Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DARKLORD

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
Just don't buy it.....problem solved.

No doubt! Well, I have my Amazon package sitting on my doorstep since Sat and I just realized it late last night - I opened my Han with Torture Rack, and as an overall set, he is pretty amazing. This particual Han will never leave the rack, so the body quality does (not?) matter to me. The on(ly) thing that does bug: the fugly paint job on the head. The white paint used for the eyes and teeth have some slop, and it looks generally bad.

I must be really, really easy to please... or maybe I just expect a lot less from a $7 toy

Either way, I will buy the Torture Rack Han and be happy with it.   :)

 :-\... I'm moving on now.  With posts like these you PROVE my point, and yet you miss it entirely. Besides which, I've said enough here and I'd only be repeating myself.

Just for reference, Darth Kozy over at RS already customized the Han -

He said he popped a belt from the VTSC Endor Han and swapped heads.

Not perfect, but it does look better than it did.  The head still looks akward though I think.

Agreed.  I think Darth Kozy did a GREAT job on this custom figure, and I congratulate him.  But I agree with you Chewie,  that VSC head sculpt has never been one of my favorites.

I actually had someone on another site suggest to me that I also use the VSC Endor Han head in my own Bespin Han Custom versus the head I selected (POTJ Death Star Escape Han).

Now, I know that to a great degree, the issue of likenesses in action figures is very subjective. And I have heard occasional references to the head sculpt that I selected as "Dennis Quaid", and "Malcolm Reynolds" (of "Serenity").

Well, I really don't see the resemblance that's inferred (not OVER Harrison Ford anyway), and I vehemently disagree with those assessments.

Be that as it may, given the choice, I'd much rather have my Han Solo figure look like a young Dennis Quaid or Serenity's Malcolm Reynolds (who was clearly based off of Han Solo anyway) than to have him look like an ageing Jeff Conway (aka "Bobby Wheeler" from "Taxi") the way Hasbro's "Torture Rack" figure resembles.

I'm of the opinion that Hasbro's POTJ STAR WARS toy line produced some of THE finest SW character face sculpts ever. 

To my eyes, NO OTHER face sculpt in the entire history of STAR WARS action figures has represented Han Solo better than POTJ Han Solo DS Escape! I feel that the sculptor really managed to capture the sardonic, cynical nature of the character right down to the lopsided, sarcastic grin (which is a feature that is virtually absent in ALL OTHER Solo sculpts).

Furthermore, this head sculpt is of an adequate anatomical size (not pea headed), the casting is extremely clean and of a decent-quality plastic, and the paint is amazingly sharp (especially in the eyes and eye brows). Those were the real strengths in the STARS WARS line back during the POTJ days, and I just don't think they've done it better since.

By contrast, not only is the VTSC Han Endor head sculpt beyond inadequate, it is also, in my view, one of the WORST ones ever produced by Hasbro to represent Han Solo. 

The VTSC Han Endor head sculpt is nothing more than a slightly re-sculpted VOTC Han Solo head. It looks as though the hair on a VOTC Han head casting (NOT original sculpt) was re-sculpted (to make it resemble the ROTJ "do"). Then this modified head was molded and re-cast mass-produced with inferior plastic . 

Due to the inevitable shrinkage and loss of detail caused during the molding/casting process, the result was one of the MOST pea-headed Han Solos EVER produced, with shiny skin, bad paint, a warped shape, and ridiculously soft details.


Good God.  I still get the creeps everytime  I look at this figure...  Harrison Ford may have a good case in a lawsuit against Hasbro for character defamation ;D

The subtext of this conversation is about getting an ultimate version of each character that can be slotted into any scene in a given movie.  But the bigger picture of line planning really needs to be brought into this discussion as well.  Han Solo is a popular character.  Witness just how many versions of Han are in the 2007 line:

Good point.  But while the "sub-text" of this conversation is about getting "ultimate versions" of characters, the primary context is about Hasbro's failure to provide something as basic as decent human anatomy on an action figure as important as this one. And this has happened while some collectors/consumers actually defend the inferior final product because the pack-in accessory is exciting to them. Incredible!

