Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I skimmed the article and the comments. Nobody seems to speak about the main reality here. The limited dynamic range of audio reproduction means that Hollywood has to stylize everything. The lighting and color mapping are by no means realistic in the imagery either, for similar reasons.

So, it's a bit like complaining that tinted windows work better to reduce sunlight on TV than in real life. Or conversely that people whispering in the movies are way too loud, since you shouldn't be able to hear it all the way at the back of the crowded theater.

Also, sound effects are very stereotyped in the media. They are nearly a symbolic code, not realism. Hollywood shoes don't sound like shoes. Hollywood beverages don't sound like beverages. Hollywood clothes don't sound like clothes. Hollywood sex doesn't sound like sex.

Also, these conventions were being established for worse sound systems in old theaters, TV, etc. You cannot reproduce actual gunshot sound experiences in a movie. They are already "silenced" just to fit into the playback environment. So what else can you do to portray a suppressed weapon after that? Of course, you'll need to reduce it even further to make it unambiguously different.

Edit to add: I recall how Dirty Harry's magnum got what seemed like a new sound effect at the time. Not only is the sound smeared out in time, it has a ragged edge like a clipped signal. It is reminiscent of the recorded sounds of space launches that were culturally widespread by then from the Apollo program.



It's not just about the actual sound effects, it's also the writing. The movie clip the article uses as an anchor shows people using silencers to have a gunfight in public with bystanders having no idea it was happening. That's not just hollywood sound direction, it's hollywood giving a completely wrong impression about how good silencers are and why they exist




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: