When creating an entertainment product, be it a movie or game, your user’s expectations are the canvas you paint on. In some places you deliberately violate them, in others you accommodate them at the expense of “realism.”
An amusing example: In the Sly Stallone rock climbing action movie “Cliffhanger,” they shot a scene where he ice climbs without an axe. To get past a certain section, he dips his gloved hand in cold water and freezes it to the ice, using that for traction.
This is an actual technique alpinists have used. But test audiences (who are not alpine climbers) rejected it as preposterous. So it’s on the DVD as a “deleted scene,” but wasn’t in the cut they released to theatres.
The movie also features a “bolt gun” he carries that can sink a bolt into rock, which can then be used as a hold or to attach a carabiner. No such thing is possible with current technology, but audiences accepted it as possible, so it plays a prominent role in the plot.
The movie’s producers were catering to their audience’s expectation as they actually were, not as we may wish they were.
This is very evident in historical media where medieval people are portrayed as wearing burlap sacks and misshapen clumps of fur inside plain brown plaster castles rather than wearing brocade, silks, or brightly died wool inside colorfully-painted palaces or churches. To some extent you have to meet the audience where they are.
The European world-view on what constitutes fine aesthetic sense is derived from Renaissance mis-interpretation of Greek decoration as being white marble. The colours that our culture subsequently rejects as gaudy, tasteless, and are othered are based on this.
In reality it turns out that the Greeks painted everything batshit colours and Ancient Athens probably looked more like an 80s day-glo MTV video.
Imagine the products of a culture with less tolerance for untruth than our own. It might see more films with postscript reality checks, like Jackie Chan's making-of "if you do this, you will get hurt". More children's picture books with errata pages, like Penny Chisholm's. I wonder if some such might be encouraged somehow?
"Want" or "is good" are two different things. We're living in a culture where a lot of people clearly love believing all sorts of untruths, and don't care much for the real truth. Is that good? I think not.
Of course movies are for the most part relatively harmless entertainment, but they too do shape expectations. I've heard of Juries rejecting reasonable evidence because crime shows have taught them to expect iron clad proof.
You can not watch the movies you know. Nobody forced you to.
Movies are just fairy tales and people enjoy fairy tales for good reason. Stories are actually a very efficient way to sharing information. I could why in detail but I’d just say it’s the way we process information is more emotional than logical. A fairy tale is essentially a hyper compressed emotional truth (when it is a GOOD fairy tale).
An amusing example: In the Sly Stallone rock climbing action movie “Cliffhanger,” they shot a scene where he ice climbs without an axe. To get past a certain section, he dips his gloved hand in cold water and freezes it to the ice, using that for traction.
This is an actual technique alpinists have used. But test audiences (who are not alpine climbers) rejected it as preposterous. So it’s on the DVD as a “deleted scene,” but wasn’t in the cut they released to theatres.
The movie also features a “bolt gun” he carries that can sink a bolt into rock, which can then be used as a hold or to attach a carabiner. No such thing is possible with current technology, but audiences accepted it as possible, so it plays a prominent role in the plot.
The movie’s producers were catering to their audience’s expectation as they actually were, not as we may wish they were.