Master Replicas AT-AT question
- Thread starter Deleted
- Start date
staermose
Sr Member
Could it be a copyright issue with the makers of the original parts? Perhaps the weren't allowed to use the models parts and had to create their own masters. This is of course just pure speculation.
I haven't seen a MR AT-AT yet myself, but I was under the impression that they did use the original parts. Did you simply compare the MR parts with the the actual model kit parts?
Sorry that I couldn't be of any more help, but your post just raised a whole new line of questions for me.
Cheers
Staermose
I haven't seen a MR AT-AT yet myself, but I was under the impression that they did use the original parts. Did you simply compare the MR parts with the the actual model kit parts?
Sorry that I couldn't be of any more help, but your post just raised a whole new line of questions for me.
Cheers
Staermose
Hallo
Well, I´m not quite sure if I got the questionright, but I looked it up in my MR AT-AT description. You are right, they didn´t use the original molds used for the film models. I don´t know why they didn´t use them (there is no explanation). But they used an original ILM AT-AT Model, which was scanned and after that it was detailed by some parts that ILM used on the models (it says: ...Our designers also located the hundreds of parts that ILM used to detail the original filming model...)
Perhapse the mold were lost? Could that be the simple explanation?
Happy New Year
Domenik
Well, I´m not quite sure if I got the questionright, but I looked it up in my MR AT-AT description. You are right, they didn´t use the original molds used for the film models. I don´t know why they didn´t use them (there is no explanation). But they used an original ILM AT-AT Model, which was scanned and after that it was detailed by some parts that ILM used on the models (it says: ...Our designers also located the hundreds of parts that ILM used to detail the original filming model...)
Perhapse the mold were lost? Could that be the simple explanation?
Happy New Year
Domenik
STEVE THE SWEDE
Sr Member
I'm too are chocked by this news.
I was definatly under the impression that molds were taken from the original kit parts and not scratch built by MR. While some of the parts looks OK others look horrible, take the ankel "L's" for example, they miss tons of details. I haven't recieved my model yet but I don't look forward to the task of shaving them all off and replace them with the accurate parts.
Does anybody with the propper knowledge about the real parts have access to the MR model? It should be interesting to see if all details were copied or if some are molds from the actual kit parts.
I realize that most collectors don't think this is an issue to get hung up on but I for one think it's a BIG deal.
Steve.
Does anybody with the propper knowledge about the real parts have access to the MR model? It should be interesting to see if all details were copied or if some are molds from the actual kit parts.
I realize that most collectors don't think this is an issue to get hung up on but I for one think it's a BIG deal.
Steve.
Spiker
Sr Member
As far as i know the guys from MR read in these forums. I would be very happy to hear why they actually did not take the original parts. If a representative of MR would post here that they did it because of copyright-issues i would be satisfied. I think by myself that it must be the copyright but it would be fine to hear it from MR.
The other explanation is that Lucasfilm simply does not want an authentic replica of the model (for artistically reasons).
Don't have any other logical explanations for this whole thing because it would have been much more easier for MR to simply take the kit-parts than to scratchbuilt them actually.
So pls MRlers give us the solution.
The other explanation is that Lucasfilm simply does not want an authentic replica of the model (for artistically reasons).
Don't have any other logical explanations for this whole thing because it would have been much more easier for MR to simply take the kit-parts than to scratchbuilt them actually.
So pls MRlers give us the solution.
"Our designers also located the hundreds of parts that ILM used to detail the original filming models. Each part was compared alongside the filming model to make sure it was an exact match before being cataloged for use. Our prototyping shop then combined all of this data to create an articulated master pattern that captured all of the details of the original filming model."
DARKSIDE72
Sr Member
The only way to own a 110% accurate studio scale model is to build it yourself.
Rogue Studios
Well-Known Member
Splitting hairs is what studio scale modelers are all about!! no compromise keep on building my brothers!!.
Lee
Lee
CaptCBoard
Well-Known Member
Quoting one of the posts above:
"Our designers also located the hundreds of parts that ILM used to detail the original filming models. Each part was compared alongside the filming model to make sure it was an exact match before being cataloged for use. Our prototyping shop then combined all of this data to create an articulated master pattern that captured all of the details of the original filming model."
This sounds like they did everything except USE the parts in making the masters. They located them, compared them and then cataloged them so that all that data could be used to create a master that "captured" all the detail-- in other words, it LOOKS like the original filming model, but it is not an exact match.
I suspect this is a copyright issue, much like what the SF-3D line incurred many years ago. This is just MR's way of saying nothing untrue or negative about their product. In fact, they have described in very exacting language what they did!
Scott
CaptCBoard@AOL.com
"Our designers also located the hundreds of parts that ILM used to detail the original filming models. Each part was compared alongside the filming model to make sure it was an exact match before being cataloged for use. Our prototyping shop then combined all of this data to create an articulated master pattern that captured all of the details of the original filming model."
This sounds like they did everything except USE the parts in making the masters. They located them, compared them and then cataloged them so that all that data could be used to create a master that "captured" all the detail-- in other words, it LOOKS like the original filming model, but it is not an exact match.
I suspect this is a copyright issue, much like what the SF-3D line incurred many years ago. This is just MR's way of saying nothing untrue or negative about their product. In fact, they have described in very exacting language what they did!
Scott
CaptCBoard@AOL.com
SSRN Seaview
Well-Known Member
I have one on order too and would suspect that in manufacturing "x" amount of replicas. You would have to cut some corners or instead of $1199 for each, the price would be closer to $11,999. Plus as its a product for the general public, strength and integrity would be important. Think about how many claims could be made on "it broke off when touched it"....
But as this is the first studio scale replica from MR, it's going to hold its value and appreciate over time like the Solo Blaster.
But as this is the first studio scale replica from MR, it's going to hold its value and appreciate over time like the Solo Blaster.
DARKSIDE72
Sr Member
What is so difficult about casting the the real parts as part of the main assemblies so the final product ends up being accurate instead of implied? The price would be the same. It's just shortcuts which the average Joe won't recognize.
And I don't think "copy-write" issues have anything to do with kit bashing.
With a studio scale model "implied" isn't good enough, which is why the few of us nuts continue to do what we do.
And I don't think "copy-write" issues have anything to do with kit bashing.
With a studio scale model "implied" isn't good enough, which is why the few of us nuts continue to do what we do.
Looks like the whole model was built in 3d and then milled or something... If you look at the two cannons on the side of the head, you will see that one of them is flipped! (only the lower, longer cannon. The upper, cut off cannon is not flipped)
The cannon is a part from the Tamiya Flak Vierling. That Flak had 4 cannons (vier = four). All four cannons were exactly the same part. There never was a cannon that was flipped.
That flak also supplied a lot more parts for the ATAT. The tiny rectangular vent holes, the two elongated parts for the inner ankles, some parts for the belly, and the shield on the back of the body. Even those shields were engeneered. Some of teh rivets do not line up.
Look at the long, curved detail near the "hip" of the ATAT (the broken piece in the photo above) and the round piece with the hole on the ankle: Those parts on the MR ATAT are A LOT smaller. Makes me wonder how accurate teh size of the model is.
Tim
The cannon is a part from the Tamiya Flak Vierling. That Flak had 4 cannons (vier = four). All four cannons were exactly the same part. There never was a cannon that was flipped.
That flak also supplied a lot more parts for the ATAT. The tiny rectangular vent holes, the two elongated parts for the inner ankles, some parts for the belly, and the shield on the back of the body. Even those shields were engeneered. Some of teh rivets do not line up.
Look at the long, curved detail near the "hip" of the ATAT (the broken piece in the photo above) and the round piece with the hole on the ankle: Those parts on the MR ATAT are A LOT smaller. Makes me wonder how accurate teh size of the model is.
Tim
Spiker
Sr Member
It should be no problem to collect all the parts of the kits used for the AT-AT (as MR quoted they even did it). Most of these Kits are still for sale today and not very rare.
To make recasts of the original parts from Tamiya and the others used should be no deal + MR would have an 100% AT-AT.
It should be even cheaper to produce then to scratchbuild the parts. So the only solution must be the copyright-issue or ILM must have their reasons not to allow a buyable copy. Btw copyright-issues have something to to with kitbashing: When MR casts parts from Tamiya and use them for a model which they want to sell they braking copyrights. In the strict sense your even not allowed to scratchbuilt that parts if you want to use them commercial... that could be the answer why the parts all look a bit different then the originals.
Meanwhile i am sure that it is so, it would be just great to hear a statement from MR...
To make recasts of the original parts from Tamiya and the others used should be no deal + MR would have an 100% AT-AT.
It should be even cheaper to produce then to scratchbuild the parts. So the only solution must be the copyright-issue or ILM must have their reasons not to allow a buyable copy. Btw copyright-issues have something to to with kitbashing: When MR casts parts from Tamiya and use them for a model which they want to sell they braking copyrights. In the strict sense your even not allowed to scratchbuilt that parts if you want to use them commercial... that could be the answer why the parts all look a bit different then the originals.
Meanwhile i am sure that it is so, it would be just great to hear a statement from MR...
DARKSIDE72
Sr Member
If you scratch-build donor parts to resemble a kit part you can do whatever you like with it. If scratch building were an issue with copy-writes then the film studios couldn't do it, as it would be a violation for using the "kit" parts. If it were replication of the kit as a whole then it would be a problem. Many companies have replicated studio models with all the donor kit parts intact. So it's just not an issue.
It seems to me that MR did the scan thing with an ILM model, the result being the implied look of the detail. Instead of replicating the detail with the actual donor parts on a new prototype for casting. Again it's a shortcut for mass production, and it's detail most wouldn't pick up on.
It seems to me that MR did the scan thing with an ILM model, the result being the implied look of the detail. Instead of replicating the detail with the actual donor parts on a new prototype for casting. Again it's a shortcut for mass production, and it's detail most wouldn't pick up on.
star-art
Sr Member
We're getting into uncharted territory here with these mass-produced studio-scale replicas. It's a very good bet that any company could have gotten into trouble for recasting model kit parts for a product like this. They were probably advised by both Lucasfilm and their own attorneys to make facsimiles of the parts.
When a ship is seen on film, no one is likely to notice exactly which parts were used so this practice can slip in under the radar. Back then I'm sure no one ever imagined people like us would be trying to recreate what they had built. I know some of the FX guys think we're a little nuts for even wanting to try!
When a ship is seen on film, no one is likely to notice exactly which parts were used so this practice can slip in under the radar. Back then I'm sure no one ever imagined people like us would be trying to recreate what they had built. I know some of the FX guys think we're a little nuts for even wanting to try!
spinner 44
Sr Member
Steve,
I hope you kept your uber detailed ATATRon. It seems that finally you model was much more studio accurate than the licensed one (How many times we'll have to read this
! )
And Tim, thank for pointing this issue. I'm afaraid I will not be buying the thing. Too expensive for me for being a model that still need super detailing and upgrading).
Regards
I hope you kept your uber detailed ATATRon. It seems that finally you model was much more studio accurate than the licensed one (How many times we'll have to read this
And Tim, thank for pointing this issue. I'm afaraid I will not be buying the thing. Too expensive for me for being a model that still need super detailing and upgrading).
Regards
