Creature Suit Analysis - Part 2 - Under the Fur

[Bill]

rolando

you speak of what we call "eyeballing" a job, trusting what we see even if it's not measured by any instrumentation. We do a lot of "eyeballing" of the work in this business. And we do pick up minor flaws that way too, as you noted.

longtabber PE

from one engineer to another, I thank you.

Interesting about the more recent work in ferro-fluidics. I lost all interest after I realized it had no practical potential is suits.

Never heard of a "right hand" suit. But we design both general suits and specialty suits. A general suit is for general non-specified use, and we assume it will be viewed from the front, so we put seams in the back. A specialty suit is one re-designed for a specific action, or to be seen from a specific camera angle (like the GORT robot suits I had referenced I think in Part one of the notes, where they had the general suit with seams up the back, and a specialty suit with seams up the front to be filmed of the backside of the robot character, like walking away from camera.

Given the turtles were martial artists, who had to do some of their fighting in the suits, i suppose them may have built variations of the suit to fascilitate a specific fighting action that was right handed. I'm guessing here, but it would be reasonable for that to have been done.For hero characters in a movie, it's actually common to have ome main "hero" suit, the best looking one for general filming and close-ups, and then a series of specialty suits redesigned in parts to accommodate specific scene needs, and some "stunt suits" generally with more internal safety padding and such.

There is also the fact that some suits have mechanical elements in them which need to be controlled by cable actuators coming out of the suit to calbe level controls that other operators handle, so you have to figure what part of the suit the cables all run out of. Generally, you try to do that on the "off camera" side of the suit, to hide the cables more easily from the camera's view. So the "Right hand" suit may of had some cables or other equipment components running out the left side.

Bill

[bipedalist]

Again, Bill your skills in this area are amazing, true knowledge that can help with this dilemma. The big butt

and breast issue is amazing because prior to the PG film had there been any sightings of female bigfoot that mentioned

fully formed human appearing breasts?

[Guest yetifan]

bipedalist asked:

The big butt

and breast issue is amazing because prior to the PG film had there been any sightings of female bigfoot that mentioned

fully formed human appearing breasts?

Yes. The William Roe story, for example, which Patterson talked about in his book a year prior to the PGF being filmed...including a sketch either traced or drawn by Patterson

of the alleged bigfoot in that story with human-like breasts (pg. 91)

Edited January 8, 2008 by Yetifan

[bipedalist]

That means that Roe's daughter is probably the one who did the

great drawing, and that head/face profile was used in a

sketch for the 1930 Calgary Alberta CN 10,000 dollar wanted posted at sylvanic.com

http://www.sylvanic.com/assets/posters/Big...01980_Final.PDF

This makes the film just a tad less real for me, by some but not by alot, but it

is now tipping me in a differing direction than before.

Edited January 8, 2008 by bipedalist

[bipedalist]

Thats good stuff Yetifan, for some reason the recent posts are not coming up as I type replies to some

material on this forum, it makes me post stuff first then find somebodies already posted something more

recent? Can't quite figure out what is happening on that?

[Guest]

I am often confused when I read Patty's breasts described as "looking like a female human breast" - I do not think that is the case at all. In fact I would argue her breasts look no different to me, than any other lactating chimp or gorilla. In my opinion they are lower on the chest than a human female - and not nearly as full.

So, in my opinion - if Patty is a man in a suit and the maker was attempting to recreate Roe's female bigfoot, he/she failed miserably. He/she should have simply made the breasts with a stronger material so they didn't move at all.

[bipedalist]

I'm not an expert in this topic (unfortunately), but if Patterson was trying to make a hybrid or cross between

human/ape with limited materials as Bill suggests were available, he might not have been able to replicate

an hairy authentic human female breast (though maybe trying and experimenting) so maybe to reduce the fake appearance problem, he may have made them with what available padding he had. I've seen the MK Davis closeups of the supposed third breast and all that but haven't been impressed with the

movement or fluidity of them.....but maybe I missed something. All this of course is conjecture but its

"food for thought"

[bipedalist]

Another thought is that if Patty is an older female, maybe it is

the appearance the breasts are not higher up but lower on the

chest is due to age. I like you see that difference. I have not been into

comparative anatomy so I have no referents with respect to

chimp/gorilla breasts. Your points are well taken though. Could have

been that it would have been too much detail trouble to have made

the suit for an adolescent female so he opted for the more mature but

slightly saggy breasted one.

