A bit of a nirvana fallacy there. This isn't about limitations in technology, nor (directly) about artistic choices to set a mood.
What I'm annoyed at is the combination of (A) things which are not technological limitations that are deliberately simulated and (B) how I've seen them tie into factually false beliefs about "realism" among the audience.
Consider: "Oh, I got one of those new e-books, and it's about Romeo and Juliet. Some of the text contains ink that is blotted or runny, which makes their relationship extra-realistic."
I get what you mean, and I would have probably agreed a few years back, but I believe the matter is slightly more complex than that.
First, even with your book example, which I do agree is cheesy, still—this is part of the message. I’d not be surprised if such an ebook existed, though it definitely wouldn’t be for me (even if I liked the genre).
Second, part of my point was that simulating technological limitations has its uses. If you want to convey a mood, obscure unnecessary detail, etc., you have such tools at your disposal that will not look weird to the audience[0] and that resonate with the larger cultural context—which none of us exist outside of.
[0] Unless someone else like yourself is in said audience, I suppose :)
I am not sure most people would notice 24 to 30 fps increase, but let’s say it’s 60 fps.
You may be wrong in thinking they are confused. To paraphrase, the audience is always right. If they are confused, then you’ve failed.
As I wrote above, what we see is anchored to our previous experience and cultural context. The ways it is broken inevitably attract attention to themselves and detract from the story, at least in the beginning, so you have to do it carefully and generally avoid breaking expectations unless that serves to achieve the desired effect. Otherwise you’d just be self-gratifying and compromise the message, making it subordinate to the medium.
By the way, breaking these expectations can go both ways. You can go higher fps just as well as you can go lower. Once you veer off the default, which way you go is not automatically better than the other; it all depends on what your creative goals are.
It doesn't make them look worse, it makes them look too realistic: I think this one is an inversion of the trend, in that people expect movies to look like movies, not like reality.
A bit of a nirvana fallacy there. This isn't about limitations in technology, nor (directly) about artistic choices to set a mood.
What I'm annoyed at is the combination of (A) things which are not technological limitations that are deliberately simulated and (B) how I've seen them tie into factually false beliefs about "realism" among the audience.
Consider: "Oh, I got one of those new e-books, and it's about Romeo and Juliet. Some of the text contains ink that is blotted or runny, which makes their relationship extra-realistic."