ImperialFighter

DarthBo said:

I was just under the impression (or hoping) that the transformation would be cut, so I could watch the saga in chronological order without knowing for sure who Vader is until episode V.

Wow, I don't remember reading that anywhere!  I'd hope to see the 'transformation' into the suit in some sort of 'Adywaned' way....

Edit: Although if that's what's been decided, then I see how that could also work.  I just like the imagery of the scene I suppose (apart from the current exaggerated "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"), and I've been used to always recommending 'newbies' to the saga, to watch the OT first anyway, in the order they were first released theatrically.... 

I hope to be able to revise this advice, one day, when Adywan has done his stuff to it all.  :)  

Surely we'd still be seeing the 'transformation' in some sort of manner by the end of Episode III, Darthbo?  So we'd certainly know this by that point in the saga, no matter how much Adywan changes things.  Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?

Edit: I think I did misunderstand, lol.

DF Shadow said:

If I remember correctly in the SE DVD the consistency of the millennium falcon when entering cloud city is off. The falcon is thinner in the the new CG shots and thicker in the old shots. I think this is most obvious when it lands on the platform.

Once the ship has docked it's back to it's usual thickness.

 

Something to look at AdY?

I'd forgotten about this one.  I seem to remember thinking that too, when I saw the new SE footage where it's being escorted by the 'twin-pods' towards the landing platform.  The new MF looked a bit 'flattened' in that shot, for some reason.

And you're right about the 'transparency' issues throughout this thing doubleofive, some of it seems very evident at times.  Were now beginning to 'see through' a lot of the work that was done by LFL for these 2004 SEs, I think.  ;)    I've got all your latest shots through now, thanks. 

I'm happy to accept that title graciously, where these OT edits are concerned, lol. 

ImperialFighter said:

Monroville said:

The shots are correct, it just seems that the bridge shot needs to be flipped.  If you notice right after the bridge shot, Needa's SD (the one in the middle) is making evasive manuevering and heading downwards, while the SD on the left (and his right) is heading upwards so that they will miss each other.  Regardless, the SD that is about to hit Needa is on Needa's right, not left.

 Yes, I reckon now that the single Stardestroyer could have just 'veered' towards the one on it's RIGHT-hand side in the intervening cut (although it seems to have done it rather quickly!), and I'm agreeing that the 'interior' shot would be the easiest to 'flip' or alter.  You are right that it does indeed seem that the single Stardestroyer is slightly lower than the other 2, as it first approaches, and the Millennium Falcon initially dives downwards.

Screenshots will be helpful for this one.

 

Monroville, having had a proper look at this whole sequence now, there are a few comments I'd like to make on it all, and so I'm going to ask doubleofive to give me the specific shots I need, when he can. 

But just to say for now, that I now think we were both wrong, and that the 'interior' shot of Captain Needa's Stardestroyer 'Avenger' is probably okay the way round it is currently, and doesn't need 'flipping' after all....  I'll explain why eventually, as well as suggesting a couple of 'alternative' tweaks that would also work, where that particular moment is concerned. 

Joshua_Blue, I always look on it as Vader merely 'swiping' at Luke just enough to 'unbalance' him, and make him have to move backwards a little, so that he'll fall into the carbon freeze opening....which he does.

ImperialFighter said:

Just a tiny, somewhat insignificant thing in the scheme of things really, but on the SE's the very front of the 'prongs' of the Millennium Falcon seemed a little dodgy the way they were matted against the large asteroid that enters the left of the frame as it passes against it in the 'side-on' banking shot....as is the actual cockpit too, when seen against this big asteroid.  Any chance of a tidy-up Ady?  It's so brief, it's only noticeable with 'freeze-framing', so no biggie though. 

Just ignore this recent particular comment please, as it really is a nit-pick TOO far, lol.   

Monroville said:

The shots are correct, it just seems that the bridge shot needs to be flipped.  If you notice right after the bridge shot, Needa's SD (the one in the middle) is making evasive manuevering and heading downwards, while the SD on the left (and his right) is heading upwards so that they will miss each other.  Regardless, the SD that is about to hit Needa is on Needa's right, not left.

