Timely area of focus. I was just looking at those exact differences on my MPC kit last night. Comparing them to the Bandai 144 and the Studio models. MPC is missing the right mid plate and top plate completely. Interestingly Bandai still got the oval upside down but did get the top and mid armor plates in there pretty well. Bandai also added some lower plates.
Makes me wonder if there is a picture out there with the oval upside down that was used for the Bandai reference since they are normally pretty good at capturing details properly. Is that part removable on the AT-AT SS models? My thought was it might be a similar situation as the upside down servo hub on the back of X-Wings that has been molded into some kits as taken from a SS model pics where the insert had spun around in the mounting hole or was put back in wrong. Never showed up in the film that way.
MPC back. No upper armor plate and missing the right side mid armor.
View attachment 1456050
Bandai Back
View attachment 1456051
Really nice job on the new armor plates and oval direction!
You have had me scouring the internet for further photo's of the rear now haha. Again I'm not going for a perfect build and not obsessing over this but am having fun doing the research so just letting it evolve.
I can find no studio shots showing the walkers from behind. Maybe someone has some.
There is this shot with all the models, walker at the front... and point of interest.... no top plate and looks like only a mid plate on the RIGHT side. Could have been made this way, or pieces most likely fell off but considering how often they get tooling reversed on models I bet this was what was used to base the MPC on. I cant really make out the rear oval but through the shadows and pixels my gut feeling is it is correct to the MPC kit.
Perhaps there is a better photo of this somewhere but considering it's pre-digital age I doubt it. And why is that Falcon upside down? everything is just upside down today haha
Perhaps your right about the rear oval being removable and have gotten turned upside down like on the X-Wings.
So now I question is mine right or wrong?
Every reference I can see.... toys, model kits...even turned on Star Wars Battlefront as when the boys were playing noticed the Rendition of the At-At was really on the money and they all show the oval with the vent up top as molded on the Revell and MPC kit. The Master Replicas model (which is really nicely done) shows this orientation to.
Here we have a picture of a seemingly untouched studio model.
Looking closely at that rear pic of the studio model, unless there has been some repair or restoration work, that oval was in their from day 1. There is not seem lines inside the oval, the weathering overspray shoots up leaving an untouched area above the oval detail and matches into the grille section above the oval.
We can see the resin breaking down in the oval detail so its definitely a resin cast part. Could have been cast separately and glued in upside down. But point is it seems to have been made like this originally... would have been used on set like this... and seemingly is correct and I bet all the resin casts match this.
Does that mean I'm the one person to pick up on this? cant be. Is this studio model wrong? I don't think so. I highly doubt every other industry professional got it wrong in their rendition though. Could it be there was a part that was placed upside down on the model that was referenced for all the replicas and kits? Yeah that's a possibility.
Without seeing all 6 studio models standing side by side we will never know.
Seems minor differences in all the models as Duncanator believed and you see minor differences on screen.
Perhaps both orientations of the oval are accurate, if the model was built that way and used on screen that way, it's accurate to that filming miniature and honestly I think you could be comfortable with that oval in either orientation.
All I can do is reference the material I have and that is these pictures of a seemingly original studio model, be it right or wrong in the grand design of the Imperial Walker, it's correct for THIS studio model that I'm referencing.
Regarding the Bandai model they really did a nice job on that. As for the two lower armour plates who knows, there is every chance the model they referenced had the plates. Could be a later addition for the RoTJ model or was simply there all along.
I'm sure whenever a studio model is presented for inspection there is 6 boxes with 6 walkers and someone is sent to the archives to pull out a box and they go yup...At-Ats and just grab a random box and present it. Its the only sensible option in my opinion. I don't think Bandai are just making details up, I don't think Revell or MPC got it wrong, I think they were different or damaged models copied.
And if that's the case they all have the oval with the grill up the top and the one I'm copying is seemingly upside down.
It's all fun to think about.
I never realised my MPC kit was missing that right plating, until now
... nice job
starks ... looking forward to your next upgrades and a picture like this one, just with your AT-AT on set :
View attachment 1456071
View attachment 1456072
Chaïm
What I'm building a set now?
There will be baking soda everywhere, my wife will kill me haha.
But seriously definitely looking forward to some on set photoshopping!
Thanks guys
Josh