I guess I should have been clearer. Without hijacking the thread, train engineers (and usually conductors) do watch the tracks ahead and do know when they hit a car. That a train outweighs a car doesn’t mean the train is unaware of it; the very few times I’ve hit a squirrel with my car I have seen and felt it.
And you are correct, trains do not stop on dimes, but they do have emergency braking and can get stopped, albeit hundreds of yards down the line. They need to stop for an accident just like cars do, for legal reasons.
My note was for movies like Back to the Future 3, Eraser, and Blue Thunder, where the train just disappears from the scene, which is not how it happens in real life.
When an empty sports stadium or concert hall’s lights are turned on, it will be accompanied by a very loud and distinctive ker-KLUNK sound.
This specific sound effect has found its way into other venues in which lights are switched on, including (typically empty) cafeterias, business offices, and warehouses.
I predict that one day a character will access the flashlight function on his cell phone and we will hear ker-KLUNK.
I think we’re in agreement. Before, I thought you were debating the physics of the situation - which, in this case, is a collision with an almost completely one-sided transfer of momentum. (Lots of people don’t realize just how huge trains are. I, on the other hand, grew up in a rural area where passing freight trains were a routine occurrence and where school administrators therefore deemed it prudent to subject us all to an annual hour-long presentation on trains, the gist of which was: yes, the train will stop - but it’ll be a mile away, and you’ll be dead.)
(OK - maybe not literally a mile, but there’s no practical difference between a mile and hundreds of yards if you’re measuring the distance between a locomotive and your maimed and/or lifeless body.)
Corollary: when someone is typing or working the mouse on a computer, especially when they’re a l33t hacker or the IT tech in a police procedural, every keystroke or mouse swipe will be accompanied by all manner of chirps, beeps, and other ‘computery’ sounds.
If a train does appear onscreen more than briefly, someone is sure to be lying under it (without getting injured by anything that might be protruding or dangling from the undercarriage of the train) or having a prolonged fist fight on top - which they will win by virtue of their superior ability to perceive when the train is about to go through a tunnel.
Yes! I thought I had lost my gloves but one day, when I was searching for something else, there they were! I thought, “Great! The weather will be cold soon, and I will need them.” Then, when the weather got cold three weeks ago, I went to get them, and they weren’t where I thought I had found them. In essence, I “re-lost” them!
The improbabilities shown on screen make the cinematic experience better, not worse. Hunches almost always play out? Alcoholics almost always relapse? These plot devices intentionally move stories forward more quickly than realism. If life were portrayed with absolute realism they’d be hauling steady cams into bathrooms as Julia Roberts’ character follows up her dramatic scene by taking a squatski. Who wants to watch a five hour movie where the characters spend fruitless hours on screen chasing down false and pointless leads to no avail? Or Gandalf has hay fever and blows his nose every two minutes? Or Obi Wan Kenobi has gas? (okay, I admit some of those might be pretty entertaining for the novelty factor, but you get my point)
I don’t think anyone is denying this. It’s still fun to bring them up.
I’m always glad that our hero finds a parking space right in front of the building he is about to enter. I don’t want to watch him drive around the block several times looking for a place to park.
I agree. But also, it seems to me that @Cardigan is mixing up two different kinds of things. Improbabilities are one thing; selectivity is another. There’s nothing improbable or unrealistic about only showing us the parts of what happens that actually matter. It’s widely understood that we’re not seeing everything the characters do, just things that are important or interesting—but that’s different from those important or interesting things being highly unlikely or unrealistic.
Although I admit that the distinction can sometimes be subtle or fuzzy. For instance, is there a distinction between “We know that this character going into this dangerous situation will not die because they have Plot Armor” and “We know that this character going into this dangerous situation will not die because you wouldn’t be telling us their story if they died within the first ten minutes”?
And, if the Good Guy gets into an altercation with one or more Bad Guys on top of said boxcars, the train will enter a tunnel before the skirmish is over.
If it’s a lower-budget TV show, and they don’t have the money to travel to the closest tunnel, an alternative is the long metal boom that rotates just over the top of the train. For some reason, it’s always black, and can be swung effortlessly, but it’s strong enough to smack any miscreant away from the fight on top of the speeding train.
If it’s a comedy, a plucky protagonist can grab onto the boom and twirl 360º, to be deposited back on top of the train.