Excusing poor anatomy on a base action figure just because it is offered in the lower-priced basic line with a cool big accessory is CYNICAL, and it does NOT encourage / inspire Hasbro to provide us with better products. Instead it sends the message that we are quite content with mediocrity when it occassionally appears.

Well I am NOT! Not with the thousands of dollars a year I spend on this stuff.

Decent anatomy is the LEAST we can expect to get from Hasbro at this point... especially after all the struggles we had over the issue 12 years ago!

This point is especially relevant to this Han Solo figure since Hasbro employed a largely "kit-bashed" (cost-saving) method to create him.  I have NO issue with them doing this, so long as the final product had been well-produced.  This action figure, however, was NOT... only the Torture Rack was.

To me that is UN-ACCEPTABLE. Even the vintage Kenner line released large "Accessories" for the action figures (Radar Laser Cannon, Vehicle Maintenance Energizer, etc.) as SEPARATE boxed toys (action figures not included) so that these types of irritating concessions would NOT need to be made on the basic action figures themselves. And as I've been saying all along, the ANATOMICAL concessions (at the very least) to this figure were most certainly un-necessary given the resources available to Hasbro today.

My point was, (and continues to be) that had Hasbro "kit-bashed" better (more compatible) EXISTING BODY PARTS, that it would NOT have cost them any MORE to produce than the "kit-bashed" figure that they ultimately did release (with its NEWLY sculpted/tooled head and torso)

In addition, if they had used the existing parts I'm suggesting, the final figure would have been anatomically correct and not at all awkward-looking.

In point of fact, the "kit bashed" action figure I'm suggesting would have cost them LESS to produce since NO NEW sculpting/tooling would have been required (like it was on their final figure). All of the parts for MY suggested final figure ALREADY exist... AND they are more than compatible enough with one another to create an anatomically correct character and an (arguably) far more pleasing-looking figure.

That's a total of TEN Han Solo's in the 2007 line, with three of them being near definitive versions (Basic figure wave 2 [with a chase version], Vintage Hoth gear & the movie deco Stormtrooper disguise).  To expect a 4th near definitive version is asking quite a bit of Hasbro.

No it isn't.  Not if that near-definitive figure were produced as a cost-saving "kit-bash" comprised of already exisitng body parts as I suggested and illustrated.

Obviously they are action figure heretics and should be burned at the stake.  ::)

I never suggested any such thing. 

Should we be demanding in our expectations, and push Hasbro to produce greater figures?  Certainly.  The demands of the marketplace shoud drive achievement.

Darn skippy!

But should we expect such perfection in the line that all of our wishes and expectations will be fulfilled in the space of a few years when Hasbro has the Star Wars license for another 11 years?  Frankly I think that is an unrealistic expectation that has not been well thought out.  Hasbro has a vested interest in making sure the line has some longevity.  I'm not going to ask Hasbro for a definitive version of every single character in the saga now so that they can put themselves out of the Star Wars business.  It's short-sighted and rings of an immature need for instant gratification.

Ummm... No it is NOT an unrealistic expectation, because it is NOT beyond their capabilities. We SHOULD continue to expect the very best from Hasbro EVERY step of the way. THAT is what we pay for.  And THAT is how we will ensure the highest possible percentage of great products coming from Hasbro in a given year.

Furthermore, the product that I illustrated in this SA Bespin Han Solo figure would plainly and simply have been smart business since it would have cost very little to produce (due to the necessary parts already having been tooled) and it could have been re-released quite a few times in the years to come to really milk its profitability.

There is NOTHING "short-sighted" or indicative of any "immature need for instant gratification" there.

NOTHING ensures the longevity of this or any other toy line like providing the consumer with QUALITY PRODUCTS, well designed and produced... and not just "thrown together" like this figure was.  THAT is why this toy line has lasted 12 year, has improved and thrived,  and shows NO SIGN of slowing down (thank God).

As long as Hasbro continues to produce AWESOME Star Wars vehicles, beasts, playsets and action figures, I will CONTINUE to applaud them LOUDLY and WIDELY on as many different message boards as I can.

But I will also NOT let them get away with any occasional mediocre product that is beneath their capabilities and production quality levels.  I will be just as vocal with my disappointment. 

I believe that, if nothing else, Hasbro deserves (and is entitled to) that kind of respectful honesty and commitment from ME as a consumer.


Oh trust me:  Despite the passion in my words, I am QUITE calm. I just have a dramatic flair to my writtings.

Glad you don't know where I live or I'd be afraid my cat would be nailed to my front door for trying to excuse a crappy figure that comes from a year where we've gotten some real gems.


Well see now that's what I mean.  Why would you even want to excuse a crappy figure at all?  It doesn't matter to me that we have had some real gems this year (and I whole-heartedly agree that we have).

What matters to me most is that Hasbro is made aware of when we are happy (AND when we are not so thrilled) with their products so that  they can continue to move in a direction that we collectively prefer.

To that end, I would NEVER defend any product from HASBRO that I think is sub-par. THAT type of support encourages Hasbro in the wrong direction!

Let's NOT encourage Hasbro to think that we'll be happy with mediocrity. Let's instead challenge them to make GREAT products even better!

By the way, you need not worry about me.  Even if I did know where you live, my bark is far, far worse than my bite... AND as an extra added bonus, I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE kitty-cats!!! I've got 3 of them myself:

"Jedi" "Wampa", and "Oola".   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

This figure may have been designed just to fit into the torture rack.  I'm not making excuses for Hasbro, but like Jesse said, we're looking at a scene specific figure here and he's just designed to be in that rack.  It would at least explain the hips and legs being out of whack.

It may explain it, but it sure as heck does NOT excuse it.  Not to me. There is NOTHING on God's green earth that will convince ME that it was somehow impossible to have (at the very least) an anatomically correct Han Solo fit into a Torture Rack!

That's insane.  And to defend a sub-par base action figure (as some have on other sites) just because the accessory is cool is so cynical, I don't even know how to respond to that... beyond the way I already have.

I think the central point and purpose of this figure has truly been lost in this discussion.  I think this thread has been barking up the wrong tree the whole time.  Design by it's nature has a purpose.  And it is very clear to me that this figure was NEVER designed to be a definitive Bespin Han Solo.  I think that's blatantly obvious from looking at the figure.  This figure was DESIGNED to be scene specific.

Yes, I AM aware of that.  That point was NOT lost on me at all.  I BEGAN my initial post by saying how generally un-appealing I personally find the action figures that are designed to be scene-specific (and / or included as a scene-specific pack-in) to be.

The reason that I gave for my distaste was that they tend to look un-attractive as stand-alone figures.  I strongly believe that it's more than possible to make a scene-specific action figure or "set" where the individual figure is ALSO attractively sculpted.  The two concepts CAN and HAVE co-existed successfully before.

My main point was that (unfortunately) more often than not, the two worlds of thinking have NOT co-existed due to the poor design choices of toy manufacturers. THAT was the case here... in my opinion.

It is MEANT to depict Han Solo in the torture scene on Cloud City.  It is from a crucial scene in The Empire Strikes Back as Vader is torturing Han to draw out Luke Skywalker.What are the dead giveaways about that? -Lack of a gunbelt & weapon.  At every point prior in the movie where Han Solo is in this costume, he has a gunbelt and blaster.  But it IS accurate to the torture scene as well as the scuffle scene from the holding cell.
-Strained look on the face.  Again, that's scene specific to the torture scene.
-Appearance of the torso/upper body.  It looks as though he's restrained, and the body sculpt represents the state of tension that would cause.

So is there anything wrong with scene specificity?  Absolutely not.  If the piece is well designed and represents the scene well, what is wrong with that?  Nothing.

Well, I NEVER said that there was anything wrong with the Empire torture scene specifically (so I'm not sure about the nature of THAT question). And I certainly don't have a problem with a well-designed toy representing a particualr movie scene. On that point, I could not agree with you MORE.

However, In my view, this figure was not "well-designed" at all.  THAT was my point. It was, by Hasbro's own admission, a largely "kit-bashed" figure cobbled together from existing Han Solo body parts.

That fact alone is NOT what made this figure badly designed in my eyes.  No, my point was that the "kit-bashed" body parts were NOT chosen carefully enough to be compatible with one another.   The resulting figure has an awkward, lanky, top-heavy appearance due to poor anatomical proportions. I expressed that if they were going to "kit-bash" (even a scene-specific figure) that there were better choices for body parts that could have been used without making Han Solo look so anorexically thin and badly-proportioned.

The fact that this figure represents Han Solo during an anguished moment of his torture from Empire DOES NOT excuse the Hasbro design team from creating an action figure that is at least anatomically correct as a stand alone!  I don't care how "strained" one's upper body may be due to torture, NO ONES hips are THAT narrow... especially not a man with an average adult male physique like Han Solo!

And Han Solo DID NOT magically lose 40 lbs when he was strapped into that Torture Rack in Empire!

Yes, you're right, within the CONTEXT of the scene that this figure "set" represents, Han Solo WAS stripped of his gunbelt, he DID have a strained (anguished) look on his face, and his body WAS in a state of tension.

However, despite the look of pain in his face, he DID still LOOK like Han Solo. This figure does not.  Despite his gunbelt being confiscated, and despite the "state of tension" in his body due to his torturous ordeal, his ANATOMICAL PROPORTIONS were still correctly human... They were still "Han Solo".

A "properly-designed" Han Solo action figure, even one that is scene speific, should (in my view) be able to stand next to any other Han Solo action figure from the same toy line (scene-specific or not) AND STILL RESEMBLE THE CHARACTER.  Certainly, his anatomical proportions SHOULD be correct, don't you think? Especially at THIS point in Hasbro's run. 

Despite the fact that I don't care for scene-specific figures, (I say again) ones that are well-designed are NOT impossible for Hasbro. They've done them successfully before.  I just don't think THIS one was one of them.

In the end, I will STILL buy this action figure because I think that the INCREDIBLE work that Hasbro did on the Torture Rack alone is MORE than worth the price.

The issue then lies with the collector and whether or not they like a given piece.  If you don't think that much of this scene in TESB, the figure, or Han Solo as a character, then perhaps you vote with your dollars and tell Hasbro thanks, but no thanks.

Well I've never had an issue with either the scene nor the charcter... just this figure.

Furthermore, the tone of your statement seems to imply that when a consumer is dissatisfied with a given product that the expression of their dissatisfaction should be LIMITED to merely not buying it.  I do NOT agree. I believe that the manufacturer (and other consumers for that matter) are also entitled to hear feedback. It is the only way that the manufacturer can know where they went "wrong" in the eyes of the consumer.

This was what MANY of us did back in 1995 when we first saw the POTF II line and hated it.  And now look at how far we've come.

Yes, we "vote" with our dollars.  But another effective way that one can "vote" as a consumer, is to use these message boards (as much as possible) to intelligently, articulately, and politely express our opinions (positive OR negative) about the products that we consume.  That's what I've done, and yet you initially attacked me for doing it as widely as possible. 

Sparking a healthy, constructive dialogue about this figure's shortcomings (on as many STAR WARS toy message boards as I could) was precicely what I was after.  Prominently and visibly exchanging ideas and opinions with as many other collectors as possible (when done articulately, respectfully and constructively) is ONLY a good thing for the hobby.

Hasbro has stated on numerous occasions that they read our opinions on these message boards.  As a collector of these STAR WARS products, I take my "responsibility" toward ensuring better STAR WARS products from them (through my enthusiastic participation and involvement) very seriously.

Maturely expressing our written opinions on message boards like this one (and also respecting each other's opinions) is another powerful way that we can get better and better products from Hasbro and affect change when we get an occassional bad one from them.

Sometimes we need to be reminded of the concept of free will and choice in the entire phenomenon of collecting, and take some responsibility for what we'll buy and what we won't.  So if you don't care for something that's scene specific, you don't need to buy one.

Well I certainly do NOT need to be reminded of my own free will and / or choice in my collecting.  As collectors, taking responsibility for what we buy IS a very important part of what we do.  But so too is letting Hasbro know what we like and don't like.  Like I said before, THAT is how we continue to get better and better products from them. 

And you know, I've spoken at length with the Hasbro design team at various conventions and Celebration events.  By and large, they are an intelligent contientious group that appreciate feedback on their products (even if it's negative), so long as it is respectful and constructive.

My initial post was BOTH of these things.  I was certainly respectful (and admiring) of Hasbro's products, and I constructively presented an alternative for one of their few products which I considered to be a bit disappointing.

While other toy lines have remained stagnant in their growth, and have even died out all together due to lack of interest, STAR WARS toy lines continue to thrive. Why?  I believe that this is due largely to Hasbro's inclination to listen to the concerns, desires, and preferences of their targeted consumer.  THAT'S just smart business.  And it's paid off for them.

So what about an ultimate version of Bespin Han Solo?  It's just not out yet. 

Well THIS figure is a missed opportunity, because it COULD HAVE BEEN that "ultimate version" of Solo. That too was my initial point.  I mean, how hard could it have been to put together a nice, anatomically correct SA Bespin Han Solo, include swappable head-sculpts (one neutral, one scene-specific), and have his gun belt be removable.  I'm not asking for anything outrageous here.  Hasbro has successfully (and profitably) done this before.

Furthermore, why is posting my opinion MORE suitable over at the rebelescum 30AC board than it is to post it on the 30th AC board on this one? That makes absolutely NO sense.

Because the RS 30AC boards are filled with whiners and threads much like this one.

Well, Reid... I guess THIS board has at least ONE whiner that I can think of, and it sure ain't me.  My post was a well thought-out and respectful expression of my opinion on a product that I care immensely about and spend thousands of dollars a year on.  It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, "whiny" nor mean-spirited.  I think I was (and continue to be) very complimentary and supportive of Hasbro.

YOU, on the other hand, seem incapable of reading an opinion that differs from yours without being disrespectful.

So who's the "whiner"?

Totally unfair. Some At RS will post something that says ' this fig SUCKS.' but this thread was started with a lot of thought! Some of you cannot handle criticism!

To be fair, when I have posted something long and heartfelt, I have cut and paste my own subject to more than one board. How the heck does that equal spamming? It doesn't!!! Spaming implies there is nothing to say. That is NOT the case with this thread! I am so tired of some people jumping down the necks of others for NO REASON!

There's nothing whiny about his post at all.  It's a good discussion with logical reasons for his opinion.  At RS, you've got a bunch of kids calling the company "Hasblow" and other unnecessary names.  It's ok to disagree with others; it doesn't make a figure less appealing to you if you like it and somebody else doesn't.

Thanks a million for your support, guys.  Thanks for understanding the intention and true spirit of my post. You guys have always been great friends and true gentlemen.

I'm with you Darklord.

Thanks a million for the support good buddy. It's GREATLY appreciated.

I would have harped on this Han more for being poor, but the 30 AC has brought so much coolness that I'm willing to overlook a few swing and misses like you said.

Very well said!  I'd say 95% of the stuff that Hasbro has released this 30th Anniversarry year simply ROCKS!!!!  The action figure character choices have been incredible, the articulations better than ever, and the sculpts have been GORGEOUS!

Quite possibly my ALL TIME FAVORITE Imperial figures have been released this year in the form of Tantive IV Stormtrooper and VTAC Snowtrooper.  I own literally hundreds of each. THAT'S how much I support Hasbro!

This Bespin Han Solo, though, was... a little disappointing.

Point being, damn, I want almost all of it, but I do not want to spend all this money!  I guess what I'm saying, when a Han Bespin figure that looks as retarded as this one does comes along, it's a welcome reprieve for me and my wallet because this spending **** is totally out of control this year.

I hear you, buddy. As an army builder, customizer, AND squadron-builder, this has been a MOST expensive year for me too!  But Honestly, I'm quite Happy to give Hasbro my cash.  The amount of happiness they bring me with their awesome products make it all so worth it.

Oh great, another "Wah! This figure is a POS!" thread. Wouldn't this be more suitable at the RS 30AC boards?

I don't believe I called this figure a "POS".  If you read my original post again, you'll see that I was very careful to point out that (by and large) I think Hasbro is doing an AWESOME job on their products this year.  I just think that this figure was a swing and a miss.  What's wrong with expressing my opinion on the matter? That IS what these boards are for. 

Furthermore, why is posting my opinion MORE suitable over at the rebelescum 30AC board than it is to post it on the 30th AC board on this one? That makes absolutely NO sense.

What's worse is that this same post, word for word, has gone up at a number of other sites.  Spamming sites with complaints?  Come on.

And what EXACTLY is your point?  Yes I DID  “spam” this topic on several other boards as you suggest to give it as much visibility as possible. As a Hasbro consumer and collector of their STAR WARS product, it is my right to do so.

Were those other boards that you mention somehow not STAR WARS toy collectible related?  Was this post somehow inappropriate to those other boards or to this one?

It’s reactions like yours that DO NOT help us getter better products from Hasbro.  Perhaps we no longer have to endure muscle-bound pre-posed Han Solo's (from the POTF II days) because guys like ME were stubborn enough to post their opinion in as many different places as they could (word for word) to make sure that as many people as possible (even Hasbro designers) were made aware of our concerns.

If you look through my posts history at any of those sites that you refer to (or this one), you'll see that I am far more GENEROUS with my PRAISE of Hasbro's products than I am of my critiques.

You know, as a STAR WARS Action Figure customizer, I get asked all the time why I have a preference for non scene-specific action figures.

Well, this latest offering of Han Solo in Torture Rack demonstrates exactly why. Scene-specific action figures almost always turn out to be un-attractive.  Call me “old-school”, but in MY view, a neutral, non-scene specific action figure will ALWAYS be more attractive-looking than one with an odd grimace of pain sculpted onto its face, or mussed hair (like this one has). The Torture Rack itself looks GREAT, and Han’s SA arms seem okay… but that’s about it, I’m afraid.

During his appearance in The Empire Strikes Back in 1980, Han Solo was the object of many women’s desires.  And it was partially because he did NOT look anything like this action figure.

I KNOW I’m not the only one that feels this way about this action figure.  Judging by the number of collectors who have stated that they want to see the “definitive version” of Bespin Han Solo, I’d say I have a LOT of company on this issue.

Long before Hasbro showed photos of this figure, they stated that it would basically be a “kit-bashed” effort with a new head sculpt.  And that was exactly what we got.  But certainly a better collection of existing Han Solo body parts could have been used to create this figure.

As an Action Figure customizer, I know a little something about kit-bashing, and this collection of parts is NOT what I would have used.

The new SA arms seem fine,  but everything else seems mis-matched and thrown together.. not to mention anatomically incorrect.  Han’s hips are FAR too narrow here! There has been a tendency by Hasbro as of late to make Han Solo somewhat ANOREXIC looking with an overly small head.  This trend began as far back as the VOTC Han Solo and has stuck ever since.  And the strained tendons sculpted into this action figure’s throat don’t exactly help matters. 

Furthermore, the decision to use the bulky ill-fitting  “life-preserver” vest from VSC Endor Han Solo was another mis-step that only serves to make the figure appear top-heavy and accentuates how wrong those narrow hips and skinny thighs are for this character.

Look, I hate to sound like some whinny brat who is throwing a tantrum for not getting his action figures exactly the way he wants from Hasbro. And I have tried to avoid giving this post a hateful/spiteful tone.  This is all simply an observation… just me (as a Hasbro product consumer) doing my part to ensure that we get better and better figures.  And by and large, Hasbro HAS given us exactly that!  Their STAR WARS product offerings during this 30th Anniversarry year have been stellar, I must say.

But this Torture Rack Han Solo figure was a “swing and a miss” by a long shot.  I know some collectors say that they don't mind this figure's appearance because they intend to leave him strapped to the torture rack and that he looks fine in there.  But I believe that an action figure SHOULD look good in OR out of a packed-in accessory.  Certainly, he should be anatomically correct.

I have been updating my own custom “definitive Bespin Han Solo” figure for quite some time.  And I think that I will certainly prove that better existing parts could have been used to kit-bash together a nicer looking figure than what we’ve been given here.

Ironically, I am just waiting to get my hands on this Han Solo in Torture Rack figure so that I can use his arms, and my custom will be complete.  And of course, that excellent torture rack alone makes the price of this figure MORE than worth it.

Using Photoshop, I’ve put together a preview of what I’m cooking up with my custom. I did not bother to color-correct everything and make sure that all colors match with each other, but I think you get my intention...

You know, I'm a BIG fan of softgoods when they're done correctly.  And the custom Tatooine Luke that I created sometime back uses the cloth tunic.  I'm quite happy with my custom.

But I've got to say THIS custom Tatooine Luke really made me stand up and take notice!  This is a simple, but BEAITIFULLY executed figure.  I love the stance.  I love the overall look of the figure.  The proportions are PERFECT. And the face sculpt works VERY VERY nicely with this custom.

Congratulations on this GORGEOUS custom figure!  Very, very well done!

Star Wars Ships and Vehicles / Re: HUGE new ride for my new Jawas!
« on: August 29, 2007, 09:06 AM »
How tall would a 3 3/4" scale AT-AT be? Are we talking 6' or 7' tall?

As I'm sure you know, an AT-AT correctly scaled for 4 inch Hasbro figures would be absolutely ENORMOUS, far larger than my SAndcrawler!

For those of you that own the STAR WARS Chronicles photo refernce book, the land vessels comparisons page shows the Sandcrawler as dwarfing an AT-AT in scale.  In my humble opinion, this is incorrect.  Based of what we've seen in the films themselves, an AT-AT is definitely larger than a Sandcrawler:

My custom built Jawa Sandcrawler takes it's scale (basically) from film and photo references of the full-sized filming set used in Tunisia.  This was where we saw the relative height of the Sandcrawler's treads when compared to jawas, droids, and average heighted individuals (C-3PO, Uncle Owen, Luke Skywalker, Ben Kenobi, etc.)

Based on that information, a correct Hasbro-scaled Sandcrawler was determined to be (approximately) 2-1/2 FEET tall and just over 5 FEET in length.   Pretty big.

Now let's look at the AT-AT based on what we saw in TESB.   Here is what was written in the technical commentaries over at The

The scale of the AT-AT is contentious. There are several independent claims and points of evidence:

   •    West End Games and derivative sources indicate a height of fifteen metres, but they do not state any justification or proof. Their number could be an arbitrary invention for all we know. On the other hand, AT-AT walkers seem much bigger in the movies.

   •    A late-stage ILM scaling diagram from the production of The Empire Strikes Back indicates a height of about 14.5m. However it's impossible to say whether this diagram reflects the final condition of the movie.

   •    Long-range views of Luke Skywalker ascending a cable beneath an AT-AT indicate a height of 22.6m, with a precision of seven percent.

   •    Comparison of an AT-AT and the scale of the handrails of a docking platform at Endor in Return of the Jedi indicate a height of about 23m, with the rail being slightly more than 1.0m above the deck. This is consistent with architectural standards handrails on Earth.

   •    One of the walkers on Hoth managed to crush Skywalker's snowspeeder, covering most of the vehicle with the walker's footpad. If an AT-AT is about 23m tall, the foot diameter is about 4.5m. The snowspeeder's length is independently known from set blueprints: 4.53m. If the AT-AT was only 15m tall, it could not have covered the 'speeder as well as it did.

   •    Interestingly, the length of the snowspeeder as indicated by set blueprints [The Art of STAR WARS Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back] is 4.5m, which would suggest that the walker foot should have covered it. However vehicles on movie sets are traditionally built underscale. Oddly, the West End Games value for the snowspeeder length is 5.5m, which supports the larger, non-WEG value walker height.

   •    A stormtrooper officer receiving orders from General Veers was able to stand and walk within the AT-AT cockpit. If the vehicle was only scaled to 15m tall, the space between floor and ceiling in the cockpit would have been no more than 1.3m. The walker must be scaled to over 20m in height in order to allow the observed cockpit scenes to fit.

   •    Observations of a snowspeeder in the act of tying an AT-AT's legs would provide another scale estimate. By initial eyeball estimates, these scenes seem to support a larger AT-AT height.

On the balance of evidence, an AT-AT walker is approximately 23m tall and 26m long. Judging by direct front views, the hull width is approximately 35% of the height, the width across the legs is about 26% of the height, and the width across the toes is about 46% of the height.

So if our friends over at The are correct (and I believe they are!), an AT-AT stands approximately 75-1/2 FEET tall. So much for early descriptions of the AT-AT in magazines and documentaries as "...40 foot tall giants..."  Way off!

That's equivalent to 12-1/2 average men (6 FEET in height) standing end to end.

If we stand 12-1/2  average STAR WARS figures (4 inches in height) end to end, we get 50 inches (or an AT-AT's correct HASBRO scale height). Add to that the fact that Hasbro's Snowspeeder is actually too LARGE in its scale size for Hasbro figures, and this all seems to pan out.

My friends, THAT translates to a toy that would be (sigh) 4 FEET 2 inches in height. LARGER than a correctly-scaled Sandcrawler.

Now, just to give you some perspective on this: The largest AT-AT miniature built by ILM for filming The Empire Strikes Back came in at roughly the same 4 feet in height!

Star Wars Ships and Vehicles / Re: HUGE new ride for my new Jawas!
« on: August 27, 2007, 06:01 PM »
:o :o :o Can You imagine a to scale AT-AT?! That's totally awesome!

Yes... unfortunately I CAN imagine it.  Although, I'm trying not to so I won't grow to hate my Hasbro AT-ATs!

I think the ONLY reason I've not commissioned a correctly-scaled 3/34" AT-AT for my collection is that I could NOT afford to own FIVE of them like in the movie! :'( :P ;)

Star Wars Ships and Vehicles / Re: HUGE new ride for my new Jawas!
« on: August 27, 2007, 05:54 PM »
That sounds like it will work great. So are the little wheels on the faceplace going to turn?

Hmm... good question.  I hadn't thought of engineering them to do that.  I could be wrong, but I always assumed that the little wheels on the faceplates were not meant to turn, even on the actual Lucasfilm Sandcrawler.  I always thought they were a cosmetic consideration.

I too would have some concerns on the weight issues...  Less on the motor though and more on the transmission of the tank, as they are known to strip gears pretty easily if you put too much weight on them.  I had some problems taping my RC runs years ago when I was young by strapping a camcorder to my truck...  WEight could be a problem to consider...

I at the very least wouldn't run it on too rough a surface for a bit.

Hmm interesting information.  Do you think the weight would be an issue even with all 4 Tank transmissions being applied?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10