Patterson film: Credit where credit is due

[briandunning]

I hear a lot people say that "it's the worst fake they've ever seen" and "you can easily see the seams in the suit". I've gone through it frame by frame and concluded the opposite: that if it's a fake, and let's assume it is, it's brilliant, and decades ahead of Hollywood. I'm amazed at the realism, close up, frame by frame, everything from the moving leg muscles to the silverback fur coloration.

Keep in mind that Hollywood's state of the art, at the time, was Planet of the Apes and the Galileo Seven episode of Star Trek.

Do you guys REALLY believe that it's badly done?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You have got to be kidding !

A clear case of the ' Emperor's New Clothes ' ...

It looks like it is about to fall apart..

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif


Monkey suits in movies ( pre computer ) were not made with
convincing the audience they were real . They were place holders
in the script, not an attempt to fool the audience.. Why waste
time and money to that end ?

I have allowed many times in my discussions at BFF, that a real
Bigfoot may very well look like a crappy costume .. I have seen
other animals that look like bad suits to me...

This suit's butt, while very similar, looks better made to me..

 

[Huntster]

I hear a lot people say that "it's the worst fake they've ever seen" and "you can easily see the seams in the suit". I've gone through it frame by frame and concluded the opposite: that if it's a fake, and let's assume it is, it's brilliant, and decades ahead of Hollywood. I'm amazed at the realism, close up, frame by frame, everything from the moving leg muscles to the silverback fur coloration.......

Do you guys REALLY believe that it's badly done?

I'm in complete agreement with you.

 

[Mad Hom]

I'm in complete agreement with you.

Of course you are Fudd.......and what of EVERY single suit...errr......Bigfeetsus filmed since........do they also look as real? Why hasn't one that looked as real (allegedly) been filmed since? Hmmm? I mean it's been 40 years or so.

It's funny....Bigfeet Fan has decided that the PGF is the gold standard...which has locked them into a descriptive corner. Every Hair Biped filmed since hasn't looked a thing like the PGF so they have been dubbed....not as good.

My opinion.....If you work hard enough to convince yourself that something is real....you come to believe it...even in the face of common sense.

 

[LTC8K6]

Close up?

Where?

There are no close up shots in the PGF, just wildly blown up and enhanced stills.

The PGF you have seen is almost certainly not the original, but the enlarged copy.

Few people have ever seen the original PGF.

No one has apparently seen the original uncut roll of film in it's entirety.

It was edited before it was ever shown.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm in complete agreement with you.

Of course you are Fudd.......and what of EVERY single suit...errr......Bigfeetsus filmed since........do they also look as real?

Nope. Not even close.

Why hasn't one that looked as real (allegedly) been filmed since? Hmmm? I mean it's been 40 years or so.

That's a good question, and one I've asked skeptics many times.

I suspect it's because it's the only authentic moving picture of a real, live sasquatch that I've seen, but of course, that answer isn't accepted by folks like yourself.

As far as why there aren't more authentic films? I've opined more times than I can possibly remember that it may be because these creatures are exceedingly rare, but again, skeptics don't like that answer, either.

In fact, they don't like any possible answers I offer.

My opinion.....If you work hard enough to convince yourself that something is real....you come to believe it...even in the face of common sense.

If that opinion is accurate, it's converse will also be true.

 

[bjb]

Close up?

Where?

There are no close up shots in the PGF, just wildly blown up and enhanced stills.

The PGF you have seen is almost certainly not the original, but the enlarged copy.

Few people have ever seen the original PGF.

No one has apparently seen the original uncut roll of film in it's entirety.

It was edited before it was ever shown.

Maybe the original film wasn't blurry enough? Maybe it shows the creature a little too clearly? Without a thorough examination of the original film, it is not a good idea to put too much faith it it. After all, the film does exist and such an examination is possible. What are the film's owners afraid of?

 

[Gravy]

Brilliant?
Decades ahead of Hollywood?
Are you basing your opinion on the same blurry, grainy copies of film that we've all seen? If so, can you describe specifically what about the suit is brilliant and why you don't think Hollywood costume designers and SFX people could have made something as good in a few days?

 

[Huntster]

...can you describe specifically what about the suit is brilliant and why you don't think Hollywood costume designers and SFX people could have made something as good in a few days?

Because they didn't?

This was, timewise, simultaneous to the original "Planet of the Apes" movie. In terms of muscular definition, and movement there really isn't any comparison.

And Patterson/Gimlin weren't Hollywood costume designers or SFX personnel.

 

[case sensitive]

"The planet of the apes" wasn't shot by a really bad camera from a long distance. The apes wore clothes. If P/G Bigfoot was starring in the movie it would look horrible by comparison.

 

[Yeah_Right]

Just my opinion, but the PG film looks faker each time I see it. I really cannot believe anyone would take it seriously.

 

[Brainache]

Why doesn't anyone ever mention the ape suits in 2001? You know the Kubrick movie that was shot in 1968?

The ape costumes at the start of that film didn't win the oscar for make-up because most people thought they were real apes.

They certainly looked a lot more real than Pattie.

 

[Correa Neto]

Some comments, made before by other posters but worthy of being repeated:

The comparsion between "Planet of the Apes" and PGF, so commonly made by footers is flawed because:

1. PoA "apes" were not intended to represent "real" apes. PoA apes were a metaphor, "humanized" apes, with human bodies. Other than making the actors walk a bit curved, there was no effort to recreate an "ape body". They used clothes!!!! Is Patty wearing any clothes? PoA focused on facial prosthetics that allowed the actors to express emotions. Pretty common issue nowdays, but a major breakthrough by then. So, let's repeat one more time to keep it clear for some- PoA "apes" were Hollywood state-of-the-art only when it comes to facial prosthetics.

2. Want to make a comparsion between Hollywood apes and Patty, check the "Africa Screams" gorilla (very similar to Patty and its from the 40s!), the 2001 hominids (despite the shaggy hair), and Star Trek's Mugato (yes, Star Trek the original series was a low-budget TV show, despite what some footers claim). Wanna see "compiant gaits" and some Patty-like footage? Check those films, and check also the "classic" Japanese B-movies (Kaiju movies, if you preffer) "Godzilla X King Kong" and "King King Escapes". Plenty of Patties there, specially when the camera is slightly out-of focus.

3. At last but not least, PoA and "Africa Screams", as well the other movies had long sequences with steady camera movments, razor sharp focus and close-ups. All of these allow the viewers to nitpick flaws in the costumes. And PGF... How long it is? The camera is steady? The focus is perfect? The subject was filmed from up close?

Sorry, but if you want to present evidence for bigfoot, you'll have to do better than this.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Why doesn't anyone ever mention the ape suits in 2001? You know the Kubrick movie that was shot in 1968?

The ape costumes at the start of that film didn't win the oscar for make-up because most people thought they were real apes.

They certainly looked a lot more real than Pattie.

Yeah, but the babies sure looked fake ..

 

[Tricky]

Okay, I'll concede that it is better than The Blair Witch Project. Not better than Harry and the Hendersons though.

 

[Huntster]

Why doesn't anyone ever mention the ape suits in 2001? You know the Kubrick movie that was shot in 1968?

The ape costumes at the start of that film didn't win the oscar for make-up because most people thought they were real apes.

They certainly looked a lot more real than Pattie.

You've solved the controversy!

Kubrick built Patty!

 

[luchog]

You've solved the controversy!

Kubrick built Patty!

The consensus from those who actually work in the film industry doing those sorts of special effects is that it is definitely a hoax, and highly likely that Patterson bought or rented a second-hand suit from one of the pre-eminent "monster makeup" men, John Chambers. There's a strong indication that it was put together with bits from a lot of his previous work. If it was Chambers, it wouldn't be the first bigfoot hoax he was involved in. His involvement in one other is well documented, and there is a strong likelihood that he was also involved in a third, the "Minnesota Iceman".

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

It's pretty clear from even the crappy out-of-focus grainy clip that it's a suit. It simply doesn't move like any animal or hominid, half the musculature, in particular the gluteals, does not move at all. Watch a bunch of large humans walk around, then go to the zoo and watch a bunch of apes walk around. It's clear that this cannot possibly be anything but a fake, and not even a good one at that.

Edited to add:
According to director John Landis and Chambers biographer Scott Essman, Chambers did definitely create the "Patty" suit.

http://www.strangemag.com/landischambers.html

 

[Huntster]

The consensus from those who actually work in the film industry doing those sorts of special effects is that it is definitely a hoax, and highly likely that Patterson bought or rented a second-hand suit from one of the pre-eminent "monster makeup" men, John Chambers.

Yeah, we got a very full portion of the "John Chambers" story from Dfoot over on BFF; to the tune of nearly 100 pages. It all amounted to Dfoot himself getting caught in an attempted hoax.

So, in effect, a collared liar attempted to get us to believe he knew Patterson was a liar.

We were all so impressed.....................

 

[Wowbagger]

The problem with examining the footage by individual frames, is that you miss out on all the fakery that can be detected in the movement.

A single frame of animation might looks quite nice, but if it was from a bad or lazy team of animators, the motion won't be very fluid, and you'll constantly know you are watching a cartoon.

I reiterate that you should watch the un-shaky version Diogenes provided the link for: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif
(Of course, even at the frame-by-frame the fakery can still be detected, somewhat, as Diogenes also pointed out.)

 

[Huntster]

The problem with examining the footage by individual frames, is that you miss out on all the fakery that can be detected in the movement....

And vice versa. Examining the footage in full movement shows muscle movement that a still photo can't detect, as well as showing features that no other bigfoot footage shows.