news:48c41777@news.povray.org...

>  I don't see any necessity in unrealistic depictions of lightning.

Ok, just pick a scene that has simultaneous flash and sound, edit it to make 
them separate and see if it works from a moviegoer's perspective.
Cut to: general view of soldiers climbing up a hill at night. Suddenly the 
hill lits up and there's the deafening, unmistakeable sound of thunder. In a 
1-2 seconds, you've established the context and put your viewers in the 
right mood. Poor soldiers, climbing up that hill, threatened by thunder. 
Then you can cut the a close-up of the soldiers' faces.

Now the edited version:
Cut to: general view of soldiers climbing up a hill at night. Suddenly the 
hill lits up. Nobody knows why because *** there's no friggin sound ***, it 
could be some flares. The soldiers keep climbing up for a few seconds, in 
silence. Then there's some deafening sound except that by then people may 
have forgotten the big light before so the sound could be from something 
else, like a large gun, or a bomb. Not only you took much more time to 
establish the mood and wasted precious movie seconds, but the mood may not 
even be the right one and leave the viewers puzzled or confused.

One big part of the art of movie making consists precisely in understanding 
those conventions and how to use them (ditto for most art forms actually). 
Never compare what's going on in a movie to reality, it's pointless.

G.

Post a reply to this message