Talk:Admiral Piett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


We need to get Piett's picture.-B-101 23:40, August 13, 2004

Try to get a photo of Piett. And also, who keeps turning "super star destroyer" into "star dreadnought"? The Executor is a super-star destroyer, not a star dreadnought.- B-101 11:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The entire rebel fleet didn't take down the Executor. The domes that are on the bridge towers are the shield generators. Some think they are sensor domes, but they protect the ship. It is said in the "Illustrated Guide to Weapons and Technology". The two A-wings disabled the shields which allowed that guy to plow into the bridge.- B-101 11:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can't see the photo on this or any other Wikipedia page while using Firefox. What gives? - may 29, 2005

A-wings and Star Dreadnoughts[edit]

Admiral Ackbar ordered the fleet to "Concentrate all fire on that Super Star Destroyer." The rebel fleet then quickly brought down the Exector's shields. The 2 A-wings took advantage of the shield failure to strafe the sensor globe. Destroying the sensor globe reduced the accuracy of the Executor's weapons, which allowed the kamikaze A-wing to ram the bridge before the crew could get the shields back up.

The claims of poorly researched books like the "Illustrated Guide to Weapons and Technology" are irrelevant. There are 8 globes clearly visible near the bridge on the model, so even if they were shield generators, only losing one wouldn't do much anyway.

"Super Star Destroyer" is at best a slang term. Star Dreadnought is the proper designation for ships of the Executor's size as explicitly established in "Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy", published on August 1, 2004. - Vermilion 04:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason to consider "Inside the Worlds ..." more canonical than "Illustrated Guide ...", or indeed, the various and several SW computer games (which I play far more often than I watch the films), which clearly establish both that it's a Super Star Destroyer and that the globes are shield generators. Does it have some sort of "this is official truth and the rest of all that expanded universe stuff is a pack of lies" foreword from that nice Mr Lucas or something? Bth (Can't quite believe I'm getting involved in this, but never mind.)
Generally, more recent books override older books when there's a contradiction. Most SW books and games just mindlessly repeat obviously incorrect information from WEG's RPG. The two series of books recently published by DK ("Incredible Cross Sections" and "Inside the Worlds"), are correcting many of the old WEG mistakes such as the length of the Executor and the sizes of the Death Stars.
The overall stories of the games are canon but the games themselves are not canon. For example, in TIE Fighter, it would be canon that Grand Admiral Zarin developed the TIE Defender and tried to take over the Empire, but the exact events shown in each mission would not be canon. As another example, in X-wing Alliance, the Azzameen family joining the Rebellion would be canon, but obviously Ace Azzameen did not pilot the Falcon at Endor. - Vermilion 05:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well according to this Wookipedia article it's both a star dreadnought and therefore a super star destroyer:
I suggest using super star destroyer in the article. That's the term people will recognise seeing as Admiral Ackbar called it that. Bombot 12:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Shield globes[edit]

Maybe the globes on the bridge tower are designated for shield duties, like the one the A-wings blew up. Maybe the ones that are seen throughout the model are the sensor globes.

And also, even if the sensors weren't down, it would still be hard for the Executor's turbolasers to hit an A-wing. Those things are pretty darn fast.- B-101 13:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New book[edit]

I honestly didn't know they had a new book about the original trilogy.- B-101 14:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I went out and bought a copy of the new book. It really clears up what you were saying.- B-101 22:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shields again[edit]

The new guide to weapons and technology says that the domes are the shield generators. I would like to change it again.- B-101 00:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would be better to call them shield projectors, rather than generators. Vermilion 19:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So, would it be okay to change that the statement that the Rebels fleet took down the shields to the two A-wings that blew up the domes?- B-101 23:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Edit whatever you want, you don't need to ask permisson for anything. I mainly take issue with saying the A-wings alone brought down the shield. The domes themselves would be protected by the shield, so it would have to be taken down first for the A-wings to be able to hit them. That's what the fleet did. Vermilion 20:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I put in that the fleet disabled the shields for the projectors and the A-wings destroyed the bridge's projector. This should be a common agreement for us.- B-101 18:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that looks good. Vermilion 20:19, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hopefully, this is the last time I have to ask this. Get Piett's picture, please.- B-101 22:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


What would be the point of Vader training Piett to use a lightsaber?Kuralyov 17:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Possibly discipline? I'd imagine the training would help Piett keep focused and whatnot.--Kross 01:27, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Also if you look at General Grievous he's not a sith but he was trained to use lightsabers.


Piett was probably married and "Sarkli" was his wife's maiden name.

Er...why is this believed? I haven't read any Star Wars Extended Universe stuff, so I am just going from the text of the article on this, but if it is explained that Sarkli is his wife's maiden name, then it's not "probably." If it is not explained, I don't see why this is any more likely than any other explanation of a nephew with a different last name than his uncle, of which there are numerous possibilities - the son of Piett's sister, the son of Piett's half-brother, the son of Piett's wife's sister, the son of Piett's step-brother or sister... john k 07:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand the speculation. There really isn't much on Captain Sarkli. The only info on him is from his Star Wars trading card which says he is Piett's nephew and that he is an Imperial spy.- B-101 15:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lightsabers Deuce[edit]

Where is this lightsaber reference coming from? It seems rather absurd.

-Zertz, 14/08/05

"one of only two Imperial officers to appear in two Star Wars films..."[edit]

who was the other? Streamless 19:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Tarkin appears briefly in Episode III Ken S. 20:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I've always thought the chap on the Executor who Piett grumbles to about bounty hunters ("We don't need their scum!") in The Empire Strikes Back is the same chap sitting at the console on the Executor when Darth Vader asks Piett where the shuttle Tyderium is going in Return of the Jedi. Is this wrong? Can anybody confirm or deny this? Wavy G 01:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Commander Gherant was also in two. Lankiveil 05:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC).


The name of the tall Imperial with Piett on the bridge is actually Commander Gherant, I thought? Kooshmeister

I did a quick check using Google and I even tried's encyclopedia, and I can find no mention of this Sitchei fellow anywhere but here on Wikipedia. I've changed the mention of Sitchei to Gherant. Kooshmeister


I have redirected this uncited collection of plot summary to the appropriate Star Wars character list. --EEMIV (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Fastily has undone the redirect. If s/he or any other editor can provide citations to third-party sources establishing this character's notability within ~a week, great. Otherwise, I will restore the redirect and/or take the article to AfD. The fact that this "article" contains more "biographical" data on Piett than the redirect target is not sufficient reason for this article to exist; see WP:WAF, WP:RS. --EEMIV (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)