Jump to content

Creature Suit Analysis - Part 5 - Building Patty


Recommended Posts

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.

:)

Bill

Sorry, Drew....and Bill. Sometimes I have trouble resisting a comment....even when the post I'm commenting on isn't directed at me. Maybe I was off the track completely. It wasn't iintended to inflame. After studying the LMS version for most of two years, I see details in places others, perhaps, don't and don't see them where others seem to. :newtongue:

Edited by Jack
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack:

We're cool.

The thing about the details, as I've seen on other threads, is that everybody approaches this with different levels of detail and study, and so some foundation is helpful as a preliminary.

:newtongue:

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Schilleville

THis is a layman's assumption, but considering the equipment used to make the film and the apparent distance of the subject, wouldn't the detail of the subject need to be fairly extensive to get similar results? THe nature of the film itself loses a lot of detail, yet quite a bit is still visible. Kinda like the concept of Makeup fo films. People when in makeup don't appear to be wearing makeup when yo see the film, but if you see them in person they are wearing quite a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I was thinking more along the lines of the producers of Sasquatch:Legend Meets Science and Monsterquest. There seems to be a fair amount of scientific aspect to those programmes. Doug Hajicek is the producer of both, I believe. While I'm not sure if he has ever posted here, Rick Noll (aka **** Dirty Ape) does and he had significant input into Legend Meets Science.

I heard Hajicek spent a substanial amount in getting the digital recreation of Patty's walk done for LMS, so I was just wondering if that money went on recreating a Patty suit, what would be the results. I believe it was over a hundred thousand dollars.

Okay, guys, we're getting roudy here.

Yes I apologize. I just get a bit peeved when certain posters are clearly attempting to rile others. Drew's points have already been addressed and refuted on another thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest colobus

And I'm afraid Doug got ripped off with that digital recreation. It was a really poor job. And DDA and White Wolf are not on the best terms last I heard. FWIW

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I'm afraid Doug got ripped off with that digital recreation. It was a really poor job. And DDA and White Wolf are not on the best terms last I heard. FWIW

Was I right about the expense? It was a hell of a lot of money wasn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lyndon:

I'd sure like to believe there's somebody out there in TV land who actually respects science and would want to do it right. Just haven't met anybody like that yet myself.

I am planning to post next another set of notes on a truly scientific approach, because this one, Part Five, really was just a "this is how a suit could be made" kind of explanation, but a truly scientific process is actually quite different. Hope to have that up within a week.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll look forward to the next installment.

I do agree with you about most t.v people but there are still the odd few that are more scientifically orientated. I'd advise you to catch Sasquatch:Legend Meets Science, if you can. That programme was not made for sensationalist viewing. Some of the scientific aspects in that programme have been criticized by some but in the main it was an intelligent, sober and yes scientific presentation, in my opinion.

Here is an introduction:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vRiwIsaNrIM

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hominid,WA
I am planning to post next another set of notes on a truly scientific approach, because this one, Part Five, really was just a "this is how a suit could be made" kind of explanation, but a truly scientific process is actually quite different. Hope to have that up within a week.

Bill

Great to hear Bill, I look forward to it. :newtongue:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OklahomaSquatch

Another round for the bar keep.

By artwork, I mean ANY artwork. Painting, drawing, scultping, writing, music, architecture, etc. Anything created has a certain style. Style is apparent in ever art form imaginable. The only time it isn't noticeable is if someone else is recreating someone else's style, but even then to the trained eye differences can be seen. What I'm getting at is there anyone's "style" that is noticeable about the Patterson creature? Would I be correct in my assumption that costume designers and makers have their own styles and techniques that are reflected in their work? If "Patty" were a costume, wouldn't she show signs of a previous style, or perhaps her style would show up in later non-related items? If a person spent forth so much time and effort into a suit they could never lay claim to, would it be a one time thing? Wouldn't they at least use their own talent and abilities used in this project in other projects that they could claim?

Another issue or concern in regards to this being a suit is the muscle padding suit theory. I'm going to use the term "MPS." If the technology to do so was there at the time, does this mean creators were using MPS on a consistent basis, or was this something that just COULD have been done because the materials existed? I find it difficult to believe someone would have used ground breaking designs in this suit, especially since they couldn't claim it, and then later on would fail to introduce the technology in one of their following designs. But for now let me assume that they were using MPS quite extensively at the time. To what extent would this have been? I believe at last count there have been over 100 various anatomically correct muscles identified in the Patterson creature. I could be wrong, but that seems right, perhaps someone here has the exact number. Now then, would a suit designer go to the trouble of creating all of these magical padded muscles that act like real muscles? Could they not have created the same amount of bulk and shape without going to such great lengths? If it were a suit conspired by several individuals, would they have had the forethought to predict technology that would eventually become available to detect these things during film analysis? I would think the anatomy alone would require the consulting of an expert outside of the FX and hoaxing industry. Quite frankly to go to all that trouble of creating and correctly placing all of those muscle pads makes people such as John Chambers seem almost lazy in their work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OklahomaSquatch:

Artists do have sytles, but they tend to be most apparent in character designs and fanciful creations (H.R. Giger's biomechanical aliens, as an outstanding example) but as a general rule, the harder you try to replicate something real from nature, the less the artist can use his "style' because the "style " of nature overrules as the primary design constraint.

