Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Sounds like a bunch of rationalizations to me.

  So?

  What you do you suggest? Explaining the custom with irrational arguments?
How would that make any sense?

> I don't know about anyone else, but when I watch a sci-fi movie and the 
> camera is in space, I expect to hear whatever you would hear in space... 

  Thus you expect there to be a camera, even though in the fictional
world depicted in the movie there is no camera.

  If the movie aknowledges the existence of the camera, it breaks the
fourth wall.

> ie, nothing.  The fact that there are added sound effects breaks the 
> fourth wall by reminding me that someone added those effects just to 
> make it sound cool.

  That exact same argument could be used for *any* added sound effect
in *any* movie. Which would make 99.999% of movies flawed.

> Music doesn't do this, because there's music constantly throughout the 
> movie, so I already disassociate it with the physical location of the shot.

  Background music is a movie-making convention. Likewise locating the
sound environment to be somewhere close to or between the subjects being
filmed is another. There's no relevant difference.

  Putting the sound environment at the camera is an acceptable technique
only when the movie establishes that what you see has been filmed using
a camera (one example would be in-movie news footage).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message