Captain Seafort wrote:I never disputed any of that. The issue is that the argument, like so many of the Wars arguments we get into, isn't about the nominal cause but about the intricacies of canon.
Which is the whole point of the Databank. To put things down in writing to avoid such problems.
Captain Seafort wrote:I agree that the Database is canon. What I'm pointing out, as usual, and what you, as usual, aren't getting,
Okay, this right here required its own response... really, with as many times as you've been caught openly LYING about what is or isn't canon. What on this earth makes you think that you somehow have the high ground needed to pull the "someone doesn't get it" even when that person has slapped you around the forum for the last two years over the same topic. You've even had another Mod catch you and lets face it. How often do the mods have the balls to catch anyone around here?
Back to topic.....
Captain Seafort wrote:I agree that the Database is canon. What I'm pointing out, as usual, and what you, as usual, aren't getting, is that Star Wars has multiple levels of canon regarding what can override what, and the movies trump all. If a lower canon source is contradicted by Lucas' original work then that lower source is wrong. It doesn't have any effect on the canonicity of the rest of the Databank, or even the rest of the AT-AT entry, but simply means that the Databank got the height wrong. Hell, even in the Databank entry itself the height of the AT-AT is entered under the heading "from the movies", which is blatantly false as we both agree that the movie shows a 30m AT-AT.
What we have is a single visual which could easily be written off as an SFX error. VS, the rest of the film which is intended for the 15m point.
(I know you guys want me to post pics but I fail at cutting that stuff so sorry if its a bit tough for any of you but here's a youtube link.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6pu4W1OrUE
Next time you watch ESB, notice that when Luke's snowspeeder is crushed he is setting and is still over half the height of the foot. Now give it some room for error and you still have Luke being the same height as the foot mount. In the pic you posted, Luke is less then half that height. Which means for your pic to be right Luke would have to be just under 1m tall. Do you really want to tell me that Luke is the same height as Yoda?
Sorry for the delay, another snow storm is hitting and I needed to shovel for a bit.