Creature Suit Analysis - Part 5 - Building Patty

[Bill]

Melissa:

Waving back.

:newtongue:

JohnWS

Actually never knew Jim personally, just knew of his fine work.

Ah, yes, the old days of photo-chemical matting and compositing, cameras locked down with a half ton of sandbags so they wouldn't jiggle, etc. Remember them well. And "glass shots", forground miniatures. etc.

wufgar:

I agree that if a few more prople with expertise in the various relevent subjects would help us all learn to sort fact from fiction, we'd all have a better chance of solving things. Sadly, seems too many people with expertise knowledge seem to think they must jealously guard their "secrets" to retain the perception of themselves as the experts.

When I saw the Swamp Thing issue #1, that great portrait drawing of him, I knew immediately I had to be faithful to it. Sadly, the guys who did the second movie got the "itch" to do their own thing and redesigned him, for the worse, I thought.

bartlojays:

wonderful suggestion, back to the creature suit analysis. I'll second that. (Just a thing about me, liking to keep a thread focused)

Bill

[Guest Lyndon]

Once again another great thread Bill. Like you, I also find the hair at the back up to the neck and head completely convincing.

Now the question is....................would you ever try and attempt to re-make Patty???

[Guest OklahomaSquatch]

Another excellent and well thought out post Bill.

You've covered a lot of ground in regards to suit manufacturing and usage. Being a critical thinker I have to ask, is there anything you have seen in the film thus far that would point more towards a suit than an actual living being? Granted, I am one of the nut cases out there that actually thinks the Patterson film is authentic, however, if 99% of what is shown points towards a real creature, I'd still like to hear about the 1% that does not. In your professional opinion, is there anything you have noticed that would or could go the other way?

Matt K.

[Bill]

Lyndon:

Quoting you: "Now the question is....................would you ever try and attempt to re-make Patty??? "

Straight up honest answer, I have a lot of career ambitions and personal goals that need my time and any financial resources I can invest into those goals. Building a Patty replica simply isn't one of them. I would do it if it were profitable enough to not only pay all the bills and give me something extra to invest in my true career goals. I wouldn't do such a replica on spec, or even as a break even proposition.

And frankly, I wouldn't do it unless it could really be done scientifically, instead of the usual Hollywood BS methods, where anything to get the result if okay, even if you cheat. It's useless to really try, if it can't be done with real scientific discipline. The whole crypto investigation endeavor is constantly plagued by flakes and frauds who discredit the actual real science of some of the investigators who actually have integrity. If I couldn't do something in the most scientific and rigorous way to help support the integrity of the larger program, I'd pass, even for good money.

:newtongue:

Bill

Matt:

I just got a nice set of stills and I'm reviewing them this weekend. I'll be closer to an answer beginning of next week. So let's hold that thought for now.

Bill

[bipedalist]

Building Patty:

Assuming that you have read the previous set of four notes on Creature Suit Analysis, where I explained about some of the realities of suit design and use, in generalized terms, I'd like to now take you through a job, where a faithful reconstruction of Patty may be done, in an attempt to reproduce what is seen in the PG film taken in 1967.

But if we assume that assurance was given, the front seam would allow a more easy and effective dressing into and out of the suit, while still giving the flawless back look. But there would be no need to split the suit at the waist. I could merge the upper and lower body sections together for a nice seamless waist as well. I would go with a one piece jumpsuit, seam up the front, from groin to base of neck. Given that seam is never seen in the PG film, it will never be seen in my replica.

Bill

Bill, good to see your posts again, I am still concerned about the line above the right quad in the leg below the hip and what to me does not look like

typical muscle movement and it is below the right hip, have you seen what I have seen, is it shadow? a bunched crease in the suit? or a powerful

muscle group attachment? One of my pet peeves with the film besides the thickly padded and light appearing sole of the right foot.

Edited January 18, 2008 by bipedalist

[Guest Lyndon]

Great answer Bill and I thank you for you honesty. Quite obviously if there is no financial incentive then I would agree with you. I would like to know though, hypothetically, what would be the starting price (your estimate) to build a Patty replica??? We know that some of the bigfoot documentaries have a budget which includes laying out for scientific tests/analysis so I would 'assume' some of them at least a decent budget. I was wondering that if any of these t.v companies (the likes that produce Monsterquest etc) would come to you and propose a proper attempt at a Patty recreation (or something similar) would you have rough idea of the costs involved???

There are a few folks here that have ties to certain producers etc so perhaps if you were hired by one of these to commission a 'project Patty' would you be up for it, if you have the spare time???

[Drew]

I guess I don't understand why you would have to go into so much detail to recreate the Patty film.

Dynel lots of Dynel, some foam padding, some gorilla suit parts, similar to the Ray 'Crash' Corrigan gorillas of the 50's and 60's a little glue, a water bag, some brown dye, and assurances that you will be filmed from 100 feet with 16MM film, a K700 Camera, for only 23 feet. I think the costume could hold together long enough to do that. Oh and no tripod. And an actor that can walk like Groucho for 1 or 2 minutes in the suit.

It seems some people are putting the costume in a category of 'Great' Movie costumes, and that would be fine if it was on a soundstage with lights, stationary cameras, and close ups.

The question for Bill is, Are you theoretically attempting to recreate Patty so that it looks like Patty close up? or are you attempting to recreate Patty to be filmed under the same conditions as the 1967 footage?

Because if you are recreating for close ups, I think that you would be guessing as to much of the features that would now be visible. such as differing hair lengths, bulges on thighs, seams on wrist and below the hip, hand articulation etc...

Many of the Awesome details you put in the Swamp Thing Creature, would be blurs if shot under the same conditions as the PGF, and conversely, so would any defects of the Patty costume.

[Guest Lyndon]

I guess I don't understand why you would have to go into so much detail to recreate the Patty film.

Then you haven't been paying attention to what Bill has been saying.

Jesus H. :)

Give me strength!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :newtongue:

Edited January 18, 2008 by Lyndon

[Guest Jack]

I guess I don't understand why you would have to go into so much detail to recreate the Patty film.

Dynel lots of Dynel, some foam padding, some gorilla suit parts, similar to the Ray 'Crash' Corrigan gorillas of the 50's and 60's a little glue, a water bag, some brown dye, and assurances that you will be filmed from 100 feet with 16MM film, a K700 Camera, for only 23 feet. I think the costume could hold together long enough to do that. Oh and no tripod. And an actor that can walk like Groucho for 1 or 2 minutes in the suit.

It seems some people are putting the costume in a category of 'Great' Movie costumes, and that would be fine if it was on a soundstage with lights, stationary cameras, and close ups.

The question for Bill is, Are you theoretically attempting to recreate Patty so that it looks like Patty close up? or are you attempting to recreate Patty to be filmed under the same conditions as the 1967 footage?

Because if you are recreating for close ups, I think that you would be guessing as to much of the features that would now be visible. such as differing hair lengths, bulges on thighs, seams on wrist and below the hip, hand articulation etc...

Many of the Awesome details you put in the Swamp Thing Creature, would be blurs if shot under the same conditions as the PGF, and conversely, so would any defects of the Patty costume.

And therein lies the problem of Patty as hoax. She contains details that, filmed as you just described, should not be necessary to pull it off. If she is a hoax........why? Patterson didn't have the money to add unnecessary details, did he?

You just made a great case for Patty as a real animal.

[Drew]

And therein lies the problem of Patty as hoax. She contains details that, filmed as you just described, should not be necessary to pull it off. If she is a hoax........why? Patterson didn't have the money to add unnecessary details, did he?

You just made a great case for Patty as a real animal.

What details would those be?

[Guest Jack]

What details would those be?

Good one, Drew..... :newtongue:

[Drew]

Seriously, what details are you referring to?

[Guest Lyndon]

Seriously, what details are you referring to?

LMAO! :newtongue:

[Bill]

Okay, guys, we're getting roudy here. So let me answer all with equal respect.

Lyndon Post #36

I agree some Tv companies have budgets for studies and analysis, but my general knowledge of them (which isn't absolute) is that they like "cheap" and "sensational" more than they like costly and done with rigorous scientific discipline. So while there are some people/production companies who may be interested, I'm not very optimistic that what I could do is what they'd want done. I want science, they want sensation.

But I could be wrong and somebody out there actually would want to do it right. We can hope.

Drew Post #37

My outline would actually be to recreate Patty as in the film, as it was originally filmed, same camera, lens, distance, etc. Nothing in my notes is proposing a "hero" Patty for closeups.

But frankly, a true scientific approach requires studies of materials and processes beyond simply building one suit. A true scientific method also must discount or eliminate alternatives from consideration, it must expolre all options and evaluate all variables, and systematically eliminate what clearly isn't consistant with what's on the PG film by some factual criteria.

If you just build one suit, buy the method you outlined at the start of your post, or even buy the method I outlined, you still don't prove anything conclusively, because a skeptic can simply point out that you haven't studied all the varaibles, and so any conclusion is invalid.

I will be doing the next set of notes on an outline of a real scientific experiment, and hopefully then, you'll see why just building one suit, by any method, doesn't prove what everyone really wants to prove.

As I noted in an earlier post in another thread, the filming in 16mm, hand held, etc. which lowers the clarity of the image, may hide flaws or actually pull them into greater clarity. The lower/higher resolution thing really cuts both ways.

Right now, I am studying the film sequence, looking for costume traits that would still clearly show even at the film's resolution and image clarity. Hope to have some notes on that soon.

Jack Post #39

You are correct in that the figure contains elements not consistant with a cheap and amateurish hoax suit. But speculating on Patterson's "hoax budget" is on the weak end of circumstantial argument, so I prefer to try and stay on the strong side of suit design and function, as compared to the film figure, because the evidence is more emperical.

Jack, Drew, Lyndon

The details are widely discussed, but haven't been listed in a systematic and categorical way. Maybe we can work on that. So different people tend to think of different things when we vaguely say "details"

And the idea of "details" varies with degree of closeness of inspection, and looking too close actually produces false "details" that are actually irrelevant to the issue. So a scaled or prioritized analysis, with levels of detail, hasn't actually been done yet, that I know of.

Your trains of thought are running on different guage railroad tracks. So first we need to get you all on the same track.

:newtongue:

Bill

[Guest Schilleville]

OK Drew... You said it, Now lets see it. Add this guy to the long list of people saying it's a simple thing, but never do squat about it.