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.

  However, I read a rather interesting point of view about this.

  When a movie is filming some subject, let's say for example two people,
the sound environment is that of these two people, not that of the camera.
Regardless of how far (or how close) the camera is, the sound is that of
the "average" of those two persons. In other words, the film soundtrack
depicts what those persons hear (averaged between the two). The camera
itself may even be a dozen of meters away, yet the soundtrack is from the
perspective of the subjects, not the one of the camera.

  This is an accepted movie technique, and you seldom see anyone complaining
about it. It's an established way of depicting a fictive scene, and
everyone just accepts that.

  If the scene had a soundtrack from a microphone attached to the camera
(which would be "realistic"), that would actually break the fourth wall,
so to speak. It would actually make the audience aware that there *is*
a microphone, there *is* a camera, and the former is attached to the
latter.
  In the movie's own reality there, of course, is no camera nor microphone,
so making the scene so that it becomes obvious that there is, breaks the
fourth wall and the willing suspension of disbelief.

  The same goes for outer space scenes: If the movie is, for example,
showing a spaceship as the subject of the scene, the soundtrack is that
of the point of view of the spaceship. The spaceship can "hear" itself
(or, more practically, the people inside the spaceship can hear it).

  If that scene was completely silent, however, it would once again break
the fourth wall: The movie is telling that the "microphone" is in space,
probably attached to the camera, which reminds the viewers that there *is*
a camera, there *is* a microphone, and both are in space, where there's no
sound.
  This, once again, breaks the fourth wall because in the movie's reality
there should be no camera nor microphone.

  Movies which have sound in space are simply sticking to the movie
convention that the soundtrack is that which is perceived by the subject
being filmed, not that which is perceived by the camera (which doesn't
really "exist" in that reality).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:48601ac1@news.povray.org...

>   Movies which have sound in space are simply sticking to the movie
> convention that the soundtrack is that which is perceived by the subject
> being filmed, not that which is perceived by the camera (which doesn't
> really "exist" in that reality).

Agreed. Nobody seems to object to the "camera" (in one of the very few
movies which got the sound "right") outside Discovery One filming the action
(manned by the 6th crew member I suppose) but everyone who's had some high
school physics feels the need to show it off by focusing on the physical
impossibility of the "microphone".

Post a reply to this message

Warp 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.
> 
>   However, I read a rather interesting point of view about this.
> 
>   When a movie is filming some subject, let's say for example two people,
> the sound environment is that of these two people, not that of the camera.
> Regardless of how far (or how close) the camera is, the sound is that of
> the "average" of those two persons. In other words, the film soundtrack
> depicts what those persons hear (averaged between the two). The camera
> itself may even be a dozen of meters away, yet the soundtrack is from the
> perspective of the subjects, not the one of the camera.
> 
>   This is an accepted movie technique, and you seldom see anyone complaining
> about it. It's an established way of depicting a fictive scene, and
> everyone just accepts that.
> 
>   If the scene had a soundtrack from a microphone attached to the camera
> (which would be "realistic"), that would actually break the fourth wall,
> so to speak. It would actually make the audience aware that there *is*
> a microphone, there *is* a camera, and the former is attached to the
> latter.
>   In the movie's own reality there, of course, is no camera nor microphone,
> so making the scene so that it becomes obvious that there is, breaks the
> fourth wall and the willing suspension of disbelief.
> 
>   The same goes for outer space scenes: If the movie is, for example,
> showing a spaceship as the subject of the scene, the soundtrack is that
> of the point of view of the spaceship. The spaceship can "hear" itself
> (or, more practically, the people inside the spaceship can hear it).
> 
>   If that scene was completely silent, however, it would once again break
> the fourth wall: The movie is telling that the "microphone" is in space,
> probably attached to the camera, which reminds the viewers that there *is*
> a camera, there *is* a microphone, and both are in space, where there's no
> sound.
>   This, once again, breaks the fourth wall because in the movie's reality
> there should be no camera nor microphone.
> 
>   Movies which have sound in space are simply sticking to the movie
> convention that the soundtrack is that which is perceived by the subject
> being filmed, not that which is perceived by the camera (which doesn't
> really "exist" in that reality).
> 

Thats sounds like a lot of rationalization for the simple Truth that We 
the viewers love explodions.

Post a reply to this message

> Thats sounds like a lot of rationalization for the simple Truth that We 
> the viewers love explodions.

And that space films would be pretty boring with no sound.

Hey they often have background music in space films too, where does that all 
come from?

Post a reply to this message

48601ac1@news.povray.org...
>  Movies which have sound in space are simply sticking to the movie
> convention that the soundtrack is that which is perceived by the subject
> being filmed, not that which is perceived by the camera (which doesn't
> really "exist" in that reality).

Interestingly enough, not only there's sound in space but the entire London 
Symphonic Orchestra (John Williams conducting) is there too, floating around 
and trying not to get in the way of the X-Wings. IIRC the first one who 
complained about whoosh sounds in Star Wars was Harlan Ellison, who wrote a 
big rant about this in 1976. I like Ellison as a writer, but that rant was 
really dumb.

In the DVD commentary of LOTR there's an anecdote (from memory, actual 
wording may be different) about an actor complaining about lighting being 
too artificial: "It's supposed to be completely dark there, where is the 
light coming from?" And the director answered: "From the same place as the 
music"

G.

Post a reply to this message

I liked the way Serenity handled this - all the space scenes were eerily 
silent, except for weapon firing / impacts, which sounded like they were 
being transmitted by the spacecraft hulls, not air (or some other 
gaseous medium). Not completely realistic, but quite a good effect.

(I think the new Battlestar Galactica does this too, but not all the 
time, bizarrely).

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:50:58 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

>   Movies which have sound in space are simply sticking to the movie
> convention that the soundtrack is that which is perceived by the subject
> being filmed, not that which is perceived by the camera (which doesn't
> really "exist" in that reality).

But the spaceship is an object and thus isn't a 'subject' that can  
perceive anything. Sure if you're focused on some guy staring out a  
porthole you could hear what he can hear. Likewise in a battle the sounds  
 from the ship's own blasters can be transmitted to the pilot, but how does  
the sounds from the other ships guns get transmitted to them unless you're  
expected to take the perceptions of every ship on screen; and even then  
you can have someone react to a 'laser' bolt zipping by their ship from an  
unseen enemy.

-- 
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 23 Jun 2008 17:50:58 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

I think an additional reason is that this statement ...

>  Everybody knows that there's no sound in space

... is not really true.  I bet if you ask 100 people, "If we are both floating in
space, and I snap my fingers, what will it sound like?", most of them will not answer
correctly.  

If you create a space film in which you do not hear the phasers fire, or the whoosh of
a spacecraft fly-by, I believe most people will think that something is wrong with the
film, because their
perception of physics is what they experience on Earth daily, not what is reality in
space.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:
> IIRC the first one who 
> complained about whoosh sounds in Star Wars was Harlan Ellison, who wrote a 
> big rant about this in 1976.

  That's odd, given that the movie was released in 1977...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> But the spaceship is an object and thus isn't a 'subject' that can  
> perceive anything.

  Of course it is, and of course it does.

  That's as ridiculous as saying that if the movie is showing a car,
the sound of the car should not be heard because the car is not a "subject"
and doesn't "perceive anything".

> Sure if you're focused on some guy staring out a  
> porthole you could hear what he can hear. Likewise in a battle the sounds  
>  from the ship's own blasters can be transmitted to the pilot, but how does  
> the sounds from the other ships guns get transmitted to them unless you're  
> expected to take the perceptions of every ship on screen; and even then  
> you can have someone react to a 'laser' bolt zipping by their ship from an  
> unseen enemy.

  If you can see the other ship, and you can see the laser, you can hear
it because it's a subject in view, and the convention is to make the
soundtrack so.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message