STAR WARS: EP V "REVISITED EDITION"ADYWAN - 12GB 1080p MP4 VERSION AVAILABLE NOW — Page 744

What in the name of Lucas is a AA-AT?

And is it drunk?

Suppose being AA, it gives good roadside assistance.....Handy for a fallen walker

or it could be any one of these  http://www.abbreviations.com/AAAT

What in the name of Lucas is a AT-AA??

I think everyone is starting to over analyse the battle now. We don't need explanations for everything that happens on screen, we can leave that to the PT. Isn't part of the fun of watching these original movies that you can use your imagination to explain things however way you think is right? What is happening to cinema when everything has to be laid out clearly? Has the cinema going audiences become so dumb in the past 30 years? No. So why does Hollywood continually churn out dumb movies that nothing is left to the imagination? I can just see Ric Olie piloting one of the speeders :

Ric Olie said:

" Oh look, the AT-AT has fallen over. And it looks like it has snapped it's neck and caused a weak spot. Maybe we should concentrate our fire at that spot. "

lol

vaderios said:

adywan said:

After looking at the scene again there is no possible way that the troops could have got out of the Walker in time. Not only would there be injures and others would be disorientated, but there is just no time between the Walker crashing and the speeders blowing it up for anything like this to happen.

Well yes.. you can always extend the shot slightly like you did with the bespin gantry. You can even add that camera projection technique or adding more elements that showing the scale. Since the backgrounds is a mess( as you already know) some alterations can be done here and there. The only matter is the music. Falling troopers or some small lasers from the walker or from inside/open hatches by snowtroopers can stand up.I think monroville said something similar(?)

-Angel

I don't want to extend any shots of the Hoth battle. The editing is perfect as is the score so i have no intention of extending anything in the battle just for a cool FX shot. If i did it would need to serve a purpose and not interupt the flow of the music, which extending a shot here would fail on both accounts.

ray_afraid said:

This is why I suggested cutting the explosion scene completely. It just doesn't add up. And all of the explanations take waay to much thought for such a quick scene. Having the walker fall over and then cutting to the rebel troops charging the battlefield is, in my opinion, the best option.

This would make no sense whatsoever. This is the rebels first little victory. They begin to think they can actually win this battle and then WHAM... they get their asses kicked. Take out the explosion and the scene falls flat.

Nerfherder said:

Arrived at the party late, so apologies if this has already been mentioned as a possibilty:

When the walker first collapses and the head hits the snow hard (perhaps an extra sound effect to reinforce the damage thats been done?) can you not instead show some energy 'sparks' around the entire head area (similar to force lightning) and this energy rapidly spreads to the main body which goes up with the aid of the snowspeeders firing upon it?

You're sort of close to what i have done to that shot , but i won't be saying what i have done until the film is released

Imrahil said:

It always bugged me that "T-47s" got retconned into meaning the Speeders.  Why the hell would a medical droid worry about Speeders? In the original movie, the line is clearly meant to refer to some kind of MEDICAL devices:

 

2-1B: Sir, it will take quite a while to evacuate the T-47s.

Luke: Forget the heavy equipment..."

 

So we're supposed to assume that 2-1B is now evacuating snowspeeders?  It's idiotic. 

And this is why i chose to ignore the EU. 2-1B is clearly not talking about snowspeeders. Since when have vehicles been referred to as "heavy equipment"?

johnnythewolf said:

I suppose it has already been discussed some 400+ pages ago, but how about just adding some AA-ATs escorting the AT-ATs?

johnnythewolf said:

Ooops! I meant "AT-AA"...

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/AT-AA

no, there will be no EU vehicles in this edit. Like i have said before the EU doesn't exist to me. There was talk about adding more AT-ST's to the battle but this isn't going to happen. I have yet to see any CG home brew elements that can actually look realistic enough to match the studio AT-AT models on film(Which the AT-ST's would have to be CG unless studio scale stop-motion models were to be built and filmed, which is never going to happen). I've taken out the AT-ST's from the battle and i'm going to be leaving their first appearance for ROTJ

adywan said:

no, there will be no EU vehicles in this edit. Like i have said before the EU doesn't exist to me. There was talk about adding more AT-ST's to the battle but this isn't going to happen. I have yet to see any CG home brew elements that can actually look realistic enough to match the studio AT-AT models on film(Which the AT-ST's would have to be CG unless studio scale stop-motion models were to be built and filmed, which is never going to happen). I've taken out the AT-ST's from the battle and i'm going to be leaving their first appearance for ROTJ

I was sad about the AT-ST. =( Although it did seem that lone AT-ST was out of place there... but the way the battle does play out is better thus far.

Rogue Leader said:

adywan said:

no, there will be no EU vehicles in this edit. Like i have said before the EU doesn't exist to me. There was talk about adding more AT-ST's to the battle but this isn't going to happen. I have yet to see any CG home brew elements that can actually look realistic enough to match the studio AT-AT models on film(Which the AT-ST's would have to be CG unless studio scale stop-motion models were to be built and filmed, which is never going to happen). I've taken out the AT-ST's from the battle and i'm going to be leaving their first appearance for ROTJ

I was sad about the AT-ST. =( Although it did seem that lone AT-ST was out of place there... but the way the battle does play out is better thus far.

I got into the trilogy relatively late in life (8 or 9 years old, haha), so I don't know if I saw ESB or ROTJ first. Can't remember if I was surprised to see an AT-ST in ESB, or thought 'there are chicken walkers in this too' when I saw ROTJ. :p

Either way, I too will be a bit sad to see it gone from ESB, but really, it didn't really do anything. Save the action for ROTJ, as if it's some cool new toy for the Imperials to use.

Handzzz said:

Rogue Leader said:

There's changes for the sake of improvement and then there are changes for nothing more than flash. You may not care about the EU and that's fine but there are many holes we can all poke in this battle and not everything needs to be explained... Like Ady said, maybe when the walker tripped the neck portion breached or cracked and the rebel pilots aimed for that weakness. Simple as that... 

In the radio drama is there anything Luke says that indicates the neck becoming a weakness after the walker drops? If so then all that's needed is to add the audio, or some other pilot saying something like "Target the neck breach" the cutting to Wedge "whoaaaa!!!!! That got him!"

That's not so wierd idea, in WW2 there were doctrines to the soliders, how to take down the Tiger down effectively. Guess the director's inspired the ww2 tank battles.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_tigervulnerability/ttt_tiger_vulnerability.jpg

Ah! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law has been used! This conversation has gone too far. Error 404!

Rogue Leader said:

xhonzi said:

Rogue Leader said:

Incom T-47 speeders are not equiped with bombs. Thus I suggested the Rebel ground troops running towards the crash with a portable concussion missle launcher with a combined attacked from the snowspeeders.

Yeah, I'm afraid I don't really care what the minutia of the EU has to say about everything.  The fact is that the movie, as filmed, shows snowspeeders using blasters to blow up armor that's "too strong for blasters."  So, yes, you could shoot a completely new scene with ground troops running toward the thing with missile launchers (which probably are also new to the contintuity of the scene) or you could add a bomb or two to the snowspeeders and mostly keep the scene as is.  As you said, the rebels modified the snowspeeders for use on Hoth... who's to say that they didn't add some heavier ordinance to them while they were at it.  If Luke can carry an AT-AT destroying grenade on his belt, surely the light speeders can carry a couple bombs/missiles/grenades capable of the same feat.

Apparently Ady doesn't plan to do anything with the scene, but wouldn't a simple change to the ordinance fired by the snowspeeders be a lot more in line with the subtle changes than filming an entirely new scene?

If that's the case why not have some X-wings diverted from escort duty of the medium transports to slag the walkers with a couple of proton torps. <EU trivia> Or why not just reorient the angle of the <EU trivia> ion canon  to fire at the AT-ATs, if it can take a ISD then walkers should be nothing... Oooo wait, why don't we actually have the Rebel win the battle of Hoth! XD

There's changes for the sake of improvement and then there are changes for nothing more than flash.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, and this will be my last comment on the subject, but... 

I don't see how "changing lasers to a bomb to explain why the movie once said 'their armor is too strong for blasters' and then shows the same people blowing up said armor with said blasters" is change for change's sake or 'just to do something flashy'.  I don't see how it's anywhere in the same league as filming additional material with soldiers or other spacecraft or canons or whatnot.  It would probably be a change that no one would notice, unless they were in the camp of people (you know who you are) who consider it an onscreen contradiction.  I'm not suggesting the speeders shoot rainbows, and I'm not suggesting that the Empire brings its mini death star along.  The speeders blow up the AT-AT, I was simply trying to suggest a simple change to the scene that would make sense, but not be too big a departure from the scene today.  Either in terms of pixel count or story effect.

You and Ady seem to agree that you don't think there is an onscreen contradiction, but you don't need to poo-poo the people that do.

You may not care about the EU and that's fine but there are many holes we can all poke in this battle and not everything needs to be explained...

This is true.  It really is stupid to devise a walking tank that only shoots forward.  It's even more stupid to attack that tank from the front.  HigHurtenflurst is right, I guess it's best to just not overthink it.

Cleopatra said:

So I know that this has probably been mentioned before, but why is Ady taking away the red AT-AT windows?  I feel like they were meant to be red since they were depicted as such in the movie posters and paintings.

And, unlike the blue escape-pod door which was actually supposed to be blue in ANH, the red windows aren't very annoying.  They're actually kinda creepy.

It's because the red window only appears in one shot in the whole battle and only on the lead AT-AT. If the windows were meant to be red then why aren't they throughout the rest of the battle?

adywan said:

ray_afraid said:

This is why I suggested cutting the explosion scene completely. It just doesn't add up. And all of the explanations take waay to much thought for such a quick scene. Having the walker fall over and then cutting to the rebel troops charging the battlefield is, in my opinion, the best option.

This would make no sense whatsoever. This is the rebels first little victory. They begin to think they can actually win this battle and then WHAM... they get their asses kicked. Take out the explosion and the scene falls flat.

But knocking the walker over is just as big a vicotry as blowing it up.  It can no longer continue to advance and it can no longer fire it's weapons. That alone would be reason enough for the rebels to think they could pull off a win. I know you aren't gonna remove it and that's perfectly fine by me,   but to say it would "make no sense whatsoever" is... well, wrong.

Cleopatra said:

So I know that this has probably been mentioned before, but why is Ady taking away the red AT-AT windows?  I feel like they were meant to be red since they were depicted as such in the movie posters and paintings.

And, unlike the blue escape-pod door which was actually supposed to be blue in ANH, the red windows aren't very annoying.  They're actually kinda creepy.

I'm assuming that it's being taken away because it doesn't match the interior shots. When we see out from the inside, it's a clear window.

(Ady beat me to it)

ray_afraid said:

adywan said:

ray_afraid said:

This is why I suggested cutting the explosion scene completely. It just doesn't add up. And all of the explanations take waay to much thought for such a quick scene. Having the walker fall over and then cutting to the rebel troops charging the battlefield is, in my opinion, the best option.

This would make no sense whatsoever. This is the rebels first little victory. They begin to think they can actually win this battle and then WHAM... they get their asses kicked. Take out the explosion and the scene falls flat.

But knocking the walker over is just as big a vicotry as blowing it up.  It can no longer continue to advance and it can no longer fire it's weapons. That alone would be reason enough for the rebels to think they could pull off a win. I know you aren't gonna remove it and that's perfectly fine by me,   but to say it would "make no sense whatsoever" is... well, wrong.

But how is it as big a victory than fully destroying it? So its tripped up and the rebels just leave it alone so it can deploy all the surviving troops that could possibly cut the cables and the AT-AT could get back on it's feet and rejoin the battle (which surely the AT-AT would be capable of in it's design). And i was saying that your reasoning why the scene should be cut because "all of the explanations take waay too much thought for such a quick scene" didn't make much sense.  I've never had to over think that scene ever since i first saw it in 1980 when i was 13, nor did any of my mates and i haven't really seen anyone have a problem with this shot until this discussion started. . I've always seen it as the neck was damaged in the fall and they exploited the weak spot. Ending the scene with the walker falling is a bit of a damp squib compared to blowing the thing up. But don't forget, this is just a movie.

ADYWAN said:

I've taken out the AT-ST's from the battle and i'm going to be leaving their first appearance for ROTJ

As much as I hate to see it's removal, it does make more sense to remove it. It did noting the whole entire battle, and it doesnt even move the same as the ones in ROTJ. Plus it's only shown in two very quick shots. I also suspect that there was only one of them deployed with the AT-AT's because it's just one that I see on the screen at any given time.