Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> If you did then you would understand that sometimes the technical
> problems lead to compromise.

  There's no technical problem in having a realistic pause between lightning
and thunder in movies. I don't even think anyone would consider it in any
way unrealistic if there was a realistic pause (unlike with other things,
where reality in movies is considered unrealistic by most people).

> What is the point of having a role of thunder when
> people are speaking?

  I didn't understand the question.

> Should a film of a 24 hour storyline last a day?

  There's a very practical and artistic story-telling reason to skip
forward in time. There's no practical nor story-telling nor any other
reason to not to have a realistic pause between lightning and thunder.
It's simply some kind of odd convention.

> It seems to me that you object to artistic licence in the movies. 

  I do not object to artistic license when it makes sense or is there
for practical reasons.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message