Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Serohs

A New Suit?

Recommended Posts

Serohs

I am curious and if this has been discussed before I apologize for starting a new thread. Has there been an attempt yet to re-create Patty with todays technology as far as making a suit? I am just curious how close they could get with todays materials in making a suit that shows all the muscle movement and other things we see in the PGF. It makes me think of a lot of questions regarding to cost of making a suit that could be close to what we see in the PGF. I just think it would be real interesting "if" an attempt was made and even today, and how close it could be to patty then to only realize this kind of fabrication was not possible back when PGF was shot.

 

I am well aware of Bill's amazing work with the PGF and just curious if any attempt has been made or might be made to re-create what we see in the PGF with todays technology.

Edited by Serohs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wudewasa

This will prove the existence of what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Serohs,

 

Go watch the BBC attempt on x creatures.   They took well qualified experts and some 'new' tech at the time. It was stretch fur over a padded muscle suit.  Such tech did not exist in 1967 at the time of the PG film.  THe result:  Utter failure.      

 

My 50/50 real/hoax mind on the PG film moved to about 90% real after viewing the enhanced PG film. After watching X creatures by the BBC, they moved me the other 90% and now am 180% convinced the PG film is real.

 

It's simple.  What a man can do another man can do or at least reproduce given the same exact resources. 

 

I have said it before and I must say it again:   Yuri Geller claims to bend spoons with his mind.  The magician James Randi does the EXACT same spoon bending the same way under the same conditions.  What this means is weather Yuri does or does not display mind power as a way to bend spoons, Randi  does it.  When he does it he let's the viewer decide what is more likely.  Now notice James Randi does not just say "it's obvious it is a trick"  he then PROVES it could be done by actually doing the exact same thing.

 

Attempts to do what Bob and Roger did have to date been so laughable, that fact alone points away from a hoax of some kind.

 

IN the famous memorial day footage of a running bigfoot, they showed by recreation the average person could run as fast as the subject in that film.  They tested in with a world class sprinter. Now if the bigfoot subject had run faster than one of the fastest runners on the entire planet, are we to think that would mean nothing.

 

To sum it up:  It's been tried,  The testers stacked the deck with suit tech that did not exist in 1967 and the STILL could not do it.  Not even close.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serohs

This will prove the existence of what?

 

   I am not sure if it would prove anything one way or another. I was asking if it had been attempted.

Serohs,

 

Go watch the BBC attempt on x creatures.   They took well qualified experts and some 'new' tech at the time. It was stretch fur over a padded muscle suit.  Such tech did not exist in 1967 at the time of the PG film.  THe result:  Utter failure.      

 

My 50/50 real/hoax mind on the PG film moved to about 90% real after viewing the enhanced PG film. After watching X creatures by the BBC, they moved me the other 90% and now am 180% convinced the PG film is real.

 

It's simple.  What a man can do another man can do or at least reproduce given the same exact resources. 

 

I have said it before and I must say it again:   Yuri Geller claims to bend spoons with his mind.  The magician James Randi does the EXACT same spoon bending the same way under the same conditions.  What this means is weather Yuri does or does not display mind power as a way to bend spoons, Randi  does it.  When he does it he let's the viewer decide what is more likely.  Now notice James Randi does not just say "it's obvious it is a trick"  he then PROVES it could be done by actually doing the exact same thing.

 

Attempts to do what Bob and Roger did have to date been so laughable, that fact alone points away from a hoax of some kind.

 

IN the famous memorial day footage of a running bigfoot, they showed by recreation the average person could run as fast as the subject in that film.  They tested in with a world class sprinter. Now if the bigfoot subject had run faster than one of the fastest runners on the entire planet, are we to think that would mean nothing.

 

To sum it up:  It's been tried,  The testers stacked the deck with suit tech that did not exist in 1967 and the STILL could not do it.  Not even close.

 

Backdoc

 

Ah! Okay I will look up the BBC stuff. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Serohs:

 

The big question is, Who's paying for it and how do they get their money back?

 

A quality replication of Patty, with today's materials, would be a fairly costly endeavor, (at fair market rates, $50-100K would be reasonable). Nobody is likely to do it as a freebee, and there are actually few FX makeup artists who can do it alone, start to finish, because most work today is broken down into various specialties spread across a large shop staff.

 

The second question is, if it's for a commercial project, the producers would probably want a propriatary design, not a Patty replica, because they have to license a Patty replica if they want to exploit the figure with any merchandising, but if it's a propriatary design, their own appearance concept, they can merchandise the hell out of it and keep all the merchandise license fees to themselves.

 

So it's economics, basically, that prevents a quality replica Patty.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Serohs:

 

The big question is, Who's paying for it and how do they get their money back?

 

A quality replication of Patty, with today's materials, would be a fairly costly endeavor, (at fair market rates, $50-100K would be reasonable). Nobody is likely to do it as a freebee, and there are actually few FX makeup artists who can do it alone, start to finish, because most work today is broken down into various specialties spread across a large shop staff.

 

The second question is, if it's for a commercial project, the producers would probably want a propriatary design, not a Patty replica, because they have to license a Patty replica if they want to exploit the figure with any merchandising, but if it's a propriatary design, their own appearance concept, they can merchandise the hell out of it and keep all the merchandise license fees to themselves.

 

So it's economics, basically, that prevents a quality replica Patty.

 

Bill

 

Yet Patterson was able to do it just fine on his budget. Go figure! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

It's nice to have Bill Munns as a go to guy available to us on The Bigfoot Forums.   All of these Q's still come down to this:  If it is a hoax it has to be someone in a suit. Thus, we are lucky to have someone well versed in the subject to have a reasonable discussion about this.

 

Backdoc



Serohs:

 

The big question is, Who's paying for it and how do they get their money back?

 

A quality replication of Patty, with today's materials, would be a fairly costly endeavor, (at fair market rates, $50-100K would be reasonable). Nobody is likely to do it as a freebee, and there are actually few FX makeup artists who can do it alone, start to finish, because most work today is broken down into various specialties spread across a large shop staff.

 

The second question is, if it's for a commercial project, the producers would probably want a propriatary design, not a Patty replica, because they have to license a Patty replica if they want to exploit the figure with any merchandising, but if it's a propriatary design, their own appearance concept, they can merchandise the hell out of it and keep all the merchandise license fees to themselves.

 

So it's economics, basically, that prevents a quality replica Patty.

 

Bill

 

 

Bill,

 

This makes me wonder as to your opinion of the X Creatures attempt.  I am new to the TBF for maybe a few weeks now.  Maybe you could direct me to some previous answer on it.  That is, do you know the guys who tried it?  What do you think of the results as a person in these crafts?

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Summitwalker:

 

Sorry, but Patty's not a suit. You apparently want to believe it is, but it isn't.

 

Roger didn't build anything. He filmed what he honestly encountered, unexpectedly.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Bill:

 

Is that your opinion or your conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serohs

Thank you Bill for your response! Part of my thinking in the question was just that... The cost. Which goes along with actually having the materials today to come close to some of the musculature, and movement seen in the PGF.   When I think about that then think about trying to create one back in the 60's it just helps re-affirm to me that most likely Patty is real. I am not meaning to open a can of dead horse worms here. There are already plenty of PGF for and against threads on here. I was just curious if others had tried or attempted to replicate it with modern materials.

Edited by Serohs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Bill,

Your work on the PGF is amazing and highly respected. But, unfortunately you will never be able to convince everyone............. Not till there's other, irrefutable scientific proof to back it up. I know you know that. :drag:

Serohs, I think the best you will see is better bigfoot/sasquatch movies coming out. Like Letters From The Big Man....that costume got alot of accolades. Haven't a clue what they spent on it though.

Edited - grammar.

Edited by bananasquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Okay, let's focus on the muscle issue for a moment.

 

Do you want a suit that has muscle shape and definition, or a suit that apparently exhibits actual muscle extension and flexing?

 

If you just want muscle shape and definition, that can be done, either in a sculpted prosthesis or with sophisticated tailored padding, and then tailored fur on top of it. But if you want real muscle extension and flexing, you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who actually did it successfully.

 

Let's just take one simple example, a muscular arm where the bicep expands outward as the elbow bends and brings the wrist closer to the head, and then the bicep rexlaxes when the arm straightens, and the tricep expands outward. Nobody I know of has actually done that with a suit. Or the muscle balling up and relaxing of the calf muscles. Nobody's ever done that in a costume. They can tailor a costume and work the underlying padding to have a great calf shape, but once they establish that shape, it won't change it's shape as the legs bends and straightens at the knee.

 

Old stiff furcloth has no capacity for motion resembling the extension and flexation of muscle masses. And the newer spandex-based stretch furcloths have a bad habit of drumming over any concave contour, and muscle definition is determined by both convex bulges and concave furroughs between the bulges, and modern spandex fur will drum over those concave contours and not produce realistic muscle contour.

 

The whole "Hollywood muscle suits" topic is filled with hype, exhaggeration and confusion, because costumes even today don't exhibit anything that resembles real muscle action and motion, even if they can create a static muscle shape.

 

People who know nothing about it usually point to Hollywood photos, like the Tarzan, Jane and a chimp character photo, and say "see, the chimp costume has great muscles, an abdominal six-pack. And that was 1931, way before the PGF". What these people don't say, or likely even realize is that in that photo, Tarzan is wearing tennis shoes and after the publicity photo was taken, the studio photo lab retouched the photo to try and hide Tarzan's tennis shoes. It's a re-touched photo, and useless as evidence of anything because we can't certify the chimp isn't re-touched as well, unless somebody can find it's six-pack of abs in the actual movie and certify the musculature really is in the suit and not in the re-touching.

 

So claims of hollywood costumes with great musculature fail to understand muscle shape and muscle motion are two different issues, and even the muscles shapes may be re-touched photos, not real costume features.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serohs

I hear ya Banana, but that is what I am saying... coming out now. Why could there not be anything (unless I am missing a movie or two) before "now" that could display what we see in the PGF. Was Roger Patterson just some schmoe that his talents were wasted by not going to Hollywood to be a costume maker?

 

Thanks Bill for the reply. All of what you are saying is why the question I asked popped up in my mind today. I was sitting at work taking a break and trying to think of any motion picture, most likely a Sci-Fi type since the 60's forward to the time of CGI where a costume was used, and showed both of what you said. Granted there might be a movie or two, or many. I just cannot think of any off the top of my head. When I think about that and assuming my thought process is correct in thinking there are no movies out there before the advent of CGI that have a costumed creature that exhibits the muscle movements, etc... of Patty that you have painstakingly went over and demonstrated it just makes me really try and fathom how some one back in the 60's could fake the PGF.  In fact I am sitting here watching Harry and the Hendersons for the 100th time as I type this. It is my youngest sons favorite movie as he is into Bigfoot big time at the present. Even though that is an awesome suit the definition of the musculature is hidden with the fake fur.  Certain muscle movements as when Patty steps down and such are not there with the costume Kevin Peter Hall wore, and that was a major motion picture at a more modern time. At least to my eyes watching the movie over many times and comparing it to PGF. I guess I just do not understand why there has nothing comparable in Hollywood at that time in the past and up till possibly now, but yet so many claim PGF must have been a hoax.

 

In saying all that I do not claim there isn't anything comparable. I am just stating I could not think of anything comparable, but would be glad of any recommendations of any movies I am not thinking of.

Edited by Serohs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

I would like to have a replica just for display. Maybe someday I'll give it my absolute best shot, but I'd have to wait for a little more cash to even begin thinking about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...