Thoughts about Munns' Book When Roger Met Patty

Yes, my frame is from the LMS DVD..

The balls show up somewhat in your 2nd frame from the top..

The top frame & particularly the bottom frame provide no detail of the left leg at all..

I don't believe there is a clear shot of the back of the left leg in the rest of the film.

Do you believe those balls can be excused as the shape of natural muscles, or film anomaly?


If you are going to attribute the leg balls to production, then the rest of the so called back & shoulder musculature would have to be attributed to the same thing, since the texture is consistent..
 
How can Paddy have both boobs and balls?

Btw I found my copy of WRMP and I will continue to analize and comment on it.

It's much more fun to talk about this stuff with skeptical fanatics. Tried to upload the gif but hit with a max/ or something. Will find a way around that.

Until then, guy in a suit 1

Munns spaghetti
 
3
 
Weird, it shows for me. Maybe I have access to it that is not public...

I'll try something else.
 
Tontar said:
[qimg]http://bigfoot.boards.net/attachment/download/136[/qimg]
Click to expand...
It looks like you are trying to link or show an attachment at BFF. I pasted the address into my browser and arrived at a notice saying I had to be a member or logged in or something like that.

If it's a picture, you can download it there and then put it here as an attachment, I think.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Yes, my frame is from the LMS DVD..

The balls show up somewhat in your 2nd frame from the top..

The top frame & particularly the bottom frame provide no detail of the left leg at all..
Click to expand...
Right, I included those so that nobody would wonder what the frames looked like that are before and after the ones that I posted. Only 5 of my 7 frames are meaningful.

I don't believe there is a clear shot of the back of the left leg in the rest of the film.
Click to expand...
I'll see if I can find anything.

Do you believe those balls can be excused as the shape of natural muscles, or film anomaly?
Click to expand...
The "leg balls" are an optical illusion created by a blurry production/transfer to digital, combined with the lighting at the scene, overexposure (the tree and ground are snow white), and the surface features of the costume (mainly the hair covering).

If you are going to attribute the leg balls to production, then the rest of the so called back & shoulder musculature would have to be attributed to the same thing, since the texture is consistent..
Click to expand...
Correct, and there is another obvious optical illusion there too. Look at the back of Patty's neck. See that big dark teardrop shape sitting there? What is that? Well, it's a huge shadow indicating a prominent concavity which must be quite deep.

Uh no, it isn't that at all. That black teardrop shape isn't a shadow cast into a "back canyon". It's just Patty's back. It's an optical illusion caused by the exposure and other things.

Now look down at the leg balls again. Notice how the shadows to the right of the white balls give the impression that the balls are raised well above the surface of the calf. Uh no, those aren't raised balls because those aren't shadows. It's an optical illusion that occurs, and it can be blamed on looking at something that really isn't much like what is on the film, or on a very good copy I should say.

IMO.
 
Last edited:
This is Frame 307 from the Cibachrome print. The left leg is there. There probably is some kind of padding or something to give bulk to the calf. But you mainly see fur and how it looks with the natural lighting and exposure. I don't see a costume problem going on there.


Changing the subject. Look at the right foot. You see what the Patty proponents are saying is the toes flexing upwards. But the whole foot is already planted at that moment and is behind a sand/debris pile. The foot itself is essentially out of sight at that moment. Besides that, the shape and length is all wrong for that to be the toes pointing up. It's just another optical illusion.



kF6g_zpsbfc6880a.jpg
 
Squatchy McSquatch said:
River if you're talking about the heel flap I made a gif of it on another forum and will post it when I meet the required post count.

Until then I can send you a link via pm if you like.

(edit) nevermind it's in a members only part of that particular forum. Ill get back to you.
Click to expand...
This is for River and Ghetto Sven with love from William Parcher. I'm still going to need arrows and circles to see your costume heel flap flippity flop.


5772a_zpsrsmhkrmx.gif
 
William Parcher said:
This is for River and Ghetto Sven with love from William Parcher. I'm still going to need arrows and circles to see your costume heel flap flippity flop.


[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/5772a_zpsrsmhkrmx.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Ask and you shall receive.

yU0md4l.jpg
 
William Parcher said:
It looks like you are trying to link or show an attachment at BFF. I pasted the address into my browser and arrived at a notice saying I had to be a member or logged in or something like that.

If it's a picture, you can download it there and then put it here as an attachment, I think.
Click to expand...

It's not BFF its a differenet kinda forum. Gotsta be registered to view the link. I apologize I asked Tontar to post a link for me and he hit the same wall. I'll start a photobucket and link it from there.

Cheers all...
 
Oh, that's ground debris in front of the foot causing an optical illusion of a flap hanging off the back of the heel.

ETA: That isn't a film flaw per se. It's mainly a consequence of the ground and debris being overexposed making it difficult to see with detail. It's best viewed as the dark lower leg and foot passes behind it. Watch my gif again and don't focus on the foot and instead look at the ground beside it as it passes by. There's all kinds of mounds, sticks, chunks and whatnot there.

A similar optical illusion snagged SweatyYeti and Gigantofootecus (Odinn) into thinking they were seeing a mid-tarsal break on the bottom of the foot in a different part of the PGF. It actually was an overexposed stick in between the camera and the foot. I debunked idea that here a few years ago.
 
Last edited:
Show your cards WP. I'm sitting here looking at copy8 and John Greens copy of the walk sequence. It's not brush or debris.
 
I Agree with Parcher.

There is a rock or something that divides the foot, and the dark color stays in the film for an extra frame or two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom