Except Oppenheimer movie, who got it right.
Seek to 4m46s https://youtu.be/kqYenzBwlkU?si=y87R0XvuWL8_7t6Q&t=286
If my memory is right, the actual scene, and delay, is longer than it is in this clip.
Seek to 4m46s https://youtu.be/kqYenzBwlkU?si=y87R0XvuWL8_7t6Q&t=286
If my memory is right, the actual scene, and delay, is longer than it is in this clip.
I hope this kind of thing catches on. If a movie shows a distant explosion and its sound is heard at the moment of the explosion, you don’t really think about it. But when they treat the sound accurately, it really grabs your attention.
You need some emotion, some performance. Kubrick got that and managed to achieve this in 2001 by combining the emotional austerity of spaceflight with an artificial intelligence who, in an inversion of expectation, is the emotive one. Then he exploited this for the climax, the loss of HAL's personality, being.
Lacking a HAL like element, especially in a film that has one actress, you can't make the humans dull, you need some emotional experience to attach to. In the context of Gravity, that means dramatic calls and the sounds of her human presence. People don't go to the cinema to listen to an ATC feed.
If you haven’t watched Apollo 11 I highly recommend it
I gotta point out though that Apollo 11 (2019) boxed 15M and Gravity (2013) boxed 723M USD, which sort of illustrates my point.
Flames are chemical reaction. Surface of the flame is where oxygen rich fresh air interfaces with fuel rich, oxygen-depleted hot plasma.
The nuclear bomb can cause secondary chemical fires, but the fireball itself has does not have "flame" look to it.