 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This one puzzles me really:
In almost all movies and TV series, where there's lightning, the sound
of the thunder is played exactly at the same time. I can't remember any
exceptions to this rule.
I really can't understand why. In reality the thunder almost never
starts sounding immediately with the lightning but there's always a
pause, often of several seconds. Practically 100% of people know this
from lifelong experience.
So why are movie makers so afraid of putting a realistic pause between
the lightning and the thunder? They know there should be a pause, all
the viewers know it, no viewer would get bothered by there having a
realistic pause because they know it should be there. So why? Why this
odd rule?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> So why are movie makers so afraid of putting a realistic pause between
> the lightning and the thunder?
I *have* noticed that in a couple of places, where you see an unexpected
explosion, the sound follows realistically later, and it's actually
kind of distracting. (Like, in the first Final Fantasy when the plane
blows up, as an example.)
I've also noticed that's *not* true when the lightning isn't close
enough to affect the characters. If they're (say) standing out on the
balcony talking, and the storm is out over the city somewhere, the
lightning and thunder don't go together. It's only when the lightning is
playing a part in the plot or mood that it happens at the same time, I
think.
Maybe the trope is so there it would be distracting to have it realistic.
I recently watched a movie with "realistic" dialog. Four people in a
garage start-up, all talking at once, all using technical terms and
pointing at things and upstaging each other, half the time mumbling. It
was pretty awful, even tho that's how you'd really do it in real life.
However, not actually *being* there, not having binocular vision (so you
can see around someone pointing at something) and not having binaural
hearing (so you can listen to two people talk at once) made half the
movie incomprehensible. (The other half was incomprehensible because it
was a time-travel movie and they never told the audience who was (or
even how many were) the "new" guy and who was the "original" guy :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I recently watched a movie with "realistic" dialog. Four people in a
> garage start-up, all talking at once, all using technical terms and
> pointing at things and upstaging each other, half the time mumbling. It
> was pretty awful, even tho that's how you'd really do it in real life.
> However, not actually *being* there, not having binocular vision (so you
> can see around someone pointing at something) and not having binaural
> hearing (so you can listen to two people talk at once) made half the
> movie incomprehensible. (The other half was incomprehensible because it
> was a time-travel movie and they never told the audience who was (or
> even how many were) the "new" guy and who was the "original" guy :-)
Aww man, I loved Primer. Sorry to hear that you didn't like it. It was
hard to follow, but the logically consistency and general "realistic"
feel of everything was far enough outside my experience with other time
travel movies that it more than made up for it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote in message
news:48bd8538@news.povray.org...
> This one puzzles me really:
>
> In almost all movies and TV series, where there's lightning, the sound
> of the thunder is played exactly at the same time. I can't remember any
> exceptions to this rule.
>
> I really can't understand why. In reality the thunder almost never
> starts sounding immediately with the lightning but there's always a
> pause, often of several seconds. Practically 100% of people know this
> from lifelong experience.
>
> So why are movie makers so afraid of putting a realistic pause between
> the lightning and the thunder? They know there should be a pause, all
> the viewers know it, no viewer would get bothered by there having a
> realistic pause because they know it should be there. So why? Why this
> odd rule?
Yes, I agree that it's not realistic, but really, it's just for the best
effect in any given film?
Isn't it a rule of thumb that for every second after the lightning until
the thunder sounds, that's one mile per second? Hence 9 seconds, the storm
is 9 miles away from you?
~Steve~
>
> --
> - Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Aww man, I loved Primer. Sorry to hear that you didn't like it.
I'm not sure whether I liked it or not. I found it incomprehensible, in
the true meaning of the word. Not "too inconsistent to understand" or
"illogical". Just ... I couldn't understand what they were saying half
the time, or where half the characters went, or what the whole voiceover
was about, or etc. Maybe I need to watch the second part a couple more
times, but if I literally can't understand what the characters are
saying or where in the story they are, it's kind of too tedious to be
fun. It would probably make more sense as a book. :-)
I mean, the whole thing with the shotgun and the bearded guy and
stuff...[1] when the hell was *that* resolved? The whole pivotal point
that explains the second half of the movie kind of happens in the
background where you don't see it, and all you get is the main
characters mumbling about what's going on, and assuming you know who it
is they're talking about, because *they* recognized the guy when they
walked past, even if the audience doesn't.
(That, and the first half was really slow, too. I mean, the first 20
minutes are about the project that is irrelevant to the rest of the
story, with a couple of guys you don't even see after the first 30 minutes.)
[1] Trying to avoid any spoilers there...
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Isn't it a rule of thumb that for every second after the lightning until
> the thunder sounds, that's one mile per second? Hence 9 seconds, the storm
> is 9 miles away from you?
Sound travels about 1000 feet per second, and there are about 5000 feet
in a mile, so five seconds is one mile.
I was once running home down a mountain trail when it started to rain,
with my brother beside me, and lightning went between the two of us
(incidentally striking the building we were running towards, going in
the window and out the door to ground). It was the *loudest* and
*brightest* thing I'd ever heard, needless to say. I remember being
stunned still, and then a few seconds later looking up to see my brother
running down the hill screaming and waving his hands over his head. I
always thought it was comedic exaggeration to run waving your hands over
your head, but I guess not.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In the movie Poltergeist there is a scene where the young son is in bed,
scared, and he starts counting out the time between the flash and the
thunder.
--
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48bdaff3$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> Isn't it a rule of thumb that for every second after the lightning until
>> the thunder sounds, that's one mile per second? Hence 9 seconds, the
>> storm is 9 miles away from you?
>
> Sound travels about 1000 feet per second, and there are about 5000 feet in
> a mile, so five seconds is one mile.
What I said above is a true 'Old Wive's Tale' here in the UK. I've heard it
so many times now...
>
> I was once running home down a mountain trail when it started to rain,
> with my brother beside me, and lightning went between the two of us
> (incidentally striking the building we were running towards, going in the
> window and out the door to ground). It was the *loudest* and *brightest*
> thing I'd ever heard, needless to say. I remember being stunned still,
> and then a few seconds later looking up to see my brother running down the
> hill screaming and waving his hands over his head. I always thought it was
> comedic exaggeration to run waving your hands over your head, but I guess
> not.
Wow, great memories! Great story! I too, have a memory like that, but it
concerns a 'lightening ball'.
When I was around 9 years old, I joined a boxing club and really got into
it with the training and such. Got my nose punched badly in my first
sparring debut. ;)
Ran home with a bleeding nose, lol. But it was like 5 miles from home,
and half way home, it started raining. And then thunder and lightening. And
then, right next to a lamp post, this amazing blue/white ball of lightening
fizzled and hovered above me and then zipped away...
It was an amazing sight, and I'll never forget that.
~Steve~
>
> --
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> Aww man, I loved Primer. Sorry to hear that you didn't like it.
>
> I'm not sure whether I liked it or not. I found it incomprehensible, in
> the true meaning of the word. Not "too inconsistent to understand" or
> "illogical". Just ... I couldn't understand what they were saying half
> the time, or where half the characters went, or what the whole voiceover
> was about, or etc.
I agree entirely with this, but in my case this is one of the reasons
that I enjoyed it. I get the feeling that there really is a consistent
interpretation of everything, and the movie in some ways is sort of an
intellectual puzzle to figure it out (I certainly had a better feel for
things after the second watching than after the first).
Anyway, if you're interested enough, it looks like someone has already
gone through the trouble of drawing a timeline flowchart to explain what
happened:
http://neuwanstein.fw.hu/primer_timeline.html
So simple!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> intellectual puzzle to figure it out (I certainly had a better feel for
> things after the second watching than after the first).
That sounds like the review that encouraged me to watch it.
> Anyway, if you're interested enough, it looks like someone has already
> gone through the trouble of drawing a timeline flowchart to explain what
> happened:
Ah. I'll definitely have to roam through that. :-) I hadn't realized
there were actual 15 instantiations of each person. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
