Surgical Droid 2-1B - #06 (08)

Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

Star_Wars_Paul said:
Sorry for getting off topic here, but I'm pretty sure that's not Luke's Tauntaun.
Was it Luke's TaunTaun that the Wampa was munching on while Luke was hanging in the cave? Funny that thought never occurred to me before, after watching the movie 8,000 times....maybe I'm dense lol
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
6,756
Reaction score
83
Location
Maine
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

Picked him up this afternoon, great figure. But does anybody else feel like, I dunno, its a waste of articulation? Like there's bound to be a figure later in the 08 run that it would be better used in?

On the list of figures I'd like there to be ankle and hip articulation on, 2-1B was somewhere way near the bottom.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
197
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

I'm liking this figure purely for parts applications for what Bollux from the Brian Daley novels has always looked like in my mind's eye, regardless of what "official" pics have made him out to be.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
268
Reaction score
0
Location
Long Island, NY
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

wookieeboy said:
Star_Wars_Paul said:
Sorry for getting off topic here, but I'm pretty sure that's not Luke's Tauntaun.
Was it Luke's TaunTaun that the Wampa was munching on while Luke was hanging in the cave? Funny that thought never occurred to me before, after watching the movie 8,000 times....maybe I'm dense lol
lol, yeah, that's the impression I got.
There was a back story/cut scene where there were Wampa's running loose through the Echo base. The Tauntaun you are refering to was one that was attacked by a "Rogue" Wampa.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
268
Reaction score
0
Location
Long Island, NY
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

wookncrook said:
I'm liking this figure purely for parts applications for what Bollux from the Brian Daley novels has always looked like in my mind's eye, regardless of what "official" pics have made him out to be.
So one could safely say that Bollux is a Splinter in your Mind's Eye?
 
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Messages
1,719
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

DARKLORD, I think the platform was part of the prop and not necessarily part of the character, if that makes any sense. I think it was used as the base for the prop robot on set but wasn't meant to be representative of the GFFA world droid feet. Since we never saw them in the movie, I think the real world designers were just trying to keep things simple for themselves and use a platform instead.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2001
Messages
7,866
Reaction score
3
Location
Sydney, Australia
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

The_Professor said:
DARKLORD, I think the platform was part of the prop and not necessarily part of the character, if that makes any sense. I think it was used as the base for the prop robot on set but wasn't meant to be representative of the GFFA world droid feet. Since we never saw them in the movie, I think the real world designers were just trying to keep things simple for themselves and use a platform instead.
Exactly!
The 2-1B prop was only supposed to be filmed from the waist up, that's why prop builders never gave him "feet"
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

Mike_S said:
The_Professor said:
DARKLORD, I think the platform was part of the prop and not necessarily part of the character, if that makes any sense. I think it was used as the base for the prop robot on set but wasn't meant to be representative of the GFFA world droid feet. Since we never saw them in the movie, I think the real world designers were just trying to keep things simple for themselves and use a platform instead.
Exactly!
The 2-1B prop was only supposed to be filmed from the waist up, that's why prop builders never gave him "feet"

Well, they gave him hydralic legs which were also NEVER SEEN in operation in the film.

Does that mean that the (in-universe) droid was NOT equipted with those either? At the very least, the Kenner / Hasbro design team would seem to disagree with you, because the figure has these same legs (with the exception of the addition of feet).

Honestly, this logic is very faulty.

The fact is, 2-1B's base rolling platform (as seen in the archive photo above) was VERY well designed, built, deco'ed, painted, AND weathered to match the rest of the droid's color scheme and metalic coverings. In my view, it was TOO well deco'ed to NOT be considered part of the droid's actual anatomical equipment.

I doubt very much that George Lucas, his Art Directors and prop builders would go to the kind of trouble and expense to design, contruct, paint and weather a rolling platform that THEY didn't consider a legitimate part of the droid... even if it did NOT appear on camera.

I ask you: If the rolling platform was NOT considered part of 2-1B's actual (in world) equipment, then why not just mount the prop droid on a simple, plain un-painted wooden dolly? That was EXACTLY what the prop builders chose to do for the full-sized PROBOT (see your supplemental OT DVD documentary "Empire of Dreams").

Look, in Return of the Jedi, we only ever see EV-9D9 from the waist up. However production stills reveal that 9D9 was built as a full droid with actual legs and feet (very similar to the action figure). Even though we don't see them, THOSE were EV's actual (in-universe) equipment.