[Guest]

Dont get me wrong.. I have no issues with Bill's assessment. But, I read about the comparison between Roe's sketch and Patty all the time - and I do not think Patty's breasts are even close. Maybe the materials were not available at the time, so then you have to ask "why do it, if your not going to get it right" - so much time and thought had been put into everything else (I think Bill has said as much).

I think even at that time, better looking breasts could have been made - and closer to what Roe described, IF Patty really is nothing more than a man in a monkey suit.

I do not see human looking breasts on Patty - to me, her breasts are closer to what I would imagine on a female chimp or gorilla that is lactating.

But, as always thats just my opinion.

[bipedalist]

I am certain that this is an area for closer study as it relates to suit manufacture

and comparative anatomy....

and I think your opinion is as good as any.....Bill help :blowkiss:

[Bill]

yetifan, bipedalist and Melissa

Allow me to just inject these thoughts, as a point of perspective. breasts to have a tremendous variance in size, form, and even position on the chest wall (due to the obvious issue of gravity vs the tissue firmness or laxity) in the human race, and what is shown in the PG film falls within the range of known natural human forms. It falls out of the norm for other primate forms, the great apes we know of. But the breasts do change significantly on one specific female during the phases of her life and during the phases of lactation and child-rearing as compared to non-lactating times.

And if you were to assume the breast shape is influenced by lactation, a female primate lactating generally has an infant clinging to her body (obviously not an absolute criteria, the infact could have died recently) but simple probabliliy would have you expect if you find a lactating primate, you'd be more likely to see an infant clinging to her body.

Discrepencies with the drawing may reflect the accuracy of the drawing itself, and given the historical era it is reported to have been drawn in, the typical socially acceptable way to draw a female figure may have been used, as compared to a true anatomical representation. Did you know Disney Animators in the 40's drawing female Centaurs for Fantasia could not put nipples on the bare breasts of the characters. That was not a socially acceptable way to draw a female breast.

So frankly I wouldn't put a lot of importance on the specific shape of the breast. Personally, I don't see anything about the specific shape that I personally would regard as relevent from a suit vs real investigative standpoint.

bipedalist: I don't see the specific shape as having any impact on the suit manufacturing process. It would have been a purely aesthetic choice on the part of a suit designer. I could just as easily make them larger, smaller, higher, lower, more flattened, more swelled, etc. Just an matter of how I sculpted the clay original.

I'm all for the further study of human female breasts, but would not expect that to shed any light on Pattty.

Just a thought, and I'm not pulling any rank here. If I'm missing anything here and it is relevent to the main suit vs real issue, please feel free to correct me.

Bill

[bipedalist]

Thanks for putting that one to rest anyway Bill, one thing I did notice though was the apparent flexible

movement of the left breast versus the more tense and static right breast in the film, maybe that would

be better posted in the PG thread. How about the thickly padded appearing grayish tan feet, how do they

rank up there with other costume or suit design?

[Guest OklahomaSquatch]

They look nothing like ape breasts, lactating or otherwise.

http://www.007b.com/animalpics/gorilla2.jpg

http://www.badeagle.com/journal/archives/gorilla1.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/194/5128146...6f63f003d_m.jpg

http://www.yale.edu/cfe/images/female%20chimp.jpg

http://www.007b.com/animalpics/orangutan-mother-baby.jpg

http://www.wildernessphotography.com/Gallery2/norton6.jpg

[bipedalist]

ya, more skin and more nipple

thanks for the anatomy lesson in apes

[Guest]

So frankly I wouldn't put a lot of importance on the specific shape of the breast. Personally, I don't see anything about the specific shape that I personally would regard as relevent from a suit vs real investigative standpoint.

Well that I agree with. I just do not see the similarities to a human female though. I personally think Patty's breasts make no difference whatsoever in the grand scheme of things, but to hear her breasts are within normal human range - is surprising to me. I never would have thought that.