Creature Suit Analysis - Part 3 - The Mime Inside

[Guest]

Hollywood hasn't attempted a serious reconstruction of the Patterson suit because there's simply no money in it

That's a strange thing to say from someone in the movie business, if you're making a film about bigfoot and he's the main star, getting all the camera time, shurley you'd want the suit to be the best, most realistic looking suit you could make, and where better to get inspiration from, than the Patterson/Gimlin film?

Edited January 13, 2008 by The Punisher

[Bill]

Punisher:

Actually, Chris' remark about Hollywood's hesitancy to put big money into a great suit replicating Patty for a film is correct.

First you need a script that has a "real "bigfot" as a star or featured character, then you need a powerful director to want to do it, then you need the powerful director to try to over-rule the studio ancillary rights executive who looks at it and says, "we'd have more profit selling toys and such if our bigfoot is our unique propriatary design, and not just a copy of what's in the PG film, insuring our exclusivity to the look we create. Then the legal affairs executive chimes in with the concern that doing something like "Patty" is risky because the owners of the PG film could sue us for merchandising their "patty" look, so let's change it to something more "our" look."

Then you'd have a development executive offering the suggestion that for the big budget, we need to set up the film as a franchise (meaning more films) and maybe we should make the bigfoot more "lovable", and it should be a guy bigfoot, because young boys won't go to a movie starring a female bigfoot. The boy bigfoot can have a girl bigfoot, but her breasts have got to be more "perky", and her face more cute. In otherwords, she has to be a "hottie" with fur.

Botton line, when big money is involved, the studio brass put some absurd conditions on the design of the character, and "I just want a perfect replica of Patty" is not in their vocabluary.

That throws the film back into a cheaper, privately financed "art house" independent film, or an exploitation film with lots of cheerleaders skinneydipping in the forest when the "bigfoot" attacks them.

And that cheaper film gets a suit thrown together by an fx guy "quick & dirty", which Patty is not.

That's what the BBC's documentary got for their "recreation" of Patty.

So while Hollywood has lots of money, how they spend it is not as you wish they'd spend it. They don't see any profit in a perfect replication of Patty, so they don't fund one.

Bill

[Guest Texas Bigfoot]

Just wondering................why?

What leads people to believe this?

How do we know that?

I disagree.

One take, if the other person (Gimlin) is not in on the hoax. That does add a bit of realistic flavor to the event. They also turned in the whole roll of film for developing. Perhaps they used other rolls on the "rehearsals", but they could not put them on the roll with the "sighting".

I think a large crew would have drawn attention. There were a few people who knew where they were going and for what purpose.

The last point, to ma anyway, is the most solid. A suit like that cannot even be made today, without going to extrordinary expense. After reading Bill's comments, I doubt it could be done by three cowboys with no help. Although it is possible, and even one out of a billion odds means it's possible, it seems highly unlikely.

And no, I'm not saying it was one out of a billion, but I do think it would be a pretty big number.

[Guest Lyndon]

I wonder why hasn't anyone else been able to film a live Bigfoot in broad daylight while out looking for one.

I don't think anybody has experienced all the circumstances that led to Patterson getting his film.......ie in the area for weeks diligently searching beforehand, on horseback, with a loaded camera at the ready, surprising a sasquatch creature in the middle of a clearing while it was moving from a to b and stopped for a drink, the sound of hooves and the running water likely hiding P and G's approach, the downfall logpile obscuring both parties from view until the last seconds, then the animal having to cross the clearing to reach the treeline and hence being caught on camera before it disappeared from sight.

I seriously doubt anybody else has ever experienced all those small points that together culminated into the footage we have.

"""Hollywood hasn't attempted a serious reconstruction of the Patterson suit because there's simply no money in it."""

Yes but Hollywood HAS attempted to build a bigfoot suit. It was called Bigfoot And the Hendersons and apart from the face the suit was very very poor compared to what we see in the P/G footage. Lack of mass and muscle tone and an overuse of long hair etc etc. I could go on and on. What Bill Munns has been explaining in all of his posts which are typical of such suits and non typical with what we see in 'Patty', we can actually see in the suit Baker made for that that film..........and this was 20 years after the P/G footage.

Throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s there was a plethora of bigfoot movies and documentaries and while not mega budget its likely that many of these productions still would have had more money than Patterson would have had had at his disposal..........yet all of them were light years behind in quality to the P/G footage and yes in some of them the subjects are shown even more obscure and at longer distances than the P/G subject yet they still wouldn't even fool the local village idiot much less have people debating their authenticity 40 years later.

Edited January 13, 2008 by Lyndon

[bipedalist]

well said and right on Lyndon

[Guest JohnWS]

"""Hollywood hasn't attempted a serious reconstruction of the Patterson suit because there's simply no money in it."""

Yes but Hollywood HAS attempted to build a bigfoot suit. It was called Bigfoot And the Hendersons and apart from the face the suit was very very poor compared to what we see in the P/G footage. .

We've been here before . I'll try a different approach to my way of thinking (I might be wrong of course).

It's clear you love the image of 'Patty', and that's cool - there's nothing wrong with that. To you that's bigfoot/sasquatch. Nothing wrong with that either.

As a piece of art & entertainment I like Harry. 'He' did the job 'he' was commissioned for as far as I'm concerned.

He's not an attempt to duplicate the Patterson footage. Personally I didn't even think for one moment about the Patterson footage while watching the movie.

Entertainment - that's all he is :lmao: .

So - Harry wasn't as bulky as 'Patty'. But then 'Patty' didn't break into a grin whilst having her hair blow-dried to the tune of the Adam's Family. That premièred in 1964 - therefore I declare 'Patty'' a fake :lmao: .

[Guest Lyndon]

We've been here before :lmao: . I'll try a different approach to my way of thinking (I might be wrong of course).

It's clear you love the image of 'Patty', and that's cool - there's nothing wrong with that. To you that's bigfoot/sasquatch. Nothing wrong with that either.

As a piece of art & entertainment I like Harry. 'He' did the job 'he' was commissioned for as far as I'm concerned.

He's not an attempt to duplicate the Patterson footage. Personally I didn't even think for one moment about the Patterson footage while watching the movie.

Entertainment - that's all he is :lmao: .

So - Harry wasn't as bulky as 'Patty'. But then 'Patty' didn't break into a grin whilst having her hair blow-dried to the tune of the Adam's Family. That premièred in 1964 - therefore I declare 'Patty'' a fake .

John, I think you miss my point. :lmao:

Rick Baker et all have never made a convincing generic bigfoot suit, nevermind a Patty replica. THAT is very telling.

Take a look at the rest of the Harry body next time you see it. It's an appaling job compared to the P/G subject. I'm sorry John, but it is:

Baker comes up with THIS, 20 years after P/G?

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-8/799047/bigfoot03.jpg

I didn't think much of his Kong '76 suit either. Again, face apart.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-8/799047/baker1.JPG

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-8/799047/baker2.JPG

And like I said, take any generic bigfoot suit from the plethora of films and documentaries there have been these last 40 years and place those suits at Bluff Creek and let Patterson film them exactly as he filmed the subject in '67 and they even wouldn't fool a blind man. :lmao:

You have to conclude that if Patterson hoaxed the footage then he was a better suitmaker in '67 than Rick Baker and everybody else was years later........and he didn't even need to be because his intention was only to shoot a fleeting image at some distance. It doesn't make sense.

Edited January 14, 2008 by Lyndon

[Guest JohnWS]

Take a look at the rest of the Harry body next time you see it. It's an appaling job compared to the P/G subject.

The above is what I am getting at. The gold standard for you is the P/G footage. 'It's an job appalling job compared to the P/G'.

I'm not comparing it to the P/G. It's a piece of mildly diverting entertainment featuring a comedy sasquatch creature. And a nice example of one too.

[Guest 911Guy]

First off, that was the most interesting read I have ever read about the mechanic's of filming someone in a suit.

I have to believe if there was a support crew someone would have talked by now. What is there 5 subjects who has claimed to be in the suit? Why didn't anyone else come forward and say they were the support crew and that was how it was done.

Also if you have ever met Mr. Gimlin you know he wasn't "in" on a hoax. He knows what he saw and so I don't think he saw a support crew assisting someone in a suit.

Hollywood did make one great bigfoot suit I know of and that was Harry from Harry and the Henderson's. I believe the costume people won awards for this suit. But the head took three people with remote controls and the actor inside to make look real.

[Guest Lyndon]

The above is what I am getting at. The gold standard for you is the P/G footage.

For sure............because NOBODY has ever fabricated a bigfoot suit that looks anywhere near as convincing, although plenty have tried.......in films, t.v documentaries, commercial adverts and hoaxes. Now I don't know how many of these bigfoot films/documenatries you have seen John, but I've seen plenty of them and not one of them even remotely approaches what we see in the P/G footage.

I'm not comparing it to the P/G. It's a piece of mildly diverting entertainment featuring a comedy sasquatch creature. And a nice example of one too.

But what about the plethora of other bigfoot suits that have appeared since the 1970s????? Do you think that any, if filmed under the conditions Patterson filmed his subject, would still garner the same amount of controversy and debate and yes even convince a substantial number of people 40 years later???

How about Baker's bipedal ape Kong '76 suit? That wasn't for mild comic entertainment. Well, at least it wasn't meant to be LOL.

Edited January 14, 2008 by Lyndon

[Guest Lyndon]

Hollywood did make one great bigfoot suit I know of and that was Harry from Harry and the Henderson's. I believe the costume people won awards for this suit. But the head took three people with remote controls and the actor inside to make look real.

No, it wasn't a great 'suit'. Fabulous face/head but the rest of it?

Look here:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-8/799047/bigfoot03.jpg

Little form and shape to the body proportions and limbs, lack of mass/bulk, long shaggy hair to hide the sins etc etc.

[Guest soarwing]

Lyndon is right.

Harry and the POTA makeup jobs were nice from the chin up. Below that, we have shaggy, seam hiding suits with little apparent detail. What's different about Patty is that the whole body has apparent muscular and skeletal realism using a short furred "suit" - - - and WHILE in MOTION, the "suit" behaves and looks realistic too.

Certainly pre-1980's, Patty was not only the gold standard for bigfoot, but for everything else too. - - Including the shag-carpet 2001 apes.

Today, most people look at Patty in the context of modern effects and CGI - - they also are simply ignorant that the "suit flaws" on Patty are readily visible and common on actual animals.

The common response that I hear after someone views the PGF is; "Looks like a guy in a suit to me". And she does, but not because the "suit" is bad, it's because the descriptions of bigfoot by witnesses pretty much all are "guy in a suit" or "huge hairy man" descriptions. In short, a real bigfoot is gonna look quite a bit like a guy in a suit. But as Roger Knights pointed out, and I'll paraphrase, "Patty looks like a guy in a suit until you COMPARE her to a known guy in a suit."

Harry would fool me in the woods at sunset, but he's not good enough to be convincing after repeated views. Like Patty is.

Certainly in 1967, no one came close to Patty's realism and how the body looked in motion. Bigfoot suit or anything else.

As the PGF basically reveals the ENTIRE body, I'd argue that anything pre-1980 was much worse, and also would argue that it has taken decades of advances in FX materials and techniques to approach the full body realism of the PGF.

And as Lyndon points out, the direct and purposeful attempts to duplicate the realism of the PGF have been terrible failures. Shaggy fur to hide seams, No muscle detail, no scapula movement, no breasts, no tracks to study later, etc, etc.

Edited January 14, 2008 by soarwing

[Drew]

Bill-

If, for the sake of argument, we assume Patty is a suit, and you put it in the same shooting conditions as "Harry" which one would look better?

I feel that the Patty-perfect suit is simply a product of the maginification & camera jiggle, and if you put patty on a film-stage with lighting, & cameras of Studio quality, you would see more of the flaws that can already be seen. Think how bad the wrist band would be, if it was shot close up in the same conditions as Harry.

I would venture that the Harry and H's costume, was light years in quality & budget, beyond the Patty costume, and if placed in the same shooting conditions as Patty, would not show any wrist bands, or hip lines

[Guest JohnWS]

OK we've started insulting 2001 & Rick Baker (by dragging out pictures that actually back up something Bill said elsewhere - in effect try not to lose control over your creation). Great debate.

Carry on......

Edit - interesting question Drew.

Edited January 14, 2008 by JohnWS

[Guest JohnWS]

But as Roger Knights pointed out, and I'll paraphrase, "Patty looks like a guy in a suit until you COMPARE her to a known guy in a suit."

How about - 'Patty looks like a guy in a suit until you start making excuses for it looking like a guy in a suit'?