Creature Suit Analysis Part 10 - Flab

[bipedalist]

Killian:

Agreed, some of the photos Colobus posted do have very similar folds, plus the shading, fur, etc.

And agreed, if Patterson made a Patty suit, he'd have easily won over me on the Swamp Thing suits bid, if he'd survived that long (sadly, he passes away about 7 years before the movie)

Bipedalist:

interesting about the muscle. So which one would cause the leg to raise up sideways, like a side leg lift?

:coverlaugh:

Bill

You would have to ask an anatomist or physical therapist, but inside and outside muscles of the leg and hip are involved, and prob. the medius you mentioned too? Help anybody?

[Guest FredSneakers/David]

Yeah I stopped reading the debate a few pages into the thread. Jeesh . I suppose it's healthy.

Anyways, Great article/post, as always Bill!

I hope you'll eventually format this into something publishable.

Great to have you here,

David

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

Bill:

those are some strange bulges on the proboscis. Interesting. I did a search on anatomy. I'm wondering if the bulge on Patty is the gluteus medius.

What stands out, is that the anatomical diagrams show a muscle orientation that is parallel to bone orientation, which is

exactly what we would expect to see on the arms and legs of an actual primate..

Whereas the subject of the film often shows bulge pattern orientations that are more perpendicular to the bone structure.

We see this pattern in the arms and legs ..

I have added the yellow lines to define the apparent muscle structure , and red lines indicating what would be a more natural orientation .

Of course the bulges may not indicate muscle structure at all, but rather random fat deposits and skin folds of a live subject,

or poorly placed ( if intended to represent muscle ) padding in a costume..

[Guest Spiral Architect]

Hey Bill,

I have always wondered about this round buldge on patty's waist. I see the same thing in this creature suit.

Any ideas?

Reduced: 53% of original size [ 961 x 704 ] - Click to view full image

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

Boy, this photo comparison of a 40's (I think?) fake gorilla along side Patty (in the middle of pg.4 of this thread - if it didn't "copy" for me to this post), is.... Wow!

I think it should be setting off some clanging bells for what it can mean for these "Fake Suit?" threads.

SA

[Bill]

Spiral Architect:

I believe I already noted the similarity was intriguing. Two things cause me to hesitate in simply saying "copy".

One is looking at the waist area of Patty throughout the film sequence, and seeing shifts in the shadow lines. Until I've had a chance to see the 40's gorilla suit in motion to make some comparison, I can't make a conclusion.

Second, while in the one photo compare, I see curiously similar lines oround the waist/hip, the rest of the figure is so incredibly different (and if we say Patty is a suit, then the rest of her is so boldly and brilliantly superior to the 40's suit) that the discrepency between a 1940's waist area design and a 1990's technology rest of the suit design makes no sense to me.

So all I can say, in fairnes, is I have no conclusion yet on the shadow lines of the waist on Patty, and I've stated several times that this portion of the body remains my one area of confusion and doubt, in terms of making a conclusion on Patty.

Dave:

I am thinking about assembling the notes for some type of publication. I'll keep ya posted as that progresses.

Bill

[Guest Spiral Architect]

Bill,

Sure, it is just a comparison to a still, but still I am impressed with it -- with the rump look in particular, but also the look of the fur. It's pretty Patty-like, to me. And obviously it's just a "standard" gorilla suit.

SA

[Bill]

Spiral Architect:

Another thing to consider is that on the gorilla costume, the pelvic area has beed drastically dropped below the human pelvis inside, to make an apparent very long back and short legs, while Patty's proportions are not anywhere as exhaggerated.

It's a biomechanical trick to shift a skeletol joint on a suit that differs significantly from the corresponding joint in the human inside. Tends to require a whole inner design of padding and sometimes an inner framework as well.

So the apparent tailoring similarity is at odds with the apparent very different inner suit design (if Patty were a suit). Another discrepency I need to study more.

Bill

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

............Second, while in the one photo compare, I see curiously similar lines oround the waist/hip, the rest of the figure is so incredibly different (and if we say Patty is a suit, then the rest of her is so boldly and brilliantly superior to the 40's suit) that the discrepancy between a 1940's waist area design and a 1990's technology rest of the suit design makes no sense to me.

Bill

Yes it is different in many respects .. The legs are dramatically shorter for one thing

But the diaper looking butt area looks like it came off the same rack, if not salvaged from the same suit..

You seem to be ruling out a hybrid/modified suit, put together by Patterson ..

You spoke of probabilities earlier..

What do you think the probabilities are,that a real Bigfoot has a butt that is almost a perfect match for a 40's era gorilla suit..

[bipedalist]

Yes it is different in many respects .. The legs are dramatically shorter for one thing

But the diaper looking butt area looks like it came off the same rack, if not salvaged from the same suit..

You seem to be ruling out a hybrid/modified suit, put together by Patterson ..

You spoke of probabilities earlier..

What do you think the probabilities are,that a real Bigfoot has a butt that is almost a perfect match for a 40's era gorilla suit..

I don't know but there is zero probability that I'm the chief butt checker in this argument

Edited March 1, 2008 by bipedalist

[Bill]

Greg:

In my notes (can't remember which one, but I think part 5) I mentioned patching existing suits. The biggest challenge is getting new hair to match the old hair, and re-working a suit means taking it apart, and trying to re-tailor pieces, which usually don't fit the new design without added pieces, and that brings back the task of matching new hair to an old suit. Sort of like trying to find new parts for a very old and odd car.

Also there's a curious ego thing among people who make suits and prosthetics, that they usually refuse to rework somebody else's stuff. If they make it wonderful, the original maker can take the credit, and if they can't make it wonderful, they get blamed. better to scrap the old one and start fresh. That's just a common industry attitude.

Don't know how to judge the probabilities of a real creature having some specific body fur patterns like a 40's era suit, other than to say, the makers of the suit were trying to recreate a gorilla (or "big ape") realistically, so they clearly looked to real primates for their design inspiration but clearly didn't get it as perfect as they aspired to (as evidenced by the head, arms, and hair density patterns).

I will say once again, this part of the body of Patty is the one that continues to mystify me, and the one I continue to try to think through for all possible answers and see what may be discounted.

Do you, or any readers of this thread, know exactly which film this 40's suit was used for, so i can see about getting the actual film and studying it more in motion? That would certainly help.

Bipedalist:

We will cross your name off the list of potential candidates for that job.

Bill

[Bill]

Greg:

As a followup to your question, attached is a chart I put together to study the shadows and apparent contours in the pelvic area, across 12 frames. Beside each is a halftone of the same image with a red line diagram of the contours shown in that frame, with some dotted lines for the softer contours and weaker shadows.

Now what's curious to me is that the contour lines do tend to shift as the figure moves, but costume suit seams are particularly rigid, more rigid that the furcloth or hide alone, so they tend to have a fixed form even as the wearer moves about. Also, costume seams are usually either exactly straight or in very smooth consistant curves. These contour lines are irregular and sometimes even wavelike, which costume seams are not.

So when I look at the movement and shifting nature of the various shadow areas on the figure, i see contour lines getting stronger, and less strong, some appearing and disappearing, which is not usually characteristic of suit seams.

This is why I feel looking at that gorilla suit in motion may be helpful, to see how the contour lines on it appear across a dozen or so frames.

Bill

[Guest Killain]

Greg

I apologize for our disagreement. Your discourse with Bill in this matter of late is precisely how I would expect a skeptic to question the evidence. You are a gentleman and I was too quick to discredit you.

K

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

Killain,

Apology accepted.

I am honored to be called a gentleman by you, and you are a gentleman

for doing so.

I know my manner can be contentious at times, and I'm sure some of the derision

I receive is well deserved.

I have respect for the work Bill has done, and I certainly don't have the experience

or expertise to counter most of the points he has made.

I have tried to pick out a point or two that seem to need more explanation, and hope I can

get others to question what they are looking at.

I don't believe you will find me scoffing at people for what they have come to believe, for

whatever reason, but I will try to point out what I see as flaws in the evidence that may

have led to those beliefs. I trust you can see the difference .

I look forward to further discourse .

Greg

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

Bill

Excuse me for grabbing a point or two out of context and focusing on it , but you make a lot of good points

while slipping in a statement I don't agree with.. And we both know a pinch of the wrong spice can

spoil an otherwise wonderful pot of stew..

For instance:

...........and that brings back the task of matching new hair to an old suit.

I don't see where that good a job of matching hair was done ..

I see what looks like non uniform length, color and a patchwork appearance, that is particularly apparent in some of the enhanced work that

has been done on this film.

[Bill]

Greg:

When I speak about patching suits, i speak mainly from my industry experience. I'd probably refuse a job if asked to patch up somebody's old suit. Justt about everyone i know i think would do the same. It certainly doesn't mean it couldn't be done. Every rule of general practice pros do could be broken by a person doing their own thing.

But if your color of the patch fur is off, bright sunlight can kick up the differences real well (between old and patched parts), and the film may boost the contrasting colors even more.

So I'm not outruling the possibility, just commenting on the fact that it's work, and often not very successful. But again, it goes to how much work was done, what was re-worked, how extensive was the modification/repair/change? We can only speculate there.

I agree there is a patchy quality in the appearance. Just haven't yet settled on a conclusion of what causes it.

Bill