Subject:
|
Re: Who else wants an AT-AT?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jan 2001 05:37:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
790 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Joseph Cardana writes:
> Hey All,
> I don't want to sound rude but why not avoid the "argument" and
> confusion.
Forgive me if I sound like I'm ranting about the size of the AT-AT... It's
really not all THAT important-- and I'm SURE if we actually measured the
models used in the movies, got the distance to camera of the filming of the
little luke ascending the AT-AT, got the set measurements of the AT-AT
cockpit, etc, there'd be lots of discrepancies, just like the falcon. It's
just a movie, and for all intents and purposes, an AT-AT is just supposed to
look big and menacing.
> I haven't read all of this conversation but according to my
> blueprints the AT-AT is 15.5 meters equaling 50.8524 feet. Why not just go
> with 50 feet?
Basically, I didn't go with 50 feet because it just didn't 'feel' right. I
watched the movie, looked at how big 50 feet was in minifig scale, and said
"wait a sec... that's too small..." (yes, my first AT-AT was just over 50
feet tall.) It simply didn't fit with what I saw in the movie-- the movie's
versions looked bigger.
That's when the research goes in. Were my instincts right? Is it portrayed
as really larger than 50 feet? Or is it really 50 feet all along? It's all
just a matter of how curious you are. And as it turns out, 50 feet is very
barely plausible with watching the movie... It's more likely bigger--
between 50 and 100 feet tall, leaning towards 70-80 feet, according to what
we see in the movie.
Ok. Fine. But the 'official' sources still say an AT-AT is about 50 feet
tall (1). Why not just say the movie made a mistake and make them 50 feet tall?
A. Source preference. I'd rather go with the movie as canon over what the
'official' books tell me. Who's to say what's correct? Well, Lucas, I guess.
But otherwise, nobody. Both are official sources, they disagree, pick the
one you want. I go with the movie (but heck, it even disagrees with itself,
when you look at it closely!). I'm pretty sure that according to Lucas, the
movies are 'right'. There's tidbits here and there in the novel, for
example, which simply don't mesh with the movie. And other facts like Leia
being a princess, her 'really' being Luke's sister, Owen being Ben's
brother, etc, all are kinda in flux. As I recall, someone mentioned that
Leia was only added as Luke's sister to provide another 'out' for the movies
should anything happen to Mark Hamill (he was in an accident before ESB
filmed-- which is why we get the ice creature scene instead of the original
script with Luke 'running into' the AT-AT walkers, etc.) Basically, it
sounds like Lucas' original intent WAS to have Leia be Luke's love interest,
but changed it later. Dunno. Open to speculation. Anyway. I'm way off topic.
Point being, the movies are (I think) regarded as 'right'.
B. It's cooler. Let's face it. AT-AT's aren't practical, they're just cool.
It'd be MUCH more cost-effective to build some sort of tank or something.
But just the idea of a big, menacing thingy walking at you is enough to make
you say "Wow!" where a smaller tank just wouldn't. And, the bigger, the
better. A 10 foot walker vs. a 100 foot walker? 100 foot wins in coolness,
assuming the same design, whatever. Ok, again, that's kinda personal-- maybe
someone would think the opposite. But not me. Lucas loves stupidly big
things. Battleships 1 mile long? Even 10 miles long? A battlestation 100
miles across? (The floorspace in a finished 2nd Death Star is roughly equal
to the surface area of the Earth (water included)). That's part of SW's
appeal-- things are on a grand scale. And even though largely unbelievable,
they're impressive.
C. Easier to build. You can put a lot more detail into a 75-foot AT-AT than
a 50 foot one.
Anyway, for me, that's why I'd go with 75 feet as the AT-AT's height (mainly
for the first reason. B & C are more just side benefits personally) Am I
wrong? Depends on what you call 'right'. At the risk of getting into a
completely stupid, yet still Star Wars-related argument, I'll say if anyone
wants to discuss it further, I'm all ears. I love this sort of thing. Cuz
I'm a nutsy sort of fan :)
DaveE
(1) Some reported heights:
- "HEIGHT: 16 METERS" - Star Wars Technical Journal
- "More than 15 meters tall and 20 meters long..." - www.starwars.com
- "...over fifteen meters tall..." - A Guide to the Star Wars Universe
- "fifty feet high" - The Art of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
- "At twenty meters long and over fifteen meters tall..." - Essential Guide
to Vehicles and Vessels
Another 'blueprint' is seen in the Incredible Cross Sections book, again,
clearly larger than 50 feet-- more reasonably a bit over 70 feet tall-- it's
hard to tell exactly since it's drawn at an angle...
My interpretation: during the design phase, Lucas threw out a number to the
designers- 50 feet tall. But when it started making its way to the actual
production, my guess is that Lucas wanted the walkers to appear more
menacing and huge (most notably in the shot with Luke ascending to the
underbelly), and thus the walkers came out bigger. And the number '50 feet
tall' just stuck with it, even though the movie shows them as being larger.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Who else wants an AT-AT?
|
| (...) Well I do agree that 50' would just seem too small. The version I made at (URL) Is slightly smaller than minifig scale and according to the stud height, it's over 50'. (And if you look at my picture, don't rag on me about the head, I know it's (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Who else wants an AT-AT?
|
| (...) Hey All, I don't want to sound rude but why not avoid the "argument" and confusion. I haven't read all of this conversation but according to my blueprints the AT-AT is 15.5 meters equaling 50.8524 feet. Why not just go with 50 feet? Joe (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
