What makes you think he was a pet?
wink wink nudge nudge say no more…
That was before the SW re-edit.
Well, of course. But so long as it stays in place like before, it — by default — winds up showing us exactly who Han Solo is and what he does: that he still remains the guy who, if someone has Luke in their sights, will open fire to (a) blindside them and (b) thereby earn a medal. And that Lucas knows it, has always known it, still knows it.
He did put 3PO back together in Empire.
Check out these scenes. He might come across less as a pet.
The purpose of Star Wars was to be fun.
Period.
It was.
Every time we watch one of the SW movies and I start complaining about it, my wife says pretty much the same thing: “Just enjoy it - stop overanalyzing it!”
Then again, this is the Dope. We can’t help ourselves. So I’m going to call out the stupid design of the Imperial Walkers, the AT-AT and AT-ST, in particular. I’m sure in some forgotten scene, Darth Vader crushed the skull of the Imperial engineer who would design a battle vehicle with such obvious flaws. All Terrain? Ok, but they sure are easy to trip!
AT-AT: Advantageously Trippable Armored Transport.
AT-ST: Also Trippable, Silly Technology
As soon as Lucas said he was influenced by the works of Joseph Campbell the whole franchise got a little less fun.
My favorite line from the whole canon came from Donnie Yen, while he’s getting a hood forced over his head: “Are you kidding me? I’m BLIND!” Then again, I’m a big Donnie Yen fan, so no surprise I loved it.
The statement was that Lucas was telling himself that his re-edit was a bad idea. But shooting Vader was installed before Lucas got his idea to tinker with the other scene. He can’t be saying “I got it right the first time,” before he changed it.
At best you have Lucas giving Han inconsistent behavior. As far a that goes, Vader is at that point the definition of evil. That might make a difference to Lucas in justfying behavior difference.
Every design has obvious flaws. Tires? Easily damaged or blocked by vehicle frame. Raise the vehicle for ground clearance? Now it’s top- heavy. Widen the tires? Easily damaged tires more prominent.
What about tank treads? They can be bombed, jammed, or broken. Bog down in mud.
Inherent flaws are a tradeoff. One tries to see the obvious and design other mitigations.
AT-AT Trippable? Wasn’t easy. Tow cables on air vehicles? Shoot the vehicles before they get a cable in place.
Strategies evolve as technology is used on the battlefield. Cheap drones pouring thermite on top of tanks evolved once cheap drones came about. Obvious flaw to expensive heavily armored vehicle to pour thermite on top of it. But it wasn’t always obvious. Wasn’t obvious it would succeed.
It makes more sense if you assume the purpose of the design was to terrorize and intimidate the enemy. Fascist regimes do tend to value aesthetics over practicality (e.g. a moon-sized battle station that fires a planet-destroying giant lighsaber or a hollowed-out planet that consumes entire stars to fuel a cannon that fires plasma bolts through hyperspace to destroy entire solar systems), and a 75-foot-tall metal elephant lumbering in your direction has got to be pretty damn frightening.
There’s a lot of stuff intended to be fun. That covers a lot of ground including Monty Python, Spaceballs, and The Lord of the Rings.
One can analyze Star Trek, for instance, to look at how concepts from the show influenced actual technology. For example, cell phone design deliberately copied the communicator flip open design. Where was Star Trek taking from existing concepts, where did it predict future tech, and where did the tech ideas come from Start Trek.
Looking at how the “futuristic spaciness” of Star Wars was actually calling back to the past rather than looking at what actually makes sense for space design is in the same vein.
One doesn’t have to do this analysis. But doing it can also be fun in its own way.
Dissecting plot holes, technology flaws, etc is a different type of fun for some of us. For me, it doesn’t impair my ability to enjoy the original. Those kind of flaws do impair my enjoyment of the prequels and sequels. Maybe because I take it too seriously now. Maybe because I’m not ten anymore, or because I am prone to overanalysis.
I will say I do recall enjoying The Phantom Menace when it came out even with the things that made me groan. Like the bigger fish “surprise” he pulled not once, not twice, but three times in a row.
Sure, but even with a walker design, you could make something a lot wider, that would be much harder to trip. Something like a spider, rather than a camel. Which would also be able to handle a lot rougher terrain: How much variability in leg length do AT-ATs have? It looks like they’d have a hard time stepping over a big boulder, or traversing a slope (and in fact, the only times we ever see them used are on flat, smooth plains).
AT-ATs were just another Star Wars nod to Roman history; this time Hannibal’s use of elephants as a terror weapon. I think the whole “Empire* thing started off as a riff on Flash Gordon and Emperor Ming but as Lucas started thinking in terms of *epic” storytelling, he slid into all of the Roman analogs.
Right now militaries around the world are working on various (semi-)autonomous ground battle-bots. Most of which use the arthropod body design: several small but longish legs arranged laterally surrounding a central armored core that rides low to the ground. Spider or crab; not camel, greyhound, or human.
If by “All” you mean “flat”, then yes.
They couldn’t do anything on a hill, or a rock-strewn field, they’d probably tip over on a sand dune, a jungle will stop them cold. And let’s not talk about deep water.
THIS was an AT vehicle in 1977. Put a “turbo laser” on it, and now we’re talking! (it floats, too)
I suspect an AT-AT can walk through a jungle with ease, crushing the vegetation with each footfall. As long as the trees aren’t tall enough to reach the underside of the cabin. To me the biggest question is how flexible the ankles are. We sure never saw them plant a foot on a 45 degree slope. But there’s no reason they couldn’t be engineered with that range of motion in their ankles.
I recall those Attex when they came out. Amazing idea. But dense vegetation will stop them cold. Push through grasslands and brush and swamp? Sure. Push through a forest of mature trees or even saplings? Not so much. And not a lot of up-, down-, or especially side-slope capability.
For darn sure the AT-AT, and much else of SW hardware was designed only using the Rule of Cool as seen through 10yo boy eyes. It’s about storytelling, not worldbuilding.
ISTM a lot of people nowadays are trying to make a PhD thesis out of analyzing a comic book. Whether it’s Star Wars, Star Trek, David Bowie, etc., we collectively seem to be raising fandom itself to some kind of high art that is more sophisticated than the art it purports to idolize. Such that fandom has now become an end in itself.
Yea, I was thinking Amazon rain forest or viet nam jungles. 50 foot canopy trees, dense underbrush.
The AT-TX 
can go on water where the AT-AT can’t, so it balances.
Now I’m picturing a “womp-rat patrol”, with plucky rebels driving these things around Tatooine with a mounted turbo laser, fighting the Jerries, I mean, the Empire. Leapin’ jeeps!
Theoretically, couldn’t an AT-AT just walk through or under any water? I think I remember wading through a bay in the Star Wars Battlefront game.