Yes, I reckon now that the single Stardestroyer could have just 'veered' towards the one on it's RIGHT-hand side in the intervening cut (although it seems to have done it rather quickly!), and I'm agreeing that the 'interior' shot would be the easiest to 'flip' or alter.  You are right that it does indeed seem that the single Stardestroyer is slightly lower than the other 2, as it first approaches, and the Millennium Falcon initially dives downwards.

Screenshots will be helpful for this one.

Monroville said:

re: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTp8mKFxmbg&feature=PlayList&p=4DB0EA9A58709519&index=34
from 0:30 to 0:45.

I know Needa's SD is the one in the middle, and that he has one SD on either side, but when you see the bridge shot at 0:36, should the shot be flipped (being that the SD that's closest to him is the one on his right side, not left)?

Going from our viewpoint as the audience, Needa is heading north and the other 2 SDs are going south (sounds kinda dirty...).  Going by the position of the bridge, also facing north, the SD on the left side (just about touching Needa's SD) would be on Needa's right side.

Could anyone post some screen captures?

Monroville's absolutely right that there is something off, here.... 

We initially see the single Stardestroyer about to go in-between the middle of two oncoming Stardestroyers, just as the Millennium Falcon first dives downwards, followed by the Ties.  It could be argued that the single Stardestroyer looks like it is positioned roughly equal distance in the middle of the other oncoming 2, in this shot.  

However, in the following shot where we are directly below, and looking upwards at the undersides of the 3 Stardestroyers (as the Millennium Falcon and Ties come towards our viewpoint)....it looks as if the single Stardestroyer has gone slightly underneath the prow of the RIGHT-hand one....

Which then makes the 'interior' shot wrong!  Unless the shots of the Stardestroyers from below are altered, I'd suggest it might be good to 'flip' the 'interior' shot (or alter what's seen in it's windows), as the other shots can't be 'flipped' because then the 'cockpit' of the Millennium Falcon would be on the wrong side then.

Interesting, as I hadn't picked up on this one before.

Perhaps doubleofive or someone can provide a couple of shots at some point to show everyone here how it currently looks?

ladyferry said:

I don't know if anyone has said this but are you going to use the 'asteroid' sequence from the menu of the Empire DVD from 2004? and the 'Bespin' sequence too? Has anyone got these vids on youtube as I can'y find them? Both sequences would be amazing to incorporate into the Revisited cut.

 I seem to remember someone mentioned these long ago, and agree that there are a couple of nice individual elements during those menus.  Especially most of the Millennium Falcon in the 'asteroids' one.

By the way, I can't wait to see what Adywan can do to improve / replace the dreadful 'Tie Fighters exploding in the asteroid crevice' shots!....

And I meant to say thanks for your continued quick uploading of the recent clips to your collection, ladyferry.  Thanks.  :)

I'd forgotten to add in my previous comments, that while I might have preferred the removal of the 'orange glow' on the big asteroid altogether, or have had it toned down with a hint of debris....that I ALSO really like the enlarged small asteroid that crashes into it now, as it is far more noticeable than before.  Good subtle improvement there. 

....watches latest EXTENDED 'Asteroid Chase' clip....     **FAINTS** and falls to floor....

Jeez Adywan, we're all running out of superlatives here!  :)

We're watching a genius at work here, I reckon...just look at the difference between doubleofive's captures of the 2004 SE DVD version and Ady's 'Revisited' version....

I LOVE it!!  The Ties now 'firing' in those shots are terrific, as is the grey colouring.  The Ties are my favourite design in the whole saga (naturally), so I'm well pleased!  

And it's just so great to see something approximating the 'depth' of the brown asteroid field again, and your tweaking to the explosion at the end really DOES throw out that unfortunate Pilot into relief better than was previously seen.

Just a tiny, somewhat insignificant thing in the scheme of things really, but on the SE's the very front of the 'prongs' of the Millennium Falcon seemed a little dodgy the way they were matted against the large asteroid that enters the left of the frame as it passes against it in the 'side-on' banking shot....as is the actual cockpit too, when seen against this big asteroid.  Any chance of a tidy-up Ady?  It's so brief, it's only noticeable with 'freeze-framing', so no biggie though. 

He's ontop of that one too vaderios.  See number 39 of his list on page 1.

HeKS, personally, I'd certainly like you to post any ideas you have on this.  I hope to list a few of my own preferences on some of the great ideas so far, at some point too.

Ah, thanks for the info. Moth3r.  If he's keeping the existing logo/'headshots' header, then I hope it's going to be enlarged somewhat.

Ripplin said:

I do wonder if Ady plans to do anything with the lifeless instrumentation in the cockpit, though. Wouldn't want to see too much, just a subtle blink here and there, maybe? A simple static graphic instead of blackness?

 

 You'll be glad to see then, that he now states on number 24 of his list on page 1, that he plans to add something subtle to the snowspeeder's instrument panel.

ImperialFighter said:

AuggieBenDoggie said:

Just saw watched both versions of the yoda tweak.  Incredible work ady!  I think the second version is best

I do have a little request on the hoth battle. Could you give the smaller guns on the side of the head of the AT-AT's a little action. They never fire the whole time if I recall.

 Just to say at this point, I now know that they definately do have several scenes where they are utilised throughout the battle for sure....and they aren't green either!  More on them soon.  :)  

Adywan, I think this may be that post of AuggieBenDoggie's which was on page 196 of this thread, that you may have missed.  I know you can't respond to everyone, all the time, so I did at the time.  I hope you'll agree with him that there is some great scope for extra laserbolts from those smaller guns, to be added into quite a few more shots....

I also agree with those who've commented on removing the lasersbolts that show through the various 'transparent' cockpit shots.  That will REALLY improve the look of them all, if you plan to do that.

....and finally, your latest, brief ASTEROID SEQUENCE scene is bloody marvellous!!  It has come alive once more, compared to the SE version.  I love the new sort of 'veering' into it look.  Makes me proud to be British!  :)

You said "The whole asteroid sequence is having a makeover so be prepared. lol" -  Wow, can't wait to see what you are able to do with it all, as like the AT-AT scenes, this is one of my favourite scenes throughout the saga. 
 

Okay, this is just a little couple of things, that again, I've only just realised, before I move on from the 'props' stuff altogether....

As regards this 'foot' -

I've just realised that apart from the 'wobble'....what also gives this shot such a 'mid-air', dangling-look to me, is the way it has been framed against the background it's been given....  It just seems that compared to all the other AT-AT-foot 'close-ups', there is no hint of the ground seen around it, and it could pass for being as high-up as a 'cable-car' or something, going by the way we just see the mountains that are behind it here!  Not seeing the bottom of the 'prop' foot has really ruined the effect of this shot I reckon...which could have worked better if we had, and if it had also been 'zoomed-in' on a little bit more, enough to still capture the part where the cable tow 'attached'....

Adywan, while I don't know if this is an option or not, or know yet if you happen to like the current 'prop' foot too much to lose it....can I throw this out there, that if you are definately keeping it, that the background be altered in some way to seem like it could be nearer the ground? 

Here's the kind of other backgrounds that we see in comparison to the 'prop' foot's one, whenever we see 'close-ups' of AT-AT 'feet', to show what I mean -  

The main effect we see in these shots above is an overall 'whiteness' and lack of background detail, and just a hint of 'ground' effect nearby.  Not the 'mountains set against sky' backdrop that the 'prop' was filmed against.  Unfortunately, none of these particular shots above seem quite long enough to use / or 'flip' into reverse, for use instead of the 'prop' shot, as they are too brief. 

This one below, on the other hand, is long enough, if manipulated.  I didn't previously suggest that the actual footage could be just re-used without 'flipping it into reverse, if you wanted the cable tow to seem as if it was hitting the REAR, LEFT foot in the foreground , on the same side as it does in the 'prop' shot.  With a little alteration, it wouldn't seem an obvious 'total re-use' of the shot, by the time we get to it again (with Luke in it) roughly 4 minutes later.  There has been lots of action / other AT-AT shots going on in-between times to make it pretty 'un-obvious' by then....

Although the same shot 'flipped' in reverse would probably just have any new 'rappelling' cable appear just after the foreground foot passes (matching the sound effect on the soundtrack of course), I think that the 'change of side view' of the REAR, LEFT foot that this would entail, from that previously seen, would work okay too, as I personally always like shot changes from differing sides in certain scenes.  And the fact is that there are intercut shots of the pilots between what comes before and after the 'prop' shot anyway - 

Or the 'flipped' shot as seen below -

Okay, I'm done.  I can get onto some of the more 'fun' little AT-AT things now....  :)

Monroville said




I take it this is the offending element?  If anything, it seems all it needs is the outer ring you see on the model leg (the ring above is flat and smooth, whereas below the inner ring is inset).  Also, going by the picture below, shouldn't there be another inner leg joint on the lower left in the pic above (of course, it would cover up Luke's lightsaber arm and the door, which is maybe why the shot is so off - there's a missing leg!)?

 

 Er...didn't I say most of that (twice!) on the previous page? ;) 

Adywan had originally stated a good while back that he couldn't do much with this, and hadn't really intended to.  The thing is, adding a 'raised ring' would be a very difficult thing to do, throughout the 'movement' of that 'prop's shots....  However, it seems that he is now going to do something here....which is great, as anything he does will be an improvement, I'm sure.

That was a nice bit of thinking there Sevb32, by the way.  I hadn't thought about the 'zoom-in' thing, but can't wait to see what Ady may achieve. 

Here's my favourite piece of early AT-AT art by Ralph McQuarrie -http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/8045/mcquarrie27tv1.jpg

doubleofive said:

 

Now I'm ruining it for everybody.

Lol, don't worry, I think most of us realise that even this great entry in the saga is actually full of gaffs and continuity problems at this stage.

Having said that doubleofive, since you pointed out that 'stick' to me (which I actually had never noticed before!), it's all I can see now, and can't bear to watch this movie again....  :)

At least the shot where the snowspeeder goes under the AT-AT is a fleeting one (as are a lot of the shots), and most of the differing cuts from 'extreme close-ups' to fuller viewpoints of the different miniature work are intercut with other scenes before we return to certain ones.  A lot of problems fly past when watching them in the main....I just wish that damn 'wobbly', static-looking 'foot' prop you've shown was even more fleeting!  ;)

Monroville said:

I understand your points; I guess my thing is if you want to keep the red box and the green slider, add it to Luke's in the beginning to be consistent.  Then again, the whole "different setting" thing works too.

But what do I know?  I'm just a crazy guy in a santa suit...

 

Yes, I was meaning that I hope he also prefers to add that green 'moving' slider onto Luke's view too, as the original looks kinda plain.  However I can certainly go with the 'different setting' thing if Adywan prefers it that way.

Also, you may be a crazy guy in a santa suit, but I always look forward to reading your ideas, of which you have many.  We need that around here, as we can't expect Adywan to think of everything himself, if there's certain things we'd like to see.  His choice is final of course.

ImperialFighter said:

 

 

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 forwards during it's 'walking' forward), 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.

I had to go back and re-write quite a bit of this particular paragraph from my previous post above, as I had got my 'lefts' and 'rights' mixed up, due to rushing!  Anyway, I've also added a bit more detail to my description of what I'm meaning, and just wanted to point this out.

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.  :)

Aw man, really Monroville?  Personally, I always liked the overall colour/'movement' of the original Rebel trooper binocular graphic better than the plain original Luke binocular graphic.  I'd be sorry to see the effect either side go, and hope Adywan feels the same.

As far as the 'double circular' look to the front of the binoculars themselves, that didn't actually faze me too much in the past, as the end eyepiece that they looked through (as evident in the shot below) is somewhat 'rectangular' anyway, and I just used to accept that the Rebel trooper's 'rectangular' graphic was because it was just on a totally different 'setting', or was a 'modified' one compared to Luke's.  :) 

I have to say that in hindsight, that the 'double circle' graphic is far preferable over both the displays now, but I'd sure miss that colour/'movement' thing either side.

AuggieBenDoggie said:

 I do have a little request on the hoth battle. Could you give the smaller guns on the side of the head of the AT-AT's a little action. They never fire the whole time if I recall.

Just to say at this point, I now know that they definately do have several scenes where they are utilised throughout the battle for sure....and they aren't green either!  More on them soon.  :) 

Okay, here is the first part of a few 'AT-AT GROUND BATTLE'-related things I've been meaning to comment on for a while now Adywan, for you to consider (or shoot down, lol)....  It might take a little while to read through the two or three posts I'll need to eventually split them into, but here goes. (and many thanks to doubleofive who once again generously took the time to give me the exact numerous screenshots I wanted.) 

Firstly, can I say that while I wasn't quite sure about your change to the the AT-AT 'reveal' graphic at first, I've really come round to the look of it now, and realise that the consistency with the view from out of the identical Rebel binoculars will be a very good thing....

....however, although I know you confirmed that the 'red rectangle' would also be added to Luke's graphic too, I hope the same goes for the 'green and moving sections' that are seen either side of your new one.  These are my favourite elements from the original one, and they really add interest to the 'double-circle' version.  Nice work once again.

Although not straightforward, there are 2 things during the AT-AT battle that I'd personally most like to see improved in some way, if you would consider it, so I'll start with them, and offer a couple of possible ways to perhaps do that.  They both happen to involve the 'full-scale props' that were used....

This is my first offender -  it's not a long shot, but it's always been a frustrating one for me.  It's the AT-AT 'foot' that is hit by the tow cable that just seems to 'dangle' around momentarily in mid-air and 'wobbles' slightly, and isn't at all consistent with the movement of the miniature AT-AT 'feet' shots before and after it....

Now while it looks fine here in this still screengrab, the actual 'movement' onscreen is very poor.  From scrutinising the footage of the shot just afterwards where the snowspeeder has started to wrap the tow cable around the legs, it seems to have attached to the REAR, LEFT foot, before going around the back of the AT-AT.  This seems to tie-in with this 'prop' foot, which is shown with it's outer side to us.  Sadly, going by the angle of the 'prop' in the shot, and the distance we are away from it, we should probably have seen the opposing REAR, RIGHT leg/foot somewhere on the right of the frame, too....  I'd also suggest that the actual 'portion' of the 'prop' foot that is shown is actually not very well framed to begin with, and that some of the miniature 'close-ups' showed far better sections, such as the 'toes'.  I reckon some of the actual detailing is a little suspect too. 

Here's a very rough reminder of how it currently fits in sequence at some point in-between these other more convincing before and after miniature 'feet' shots, albiet without the brief 'intercutting' shots of the snowspeeder pilots which help to distract from any continuity problems in the look, colour, or backgrounds, when watching the movie -

If you plan to keep this shot mainly as it is, then perhaps you'd consider even trying to remove the 'wobble' of the 'prop'?  I doubt that the flimsy tow cable hitting the gigantic AT-AT's supposedly solid leg would affect it like that.  Also, perhaps you could study the look of of the REAR, LEFT foot on the miniature that precedes it (if you agree that this is the 'foot' in question), and better match some of it's details onto the 'prop', such as those involving the 'circle' areas?  And even the glimpse of a more prominent, more horizontal 'toe' added to the bottom right-hand side would be a welcome addition to help the poor framing a tad, and match how the preceding miniature one looked.

But on the other hand, maybe you'd even consider this, which has the potential to improve things much more dramatically, if you like the idea -  totally removing that 'prop' shot altogether, and replacing it with a brief 'flipped' version (but with a slightly different background) of existing footage of 'walking legs/feet' from the sequence where Luke is seen running underneath an AT-AT, which comes a good 4 minutes or so later on during the battle'!  

In the intervening 4 minutes or so, there's been a lot of action going on, due to numerous different scenes and cuts, with plenty of other AT-AT leg/foot shots to distract and mix things up from the 'memory' of the one that has gone before....so that by the time we get to the actual original, 'unflipped' scene with the 'walking legs/feet', you wouldn't really register that this brief AT-AT shot is the same one.  Luke would be need to be erased , and some difference made to the background, and a new tow cable would have to be added shown 'attaching' to the REAR, LEFT foot seen in the middle of the frame, and maybe colour-matched slightly (but as I said, there's intercutting pilot shots which make that less necessary).  It's just a thought, and the footage is just a tad longer than the 'prop' shot that it would replace, I checked.  So getting a length of shot that covers the same length as the 'prop' shot is no problem. 

And here's a very rough example of how including the 'flipped' shot would then look now, compared to the existing sequence shown above, although a watch of the actual moving footage will be needed to really get an idea of how it would turn out (remember, there would be no Luke in the scene, and there would be an added new tow cable 'attaching' to the back leg/foot, and intercutting between the different AT-AT shots with pilot shots) -

Okay, that's the first thing out of the way, don't know what you'll make of it, but I'll get to the other ones as soon as I can. 

Good point.  Maybe they're green.  ;)