Here's something to bust the whole 'sound in space' issue in the movie. by reginaroadie

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Here's something to bust the whole 'sound in space' issue in the movie.

POSTED BY: REGINAROADIE
UPDATED: Saturday, August 6, 2005 19:42
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3940
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, August 5, 2005 2:15 PM

I'm not too big on nit-picking (I hate it when people try to intentionally destroy the suspension of disbelief), but one thing I heard a lot about with the movie that people are concerned about was "Will there be sound in space?" Now I heard something about the big space fight being in some "ion cloud" so I'm guessing they're bending the rules slightly while still holding onto the "no sound in space" rule they had on the show.

Well the thing is, I don't know if anyone else picked up on this, but they did actually break that rule on the show. In "Out of Gas" when the engine room explodes and they're sucking the fire out of the ship into space. The exterior shots are silent, but the interior shots when the fire is rushing out the bay doors and when the doors are closing, you can still hear the roars and clanks and other ship noises. You still shouldn't be able to hear anything until the second where the doors close completely. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY realized this, and in the scene where Dave blasts himself into the ship from his pod, even though he's inside and floating around, you still don't hear a thing. And it's only when he closes the hatch and it's down completely that the sound kicks in.

Like I said, I'm not much for nit-picking, and it won't bother me if during the Reavers/Alliance battle, I'm bombarded by the surround sound system of the theatre. I'm just saying that before you start srutinizing something new of a sci-fi series, you should go through the original before lambasting something over a tiny, insignificant detail.

Oh, and for the record, I have no idea if the big space battle in the movie IS Alliance/Reavers. I'm just assuming it is, so don't think of it as a spoiler.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

And wow! Hey! What's this thing suddenly coming towards me very fast? Very very fast. So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like ... ow ... ound ... round ... ground! That's it! That's a good name - ground! I wonder if it will be friends with me?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2005 4:16 PM

THEGREYJEDI

Ah, but in Out of Gas, there was atmosphere. It was rushing out the doors along with the fire, but atmosphere nonetheless.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Engineer - USS SereniTREE
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
Real Fans Wait - 09/30/05

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2005 5:18 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

I’m not so sure that an “ion cloud” in space, particularly one thin enough for a space ship to fly through with an appreciable velocity, is likely to have sufficient density to experience any significant compression waves.

And sound is dependent on the density of the atmosphere, not whether the airlock doors are open.

I'll agree that one should see the movie before criticizing it, and that goes the same for the trailer.

It would be a shame, I think, if the movie fails to live up to the “no sound in space” criteria, simply to satisfy people who want a pretty movie instead of a good story. To what degree the story is dependent on that criteria is perhaps a subjective proposition. There are probably many people, like yourself, who won’t care. I, personally, felt that it added a degree of plausibility. There is a certain, almost diplomatic, trade to be made for suspension of belief. A show simply cannot offer the audience anything and expect them to believe it. Those space scenes in which the Serenity silently coasted across the screen helped to make the other parts of the story seem more real, more plausible and so it added to power of the story.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2005 5:25 PM

WIBBLEDTODEATH

NO SOUND IN SPACE IS A MYTH!

The whole thing about no sound is a popular..but incorrect, fallacy!

Read on......
There is ALWAYS some sound in space...just not in vacuum.....

When it comes to Sci fi in space though, our hero's (and anyone else for that matter) are NOT hardly ever in vacuum!

So it strikes me that sound is not a bad thing to hear. Ok, ok...so when the camera gives us an external POV..the camera or POV itself is in vacuum...so IT shouldnt be able to hear stuff. But, on the other hand...IT probably shouldnt be there at all...let alone able to pass through bulkheads...move around people invisibly etc to get us the best view of things etc.....

Is this realism?

All I am saying is that, if we can cut to see the facial expressions of our hero..or their opponant..to more personalise the action...why is it so wroing that we also hear the sound of their weapons fire?

Both are just different POV...audio and visual

Let me put it a different way. While watching a movie, we are frequently in the poition of seeing through a wall/bulkhead etc...so that, for instance, we see what goes on in a room with the curtains drawn. Is this scientifically innacurate...after all we all know that visual spectrums of light cannot propegate through such solid matter?....You cant see through walls in reality!

You cant hear through vacuum in reality either. But we are not watching vacuum...we are watching pressurised ships and people in space suits...with vacuum in between them. Now...these objects ARE able to make noise. They cant transmit it through space...but the film maker can transmit it to us semi-omniscient viewers through the 4th wall of our screens and sound systems.

While watching a movie...we are in the fortunate position of being able to see stuff that an ordinary onlooker wouldn't be able to see because the image wouldnt go through walls....and sometimes hear things an onlooker wouldnt ordinarily be able to hear...because the sound wouldnt go through obsticles or vacuum.

Why is this so?
Because looking at a blank wall... or listening to vacuum does not an interresting movie make.

Films are not reality. They have certain conventions that are used to bring us a story. We accept this as a necessary element of the medium, to bring us picture...and sound.

If a character heard someone yell through space (I am yet to see such a thing happen) then, yes, it would be a breach of scientific reality...and be kinda heard to swallow. If the movie maker allowed us to hear someone scream in their spacesuit it would not be...it is merely employing a standard movie making convention.

Hows that for bustin the whole 'sound in space' issue in a movie?

Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2005 5:40 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by WibbledtoDeath:
All I am saying is that, if we can cut to see the facial expressions of our hero..or their opponant..to more personalise the action...why is it so wroing that we also hear the sound of their weapons fire?

It’s wrong, because the sound doesn’t exist. The sound you are hearing can’t be anything but a fantasy. If you know that there is no way that any sound could be emitted from a device, but you hear sound anyway, it reminds you that what you are watching is not real, and therefore destroys the suspension of beliefs. The plausibility of a story is dependent on how well that story adheres to the rules.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2005 6:12 PM

ANACHRONITE

atmo = sound. so until the ship was totally decompressed, there would be sound. laws of science dont lie.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2005 6:19 PM

WHOISRIVER

Quote:
The plausibility of a story is dependent on how well that story adheres to the rules.

There's sound in space? I'm off to burn my browncoat, it's not realistic any more!

I am, of course, kiddin'. You might want to speculate the fact Wash can't see a Reaver ship right in front of him in "Serenity" (the pilot), but manages to pull things up miles away in later episodes isn't exactly realistic. You might speculate legalised sex trade across a solar system is unrealistic. You could pick apart the whole one solar system logic anyway. And the glowing of the engine, and sudden movement rushes.. Anybody care to explain that?

Firefly/Serenity is a story about people. Who happen to live on a space ship. The 'no sound in space' thing was originally an artistic decision as it's quite interesting - if you see Joss Whedon and ask him questions about physicals, particles, sound and things, his eyes will probably glaze and he'll go running off. He's extremely intelligent and knowledgable, but when you're creating a TV series with a complex plot arc you design that first: you make up shit around it to make it seem vaguely plausable.

TheInside.org - Firefly Producers NEW TV series

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2005 6:27 PM

FIVVER

Just an historical note, I remember Gene Roddenberry talking about this in respect to the Star Trek opening where as the music plays the Enterprise goes whoosing past. He said they wanted to be accurate but felt the sequence without the sound was totally dead.

As far as the scene in Serenity's cargo bay, notice the door is only cracked open. It would take a while to evacuate that large a volume. The fact the fire is still burning indicates there is still enough atmo to support combustion Which means enought atmo for sound.

There is another nit that Firefly avoids. Why is it that space helmets always have lights shining on the occupants face? Does this seem reasonable to you?

So many nits so little time.

Fivver

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2005 6:32 PM

DARKJESTER

I'm not TOTALLY convinced, Finn. There are several instances in the series of sounds that logically make no sense, mainly guns cocking come to mind. Like when Stitch is crashing Jayne's speech in "Jaynestown", and he swings his shotgun to cover Mal, you hear the gun being racked, but he's holding it by the grip, one-handed. It's a sound meant to increase the tension of the scene, and it works, as long as you don't stop to think about it too much. Once you do notice it, however, it bugs the hell out of you every time you see it, and destroys your enjoyment of that particular scene.

I was at the second-round screening in Chicago, and as far as my opinion of sound in space...

Select to view spoiler:

the upper-atmo "space" battle would have been LAME without sound, physics be damned. The lack of sound works well as a wake-up call, like the outside view of the ship in OOG, but for extended battle scenes it just wouldn't work. We are conditioned to expect flashes of light to be followed by very loud sounds (thunder and lightning, fireworks etc) and the shorter the time between, the higher the tension created. IMO.

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2005 6:39 PM

ALEX21

Topic creator MIGHT wanna mark some spoilers on that...It's small, I know, but before I saw the movie I had no idea that *minor spoilers* It was the Alliance and Reavers against each other.

PIE!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2005 6:47 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by WhoIsRiver:
I am, of course, kiddin'. You might want to speculate the fact Wash can't see a Reaver ship right in front of him in "Serenity" (the pilot), but manages to pull things up miles away in later episodes isn't exactly realistic. You might speculate legalised sex trade across a solar system is unrealistic. You could pick apart the whole one solar system logic anyway. And the glowing of the engine, and sudden movement rushes.. Anybody care to explain that?

I can’t. So at what point do we say this is all just bologna and stop watching? Why bother going to see the movie? None of it is real. And if it is not real, then why is it important enough to waste my time on?

Quote:
Originally posted by DarkJester:
I'm not TOTALLY convinced, Finn.

I’m not trying to convince you that there is anything necessarily logical about the show. I’m simply saying that if a writer or producer wishes for their audience to suspend belief to accept these illogical premises, then they must offer the audience something tangible in return.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2005 7:41 PM

WIBBLEDTODEATH

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It’s wrong, because the sound doesn’t exist. The sound you are hearing can’t be anything but a fantasy. If you know that there is no way that any sound could be emitted from a device, but you hear sound anyway, it reminds you that what you are watching is not real, and therefore destroys the suspension of beliefs. The plausibility of a story is dependent on how well that story adheres to the rules.

The rules you cling to which help suspend disbelief are not science...they are perceptions of and adherence to familiar cinematic traditions...and popular scientific fallacies related to cinematic practices.

Sayin "there is no sound in space"...its rather like saying there is no sound in China...after all...we cant hear it cause the sound doesnt travel. But if I watch a film set in China...I sure want to have audio.....

Now, dont get me wrong...I am as big a technical continuity nut as any....but how can you complain that hearing sound in space breaks suspension of disbelief...on the basis of it being scientifically innacurate...when at the same time you can accept a pretty visual POV that similarly...could never really be seen..and is thus an obvious fantasy?

I agree, Finn...they do need to offer the audience something tangeable in return.

(and actually...I like the gun cocking noises someone mentioned...and would refute the suggestion that they are illogical. Guns 500+ years in the future may have...just as a slim possibility...an internal cocking mechanism that reduces trigger pull..and that activates when slight pressure is applied on the trigger...increases accuracy and rate of fire while reducing fatigue. They may not be revolvers at all for that matter...)

Now, as said in my previous post...sound DOES exist..just not in the actual vacuum...where NO ONE IS ANYWAY.

Sound is a pressure wave/oscillation created by just about any major dissepation of energy (usually kenetic) into a material medium...most especially (but not exclusively) a gasious or liquid one...that can travel through matter but has no means of perpetuating in vacuum.

Conveniently, even for shows in 'space' very little of the actual action actually is in vacuum....because vacuum...is very empty (by definition) and thus rather boring to watch.

What we have instead are little pockets of matter..frequently with gases and lifeforms..that float around with areas of space (sometimes including vacuum) between them. Now, everyone of those matter pockets (ie, spacecraft, people in pressurised suits etc) is capable of producing sound..in fact..is rather incapable of not producing it...

Its just that said sound cannot be tranmitted (as sound) through vacuum.

Microphones (albiet unusual ones) are used on some space probes to detect impact from high velocity dust particle and micrometeorite impacts
on unmanned vessels...with no atmophere...because sound CAN and DOES exist..not in vacuum..but in objects in space...and lets face it...its the objects in space we are interrested in seeing and hearing...not the actual space itself....

Now. imagine that...in a sci-fi space battle..we had a camera mounted just outdide the cockpit of our heroe's lil fighter...and another onefar off to catch a wider perspective

and we could flash between the two whenever we wanted in order to get a better view of the fun.

Easy to imagine, yes? You see this all the time in movies...and I have never heard anyone complain yet that it is " not possible" to do that.

Well...imagine that we had a microphone (or several) similarly mounted so we could hear him complain to his bucket droid...we would also hear something of his mechanical engine noise etc depending on the placement and sensitivity of the microphones...because these things could vibrate in operation...and vibration makes sound...

Say we had yet another mounted on his opponants spacecraft...

and we could cut to them...or mix the sound from both whenever we wanted to get a better auditory experience of what was going on (including, say, altering the volume mix depending on relative distances).

Thus we have both multiple visual and audio POV (points of view). Sure, realistically the sound we get from real microphones would be poor to inaudible in places...so instead we get cleaned up fabrications/interpretations of sound that the audience would be able to understand ...but hey...lighting in space..in reality...is actually very poor...with extreem distances and high velocities.....so we also get cleaned up interpretations of the visuals that are easier to comprehend.

Sure sound cant be transmitted through vacuum..and it probably wouldnt sound like that in any case....but light cant be transmitted through a solid metal bulkhead either...and similarly...the image really wouldnt look that good...yet when it is convenient for the story we can see into any little cranny of a ship...

We accept the latter as a routine part of science fiction television viewing. Its called good lighting and choping of the visual POV.

You can accept the visual POV jumping around everywhere as if a camera was mounted in the best place to catch the action....whats the deal with complaining when the same is done with an audio POV????

These are not rules of physics...but of cinematography. If you are going to complain about being able to hear the action...be consistent...and complain that you can see it as well!

But they need not breach the rules of phisics as much as you imagine they do...

and I agree...sometimes the silence of space is more dramatic than a ton of sound.

...I have never seen footage of a person in hard vacuum speaking or making any noise...sometimes silence is more dramatic (but...if an unfortunate victim of such a decompression did have a mic on him...he would be making noises.. very unpleasant poping bubbling ones as internal gases boiled and escaped..)

Personally the ...."its a movie...so just accept it" line doesnt work for me either. I like thinking and using my brain...and appreciate something more if it enables me to both enjoy the logic and action/characters in it.

Which is why I say again..for the benefit of others, like myself, who need a little consistency and reason in their entertainment mix...

Sound DOES exist in space. And I for one am all up for hearing it when dramatically appropriate...

Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2005 9:27 PM

WHOISRIVER

Quote:
Why bother going to see the movie? None of it is real. And if it is not real, then why is it important enough to waste my time on?

Most people go to the theatre to be told a story, a story they can relate to or be interested in. With characters they love or hate. Who do powerful things. On space ships. Vampires. Werewolfs. Whatever.

Joss Whedon and Tim Minear's work is often about taking a concept - the notion of the frontier - and wrapping it in a genre fantasy. If you are looking for a movie or show which explains gigaflops in wavelengths of sound, you are watching the wrong thing. Characters, story arc, making shit up to surround that. If you want a piece of entertainment which challenges and amuses you, there's a party in Mr Whedon (and friends) mind ready to be unlocked right here. That's what makes it worthy of wasting your time on, in my opinion.

TheInside.org - Firefly Producers NEW TV series

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2005 1:51 AM

CALHOUN

Quote:
WibbledtoDeath wrote:
Friday, August 05, 2005 19:41

The rules you cling to which help suspend disbelief are not science...they are perceptions of and adherence to familiar cinematic traditions...and popular scientific fallacies related to cinematic practices.

Sayin "there is no sound in space"...its rather like saying there is no sound in China...after all...we cant hear it cause the sound doesnt travel. But if I watch a film set in China...I sure want to have audio.....

Now, dont get me wrong...I am as big a technical continuity nut as any....but how can you complain that hearing sound in space breaks suspension of disbelief...on the basis of it being scientifically innacurate...when at the same time you can accept a pretty visual POV that similarly...could never really be seen..and is thus an obvious fantasy?

I agree, Finn...they do need to offer the audience something tangeable in return.

(and actually...I like the gun cocking noises someone mentioned...and would refute the suggestion that they are illogical. Guns 500+ years in the future may have...just as a slim possibility...an internal cocking mechanism that reduces trigger pull..and that activates when slight pressure is applied on the trigger...increases accuracy and rate of fire while reducing fatigue. They may not be revolvers at all for that matter...)

Now, as said in my previous post...sound DOES exist..just not in the actual vacuum...where NO ONE IS ANYWAY.

Sound is a pressure wave/oscillation created by just about any major dissepation of energy (usually kenetic) into a material medium...most especially (but not exclusively) a gasious or liquid one...that can travel through matter but has no means of perpetuating in vacuum.

Conveniently, even for shows in 'space' very little of the actual action actually is in vacuum....because vacuum...is very empty (by definition) and thus rather boring to watch.

What we have instead are little pockets of matter..frequently with gases and lifeforms..that float around with areas of space (sometimes including vacuum) between them. Now, everyone of those matter pockets (ie, spacecraft, people in pressurised suits etc) is capable of producing sound..in fact..is rather incapable of not producing it...

Its just that said sound cannot be tranmitted (as sound) through vacuum.

Microphones (albiet unusual ones) are used on some space probes to detect impact from high velocity dust particle and micrometeorite impacts
on unmanned vessels...with no atmophere...because sound CAN and DOES exist..not in vacuum..but in objects in space...and lets face it...its the objects in space we are interrested in seeing and hearing...not the actual space itself....

Now. imagine that...in a sci-fi space battle..we had a camera mounted just outdide the cockpit of our heroe's lil fighter...and another onefar off to catch a wider perspective

and we could flash between the two whenever we wanted in order to get a better view of the fun.

Easy to imagine, yes? You see this all the time in movies...and I have never heard anyone complain yet that it is " not possible" to do that.

Well...imagine that we had a microphone (or several) similarly mounted so we could hear him complain to his bucket droid...we would also hear something of his mechanical engine noise etc depending on the placement and sensitivity of the microphones...because these things could vibrate in operation...and vibration makes sound...

Say we had yet another mounted on his opponants spacecraft...

and we could cut to them...or mix the sound from both whenever we wanted to get a better auditory experience of what was going on (including, say, altering the volume mix depending on relative distances).

Thus we have both multiple visual and audio POV (points of view). Sure, realistically the sound we get from real microphones would be poor to inaudible in places...so instead we get cleaned up fabrications/interpretations of sound that the audience would be able to understand ...but hey...lighting in space..in reality...is actually very poor...with extreem distances and high velocities.....so we also get cleaned up interpretations of the visuals that are easier to comprehend.

Sure sound cant be transmitted through vacuum..and it probably wouldnt sound like that in any case....but light cant be transmitted through a solid metal bulkhead either...and similarly...the image really wouldnt look that good...yet when it is convenient for the story we can see into any little cranny of a ship...

We accept the latter as a routine part of science fiction television viewing. Its called good lighting and choping of the visual POV.

You can accept the visual POV jumping around everywhere as if a camera was mounted in the best place to catch the action....whats the deal with complaining when the same is done with an audio POV????

These are not rules of physics...but of cinematography. If you are going to complain about being able to hear the action...be consistent...and complain that you can see it as well!

But they need not breach the rules of phisics as much as you imagine they do...

and I agree...sometimes the silence of space is more dramatic than a ton of sound.

...I have never seen footage of a person in hard vacuum speaking or making any noise...sometimes silence is more dramatic (but...if an unfortunate victim of such a decompression did have a mic on him...he would be making noises.. very unpleasant poping bubbling ones as internal gases boiled and escaped..)

Personally the ...."its a movie...so just accept it" line doesnt work for me either. I like thinking and using my brain...and appreciate something more if it enables me to both enjoy the logic and action/characters in it.

Which is why I say again..for the benefit of others, like myself, who need a little consistency and reason in their entertainment mix...

Sound DOES exist in space. And I for one am all up for hearing it when dramatically appropriate...

WOW! You've convinced me!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2005 5:35 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by WhoIsRiver:
Joss Whedon and Tim Minear's work is often about taking a concept - the notion of the frontier - and wrapping it in a genre fantasy. If you are looking for a movie or show which explains gigaflops in wavelengths of sound, you are watching the wrong thing. Characters, story arc, making shit up to surround that. If you want a piece of entertainment which challenges and amuses you, there's a party in Mr Whedon (and friends) mind ready to be unlocked right here. That's what makes it worthy of wasting your time on, in my opinion.

Well that’s wonderful for your opinion, but it doesn’t do much for mine. And when it comes to wasting my time, my opinion is what counts. A show about unreal events, unreal science and unreal people isn’t going to challenge or amuse me if the show cannot convince me that what I am seeing is indeed real. And that is the real trick behind all science fiction and fantasy.

Why should I care about characters that aren’t real? What makes you think that I can “relate” to something that isn’t real? I’m not going to sit through 2 hours of a movie that I can’t relate to because it isn’t real. So why should I bother?

Quote:
Originally posted by WibbledtoDeath:
Sound DOES exist in space. And I for one am all up for hearing it when dramatically appropriate...

Being easily amused is, at times, a trait I admire.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2005 9:59 AM

WHOISRIVER

You see, now you've taken sound in space and gone onto characters not seeming real. How does this relate?

TheInside.org - Firefly Producers NEW TV series

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2005 10:15 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by WhoIsRiver:
You see, now you've taken sound in space and gone onto characters not seeming real. How does this relate?

It’s all a part of the suspension of belief. It’s a give and take. The author must write the story to offer the reader tangible and believable concepts so that when the author introduces the intangible and unbelievable the reader will be accepting of the storyline and not loose the connection with the characters. Stories of all kinds are all about maintaining the reader’s (or watcher’s) sympathy, and this most important with science fiction and fantasy, because so much of these stories are unbelievable. The lack of sound in space is one of those “hooks” that helps to maintain the believability of the show.

Imagine Firefly with cardboard walls? What if, instead of neat little jet plumes, they used sparklers like they did in the 40s and the 50s scifi shows? These kinds of things worked for the audiences of the 40s and the 50s, but today’s audience is more knowledgeable and more aware of the reality of space travel. We are becoming a space-age society, like those we used to only read about in scifi stories, and as we do, we will not be as easily fooled as audiences of the past. Scifi shows must adapt if they are to maintain the suspension of belief, just as they no longer use sparklers for engines, they also must learn to adapt to the concept of what space really is.

Now clearly there are still people out there who believe that there is sound in space, in general (*cough* WibbledtoDeath*cough*

), so maybe my assessment of the general public is a little optimistic. Nonetheless, if it hasn’t happened yet, it will soon, that people will stop accepting the notion of sound in space, and television/movies are going to have to adapt if they intend to maintain a mature audience.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2005 5:53 PM

WIBBLEDTODEATH

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Now clearly there are still people out there who believe that there is sound in space, in general (*cough* WibbledtoDeath*cough*), so maybe my assessment of the general public is a little optimistic. Nonetheless, if it hasn’t happened yet, it will soon, that people will stop accepting the notion of sound in space, and television/movies are going to have to adapt if they intend to maintain a mature audience.

Finn, Finn, Finn. You ask for susbtance, yet deliver none in return! Please, rather than just spouting dogmatic opinion...can you justify why anyone should believe that their is no sound in space?

You are like a child who has been told that "the sky isnt blue...it just lets in more blue light" and goes on to belly rumble about blue skies in the movies!

Or some fool who actually believes that a microwave oven cooks from the inside...cause thats what they have been told...and complains that their microwave dinner is frozen on the inside and burnt on the outside when they nuke it on full....

I am sorry, but as I can jutify why there is indeed sound in space through logic argument and reasonable deduction...and you have yet failed to do the same regarding the counter argument....why would a "mature" audience accept that their is no sound in space...let alone demand such a fallacy in a movie?

I dont know...maybe I am just not as easily confused as some....

(:~P

----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2005 6:13 PM

THIEFJEHAT

Folks. I am an astronomer.

To address the issue of sound in space I refer you all to this site that should educate everyone on the facts of space.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/qanda.html

This thread is specifically about sound in space:

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11650.html

So what does that mean? It means that space is an extremely dilute medium that can pass waves. Would you be able to hear them? Absoutely not. Even extremely precise instrumentation could not pick up these waves. However, to the above posts about hearing the rushing air in OOG, you would be able to hear the noise. The atmo is being sucked out, but is not entirely gone...therefore a medium exists to transfer sound waves audible to a human ear. The reason why you did not hear sound in 2001 A Space Odyessey, was because the chamber was depressurized previously since it was exposed to space when he entered. He shut the door and pressurized the airlock thus creating an audible medium after he was inside.

As for wibbledtodeath's posts, he also makes good points. He's more concerned with the film experience and the telling of a story. I respect that. He made a good point that each object in space would transfer sound within itself...and isn't that what's important? Objects in Space?

Do not fear me. Ours is a peaceful race, and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2005 6:44 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

There is generally no audible sound in space, as if that is some surprise.

I had actually finished a little ‘back of the envelop’ calculation to show that the pressure of the IPM is actually significantly lower then the acoustic reference pressure, but having an astronomer’s word spares me from writing that up. In any event, the pressure of the interplanetary medium is well below the pressure needed for any kind of detectable sound.

So think about this stuff, WibbledtoDeath, before you go and triple Finn me!

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2005 6:52 PM

WIBBLEDTODEATH

Maybe...you should try actually READING my argument if you hope to counter it. I have never been of the opinion that the pressure of the interplanetary medium is anywhere near capable of transmittting sound...and have in fact said as much in both posts outlining my position.

This is not the crux of my argument at all...you are tilting at windmills....

There is much more than vacuum in "space". And some of it is entirely capable of perpetuating sound....

----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2005 7:10 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by WibbledtoDeath:
This is not the crux of my argument at all

If you say so.

Somewhere in the vast recesses of "outer space" there is maybe some region where audible sound exists. Probably not anything that is static. More likely it would be some type of gaseous jet or expanding volume of gas. Maybe our heroes will be lucky enough to happen upon one of these phenomena at the instant they begin their big space battle. Wouldn't that be convenient for the cinematographers?

I only have the trailer to go by, but I didn't noticed any effects of ablation or aeroheating, which would almost certainly occur in a medium that dense.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2005 7:42 PM

WIBBLEDTODEATH

Wibbles beats head on brick wall......

We seem to have a bit of a comprehension barrier here. Obviously my assessment of the general public has been somewhat optimistic....

What follows is a minor spoiler about sound in Serenity during certain scenes...

Select to view spoiler:

If you read the Joss interview in the latest "In Focus" magazine..he states that he tries to keep the no sound in space thing for Serenity also...but that the final "space" battle needed some....Sadly he comes up with some rather flimsy quasi-scientific explanation for this happening that is not dissimilar to Finn's sarcastic response in the previous post...and which was alluded to by the creator of this thread

Personally, I dont think a filmaker has to..or should feel pressured to justify an artistic choice like this with bad science. It does no one any favours, & doesnt aid suspension of disbelief in the slightest...

A filmaker should feel free to show us visually whatever they feel is best for making an entertaining, engaging, and believable story...and should feel as justified in allowing us to listen to what goes on...

We are an audience to be entertained. The 4th wall doesnt, nor has it ever, had to comply with conventional concepts of physics. If another character was able to hear what was going on in space without a radio mic to transmit distant sound...thatd be unrealistic and i would be the first one walkin out on that obviously crappy movie. Allowing us..the movie going audience to see and hear stuff is a different matter entirely.

The solution is a rather simple one. Those with the intellect to understand a movie can sit back and enjoy the widescreen experience and surround sound...

Everyone else is welcome to go outside, look up at the night sky....and marvel at the gritty reality of silent, empty....space.

----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE