There is a very distinct detail, on the back of Patty's left leg, which doesn't seem like it could
co-exist on a suit-leg that also has "
material folds" on it, due to a
loosely fitting suit.
Check out the calf muscle area on Patty's left leg....and notice how, while the calf area bulges by a significant amount....there is an area directly to the right of the bulge which
doesn't move, or bulge, in the least...
I highlighted the area I'm talking about (that area that doesn't move) in yellow...
Here are just two frames of that gif, showing the degree to which the bulge changes...
The main point being, if the 'suit' is loose-fitting enough (at the leg) to have distinguishable folds in it, then how could that same general area of 'suit' also exhibit the ability to stay
tight against the back of the actor's leg?....especially as the 'suit' all around it is
bulging??
SweatyYeti, I'd like to say "thank you", without a trace of irony, for posting a reasonably intelligent, rational analysis of the images on the film, free from insult and derogation, and assembled in an easy-to-read format that lends itself to close scrutiny. If we can continue in this vein, and if you prove willing to address my forthcoming objections, I foresee a fruitful discussion emerging from this exchange.
Sweaty, the half-moon bulge you're noting in yellow does appear to be consistent with the lower semimembranosus muscle of the posterior leg in human beings. However, this verisimilitude ("real-seeming") does not mean it is an actual muscle comprised of real living tissue. The bulging and the change in shape from step to step can be accounted for by a number of possibilities, including:
- It is a man-made element of a latex/rubber muscle suit akin to the 1966 "Gorn" suit, which had realistic (but fake) muscles formed onto its legs.
- It is a material fold or "bag" that bulges with the dynamic action of the leg.
- It is the actor's own muscle, bulging beneath the fabric of the tight-fitting suit.
- It is a film artifact, a consequence of the extreme expansion of the figure to facilitate study.
- It is an effect of the optical illusion called apophenia.
Personally, I'm willing to discard #4 and #5 because, as you rightly note, the shape recurs over multiple frames (discounting the "film artifact" scenario) and is clearly visible as an actual, distinct unit of chiaroscuro rather than an illusion dreamed up by the viewer. However, #5 ("apophenia") is closely related to #2 ("material bag"), which cannot be discounted without some careful explanation as to why we should accept "real muscle" over "material bag". In my subjective opinion, though, we're looking at #1 ("muscle suit") as the most reasonable explanation, since the shape appears to occur in the precise location of the lower semimembranosus muscle, and has a lifelike semblance that would seem to challenge the accidental formation of a material bag.
As to #3 ("actor's muscle under tight suit"), and to your objection that "
if the 'suit' is loose-fitting enough... to have distinguishable folds in it, then how could that same general area of 'suit' also exhibit the ability to stay tight against the back of the actor's leg?", allow me to explain. Imagine if you will a spandex suit, akin to gymnastics or "superhero" tights. This material is made to cling tightly to the underlying form. However, even that skintight synthetic fabric
wrinkles at the joint where the form beneath it bends. I'm not suggesting that the PG suit
is spandex; I'm using that material as an extreme example. The Patty suit is considerably less skintight than spandex, given the material folds that I can plainly see in certain areas of the leg. Whatever fabric the probable Patty suit is comprised of, it's tight enough to conform to the underlying musculature or padding, but loose enough to allow wrinkles and folds. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Whatever the shape is, its change in shape from frame to frame can be accounted for by shifts in light and shadow that occur from one position to the next (IOW as the figure moves from left to right, while the light source remains stationary), and by the dynamic and flexible nature of any relatively soft, pliant material, of which suit fabric certainly would be composed.
SweatyYeti said:
Here's another un-suitlike thing, happening on Patty's right leg...
The 'pop-up bulge' appears as Patty's leg is in the air, and bending at the knee joint......
but, then....only a second or two later, as her foot hits the ground
hard, something ripples in the thigh area, in the very same area as the pop-up bulge.....yet there is
no sign of that bulge re-appearing.
This is...clearly, and unambiguously,
complex behavior of that small area on Patty's thigh.....and so, the question which needs to be addressed is.......which scenario
better explains such
complex behavior.....
simple padding inside of a pant-leg, or a
complex arrangement of muscle tissue and flesh??
My money is on the
complex flesh and muscle of a Sasquatch leg.
Sweaty, the rectus femoris muscle of the primate leg does not move in that way, no matter how "complex" the action appears to be on the PG film. As before, the bulging and the change in shape from step to step can be accounted for by a number of possibilities, including:
- It is a film artifact, a consequence of the extreme expansion of the figure to facilitate study.
- It is a patch of fur flipping up as the leg comes down, then smoothly re-joining the surrounding fur as the foot meets the ground.
My "money", as you put it, is on a combination of the two above scenarios. #1 is plausible in this instance because the extreme bulge or expansion of form is seen for only one or two frames. #2 is especially probable if one considers that this area of the upper thigh represents the point where the fur of the upper "torso" portion of the suit hangs over the lower "pants" portion of the suit.
Either way, and I want to stress this once more,
there is no way the action of a real rectus femoris muscle could account for the sudden vertical expansion of fur seen in the film. That muscle of the anterior thigh is long, extending from the iliac (pelvic) crest all the way down to the knee; it does not bulge suddenly and vertically at a focused area of the mid-thigh. This is not a natural or "complex" dynamic phenomenon of any known muscle group of any known animal species.
If Patty is a real non-human animal, she either has a bewilderingly unique muscular patch that expands upward for no apparent reason, or she has multiple hernias concentrated in an area of her upper thigh, which would logically undermine her efforts at locomotion, but which do not appear to hinder her in the film.
SweatyYeti said:
If anyone thinks that it is
most likely simple padding movement....I'd love to see that person attempt to re-create it.
It should be a
simple task.
Oh, lucky us....here comes Dfoot now, with his version of Patty....aptly named Stiffy...
One would be hard pressed to find
any ripples, pop-up bulges, or calf muscle bulges in that very fine piece of construction!
Dfoot's suit doesn't have fur that could fly up while the leg comes down, and there are no film artifacts attendant to his video which was shot in medium close-up.
