 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> 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?
Colloquially, the act of rationalizing something is the act of finding
reasons to support something you know is wrong. In other words, this
sounds to me like they're just trying to find any excuse they can not to
change their ways.
>> 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.
Not necessarily. When watching a really good movie, I feel like "I am
there." It's a strange split; I experience the Point of View (gotta be
careful writing POV in these forums!), yet without the concerns of
actually being there such as danger from suffocation (or errant enemy
fire!). As long as I can imagine that I see and hear things from the
point in space where the camera sits, I can forget about the camera and
merrily enjoy the illusion. This is, after all, what Suspension of
Disbelief is all about.
Of course I know it's not real, and all that, but I can trick myself
into believing it for a while. Anything "wrong" (such as badly
tesselated geometry, poor artificial lighting, a microphone boom
slipping into the picture or, in this case, sound effects in a vacuum)
detracts from my ability to fool myself.
>> 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.
Two things:
1) Not necessarily. It depends on whether or not those sound effects
draw attention to themselves. In this vein, the best movie score is one
which you don't notice. Sound effects in a vacuum get noticed partly
because many people know there's no sound in a vacuum, and partly
because there has been such a big fuss made about it.
2) 90% of everything is crap anyway (this principle has a name, but I do
not remember it. I'll google it later). Not your 99.999%, but still
pretty close :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> 2) 90% of everything is crap anyway
"And nowadays, there's 100 times as much stuff out there. Unfortunately,
nowadays 99.99% of everything is crap."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Has anyone placed a microphone in space, blown something up nearby, and
> recorded the results?
I think if you were near enough to a big explosion the microphone would
surely pick up some signal, because all the gas created by the explosion
would create some increase in pressure momentarily. The question is, how
far away from a "normal" sized explosion would the changes in pressure be
detectable?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:13:05 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> On a different track, perhaps the computers on the ship see the lasers
> and ships, and make fake laser sounds and ship swooshes, in order that
> the pilots can have an instinctive understanding of what's going on
> around them without having to turn around. (Not unlike a HUD tracking
> your eyes to make it easier to activate controls in a fighter jet.)
Wasn't that how they rationalised it in Star Trek for the explosions?
Hey that could be it though, the ship keeps track of every ship in range
and when it spots one firing applies a sound to let you know; that would
explain why enemy ships can sound different to allied ships. Oh sure some
might say if that's the case it should be linked to navigation so it can
move out of the way of any incoming shots, but where's the fun in that?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:05:36 +0100, m_a_r_c
<jac### [at] wanadoofr> did spake, saying:
>
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 48610211$1@news.povray.org...
> .
>>
>> 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.
>>
> Music does not do that because it is the more often not 'in situation'
> though I remember some gags, specially in Mel Brooks movies...(Blazing
> Saddles?) .
> As (did not) said Gilles the London Philharmonic is obviousely not
> flying in space.
"The Simpson Files" killed incidental music for me with the oncoming
Springfield Philharmoic tour bus :-)
A book I read had a character in a palace who got annoyed with the
constant background music, pulled aside a curtain in his room and found a
muscian there. Turned out that as an honoured guest he was assigned a
musician who followed him around keeping out of sight and providing
appropriate mood music.
OTOH watching some TV shows from the early eighties and before it's
strange how you notice that the majority of the time there isn't any music
playing in the background and how quiet it all seems, somehow more
intense; might just be me though.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:51:26 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On 23 Jun 2008 17:50:58 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> Everybody knows that there's no sound in space, and everybody knows
>> that
>> the vast majority of scifi movies get this wrong and present sounds
>> audible
>> in space, which is physically impossible, and thus an inaccuracy.
>
> [snip]
>
> Has no one heard of the phrase "The suspension of disbelief"?
>
> It's a film and the people in it are actors.
Nooooooo! Next you'll be saying programmes like Emmerdale and Eastenders
aren't real either and that there really isn't a suburb of Liverpool
populated solely by attractive people between the ages of 18 and 25.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:23:00 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>Nooooooo! Next you'll be saying
Santa Claus!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:52:09 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:23:00 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> Nooooooo! Next you'll be saying
>
> Santa Claus!
Pfft everyone knows Santa Claus is fictional; just like the Tooth Fairy,
the Easter Bunny, and Jesus.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:33:45 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>And lo on Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:52:09 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
>did spake, saying:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:23:00 +0100, "Phil Cook"
>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>
>>> Nooooooo! Next you'll be saying
>>
>> Santa Claus!
>
>Pfft everyone knows Santa Claus is fictional; just like the Tooth Fairy,
>the Easter Bunny, and Jesus.
>
How can the last one be when he walked on your green and pleasant
lands?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:21:45 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:33:45 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> And lo on Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:52:09 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:23:00 +0100, "Phil Cook"
>>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nooooooo! Next you'll be saying
>>>
>>> Santa Claus!
>>
>> Pfft everyone knows Santa Claus is fictional; just like the Tooth Fairy,
>> the Easter Bunny, and Jesus.
>
> How can the last one be when he walked on your green and pleasant
> lands?
Odd that bit never made the novel; I'd have thought all the fights where
he led the centaurs against the orcs would have been a shoe-in. We can
blame the editors I suppose.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
