Sign Up | Log In
GENERAL DISCUSSIONS
Here's something to bust the whole 'sound in space' issue in the movie.
Friday, August 5, 2005 2:15 PM
REGINAROADIE
Friday, August 5, 2005 4:16 PM
THEGREYJEDI
Friday, August 5, 2005 5:18 PM
FINN MAC CUMHAL
Friday, August 5, 2005 5:25 PM
WIBBLEDTODEATH
Friday, August 5, 2005 5:40 PM
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?
Friday, August 5, 2005 6:12 PM
ANACHRONITE
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.
Friday, August 5, 2005 6:27 PM
FIVVER
Friday, August 5, 2005 6:32 PM
DARKJESTER
Select to view spoiler:
Friday, August 5, 2005 6:39 PM
ALEX21
Friday, August 5, 2005 6:47 PM
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?
Quote:Originally posted by DarkJester: I'm not TOTALLY convinced, Finn.
Friday, August 5, 2005 7:41 PM
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.
Friday, August 5, 2005 9:27 PM
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?
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...
Saturday, August 6, 2005 5:35 AM
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.
Quote:Originally posted by WibbledtoDeath: Sound DOES exist in space. And I for one am all up for hearing it when dramatically appropriate...
Saturday, August 6, 2005 9:59 AM
Saturday, August 6, 2005 10:15 AM
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?
Saturday, August 6, 2005 5:53 PM
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.
Saturday, August 6, 2005 6:13 PM
THIEFJEHAT
Saturday, August 6, 2005 6:44 PM
Saturday, August 6, 2005 6:52 PM
Saturday, August 6, 2005 7:10 PM
Quote:Originally posted by WibbledtoDeath: This is not the crux of my argument at all
Saturday, August 6, 2005 7:42 PM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL