 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
H²
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> That sounds like the review that encouraged me to watch it.
And, if you haven't seen "eXistenZ", that's a great movie too. Very
cool, worth watching twice.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> That sounds like the review that encouraged me to watch it.
>
> And, if you haven't seen "eXistenZ", that's a great movie too. Very
> cool, worth watching twice.
>
I haven't, but it is on my queue. I'll bump it up a bit higher on your
recommendation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> So why are movie makers so afraid of putting a realistic pause between
> the lightning and the thunder?
Maybe because then the viewer might not realise it's lightning? Sometimes
IRL I can't tell whether it's thunder or someone wheeling out their bin :-)
so on TV I guess there's even more scope for confusion. Better to make
things overly obvious I guess.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > So why are movie makers so afraid of putting a realistic pause between
> > the lightning and the thunder?
> Maybe because then the viewer might not realise it's lightning? Sometimes
> IRL I can't tell whether it's thunder or someone wheeling out their bin :-)
> so on TV I guess there's even more scope for confusion. Better to make
> things overly obvious I guess.
I suppose that could be one possible rationale. It just seems very common.
I wonder if movie makers have some kind of instruction book on how to do
these things "correctly".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I wonder if movie makers have some kind of instruction book on how to do
> these things "correctly".
Maybe in a book like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Creating-Special-Effects-Video-Manual/dp/0240514742
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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.
Movies aren't reality, but in any event, most of the lightning strikes
in the movies I've seen were up close, and not off in the distance.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Movies aren't reality, but in any event, most of the lightning strikes
> in the movies I've seen were up close, and not off in the distance.
Is 300 meters "up close" or "off in the distance"? IMO that's pretty
close (for a lightning strike). Yet, it takes the sound almost a second
to travel that distance.
The ligthning strike has to be *really* close (even dangerously so)
for the light and sound to be undistinguishably separated.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Is 300 meters "up close" or "off in the distance"?
For that matter, just watching the guys hammering on the roof of the
house at the end of the block I can see a delay between the visual and
the sound. Of course, nobody is adding in the hammer sound after the
fact here. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> The ligthning strike has to be *really* close (even dangerously so)
> for the light and sound to be undistinguishably separated.
>
I can assure you that if in real life you don't realize the delay, the
sound of thunder is one freaking ass-kicker.
Dunno how much there was space between us and that flash, but one hit
pretty near (now that I think of it, I think it was less than 100m - I
can't be sure, 'cause it was "a bit" shocking) and was practically in
sync. That was LOUD. It felt like it kicked my stomach around with just
that noise.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Dunno how much there was space between us and that flash, but one hit
> pretty near (now that I think of it, I think it was less than 100m - I
> can't be sure, 'cause it was "a bit" shocking) and was practically in
> sync. That was LOUD. It felt like it kicked my stomach around with just
> that noise.
Similar story here - not as close as Darren was, I'm sure. I have no
idea how far away it was, but I did not perceive any delay. I was
walking on the sidewalk while it was raining heavily, and two people
were doing likewise on the other side of the street.
The thunder was so loud that all three of us fell to the ground.
--
Two robins were sitting in a tree. `I'm really hungry`, said the first
one. `Me, too` said the second. `Let's fly down and find some lunch.`
They flew to the ground and found a nice plot of plowed ground full of
worms. They ate and ate and ate and ate `til they could eat no more.
`I'm so full I don't think I can fly back up to the tree`, said the
first one. `Me either. Let's just lay here and bask in the warm sun`,
said the second. `O.K.` said the first. They plopped down, basking in
the sun. No sooner than they had fallen asleep, a big fat tom cat snuck
up and gobbled them up. As he sat washing his face after his meal, he
thought, `I just love baskin` robins.`
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> The thunder was so loud that all three of us fell to the ground.
That's approximately what should happen in the movies as well: If the
lightning is so close that it's in sync with the thunder, it should be
*really* loud (and even dangerous).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2 Sep 2008 14:26:00 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> 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?
You keep forgetting that "the movies" is not real life.
Do you ever go to live theatre where the art of story telling has even more
constraints? If you did then you would understand that sometimes the technical
problems lead to compromise. What is the point of having a role of thunder when
people are speaking? The audience would not be able to hear the words. Should a
film of a 24 hour storyline last a day?
It seems to me that you object to artistic licence in the movies.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> You keep forgetting that "the movies" is not real life.
It seems to me that Warp sometimes confuses the fuzzy imprecision of
human-human interaction with the required precision of computational maths.
> Do you ever go to live theatre where the art of story telling has even more
> constraints? If you did then you would understand that sometimes the technical
> problems lead to compromise. What is the point of having a role of thunder when
> people are speaking? The audience would not be able to hear the words. Should a
> film of a 24 hour storyline last a day?
Didn't Andy Warhol produce a film that did just that? I suppose I could
Google it but I'm sure someone else will do it for me :-)
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> You keep forgetting that "the movies" is not real life.
Oops, forgot to say congrats on your TC-RTC success
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:46:34 +0100, Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
>
>Didn't Andy Warhol produce a film that did just that? I suppose I could
>Google it but I'm sure someone else will do it for me :-)
I'm sure he did, it is the sort of thing he would have done.
And think it clever.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:47:53 +0100, Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
>Doctor John wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> You keep forgetting that "the movies" is not real life.
>
>Oops, forgot to say congrats on your TC-RTC success
>
???
Winning a one horse race has little value.
But thanks anyway.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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).
> What is the point of having a role of thunder when
> people are speaking?
I didn't understand the question.
> 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.
> 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de
news:48c2e69e@news.povray.org...
> It's simply some kind of odd convention.
There's no waiting time for lightning because lightning, to be understood
(and impressive) as lightning, is supposed to go "Flash!!! Crack!!!", not
"Flash!!!, Awkward pause during which nothing remotely interesting happens,
Crack!!!". FlashCrack is Lightning. FlashPauseCrack is "Eh, who just took a
picture?, Uh, What's this noise?" Even in real life this is not always
obvious and that's a luxury movies can't afford.
It's not odd, it's a normal convention for movies. In movies, no time is
wasted for going to the toilet, saying "thank you", saying "hello" on the
phone, finding a parking space, healing after being shot at or beaten,
waiting for hair and clothes to dry, filling a tax return and other
gazillion things that are part of normal life, unless of course it's part of
the plot. In movies, night may come instantly after day. Only significant
events occur and then only on a compressed timeline, in complete disregard
of the laws of physics, biology, economy, psychology and whatnot. Normal
moviegoers accept this and do not care, unlike obsessive geeks who compile
this sort of things on the internet ;D
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <gil### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:48c40168$1@news.povray.org...
> It's not odd, it's a normal convention for movies. In movies, no time is
> wasted for going to the toilet, saying "thank you", saying "hello" on the
> phone,
Yes, why do Americans never say "goodbye" to the other person on the
'phone?? They just put the thing down... (in films I've seen anyway), but is
this typical in real life?
~Steve~
> G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <gil### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> There's no waiting time for lightning because lightning, to be understood
> (and impressive) as lightning, is supposed to go "Flash!!! Crack!!!"
That's the problem: Says who?
The only one who says that are the movies themselves. It's not anybody's
personal experience of lightning. It's a convention invented purely by
movies (and before that probably by theatre), not by reality.
If movies always had had a realistic lightning, nodoby would complain
about it or feel it's odd, but just a normal convention of depicting
something in movies realistically. It's a convention which people accept
not because of any real necessity, but simply because movies artificially
have created the convention, and people have got accustomed to it because
of seeing so many movies.
There are many other unrealistic conventions in movies, but most of them
are dictated by practicality. For example the soundtrack of a scene of
two people talking is usually as if the microphone was about between the
two people, and not where the camera is currently. This is a purely
practical thing, as it would probably be difficult to hear what they
are saying otherwise. This is also an artificial convention created by
movies, but it's caused by necessity, and it works.
I don't see any necessity in unrealistic depictions of lightning.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:48c40bf8@news.povray.org...
>
> Yes, why do Americans never say "goodbye" to the other person on the
> 'phone?? They just put the thing down... (in films I've seen anyway), but
> is this typical in real life?
Movie characters (American or not) are typically rude to each other. Even in
non-violent movies people do and say things to each other that should land
them in anger management therapy, if not in court or jail, but other
characters don't seem to bother that much (unless it's part of the plot of
the plot). It's an entire autistic world where regular ethics and personal
feelings do not exist and don't matter. An egregious example (among
thousands) is Julia Robert's character in "My best friend's wedding", who
does lots of wrong things (including trying to get her best friend sacked by
sending bogus emails from his boss' account, and later stealing a truck and
starting a car chase) and five minutes later everything's forgiven and
everybody's happy and friends again. Suspension of disbelief is your friend,
fortunately.
IIRC "True lies" made fun of this convention during the horse chase, with
Schwarzenegger saying "sorry" and "excuse me" to everyone who got in his
way, and this was played for comical purpose.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de
news:48c41777@news.povray.org...
> I don't see any necessity in unrealistic depictions of lightning.
Ok, just pick a scene that has simultaneous flash and sound, edit it to make
them separate and see if it works from a moviegoer's perspective.
Cut to: general view of soldiers climbing up a hill at night. Suddenly the
hill lits up and there's the deafening, unmistakeable sound of thunder. In a
1-2 seconds, you've established the context and put your viewers in the
right mood. Poor soldiers, climbing up that hill, threatened by thunder.
Then you can cut the a close-up of the soldiers' faces.
Now the edited version:
Cut to: general view of soldiers climbing up a hill at night. Suddenly the
hill lits up. Nobody knows why because *** there's no friggin sound ***, it
could be some flares. The soldiers keep climbing up for a few seconds, in
silence. Then there's some deafening sound except that by then people may
have forgotten the big light before so the sound could be from something
else, like a large gun, or a bomb. Not only you took much more time to
establish the mood and wasted precious movie seconds, but the mood may not
even be the right one and leave the viewers puzzled or confused.
One big part of the art of movie making consists precisely in understanding
those conventions and how to use them (ditto for most art forms actually).
Never compare what's going on in a movie to reality, it's pointless.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <gil### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> silence. Then there's some deafening sound except that by then people may
> have forgotten the big light before so the sound could be from something
Are you seriously suggesting that people would forget something that had
happened only five seconds ago?
Not only that, but that they wouldn't recognize an event with practically
everyone has experienced thousands of times in their own lives?
....Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: iso-8859-1, 14 lines --]
> "Gilles Tran" <gil### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > silence. Then there's some deafening sound except that by then people may
> > have forgotten the big light before so the sound could be from something
> Are you seriously suggesting that people would forget something that had
> happened only five seconds ago?
> Not only that, but that they wouldn't recognize an event with practically
> everyone has experienced thousands of times in their own lives?
Especially if the weather in the movie is stormy: Dark clouds, heavy
rain, strong wind...
I find it rather unlikely that in this kind of setting some viewer
would get confused about the lighting or the sound.
Besides, realistic lightning could be used for dramatic effect.
For example at first there's a long delay between the flash and the
sound, and the sound is rather distant. After a while the delay gets
noticeably shorter, which means that the storm is much closer. At some
point the delay could be just fractions of a second, the flash much
brighter and the sound much louder, and this coupled with a heavier
rain and stronger wind could make an extremely dramatic effect.
Could work well for a horror movie too.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <gil### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:48c41c54$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> a écrit dans le message de
> news:48c40bf8@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Yes, why do Americans never say "goodbye" to the other person on the
>> 'phone?? They just put the thing down... (in films I've seen anyway), but
>> is this typical in real life?
>
> Movie characters (American or not) are typically rude to each other.
Yes, sure, I didn't mean just Americans in films, it's just that those
films are the only one's where I've seen it happen many times and they stand
out. And it's not just films either, it's popular shows too. No-one says
"Goodbye, thanks for calling, speak to you later". Well, not that I've seen
anyway.
Even in
> non-violent movies people do and say things to each other that should land
> them in anger management therapy, if not in court or jail, but other
> characters don't seem to bother that much (unless it's part of the plot of
> the plot). It's an entire autistic world where regular ethics and personal
> feelings do not exist and don't matter. An egregious example (among
> thousands) is Julia Robert's character in "My best friend's wedding", who
> does lots of wrong things (including trying to get her best friend sacked
> by sending bogus emails from his boss' account, and later stealing a truck
> and starting a car chase) and five minutes later everything's forgiven and
> everybody's happy and friends again. Suspension of disbelief is your
> friend, fortunately.
Trying to wrack my brain if I've seen that one. I think I have but don't
remember it.
> IIRC "True lies" made fun of this convention during the horse chase, with
> Schwarzenegger saying "sorry" and "excuse me" to everyone who got in his
> way, and this was played for comical purpose.
Haha! Yes, he did. It's funny that you mention that because when I first
watched it, I thought that it was weird having him say those things.
Actually, thinking about it now, the whole film is a parody.
~Steve~
>
> G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:48c4531a@news.povray.org...
> Besides, realistic lightning could be used for dramatic effect.
> For example at first there's a long delay between the flash and the
> sound, and the sound is rather distant. After a while the delay gets
> noticeably shorter, which means that the storm is much closer. At some
> point the delay could be just fractions of a second, the flash much
> brighter and the sound much louder, and this coupled with a heavier
> rain and stronger wind could make an extremely dramatic effect.
>
> Could work well for a horror movie too.
Sure, but the film producers are on a budget as pointed out already.
~Steve~
>
> --
> - Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:54:42 +0100, Gilles Tran
<gil### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de
> news:48c41777@news.povray.org...
>
>> I don't see any necessity in unrealistic depictions of lightning.
>
> Ok, just pick a scene that has simultaneous flash and sound, edit it to
> make them separate and see if it works from a moviegoer's perspective.
See I blame the old-time storytelliers - 'And Zeus sent down his mighty
thunderbolt and the sound of his rage rolled over them... after a couple
of seconds delay'
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> Sure, but the film producers are on a budget as pointed out already.
Excuse me? They have enough budget to make photorealistic computer
graphics, but they don't have the budget to add a delay to a sound?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Yes, why do Americans never say "goodbye" to the other person on the
> 'phone?? They just put the thing down... (in films I've seen anyway), but is
> this typical in real life?
No. Except my grandfather, who grew up before there were phones in
houses. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
