Okay, here it is then, the second unconvincing 'prop' seen during the marvellous AT-AT GROUND BATTLE that niggles me no end every time I see it.
Seen here with Luke's foot on it, it's the one that is meant to represent the uppermost narrow end of one of the the almost 'plectrum'-shaped 'moving sections' that joins the very top of the AT-AT's rear left leg onto the side of it's body -
I already brought this particular badboy up a good while ago Adywan, and you mentioned at the time that it would probably have to just be left as it is, and that it wasn't really something that had ever really bothered you too much. I understand that, and know that the shots are probably beyond salvage throughout the scene anyway. The only reason I'm bringing it up again, is that since then, I've thought about a little something else that you might consider on....
Firstly, to briefly recap - as most will know, the end shape of this uppermost AT-AT leg-piece 'full-scale prop' unfortunately looks nothing like the end shape on the leg-pieces that are on the actual miniature AT-AT's themselves. And again, this 'prop' seems to 'wobble' about just a little too much, even to tie in with some of the 'shakier' stop-motion on show.... I don't know why this turned out so different from the look of the miniatures, but I'd be interested if anyone knows the reason (I'd like to think there is a good reason, rather than carelessness). It certainly always makes for jarring continuity, when I see it.
Anyway, after Luke has 'rappelled' upwards towards the section in question under the AT-AT's belly, the 2 other shots below give a reasonable view of how the end shapes should actually look like, to match the 'prop' to the miniatures -
So then, it turns out that the ends of these 'leg pieces' look 'chunkier' on the miniatures, compared to the 'prop', as the ones on the miniatures have an 'outer ring' which has a shallow 'hollow' centre, where a small protruding detail sticks out from the middle. In the shallow 'hollow', there seems to be just 3 small holes around the protruding detail. You get the idea. Unfortunately, there are also questions about scale and proportions too on the 'full-size prop' that Luke is beside. It seems that the 'adjoining' leg pieces under the belly of the miniature AT-AT's are seen to be quite close to each other in a lot of shots such as the ones above, whereas Luke seems to have a lot of space to manoeuvre beside that single 'prop' piece....
So at the end of the day it is unlikely that much can be done. However, a couple of little things that I would really like to see done to these shots, would be a little less 'wobble' if that is at all possible. Again, things look fine in these still screenshots, but the actual 'movement' onscreen looks too unconvincing in a few places (to me anyway). That could definately improve matters, but I don't know if that can be achieved in any of the shots. Too bad if not.
Another thing I would REALLY like to see is the slight, momentary glimpse of an added opposite 'adjoining' FRONT, RIGHT 'leg piece' section coming into view on the LEFT-hand space of the frame, when Luke is first seen reaching for his Lightsaber as he twists on reaching the underbelly. On studying the movements during that shot, there does seem to be an ideal moment to add this in, as the 'framing' of the whole scene moves to the LEFT, then moves back to the RIGHT a little again, at one point (as if it has lurched forward during it's 'walking' forwards), just before Luke swipes the underbelly with his now fully ignited Lightsaber. The added glimpse of the new piece on the left-hand side would move back out of the frame, just before Luke swipes upwards. This is just another little thing that could help matters greatly, matters, and would tie in with the 'closeness' of the miniature's 'leg pieces' better. I'd really like to see this if you agree.
The last little thing that occurred to me recently about why I disliked the dreadfully different 'prop' so much, is realising that because I know it is so different in it's shaped outline, compared to the shape of the the miniature versions, that my eye is always drawn to it. But then I realised that I could just about put up with that wrong shape if it was made 'plainer', more 'invisible' in the scene....by getting rid of the also absolutely wrong 'detailing' that stands out on it, making you 'study' the piece! Remember the 3 holes that surrounded the protruding bit inside the shallow 'hollowed'-out circle? Well this 'prop' is covered in lots of distractingly wrong detail (which is nowhere close) and which is actually sticking-out around the protruding central bit on the 'prop', rather than being the 3 indented 'holes' that are seen on the miniature's detail. My eye is drawn to them constantly, and if they weren't there at all, the whole 'prop' would seem 'simpler', yet more 'chunky', and certainly be 'more in the background' if you know what I'm getting at. See what you think, but I am sure that this thing would be far better if all of these things were erased off it!
Here's the sort of thing I mean -
That's all for now. Plenty more AT-AT madness to come in the coming days though. :)