Jump to content

Creature Suit Analysis - Part 5 - Building Patty


Recommended Posts

Guest Crowlogic

Bill

I think you would find the Patty sequence in the Legend Meets Science DVD very enlightening (if you haven't already seen it). Many of the better stills showing up today are from the LMS DVD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest soarwing
question for Bill Munn

Looking at this frame, would you say Patty's fur is indicative of a well-groomed costume?

- - -

Oh, It's a costume for sure. :)

That's why we're still practically having knife-fights over what it actually shows. :lmao:

Link to post
Share on other sites
The mouth movement has been shown to be a background glitch in the film.

Click on this and jump ahead to the 5:03 mark. It is clearly background shadow morphing into the mouth to give the illusion of movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFUD1EoET1M

*emphesis mine*

Says who? When was that decided??

While yes, that is one theory out there, it is not a proven theory either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
*emphesis mine*

Says who? When was that decided??

While yes, that is one theory out there, it is not a proven theory either.

Melissa thank you for checking me on that.

This has been shown to 'possibly' be a background glitch creating the illusion of movement.

Contrary to the also unproven theory on Monsterquest, that it is indeed a mouth moving.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest rolando

Bill,

I think you built the original suit and are being clever about admiting it! Your a genius! :newtongue:

You heard it here first!

Edit: No need to reply to this stupid comment. Again, I appreciate your brilliant analysis!

Edited by rolando
Link to post
Share on other sites
Melissa thank you for checking me on that.

This has been shown to 'possibly' be a background glitch creating the illusion of movement.

Contrary to the also unproven theory on Monsterquest, that it is indeed a mouth moving.

Drew, Owen only put this comment out there as what he thinks this may be. He did not state it as fact, as absolutely as you did - that this is the case. At least thats not how I heard it.

Owen is entitled to his opinion of what he observes in this film. Just as you or anyone else is. But, he never said it was fact.

Much of this is "unproven theory" - whats your point?

Oh, and your welcome. :newtongue:

Link to post
Share on other sites

JohnWS:

I don't know what happened to Jim Danforth. Sadly, the craft he had mastered, physical stop motion animation, sort of became a relic craft once the "Golden Age" of makeup/prosthetics/FX blossomed in 1980 and than was totally buried by the CGI revolution in FX. Never heard if he transitioned into other film crafts. The stop motion animation thing was kept alive by Claymation, Will Vinton Studios, and other firms, but usually for cute, fun childish figures, not anything with the goal of reality as Jim, Harryhausen, and Willis Obrian did.

Crow Logic:

I'll put the LMS program on mylist to get and study. Thanks.

Drew:

At to the grooming question, in that specific frame, I see a general fur pattern that looks generally groomed, except for the pelvic region, which has fur blocks that I cannot yet explain, and light/dark patterns I would not expect in either a suit or a live animal. So the degree of fur grooming I see in this view isn't emphatically supportive of either argument. It's the fur on the back, flowing up into the neck and head, that I find strongly arguing for real instead of suit.

Soarwing:

Being objective, we must allow that maybe some people are practically having knife-fights because some people like to fight.

:newtongue:

Your underlying idea is however correct, from my point of view. What the film shows is a genuine mystery, not any kind of "obvious hoax".

Rolando:

If I'd built the original, you can be sure I'd have a pile of photos showing every step of the fabrication and the behind the scenes day of filming. If I'd built it, I'd sure be proud of the result.

:)

Melissa:

I have nothing to add to your notes here, but just wanted to say "Hi".

:)

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bartlojays
Much of this is "unproven theory" - whats your point?

Oh, I don't know Mel, MAYBE, it's to appear cleverly insidious to impress his buddies on the Randi forum where Drew's posts seem much more demonstrative when interacting with the "mocking" skepticist crowd there as opposed to the gamut of folks here.

I should also mention that this "theory" is also unproven, but I thought it was worth throwing it out there. Hey Drew, just keeping it honest like "they" want you to do here :newtongue:

Edited by bartlojays
Link to post
Share on other sites

*waving*

Hi Bill !!!!!!!!! :)

Oh, I don't know Mel, MAYBE, it's to appear cleverly insidious to impress his buddies on the Randi forum where Drew's posts seem much more demonstrative when interacting with the "mocking" skepticist crowd there as opposed to the gamut of folks here.

LOL. Im not sure Drew really puts that much thought into any of this. Geesh, I havent been over on that (do they call it a forum) in a while. Every so often when I feel like life has been too good to me, I log on the Randi Forum and take a run through the gauntlet - LOL. Some of them are such clever little trolls. :newtongue:

Awww, drew is ok - he just likes to argue with me, I have no idea why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Never heard if he transitioned into other film crafts.

Thanks Bill - I thought you may still be in touch with him. He was best known for his stop motion work, but I have seen examples of his superb matte paintings, artwork, sculpture & photographic ingenuity (I think he was a big Vistavision 'fan' for VFX work).

Sadly, I'm sure you are right - he was of the 'Golden Age'. I grew up in that. But I don't resent change for the better. I couldn't wait for CG compositing when I saw the possibilities over photo-chemical processes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill -

Great stuff. The kind of material this forum doen't often get a dose of. I wisht that more people of diverse experience applied their particular knowhowsto this riddle, shall we say. We might have solved the darn thing already.

BTW - I loved Swamp Thing (the original)! You really captured the look from the comics! (I just wisht the screenwriter had maybe read more of the comics as well :newtongue: )

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bartlojays
Awww, drew is ok - he just likes to argue with me, I have no idea why.

I know, I think Drew is OK too, but he deserves at least a little bit of a hard time here in my opinion and I admit, I did enjoy his condenscending use of the term, " beast," in reference to the subject of my sighting last year.

Anyway, back to the creature suit analysis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know, I think Drew is OK too, but he deserves at least a little bit of a hard time here in my opinion and I admit, I did enjoy his condenscending use of the term, " beast," in reference to the subject of my sighting last year.

Anyway, back to the creature suit analysis.

Ohh never said he doesnt deserve a hard time every so often.. :newtongue:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
×
×
  • Create New...