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

Re: Flower's my favorite though!

[klandaghicat.livejournal.com]

I know, and he's probably one of the reasons I have pet domestic skunks. It's just the usual "Disney-pomorphism" that causes people to must-have wild animals for pets. (insert the usual wildlife rehabber Disney rant here!) I know I'm not a raccoon-person (very special people, indeed!) But! Oh how I really wanted one after watching Pocohontas! And baby skunks really are the cutest things ever, even cuter than baby opossums!