• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
A very interesting question, and one I'd not considered before. There's a book by Loren Coleman on this subject.

Slick seems to have been a bit of a good egg, funding medical research etc, and very intelligent too, as well as being it seems something of a Fortean. He went after Nessie, as well as he Yeti, and others. Here's a brief article,

https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily...om-slick-san-antonios-original-monster-hunter

I think it's entirely reasonable to suggest him as the (largely overlooked) father of bigfoot. It was his expeditions/backing that gave those who'd go on to become the 'grand old men of bigfoot' their start.

Of course even them, the likes of Rene Dahinden, and Peter Byrne are long forgotten by most footers today.

Tom Slick and the Search for Yeti, by Loren Coleman is well worth reading. I haven't read Tom Slick: True Life Encounters in Cryptozoology
 
So then.....were they all in on the hoax...if not how did the guy in the suit get home without the others knowing what went down..? Did he also have a horse on which he rode home..? And why didn't they chase down the Bigfoot to begin with since they had horses...and presumably rifles..?
What's wrong with this picture...?
Depends on who you mean by all. If you mean both Patterson and Gimlin, I'd say certainly they were. A question I'd ask is how tall is Patty really? We can't answer that really, but we might get a reasonable estimation range if someone with the right no know and objectivity examined the film. And how tall is Gimlin? Besides which there could have been another man with them, no one saw them leave Bluff Creek, and even if they called in on Al Hodgson on their arrival, it'd be no big problem to see how someone could have been hidden or snuck in then or later. But all that's speculation.
I covered most of this in detail in the "Patty at 50" article. I'll repeat the salient bits here.

Regarding the height, and the footprints: here I cite Dr Don Grieve, Reader in Biomechanics at London Free Hospital who analysed the film in the early 70s, and Dr John Napier.
...
..Grieve also confirms that the creature’s height is around 196 cm (6’5”), estimated weight of 127 kg (280 lb) which would render at most a 30 cm (12 inch) footprint, which is well within normal human range, and at variance with Patterson’s estimate of a 7 foot (215 cm), “very heavy” creature. Other discrepancies then start to become apparent.

In his book ‘Bigfoot: The Sasquatch and Yeti in Myth and Reality’, the primatologist and paleoanthropologist John Napier states that the footprints that Patterson cast after the sighting, which Patterson claimed were those of the filmed figure were closer to 15 inches (37 cm) long, which would indicate a much taller creature, at least 7’8” (234 cm) in height with an indicative 53 inch stride: however, the distance between the footprints is only 41 inches (104 cm), whereas a 6’5” humanoid would have at least a 45 inch (114 cm) gap, and given the exaggerated stride of the creature in the film it would be closer to 48-50 (c.125 cm) inches, which largely tallies with Grieve’s estimates. So, the footprints that Patterson presented belong to a supposedly much taller being, but with a markedly shorter step than the one in the film. Whatever their provenance, Napier concludes that the two items – film and prints -do not belong together..

As for whether there was a third party in on it, etc, and as is discussed at length earlier in this thread, this is the distillation of the possibilities:
..
....Bob Gimlin, utterly refused to talk about it at all until about ten years ago, and if truth be told hasn’t said a whole lot since then. What he has said is that he believes that he didn’t participate in a hoax – which opens up four possibilities.

- It was a hoax, and both Patterson and Gimlin were complicit (so Gimlin is lying.)

- It was a hoax, which Patterson arranged, and Gimlin was duped.

- It was a hoax, and both Patterson and Gimlin were duped.

Or.. it wasn’t a hoax at all.

To take them one by one.

..was Gimlin complicit? If he was, then it’s perfectly possible that there were multiple takes of a man in a suit, with all day to get it right, the only risk being someone else catching them at it (or indeed a real, short-sighted randy male bigfoot..) There could have been other people there, even, besides the three (Patterson, Gimlin, and whoever was in the costume: there are those who have claimed it was them, such as Bob Heironimus.)

