would with a gun in his hand, which seems to be the gist of your argument.


No fighter plane has its guns anywhere that far away from the centerline of the vehicle as the Fanblade, or V-19, or ARC-170, because it's not practical for aiming and it leaves the plane exposed. Having guns on long wingtips also makes it more difficult to properly aim and track fire while maneuvering, you're banking the vehicle towards your enemy but your fire is still playing catch-up.Again, the pilot doesn't need to "line up" his guns because the computer does it for him. Pilots don't need to "see" their guns in their field of vision to aim them. Most American planes from WW2 didn't have their guns in the pilot's forward view either; they were mounted in the wings, below and beside him where he can't see them. Pilots used a sight, not the gun barrels themselves, to line up targets.


(The F-16's gun is mounted directly under the cockpit on the left side, it scarcely gets closer to the centerline than that.)No, it's mounted, like the F-15, behind the pilot just inside the wing root, on the upper surface of the fuselage. Like the F-15, the pilot can't see it. But, like the F-15, he doesn't need to see his gun to aim it.


I'll give you a physical example of why this doesn't work. Hold your hands just below your head, pretending to hold laser pointers or flashlights (or really do it, that would be better), then turn to aim your lights at something, then something else. Now, move your arms straight out to their maximum length, still holding or pretending to hold lights, and turn to aim your lights at something, then again something else. See how much more time it takes to aim your lights at your targets now See how slower it is also because of how much more adjustment is needed since you can only focus on 1 at a time? See how much more you'd have to turn to defend yourself in close-range combat if those lights were blasters?And if this were WW1, where planes pretty much had to have their guns right in front of the pilot's face to be accurate because there were no reliable gunsights, no targeting computers, and the guns themselves were unreliable pieces of junk, I'd agree with you.

In SW, fighters have targeting computers, Droids with artificial intelligence and sensors we can't even conceive of yet to help the pilot aim. Also, there are non-canon sources (which I choose to accept because it makes sense) suggesting the weapons on many starfighters can "adjust" the trajectory of the beam right at the barrel-tip, which to me is perfectly logical because we're talking about energy weapons which don't technically need a "barrel" in the first place (the only reason they look that way, frankly, is to make them readily recognizable to the uninformed movie-going public as obvious weapons). Thus, all the pilot should really need to do is keep the target within a "cone" in front of his fighter, lock his computer on that target, and pull the trigger--the computer and guns, again, do the hard work.


Except in the movie that rarely was the case, mostly what you saw was standard WW2-style aiming of the vehicle.Because it's more dramatic. It's completely impractical.


Targeting was only used for stationary hard targets like the exhaust port. The only time I can remember any computer screen targeting like what you claim is Vader's TIE Fighter, and his was the only ship where the blaster bolts seemed to sweep from aiming other than straight ahead.Luke also used his targeting computer while saving Biggs' butt.


Anyway, my point wasn't about that aiming system, but about having to imagine the fire coming in from well outside the range of your visible cannons, having to figure out fire coming in from higher and lower and well outside your vision on the screen, just coming in from way out there, trying to deal with close-range ships coming at you. My "flashlights in hands" example above does a better job.Again, modern fighter pilots often can't see their guns either. Ironically, on those aircraft where the guns (or their flash) are visible (such as the F-18) it's a bit of a liability, because the flash can ruin the pilot's vision during nighttime operations.


Any modern game uses the reticle only as a concept of where the fire is going to be. Firing guns on a modern fighter plane game requires firing in front of the reticle so as to hit the moving target, it requires understanding where your fire will be in relation to that distance, not about the reticle.Done for game mechanics. Yes, pilots know how to lead targets, but the computer still does most of the work, because at the speeds where modern fighter combat takes place there's no time to worry about that. Kill him fast, stay alive. Spend a few precious seconds making sure you're lined up, he gets away/turns the tables/his wingman makes your wife a widow.


In Star Wars, it is meant to be. The space battles have banking turns and standard air battle styles rather than the vacuum/no-gravity battles seen on something like Babylon 5 where the StarVipers use thrusters to fight momentum at any angle and can aim the ship regardless of its velocity.I think you mean Starfuries, and that's right to some degree, because Lucas based the SW dogfights on WW2 footage for dramatic effect. Let's face it, SW fighters are terrible designs from a practical standpoint. Missiles are almost nonexistent and used against big, stationary targets while lasers are used for dogfighting--if any of these craft actually got that close to each other where they can use line-of-sight weapons, the relative speeds would be so high they'd be just as likely to crash into each other at that distance as they would be to actually hit a target.

But, I guess it is what it is; that's what you get when your model for "space combat" is prop-driven fighters that could barely pass 400 mph zipping between mile-long capital ships that pass each other at 10 mph trading fire at point-blank range like old sailing ships. It's a wonder anyone survives in that universe.

Tycho
05-27-2010, 12:14 PM
Ventress' Fan Blade Starfighter loses its chance to be requested, 5-8.

While I'm not surprised, I'm disappointed. I would definitely buy this ship.

El Chuxter
05-27-2010, 12:54 PM
While I'm not surprised, I'm disappointed. I would definitely buy this ship.

You say that as if Hasbro doesn't choose what they make and has totally subcontracted to the fun but unscientific polls on this site. :)

bigbarada
05-27-2010, 06:26 PM
You say that as if Hasbro doesn't choose what they make and has totally subcontracted to the fun but unscientific polls on this site. :)

Exactly, 13 people telling Hasbro that they want/don't want this ship really means nothing.

To even be thought of as a true picture of fans' demand, these polls would require a bare-bones minimum of 100 votes. Preferably more than 1000 if we really expect Hasbro to pay attention.

Tycho
05-28-2010, 09:39 AM
Exactly, 13 people telling Hasbro that they want/don't want this ship really means nothing.

To even be thought of as a true picture of fans' demand, these polls would require a bare-bones minimum of 100 votes. Preferably more than 1000 if we really expect Hasbro to pay attention.

Oh, it would take much more than even 1,000.

There is an average of about 16 people participating in these polls.

They are just for fun and for everyone to have as "a procrastination resource." That being said, there should be some more official "anonymous voting, full-site polls" (the check-the-box-kind) for the vehices that are clear winners in the eyes of the regulars here (Jabba the Hutt's sailbarge obviously, with some interesting new ones we learned of, like a Republic Star Destroyer or a Super Jawa Sandcrawler, or Prince Xizor's Virago and the Skipray Blastboat)

Villie's Inferno is not pink btw: that was the artist relecting a pink planet's atmosphere (or sunset sky) on the silver hull of the Inferno. But I think you knew that already. JediTricks' description of the pack-in Sebulba figure from 1999 is still that famous "pink bulldog fetus classic." BTW: most fetuses are pink, JT - all bulldogs are definitely included in that. You were once a pink fetus, but we're not sure if you were a bulldog or just evolved into one :D

Back to the seriousness of this poll though ;) .....

I generally vote for all the EU ship offerings myself, as a diorama enthusiast. Every ship made (provided it's cool-looking, even if not iconic) can add to the Coruscant skyline for a large metropolitan diorama with lots of urban traffic.

Whether kids would re-create the "Adventures of Quinlan Vos and Vilmah Ghrark?" I think it might depend upon their appearance in the Clone Wars Animated Series now, as Jan Duursema has moved on to drawing Legacy comics (and whatever title the story will continue under after issue 50).

But Villie is a mercenary and a bounty hunter, as well as a gambler.

Quinlan is very close to being a Dark Jedi.

They make a very interesting duo. It could be fun if you tire of characters who are always trying to do the right thing, but prefer those who can take either side in the larger conflicts, and then change sides.

El Chuxter
05-28-2010, 12:57 PM
There you go misattributing the "pink bulldog fetus" quote again. :p

bigbarada
05-28-2010, 03:00 PM
They make a very interesting duo. It could be fun if you tire of characters who are always trying to do the right thing, but prefer those who can take either side in the larger conflicts, and then change sides.

Well, the characters who interest me most are the ones who might be trying to do the right thing, but just happen to be on the wrong side. Probably why I've always identified with the Imperials and Jabba's henchmen more than the heroes of SW.

The characters who can switch loyalties at the drop of a hat are nothing more than opportunists and are the real villains of any story, IMO.

Tycho
05-29-2010, 12:21 AM
I like those opportunists. Remember, Han Solo and Lando Calrissian were introduced as that kind, too.

Neither of them could play that way, so they became the heroes.

Anakin was of this sort, too - but he became the villain. Interesting dynamic.

El Chuxter
05-29-2010, 01:30 AM
Well, the characters who interest me most are the ones who might be trying to do the right thing, but just happen to be on the wrong side. Probably why I've always identified with the Imperials and Jabba's henchmen more than the heroes of SW.

I can see the Imperials, who are just doing their government jobs, but Jabba's henchmen are straight-up gangstas.