What persuades a jury versus genuinely substantive evidence in the world of today's technology

[Boojatta]

Actor Michael Douglas once said something about movies: that the violence is fake, but the nudity is real. Perhaps techniques for computer-assisted manipulation of images weren't very sophisticated when he made that statement.

People have been aware for some time that there's at least a theoretical possibility of authentic-looking fakes, as can be seen from the existence and age of the following movies:

Capricorn One
Jurassic Park
S1m0ne

In today's world, why do ordinary people (e.g. TV viewers and members of a jury) believe that video, although from unknown sources and produced by unknown methods, shows actual events in the sense that, although the story may be fiction, the people seen in a video (for example, people who are actors or people who were targets of hidden surveillance cameras) actually did what the video shows them doing?

[stevenleser]

1. The source, logic/reasonableness, presence or lack of ulterior motives, etc. n/t

[damntexdem]

2. Wonderful movie, Capricorn One.

And no sequel, even though it seemed numbered for one. ;-)

And Telly Savalas as a cropduster pilot and the chase scene in the canyons -- best chase scene ever.

But Jurassic Park, although it had great graphics, did not depict fakes -- it depicted the real thing brought back by cloning.

The other two: yes, good movies about fakery.

[Boojatta]

3. Jurassic Park isn't about fakes, but provides an example of authentic-looking footage of ...

events that didn't happen.

Alternatively, living dinosaurs participated in the making of Jurassic Park, and the film showcases not film-making technology, but cloning technology.

But Jurassic Park, although it had great graphics, did not depict fakes -- it depicted the real thing brought back by cloning.