|
 |
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> - Why are these ships so damned loud in the high vacuum of outer space?
It's a filming convention.
You don't complain if you hear, for example, two people speaking inside
a restaurant even though the "camera" is filming them from outside, through
the window. Realistically speaking what you should hear is the sound of
traffic and no dialogue, but instead it's the other way around. Yet how
many people complain about this being "unrealistic"?
None, because it's a filming convention. There is no camera, there is no
microphone, and the convention is that the soundtrack depicts the sounds
heard by the subjects being shown on the picture. If it's two people
talking, the soundtrack depicts their conversation. Likewise if the picture
shows a spaceship, the soundtrack depicts what can be generally heard inside
the spaceship (ie. the humming of the propulsion system or whatever).
Remember, there is no "camera" nor "microphone" in the vacuum of space
(in the fictional reality of the film), so expecting them to behave like
they were would be the unrealistic thing to do.
(Not that this cannot be done effectively as well. Space Odyssey 2001 did
it quite well. However, that can be considered just another filming
convention.)
> - Why do they fall downwards in screen space if there's a major failure?
Care to give an example?
> - Why bother with aerodynamic shapes when there's no frigging /air/?
It can be justified in that many of those spaceships also need to fly in
atmospheric conditions.
> Then we usually have things like cloaking (rather difficult in a cold,
> dark vacuum)
What do you mean?
(Besides, vacuum is not cold. It has no temperature because there's nothing
to have any temperature.)
> tractor beams (how would that work?)
Why not? Even mundane things like magnetism work. It's not completely
inconceivable that in the distant future other forms of action at a
distance are developed/discovered.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
