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

[almeda.livejournal.com]

It's particularly galling because there are a lot of local shibboleths that he gets *right* -- slang terms for neighborhoods, stuff that you don't pick up from just having rented an apartment in Andersenville for two years. And then he'll have a vibrant Puerto Rican community ten minutes from the airport. ARRRRGH.

Names withheld to protect the guilty. :->

[brush-rat.livejournal.com]

And off I went to look up the meaning of Shibboleth. Thanks, I don't get exposed to many new words anymore. I like it.

[almeda.livejournal.com]

And it's *biblical*.

*pious look*

*giggle*