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

[(Anonymous)]

Right, a clown in full make up driving somewhere makes perfect sense. They're supposed to show up to most gigs all clowned up and ready to go. They can throw the wig on when they get there, because it's hot and it scrapes the roof of most cars. That's a sight I see with some regularity, since we're often on the way to the same gig.

I've also seen clowns and on one particularly ugly occasion, Santa, playing the slots. Like Thompson said, "Las Vegas is not a good town for psychedelic drugs. Reality itself is too twisted."

[klandaghicat.livejournal.com]

It does make sense, I agree. But actually seeing it... It's something I haven't seen before. Also it was halfway between two cities, about an hour apart.