DISCUSSION OF VARIOUS STUDIO SCALE AT-ATs

swpropmaker

Sr Member
Yeah I saw it... I only wish some of us could of had access to the real filming minature. OF the 4 ATATs I have reference on the details are all the same. This one has many that are different. The neck being to long and the wrong material is the most obvious. (My 2 cents)

I will get one I think.. or wait till we see how real kit parts match up... if the size is right at least we have proper measuremnts to make our own better. I could have the legs machined in Alluminum and fitted with pressure armature for movment and re positioning, replace the neck with proper material and have a gimble to allow rotation and up down side to side positions.

The ATAT is my favorite vehicle.. Ive studied it for about 6 years now.. If the MR ATAT can be made to pose and missing detail replaced it may be worth it... Sweede.. they should of gotten with you on the paint job!!

Steve
 

STEVE THE SWEDE

Sr Member
Thanks for the comment Steve!


IMO, it looks good though, I'm with you with most of the details, still can't figure out what the phillips screws are doing on the lower legs. However, it looks like an awesome base for an upgrade, much better then the kit were all converting. The price is probably fair if the sucker can be articulated, if not it's to damn much.

Steve.
 

Aegis159

Sr Member
I don't see it being made to articulate very easily. More than likely the legs are cast in those positions.

You guys keep talking like the RG ATAT is waaaay off... other than the underside and the rear area on the older versions of the kit, what else is "way off"?? Like I said in the other thread on the regular board, I pulled mine out and things were pretty much the same between the two.
 

TomSpinaDesigns

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
</SPAN><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
swpropmaker wrote:
<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
Im not buying that it was designed from a hybrid or some crap like that. Easy pieces that are uniform on all are missing. Got blasted pretty hard on the other thread we probally need to keep our "crazy details" to this forum!

</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>

Steve,

Um, this is all part of one forum dude... so simply moving the fight over here isn't gonna fly.

My suggestion was to start a new thread (in the main forum, as it seemed current) to present your pics, so that the original thread would remain clear of this, not to simply hide it away in the SSM forum. No offense, but the blasting wasn't because of your (and others) pointing out of details... it was the presentation.

You went off pretty hard (and just have again) without all the facts and several others joined in. If you guys want to talk about the product and compare pics and details to the refs you have, knock yourselves out.

If you wanna go on talking crap about MR, this drama's just going to drag on (and there's no need)

Discussion of details is what we're here for. Demanding answers from a company that doesn't post on this board is not.

Consideration is all we are requesting.

-Consider that the replica makers have to go by the refs provided by the copywrite holder (LFL) and that those refs may be different from ours.

-Consider that there were multiples used in filming and while most we've seen seem identical in photos, until we've seen all of them in person, we can't speak in absolutes.

-Consider that some details will be left off for the sake of "cleaning up" an original piece to give it more mass-market appeal in the eyes of that same copywrite holder.

-Consider that the copywrite holder can make requests for changes to minute details to better fit their image of the piece.

-Consider that the AT-AT we've seen pics of from Toy Fair may be a prototype.

-Consider the restraints of producing 1000 of these and that changes (or even mistakes) may have been made in production.

And most importantly, consider that it took less than 20 posts for someone to start bitching about what "should and shouldn't be" on the replicas.

I'm sorry, but that's not our call. It's a replica made for collectors, not for studio scale model builders. You said yourself it was the best out there and that's fine, but one compliment doesn't buy you any leeway when it comes to showing respect for a company's work.

This isn't just you, so i apologize if it seems i'm singling you out. I've pm'd those on both sides of the argument and it's time for all of us to move on from this.

All that we ask is that people stick to discussing details and leave off the "MR sucks cus it's not exactly how i wanted it" sentiment...

Tom

(i'll also split this off from the original AT AT thread so that it doesn't muddy up all the work you guys have done...)
 

Aegis159

Sr Member
Hehehe wondered what had happened to my previous post. I'll put this over here instead of there since it makes more sense here...

"And I'm positive that ~$300 of that price is the silly case... which half of them will be broken by the time it gets to where it's suppose to be going. I can't believe that they would try and ship a case that size!! Do they not know how rough ALL of the postal services are, especially if you put "Fragile" on the box???" I see them eating ALOT of the cases and having to replace them.
 

swpropmaker

Sr Member
I conseed Wampa.. points taken. I will buy it and do what I want with it anyway. I will make it match the 4 film used ATATs I have reference of.

If folks read carefully my posts I say it could be a varient..a prototype ... Tom, sorry to have made this such a big topic.

I think MR did a great job... with that said to each there own and I never made a "MR sucks" comment so I hope that wasnt directed towards me..

Im just a passionate ATAT fan.. that hoped to add a 100% accurate minature to my collection. I just pointed out it doesnt match 4 of the film used ATATs that we have seen. Maybe do to the points that you mentioned in your post.

Also my reference pictures are not just from the MOM. They are from reference books (Chronicals) ILM books and pictures of behind the scenes weve gathered over the years. Plus Screen Caps from the movie. All film used..

My point is I cannot find the detail missing or different on any of those so why is it different or missing on this one?

I was just pointing out what I saw.. never meant it to turn into a us vs them. Wampa I apologize for that.

I understand this is one forum I meant "thread" but typed wrong. Studio Scalers are a strange group.. our attention to detail is crazy sometimes and we love our passion for these minatures.. just like the prop guys like thier blasters and sabers.. thats all Tom no hard feelings...

What will happen if MR releases a Blaster with the wrong parts on it?? If that occured wouldnt the blaster pros sound off with whats wrong ? I heard someone say the same thing happened when they released the Paser I.

No harm intended.. when I get mine I will compare to all known kitparts.. take measurements for fellow builders and provide any input to the forum for making it match the filming minatures we have grown to know and love over the past years.

Steve
 

Ketzer.com

Sr Member
Is anybody going to Toy Fair?

Maybe someone could ask MR some simple questions:
-is the price with or without the case
-is the model available without the case
-is this a prototype or not

Another thought: The Flakvierling parts missing on the legs: if that model at ToyFair is a prototype, it would be easy for them to exchange those parts. Who knows, maybe they are even reading this forum because thy still need to find some parts.

When is the model coming out anyway? I heard in the fall?! That would still give them lots of time to make changes.

If that thing is built from scratch, they did a GREAT job on it. So I do not understand why they would "screw up" on "obvious" things like the neck being too long, too thick or not having enough rings.

This maybe a prototype after all. So if anybody goes to ToyFair, maybe they can ask MR.

Tim
 

TomSpinaDesigns

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
</SPAN><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
swpropmaker wrote:
<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
My point is I cannot find the detail missing or different on any of those so why is it different or missing on this one?</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

Again, see my post above. Plenty of possible reasons. Discuss the details all you like, but questioning over and over of a company that doesn't post here starts to sound accusatory.


<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
swpropmaker wrote:
<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
What will happen if MR releases a Blaster with the wrong parts on it?? If that occured wouldnt the blaster pros sound off with whats wrong ? I heard someone say the same thing happened when they released the Paser I.
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>

Unfortunately Steve, the same thing seems to happen over and over (and that's not good). We expect the same respect and consideration be given ANY licensed piece from ANY company.

As i've said, discussing details is what we're here for, let's just do it with a little more respect and a little less drama and i think things will go well.

If you can, please post up your points/pics from the other thread about the details as i'd like to clean that thread up of a bit of the back and forth. (i'd merge them, but since they were made before this thread, they'd throw things out of whack)

Tom
 

TomSpinaDesigns

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
OK, here are the comparisoon shots from that other thread....

</SPAN><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
swpropmaker wrote:
<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
Ok lets first remember if you read my previous post "I THINK ITS THE BEST AVAIABLE" Since I was called to prove my point I will talk on the head and neck alone... here goes a easy 11 whats wrong with the MR version.. hey I was called out here it goes...

Check reference picture below:

1-4 There are an additonal raised detail that is on all 24 X 53 X 48 cm ATATs .. ok thats 8 details wrong on the MR head ( dont forget the other side..)

5-6 After further review 5 and 6 are the kit pieces..got better pics! Way to go MR!!!!

7 there is a gun shroud missing. It is on most of the ATATs the one you commonly see on tour has been handled and lost.

8 The neck material should be 20 lines per inch the MR is
10-15 lines per inch at best.. not acurate.. without proper measurment access Id say its to long as well but I cant prove that.. who knows maybe one day I can measure it




Like I said before... its the best you can buy. I just wanted to point out its not exact to the reference photos I have.
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>


<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
EchoLeader wrote:
<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
Here's another item Steve mentioned. Not sure if it was omitted from the study reference that MR had but the AT-AT seen in the MoM tour had this part shown with the arrow point. This is the seatback off a 1/35 scale Tamiya Flakverling Gun which was also used on the studio scale TIE Bomber.


</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
swpropmaker wrote:
<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>

What ever the reason the details are different than thee of the film used ATATs I have photographed or have seen photos of. In some instances it looks like they were replicating the large 4 ft ATAT rather than the 48 cm version theyre selling. See below....



The 8 parts on the MR version are made up... they should of used the FLAK 38 kitparts.. it has more detail than just flat styrene strips as the pictures of the MR ATAT show.

Am I gonna buy it?? Heck yeah! Am I gonna add real kit detail?? Heck yeah!!! Will I repose it it?? Heck yeah!

It is the best thing out there and Im glad they made it.. I can fix it and make it studio accurate...for me ...more acurate... what can I say Ive spent twice the cost of the MR AT-AT on vintage kits anyway.. this is just more to work with!!

Steve
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>
 

swpropmaker

Sr Member
Thanks Wampa...

Let this thread stay on track.. It IS NOT a MR bashing thread!!

Lets talk of the differences to the studio models we have reference of (4 different film used versions)

So what have you guys seen?
 

STEVE THE SWEDE

Sr Member
Well first of all I would like to know why there's two Philip head screws under the leg joint!? Please see the pic:



Trust me people, they are NOT present on any of the studio models I've seen.

Second, does anybody know for sure that the model isn't articulated? I find it hard to believe that they are going to release a static model.

Any thoughts?

Steve.
 

Ketzer.com

Sr Member
well, if those srews are there, they must be there for a reason. I doubt they "accidentally" added some screws there.

Maybe the modesl in the MOM exhibitions etc were just resin copies? And not the original walkers made from aluminum?

Tim
 

Treadwell

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Someone on the other thread, supposedly in the know, said that the three feet on the ground are depicted as compressed, and the faux hydrolics for the raised foot are shown extended. I took this to mean this was permanent for all feet, and thus the AT-AT would not be posable.
 

STEVE THE SWEDE

Sr Member
</SPAN><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
uzth4s wrote:
<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
well, if those srews are there, they must be there for a reason. I doubt they "accidentally" added some screws there.

Maybe the models in the MOM exhibitions etc were just resin copies? And not the original walkers made from aluminum?

Tim
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>

No, I don't think that's the case. I have several pics of the one at MoM and it has a lot of the kit bashed details missing/fallen off. If it was a casted copy they most likely would have casted the legs with the details on.

Steve.
 
Top