Post #313069 by DJ Terence Gunn on Fri, Jun 15, 2007 2:08 PM

On 2007-06-15 12:52, The Gnomon wrote:
Got so long-winded on the last one I forgot to mention a couple of things.

I liked all of the Connery productions. Among the rest, I probably liked OHMSS the best. I do, however, find it annoying when certain special effects are way off.

For example, in any outer space explosion the effects should never show any billowing. Billowing is something that requires an atmosphere. In a vacuum, explosions move in all directions with great uniformity, so the explosions should be mainly spherical. Of course, when there are variations in the energy being released, that would generate spikes or other effects on the spherical emanation. But the billowing effects immediately demonstrate that the explosion is not in outer space, even though the story says so.

A couple of special effects annoyances that I recall from OHMSS was that in the car chases the tires always screeched in the turns. That would be fine on dry pavement, but all of the chases were on snow-covered roads. Screeching not possible. Similarly, engine sounds and other road noise is muffled when there is two feet of snow on the ground. The car chases all sounded like they were on the streets of Monaco.

Another in OHMSS that really bothered me was when Bond is being chased by skiers and he manages to stop before going off a cliff with a ± 1000 foot drop. He trips the skier that was on his tail, sending him over the edge of the cliff. With a vantage point of looking over the edge of the cliff, we get to see the guy fall for several seconds and eventually hit the ground below. At the same instant that we see the guy hit the ground we hear him hitting the ground. That's another distracting impossibility. We should have seen him hit the ground and then heard him hit about a second later.

I'm assuming the studio pondered that issue and opted to go with the simultaneous sight and sound of hitting the ground. If they had made it more realistic, it probably would have confused a significant segment of the audience and/or come across as a funny mistake. The falling guy was screaming all the way to the ground. So if it was done with consideration for the speed of sound, after the guy hit the ground you'd still hear him screaming and about a second later you'd hear him hit the ground and stop screaming.

Gotta go now. Mind your Ms and Qs.

No offense, but those are petty criticisms. One could easily take apart ANY film with special effects in them. Some films' special effects are of a higher budget than others, some more realistic than others, but none -- especially the ones with the more elaborate stunts, sets, demands (fantasy and sci-fi, for example), etc. -- are fully realistic and perfect. The whole concept of films is about the willing suspension of disbelief. Special effects are about 'effect', not necessarily realism. They're there to add something sensational.

Anyone with a working brain knows that there is no loud noise when someone gets punched in the face; that explosions in space make no sound; that lightning always precedes thunder, even if directly overhead. Effects artists know this. Annoyingly unrealistic, yes, but a punch without a loud noise, a silent explosion in space, and lightning unaccompanied by thunder at the same time isn't as sensational; isn't as effective or entertaining.

For me, films have always been about entertainment, not realism. I'm more concerned with the acting, the story, the dialogue, the music, and the style in which the film is done in, rather than the realism of the special effects and the credibility of the story or the world it is set in. However, I will agree that a great deal of special effects can detract from one's enjoyment of a film. But if the film is of any worth, best to overlook such things in favour of the things that make the film worth while.