..or, if Gimlin wasn’t complicit, it would have involved a lot of set up, an actor in a (presumably) hot, uncomfortable suit sitting around for hours with or without assistance (a suit at least good enough to be convincing to the naked eye of an experienced woodsman, so probably intricate to get into and nigh-impossible to get into alone), located in a very remote area, just waiting for Patterson and Gimlin to come ambling round the corner and with no trace of anybody else, if indeed anyone else was there. Not impossible, but a one-take deal. It has been suggested that Patterson’s insistence that if they encountered one they must not shoot it has been cited as evidence that he didn’t want Gimlin accidentally and unknowingly injuring an actor.

..or, maybe neither were complicit, and both were pranked by a third party – but see above for the logistical likelihood of that with the added lack of guarantee they’d even go anywhere near there (see also long lines of prints found in snow miles from where anyone could be sure to see them before they melted – time-critical hoaxing relies entirely on reaction from an innocent party otherwise it’s utterly pointless.)

..or, it shows a female bigfoot walking away from the camera.

Yeah, a tiny bit of luck. But to me, it's dreadful, it's good for what they had to hand but really? It's a guy in a crap suit.
Yeah, regarding the suit..
..The possibilities and practicalities of such a costume even existing in the mid-60s have been discussed for years. John Chambers (Planet of The Apes) has been mooted as someone with the technical abilities at that time, though he himself strenuously denied having made it, and went as far as to say that if it was a suit it was technically highly accomplished, and would have to be tailor-made. Philip Morris, a North Carolina costumier, claimed to have sold Patterson the suit in 1967, suggesting the actor inside wear American Football shoulder pads beneath. He could not, however, provide any evidence to substantiate this claim, and in fact when challenged to recreate the suit (and the footage) for National Geographic he fell somewhat short, and has subsequently become quiet on the whole issue. There have been other attempts to recreate it: in 1998 the BBC’s X Creatures used a suit that looked more like Keith Harris’ Cuddles the Monkey than Patty, with a walk even less convincing (but still enough for presenter Chris Packham to pronounce the original as fake, but as he started off by stating he doesn’t believe in Bigfoot anyway, why would he do otherwise?) What is for sure is that if it is a suit, it’s a very sophisticated one, which had to account for ease of movement as much as convincing appearance, per the opinion of Nikita Lavinsky, (a sculptor and costume designer consulted by Dimitri Bayenov and Igor Burtsev.) Such a costume would be impossible for an actor to don single-handedly. With each improvement in technology there is the hope that the image will yield some telling detail in one way or another: but at the time of writing that remains as elusive as the creature itself.
Likewise, Napier stated he couldn't "find the zipper", which is the first time the phrase was used, incidentally.
 
Depends on who you mean by all. If you mean both Patterson and Gimlin, I'd say certainly they were. A question I'd ask is how tall is Patty really? We can't answer that really, but we might get a reasonable estimation range if someone with the right no know and objectivity examined the film. And how tall is Gimlin? Besides which there could have been another man with them, no one saw them leave Bluff Creek, and even if they called in on Al Hodgson on their arrival, it'd be no big problem to see how someone could have been hidden or snuck in then or later. But all that's speculation.

Their version is they didn't chase it straight away because Patterson's horse, and also the pack horse which had the rest of the film on it, had both bolted, and it took them sometime to recover them. After that they did track it for a varying length of time, before loosing it on harder ground/thicker bush.

Again with the rifles, I think the versions differ there a bit too, but as I recall neither men were willing to harm it unless it threatened them.

All of which (bigfoot aside) sounds plausible, but then the real issues start of getting the film back in time.



Yeah, but you think thylacines like Joy Division. When everyone knows it's Ian Dury they're mad about.

If you have been hit by a rhythm stick you may be able to claim compensation for personal Ian Dury.
 
I used to do quite a lot of work writing sleeve notes for reissue CDs, and it was while I was researching a group called the Velvet Illusions that I discovered a connection to the Patterson/Gimlin film. The Velvet Illusions came of of Yakima in Washington state and were managed by one George Radford, his son George Jnr was a member of the band. Radford and his wife had loaned Patterson some money to rent a movie camera, the very one that the footage was filmed on. It seemed to be common knowledge that it was a hoax, some of the boys in the band said they had seen the bigfoot suit when they had visited the Patterson ranch. The Velvet Illusions even recorded a song titled 'Bigfoot', sadly the recording is MIA.
 
I covered most of this in detail in the "Patty at 50" article. I'll repeat the salient bits here.

Sadly I missed that, I avoid going into town as much as possible and it wasn't sold in the out lying shops.

I used to do quite a lot of work writing sleeve notes for reissue CDs, and it was while I was researching a group called the Velvet Illusions that I discovered a connection to the Patterson/Gimlin film. The Velvet Illusions came of of Yakima in Washington state and were managed by one George Radford, his son George Jnr was a member of the band. Radford and his wife had loaned Patterson some money to rent a movie camera, the very one that the footage was filmed on. It seemed to be common knowledge that it was a hoax, some of the boys in the band said they had seen the bigfoot suit when they had visited the Patterson ranch. The Velvet Illusions even recorded a song titled 'Bigfoot', sadly the recording is MIA.

Here's a Wiki article o the band, with mention of 'Bigfoot' near the end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Velvet_Illusions

Very interesting post Clear Light.
 
Very interesting Clear Light. So, if I'm reading this right, the inference from the author might be that this Radford had commissioned 'Bigfoot' for Patterson's film, either the documentary or the PG film? Or possibly to cash in on thePG film? Either way, the fact that he was financing Patterson's camera suggests he was in on it somewhere.

All I know is that George Radford was a local businessman, and that he and his wife ran a successful upholstery business. Mrs Radford made the band matching costumes.
 
Thanks for that Swifty. Most interesting part to me was the section near the end where he's very vague about 'mailing' the film. Very vague, and keen to state he doesn't exactly know how Patterson mailed it. So presumably not at airport then. Because at one of those you'd be able to guess it was going by air.

That's the detail he can't recall, everything else he remembers, what was on the pack horses, shaking Patterson's foot, etc, but not mailing the film, not the one detail about which a slip up is fatal.

Gimlin is very specific, and he recalls every detail. He says he waited outside while Patterson went inside to, as far he knew, mail the film to his BIL. He does not claim knowledge of something he could not have, but he recalls every detail of what he was actually involved in. His account of the event is very believable; one of the elements that make it hard to dismiss the PGF as a fake...
 

Hopkarma, these posts were made last summer. I have no idea who said what, or where my statement ends and your reply begins. I'm not going to go back over all this to work it out, but I appreciate, and am interested in,your take on things and what was said.

Top left is a reply number, in this case it's 551, please quote this so it's easy to check back. Aside from that, and I bear in mind how much I struggled with this a few years ago, just click on the word 'reply', bottom left, then make sure your text appears outside the the word 'QUOTE' in the brackets. Otherwise it's going to be too confusing to draw anything from, and frankly I don't want to miss what your point is.
 
When I was trying to figure out exactly what your comments meant, I was brainstorming on some angles I'd not seriously considered before. At one point I shifted my hypothetical perspective to three new fixed points:

(a) The Sunday screening was already anticipated, if not already planned, by Friday;
(b) The film shown on Sunday hadn't been shot on Friday the 20th, and was already in DeAtley's possession; hence ...
(c) The key explanation became why the October expedition was undertaken at all.

This led to a focus on why it was important to impress a number of folks in California in all the running around Friday afternoon / evening.

A new speculative take on the narrative (affording multiple nuanced variations on the details ... ) occurred to me. Its most basic outline goes something like this ...

- Patterson had previously (by May 1967) obtained funding and rented a movie camera to make a Bigfoot documentary.

- The documentary production had stalled after shooting some footage during the summer(?).

- By the end of summer Patterson had blown all his funding, in large part on staging and filming a surprisingly convincing 're-enactment' scene originally intended to serve as the dramatic centerpiece of the originally-envisioned documentary about Bigfoot (as opposed to being a purported sighting of Bigfoot).

- Patterson owed folks (most especially DeAtley) money, and he was already overdue in returning the camera he'd rented (for which he'd eventually face legal action).

- DeAtley and Patterson were facing a dilemma about pulling the plug on the project or finding some way to make the results to date generate a return on the investment. It was 'put up or shut up' time on the project.

- In late August tracks were found and publicized in the Humboldt County (California) area which Patterson had visited and already knew.

- Someone, somehow, at some time came up with a new plan to leverage the already-processed documentary 'sighting' footage in a new way. Forget the documentary production - they could profit as much or more from simply marketing that one expensively-obtained scene.

- Given the August emergence of a new tracks story, they could piggyback on its publicity by arriving on the scene with a credible film. However, they still needed some tracks to support the film and to follow up on the August developments. The film already in hand, plus some tracks evidence, should do it ...

- Patterson recruited Gimlin for the October expedition. (The possibilities diverge / multiply at this point, depending on whether Gimlin was in on the real plan or was being set up as a corroborating witness.)

- Whether or not a second 'sighting' was staged (for additional filming; for a naive Gimlin's benefit), the tracks were generated and casts made on Friday.

- All the frenzied running around late on Friday was an act intended to generate corroboration for the notion the film had been shot that day (and, by extension, represented an authentic sighting).

- Having accomplished the stagecraft to support this interpretation of events, they returned to Washington and the debut DeAtley had arranged - the viewing of the already-processed film by other Bigfoot aficionados.

I repeat - this is all brainstormed speculation toward explaining the Friday frenzies and ambiguities from a different angle.

The only agenda items that were potentially jeopardized by Murphy's Law were the grooming of corroborating contactees and the presentation of track casts on Sunday, because these were the actual objectives of the October expedition.

If the heavy rains had hit one day earlier (Friday) the whole thing would have fallen apart.

If the PGF was simply an outake from an unfinished docu-drama about bigfoot, why was it shot without sound, and in an almost unwatchable, hurky jerky, style? If RP spent the money (he did not have) that would have been needed to fabricate a beyond state of the art at the time bigfoot suit, doncha think he might want to show it off a bit? Give us a half way decent closeup of it? Otherwise a cheap, Lost In Space suit would have sufficed for the way it was filmed...
 
This is the premise upon which this whole line of speculation depends. I believe it's a reasonable premise, given that no one has yet been able to piece together a credible timeline and chain of custody that could explain Kodachrome film shipped from Arcata / Eureka late on Friday being available for viewing in Yakima on Sunday.

This is the topical area where (IMHO) any shenanigans planner screwed up. Patterson's use of Kodachrome meant the film would have to end up being processed by Kodak in Palo Alto, and Kodak Palo Alto absolutely did not operate over weekends. If it had been Ektachrome, there would have been a possibility of getting the film processed more locally with some arm-twisting or begging about a Saturday rush order.

You'll also note that running into this pesky issue afterward would explain why DeAtley was so famously evasive, cranky, and ultimately amnesiac whenever questions were raised about the film's processing.

This information about Kodachrome is very misleading. Independent labs were processing Kodachrome since 1954 as a result of United States v Eastman Kodak Co, which allowed independent labs access to the chemicals needed to process Kodachrome film. Any lab or serious amatuer could have processed this film in 1967...
 
This information about Kodachrome is very misleading. Independent labs were processing Kodachrome since 1954 as a result of United States v Eastman Kodak Co, which allowed independent labs access to the chemicals needed to process Kodachrome film. Any lab or serious amatuer could have processed this film in 1967...

Kodachrome still photos - yes. Kodachrome movie footage - no.

There was one non-Kodak shop on the west coast that offered Kodachrome movie film processing, using a proprietary process developed by a couple of ex-Kodak employees. They were operating in Palo Alto CA (site of the sole Kodak processing facility in the region) as of 1967, but went out of business in or by the early 1970's.

The existence of this second processing possibility does nothing to resolve the problem of how film exposed on a Friday afternoon and not shipped away until after hours Friday night could have made it to Palo Alto, been developed (a multi-hours long process), and delivered to DeAtley's home by early Sunday afternoon.
 
If the PGF was simply an outake from an unfinished docu-drama about bigfoot, why was it shot without sound, and in an almost unwatchable, hurky jerky, style? ...

There's no need to shoot footage for a documentary with sound, because any narration or other soundtrack would be added in post-production and final editing.

In any case, filming with sound entails more elaborate and expensive equipment (i.e., more money) and a lot more risks and hassles when done in the field.
 
Surely this kills it then, I hadn't realised it was as clear as this.
It is not clear at all though.
Surely this kills it then, I hadn't realised it was as clear as this.
I don't recall which interview(s) or with whom, but more than once Gimlin's phrased things so as to suggest they'd been there a lot longer than the standard account (or at least the newspaper article) claimed.

Not sure on the source, but I recall one interview in which Gimlin emphasized the trip as being a response to the most recent discovery of tracks in the area - circa August 28(?), and his description of the push to make the trip didn't make much sense unless he was talking about a delay of 1 - 3 weeks rather than something more like 7 weeks.

There are two versions of the speculation to explain these occasional anomalies ... One has it that there was a single trip lasting much longer than a single week (Oct. 14 - 21), quite possible spanning late September through the admitted timeframe. The other postulates there were 2 trips - one more or less in September, and the second spanning the traditional account's timeframe.
There is a video post earlier in this discussion of Gimlin giving a talk before a group of people. In that he say RP wanted to go investigate the recent footprints with Gimlin, but he (Gimlin) was working a seasonal job (roofing?) and that he couldn't just take off. But then it got to be the end of the season for the work G was doing, so he got hold of RP and said OK let's go...
 
Some sources explain the initial 70-some feet of footage on reel 1 by saying Patterson was collecting background or scene-setting footage intended to be used for either his already-in-progress (?) documentary project or perhaps a separate film focused on the recent (August) tracks find.

To the extent I've seen images from this earliest portion of reel 1, the foliage status (e.g., summer-ish versus autumn-ish) seems consistent with the sighting footage. My point is that if reel 1 was already in the camera, left over from some earlier filming, it's not obviously from back when summer was in effect.

There are two arguably minor items that bug me about Patterson shooting the environmental footage on Friday.

The first is wondering why Patterson waited 6 days (per the standard account) to get any such background footage. He could have been gathering it (and getting re-familiarized with working the camera) prior to the Friday sortie. The Friday sortie wasn't their first outing. I mention this because of the second bug-me issue ...

It was risky (or at least not especially bright ... ) for Patterson to head out on Friday carrying a loaded camera in case he encountered something significant, only to essentially squander 70% of the potentially critical film stock illustrating the woods.

On the other hand ... Nonchalantly shooting some background footage would have contributed to making the eventual reel 1 contents seem like a chance encounter - perhaps for the benefit of a Gimlin being groomed as a naive corroborating witness.

Another speculative angle would be that gathering the environmental footage was a goal - adding more of a realistic wrapper around an already-filmed encounter. A variant on this theme would be that new background footage was needed because extant footage obviously indicated a different locale or different time of year.

I would also point out that leaving only about a minute's worth of film afforded Patterson a ready excuse for breaking off an encounter that wasn't going as expected / desired.
I just did a quick search and could not find it, but I have seen on the youtubes a version of the "complete" PGF that differs in 2 ways from the usual one that is up - there is a little rise that both RP and BG ride their horse over in quick (edited) succession, and there is some leader between the "location" footage and Patty's appearance. That always bothered me; why would there be leader in the middle of a complete reel. I saw it several times, so I know it is out there...
 
Patterson had undertaken a documentary project to follow up on his book. There's no question about this, and he had solicited financial support for this very purpose.

Patterson was using a 'professional movie camera'.

The 16mm format was the standard professional field filming format at the time for journalists, specialty / educational films, and student / art films. This was the pro format for films anyone intended to lease out or offer for showings in venues other than movie theaters.

The home movie format was 8mm.
I have been reading about the PGF for decades; I agree that RP was making a documentary. I disagree with those who say it was a "dramatic documentary".
 
Patterson had undertaken a documentary project to follow up on his book. There's no question about this, and he had solicited financial support for this very purpose.

Patterson was using a 'professional movie camera'.

The 16mm format was the standard professional field filming format at the time for journalists, specialty / educational films, and student / art films. This was the pro format for films anyone intended to lease out or offer for showings in venues other than movie theaters.

The home movie format was 8mm.
In 1967 a 16mm sound camera would have been just as easy to rent as one without sound; since RP wasn't going to pay for it anyway the difference in rental would not matter. However, having to take that silent film to a studio to overdub narration, dialogue, natural sound etc (this is a "dramatic" doc, right? Gotta recreate the scene, from RP and BG chatting on the trail, coming upon Patty, the horses reacting - this is a dramtic doc, right?) would be very costly indeed, and they would probably want the $$ up front, or at least at the end of the session. If the plan was to make a Hollywood worthy piece of footage they would not have taken this route...
 
If you want to quote and reply to a post, hit the 'Reply' link in its lower right. This will automatically embed the entire text of the post within QUOTE tags (within brackets).

If you wish to trim down the quoted text, just edit it - but don't remove the QUOTE tags at either end.

If you remove the leading or the closing QUOTE tag (which is what you're apparently doing ... ) the quoted text won't be separated from your own.
Thanks - I think I've got it now; plus I've almost caught up to the present in my reading here...
 
Documentaries are voiced over in post-production. There were such things as 16mm cameras with sound tracks (but not the specific model Patterson was using).

More generally ...

You seem to be wrapped around the mistaken impression that any commercial film of that era had to be a big-budget Hollywood production intended for movie houses and therefore limited to 35mm filming.
So what market was this for in 1967? Art house? Hardly. There was almost no independent film scene at the time. The PGF need not be big budget, but if it was to be a theatrical release at that time certain standards of professionalism were necessary to get your film even noticed. Y'all pushing this drama doc thing are basically saying RP invented the Blair Witch technique; the PGF does not represent what either RP or BG actually saw, but what the camera saw. No one in 1967 would have thought this is how to represent a Bigfoot sighting for a movie audience...
 
Oldrover,
Thanks for the reply.....
This was in 1968 right...?
I was not aware there was much interest in Bigfoot that early in time.
It seems like a huge stroke of luck that Bigfoot actually walked by. :thought:
Bigfoot/Sasquatch has been reported/written about going back to the 1800's, though the name came later. Roger Patterson became interested because of articles which he had read; he then wrote a book which was published in 1966. His next step was to make a documentary film about Bigfoot; while out scouting locations based on recently reported Bigfoot tracks he claims he filmed one...
 
I just did a quick search and could not find it, but I have seen on the youtubes a version of the "complete" PGF that differs in 2 ways from the usual one that is up - there is a little rise that both RP and BG ride their horse over in quick (edited) succession, and there is some leader between the "location" footage and Patty's appearance. That always bothered me; why would there be leader in the middle of a complete reel. I saw it several times, so I know it is out there...

The inserted leader most probably reflected the history of the physical film (re-?)assembled into the 'complete' film presentation you recall.

There have always been pesky ambiguities about:

- how many 1st-generation prints were ever made from the original film;
- how many nth-generation prints were ever made;
- whether any particular such subsequent prints were made from the entire PGF original footage (versus selected portions of the original);
- whether the original film reels remained intact (all in one piece, as originally filmed); and
- whether, and to what extent, subsequently presented or copied prints were assembled or re-assembled from multiple physical films (e.g., combining sections from different prints).

The 'location' and Patty sighting sections of the original film weren't originally presented as a continuous whole. Attention was focused on the sighting footage. My point is that the presence of a head (front end) leader preceding the sighting footage might simply represent the place at which a separate (free-standing; with leader) print of the sighting alone was spliced onto or edited into another print of the 'location' footage.

Another plausible explanation relates to configuring the film for the expected presentation. If a film were to be presented in sections and paused (e.g., to allow a live speaker to talk before continuing the film) it was common practice to insert blank or leader bits to mark the gaps between presentation sections. This gave a visual cue that it was time to pause. It was necessary to have some dead footage because film projectors don't start / stop / pause instantaneously, and there was no means for indexing directly to a given frame like we can do with (e.g.) digital recordings.
 
The Velvet Illusions - another example of Bigfoot as a popular phenomenon before the PGF...
If the Velvet Illusions story is true then it's likely the whole thing was indeed a hoax.
 
I covered most of this in detail in the "Patty at 50" article. I'll repeat the salient bits here.

Regarding the height, and the footprints: here I cite Dr Don Grieve, Reader in Biomechanics at London Free Hospital who analysed the film in the early 70s, and Dr John Napier.


As for whether there was a third party in on it, etc, and as is discussed at length earlier in this thread, this is the distillation of the possibilities:



Yeah, regarding the suit..

Likewise, Napier stated he couldn't "find the zipper", which is the first time the phrase was used, incidentally.
Yes - not one attempt has produced a suit that looks like the RP "suit", or is as convincingly without the zipper. RP had no money to throw around. How did he get a beyond state of the art, custom fitted, seamless, Bigfoot suit made without at least a big downpayment? Considering the decision to go with "Blair Witch" footage, there would not even have been need for such an expense; a Lost In Space suit or three would have done just fine, right? RP had no idea digital technology would allow for stabilizing his footage decades in the future; this advance has allowed not flaws but (some say) muscle movement to become visible...
 
... this advance has allowed not flaws but (some say) muscle movement to become visible...

.. or bags of marbles sewn/glued inside the suit in the areas where natural muscles would be to realistically simulate that kind of rolling movement .. not my wild theory but a recognised F/X artist technique perhaps best illustrated watching the movement of artist Marc Shostrum's natural movement illusion 'Henrietta's' breasts in Evil Dead 2 ..

Shostrum's foam latex suit had no body hair (apart from punched in hair on the head appliance), the body suit was worn by a very thin Ted Raimi, director Sam Raimi's brother.

Ted had infamous extreme physical difficulties performing in that suit because he was wearing it during a heatwave ..

(80's U.S. 'Gorezone' magazine went into small details about the marbles in a bag to simulate muscle mass movement technique, I've just tried to re find that reproduced article online but haven't had any luck yet) .. here's a pic from it:

Ted'stitsED2.jpg


... and just for fun and because I enjoyed making up one of my mates for Cromer carnival as a zombie one year and was pleased at how it turned out :

Sy outside Morrisons in Cromer

Sy mini zombie.jpg


more Sy under different too bright lighting .. I managed to make a little kid cry when he saw Sy (his left cheek is 'bitten out' but you can't see that in this pic) .. my flatmate helped me glue an air bladder under that area so Sy could pump it up and down with tube hidden down his sleeve glued to a turkey baster type pump bulb:

Syzombie3 (1).jpg


.. an even less impressively lit Sy with my my old flat mate in shot ..

Syzombie2.jpg


.. apart from me showing off, the point is that 'static' make ups and especially full body suits can be animated using a number of different techniques depending on a number of factors: the angle they're to be seen from, how they're lit, how they're perceived to be moving, how long they're required to be seen and often more effectively, how short an amount of time they're planned to be seen ..

Sy chatting up Spiderman ..

SyspiderSy.jpg
 
Last edited:
.. or bags of marbles sewn/glued inside the suit in the areas where natural muscles would be to realistically simulate that kind of rolling movement .. not my wild theory but a recognised F/X artist technique perhaps best illustrated watching the movement of artist Marc Shostrum's natural movement illusion 'Henrietta's' breasts in Evil Dead 2 ..
the point is that 'static' make ups and especially full body suits can be animated using a number of different techniques depending on a number of factors: the angle they're to be seen from, how they're lit, how they're perceived to be moving, how long they're required to be seen and often more effectively, how short an amount of time they're planned to be seen ..

Sy chatting up Spiderman ..

View attachment 8757
Yes, I have read the bag of marbles idea before; this crap costume keeps getting more and more elaborate, don't it? They were not on a soundstage with a makeup and costume crew; it was just two guys out in the forest for a week(s?). There was no choice in lighting, and it's not like a crane shot was an option. Also consider that these fine muscle details are things that RP was not planning on letting the viewer see (if RP were faking this) anyway; therefore the Blair Witch style cinematography. He could not have forseen how digital technology has enabled this film to be made imminently more watchable/examinable, and he would have seen no reason to spend more than he had to since he was never intending to give the viewer a good, long, look...
 
The suit doesn't look elaborate, just your average George Barrows-style gorilla outfit. No need for marbles or muscle tone, if anything it looks baggy. Pretty easy to go on an excursion, get a mate to put it on, roll the camera for a minute et voila, one instant talking point.
 
Back
Top