I vaguely recall something about the making of the movie where they acknowledge that this wouldn't happen, but it was done because that's what the audience expects.
Frustratingly, when the main character did exactly this in 2001: A Space Odyssey, the audience were frustrated because it was so unrealistic that someone would survive it (-_-)
I always thought that would be a good opportunity to teach people, but I guess if you're in it to make money it makes sense to just pander to what audiences expect.
It's not about pandering or making money (did people go to the movie because they heard there was a scene where a guy freezes in space?????), it is entertainment.
It's absolutely about making money. Most movies are made primarily to make money. And the way to make money is to make it entertaining. Is it less entertaining if it's more realistic? In this particular example the answer seems to be, "yes."
My comment was from the view point of the creators (director, writer, and rest of the crew). There were better ways to make money in movies in 2007 then with a sci-fi space thriller inspired by Solaris and Alien.
To be more clear, I don't think the creators were thinking "will this scene make us more money", nor do I think it's their job. And on the topic of realism in a movie, unless it's a historical film or the goal is to educate, then realism should be near the bottom of the checklist when creating a scene.
Comments
But at one point, they jump between two airlocks, and while in space for 10 seconds they become completely covered in ice and freeze to death.
I vaguely recall something about the making of the movie where they acknowledge that this wouldn't happen, but it was done because that's what the audience expects.
Frustratingly, when the main character did exactly this in 2001: A Space Odyssey, the audience were frustrated because it was so unrealistic that someone would survive it (-_-)
I always thought that would be a good opportunity to teach people, but I guess if you're in it to make money it makes sense to just pander to what audiences expect.
It's not about pandering or making money (did people go to the movie because they heard there was a scene where a guy freezes in space?????), it is entertainment.
It's absolutely about making money. Most movies are made primarily to make money. And the way to make money is to make it entertaining. Is it less entertaining if it's more realistic? In this particular example the answer seems to be, "yes."
My comment was from the view point of the creators (director, writer, and rest of the crew). There were better ways to make money in movies in 2007 then with a sci-fi space thriller inspired by Solaris and Alien.
To be more clear, I don't think the creators were thinking "will this scene make us more money", nor do I think it's their job. And on the topic of realism in a movie, unless it's a historical film or the goal is to educate, then realism should be near the bottom of the checklist when creating a scene.