Jump to content

Why Can't Hollywood Replicate The Realism Of The P-G Film Subject?


Recommended Posts

bipedalist
BFF Patron

Well sounds like the flick I payed to see and couldn't attend due to serious studies was worth missing afterall.

 

Definitely missed the after-party though and social event which I regret.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

I agree, take a look at what the costumes looked like back in the day, most of the time you barely get a glimpse of them in the shade no less.

Here's a couple more off the top of my head, Creature from Black Lake & Boggy Creek 2: The Legend Continues.

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

The clearer the film is, the more realistic Patty looks. With costumes it's the other way around. 

Except the PGF is never going to have Hollywood/Stanley Kubrick clarity.  For instance Kubrick's manapes had lines and wrinkles on their faces that we clearly see close up.  Patty can never be brought to that kind of sharpness to confirm that.  That said the best of her facial shots look more mask like than skin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Good reference, Backdoc.  Just to note a few differences that would make a Patty replication significantly more challenging; a Patty replication would need:

 

a lot more bulk

 

 

 

 

The Bulk to me is a pretty key issue.  There is no doubt the Patty figure is massive/bulky.   The biggest issue to me is how smooth Patty moves.  Close to that is the Bulk issue since they are tied together.  How do you move smoothly with that much suit bulk?

 

If we even put aside issues like arm size/length/ratios and so on, we still end up needing a suit which is both very bulky and also allows a suit walker to walk over some varied terrain for as many steps as appear on the PGF. If Bob Heironimus is to be believe then we add a novice suit walker with one good eye looking out of one eye hole of the mask.

 

BFH posted an article once showing a man in a Dog Police Attack Suit.  It seems you would almost need that much bulk.

 

Anyone familiar with the show A Christmas Story knows when Ralphie's brother gets bundled up for winter, he can barely put his arms down.

 

BD

Edited by Backdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

 

The clearer the film is, the more realistic Patty looks. With costumes it's the other way around. 

Except the PGF is never going to have Hollywood/Stanley Kubrick clarity.  For instance Kubrick's manapes had lines and wrinkles on their faces that we clearly see close up.  Patty can never be brought to that kind of sharpness to confirm that.  That said the best of her facial shots look more mask like than skin.

 

I think you claim the Patty suit exists.    How do you know with HD video what Patty would look like?   Pattys appearance is limited by the 16MM media she was photographed with, either costume or real BF.     Now you expect us to allow special pleadings (you skeptics love those words) to claim that Patty would not hold up to closeups.   If the costume exists have someone put it on and show us.     

 

Side note.   After the movie the producer of the movie I saw the other night had a Q and A session.    When they had their BF in costume,  they made sure he was wearing an Orange vest when they were not shooting because they were filming in North Carolina in deer hunting season.   They were afraid someone would shoot their BF.   

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You just have to laugh out loud at statements like, "facial shots look more mask like than skin.."  from a leader of a contingent who, in the next breath, claim how the quality of the PGF film doesn't lend itself to discerning any useful degree of detail.  I mean, the nonsense that gets bandied about here is pretty remarkable, but very entertaining. Once again, yet again, we are given the option of believing the film is either good enough to judge an absurd level of detail (as above) or it is not of any value for determining its authenticity. Depending. Got that? Good. Welcome to the world of Skeptic Special Pleading for the PGF, where it is what we say it is, when we want to see it. Or not. Stand by...

 

Oh, and here's more irony for those who've not had their fill: In a separate thread Our Correspondent indulges so-called habituators (well, not really he doesn't) to offer up their photographs and videos for inspection.  Yeah, the level of discernment they are likely to receive sure makes that effort seem predictably worthwhile, couldn't we all agree? Oh, the Science!  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

And how good to you think Patty would look that close up?

'Good' is likely not the right word.

 

Scary might be one. Bigger that how she looks on the film for sure. She might have bad breath too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 

The clearer the film is, the more realistic Patty looks. With costumes it's the other way around. 

 For instance Kubrick's manapes had lines and wrinkles on their faces that we clearly see close up.  Patty can never be brought to that kind of sharpness to confirm that.  That said the best of her facial shots look more mask like than skin.

 

Oh eventually you will have forgotten what you said and contradict yourself again.

 

By the way, where can I buy a mask that allows the wearer to change facial expressions?

cibachrome_PGF_PGF%20-%20Copy_zpsztmn92z

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