Realistic web design means hiring someone who knows how to design websites, or redesign them, and budgeting that. It might also mean translating the results into whatever digital effects workflow they use, because I doubt there are any actual applications being run or sites being shown.
Also bear in mind the relationship between camera distance and screen resolution, and that the design requirements for UIs intended to be used by someone physically sitting inches away from the screen, and the composition of elements in a scene for television or film, which may place the viewer halfway across the room in terms of perceived distance, are necessarily different. Text that would be normal sized on the web might not even be legible when the viewer sees it, much less be capable of leading the viewer's attention.
FWIW I mostly agree with you, it's absurd for anyone who's technically competent, but still not as simple a matter as getting it realistic versus getting it wrong, rather of not boring the viewer with tedium and visual clutter.
Just to add to your comments: technically, shooting screens close enough for more realistic computer use was actually a problem ten years ago, but today any decent camera can do it.
Also bear in mind the relationship between camera distance and screen resolution, and that the design requirements for UIs intended to be used by someone physically sitting inches away from the screen, and the composition of elements in a scene for television or film, which may place the viewer halfway across the room in terms of perceived distance, are necessarily different. Text that would be normal sized on the web might not even be legible when the viewer sees it, much less be capable of leading the viewer's attention.
FWIW I mostly agree with you, it's absurd for anyone who's technically competent, but still not as simple a matter as getting it realistic versus getting it wrong, rather of not boring the viewer with tedium and visual clutter.