Hollywood 50S/60S

[Bill]

Saskeptic:

Perhaps it would be important for you to kow that specific still is a studio publicity shot, not a frame capture, and it has been heavily retouched. Johnny Weismueller is wearing tennis shoes and they were re-touched to a foot flesh color (somewhat, but not perfectly). So we must be suspect that other re-touching may have been done, and it was common to retouch "creature" appearances as well in publicity photos, so we can't rely on that photo to be certain the ape costume really was as it appears to us.

Bill

[Bill]

Here is the photo with the tennis shoe shown clearly:

So as impressive as the ape is, we must wonder if it's appearance was also retouched. That was common practice back then, for the staff photo retouchers to work over publicity stills and "improve" them. A very fine book, Penny Stallings "Flesh and Fantasy" has a section on the old studio photo retouching work, in case anyone wants to look into this further.

Bill

[Guest John]

I didn't alter (other than to re-size) any of my captures of what appears to be the same costume.

[Guest John]

It seems as though all of the talent behind these early films fell to the wayside when the 50's and 60's sci-fi films were produced. I think the studios were so intent on cranking out the films in the 50's/60's for making a fast buck rather that they failed in making a good product.

Agreed.

Compare early Disney productions to later Hanna-Barbera Saturday morning fare which 'suffered' from enforced budgetary restraints (as I understand).

Tom & Jerry took a nose dive in quality in my opinion from the older ones when the 'newer' cartoons were farmed out and (as I remember) the new European producers were only given a limited number of the originals to refer too.

I suspect that many of the 50's science fiction movies were produced for drive-in audiences (late teen-age?) where I imagine the audience were in general looking for a fun night out rather than technical perfection.

Likewise, I understand dimensional animation pioneer Willis O'Brien was non too impressed when (due to budgetary restrictions) his assistant Ray Harryhausen developed his 'simplified' method that did away with the lavish tabletop miniature sets O'Brien favored (and felt his art-form deserved).

I think in all these cases it could be argued that the earlier product was in some cases superior to the new.

[Guest]

I think in all these cases it could be argued that the earlier product was in some cases superior to the new.

Very much so.

Watch these costumes in action. They are really amazing for their time frame.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Redwolf

[norseman]

Agreed.

Compare early Disney productions to later Hanna-Barbera Saturday morning fare which 'suffered' from enforced budgetary restraints (as I understand).

Tom & Jerry took a nose dive in quality in my opinion from the older ones when the 'newer' cartoons were farmed out and (as I remember) the new European producers were only given a limited number of the originals to refer too.

I suspect that many of the 50's science fiction movies were produced for drive-in audiences (late teen-age?) where I imagine the audience were in general looking for a fun night out rather than technical perfection.

Likewise, I understand dimensional animation pioneer Willis O'Brien was non too impressed when (due to budgetary restrictions) his assistant Ray Harryhausen developed his 'simplified' method that did away with the lavish tabletop miniature sets O'Brien favored (and felt his art-form deserved).

I think in all these cases it could be argued that the earlier product was in some cases superior to the new.

I can definitely follow the line of reasoning that newer is not always necessarily better.

But how does this pertain to the PGF? As you said, much of this quality was canned for compressed budgets and lower expectations by movie goers.

[Guest John]

But how does this pertain to the PGF? As you said, much of this quality was canned for compressed budgets and lower expectations by movie goers.

Directly I wasn't really trying to imply it did. Indirectly though folks quite naturally look to the product of the time to make comparisons. In the cinematic cycle of things though, some of the older product shows the capabilities and artistry that were present decades before the PGF. Doesn't prove anything about the PGF being a hoax other than to dispel the old worn out chestnut that that sort of thing wasn't possible in the late 60's.

[norseman]

Directly I wasn't really trying to imply it did. Indirectly though folks quite naturally look to the product of the time to make comparisons. In the cinematic cycle of things though, some of the older product shows the capabilities and artistry that were present decades before the PGF. Doesn't prove anything about the PGF being a hoax other than to dispel the old worn out chestnut that that sort of thing wasn't possible in the late 60's.

I think it's much less a question of timeline and much more of a question of budget.

As I stated in another thread, the cost of a plain jane, run of the mill Morris gorilla suit in '67 was 450 bucks, or roughly 3000 bucks in today's dollars.

So what would the cost of a one off, giant pendulous breasts, she Sasquatch suit cost in '67?

[Guest John]

So what would the cost of a one off, giant pendulous breasts, she Sasquatch suit cost in '67?

My Bold

Uncertain - but apparently said anatomical features are easier to describe after claiming to see them and draw prior to claiming to see them that they were to actually realize on film.

Edit to Fix tags

Edited May 25, 2011 by John

[Guest ShadowPrime]

Very cool to see the Creature from the Black Lagoon back at the start of this Thread - always felt he was one of the best "practically realized" monsters I saw on film!

Only so much to talk about, when it comes to BF, so we tend to loop back a lot, but one thing I have found rather interesting is that "the skeptics" can't seem to agree if Patty is a not very impressive, slightly modified, off the rack, "monkey suit" from the 1960s, OR if she is a state of the art, equivalent to the very best Hollywood had to offer, special effects home run. If the former, it is easier to sell the idea of Patterson and friends hoaxing Patty - requires modest (relatively) resources, no real expertise, a small group of "conspirators", and so forth. If the latter, involves a lot more explanation as to how it was pulled off, who was involved, how it was kept quiet, and so forth. Of course, if the former, it DOES raise the question of why we haven't seen a dozen other PGFs, since producing one would be very easy.

Every time we do down this path, I find myself in the same place - for what that is worth. I never see the skeptics produce anything like Patty, as take a fun tour of 1950s/60s movie monsters, gorillas, and apemen. LOVE the tour, mind you. Just saying...

Shadow

[Guest]

Here is the photo with the tennis shoe shown clearly:

Thanks for the insight, BIll. Of course, if the un-retouched photo shows the shoe then why does the ape still have washboard abs?

[Bill]

Saskeptic:

There isn't any "un-retouched" photo. The one we all have and see is retouched, to hide the shoe somewhat.

The point being that the photo has been modified to look better for the publicity. Creatures in publicity photos also can and have been retouched, sometimes to clean up things like molding seams, or any modification requested by the makeup department for a better look. As such, we simply cannot be certain that the abs or other costume body details were as well done in fact as they appear, baased on this photo.

Think of it as a contaminated sample. We know its factual "purity" has been compromised, by the retouching process.

So we would not base conclusions on a contaminated sample, but rather look for samples that are not contaminated. In the photographic sense, actual film frames (captured or scanned) are generally not retouched, and thus are more reliable than a studio publicity still.

Bill

Edited May 25, 2011 by Bill

[norseman]

My Bold

Uncertain - but apparently said anatomical features are easier to describe after claiming to see them and draw prior to claiming to see them that they were to actually realize on film.

Edit to Fix tags

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1083

Either we have a case of copy cat, with Patterson using Roe's drawing as a template for his film subject.

Or unlike the skeptical inquirer's claim that nothing lines up in Bigfootery? We have a very very nice reconstruction drawing being backed up by movie film roughly 13 years later.

Because the two could be sisters.

[Guest John]

[Guest John]

So we would not base conclusions on a contaminated sample, but rather look for samples that are not contaminated. In the photographic sense, actual film frames (captured or scanned) are generally not retouched, and thus are more reliable than a studio publicity still.

Another unaltered capture of the same creature suit.