My point is, the fact that you do NOT see a rolling platform on 2-1B in the film does NOT disqualify it as legitimate (in-universe) equipment for the character.

In addition, since the GFFA world feet are not established in Empire, the platform is just as legitimate for 2-1B's equipment. It is a droid, after all. It's lower extremities equipment was clearly interchangeable / adjustable based on need in The Empire Strikes Back.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

What the heck else is new?
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

Star_Wars_Paul said:
Sorry for getting off topic here, but I'm pretty sure that's not Luke's Tauntaun.

You're right. That was a Tauntaun killed by wampas invading Echo Base in a scene cut from the film.


Star_Wars_Paul said:
I'm curious why you would want it to have a platform & not legs?
Actually a custom 2-1B figure that I'd like to make in the future would have both... "legs" AND a base platform... just like the photo of the Lucasfilm prop shows.

It honestly never really sat well with me that 2-1B would have the "feet" that Kenner assigned to him (in the vintage figure) or the feet claws that he featured on the POTF2 version. The very notion that a medical droid like 2-1B would even "walk" (two legs and feet taking strides) just made no sense.

In his action figure configuration, he just seemed off-balance with those small feet... like he might actually topple over pretty easily.

To me, the rolling platform makes a lot more sense for a medical droid who would need to move around quickly and fluidly to treat its patients and to maintain its own balance and stability. Droids with legs, knees, and feet constantly trip and fall over (note C-3P0). This is especially true on military installations and starships which are subject to enemy attack during a glactic civil war.

Furthermore, based on the type of fluid, precise, body movement we saw from 2-1B in Empire, he just LOOKS to me like the type of droid whose locomotion would logically also be fluid... as in via a rolling platform.

Now, the legs are also important for a droid of this nature:

Firstly, with so many of its patients being humanoid in configuration, it only follows that there would be a certain psychological comfort factor for patients if they are being primarily treated by a medical droid who is also roughly "humanoid" in shape (a head on torso, two arms and two legs).

If I were injured, and I had my choice between FX-7 or 2-1B to administer medical attention, I know who I would choose.

Secondly, if those legs are designed to be collapsible (as Empire seems to suggest), then that gives the droid much-needed medical treatment versatilty. Legs like that give 2-1B the capability of dealing with injured patients lying prone on the ground (as in field combat) OR to stand upright (like an attending physician) when treating patients at a medical facility.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

darthbr3tt said:
I'll take the new figure over the old sculpt any day. Yes, the POTF2 version was great in 1997, but it's a tad too big compared to the new figures.

Only because STAR WARS action figures have steadily SHRUNKEN since after the EP 1 line.

If the scale had been kept consistent from day one, I doubt this would even be a discussion.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
485
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

Isn't the original 2-1b medical droid bigger than (with the exception of the 2008 kashyyyk trooper) clone troopers who have seemed to stay the same size
 
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,356
Reaction score
0
Location
NF, NY
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

I'm super impressed with this figure! Been wishing for a new 21B for a long time and it was totally worth the wait. More articulated and detailed than than it "needed" to be given its place in the Empire and its screentime, it's an even cooler figure than I had hoped.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

The REAL droid I have been hoping for a long time is the FX-6 medical droid... Hasbro has a high mark to reach on this one as the FX-7 droid was definitive IMO... then the Vader medical scene can be complete... Please, please, please this year...
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
268
Reaction score
0
Location
Long Island, NY
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

Thanks for your insight. While I have no complaints about the new figure, your theory makes sense. I could see a Treadwell like lower body that the "legs" would raise from & lower into for height adjustment.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

Star_Wars_Paul said:
Thanks for your insight. While I have no complaints about the new figure, your theory makes sense. I could see a Treadwell like lower body that the "legs" would raise from & lower into for height adjustment.

Thanks.

You know, I took a moment, this morning to look at Luke's recovery scene aboard the Medical Frigate at the end of Empire and noticed something very interesting:

In the establishing wide shot of the scene (showing 2-1B administering to Luke in bed) we can actually SEE 2-1B's legs. They are most definitely the same legs seen in the prop photo I posted.

So those reports of the prop only having simple wooden rods as legs are definitely wrong.

Even more importantly, even though 2-1B's feet are not seen, that establishing shot does clearly indicate that his legs do NOT move independantly. They are linked together at the base on some sort of rolling platform. Just watch how both legs pivot together in the scene.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

Does this mean we should start petitioning Hasbro for a more articulated and correct (with tread base) version of the ESB 2-1B?... they could kit bash it with what they have...
 
Joined
May 25, 2003
Messages
314
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

It's just like with some of the cantina aliens; a handful of those were basically just heads on a stick or something, but for the figures their bodies had to be developed and created. As such I don't worry too much about it...
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

streams said:
Does this mean we should start petitioning Hasbro for a more articulated and correct (with tread base) version of the ESB 2-1B?... they could kit bash it with what they have...

I completely agree. And I, for one, would be very happy with a kit-bash... just so long as the base figure is the POTF II version of the character with the improved, more articulate arms of the TAC 2-1B, and a new rolling base.
 
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
8,249
Reaction score
21
Location
Northridge, CA
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font>

Only because STAR WARS action figures have steadily SHRUNKEN since after the EP 1 line.

If the scale had been kept consistent from day one, I doubt this would even be a discussion.

[/QUOTE]

That they have!
Don't get me wrong, I think the POTF2 sculpt is still decent and by no means bad. But I like the detail and size of the new one better (and as you stated, the SW figures have definitely shrunken a bit in the last 7 years or so).
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2006
Messages
4,770
Reaction score
0
Location
CHI-TOWN...ish
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

the base could have easily been made to match the actual floor in the movie, NOT the droid


I hate to tell ya DL, but you're wrong, I just popped in Empire and in the scene where Luke's in the Bacta tank, watch it.. At one point, Luke's jerking around and if you pause it, his heads even with 2-1B and his knees are bent and he's scrunched up.. now, Luke being "a little short for a stormtrooper" if he were to stand straight up next to 2-1B in this scene, he'd tower over him.. and don't get me started on FX7 who's about a head taller than 2-1B in this same scene...
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
485
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

is the original 2-1B medical droid taller than clone troopers who (except for the 2008 kashyyyk trooper) have stayed the same size (a lot of discussions on the 2-1B medical droids hieght)
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

JoeRhyno said:
the base could have easily been made to match the actual floor in the movie, NOT the droid
[/b]

Sigh… OR perhaps it was just the base for the droid itself.

Based on the way STAR WARS prop builders have done things in the past, which do you think makes the most logical sense? This is not hard.

Since when has any STAR WARS droid prop been built with a base that matches the floor of the set? Never happened!

2-1B appeared in at least 3 different locations in The Empire Strikes Back. Each one had a (more than likely) different colored floor. The prop builders would NOT have tried to match the floor.

I'm sorry. But that's just silly.



JoeRhyno said:
I hate to tell ya DL, but you're wrong, I just popped in Empire and in the scene where Luke's in the Bacta tank, watch it.. At one point, Luke's jerking around and if you pause it, his heads even with 2-1B and his knees are bent and he's scrunched up.. now, Luke being "a little short for a stormtrooper" if he were to stand straight up next to 2-1B in this scene, he'd tower over him.. and don't get me started on FX7 who's about a head taller than 2-1B in this same scene...

I hate to tell YOU, JoeRhyno, but YOU'RE the one that's wrong.

The very scene you describe only proves my point about 2-1B's average height:

Luke is floating bouyant in the bacta fluid, occassionally bobbing up and down.

During that scene, 2-1B appears almost a head taller than Luke while he floats in the tank.

But this proves NOTHING since (as you pointed out) Luke's knees are bent. It's what happens NEXT that is interesting.

There is a split second where Luke bobs up in the chamber (with his torso straight and extended, NOT hunched), and ONLY THEN is he equal to 2-1B's height.

In that split moment when Luke bobs up, he rises to maybe 3 inches taller than his own standing height (even taking his bent knees into account). His bouyancy in the fluid allows for this.

Also, this scene demonstrates that 2-1B is actually as tall (if not taller) than FX-7. I'm not sure what scene you saw where he appears a head shorter than the other droid, but that just ain’t so.

But even if my eyes are out of whack, and I'm totally wrong about my interpretation of the Bacta Tank scene… and even if my suppositions about his rolling platform base are way off… some facts still remain supported by the attached images:

1. 2-1B (in-universe) is a droid who is clearly designed to change height. He's got 4 different sets of collapsible bellows on his legs, for pete sakes.

2. 2-1B (the real-world prop) is listed in the Lucasfilm Archives book as “… 58 x 30 x 178 cm” That’s a little over 5 feet 10 inches tall.

3. Page 32 in “The Art of The Empire Strikes Back” book features the original construction blueprint for the 2-1B filming prop. I’ve circled the TWO key points to look at:

3A The intended height for this droid / prop was originally planned as “6’.0” O/A” The final prop (due to natural construction discrepancies) came in at a little under 2 inches short.

3B The base for this droid (even in the planning stages) was intended as “…Trolley Base. Robot Rotates and Moves Forward…”







 
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
1,957
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

Okay, stupid questions, but how does he scrunch down further? It looks like from the prop, even with his legs all scrunched up, he is 6' tall. I've seen photos where he looks like hes "kneeling" over a dead tauntaun. How did he do that?

And the platform looks weird. If he does move, what powers him? Treads, bunches of little wheels?

See, if they would have made the POTF2 version of 2-1B with the platform, he may not have been as boring.


Extra late thought: Has anyone noticed that the 2-1B unit in ROTS seems to slide or roll backwards when Darth Vader gets really mad and starts wrecking up the place? Is it possible that even that 2-1B unit had wheels under his feet?
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

Just think of his legs like the sections of the Hasbro toy lightsabers: One section collapses into the next larger section.

It looks to me like his shin sections would retract fully up into his thigh sections so that his "knees" are resting on the trolley platform.

The bellows sections probably collapse further (like an accordion) to lower his height even more.

NOTE: These are all possible in-universe explantions only. The actual (real-world) prop probably just disassembles into a shorter configuration. (Re: legs detach allowing torso to sit directly on trolley.)

As far as locomotion, I imagine a simple pair of rubberized treads underneath his trolley... just like an RC military tank.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

CantThinkOfAName said:
Extra late thought: Has anyone noticed that the 2-1B unit in ROTS seems to slide or roll backwards when Darth Vader gets really mad and starts wrecking up the place? Is it possible that even that 2-1B unit had wheels under his feet?

Wouldn't surprise me one bit.
 
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
8,249
Reaction score
21
Location
Northridge, CA
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

I have to chime in here. I have seen both props, 2-1B and FX-7, on display, side-by-side. FX-7 was maybe two inches taller than 2-1B. Also, the two scenes where you can see 2-1B's approximate height are when Luke talks to him in his quarters (Luke's a small 5'6", maybe a generous 5'7" and looks to only be an inch or two shorter than the droid. Also, when Luke and Leia are in the medical frigate at the end of TESB it looks (and yes it's too hard to tell) like 2-1B might only be a tad taller than Luke.

I have seen the prop with my own two eyes up close and know how tall the thing is. No amount of possible hunching, prop blueprints (which can change during production) or guesses will change what I saw in person. This reminds me of the argument where people will swear that Han's Hoth jacket is blue (again, I saw that in person........it's brown).

I am done talking about this now.

NOW LET'S ENJOY THE FIGURE!
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2006
Messages
4,770
Reaction score
0
Location
CHI-TOWN...ish
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

I meant FX7 being a head shorter, not taller, oops.. I still think the base is just that, a base to stand the freakin PROP up and to swivel it back and forth, look at that drawing you provided.. it's not even detailed and finished at the lower legs and the base.. if it was meant to be part of the droid.. don't you think they would have finished it in the drawing?

ANYWAY... you're set on what you believe, so whatever.. I found this pic...

http://roswell.fortunecity.com/seance/320/cut/21bleia1.jpg

anyone have a scaled Leia figure to put next to the different 21Bs?
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
1,957
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

I dunno, I never believed that 2-1B had a "base" that it sat on, but the thought of this intrigues me. It actually sounds sort of cool.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

darthbr3tt said:
The two scenes where you can see 2-1B's approximate height are when Luke talks to him in his quarters (Luke's a small 5'6", maybe a generous 5'7" and looks to only be an inch or two shorter than the droid.
Mark Hamil is actually 5 feet 9 inches tall.

[/QUOTE] proof?

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that he was only 5 feet 7 inches when he made The Empire Strikes Back. BY YOUR OWN OBSERVATION, if Luke were two inches shorter than 2-1B, then that makes the droid 5 feet 9 inches tall.


Now if Mark Hamill was the same height in 1980 as he is now (5 foot 9 inches), and if YOUR assessment is correct that he is "...an inch or two shorter than the droid, then that makes the droid between 5 feet 10 inches and 5 feet 11 inches.

Either way, my (thoroughly evidenced) assessment of 2-1B's height as 5 feet 10 inches is pretty much right in the correct ballpark.


darthbr3tt said:
I have seen the prop with my own two eyes up close and know how tall the thing is. No amount of possible hunching, prop blueprints (which can change during production) or guesses will change what I saw in person. This reminds me of the argument where people will swear that Han's Hoth jacket is blue (again, I saw that in person........it's brown).

As Obi-Wan once said, "Your eyes can decieve you. Don't trust them."

Look, I don't doubt that you saw the droid up close and that it did not seem all that tall to you.

But perceptions are deceptive. I worked in law-enforcement for ten years. By experience I can tell you that one of the most common errors that people make regarding observation of an individual is to accurately determine his or her height.

This is because everyone's apparent height is relative to everyone else's.

For example: A six foot tall man is considered "average height" by conventional wisdom. But to a 5 foot tall woman, this same man may very well be described as "tall". Likewise our hypothetical man might be looked upon as a "little dude" by a 7 foot tall basketball player.

I guarantee you, darthbr3tt, that if YOU are, say, 6 feet tall (or taller), then a 5 foot 10 inch prop droid will not seem all that tall... to YOU.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

JoeRhyno said:
I still think the base is just that, a base to stand the freakin PROP up and to swivel it back and forth.


Yes. It WAS a base to stand the droid upon and swivel it back and forth... but it was also a base that was always intended as this droid's main locomotion and anatomical equipment (in universe).

Exactly WHAT is YOUR (in universe) assertion to the contrary? Is it that 2-1B "walks" in the traditional sense (like, say, C-3P0)? Well then where's your proof? There is NOTHING in the archives to help support that assertion (magazines, stills, prop archive photos, schematics, or even the film itself)

2-1B's (in-universe) rolling platform is NO LESS BELIEVEABLE than the motion equipment for a Treadwell droid being what it is.



JoeRhyno said:
look at that drawing you provided.. it's not even detailed and finished at the lower legs and the base.

So what? I can actually show you a Lucasfilm Blueprint Schematic of an AT-AT where the head is literally left BLANK. Does that mean that an AT-AT has no head?

More on this point in a minute.


JoeRhyno said:
If it was meant to be part of the droid.. don't you think they would have finished it in the drawing?

No. Not nesecarily. I provided you with a Lucasfilm Blueprint schematic of 2-1B. It was NOT a Design Concept Drawing of the character.

The fact is, schematics are only intended to be a SIZE and SCALE guide for the carpenters and prop builders to create their set pieces.

They are also a guide for where the moving parts of a prop or set will be located and how they should be built and engineered.

Very often, there will be entire sections of a blueprint schematic that will be left plain and un-detailed for the sake of simplicity / clarity... because the design detail is impertinent.

This is similar to a house blueprint schematic that you might look at: It will not necesarily detail the final aesthetic design elements of the house (Re: furniture placement, kitchen counter marble or formica?, etc.) It is just meant to be a guide to the builders of the house's basic structure, measurement dimensions, and moving parts.

But as I said before, blueprint schematics are NOT design guides. On an Original Trilogy STAR WARS film, design guides were typically found in the form of Joe Johnston's and Nilo Rodis Jamero's detailed design / concept drawings, OR in the form of Ralph McQuarrie's production paintings, OR in the form of miniature mock-up "maquettes" quickly put together by ILM modelmakers.


Joe, in the end, you're going to believe what you want to believe. But ultimately, you have not produced a singe shred of documented evidence to suggest that 2-1B's lower extremities for motivation were NOT officially a trolley platform.

I, on the other hand, have produced not only a photo of the final, finished, filming prop (taken from a Lucasfilm Archives book), but a construction schematic showing that the mobility equipment for this droid was always intended as a rolling trolley.

VERY solid evidence to support my position.

Furthermore, you have not even addressed the very reasonble and logical assertion that I have made that IF the trolley platform were NOT an offical anatomical part of 2-1B, then why go to the trouble of designing, building, painting, decoing, and weathering it as they did.

I have to think that you were not serious about your "matching the floor" supposition.

As I pointed out before, a simple rolling platform that was only meant to "... stand the freakin PROP up and to swivel it back and forth..." and that was NOT considered an actual part of the droid's body, would have just been built as a plain, drab, un-painted, bare wooden dolly platform like the one the full size Probot was mounted on.


Speaking of which, chew on this for a moment:

On page 13 in The Art of The Empire Strikes Back book, the blueprint schematic for the Imperial Probot is presented.

The schematic shows a Probot with only TWO spider legs. Now... is THAT how many legs were on the actual prop? No!! Of course not!! It had five. But the builders only needed two to be illustrated in the scematic.

In addition, this blueprint schematic does NOT illustrate the wooden platform that was used to "... stand the freakin PROP up and to swivel it back and forth..." Why? Because it was NOT to be a constructed part of the Probot. That's why.

In that same way, the full-scale Rebel Snowspeeder schematics blueprints DO NOT SHOW the forklift machines that were used to make them appear to lift off into battle during filming.


Alright. I'm done with this. Believe as you will.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
11,066
Reaction score
0
Location
Mexico City
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

The funniest thing about this whole argument is the fact that the new 2-1B figure is not meant to represent the ESB 2-1B, but rather the 2-1B that we see in ROTS, wich clearly does have feet:



(That image was taken from the official site, if anyone's wondering) link
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2002
Messages
4,372
Reaction score
1
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

Darn. I am beyond bummed to hear that the scale does indeed seem to be so off. He really looks. . . . well, downright bad in those pics of him next to the POTF2 fig. So far this is --- by far --- the worst year ever for me as a collector. I am seriously losing interest. And fast. Toy Fair better reveal some good stuff coming down the pipe or. . . well, I don't know. It's hard to be a collector when one finds so precious little worth buying.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

Jorbex said:
The funniest thing about this whole argument is the fact that the new 2-1B figure is not meant to represent the ESB 2-1B, but rather the 2-1B that we see in ROTS, wich clearly does have feet:


Quoting the official site: "The familiar looking medical droid that treats a badly injured Darth Vader. This droid was intended to be the same model as the 2-1B seen in Empire, but not the exact same droid.



No one is arguing that this new figure is accurate or inaccurate based on the droid from The Empire Strikes Back.

It was established and understood by all, VERY EARLY in this debte, that the new figure represents the droid that administered to Darth Vader in Revenge of the Sith.


However, the debate here was sparked by the official site's assertion that both droids are the "... same model..." when they clearly are not.

The official site's photo (which you have posted) and text indicated a droid with separate walking legs, and a 4 foot 11 inch height.

Some accepted the official site's assertion that this was the "...same model..."[/i] (Re: size and configuration) as the Empire droid. Following that logic, they found the POTF II 2-1B figure "... too tall and inaccurate..."

I disagreed with the notion of the first figure being "... too tall..." and I set out to prove that the Empire droid was average-heighted, and that therefore, the POTF II figure was correct to depict an average height (relative to other characters).

When I posted photos of the Empire filming prop to support my position, I made the comment that the only main innacuracy of the POTF II figure was the presence of clawed feet in the absense of the (correct) trolley platform.

Opponents of my position, believing the ROTS droid to be the "...same model..." as the Empire droid felt that (despite the photo evidence) the trolley platform must be inaccurate equipment since the Sith droid has legs and feet.

I disagreed with that notion as well, and proved why.

Hence the debate was born.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
848
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

Mine should be already leaving the USA and preparing to cross the ocean... i can not wait!
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
3,787
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

From Wookieepedia:

*Two similar model droid are seen working on Anakin Skywalker in the Imperial rehabilitation center on Coruscant at the end of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Neither of them is intended to be the same 2-1B droid shown in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, who heals Luke's injuries from the Wampa and repairs his hand after his duel in Cloud City.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Messages
3,521
Reaction score
0
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

There was once someone who mentioned that the astromechs would run out of names if they only had 4 digits for their title like R2D2 and R4G9. Later it was explained that their names are actually much longer but the models generically go by the first 4, instead of being called R4-G95252576-F or something along those lines. I'd like to think I'd use the same logic with the 2-1B droid. That maybe both droids are 2-1B because 1 is 2-1B373847 and the other model is 2-1B83473, that seems like a logical explanation for me.


As for the other arguement involving whether or not the ESB version is supposed to have feet or rollers, I'd like to think I'd back DARKLORD due to the extensive amount of info he's put forth on the subject. The only query I'd add, is that while all evidence seems to point towards his conclusion, I'd still like to throw my .02 and say that if the feet area was never meant to be seen on camera, then all other points are without merit. It's like trying to determine what Yoda's butt looks like.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
11,066
Reaction score
0
Location
Mexico City
Re: ROTS 2-1B #08-06

If the debate is on the screen accuracy of the POTF2 2-1B, then maybe the debate should be moved to the POTF2 forums, right?

It seems to me that the debate is actually centered on wether the new (ROTS) 2-1B is too short or not. In my opinion, it's size is accurate to ROTS, for the reasons so expansively presented by DarkLord.
 
Top