I disagree. Interstellar, as an example, is produced by Kip Thorne, a theoretical physicst who has also won the Nobel prize. Him and Nolan worked closely to make sure every detail of the movie is scientifically accurate. That Blackhole sequence took months to produce and the imaging was so accurate, that even science community started using it as a source to illustrate blackholes, since it was many years before we caprured the first ever image of a blackhole. If "entertainment" was the sole purpose, CGI and green rooms could have created visual effects that may have been more engaging but less realistic.
"2001 a Space Oddysey", one of the greatest films of history was shot: 1. Before we landed on the moon, 2. Before CGI and even computers were a thing (computers existed, but that's beside my point). Every detail in that movie is very realistic. There could have been ways to make either of those films more thrilling just for the sake of it. However, priority was given to realism, hence why after more than 50 years since its release, it is still relevant and even more entertaining than all new sci fi that's coming out every year.
There are many factors that can hinder "entertainment", but realism isn't one. And if a movie is realistic but not entertaining, it's not because of the realism of it, but a combination of other factors.
erpupone93 t1_ja1yos5 wrote
Reply to comment by Supreme-Plays in Explosions in space movies? by DemonOfTheAstroWaste
I disagree. Interstellar, as an example, is produced by Kip Thorne, a theoretical physicst who has also won the Nobel prize. Him and Nolan worked closely to make sure every detail of the movie is scientifically accurate. That Blackhole sequence took months to produce and the imaging was so accurate, that even science community started using it as a source to illustrate blackholes, since it was many years before we caprured the first ever image of a blackhole. If "entertainment" was the sole purpose, CGI and green rooms could have created visual effects that may have been more engaging but less realistic.
"2001 a Space Oddysey", one of the greatest films of history was shot: 1. Before we landed on the moon, 2. Before CGI and even computers were a thing (computers existed, but that's beside my point). Every detail in that movie is very realistic. There could have been ways to make either of those films more thrilling just for the sake of it. However, priority was given to realism, hence why after more than 50 years since its release, it is still relevant and even more entertaining than all new sci fi that's coming out every year.
There are many factors that can hinder "entertainment", but realism isn't one. And if a movie is realistic but not entertaining, it's not because of the realism of it, but a combination of other factors.