Bill Posted March 6, 2008 Author Posted March 6, 2008 Apeman: Thanks for the info. I had not heard of that. On Oliver, I doubt i could contribute anything scientific about him, just amusing trivia about trying to make him up as a gorilla. Wish I had photos of him and that work, but we did it in the parking lot of a studio, to walk him into Steven Speilberg's offices in full dress, for the presentation, and in the hectic dressing process, no time for photos. Things are slow for me here while i attend some matters on another board which watches what I post here, so I had to join the discussion and see what was being posted there. Bill
Bill Posted March 30, 2008 Author Posted March 30, 2008 Thank you, John, for the interview announcement. On Melissa's blog site, there are four charts of images referencing what we'll be talking about and so anyone interested in the interview might want to have a look beforehand and see the illustrations we'll be discussing. Some "never before seen" photos from my archives. Bill
Roger Knights Posted May 24, 2008 Posted May 24, 2008 Bill, what do you think of the contention made by suitniks (a term which when first devised here referred only to Patty (from their refrain, "it's a suit"), not to Bigfoot reports in general, and which should retain that meaning) that the surface plasticity seen on Patty could be the result of water bags under the skin? (E.g., see Daegling's Bigfoot Exposed, p. 146.) It seems to me there'd have to be a lot of bags, not just the stomach, because motion can be seen in many places, especially the breasts and the thigh on touchdown. And I don't think water would provide the sort of motion that is seen.
Huntster Posted May 24, 2008 Posted May 24, 2008 How about suit technology from the 40's ? This suit has features very similar to the features you highlighted. That is very true. Now let's see that 1940's era suit in motion, in color, on a sandbar, and the bottoms of the feet in that motion........
Bill Posted May 24, 2008 Author Posted May 24, 2008 Rogerkni: "Bill, what do you think of the contention made by suitniks (a term which when first devised here referred only to Patty (from their refrain, "it's a suit"), not to Bigfoot reports in general, and which should retain that meaning) that the surface plasticity seen on Patty could be the result of water bags under the skin? (E.g., see Daegling's Bigfoot Exposed, p. 146.) It seems to me there'd have to be a lot of bags, not just the stomach, because motion can be seen in many places, especially the breasts and the thigh on touchdown. And I don't think water would provide the sort of motion that is seen. " There are descriptions of Charlie Gamora in the 40's using water pouches on the belly sections of gorilla suits to give a natural sway and gravitational response to the suits. But these reposts only pertain to the belly, because an authentic gorilla suit should replicate the large intestinal area of a gorilla, and it should shift to a different posture if the person inside is standing upright or on a knuckle-walking posture. The water pouch was intended for that purpose. That said, a large belly resembling a true gorilla is not evident on Patty, so the technique isn't applied there. Using fluid pouches for any other anatomical part for appearances of musculature motion have never been done as far as I know, and are likely to fail because the fluid tends to simply take the line of least resistance and flow where it is easiest to go, which is somewhere inside the suit, instead of forcing suit fur to bulge out like a muscle. Remenber, it only works in response to gravity, and gravity simply pulls it downward. Plus the furcloth does not have a very good capacity to "bulge", usless it was tailored into a bulging curve to begin with. So the only theoretical place on "Patty" where I could see posible fluid pouches would be the breasts. I don't see any other area of the body where fluid pouches, used as body padding, would result in what's on the film. Bill
Roger Knights Posted June 3, 2008 Posted June 3, 2008 (edited) Thanks--that's pretty much what I thought. Here's another thought: could flab be the explanation for Cliff Crook's "zipper tag"? (It's seen in frame 364 & three surrounding frames.) It's where a "love handle" would be. Edited June 3, 2008 by RogerKni
Drew Posted June 3, 2008 Posted June 3, 2008 Bill- Would you say that it is possible for a viewer to perceive muscle movement, due to things other than muscle movement? i.e. hair moving, padding bulging, changes in shadows etc...?
Bill Posted June 3, 2008 Author Posted June 3, 2008 Drew: "Bill- Would you say that it is possible for a viewer to perceive muscle movement, due to things other than muscle movement? i.e. hair moving, padding bulging, changes in shadows etc...?" Yes, I would say it is possible. We know the image resolution has degraded the level of detail we perceive in the film, and while some elements of anatomy are sharpened by the resolution issue, and some are lost to perception, some are also distorted into an appearance other than what we may perceive. This has become one of the foundation issues that I believe needs more research, trying to determine what muscle movement, hair bristling or shifting, padding (in suits) and ambient shadows on the body look like under that level of film resolution, when we have a verifiable source image of greater clarity to reference to. So what is needed is filmed studies at both PG Film resolution, and much clearer visual resolution, to be able to determine with more precision what the shifting light/dark patterns on Patty's body in the film do represent. Such studies would allow us to determine more details about Patty's body than can currently be determined, I believe. Bill
Guest Forest_Edge_BC Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 I watched the original Planet of the Apes movie recently (produced 1968)... a couple observations; The ape suits from the neck up look "convincing"... however, most other area's of the costumes, including proportions and girth look very unconvincing... also noted that the facial costumes are very rigid with very little flexibility. If big-budget (and start-of-the-art for the era) Planet of the Apes couldn't produce realistic "flab and proportions" at the time, its unlikely anybody else would have been capable at the time, IMO.
Guest Skeptical Greg Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 If big-budget (and start-of-the-art for the era) Planet of the Apes couldn't produce realistic "flab and proportions" at the time, its unlikely anybody else would have been capable at the time, IMO. It's not that they weren't capable, it was a matter of budget restraints .. It would have required full body suits for hundreds of actors .. Not a good investment if the characters are fully dressed anyway.. Since there is no real facial movement apparent in the PGF, and what we see of the face is over 100 feet away, It is not a valid comparison of the facial movement found in Planet Of the Apes...
Guest Crowlogic Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 It's not that they weren't capable, it was a matter of budget restraints .. It would have required full body suits for hundreds of actors .. Not a good investment if the characters are fully dressed anyway.. Since there is no real facial movement apparent in the PGF, and what we see of the face is over 100 feet away, It is not a valid comparison of the facial movement found in Planet Of the Apes... Actually then your implying that Cowboy Roger living hand to mouth was able to acquire a costume that surpassed a Hollywood budget? Perhaps you can furnish us with figures on the costume budget for PLA. I'll bet that Roger Patterson's entire life earnings, including the money he made from the PGF wouldn't have payed for a weeks worth of costume serviceing in PLA. Or even the development cost of designing the first prototype PLA costume. Patty looks good because the elements are good. For whatever the reason. Everything else out there pretty much looks like crap. After seeing the Youtube BBC nonsence recently I was amazed that it looked even hokier than the one hokey frame (mock 352) that's always shown. The Limey in the suit does indeed give a great performance of a man in a monkey suit looking like a man in a monkey suit.
Guest Skeptical Greg Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 Nope .... I wasn't implying anything that you came up with .. You sure got a lot out of my post that isn't there.. Try reading it again in the context of the post I was replying to ...
Guest longtabber PE Posted August 18, 2008 Posted August 18, 2008 Nope .... I wasn't implying anything that you came up with ..You sure got a lot out of my post that isn't there.. Try reading it again in the context of the post I was replying to ... Where would the fun in that be?
Recommended Posts