Creature Suit Analysis - Part 2 - Under the Fur

[Guest JohnWS]

He missed a pine tree :lmao: .

-------------------------

There are perhaps some interesting similar details in the sketch & the frame posted. I particularly like the little flap of skin (large circle, second from right). A cursory glance through my artists' anatomy book & a few art & nature books don't seem to show that.....

Edit to remove stray word.

See amended text in bold - sorry I realised I had my circles mixed up but too late to edit .

[Guest]

There are perhaps some interesting similar details in the sketch & the frame posted. I particularly like the little flap of skin (large circle, second from right). A cursory glance through my artists' anatomy book & a few art & nature books don't seem to show that.....

Time to get a new book.

Edited January 17, 2008 by The Punisher

[Guest soarwing]

Time to get a new book.

- - -

One of many things that strikes me about the "suit" is the defined armpit area. It's so clear and it seems very unlikely that a suit like this was put on over clothes - as BH claims - considering the total lack of wrinkling and bunching in that area. No shaggy fur hiding the area either.

[Guest JohnWS]

Time to get a new book.

Actually it was the thin flap I found 'odd'. I can find plenty of muscular shapes similar to your pic but I thought it strange that both the drawing and PG subject feature the 'same' little fold of skin.

Edited to remove posted pic.

Edited January 17, 2008 by JohnWS

[Guest Lyndon]

He missed a pine tree :newtongue: .

-------------------------

There are perhaps some interesting similar details in the sketch & the frame posted. I particularly like the little flap of skin second from top (circle). A cursory glance through my artists' anatomy book & a few art & nature books don't seem to show that.....

Edit to remove stray word.

John..............there are FAR FAR FAR more differences than similarities my friend. As an artist myself I would LOVE to create a moving image FAR SUPERIOR to my 'artistic' rendition of it.

That Patterson, what a genius!!! Shame he died broke innit?

[Guest JohnWS]

Sorry Lyndon, I missed this.

I'm not stating there is anything definitive in my observations but..... :newtongue: .

If Rog' (or whoever) commissioned a costume to be fabricated then I'm certain he would have had some say as to what went into the design.

Therefore some of those details from his sketches would have likely (IMHO) found themselves worked into the costume while some did not match the drawing more closely due to practical reasons (available materials, processes, performer's dimensions etc).

To me art is a process of refinement. *Especially when translating 2D (sketch) to 3D (costume, sculpt, etc)

*Edit

Edited January 19, 2008 by JohnWS

[Bill]

Reviewing the Thread

Repeating portions of my Review introduction from the Part One notes, I feel a review and evaluation of this thread may be of value.

So I decided that I would post an appraisal of each note set, re-reading the original, seeing if I would change anything, based on the comments and discussions, and offering the readers a fresh look at what I feel are the most relevent issues and ideas. Each group of summary notes will be different, but this brief introduction will be repeated first.

Part Two - Under the Fur

I began this set of notes with a suggestion on revising some of the terms used in suit discussions. I wrote:

"First, the very term "muscle suit" is a vague and misleading generic term that actually should be retired, because there are two types of suit structures which could be called a muscle suit, and they are entirely different things.

One is a Muscle Padding Suit, which uses foam structures to create a form resembling the generic muscle mass beneath the fur, in a neutral posture.

The other is a Muscle Dynamic Simulation Suit, which uses physical or mechanical dynamics to actually replicate the elongation and contraction of muscles, with accompanying changes in the muscle shape."

Well, so far, neither of these terms seems to have caught on, as much as I can determine. Oddly, the terms which seem to have crept into the vocabulary of others are "mime" (a performer wearing a creature suit) and "ventilating" (which seems to be disliked by many despite being a Hollywood makeup standard and common term) as a term for hand tied hair into a lace backing.

So it's curious how the terms I suggested needing revision went unnoticed, while terms I used casually with no expectation of being adopted seem to have taken on a new life. One of the curious things about the dynamics of a public forum that continue to surprize me.

However, in review, I do still think that the two term phrases "Muscle Padding Suit" and "Muscle Dynamics Simulation Suit" do have merit in clearing up the distinction, so I will continue to advocate the use of those terms.

Reviewing all the discussion of foam and material cover physical dynamics, I remain confident these notes are reasonable and scientifically sound.

The Breast Padding discussion has taken on a lively series of comments, mostly more directed at the issue of whether the shape of "Patty's breasts" can be considered "real", and some people have argued passionately (and occasionally comicly) that they can't possibly be real and that Patty must be a suit as a result.

The most fascinating argument for why Patty's breasts could not be real (and therefore she herself could not be, either) was offered on another site by a person sincerely convinced that because Patty's breasts did not resemble the breasts of any of the topless actresses in a Monty Python film, she could not be real. I continue to marvel at the originality of this viewpoint.

I've basically backed away from most of those discussions as a non-issue, simply saying that everything seen in the film could have been fabricated by materials and processes of the time, but nothing about them is so "unreal" that I would take it as proof of a suit.

So while the debate rages on, on this issue, I've chosen to try diligently to move on to other subjects and aspects of the anatomy. We don't always get what we try to do, however.

Same for the raging debates on Butt padding.

But this observation still stands out in my mind as significant:

"Another contridiction I saw in some of the enhanced footage was the contridiction that the pelvic area has what appear to be seams exactly as I'd expect to tailor flat furcloth or real fur around the compound curves from waist to top of the thigh. But the back flowing up to the neck and arms should have as many tailoring seams and it's flawless by comparison."

Since that observation, I remain strong in my opinion that the head/neck/shoulder form is vastly superior to what I see in Hollywood suit examples prior to the 1980s, when NFT's stretch fur finally enabled such smooth head-neck blends. But I would change my appraisal (above) of the hip lines, to the comments now noted in my Part 12 notes, that the irregularities of the shadow lines, across multiple frames, doesn't behave as I would expect from any shadows caused by a physical structure of a suit. So while those shadow lines are a continuing curiosity for me, the explanation of them as seams of a suit is, in my opinion, an agrument losing credibility as I continue to study the issue.

There was also a curiously active discussion of the artwork prior to the filming , showing BF creatures with breasts. A simplistic view (I have often heard) argues that Patty must be a suit, because she was clearly fabricated to look like the artwork. But of course, 50 percent of any live species population is female, and maybe the artwork reflects actual sightings which report females of the species having such anatomy. So I personally again see the facts equally supporting both sides and favoring nether, and again, it all comes back to the "non-issue" point for me.

Where I think the true significance lies is any motions of the highlights and shadows across the body which cannot be explained as hair shifts of reflectance. If we truly were seeing a fur suit on Patty, these light patterns should reflect the folding of cloth dynamics, as the body moves. Or if the padding is stiff enough, there should be no light pattern shifts at all.

There appears to be pattern shifts, but not what I expect from cloth fold patterns. The areas of most concern to me are around the neck/shoulder area, as noted in the Notes, Part 7 and 8, and in the overall torso patterns, noted in the Notes, Part 10 (described a bit humorously as "Flab", although the humor seems to have been lost to most).

Where I think the true emphasis of this topic needs to be restored is that muscle padding is just that, "padding" and not really capable of creating the perception of musculature motion. And the fur cloth or material covering the padding, this material will cause the real motions of surface fluctuation, according to cloth dynamics behavior.

And having now looked at the PG footage extensively over the last four months, I still do not see light/shadow patterns on the body which I feel are cloth dynamic folding and motion patterns.

Bill Munns

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

Did I miss where you address the apparent disconnect between the upper arm and the shoulder ?

The strange lumps seen on the left leg ?

[Bill]

Greg:

"Did I miss where you address the apparent disconnect between the upper arm and the shoulder ?

The strange lumps seen on the left leg ?"

Nope, you didn't miss either because I didn't comment on either.

But to address them now for you, I see shadow patterns between arm and shoulder but nothing I personally would call a "disconnect". My opinion would be more likely fur texture reflectance patterns.

On the infamous thigh thingie, I don't know. My personal best guess is a combination of film artifacts and possible ruffled fur caused by the thumb brushing against the leg fur as the arm swings forward and back.

Bill

[Guest]

If someone was designing a suit, what could be the reason to have the breasts so low on the chest? I suppose it could be because they were copying

a sketch or maybe to hide a closure, but that seems to me to be a trait of an older animal rather than a purposely added design. Maybe Patty walked away because she was feeling a little stiff from old age. Just a little late night speculating.

[Bill]

*****:

"If someone was designing a suit, what could be the reason to have the breasts so low on the chest? I suppose it could be because they were copying

a sketch or maybe to hide a closure, . . ."

Definitely not hiding a closure seam. There'd be no reason to need or expect a closure seam in the breast area. Even if it were a front seam, it would go down between the breasts, from neck to waist.

Welcome to one of "Patty's" enduring mysteries.

:oops:

Bill

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

Greg:

....

On the infamous thigh thingie, I don't know. My personal best guess is a combination of film artifacts and possible ruffled fur caused by the thumb brushing against the leg fur as the arm swings forward and back.

Bill

I'm not talking about the " infamous thigh thingie "

I'm talking about the totally unnatural lumps that show up on the left leg ..

Nice dodge on the shoulder... :oops:

[Bill]

Greg:

Thanks for clarifying the leg thing. I haven't seen the full frame sequence of that section of the film yet, so I haven't been able to study those lower leg bulges. They are intriguing though.

On the shoulder, I'm really not dodging anything. I really don't see a disconnect, as you refer to it. I see shadow patterns that go from light ot dark, yes, but none that suggest to me a "disconnect".

:oops:

Bill

[Guest]

I'm not talking about the " infamous thigh thingie "

I'm talking about the totally unnatural lumps that show up on the left leg ..

Nice dodge on the shoulder... :oops:

Shoulder disconnect or light on fur and/or muscle tissue? It's inconclusive which is not supportive of a disconnect by default.

A couple of things re the leg lump..

First, there is a fair amount of distortion going on. But this appears to demonstrate that the trailing left leg is twisting/swinging inside to outside causing the outer lobe of the calf muscle to cast a shadow onto the back of the leg. This contributes to the illusion of lumpiness. Who knows, maybe it's an injury. It certainly isn't part of the actor inside, so it would have to be part of the leg padding. But the leg musclulature must have been glued onto the form-fitting..hipwaders.

Second, there is some scrubby vegetation in the foreground exactly at the left edge of Patty's lower calf muscle. It interferes with the image enough to give the impression that the lump is hanging almost in mid-air. In fact it is slightly obscured by the foreground object. This is how it might look if it weren't.

How about that butt crack?

[Bill]

Gigantofooticus:

Thanks for showing more frames on the lower foot issue. Now that I've had these last 4 months to learn more about the study of the PG film, I appreciate how studying several frames of any anatomical aspect help clarify any analysis, while a single frame viewed alone can have shapes and patterns easily misunderstood or misintrepreted.

"How about that butt crack? "

Could Bob H. be a plumber?