Regarding the muscle padding, actually the Muscle Padding Suit (MPS as I called it) doesn't have any potential for simulation of muscle motion. It's just padding that has a shape like muscles, but once it goes into motion, it collapses and stretches in totally non-muscle ways. And the dynamics of the fur in motion totally overrule the padding.

What you were asking about was a Muscle Dynamics Simulation Suit (which I called MDSS) and that one, in theory, has physical elements in the suit to actually replicate the dynamics of muscle extension and contraction, the shifting and bulging we see when muscles are in motion. Then, 1967, such a simulation suit was merely a dream, and even today, you'd be hard pressed to find a good example of one that actually works well, and tha's just for one or two muscle groups (like the bicep/tricep group in an arm). Nobody's come even close to a muscle dynamic simulation suit that replicates many major muscle groups in the same suit.

So it's important to be clear on the difference between the padding thing, and a real dynamic motion simluation. Everything you've seem on this site in the varied threads and posts is likely just padding.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OklahomaSquatch

Sorry Bill, I wasn't very clear in my questioning once I re-read it. I understand the difference between the muscle padding and muscle dynamic suits. I think I threw you off when I mentioned "magical padded muscles that act like real muscles." Let me try it again...

Were muscle padding suits being used on a regular basis at the time, or was this just a possibility because of available materials?

If they were being used at the time, to what extent were they being made anatomically correct?

Would there have been an easier way to achieve desired effect without having to go through and create all of these anatomically correct individual muscle pads?

By "anatomically correct" I mean size, shape, and location.

Are there any examples off hand we could look at that would show an example of MPS being used at the time for comparison?

As a footnote, I remember a short lived live action TV series based on the comic book character "The Flash." In this TV series the costume used a muscle padding suit. At the time I thought the costume was great, especially compared to what had been done previously, where they normally just used a skin tight suit on the actor's real body, perhaps with some padding here and there. But even with this highly detailed "muscle suit" obvious flaws were constantly seen, and none of the muscles moved or acted like actual muscles. This show was done in the 1990's.

comingsoonflash.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

OklahomaSquatch

Muscle padding suits were relatively common, in varying degrees of sophistication, in terms of whether they tried to look like individual muscles, or just padd to thickness and shape the outside to define some of the superficial muscles (Latts, trapezus in the back, quads in the thigh, etc.).

A lot of what Dfoot has shown in his postings, with sheet foam cut and shaped to resemble the bulges and contours of muscles was common.

But the critical thing is the muscle effect just defines one specific shape of musculature, and then you put the fur over it, and while the fur can be tailored to the same muscle shape, as soon as the person in the suit moves, the whole dynamic of how furcloth bends, buckles and bunches up totally overrules anything the padding is trying to do. There in lies the problem. No matter how well defined a muscular shape you start with, the furcloth movement dynamic, which is non-muscular in it's physics, rules the day and moves in unmuscular ways.

So you throw longer hair on to hide the fact that your muscle suit failed miserably to make anything move like real muscles move.

So in reality, the padding is essential to help define the anatomy of the intended creature, yes, and allow the suit to fit snug, but that's all it does.

If you want, you can even sculpt a full body, as it would look if you skinned the creature and had every muscle on the surface (like taxidermy mannikens are sculpted), and get it wonderfully anatomically correct, but it only looks great in that exact pose. That's why great taxidermy figures do look real, and their musculature looks authentic, under the fur. Because they don't move. They hold the designed shape.

So it's the movement of the furcloth that essentially ruins all the hopes a muscle padding structure would ever move like muscles.

Even in you put a cloth suit over the padding, to do a "Superman" suit, let's say, the muscles may look good as originally shaped, but fail to look great once the actor starts moving.

So yes, muscle padding suits, shapes, and effects have been commonly tried long before the PG film was made, and continue to be done today, and they serve a purpose, but the purpose is hyped to suggest it does things it really doesn't do.

It doesn't move like real muscles, never did, likely never will.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Isbjörn

Hi Bill, nice analysis - finally some solid ground on the suit side of the problem.

From the anatomically point of view, the easiest way of getting all the anatomically details of Patty correct, would have been to use a skin-tight suit over a mime with the same physics as Patty. Then you could put all your effort into creating the differences from human anatomy.

My question to Bill: As this was too early for elastic fur cloths, were there techniques for glueing fur onto an elastic suit, or directly to the skin?

Isbjörn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isbjorn:

There are discrepencies in the anatomy, which I've just posted in the Part 6 notes.

And your question about elastic fur cloth is described in detail in the Part 1 notes, but, in brief, stretch furcloth was not available until the earlt 80's, when National Hait technology (now called National Fiber technology) of Lawrence MA. found a way to mix hair fibers into their spandex knitting machines so the hair was interwoven with the actual spandex weave process.

Gluing hair onto a spandex body suit wouldn't work, because the glue essentially gums up the spandex and impedes all elasticity. The spandex, with glue on it, ceases to stretch.

Bill

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