Perhaps. But when taking a look at two worlds "colliding"...literally in the physical sense, consequences are bound none-the-less. And it's not just the tides that would be affected. Minimizing such a catastrophic event (the same as exaggerting it) can make anyone go..."meh." As if that catastrophe wasn't a big deal. If you want the audience to get the full scope of the disaster at hand, some realism has to come into play regardless of the "creative liberties" taken. If you want the audience to really get into it, emotions have to be manipulated, not just the visual and auditory senses by itself. Imagine if you will...seeing on screen something similar to the 2012 movie effects. Yeah those are about as unreal as you can get, but seeing the entire city of LA broken up like that as if the tectonic plates just said a big F U to humanity? All that destruction was more or less shock value. You got the sense of urgency when they were trying to run away from the super volcano blowing up, etc etc. Even though...realistically they would all died if something like that really happened. I'm sure you know what I mean. *edit* Yeah I know using 2012 is probably the worst comparison...but that movie does highlight catastrophic events well enough to where you get the idea.