Do you care how a shot is achieved behind the scenes?

[Dave Gray]

I'm watching the new Mission: Impossible trailer and there's a crazy shot of Cruise driving a motorcycle off of a cliff.  They achieve it by Tom Cruise driving a motorcycle off a cliff.  It's kind of his thing, to do these stunts for real and not rely on CG to capture it.

In the Revenant, Leo Dicaprio films the freezing cold water scenes in actual freezing cold water.

In Kill Bill, when the fight inside the trailer, the walls are coming down and collapsing outside the frame so that the tight quarters can be filmed.

In Inception, the entire set is on a gimble, rotating so that when the actors fight, they are able to run along the walls and tumble convincingly.

Many movies go through great lengths to get one continuous shot, in-camera, rather than to digitally stitch the shots together with computers.

You can argue that this just looks better and CG wouldn't be able to capture the intricacies of it.  You can argue that it gives the actors a sense of believability and it's a better performance.  Or you can just think that the meta-understanding makes it a more enjoyable picture.

Or you can not give a shit and whatever is on film is on film, how it's done -- be damned.

[pondwater]

I like practical effects better than CGI. To me, even subpar practical effects look better than good CGI.

[Dave Gray]

I agree that they look better in general.  Sometimes I like them better even when they don't look better.  There's something about knowing that what you're seeing is real that matters to me.  I enjoy the craft of it.  I much prefer a puppet creature, even one that might not look as good, to something fully CG.

It's case by case, I guess.

[pondwater]

It's especially apparent on gory horror type movies. For example, the effects in Day of the Dead from 1985 is better than any more recent movie of that type that uses CGI. And it's not even close.

Hell, I don't even really like watching high res stuff in 4k that much. The worst is when someone has that "soap opera" effect on their TV turned on. It's unwatchable

[Dave Gray]

I love the effects from The Thing (1982), janky and all.  To CG that takes away from it.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

No and Yes.

No - while watching the film I don't care as long the shot is astheticly pleasing.

I love watching the behind the scene videos where they  show how the scene was made, so from that perspective I care very much.

[CF DolFan]

As long as it looks real on the screen I couldn't care less if Tom Cruise, his stuntman, or a computer did it. I've seen actors talk about how they got into character by doing something extreme and thought to my self that was really overkill. You can either act or you can't IMO.

I was impressed that all the actors did their lines in Top Gun 2 during real flights. I don't know that I would have noticed if they didn't say it but it's pretty crazy they had to take Gs, pass out, and still be able to stay in character and recite lines. Seems a little extreme but whatever.

[Dave Gray]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think I agree.  To your point, Lawrence Olivier where Dustin Hoffman was doing all this method acting on Marathon Man where he was trying to stay up all night to help show insomnia: "My dear boy, why don't you just try acting?"

But with Top Gun: Maverick, it's not just the delivery of the lines.  It's how the light reflects in the cockpit when they're doing inversions at speed, but also how the actor's eyes track the light as well as other objects.  ...and how the Gs affect their face contorting and how they speak.  I don't think you can "act" that.

[CF DolFan]

I don't think you can "act" that.

They may not be able to but as long as I got a semi realistic experience from something faked I don't know that I personally would have noticed.