Could you explain how or why this is unfair? I don't think the OP was suggesting that Gravity's expenditure was therefore not worthwhile. If anything, your comment adds further weight to the comparison by illustrating the scale of a major motion picture in terms of expenditure and profit.

Science cannot be bought in the store, you don't have a market of people willing to pay you back. Its not constantly craved by humans unlike entertainment. And it is not limited to general rules of business, specially when we are going beyond our abilities, and stretching them even further.

For example, ISRO have never had a engine before that could re-ignite after a 300 days period of cryogenic conditions of space. That technology developed in extreme conditions can be reverse engineered to make our cars perform better in winters. Or some other applications. Does that sort of returns even get reported ever?

yes - and so will ISRO - with its private company Antrix - its already making money launching spaceships for telecoms companies and other non-spacefaring nations. the mars mission if you will - is just a slightly more expensive Marketing move - showing clients what they can do. So its a very fair comparison!

Don't be silly. Hollywood's movies are never profitable - if you check their accounting books at least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting