• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Munns said:
Janos was first and formost an actor, a suit mime. He had a talent for building suits for himself and sometimes would hire out himself and his suit characters as a package.

He could also be simply hired as an actor (which tragically was his status on the Primal Man filming where he and the entire crew died in a plane crash flying home from location. I lost a good friend in that crash too, a makeup artist I'd worked with at Universal Studios).

But the POTA makeup crew was so desperate for help, they went outside the makeup union (how my two college friends got hired, even though they were non-union), and Janos sure had the skills to help the makeup crew, as Dfoot has illustrated so well. So I'd have expected John to involve him somehow.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you've misunderstood the "contract" part of my little query. If he'd already signed a contract to work for someone (like, say, Patterson), wouldn't he not be able to work for someone else unless the original party okay'd it? Wouldn't he run a risk of looking bad to others if he bailed out on a job he agreed to do in favor of another project?

Even if we take Patterson out of the equation, it doesn't seem that Mr. Prohaska was involved in the original "Planet of the Apes" anyway, so this is looking like a non-issue to me.

Then you need to consider, if Janos makes his own suits and wears them, why should he provide a suit for someone else, who may wear it and compete with him? His whole unique selling point was "I have the performing talent for suit work, and I have some great suits ready to film, saving you the cost of custom building one."
Click to expand...

A need (or desire) for quick cash would be a good incentive. I understand that John Rhys-Davies accepts roles in those awful made-for-TV movies that pop up on the Sci-Fi channel in order to help him maintain/add to his collection of vintage cars. I also know that's why George Barrows agreed to send his gorilla costume to England for the filming of KONGA (a decision he later regretted).

On the other hand, it's been noted that several Star Trek costumes and props were auctioned off to the public in 1966. It's entirely possible for someone to have bought the costume components Dfoot described from that auction and then used them to create the Patty costume. But the contradictions in Mr. Prohaska's statements still bug me...
 
WP:

"Did you Los Angeles guys think with your brains enough to check Rancho La Brea to see if they got any Bigfoot bones stuck in that tar?"

You might find "hominid" bones there. Urban legend when I was a teenager (the 60's) was that if you pissed off a local gang member, they'd jump you, tie you up and throw you into the Tar Pits, and of course your struggling to survive would insure you sunk and drown in the Pits.

Don't know if they actually found human remains there, but the Urban legend was alive and well then.

:)

Bill
 
AMM:

"If he'd already signed a contract to work for someone (like, say, Patterson), wouldn't he not be able to work for someone else unless the original party okay'd it? Wouldn't he run a risk of looking bad to others if he bailed out on a job he agreed to do in favor of another project?"

Generally, a contract to "make something" never has any exclusivity attached. Only a contract to perform sometimes ties up a person for a specified time, and he can't perform elsewhere during that contracted period.
So if you say Janos just made the suit (or parts of it), there's no exclusivity attached. Even Dino DeLaurentis tried to get Rick baker to sign an exclusivity contract after Kong saying Rick couldn't make or perform in other gorilla suits. Rick's reply was a "one finger salute". And he named his impotent gorilla in Kentucky Fried Movie "Dino" to reafirm his sentiments to Delaurentis for that outrageous demand.

So I wouldn't expect any contractual exclusivity to be a factor here.

"On the other hand, it's been noted that several Star Trek costumes and props were auctioned off to the public in 1966. "

You sure they were auctioning stuff in 1966?
"1.1 Star Trek: The Original Series (1966–1969)

The show was in its first season, so they'd want to keep costume/prop inventory to recycle for later shows. They usually auction stuff after a series closes.

But yes, if such an auction were held, it's the most likely way a non-Hollywood type could get a Hollywood costume, mask, etc.

Bill
 
Bill Munns said:
AMM:

"On the other hand, it's been noted that several Star Trek costumes and props were auctioned off to the public in 1966. "

You sure they were auctioning stuff in 1966?
"1.1 Star Trek: The Original Series (1966–1969)

The show was in its first season, so they'd want to keep costume/prop inventory to recycle for later shows. They usually auction stuff after a series closes.

But yes, if such an auction were held, it's the most likely way a non-Hollywood type could get a Hollywood costume, mask, etc.

Bill
Click to expand...

Robert Justman ("Inside Trek") wrote that ST was on rocky ground throughout all 3 seasons, with NBC considering cancellation with the 1st season. Ratings were that bad. There were phases even in the initial year when another season was not on the cards.
 
