On 6 Sep 2008 16:22:55 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>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).
>

You are right, there are no technical problems. I should have said aesthetic. 
I believe that is the reason for the unrealistic gap between the flash and the
peal. Without researching it myself I cannot really say.

>> What is the point of having a role of thunder when
>> people are speaking?
>
>  I didn't understand the question.
>

Again I phrased it badly. If the flash and peal are close together then the rest
of the plot can continue without being interrupted by the thunder.

>> 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.
>

In your opinion.

>> 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.

Well we disagree about the donner unt blitzen 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message