|
The Iron Sky -team is looking for your ideas and comments. Join and show your support for Iron Sky. Dont forget...I really love all the technical details and excellent information on this shot. But lets not forget that this is also about entertaining and amusing a paying audience who on the whole may not be too concerned with what is and could be done within real space. People are simple creatures who like nothing more than to see stuff exploding and being riddled with bullet holes! So i would just throw into the mix that if you think of the spacecraft like tanks, where some rounds could richocet off them, some simply passing straight through with others exploding inside the craft you wont go to far wrong. Rail gun type rounds tracing paths across open space and rocket propelled missles would all look the part on the big screen. I am sure a compromise between "real" and Movie needs will be found, but above and beyond all, we should never forget the "visual" nature of the product. |
Jump to comment form
Comments
Bwahahahahahaha lovely Roy!
And yes Mark, I try to think of such things very often. Since I as a 3D artist is bound to create surroundings. I've had a lot of discussions on the subject and I belong to those who prefer realism, even though it's hard to achieve.
is the bellow comment supposed to teach kids
that knowing is less than half the battle?
Ok, just loving these comments so much i have just had a breakfast break through!!
We have a scene in space when ships are flying all over the place, ships explode, bright flashes and loud noises rattle in and around our "Main" space ship. Organised chaos inside as orders are shouted and equipment shorts or frazzles (you get the idea i know!).
Cut to a harrased commander who is being told by an even more harrased officious weapons officer saying to him "that the "X5- 422 Missle" has lost its degravity shield and its argon based pro fuel sytem is leaking and it wont have enough power, and that as stated under newtons third law it requires a higher cotangent basis for it to destroy the oncoming enemy craft!"
To which the straight faced commander replies "Just fire the F*cking Missile and we,ll do the physics exam when we get back!".
:-)
On a certain level, your cinematography teacher is correct. It reflects an argument at least a century old, the classic tension between realism vs. authenticity or realism vs. verisimilitude. All you need at a minimum is enough plausible reality for the viewers to suspend their disbelief. The problem is, there has been a constant trend toward increased realism in both games and movies which matches increased audience sophistication.
Historical accuracy is hard to get right, but worth the effort. I always point to “Last of the Mohicans”, “A Very Long Engagement”, and “Dangeous Liasons” as examples of nearly perfect costuming and set design in a historical movie. It was done so well you didn't notice it. Realism in a science fiction or fantasy movie isn't just about getting the science or the magical rules right, it's about creating worlds that are lived in, inhabited, and logically consistent. You have to get the small details right and weave it all together into a coherent whole.
Indeed, my cinematology-teacher always used to say that movies(and games) aren't supposed to be realistic.
So yes, I can agree that a compromise can be met on the sciencepart, but when it comes to history and such I feel that one should stick to reality. The people that I know have heard of this production are all game nerds with an interest in WW2. They will be disappointed if it is idiologically inaccurat and such, but probably wont care if some simulation doesn't obey newtons third law completely or simila.
is this *another* truth today op-ed?
;)