Book Description
During the crusades, Ethiopians, Jews, Muslims, and Mongols were branded enemies of the Christian majority. Illustrated with strikingly imaginative and still disturbing images, this book reveals the outrageously pejorative ways these rejected social groups were represented--often as monsters, demons, or freaks of nature. Such monstrous images of non-Christians were not rare displays but a routine aspect of medieval public and private life. These images, which reached a broad and socially varied audience across western Europe, appeared in virtually all artistic media, including illuminated manuscripts, stained glass, sculpture, metalwork, and tapestry.
Debra Higgs Strickland introduces and decodes images of the "monstrous races," from demonlike Jews and man-eating Tartars to Saracens with dog heads or animal bodies. Strickland traces the origins of the negative pictorial code used to portray monsters, demons, and non-Christian peoples to pseudoscientific theories of astrology, climate, and physiognomy, some dating back to classical times. She also considers the code in light of contemporary Christian eschatological beliefs and concepts of monstrosity and rejection.
This is the first study to situate representations of the enemies of medieval Christendom within the broader cultural context of literature, theology, and politics. It is also the first to explore the elements of that imagery as a code and to elucidate the artistic means by which boundaries were effectively blurred between imaginary monsters and rejected social groups.
Book Description
" The journalistic quest to identify the person who wore a 'Bigfoot Suit' in Roger Patterson's world-famous film has culminated in this highly informative and revealing investigation. Hopefully, now all the people who know the truth about Patterson's footage will come forward, and the scientific community will focus on other potential evidence when trying to determine whether the legendary creature is real or a popculture myth." -ROBERT C. KIVIAT (Network TV Executive Producer, WORLD'S GREATEST HOAXES: SECRETS FINALLY REVEALED and ALIEN AUTOPSY: FACT OR FICTION?)
"Greg Long's new book is long overdue in a time of outrageous urban legends. It is both refreshing and affirming to encounter a serious book that reveals an 'actual' conspiracy of deliberate lies. Furthermore, THE MAKING OF BIGFOOT is that rare combination of investigative journalism and storytelling; it is simply a very good read. I recommend it for its gripping internal narrative based mostly on the strange life of one man - yet it weighs in against the larger legends that still swirl around the mythic hairy giant who haunts the wilderness of our minds." - KENNETH C. WYLIE, Ph.D. (Author of BIGFOOT: A PERSONAL INQUIRY INTO A PHENOMENON)
"Greg Long has written a rare book: one that celebrates the true mysteries of our lives while remaining faithful to the importance of rigorous examination and critical thinking. Thos book is a must-read for those who seek to understand the anatomy of our burgeoning modern myths. It will stand as a cautionary tale for all of us. We are each responsible for the way our tales unfold. Like Roger Patterson and the film he created, we are joined at the chest to our stories. If one becomes corrupt, the other is sure to die also." -DAWN PRINCE-HUGHES, Ph.D. (Adjunct Professor of Anthropology, Western Washington University, Bellingham; Author of THE ARCHETYPE OF THE APE-MAN and GORILLAS AMONG US: A PRIMATE ETHNOGRAPHER'S BOOK OF DAYS)
"Regardless of your opinion about the subject of Bigfoot, this book cannot be ignored! This is a work that is truly universal and appeals automatically to everyone. This book is a real eye opener, and it is refreshing to see that the lost art of good old investigative journalism is finally back. This should set an example for courses on critical thinking and investigative journalism around the world. Long's persistence has paid off; the scientific community and the general public should be thankful, as well as the Bigfoot community." -MICHAELA KOCIS (Investigative Journalist, Broadcaster, ExpresRadio, Mlada Fronta DNES, Czech Republic)
Customer Reviews:
Ignore the Rantings of the "True Believers" Below!.......2006-07-14
The negative reviews of this book only demonstrate that P. T. Barnum underestimated the rate at which suckers are born.
There are a lot of things to quibble with in this book. Author Greg Long seems to confuse obsessive detail with thoroughness (I learned far, far more than I wanted to know about what Long was eating or drinking on a given day) and the book needed a cold-hearted editor to cut it down to size (it could've been 50% shorter without losing any "muscle"). And Kal Korff is his usual over-the-top, hyperbolic self in his egotistical, self-congratulatory preface, which can be summarized as "Roger Patterson fooled everybody but me, and maybe Greg Long! But we're bright lads!!'
But what Long does very well is take a chain saw to Patterson's hoax. Roger is exposed for what he always was----a liar, a cheat, and a con man. The frame-by-frame analysis of the Patterson film and its various inconsistencies is both on-target and brutal. Patterson's so-called "reliable witnesses," like the hapless Bob Gimlin, come across as greedy but not-too-astute rubes, which they probably are. And the so-called "Bigfoot experts," like Grover Krantz, are shown to be living proof that having a Ph.D. is no immunity against BSing yourself badly.
Of course, none of the impressive evidence assembled by Long will convince the slack-jawed legions who still think Patterson's film is authentic. Obvious questions----like why no one has ever found the body (or bones) of a Bigfoot, or why a better, more convincing Bigfoot film hasn't been captured by the millions of people now owning video cameras----will never occur to such simple folk. But, as Mark Twain once said, "Let us give thanks for the fools. For without them, the rest of us could not succeed."
Bigfoot "The Making of A Legend".......2006-07-01
Excellent investigative piece. Roger Patterson was a very questionable figure and Long exposes it. The entire hoax had been planned for years. In his case it's about the money. This book provides valuable insight into the mentality of the "Bigfoot" crowd. They are not interested in making thorough investigations, the lack of critical review of the film (must be matted hair instead of seeing the obvious seems in the suit), but are either self deluded or just making money. A special thanks to Bob Heironimus - "Thankyou for exposing your part in hoax"
Proves nothing.......2005-09-13
There is no proof in the pudding! After all the interviews, hypothesis, conjectures, name calling, accusations, character assasinations, the bottom line is: Two men (Hieronimous and Gimnlin) are telling two conflicting stories of one event. One of them is lying. I see nothing in this book that proves that Heironimous is telling the truth and Gimlin is lying. I see nothing in this book that makes me believe that Hieronimous is of better standing than Gimlin either.
Oh, wait a minute. Gimlin supposedly got arrested for stealing plywood and nails 40 years ago. What about Hieronimous? If he is telling the truth than he's been covering a lie for almost 40 years. Why is this guy more believable than Gimlin? Just because the author says so?
And as for the author judging Patterson as a criminal because he may have faked a film, I say 'so what even if he did.' PT. Barnum became a millionare by hoaxing the public his entire life. That's a lot more than Patterson ever got out of it. And if this is a hoax his hoax has withstood the test of time longer even than any of Barnum's hoaxes have. So if it is proven a hoax (and it hasn't been yet) Patterson should be considered a genius of a showman and illusionist, just as Barnum is. If it isn't a hoax, then he has captured what may be the most important scientific footage ever. Either way he deserves accolades.
