Why can't movies reperesnt the sound of thunder and gunshots more accurately?

I certainly understand that your tinny TV speakers can’t reproduce the bass ranges of these sounds, so the filmakers try to exaggerate the noise, but come on.

In a Bruce Willis movie, a shot sounds like a bomb going off, whereas 99.99% of people report the actual sound of gunfire as a “pop”, very similar to firecrackers. (We’re assuming that the weapon in question is not proximate to their ear, of course.)

In addition, in all the footage I’ve watched that was real, guns DO sound like firecrackers.

Furthermore, why do filmakers (is that filmmakers?) insist on portraying a thunderstorm as a continuous multiple-lightning-flash-filled towering inferno?

I’ve lived in many of the heaviest thunderstorm regions on the planet and I have to say that the most thunder/lightning that ever occurred was possibly three or four times a minute–hardly the continuous peals that filmpeople (gave up on that one) love to portray. Furthermore, I’ll warrant that thunderstorms can’t occur in an environment lower than 50 degrees F, thus the unlikelihood of a thunderstorm in a Sherlock Holmes movie set in November in England, for instance.

Just like they don’t seem to use potato flakes for snow any more, couldn’t they just try to make everything a little more realsitic?

“Dramatic license” is just not an option for the answer:D

Atmosphere.

sound of buzzer EEEEEEEENNNH =+)

Um… I’ve experienced thunder and lightning during snowstorms, so it most definitely happens below 50F. It’s rare, but it happens.

Go climb a mountain and be near the top during a strong storm. You will experience the thrill of heavy combat but you won’t have anything to shoot back with. Plum scary and you can die real easy from them little lightning bolts too. They will seek you under the rocks, they will blow down trees on you, they will blow your ear drums, they will scare the living stuffing out of ya.

Was surrounded by 13 water spouts in the Caribbean in 72.

Was blown away by a tornado in 74. direct hit, was in the closet, lucky to make it out.

Was hit by lightning in 59 and 78.

Been in the Army in the far east in the early 60’s.

Been in thunderstorms in aircraft many times.

And yeah, Dollywood gets it wrong a lot but they are supposed to aren’t they?

Real death and destruction on an individual level is usually to ugly, ordinary, dreary, and easy, to play good in a movie.

YMMV

PS: Be careful about dissin lightning.

Keep in mind most movies are art, not documentaries. The Foley artists will add sounds that the audience has been conditioned to expect and that isn’t always realistic. If they always depicted the sound accurately it would often be a disappointment for the audience. I think dramatic license is a perfectly legitimate answer.

As for gunfire sound it can vary wildly by gun type and environment. Handgun fire is rarely depicted from a distance where it would sound like popping. Sometimes they get it right. Heat has IMO extremely realistic gunfire sounds of 5.56mm automatic rifles being fired in an urban canyon with lots of buildings to reverberate from.

I live in Georgia (USA) and have experienced many thunderstorms where the lightning is nearly continuous. Flashes are constant and thunder would often start before the previous one had faded. If you have only had thunder/lightning every three to four minutes, I don’t think you have really experienced a thunderstorm.

Why can’t movies represent reality in general better?

The answer’s obvious: it’s boring and doesn’t sell and not many people know the difference, anyway.

It used to be that all gunshot wounds were portrayed as blasted out of someone, because that’s how squibs worked - tiny charges exploding on the actor’s chest or whatever. But it was long known that that wasn’t how gunshots truly behave in real life, so occasionally people would try more realistic ways to show them - however they just didn’t look right. We were so conditioned to how Hollywood does it that if it wasn’t done that way it just looked wrong, despite the fact that it was actually right at last.

Same thing with thunderstorms and gunfire sound effects. To do it differently now would just seem weird.

Having said that, I have noticed some TV shows are starting to be more realistic in their sound effects and physical effects these days, so perhaps the tide will change a bit. But Bruce Willis type action movies will be some of the last to make such an alteration, if at all.

If the most intense storm you’ve been in had lightning and thunder every 15 seconds or so, you have never been in the middle of a really intense thunderstorm. The lightning flashes are 2-3 seconds apart and the thunder is booming and nearly continuous.

On a semi-related note, if gunshots were portrayed realistically, every action hero would be rendered stone-deaf after firing eight billion assault rifle rounds without ear protection.

I’ve experienced quite a few thunderstorms in Britain in winter. And I can’t believe you’ve lived through the ‘heaviest thunderstorm regions on the planet’ if the lightening was only striking three times a minute.

In Florida, in the late afternoon every day, there’d be thunderstorms where lightening struck every couple of seconds (often there’d be three or four seperate lightening bolts at the same time), and the thunder could literally make you jump it was so loud. And that was normal.

You mean every handgun doesn’t cause a persons head to explode and send them flying 10 feet?

My father owns several handguns (I don’t know the exact number, but I’d guess 5 or 6), and I’m fairly sure that none of them have ever done this!

I don’t think it would be possible for a movie theater to reproduce the shockingly loud sounds of gunfire. And for the characters in the movie communication would be impossible. That woudl cause problems in the story. Shooting a gun in the movie seems like it’s no big deal because it’s a movie. People shoot, and talk, and the action continues. In real life shooting a gun is a real big deal, bang, smoke, hand pain, recoil, deafness, ringing ears, etc…

How many times have they been used to shoot someone in the head? :stuck_out_tongue:

One thing that always “bugs” me (or at least I notice it) is that when there is an explosion at a distance, the sound of it comes at the same time as the sight of it. One thing that impressed me about Red Dawn was a scene where there was an explosion some distance away. (I think this was near the beginning.) We saw the explosion, and then there was a delay before we heard it. I thought it was neat that they included that realistic touch. (Of course, it might have just been that the dialog level and quality was good, so they just didn’t bother to loop the scene.)

The answer to the OP is “dramatic license.”

What?

Any Foley artist will tell you that sometimes it’s more about the reaction of the viewer than the factual reality. Have you ever heard anyone break a limb and it sounded like 10 stalks of celery being snapped? It’s actually much more quiet than one might think. Also, a gunshot is much less dramatic than the “BLAMMM” of some action hero firing a .50 Desert Eagle.

I’ve always been fond of the “pah-chiiiiiing” sound of the ricochet in old westerns. Every single bullet makes that sound, no matter what the target.

I think it’s funny how - in movies - swords always make the metal-on-metal scritching sound when drawn from a leather scabbard.

But people expect a sword to make the sound when it’s drawn or put back in the scabbard. It would seem wierd without it.