Subject:
|
Re: Who else wants an AT-AT?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:10:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
925 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, David Eaton writes:
> 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.
Well I do agree that 50' would just seem too small. The version I made at
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=25326 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 all
screwed up, I just haven't taken the time to fix it.) But as far as scale,
the bigger (for me anyway) the better. I'm working on an MLCAD model of a
Star Destroyer being 1.6 meters (1:1000 scale). Not having too much luck.
Having trouble with the underside.
Joe
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Who else wants an AT-AT?
|
| Here's a thought, maybe there are several different sizes of AT-AT based on purpose. A larger 80ft one that contains vehicles and a smaller 50ft version that is a people transport. Just a thought. I know the books say otherwise, but maybe the books (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
| | | Re: Who else wants an AT-AT?
|
| BUT if you go strictly by the fact that the foot of the AT-AT covers the Snowspeeder and take into account the size of the LEGO Snowspeeder. In order to accomplish the AT-AT foot being the right size it would HAVE to be HUGE. This would also support (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Who else wants an AT-AT?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