Last edited:
Captain koolaid:

"Robert Justman ("Inside Trek") wrote that ST was on rocky ground throughout all 3 seasons, with NBC considering cancellation with the 1st season. Ratings were that bad. There were phases even in the initial year when another season was not on the cards."

probably another reason to not sell costume/prop/FX assets the first year. The initial costs of making the stuff is high, and if the show is on shakey ground, the Network or Studio usually squeezes the show producer to "make it cheaper" if they want to keep going, so they need those costume/prop/set/FX assets reused to keep costs down (once made and paid for, no further cost, and no new costs making new stuff).

If you auction things, while a show is just starting to build popularity, you're not likely to get true original fabrication cost value, as you are once a show ends and nostalgia kicks in to motivate buyers and collectors. The nostalgia thing had not kicked in yet for Trek. So selling assent at below fabrication value and them risking the prospect of having to pay full price to fabricate replacements doesn't strike me as likely to have happened, but in Hollywood, anything's possible, I guess.

Not saying it couldn't happen, just that standard industry practice is to accumulate show assets so the shows get cheaper to produce as the series runs on (and to offset that the cast tends to get more expensive, renegotiating their salaries upward once their character is popular with the public, and they are harder to replace).

Bill
 
SweatyYeti said:
The big thing working against T-Rex is that nobody's been reportedly seeing them, for the last few million years or so. ;)
Click to expand...
Says you. From my earlier link - Kasai Rex:

The great Tyrannosaurus, the most feared member of the dinosaur kingdom . . . to think that this creature of such renown, such awe, and such sheer terror could possibly be still alive today simply baffles the human mind. Though seemingly ludicrous, could a living Tyrannosaurus, or quite possibly, a close relative of the Tyrannosaur, really be alive today? Is it scientifically possible?

In the heart of Africa, to the amazement of many, there have been sightings of Tyrannosaur-like creatures -- one, in particular, by a plantation owner, John Johnson, and his slave. As the report goes, Mr. Johnson and his African slave were traveling through a swampy marsh in the Kasai valley in 1932. Suddenly, they came across a rhinoceros, and were cautious in not disturbing it. Then, to their immediate horror, a large, 42 foot (13 meter) long meter) long "lizard" leaped out of the trees and attacked the rhino. As it began to feed, the African servant fled in panic while the Swede literally fainted, falling to the ground. When he awoke, he found the creature still feeding, and had the opportunity to carefully observe it:

"It was a large beast, at least 12-13 meters long. It was reddish in coloration, with brackish-colored stripes going down. The legs were thick; it reminded me of a lion, built for speed. It had a long snout and numerous teeth. It gorged itself on the rhinoceros, which twitched with life still in it. (Note: the rhino was probably dead, but the Swede probably didn't know about involuntary muscle spasms.) After the creature had eaten its fill, it returned to the jungle slowly, its belly full of flesh."
Click to expand...
Hey, check it out. They speak Sweaty:

The believability of the Kasai Rex is left for the reader to decide. Regions in central Africa, specifically the Likouala Swamp, a region which covers an area the size of Florida, still remains 80% unexplored. Reports of dinosaurs continue to pour out from these locations, and until we have adequately searched throughout this land of the unknown, this land located on the "Dark Continent," we may never know if the dinosaur world's most popular figure still walks the earth today.
Click to expand...
 
Bill-
The timeline seems to allow a couple of months after wrapping for some side work.
I'm not saying that Chambers built the suit, I'm just saying that the argument that shooting was dragging on his schedule is not valid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Apes_(1968_film)

Wiki said:
Shooting began on May 21, 1967, and ended on August 10, 1967. Most of the first scenes in the film were shot at Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Utah, as well as near Page, Arizona. The scenes of the crew paddling away from their crashed ship were shot on Lake Powell. The ape village was constructed and filmed on the Fox Ranch in Malibu Creek State Park, northwest of Los Angeles. The concluding beach scenes, including the remains of the Statue of Liberty, were shot near Point Dume, at the south end of Zuma Beach in Malibu.[5]
Click to expand...

Here is an example of Dynel in a wig, lovely color and sheen.

 
Last edited:
A need (or desire) for quick cash would be a good incentive. I understand that John Rhys-Davies accepts roles in those awful made-for-TV movies that pop up on the Sci-Fi channel in order to help him maintain/add to his collection of vintage cars. I also know that's why George Barrows agreed to send his gorilla costume to England for the filming of KONGA (a decision he later regretted).

Maybe you can search Chambers financial records from the time and see if he had any cash flow problems that might have prompted him to work for Roger "the kid" Patterson? Now when an actor/actress takes on a role in a production that's less than thier station they not only get paid but they get screen credit and it bulks up thier portfolio. Chambers and company would recieve credit/portfolio points with all of thier legitamately contracted work. One of the things that makes Hollywood work is the number of projects one has credit for. Show business is also a "show of business". If I was Chambers at the height of my powers during POTA and a guy like Patterson walked in I would have blown him off.
 
kitakaze said:
Dinosaur sightings:

http://www.newanimal.org/dinosaurs.htm
Click to expand...

Small T-rexes in Utah. So much for no sightings of T-Rex in recent history. It is even close to the northwest. Maybe they managed to make it across the state line into that vast wilderness of the NW where they can pal around with all the bigfeet running amok out there. I guess the fact there are sightings of these guys means it is now to be considered just as "plausible" as bigfoot. Right?
 
Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture!Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture!Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture!
 
Not all of Chambers's work was in film and television. He used to disguise professional gamblers so they could enter casinos in Vegas without being identified by security cameras.
Click to expand...

Pretty low level work out of Chamber's garage, I'd say. This work couldn't have cost that much, either.

Not that I think Chambers had anything to do with Patty, but I think it's pretty clear that Chambers could and would have done such work if asked.

It wouldn't necessarily cost as much as some think, either.

Chambers also created Leonard Nimoy's pointed ears for Star Trek, for which he charged just $25 a pair.
Click to expand...

http://theforbidden-zone.com/news/chambersnews.shtml
 
Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture!
Click to expand...

Who are you supposed to be mocking, Crow? The skeptics here certainly don't agree on that. If you aren't interested in the discussion, that's fine, but quit pretending that the skeptics here are in lockstep on the subject.

It only makes you look foolish since anyone can see from the threads that there is quite a bit of disagreement here.
 
Crowlogic said:
I didn't say I didn't like your opinions. I stated that opinions your's, mine, Gilligan, The Skipper, The Millionare & his Wife etc etc are nice to have but try buying some gas or let's say a new hot water heater with an opinion. If you know of anywhere where opinions can do any of that please inform us.
Click to expand...
Crow, do you realy think that an opinion (or a speculation) built over reliable evidence has the same value of one based in nothing?

I don't think so.

Crowlogic said:
Now about Sasquatach. There are post I've made elsewhere where I've stated my opinion (opps there's that word again) that the 12ft, 15ft, 9ft, and 8ft reports of these things are hard to swallow. So take H. Habilis, or H. Erectous and put him within eyeshot of the typical family campout and if they see him what do you suppose the description made by said family would use? I'd be hard pressed to say anything other than it walked upright like a man but was covered in hair and its face looked more like and ape's.
Click to expand...
A family campout, but when and where?
How reliable is their report?
 
Crowlogic said:
Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture!Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture!Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture! Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! No they're a church! No they're a subculture!
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, log, could you repeat that?

Anyway, hey, remember last year at the annual bigfoot skeptic O.S.P.R.E.Y. (Only Stupid People Really Emulate Yetis) rally campout? We were supposed to spend a couple hours taunting invisible bigfoots but after we had a few drinks tube confided that maybe there really was something to bigfoot after all. Yeah, Parcher and LTC wrestled him to the ground and then Diogenes led the intervention bringing him back to the dark side. Man, that was such a great time! Or at least it was until Correa had to creep it all out having loud sex in his tent and screaming obscenities in Portuguese. He was the only one in there, for Randi's sake! Well, I took back the Bob Heironimus drawing I gave him to let him know just what I thought about that.

Anyway, monkey hate 2008 and all that. See you guys at the B.L.A.G. (Bigfoot Lovers Are Gay) conference this summer. I heard Radford will be there. Kill the faith!

Based on True Stories.
 
Last edited:
Hey, Mr. Gorillacostumebuilder, here's 700 bucks for a bigfoot costume. As soon as I make a million bucks from my bigfoot movie, I'll pay you, say, 1000 more.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Who are you supposed to be mocking, Crow? The skeptics here certainly don't agree on that. If you aren't interested in the discussion, that's fine, but quit pretending that the skeptics here are in lockstep on the subject.

It only makes you look foolish since anyone can see from the threads that there is quite a bit of disagreement here.
Click to expand...

I'm mocking both. But where is the disagreement here within the overall position of the posters here? At the end of the day you're all towing the party line.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom