Sotto Voce
Posts: 756
Joined: 5/9/2009
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: great_badir quote:
ORIGINAL: Sotto Voce I saw an interesting doco about that famous footage of bigfoot taken in the 60's. They made a digital version of it and cleaned it up, and got some people to analyse it. Basically they concluded that it seemed unlikely to be a person in a costume because it shows muscle definition like nothing any ape suit has, and the proportions don't fit with that of a human. Not quite proof positive, but it made me think a bit where otherwise I would have assumed it was a man in a suit. Both Stan Winston and Rick Baker have said in the past that, even for then, it was an obvious and not very good suit (contrary to the scientists who claimed that man-made suits were not that good back then - who would you believe there?), plus another doc (I forget what it was called, but it was on the Discovery channel in the early 00s) proved that the "no human can walk like that" argument is complete bollocks, because a very big, tall man in a suit did just that when they tried to recreate the original film. I'm also pretty sure that there is evidence that one of the guys involved with the original film purchased several ape/gorilla costumes in the few years running up to the film being taken. I know that in itself proves nothing (especially as none of those purchased costumes, apparently, looked anything like what is seen in the film), but it still all seems too fishy. That's right, destroy my child-like sense of wonder. The guys that said it didn't look like a suit were effects people, and the show didn't claim that a person couldn't walk like that. It was something about the proportions of the legs. I think they worked out how tall the thing was, and it was very tall for a human. I wonder what the most convincing ape suit in a movie would have been at that time? Maybe there's a category for that in the Oscars.
_____________________________
All things digested have a similar hue.
|