And who did Patterson really hurt if he did fake this film? That's like saying Barnum hurt people by exhibiting the fiji mermaid as a real creature. Ridiculous. A lot of people seem to have been making money off of this film long after Patterson was dead (Including the author of this book). A shame Patterson isn't around to collect what's being spread around since he's the one who gave it to us... one way or the other.
Interesting.......2005-09-10
I found this a very interesting and informative glimpse into the events and people aurrounding the Patterson film. Well worth the read just for the interviews and varying personal insights into Patterson the man and the film footage.
That being said, I feel the author fell short of putting this controversy to rest. If anything he simply raised more questions with a lot of circumstantial evidence that is often contradicting. Most of those contradictions have been aptly covered in prior reviews here so no sense in rehashing them.
But one thing I found very irritating is the author's failure to press Bob H's statement to the effect "There may have been more than one suit." What did BH mean by that? How come the author didn't press him to clarify what he meant with that statement? Or did he press him but chose not to include BH's answer in the book because it would have weakened his case? That is just one of many things that raises more questions as opposed to answering them.
Personally, before I read this book, I was about 50/50 on the authenticity of the film. After reading it, I am still 50/50 on the authenticity. Not enough solid evidence to dismiss it as a hoax based on all this "he said, she said."
The last chapter on Phillip Morris, if anything, was strong cirumstantial evidence that the film may NOT have been a hoax. the suit Morris describes selling to Patterson is certainly not the suit that BH described wearing. I also found myself leaning toward feeling the film may indeed be genuine with Morris's opinion about a professional makeup man needing to be on site in order to glue the mask on to the man 'in the suit'. And Morris raised more questions with his puzzlement about the great detail in the face of the subject when Patterson wouldn't have known that it would someday be exposed to computer blowups and enhancement. This is a professional costume designer who was clearly very impressed by the detail in the face and at a loss, himself, as to how such detail was achieved.
Overall, I found much of the circumstantial evidence that pointed to a hoax to be equally off-set by circumstantial evidence that pointed to the authenticity of this film. An enjoyable and very interesting book but by no means the final word on this fascinating controversy.
A Tale of Two Suits: 26 Reasons Heironimus Wasn't "Queen Kong".......2005-06-20
Here is a list of the redeeming qualities of Long's book. It is Excellent in Parts:
There were non-controversial portions with new information on four topics:
* Patterson himself. (Chs. 5-8 & 12.)
* DeAtley. (Ch. 16.)
* Timeline of the film's development. (Ch. 17.)
* Ownership history of the film, and related legal hassles. (Ch. 19.)
I found from my interviews with some of the book's interviewees that Long's character sketches seemed accurate. The book, in its non-argumentative portions, was "a good read." (Though it would have benefited from a copy editor's attention in spots, especially the index.) Long's asides about the scenery and soft drinks are OK, according to the tenets of New Journalism. And his (implausible) theory that RP used Roe's sighting as a film-script at least demonstrated imagination.
Long also deserves some credit for non-sneakiness, such as his:
* Willingness to print much positive testimony on RP's character.
* Willingness to print Buffs' critiques of his attitudes, such as "Concentrate on the film!"
* Attempt to retrace and validate BH's route in CA. (Ch. 23.)
* Revelation of his snap judgments and bias - this subjectivity could be called laying his cards on the table
* Revelation (sometimes unconscious) of flaws in BH's case (e.g., about showing off a suit from his car trunk, etc.). Some authors would have hidden this.
* Being up-front about his acceptance of the Hansen & Wallace "confessions" (pp. 264 & 442), though that only brought criticism on his head.
There were four elements included I've always wished were generally employed:
* Chapter subheadings (used for Patterson's three brothers in Chapter 5), a technique I wish all authors would employ-and that style guides should encourage.
* A map of the Yakima area. (But there should also have been maps of the film site and of the towns in the vicinity of Willow Creek.)
* Photos of interviewees.
* Tape recording of interviews (well defended by Long on p. 56).
HOWEVER ....: Here are 26 Reasons Bob Heironimus (BH) Wasn't Queen Kong (the Bigfoot in the 1967 Patterson film).
A. BH's initial description of the suit that he wore, supposedly made by Patterson, is very different from the suit he later agreed that he wore, supposedly supplied by costume-maker Philip Morris. BH described the suit he thought Patterson had made as having a zipperless upper torso part that BH donned like putting on a T-shirt (pp. 344-45). At Bluff Creek he put on "the top" (BH's words, p. 349). Asked about the "bottom portion," he guessed it was cinched with a drawstring. Morris made a unibody-type union suit that zipped up the back and into which one stepped (p. 449). It had no torso part or top like Patterson's (supposed) top-and-trousers affair. This difference between them was one he couldn't possibly have mistaken or forgotten.
And there were other differences that would have been hard to miss, such as the pronounced difference in hand-feel between heavy, supple, rubbery horsehide and the light, mesh-fabric-backed Dynel in Morris's. There might be an innocent explanation for BH's changing his story to accommodate Long's Morris-Suit theory--but it's hard to think of one.
B. BH implied he possessed a suit for only two days before Patterson reclaimed it. BH let that implication stand when he reviewed the manuscript.
But there is testimony (e.g., pp. 47-48, 232, 331 & 397) that indicates that he showed off a suit (not described in detail) from his trunk several times over the years (no dates given). (Long avoided confronting what this implied, and instead--I think as a distraction--fretted over the minor issue of when BH confessed to his buddies to being in the suit (pp. 366, 370-71 & 412).)
In addition, I've located a witness, GR (seen in a photo on p. 409), to whom BH showed the suit in 1968, a date he is sure of because he was in the armed forces throughout 1967. He described the suit to me in detail, and its features match neither the Morris suit shown on p. 460, nor Queen Kong, namely: a top-and-trousers affair, lacking a zipper in the back (i.e., not Morris's back-zippered jump-suit); no rubber waders in the legs; no latex chest piece; no breasts; not made of leather; cotton-lined or -padded; lightweight (upper portion only two or three pounds); no shoulder pads; not oversized (no barrel chest or thunder thighs); hair four or five inches long (Morris suits' hair was 1-3 inches--p. 449); head not oversize; no helmet inside.
Further, BH indicated to others that he currently owned the suit used by Patterson at Bluff Creek. For instance, on p. 397, Bernard Hammermeister described being shown the suit in the trunk, and said that BH said to him that that's what he wore when he and P&G went down and did "our thing." No date was given (why didn't Long ask--or print the answer!?), but the familiar way he referred to the filming as "our thing" suggests that it had by then achieved enough fame to be referred to off-handedly like that. Certainly, if the suit had been displayed the Friday BH returned from Bluff Creek, his listeners wouldn't have known what he was referring to, since there had been no media coverage of the filming at that point. And BH stated in May 2005 on TV that "I didn't tell them what it was." when he displayed his suit on his return. I.e., he purposely did NOT indicate its role.
And on p. 398 there is another clue that the date was long after the filming. Hammermeister said that BH told him he did it, and he didn't want it spread around for awhile, although he had the suit and he showed him, because "there was still supposed to be payola" that he hadn't received. The word "still" pretty much rules out the possibility that he displayed the suit immediately after returning from Bluff Creek.
There might have been a way Long could have "explained" BH's possession of a second (yeah, right) suit. But BH's implicit attempt to conceal its existence from readers can't be explained away. It's very damaging to his credibility. The most likely explanation for such evasiveness is to conceal that he was a long-time car-trunk ape-suit show-off (i.e., he had perhaps been claiming to pals to have hoaxed pre-Patterson local-area Bigfoot sightings (p. 232)), and that his mom's car-trunk ape-suit sighting fell in that category.
C. BH's descriptions (pp. 366-67) of Bluff Creek's locale are incorrect, especially the distance he traveled up the last road, as J. Green noted. (BH said four or five miles (p. 348), the map says 20.)
D. BH plainly implied that Patterson didn't run forward with camera in hand at the start, and that he observed (or heard tell of) Patterson sitting on horseback and shaking it instead (p. 337; see also p. 349.) (The initial phase of the film is a jumble of images.) But analysis of the film (pp. 375-76) proves that Patterson did run forward, because the creature is larger (i.e., closer) in later frames.
E. BH stated in an interview, and indicated in the book (p. 349), that he walked across Bluff Creek, implying it was dry at the time. But John Green asked knowledgeable gov't. officials if Bluff Creek ever runs dry, and they said No. And even if it had, climbing its two-foot embankment would have been awkward in a suit. It wouldn't have been part of a hoax--especially if its filming was too jerky to make sense to viewers.
F. BH gave three details of Patterson's behavior during their Bluff Creek expedition that would have been reasonable if the shooting had occurred the day before the announcement of the filming to the press. These were (p. 350): lending BH the suit to take to Yakima, giving BH the film to mail to DeAtley, and saying he was going back to make tracks that night or the next day.
However, 23 & 70 pages later (on pp. 373-74 & 420-21), BH and Long claimed that the filming took place in September, perhaps in early Sept. But in September none of Patterson's three behaviors would make any sense. There would have been no need for concealment of the suit, nor for speedy delivery of the film, nor for premature track-creation (which could have degraded or been discovered in the interim), if no announcement to the press was imminent.
Despite his awareness of this fact, Long absurdly stated (p. 350) that they [P&G] didn't want to be caught with the costume, which is why they handed it over to BH for transport. He was apparently relying on readers not rereading the book and noticing the contradiction.
G. Another irrationality would have been for Patterson to remove the suit from its sack (p. 350) before giving it to BH to take back to Yakima. Why expose it to tumbling and dirtying, and possible visibility to bystanders when Patterson reclaimed it, or if BH's mom happened to open the trunk? (But BH needed this absurd detail, and one below (H), to enable "discovery" by his mom.)
H. Another irrationality is for Patterson to have told BH to leave the suit in his mom's car for him to retrieve when he returned BH's horse, for convenience's sake (p. 355). But it would have been more convenient and safer for Patterson not to have had to retrieve it at all, but for BH to have dropped it off at Gimlin's, whose house was right off the Interstate's exit (on Rudkin Rd.), which BH would have driven past on the way to his mom's and the Idle Hour bar. P&G had to stop there first anyway, to feed, water, and stable their horses.
Other possible drop-off locations were BH's own place then (on Hackett Rd., just a block off S. Wiley Rd. that led to the Idle Hour), or at Gimlin's parents' then (just a bit off Ahtanum Rd., on the way to and from the Idle Hour). Or in a storage locker at a bus or train terminal. If Patterson was so worried about some outsider seeing the suit that he let it out of his hands, surely he would have preferred such methods for their greater security.
Further, on p. 363, it was pointed out that one of BH's mom's routines was to place apple boxes in the trunk to hold the apples she frequently bought at a local fruit stand. (I suspect that she normally did this on a Saturday.) So how come BH, knowing that, failed to anticipate and protect against the possibility that she'd discover the suit, ruining everything? (I suspect he DID anticipate precisely that.)
I. It would have been irrational for Patterson to tell BH to mail the film, since BH was heading up to Yakima anyway and could drop it off at DeAtley's himself. That would have been cheaper, faster, and safer. (The only reason Patterson shipped the film to DeAtley was that he intended to remain in Bluff Creek hoping to catch another sight of the creature-a plan that was abandoned after heavy rains forced him to leave. That makes no sense in BH's scenario: since Patterson knew the creature was a phony, and since the filming was in Sept., he wouldn't have hung around longer than the day it took to make the tracks-certainly no one would credit him with sincerity for doing so. So there'd have been no reason for him to hand the film over to BH. BH apparently didn't think things through and realize this, and instead just figured that since Patterson shipped the film to Yakima, it would make sense for him to claim so too.)
J. What did BH do with the postal receipt? (Patterson would have required such a valuable package to be insured and shipped by registered mail.) A receipt would have included the date, the sending location, and the addressee-powerful stuff. He can't say he discarded it, since Patterson would have told him to keep it until he heard from Patterson the package had been received in good condition. And he wouldn't have discarded it after that point, since he now says he wanted evidence to back up his claim he was involved in the filming. According to his latest (May 17, 2005) story, he displayed the suit to acquaintances at a tavern upon his return for precisely this purpose. And he can't say he gave it to Patterson either, for one of three reasons:
* He implies he never encountered him again (p. 361). Or, if he actually did encounter Patterson:
* It would be implausible for him to have meekly coughed it up, since Patterson's request would have been the perfect opportunity to tell Patterson that he'd hand it over after he got paid. Or, if he lacked the nerve to say that (unlikely):
* He could easily claimed to have discarded it, or at least to have left it at home. (Whereupon he could have made a photo or photocopy before transferring it.)
K. P&G's making two trips to Bluff Creek is unlikely, since they lacked the time and money for such gallivanting. It's made unlikelier still by the bright-red foliage-colors in the PG film, which typically don't occur there until October in that intensity, and hence couldn't have been filmed in September, as Long claims (p. 421). Another objection to a September date, as pointed out by John Green, was BH's statement (p. 349), that it was October and they had hunters out there. Another objection is that Dahinden's analysis of the light and shadow patterns in the film indicated a late-October date.
L. BH never described writing or talking to Patterson requesting payment, as he surely would have done if he had had a valid claim. He had lost three days off from work, 20 hours on the road, travel expenses, a scratch on his mom's car, etc. And he'd been disrespected. So he wouldn't have taken non-payment lying down. And he wasn't a business entity like the phone company who would have turned the matter over to a collection agency. In a realistic scenario, BH (backed if necessary by his three brothers) would have become his own collection agency. BH said on p. 351 that he tried to run into Roger and Bob a couple of times. But a letter to Patterson putting him on notice that'd he'd go to the press would have done the trick.
And BH never appealed to one of Patterson's four siblings, or his spouse, for assistance in reaching Patterson or in making him see reason and avoid the embarrassment to his family that would ensue from a hoax-exposure. This was an obvious point of leverage-and a postcard would have worked. Their addresses were in the phone book, and BH was well acquainted with Patterson's wife, Patty, whom he'd been friendly with since childhood (p. 344).
M. BH failed to hire a lawyer to threaten to sue Patterson & DeAtley when they were raking in the dough and a threat of exposure would have had leverage to obtain far more than his $1000 debt. (As Igor Bourtsev has pointed out, it would have been absurd for Patterson to have put his whole gravy train and reputation at risk by not paying a relative pittance for BH's silence.)
N. BH unaccountably failed to complain bitterly about Patterson in private. Possibly he feared if he did so his friends would then urge him to see a lawyer, and he would lose credibility if he declined. A lawyer would have requested supporting evidence that should then have existed, like his name in the logbook of the motel he stayed at in Eureka (p. 350), or the location of the October 19 film site, or records indicating his absence from work. (All three days were weekdays, according to p. 347.)
O. BH told his friends that he didn't want to publicly make a stink about being stiffed because he hoped for eventual payment by Patterson (p. 398). If so, it would have been irrational for him to have acted as he did--i.e., by occasionally spilling the beans and/or showing off the suit. That violated his pledge of confidentiality and amounted to voiding his contract. Rational creditors adopt the opposite policy: they are polite but firm, and studiously avoid giving the debtor an excuse to take umbrage. And, given his past soft-spokenness about RP, BH's current indignation over others' making money (pp. 336, 340 & 370) is suspiciously peculiar.
And why did BH continue to pussyfoot even after Roger's death in 1972? Long stated, in a radio interview on the Rense show, that Bob H. held out hope that if he kept his promise to keep his mouth shut he would get paid. In a talk at the Mill Creek Library on Jan. 27, 2005, Long asserted, "Patricia Patterson continues to sell the rights to the movie ..., she's made hundreds of thousands over the years ...." But BH never contacted Pat Patterson requesting payment, as he surely would have once he realized the film was still garnering TV royalties. It might be that he hesitated to confront Roger Patterson, an irrational hothead, but there should have been no inhibition about approaching an old acquaintance like Patty. Surely SHE'd have seen the wisdom of paying a little hush money to protect her revenue stream. Since BH said she observed him rehearsing in her husband's Bigfoot costume (p. 344), he knew she was aware that the film was a hoax and couldn't fob him off with a claim of being unwitting.
Long also stated in the Rense interview, that although BH never stated this, he was sure BH was concerned about legal ramifications. But there would have been no ramifications in merely contacting Patty, or in hiring a lawyer to do so, because that wouldn't have involved a public revelation. Telling his story to a lawyer wouldn't have voided his confidentiality agreement, because Patterson's non-payment had already voided it. (And there was no need to accuse DeAtley of being in on the hoax-his involvement could easily have been skirted.) Anyway, he had nothing to lose; a spontaneous payout was obviously a forlorn hope after 1975, say. And the possible legal ramifications of going public then would have been less than doing so today, because he'd have been able to back up his claim with records that have now been destroyed, like his work-attendance records and his signature in the logbook of the Eureka motel.
P. In Long's book (pp. 370-71) BH had denied telling his buddies at the Idle Hour about the suit. However, on Tuesday, May 17, 2005, 8 pm EDT, he appeared on the PAX cable network show Lie Detector (the quote below is not from the book) and changed his story. He stated the following on TV:
Bob: "The next day I drove home, and uh, I went to the local watering hole where all us guys hung out. And ... uh, I lifted the trunk up and said, uh, take a look at this. I didn't tell them what it was ... I said just look at this and do not forget what this looks like. Well, TWO OR THREE WEEKS LATER, OUT CAME THE MOVIE, you know, on the television, the film. They said, ah ha! That's what you were doing, you know. They brought my horse back the next day, I think it was, and uh, they just took the suit out of the car, and that's the last I ever saw of THAT ORIGINAL Bigfoot suit."
Interviewer: "Why did you show the suit to those guys?"
Bob: "Because I wanted them to know, you know, when they found out what it was that I wasn't lying ... that I really did do this."
It's suspicious when a claimant changes his story from one that makes him look innocent to one that admits of some guiltiness only when new evidence is brought forward. That's what's happened here. BH has now admitted he violated his confidentiality agreement, and has done so only because critics have harped on the many witnesses who'd observed BH displaying his suit. (Most notably, Michael Dennett's review in the Jan./Feb. 2005 Skeptical Inquirer.) The suspicion is that a claimant who was willing to fib to cover up a little guiltiness might still be doing so.
It's also suspicious that he seems to be preparing the ground to claim that he later purchased a second Bigfoot suit, with his on-TV words, "that's the last I ever saw of THAT ORIGINAL Bigfoot suit." This is another revision he has made only when faced by new evidence (a witness to whom he showed an ape-suit in 1968); and it's another revision that reveals his initial version as a self-aggrandizing fib. (I.e., he claimed to Hammermeister (p. 397) that the suit he showed him was the real one used in the film.) Again, the suspicion arises that the claimant may be fibbing as much as he can get away with.
And it's suspicious that he said (on TV, not in the book) that the buddies to whom he'd shown the suit saw the film of Queen Kong on TV news: "TWO OR THREE WEEKS LATER OUT CAME THE MOVIE." This contradicts the September-filming / October-announcement version he gave in the book (on pp. 373-74 & 420-21) and implies the hoax-filming occurred in October.
Q. It's suspicious that BH was evasive with Long (pp. 370-71) when originally pressed about visiting the Idle Hour upon his return and discussing or displaying the suit. BH avoided specifically denying or confirming going to the Idle Hour, or showing the suit off, although that would have been the natural way to answer to Long's probes. Instead, he was deliberately non-responsive (e.g., changing the subject to whether he drank beer there or was a drunkard), thereby leaving wiggle room to later recollect that he HAD done so. It was a carefully crafted (lawyerly?) response.
R. PF, BH's roommate from 1967 through 1970 (p. 370), told me in June 2004 that he'd heard nothing about any Bigfoot suit or film hoax. His being ignorant fitted in with BH's initial version, under which he disremembered displaying a suit and minimized his talking about it. But roommate PF's ignorance is implausible under BH's new I-confided-in-my-buddies-to-obtain-witnesses version. It's more likely that PF knew what really went on, but was answering me in accordance with the code of the Woosters: Don't Let Down a Pal.
S. It's suspicious that, given that BH said on TV he wanted proof "that I'd really done this":
* He apparently didn't give his buddies more than a guarded peek at a nondescript pile of fur in the back of his trunk. That could have been a Halloween-grade ape-suit (and probably was). If he'd really had the goods, he'd have showed off any the Patterson suit's half-dozen unique features. E.g., breasts, for a start, or a glass eye. And this despite saying that he was trying to get them to notice salient details: "I said just look at this and do not forget what this looks like." (Statement on the TV show in 5/05.)
* He didn't take a photo of the suit. He could have bought or borrowed a camera easily, and it would have provided evidence ten times stronger than saying that three of his drinking buddies saw a pile of fur in the back of his trunk. Such a photo could have been sent to Patterson, or to his relatives or associates. The camera doesn't lie, whereas three drinking buddies might stretch a point for a pal. The power of a photo was well known to anyone who'd read a newspaper, or a paperback, or seen a movie.
* He didn't call the motel he'd stayed at and asked them to save the logbook-page he'd signed, and/or send him a photocopy.
T. BH took his lie detector test (pp. 210 & 356) under his own control, which meant he could have suppressed an unfavorable result. The consensus among experts is that such a non-threatening test-environment reduces the subject's anxiety, making it easier for him to pass. And his control may have meant that he knew the questions in advance, which also helps reduce stress.
U. Long stated, in a videotaped speech on March 27, 2004, that there was a strike in progress at BH's employer (the Boise Cascade plywood plant) when BH participated in the filming. Telling Long this might have seemed like a good idea to BH at the time, because it would have partially explained why he participated in Patterson's project without demanding a down payment, and why he failed to aggressively pursue collection of his debt: he was at loose ends and had nothing to lose by spending three weekdays in California. However, I have learned from a WCIW union official who was there at the time, HP, that there was no strike (except perhaps for a few one-day wildcat walkouts) at that facility in 1967-the most recent strike was in the summer of 1966. BH's false claim could not have been due merely to faulty recollection of a long-past event, because if he had lost money from absenting himself from work (he was paid by the hour), his indignation at that fact would have imprinted itself in his memory.
V. Long published only two details (pp. 363-65) of BH's relatives' suit-descriptions (a dark face and a stench), these being attributes that support BH's description of Patterson's suit. Long would surely have questioned them on all other features of the suit, and printed other supporting details they mentioned. (E.g., a helmet, a glass eye, shoulder pads, a zipper, rubber waders in the legs, latex chest-piece, breasts, etc.) The fact that he didn't is therefore significant. I.e., it suggests those details contradicted BH's tale. (This brings to mind the dog that failed to bark--& thereby spoke volumes.) I suspect the details they recalled match those of the suit GR saw. (These two relatives had hours of unfettered access to the suit while Heironimus slept, and one donned its head.) Incidentally, BH's mom described the suit as "black" (p. 363), at variance with Morris's emphatically non-black "brown" suit (p. 449).
W. In the Jan. 2005 National Geographic special on Bigfoot, BH didn't match Queen Kong's perambulatory style. BH's re-creation failed in two key features: his knee bent only to an angle of 70°, not to QK's 90°, and the sole of his foot was never vertical before its toes left the ground (Bill Miller has mentioned this first), again unlike QK's. (Cf. C. Murphy's book Meet the Sasquatch, p. 52, frames 72 & 310.) It's not easy to incorporate these effects while also walking with QK's compliant gait. If you try, all you'll achieve is a Silly Walk, not a QK re-creation. Your speed and smoothness will be noticeably reduced. But QK walks with the fluidity of a cat.
X. BH's body proportions don't match Queen Kong. E.g., his torso depth, thighs, and shoulder breadth are much slimmer, and yet BH claimed in an interview that no torso padding was used. More important, his torso and arms are proportionately significantly shorter than QK's, and his legs are longer. His intermembral index (ratio of arm length to leg length) is about .70 (human-like); QK's is about .85. And, as John Green has pointed out, no arm extenders were worn, because QK's sharp elbow-bend reveals that her forearm is not disproportionately long.
Y. Such extensive suit modifications would have been necessary to produce a torso, head, and limbs as thick and well-defined as Patty's that an expert tailor and lots of extra fur would have been required. So why bother to buy a suit in the first place?
Z. BH was not measured for a custom-fitted suit. And the Morris's gorilla suit, like all off-the-peg ape-suits, would fit a wearer loosely, even if it had been custom-tailored to the wearer. (E.g., in the movie Harry and the Hendersons, "Harry" has trouser-legs: a pair of uniformly tapering tubes.) Queen Kong, OTOH, has a well-defined body: a butt crack (in the last frames), bulging thunder thighs, mobile kneecap, shapely calf, visible tendons and hamstrings, shoulder blades, realistic biceps, quivering flesh, non-uniform hair color and length, etc., all features missing from Hollywood ape-films. (And the photo on p. 460 of the Morris suit looks like a fright-wig: a comical Abbot-and-Costello affair.)
Conclusion: To swallow Heironimus's story, one must WANT to believe it. Desperately. The rest of us are well justified in being unpersuaded, or even derisive. BH-believers should also reflect on the evidence that is lacking in Long's case, such as:
* Quotes by Patterson or Gimlin even hinting at a Bluff Creek hoax.
* An indication by DeAtley of a specific reason for suspecting a hoax. (His mere belief that Bigfoot can't exist, so it had to be a hoax is insufficient. Indeed, DeAtley's inability to back up that disbelief, despite his close acquaintance with P&G and the film's production, actually argues for the film's authenticity. Long argued that if DeAtley provided specific reasons he would be "risking his reputation" with such a confession (p. 188). But that's silly; he's "confessed" already. As far as the community is concerned, that's what's important-the details are trivial
* A photo (or non-BH testimony) of Patterson (or Gimlin or DeAtley) with a Patty-like suit.
* A zipper pull (or equivalent) in the film-not just seeing Martian canals in the form of ambiguous dark areas at the waist (pp. 378 & 383) and spine (pp. 451-52).
* Indications that the Bluff Creek footprints were mold-made.
Long has objected that his critics haven't disproven the witnesses' testimony about Patterson's character. He's established that Patterson was:
* An occasional moocher and outrageous deadbeat (a person who dishonors his debts), sometimes in a nasty way, as with Vilma Radford.
* A possible sometime-hoaxer of footprints and (maybe) sightings--if one believes Harvey Anderson implicitly, which I don't. (But, even on the evidence selected for inclusion by Long, he was also a sometimes-sincere seeker of prints (p. 120) and sightings. And, after 1967, he spent money searching for hominids in Thailand, and bid on the purported Bossburg Bigfoot body.)
* A would-be hoaxer of an ape-suit film in 1961 (again, according to Anderson). (But, after viewing that effort in private, he never went public with any ape-photo hoaxes, most likely from having come to realize how phony such a re-creation looks. That is a bitter experience that pooh-poohing debunkers lack--but will acquire when BH's costumed, in-motion recreation is broadcast.) (PS from 2007: Guess what, it has been withheld from even DVD distribution, presumably because it's embarrassingly bad, according to a neutral witness of the attempt from National Geographic.)
But again, there is evidence that is lacking in Long's case, such as:
* Testimony indicating that Roger was insincere in his belief in Bigfoot.
* Evidence that Patterson ever promoted a phony ape-suit photo or film as authentic.
* Evidence that Patterson promoted knowingly fraudulent products or projects for money--i.e., scams. Only people who do that are, strictly speaking, con-men. (Trying to sell Bigfoot to Yakima residents, whose attitudes on the big boy ranged from the dubious to the derisive, was an unpromising game-one a true con-man would have avoided. As Charles Mackay wrote back in the 1850s (out of copyright!), "The man who would cheat the people, must needs found his operations upon some prejudice or belief that already exists.")
* Evidence that Patterson's dishonesty was of the mortal-sin, proactive, meat-eating variety, rather than of the venial-sin, opportunistic, grass-eating type (e.g., one-time insurance fraud). Long inaccurately implied he was type-1 (a career criminal), calling him a con-man, etc.
In addition there is evidence (and there would be more in a book less partisan than Long's) that points to Patterson's sincerity and good traits. For sincerity, see pages 46, 49, 88-89, 91-94, 96, 116-18, 129, 131-32, 201, 205, 235, 255, 269-70, 272 & 397. For other good traits, see pages 72, 113, 116, 122, 128-29, 205-06, 228 & 270.
Finally, it's absurd to believe, as Long does, that it is enough to discredit Patterson to disprove the film. He indicated that Patterson and the film are so closely joined that to destroy Patterson's credibility and the film dies, and, that when it comes to the truthfulness of a fantastic story "all other things being equal," the credibility of the story-teller is crucial (p. 430).
But other things are not equal: there was another witness, of excellent character (Gimlin), who has resisted strong provocations by Patterson to expose him; and there is more than a story, there is evidence: the film and the tracks. So readers should not follow Long's specious reasoning. Proving that Patterson was--sometimes--a dodgy dude is not nearly enough, unless one really WANTS to believe Heironimus.
Book Description
As much a testament to the art of the book as the art of animation, The Art and Making of Monster House is presented in lavish four-color throughout, with highlights of some of the film’s most astonishing features including 3-D art, gatefolds and die-cut overlays of the five stages of computer generated “motion capture” technology. It also includes envelopes, cards, and a movie poster.
Monster House is the first film from director Gil Kenan, who is living every young director’s dream, hand-picked by the film’s executive producer, Steven Spielberg, to create this groundbreaking film. This latest release from Sony Pictures Imageworks and ImageMovers, features the innovative, cutting-edge technology of " performance capture” animation, first introduced in The Polar Express.
Monster House tells the story of a trio of friends who discover the secret that a scary, creepy house in their neighborhood is actually a living, breathing monster and it’s up to the kids to stop the evil house before it’s too late. Standouts in the cast include animation veterans Steve Buscemi, Kathleen Turner, Catherine O’Hara and Jason Lee, as well as Fred Willard, Kevin James, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Jon Heder.
Customer Reviews:
Awsome book.......2007-10-09
This book is like the awsome movie itself.
It has certain features you do not expect. Sometimes I could not determine at first sight if pictures were 2d or just real materials. Like the enveloppe,the playingcard holders and other "fearsome commodities". Wonderfull picturebook with well made drawings and photographs. Outstanding quality. It might have been found in the monsterhouse!
Brecht Gerritse, The Netherlands
An amazing book!.......2007-05-20
This is how "art of" books really should be made. Lots of inserts, post-it notes and fun details. It looks almost like a scrapbook and is filled to the rim with drawings, renders, concept art and fun stuff. Very inspirational. It is just as great as the "Open Season" book which is also a must-have for all fans of animation.
monster house review.......2007-04-11
Love the book. A Priceless addition to an animation lovers dream book collection.
Concept Art Galor!.......2007-01-30
I thought this book was very suprizing in giving the reader plenty of images from the development the movie. Actually, almost to good.. there's so many scrapbook style pages that it can be overwelming at times. Regardless, this book is a must have for the Art of collector. If you liked this book and concept art check out [...]
Not only a new approach for movies, but for making-of books........2006-11-07
This book is just fun to look at. The artwork is sprawling (I can't believe how much artwork is created for movies; how fast are these artists working?), and the descriptions of how the movies was made are informative. This has quickly become one of my favorite movies, and this book makes it fun to see the evolution of its creation.
Average customer rating:
|
Knit-A-Saurus: Cute & Cuddly Monsters (Milner Craft)
Donald Arthars
Manufacturer: Sally Milner Pub
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 Decorative Arts
| Design & Decorative Arts
| Arts & Photography
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Crafts & Hobbies
| Home & Garden
| Subjects
| Books
Knitting
| Crafts & Hobbies
| Home & Garden
| Subjects
| Books
Stuffed Animals
| Crafts & Hobbies
| Home & Garden
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 1863511261 |
Customer Reviews:
Be Careful.......2007-05-15
This is not a revew, but a warning: DO NOT BUY this book if you already own "No Go the Bogeyman." This is the SAME book--they have simply changed the title for the paperback edition.
Average customer rating:
- Started well then ....
- Still my favorite book...
- "In the city of angels, she crossed over to the other side."
- Making of a Monster...Amazing!
- Classic, Hip, Funny Vampire Book - Way Ahead of It's Time
|
The Making of a Monster (Abyss)
Gail Kane Petersen
Manufacturer: Dell
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Mass Market Paperback
General
| Horror
| Genre Fiction
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0440213894
Release Date: 1993-05-01 |
Customer Reviews:
Started well then ...........2004-11-09
I really wanted to like this book. It started out well enough and I almost gave it 3 stars. However, I asked myself if I'd recommend this book to anyone and changed to 2 stars. The beginning started out well and I really liked the interaction between Justin and Kate. I did find Kate's struggle with Vampirism interesting. But, when Kate decided to become a rock star the book took, IMO, a turn for the worse. It was too contrived. When I did get to the end of the book it started to pick up again, but with only a few chapters left. The book would have been much better without the rock star section which was a big chunk of the story and expanding on the evil doctor and Justin relationship. I think Gail decided to write about what she was most comfortable with (rock n roll bands) than what could have been a great story.
Still my favorite book..........2004-10-15
I got this book off a supermarket rack and bought it on a whim. It has a fairly plain cover, and a cheesy back cover description, but I thought it might be a fun read. What I got though, was a phenominal story that I ended up staying up all night to finish.
The storyline keeps you guessing, the charecters are believeable (insomuch as is possible given preternatural circumstances), the narrator and main charecter Kate is so well developed... the reader finds themselves identifying with Kate right away, and then gets sucked down with her, into her gradual charecter shift from 'Suzie homemaker' to 'monster at heart'. And at each step the shift is so subtle, you never stop identifying with Kate as fate makes a monster out of her.
11 years later, its still my favorite book. I've read it more often than any other book i own... which is saying a lot, my book collection is well over a thousand books at this point. I even bought additional coppies to loan out to people, my first copy stays at home.
"In the city of angels, she crossed over to the other side.".......2002-12-28
Shortly after moving to Los Angeles from New York with her husband (Ben), 27-year-old Kate Davis meets a seductive man named Justin in her acting class, who she has a short but horrifying affair with. After that one night, Kate is made into a vampire against her will and then ultimately abandoned.
After spending a couple years aimlessly roaming L.A.'s streets and befriending an elderly woman (Lil) who is later killed by a werewolf (Henry), Kate takes a gambling hiatus in Las Vegas, where her love for music is renewed. She then returns to Los Angeles to become a musician, by targeting and then snuffing out a band's (The Uninvited) bass player and taking his place.
Despite the band's growing success, Kate can't ignore her quarterly blood lust or her weakening humanity. There is also the added danger of being discovered, whether by the detective who is still investigating the previous bass player's death or by her paranoid band mate (Charly). And then there's Drew, the lead singer of The Uninvited, who Kate has fallen hopelessly in love with. But can she suppress her need to kill while she's with him--or will Drew just be another one of her victims?
"The Making of a Monster" isn't one of my absolute favorite vampire novels, nor is it as erotic or scary as I had expected, considering the suggestive front cover and the tagline; but it's a relatively quick read and quite enthralling. Gail Petersen's previous experience as a musician/songwriter in the alternative rock band, The Catholic Girls, comes into play a lot in this book (after all, this book was inspired by a vampire song she had written), as well as her strict Catholic upbringing. Both elements give Kate's own musical and religious struggle a bit more credibility. This book is certainly worth a try if you're a vampire lover. Also recommended: Anne Rice's "The Vampire Lestat" (vampire musician).
Making of a Monster...Amazing!.......2002-04-22
I absolutely loved this book. I am an avid vampire reader and of all the books I have read, this rates at the top. I will say that Gail Petersen isn't better than Anne Rice, so much as different. I only wish she had written more books about Kate. Did she ever find Justin? Did they finally find the love that kept eluding them? Anyway, I definetly recommend this book.
Classic, Hip, Funny Vampire Book - Way Ahead of It's Time.......2002-01-08
Really cool vampire novel about a female vampire in LA. I loved the detail of hearing about Kate (main character) changes as she first became a vampire, then hated it, then eventually learns to live with it. There's some great plot twists and a real sense of humor here and this vampire has a sense of morals that she doesn't want to have. A lot has been written about "Bitten" about a female werewolf being the latest thing but I think "The Making of A Monster" covered this territory back in 1993 and did it much better. I just ordered a used copy - since it's out of print and I no longer have my original one but I really think this should be published again and I'd really like to know what else this author has written cause I'm ready to read it. Great vampire novel!
Customer Reviews:
Interesting.......2006-01-28
When I was a kid I read everything I could find about the Loch Ness Monster. Although I must admit that I am not a "believer", I remain interested in the Nessie phenomenon and respect those "believers" who are sincere and honest. This is the best book I have found that focuses on the scientific aspects of the monster, with the author dealing with how differences between personal objective and subjective reality impact the monster. What I would like to say is that I wish someone would write a CULTURAL and SOCIAL HISTORY of the Loch Ness Monster( human history, not of the monster herself!) Not written from a scientific standpoint, trying to prove or disprove the monster,or explain belief, but a history as an important event in popular culture over the past 70 some years. This particular book was published by a university press, so why not a human history of the phenomenon written in a serious, scholarly but popularly accessible manner. Everybody has heard of Nessie, perhaps she has not been as important to the world at large as Elvis, the Beatles,rap music or whatever,and without the socio-economic-political implications you can tie into other elements of popular culture, but I think there would be a fair size market for such a book.
A Good Book About Nessie; A Great Book About Science.......2001-03-14
Remember your high school science textbooks' dry-as-dust rundown of "The Scientific Method?" Well, here's the intro to scientific reasoning you *should* have gotten back then: A ferociously intelligent, smoothly written guide to thinking rationally about the natural world.
The title promises a comprehensive, clear-eyed look at the Loch Ness mystery written by an author with an open mind. The book delivers on that promise, and the result is a delight to read. Bauer walks you, surefootedly, through sixty-odd years of Nessie sightings, as well as reactions to them by the public and the scientific community. If you want a reliable, detailed, neutral study of the Loch Ness mystery--here's your book.
The icing on the intellectual cake is that Bauer is interested in more than just Loch Ness. He makes clear in his introduction that he wants to explore how science works and, once again, the book delivers. Bauer walks you, again surefootedly, through concepts like "data" "proof" "theory" and so forth, carefully leaving in the kinds of grey areas that working scientists have to deal with. Two of the best chapters in the book are titled "Bad Reasons for Believing" and "Bad Reasons for Not Believing." Together (especially in the context of the entire book) they're one of the best discussions of scientific reasoning I've ever read.
Recommended for anyone with a serious interest in science . . . even if you don't really care whether there's anything bigger than a trout in Loch Ness.
LOCH NESS MYSTERY UNRAVELLED.......2000-04-05
This book, is, without doubt, one of the best volumes to be published on the mystery of the Loch Ness Monster. Bauer speaks sensibly of the enigma and provides both positive and negative information to the reader. Bauer produces academic analytical skills as well as those gained by the physical search of Loch Ness to support his undoubted knowledge which he imparts in most readable prose. I thoroughly recommend this work to anyone interested in the case Loch Ness Monster, it provides virtually everything one would need to know.
Book Description
From the maker of The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, the long-awaited movie from Universal Pictures (May 2004) starring Hugh Jackman as Van Helsing, the legendary monster hunter born in the pages of Bram Stoker's Dracula. Stephen Sommers, the visionary filmmaker who revived Universal's classic Mummy character in the massive blockbusters The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, breathes new life into the most time-honored pantheon of classic Universal monsters: Dracula, The Frankenstein Monster and The Wolf Man. In Van Helsing, Sommers infuses these screen legends with dimension, characterization and technological wonder in a way that honors their legacy and propels them into the next generation of cinema.
Set in the late 19th century, the film finds fabled monster hunter Van Helsing summoned to a distant European land on a quest to vanquish evil. Starring Hugh Jackman (X2) as Van Helsing and Kate Beckinsale (Underworld, Pearl Harbor) as valiant Anna Valerious, and with awe-inspiring digital effects from Industrial Light & Magic, Van Helsing will thrill moviegoers as they are introduced to worlds never before imagined.
In addition to the complete screenplay, this spectacular Newmarket Pictorial Moviebook features over 150 full-color illustrations, including movie stills, creature and costume sketches, set designs, and special visual effects stills. Sidebars include interviews with the film's cast and crew, and details on the sweeping locations used to create Van Helsing's visionary supernatural world, spanning from 19th century London, Rome, and Paris to Transylvania. 150 color illustrations.
Customer Reviews:
A Splendid Companion to "Van Helsing".......2004-08-31
There are a number of things that one could single out for complaint regarding Stephen Sommers' summer tribute to the classic Universal monster films, but one of its strengths is its rich art direction. For fans of this film the art direction, and how it came about, is well pictured and documented in "Van Helsing: The Making of the Thrilling Monster Movie." It is a fun compaion to the film and a tribute to Sommers' work in creating a visually stunning summer treat. Shortly, after the realease of the film, the "Salt Lake Tribune" complained that "Van Helsing" lacked "atmosphere." This was a bizarre comment given one of the most atmospheric treatments of this genre since the best of the Hammer films. Much of this is caught in "The Making of." The phenomenal sets and backdrops are well preserved here. The book also contains a full working screenplay which may not stand up to more literal scripts, but it works here and is again fun to have in print.
Sensational Photo Book.......2004-08-21
Van Helsing: The Making of the Legend is a gorgeous book full of beautiful scenes with glamorous vampires and adventurous monster hunters. It's too bad Dracula's brides were killed because I wanted to ask them where they shop. The only person without magnificent tresses is Frankenstein's monster, and he's so sympathetic I couldn't help but love him despite his monstrosity.
I had to laugh at this understatement from the writer/director on page 8 of the book, "There are no monsters in this movie, there are only people with very bad problems."
Richard Roxborough's Dracula stole the show with his seductive portrayal of evil's attempt to defy God (with predictable consequences), so I would have liked to see more of him in the book. However, Van Helsing: The Making of the Legend thoroughly documents the creation of the characters and filming of the stunning scenery. If you loved the movie I would highly recommend this book.
A highly recommended accompaniment to the new film.......2004-07-16
Also available in a hardcover edition (1557046298, $29.95), Van Helsing: The Making Of The Legend is a highly recommended accompaniment to the new film Universal starring Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale, written and directed by Stephen Sommers, and produced by Stephen Sommers and Bob Ducsay. This marvelous work showcases more than 140 film stills, concept sketches, line drawings, set designs, monster make-up, and spectacular special effects. Of this original treatment of the character first made famous in Bram Stoker's 19th century novel Dracula, has been revised and revisited as a legendary monster hunter as a renegade outlaw confronted not only by Dracula and his three brides, but Frankenstein's Monster, the Wolf Man, and a legion of other icons drawn form the archive of classic Universal film studio monsters.
The art alone is worth it!.......2004-07-05
Despite the rather silly premise of the movie itself, I bought this book for the art alone. I am a fan of monster designs and I have to say that the creature designs on this book (the Hellbeast and Werewolf)are worth every penny of it. The costumes, sets, and creatures' transformation are magnificent. I have only one dislike about the look of the Frankenstein monster which seems to be lifted out of the Munsters. If you're into dark creatures and monsters, you'll like this book.
Loved the book, liked the movie.......2004-06-02
My husband and the nine-year-old boy in his heart really liked the movie. I like Hugh Jackman and I was mildly amused by the movie (never really scared thank goodness).
But this book is quite wonderful for people interested in films and how they come about. "Van Helsing" is a movie you have to respect for its production values, even if you aren't blown away by its monsterness. Tampering with the old images may just have made me a little unhappy.
The editor, Linda Sunshine, can be justly proud of making this material so very entertaining to a reader and a book person. And I shouldn't be surprised if the script gets a good work out at a lot of school plays for years to come.
Average customer rating:
|
Making a Monster
Rh Value Publishing
Manufacturer: Random House Value Publishing
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
General
| Puzzles & Games
| Entertainment
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Crafts & Hobbies
| Home & Garden
| Subjects
| Books
History & Criticism
| Science Fiction
| Science Fiction & Fantasy
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0517528622
Release Date: 1984-12-13 |
Customer Reviews:
a great book.......2000-03-19
this book cronicles all of the great special effects masters from lon chaney to rick baker. even though it is out of print if you find it get it!
Average customer rating:
- Hilariously Wicked
- Boo! Did I scare ya?
- Poem enthusiast at age 8
|
Making Friends with Frankenstein: A Book of Monstrous Poems and Pictures
Manufacturer: Candlewick
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
General
| Nursery Rhymes
| Baby-3
| Children's Books
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Classics by Age
| Literature
| Children's Books
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Poetry
| Literature
| Children's Books
| Subjects
| Books
Humorous
| Poetry
| Literature
| Children's Books
| Subjects
| Books
Fiction
| Friendship
| Social Situations
| People & Places
| Children's Books
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Ages 4-8
| Children's Books
| Subjects
| Books
Monsters
| Obsessions
| Children's Books
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 1564023087
Release Date: 1994-05-02 |
Customer Reviews:
Hilariously Wicked.......2005-10-04
My 5 year-old son is smitten with everything spooky and monstrous and creepy. If it has all those components AND makes him laugh, he is over the top! "Making Friends with Frankenstein: A Book of Monstrous Poems and Pictures" definitely does it for him. This is one of those books that we checked out of the library and renewed until we couldn't renew any more. We're buying two copies. One for our own library and one for his class.
And let me tell you about the accompanying artwork! The author notes that "I write my poems and do my drawings at the same time. That way, I can include some things in the pictures that I don't include in the text and vice versa." McNaughton's brilliant illustrations partner with his sometimes shocking, always funny, and generally perfectly-metered rhyme to make this book an oft-requested read. This is an ageless keeper.
Boo! Did I scare ya?.......2003-02-23
While there is no shortage of mind-stimulating poetry and literature for young kids these days, I still can't help but stand up and cheer for collections such as these. I think that helping kids learn the entertainment and enjoyment side of reading is so crucial at this age, and this book fills that need perfectly. McNaughton has a talent for giving you both the creeps and the giggles at the same time with his icky prose and imaginative illustrations.
Are all these Silverstein-esque poems about monster's? No, but they pretty much all appeal to the young readers sense of humor. "Call a doctor/Call the vet!/I've just been bitten/By teacher's pet!" The grossest one to read aloud would probably be "Ogre My Dead Body! (The Ogre's Song" which goes a little something like this, "An wen I needs a midnite snack,/Heer them hewmin bones go CRACK!/CRACK, CRACK, midnite snack,/Heer them hewmin bones go CRACK!" OK, this might not make the best bed-time reading. Better save it for day-light.
Poem enthusiast at age 8.......2000-04-11
I thought that the book was funny, and kind of gross. My favorite poem was "Georgie Porgie" because it was hilarious. I also like "Teacher's Pet" and "Heartless" because they were also hilarious. I would recommend this book to people who like poems, like me.
Books:
- Simply Primitive: Rug Hooking, Punchneedle, And Needle Felting (That Patchwork Place)
- Stack a New Deck: More Great Quilts in 4 Easy Steps
- Stage Makeup (9th Edition)
- Stick Control for the Snare Drummer
- The Art of Jewelry: Paper Jewelry: 35 Creative Projects (Lark Jewelry Book)
- The Business Side of Creativity: The Complete Guide to Running a Small Graphic Design or Communications Business, Third Updated Edition
- The Celtic Collection: Twenty-Five Knitwear Designs for Men and Women
- The Complete Guide to Sharpening
- The Complete Illustrated Guide to Furniture and Cabinet Construction
- The Complete Illustrated Guide to Furniture and Cabinet Construction
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Business Process Change: A Manager's Guide to Improving, Redesigning, and Automating Processes
- Scandinavian Modern Furnishing, 1930-1970: Designed for Life
- Incongruous Entertainment: Camp, Cultural Value, and the MGM Musical
- Latin American Dancing
- Petrosian vs the Elite: 71 Victories by the Master of Manoeuvre 1946-1983
- The Complete Maus: A Survivor's Tale
- New True Books: Plant Experiments
- Intermediate Accounting Volume 2 with Coach CD-ROM & PowerWeb: Financial Accounting & Net Tu
- Principles of Microeconomics, Fourth Edition
- Circle K Cycles
The Monstrous Middle Ages
The Monstrous Races in Medieval Art and Thought (Medieval Studies (Syracuse, N.Y.).)
Image on the Edge: The Margins of Medieval Art (Reaktion Books - Essays in Art and Culture)
