Bad Natural History

[urbpan]

Okay, so when you watch a movie with animals acting like people (you know, talking and such), you must suspend some of your disbelief. I'm okay with that--it has been this way since Aesop.

But these days the filmmakers are mixing in lots of actual Natural History with animals acting like people. For example the fish in "Finding Nemo" look (and to some degree behave) real, but they don't eat one another. In "Antz," there are both male and female worker ants. (This movie, which I am only halfway through, is the reason I'm posting. There's an awful lot that I could say, positive and negative about it, but I need to finish it, and I probably have to watch "A Bug's Life" for comparison, and the go see "The Ant Bully," too.) Even the bug scene in "King Kong," while exciting, is laughable from a Natural History standpoint (beyond even the bugs' great size--I'm talking behavior).

I want to know this, from you all:

At what point does faulty Natural History interfere with your enjoyment of a movie?

Comments

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

the angler fish really wanted to eat nemo and ellen.

a bug's life is better. seriously.

[nmsunbear.livejournal.com]

Actually, King Kong is a good example. I just had a lot of trouble believing that these creatures would fight such hard, deadly battles -- over and over -- for a little mouthful like Naomi Watts. :) Not King Kong himself, so much (anthropomorhosizing him is sort of the point of the movie), but all the dinosaurs.

[lisianthia.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I hated the dinosaur scene. It was about 30 minutes too long and ridiculous as hell.

[suburban-panic.livejournal.com]

As the token non-scientist around these parts, mistakes along these lines have to be pretty egregious to catch my layman's eye. Behavioral inconsistencies almost never grab my attention; once I accept the fact that the bird is talking to the other bird, I figure I can't complain if mama bird is baking a nice cake instead of yarking up a partially digested worm for her baby birds.

What "bugs" me (heh-heh) the most often is anatomical issues, and when they do register, they're awfully grating. I found it hard to watch A Bug's Life, despite its Pixar-standard wonderful animation, great story and top-notch voice casting, because THE ANTS ONLY HAVE FOUR LEGS!!!

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

In Antz, the ants have 6 legs (though they walk on four and two are "arms") but they have big glistening human eyes and faces like carved wooden dolls. Creepy. I'd much prefer compound eyes and mandibles.

[heavenscalyx.livejournal.com]

Bad Natural History doesn't bother me nearly as much as Bad Anthropology (this comes of being married to an anthropologist, which made going to see "King Kong" and similar examples of Truly Awful Anthroplogy complete impossibilities).

But things like having male worker ants? Would bug the crap out of me. I would be constantly making snarky remarks about it, until someone finally settled me with, "All right, all right, they aren't actually male, they're butches. After all, we never see anatomical details, right? They're just butch female workers! Now shut up!"

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

My understanding of Anthropology is based on what I've gleaned from art school and public television. I did wonder what the people on skull ate, and used for materials, and why, out of all the monsters that lived there, they gave sacrifices only to Kong. I liked that they were scary as hell.

I did consider that Woody Allen and Sly Stallone were female ants with male personalities (why not? if they have personalities at all they might as well have (inappropriate) gender). I'm more confused about the love interest subplot: since the movie is clear that the queen is the only reproductive member of the colony, why are there pseudo-heterosexual pair bonds?

[klandaghicat.livejournal.com]

Mostly, for me, it is every single time there's a skunk involved. Except, maybe, Mystery Men. That was real. Just come over to my house in the Springtime, you'll see.
But, usually, they're too fuzzy-bunny cute (Flower), too verbal (and sound like squirrels or something), and too quick to spray. I've handled wild skunks, capable of spraying, during times when you'd expect them to spray. They prefer to warn you, by stomping and turning their butt to you, and wandering away. Dogs are often sprayed because they equate this with play behavior.

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

have you seen the commercial for pbs with the pet skunk? adorable.

[copperwolf.livejournal.com]

Depends on context, as you noted. The "King Kong" scenes didn't bug (sorry) me at all. Right now I can't think of a good example of an animal-related inaccuracy severe enough to interfere with my enjoyment of a movie... but I couldn't take "Armageddon" very seriously at all.

[smallerdemon.livejournal.com]

I suspend disbelief reasonably well. These things are movies, not documentaries.

I am bugged (budda bing!) by this as well, but with other things. Especially by the use of "it begs the question" to mean "it brings up the question".

But...

I have to point you to one of my favorite reviews by Roger Ebert: Hackers (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19950915/REVIEWS/509150302/1023).

"...[Y]ou should never send an expert to a movie about his specialty. Boxers hate boxing movies. Space buffs said "Apollo 13" showed the wrong side of the moon. The British believe Mel Gibson's scholarship was faulty in "Braveheart" merely because some of the key characters hadn't been born at the time of the story.

"Hackers" is, I have no doubt, deeply dubious in the computer science department."

And my favorite bit that illustrates what you often have to do to enjoy a movie:
"The movie is smart and entertaining, then, as long as you don't take the computer stuff very seriously. I didn't. I took it approximately as seriously as the archeology in "Indiana Jones."

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

I think you've hit upon the point perfectly. I still want to see "over the hedge" because it's about the human/animal interface, but in general, I think I'll stop trying to watch kids movies about animals because they drive me fucking batty. I simply can't partially engage my brain--I like mindless stuff and good documentaries. Kid's movies are no fun to me anymore. (actually, I'm not sure if I ever liked them)

[csbermack.livejournal.com]

It only bothers me if it's a major plot point and/or the movie is trying to be all Serious about it. That's the case for all kinds of Just Completely Wrong things, not just natural history.

For instance. I'm reading the novelization of Snakes on a Plane. (It's both better and worse than you might expect. It's also longer.) In the book, the basic questions are bothering me. Things like "Snakes don't *do* that" and "Why don't they just crank up the AC" and "Where did they find so many hungry snakes in Hawaii anyway". While watching the movie? These questions will not be a problem for me. :)

It did bother me in Superman when all the computers came back online error-free with no apparent boot cycle *and* with saved state. But I try to avoid thinking about these things at least the first time I see a movie, because they can distract from an otherwise fun time.

[smallerdemon.livejournal.com]

It did bother me in Superman when all the computers came back online error-free with no apparent boot cycle *and* with saved state.

What, you never heard of "hibernate" mode? ;)

I'm reminded of Jurassic Park at the end: "I know this. This is unix." *snicker*

[queenofstuff.livejournal.com]

It usually doesn't bug me too much, except for the movie "Beast" which still sends me into hissy fits. The giant squid was swimming BACKWARDS (tentacles-first) in every shot! grr!

[nysidra.livejournal.com]

Ignorance is bliss in my case when it comes to critters in movies. I'm more of an earth science / physics (wannabe) geek. Have you seen the movie Sound of Thunder? That movie infuriates me.

I try to avoid watching many Sci Fi movies for that reason.

For some reason, when you started this post, I thought you were going to mention Meerkat Manor. I think that's the proper way to go about humanizing an animal. *chuckles*

[silvaerina-tael.livejournal.com]

Same here with regards to Earth Science/Physics... Though the Core, not that I saw it as the preview was enough to convince me I really shouldn't, was one that made me cringe, especially when they redid the premise so it was "less" scientific than the original. Apparently the audiences couldn't handle the science aspect.

[pipu.livejournal.com]

Speaking of male worker ants, have you seen the ads for the latest animated barnyard movie, featuring a male cow (complete with udders?!?!) as the protagonist? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!

Anyhow, to answer your question, I quite willingly suspend my disbelief for fantastical situations (ie, animals talking, or pigs wanting to be sheepdogs), but if there is something quite wrong with behavior or biology, outside of the fantasy, it bothers me a lot.

We've just started watching David Attenborough's Life of Mammals and it is fantastic (in the other sense). I highly recommend it if you haven't seen it.

[nmsunbear.livejournal.com]

Oh, I loved that series! Life of Birds is incredible too. David Attenborough gives me warm fuzzies. He just looks so absurdly delighted with his job. :)

[stonelizard.livejournal.com]

For me, it depends on the context. I really like the lion king despite the theory that Nala et all would have snuffed it if scar had taken over. Watership down and Plague dogs are also great films for me and do try to keep things slightly more realistic though I shall of course not go into the subject of their rabbit lore!
My dislike is for nature films that become soap operas - March of the penguins for instance which was far too sugary - it did depict death but it was all rather hurried and swept away under the carpet.
And don't talk to me about the new Prehistoric park - all good fun but I find the lack of anything remotely educational or useful rather dissapointing. The fact they were "keeping" a triceratops on its own, noticing it getting lonely and socially deprived and then "making" a dinosaur rather than getting him some real companions a pointless venture. I get rather attached to some of these digital creations,..

[jilder.livejournal.com]

Anything goes, as far as fiction is concerned. Once I've opened the door to talking beasties or quadroped insects or ducks with teeth, the sky's the limit.

Anthropomorphism in documentaries, however, pisses me off no end. I hate it when narrators will spout dribble about the devotion, the love, the tenderness of animal parents, or the connection between 'monogamous' breeding pairs. And the 'brutality' or 'fierceness' of predator actions.

They're just doing what they do. Quit telling us what you want them to be doing.

[turil.livejournal.com]

Aren't we all just doing what we do, ultimately?

[phlogiston-5.livejournal.com]

One thing that bothers me a lot is seeing the wrong crops in the wrong geographic area for a given time period. For instance, as far as I know from multiple botany classes and personal reading, corn was domesticated in central Mexico from a grass called Teosinte, yet I repeatedly see it mentioned or grown in shows about ancient Greece or Egypt. I even saw a documentary about Egypt that said it was one of the crops grown along the Nile!

Another example of a misplaced plant...in the show Lost they frequently walk through fields containing the grass Andropogon virginicus, which is native to the eastern US. It is on the show because it is invasive in Hawaii, where it is filmed. Not many people probably pick this stuff out, so its not a huge deal or anything, its just something I notice. The misplaced crop plants piss me off though.

As far as animals/insects goes...I think something like an insect not having six legs, or someone referring to a spider as an insect, would irk me a bit. I can't pick out the inconsistencies in vertebrate morphology and behavior usually, so that doesn't end up being a problem. I have avoided A Bug's Life and Antz because I just don't want to spend the whole time being bothered by incorrect portrayals.

[fledchen.livejournal.com]

Are you sure they meant corn in the U.S. meaning of the word? The crop that is called corn in the U.S. is called maize elsewhere, and "corn" is a generic term for grain there.

Re: Low Expectations!

[brush-rat.livejournal.com]

It's Aesop

Congratulations. You've summed it up in two words.

[http://users.livejournal.com/purplebunnie_/]

I'd actually prefer it if they killed eachother on occasion. Do you remember a movie about two dogs and a cat trying to find their way home from butt-nowhere to... what, San Fran? A yellow/golden lab and a Pit, and a cat named Sassy. That movie seemed to have a bit more realism in it.

[brush-rat.livejournal.com]

Homeward Bound . My kids dearly love that and it's sequel in which the animals are lost in SF. It's in heavy rotation this summer.

[brush-rat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, willing suspension of disbelief is required in just about any kids movie. I actually wanted to recommend "Over the Hedge" because it's a really fun flick with great animation, but I was afraid the anthropomorphized critters would drive you nuts. Really for all their lack of animal behavior, they might as well be gnomes. There's some great commentary on humans and suburban living you would enjoy. I'm particularly fond of RJ's speech about humans being food obsessed.

Ants is kind of painful. They aren't ants, they're a metaphor for American society, and a weak one at that. A Bugs Life is much more enjoyable, but they still aren't ants. Curiously, it shares a lot of themes with Clan Apis, but The science is much better in the latter.

In general if you know a lot about the movies subject, you have to cut them some major slack if you want to have any chance to enjoy it. I like CSI and I've enjoyed every one of the two dozen or so episodes I've watched, but I'm constantly thinking "That's not Las Vegas, that's LA." "Where in the hell do they think there's a quiet jogging path in forest abutting a suburb?" and "Cellar? there's maybe three cellars in the whole damn valley." The last episode I saw involved a clown and the parts they got wrong really annoyed me because they were major plot points that couldn't happen here. There are no street performers. There is no clown central casting agency where bored clowns sit around the office in full outfit and make up. There are talent agencies, but the talent almost never has to go to the office. I've worked with talent agencies for 12 years or so (as a caricature artist, no big shoes and rubber nose for me) and I've been inside one of there offices only four or five times to pick up a check or sign a contract. There's no "Tranny town" where people wander around in full make up trolling for Johns. The hookers we have wandering around are major crackheads who don't even realize they're dying of heatstroke. The attractive hookers and the specialty hookers work for illegal out call services which advertise in the Yellow Pages.

Um, the point here, before I headed off on that rant is that expecting hard science in a kids flick is unrealistic. If it happens, enjoy it, and let the rest of us know what it is so we can check it out.

[klandaghicat.livejournal.com]

I still haven't seen Over The Hedge. Ok, I really want to see it! The kid saw it and loved it... and it has a skunk! (I really do like seeing skunks in movies)
While in NC recently, I saw a clown in full make-up, sans wig, driving down the interstate, in a mini-van doing 20 miles under the speed limit. I was screaming, "Clown, clown!" in the same voice reserved for interstate wildlife sitings or fresh road-kill 'possum.

[badnoodles.livejournal.com]

It breaks my suspensions of disbelief when they make specific reference to a scientific fact...and it's wrong. For example, there was an episode of that claimed that pheromones were only for sex (wrong), that humans did not emit pheromones (wrong) and that over-exposure to pheromones could kill you (very wrong).

I watched the rest of the show in a snit.

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

an episode of .... ???

[cailin-t.livejournal.com]

when it's a kids movie, not at all. ever.

[fledchen.livejournal.com]

I usually only get upset at bad natural history if the movie purports to be "educational."

Exception: Kookaburra noises anywhere other than Australia or a zoo. That makes me NUTS.

[almeda.livejournal.com]

It amuses my (herpetologist) mother that in almost every SINGLE hollywood movie, if it's nighttime and they want 'ambient wildlife' noises that aren't crickets, they use Pacific Treefrogs.

Even if the action is set in Florida.

Or England.

Or ancient Egypt (extra giggle-points).

[ursulav.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty laid back about kids movies...what gets me are bird calls. (My geek is showing.)

If the eagle makes a red-tailed-hawk noise, I cringe.

And in the game "Sly Cooper" as one of the ambient noises, there's a loon call. Every three seconds. That's how you know it's Canada, eh?

Thing is, it's winter. In the arctic. Loons winter in the south. I could have handled that, but every three damn seconds...blaaaargghhh!

I scream at the TV during "realistic" shows, like CSI, but I'm pretty relaxed about most kid's movies. Yeah, the bugs are wrong, but eh...

[sarahshevett.livejournal.com]

The gender inequalities really bother me.
The ratio of males to females is never even close, and even more so in G rated movies.
Fortunately, I see there are people starting to take notice and trying to fix it.

http://www.seejane.org/

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

that's why (well, one of the reasons) i love Miyazaki. fantastic female characters.

[miz-geek.livejournal.com]

Wow. I have to admit that's not something I usually notice. Now, in addition to Bad Astronomy and Bad History in movies, I'll have to add Bad Natural History and Bad Anthropology. Cool :D

It doesn't generally bother me in kids movies, especially cartoons, because the characters are really substitute humans, not real animals. They could just as well be aliens or something. In a movie that tries to be scientific (or as someone mentioned, throws out a "scientific fact" I can get kind of snarky.)

I did manage to piss off some friends by suggesting that if the X-Files movie was taking place in summer in Texas, then there probably weren't regular flights to Antarctica, but X-Files kind requires a whole separate class in how to suspend disbelief.

[okaree.livejournal.com]

I won't watch a movie where bugs have legs on their abdomens. Drives me crazy!

And while I was watching the Lion King, I thought...So if there's one male and several females in a pride of lions, does that mean Nala and Simba are cousins? (lion incest woo!)

[mandy-moon.livejournal.com]

Jurassic Park got on my nerves because the animal that they referred to as the velociraptor looked a lot more like a deinonychus. Deinonychus was my favorite as a kid by far because- just DAMN, they're so cool!

I think "velociraptor" was a catchier name, but deinonychus is a cooler-looking dinosaur, so they combined the two. The actual velociraptor has a longer snout and I dont think they have that huge toe-claw and didn't leap around as vigorously.

I know that it's also a velociraptor in the book, but in the book he at least didn't pretend that velociraptor had the form of a deinonychus.

[bunrab.livejournal.com]

Oh hell, accuracy was so shot to hell in Jurassic Park, starting with the damn title, it was pointless to even regard it as being about dinosaurs from this planet.