One of the most popular features the main BA site is the movie review section, where I tear apart movies based on their astronomy. It’s fun to do; maybe a little too fun as I do tend to get carried away.
It turns out I’m not the only one. Friend of the BABlog Larry Klaes sent along an article about movie monster biology which was a lot of fun to read. He goes through why shrinking humans won’t work, why expanding animals won’t work, and several other creature features.
My only complaint is that he missed an obvious problem with giant insects: they can’t breathe. Insects have little holes in their sides called spiracles, and oxygen diffuses into their systems through them. It’s fine for tiny arthropods, but it’s not efficient. That’s why larger (land) creatures have lungs; they can supercharge themselves with precious O2 that way. So insects can’t get too big before they suffocate. I’ll note insects were bigger back in the mesozoic, but the air had more oxygen in it then as well.
Oops! I wrote that part above, somehow missing the part of the essay dealing with insect respiration.
It was pointed out to me in the comments, though.
The page does have some info about squids in it, so I’ve notified PZ Myers, too.
August 5th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Thank god insects are small, as well as arachnids!
August 5th, 2006 at 11:13 am
If you will allow a quick note from an entomologist…kudos on mentioning the problems of a tracheal system for movie monster insects. However, the external openings for the tracheal system are called “spiracles” not spicules. Spicules are generally defined as small needle-like spines.
August 5th, 2006 at 11:55 am
An interesting thing about Honey I Shrunk the Kids is that the shrinking machine did work by decreasing the space between an object’s atoms’ nucleus and electron cloud. However, for some reason this didn’t cause the mass to remain constant, which always bugged me watching the movie as a kid, especially in the lawnmower scene.
August 5th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Spiracles! D’oh! I knew that. Seriously. Nuts. OK. I fixed it.
Spicules, incidentally, are fine needle-like structures seen on the Sun. So at least it was an astronomical mistake.
August 5th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
do you have any reference for atmospheric composition ?
I thought it had a higher co2 level back then, than today and therefore should have a lower oxygen contents.
August 5th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
That was a fun article!
Discovery Channel’s “Alien Planet†which aired a few years ago featured hypothetical creatures on an Earthlike world reached by Earth robots after some 40 years in space. One interesting approach on this show was that after making it, they showed it to scientists (whose reactions are seen in the program,) with a mindset of “you have to accept what you see and explain it in.” In other words “that’s impossible” was not allowed. Things were intriguing with explanations of the various odd alien life forms until they got to a gigantic creature a mile long that was essentially a walking forest. Since the planet has similar gravity as Earth, the particular scientist on the hot-seat could only say something like, well, a creature like that would have to be considerable less dense than Earth creatures. But even then, there would be all sorts of other problems.
As for giant movie ants (with possible diamond joints); it seems from Michael C. LaBarbera’s article like they would have the best chance of actually existing. Perhaps ants, wasps and other insects could conceivably be as large as birds (anybody recall the Zanti Misfits?) though such insects don’t exist today. I recall reading that based on the fossil record, in prehistoric times, dragonflies, which are graceful, small and colorful today, were much much larger and carnivorous.
August 5th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
There was one error in the movie monster biology article relative to the movie Them. In that movie, Edmund Gwenn tells James Arness and James Whitmore to “aim for the antennea, he’s helpless without them.”
August 5th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
So spicule is an astronomical and an entomological term. Interesting. I wonder if there are any others.
Chip: Yes, there are fossils of dragonflies which were much bigger than any living representatives. While I can’t speak to grace and coloration of the extinct forms, the living taxa are pretty darn carnivorous. The nymphs have a prehensile labium (lower lip) which can grab and hold on to prey while the mandibles munch away. The adults can be ferocious, attacking and consuming (live) other insects including damselflies and other dragonflies as big as themselves. It can be fun to watch a couple dragons fly back and forth through a swarm of midges like dolphins through a school of fish — the midges don’t stand a chance.
August 5th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Isaac Asimov wrote hos own article on the physical inconsistencies in Fantatsic Voyage in a magazine article. That’s interesting, since he wrote the novelization of the movie. He addressed many of the same issues, such as the relative changes in light wavelengths, etc. I don’t recall however that he even thought of Brownian motion.
Asimov also wrote a magazine article regarding King Kong, soon after the first remake came out in 1976. He spoke of the scaling factor for an oversized gorilla, and also computed Kong’s kinetic energy as he splatted at the base of the World Trade Center. Would’ve blown out every window for blocks.
August 5th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
I was really disappointed with the new Kong movie. Before I get on topic, I want to explain some of the items that really ruined the movie.
First, Jack Black should never make another movie. Nobody should even hire him. His only acting is that f*cked up expression he makes with his face. Other than that he has no acting skills and pretty much ruins every movie he’s ever been in.
Second, the ship’s crew who all ditched because they were scared suddenly come back in the nick of time to save the people who went on the rescue mission when they were being attacked by giant everything. On top of that they were swingin from vines while firing automatic weapons – and exhibiting extreme accuracy.
OK, other than Jack Black, I can live with the rest of it. After all, it’s a stupid monster movie but it could have been a lot better considering the acting talent available and the technology we have.
So what bugs me about the dynamics of the creatures is Kong’s run through the forest with what’s her name in his grasp. He’s a massive animal with a lot of mass and consistently smashing his fist into the ground during his run. In the mean time she’s a frail little human taking a beating that would have killed her in just a few minutes. Quite some time later when he reaches his home, she brushes off her dress and looks pretty dame good for a chick who’s just been slammed repeatedly against the ground and into trees not to mention in a giant ape’s paw which probably isn’t the cleanest thing in the world. Even taken to an extreme of non-realism, she would have been very dead with about every bone in body broken.
I’m glad I didn’t pay to see it. What a waste of what could have been an excellent flick.
August 5th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
It seems that he addressed the insect bit in session 4 … perhaps that wasn’t there when you wrote your blog entry?
August 5th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Well, now that’s weird. I totally missed it! I guess I’ll edit that part of my blog entry. Thanks for pointing that out!
August 5th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Happy to help, keep up the good work!
August 5th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Woot! cephalopods on the attack. Thanks BA
August 6th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Yeah, but there are still some really big insects out there. The most frightening I’ve seen is the Giant Asian Hornet or Vespa mandarinia. I would post a URL for it, but unfortunately the blog won’t let me. But if you google for it, you’ll see it easily enough.
August 6th, 2006 at 11:39 am
I believe that one other factor to consider is the “Square-Cube Law” which says that if you double the size of an object, you square its surface area, and cube its volume.
In other words if you cube its volume, you also cube its weight, and therein is the basic problem is enlarging and keeping the same proportions. That is why elephants have large legs….as did the giant dinosaurs, and that is why insects and spiders can get along on spindly legs…..
August 6th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Ever notice how super-sized Hollywood animals seem to never leave footprints, nor ruffle the dirt they walk on? When they stomp on a car, usually a Police vehicle, or even the ubiquitious Sherman tank, it gets squashed, but the ground beneath is left un-touched!
Considering most of our streets have tunnels carrying power, water, sewerage, and telephone cables etc., I’m not surprised that sometimes these occasionally fail in not much more than normal traffic.
Ivan.
August 6th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
CafeenMan,
If you have an opinion of Peter Jackson’s filmmaking style, you may be interested in this:
http://www.rpstudios.net/dorkoftherings/
August 7th, 2006 at 8:34 am
Apologies if this has already been pointed out above but I haven’t read all the replies yet. I think it was Isaac Asimov who pointed out in one of his numerous essays that if you increased the size of an insect to giant proportions, not only would it have trouble breathing but it would also be incapable of movement! If you double the size of an object you increase its mass by a factor of eight. (If you have an object a foot square that weighs a pound, doubling the size means you have a cube 2 feet on each side which gives you a volume of 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 cubic feet, and a mass of 8 pounds!)
Insects’s legs are very thin because they don’t need to support much weight, but an insect the size of an elephant would have to have elephant size legs too. Even then, an elephant can’t jump to save its life whereas most insects can leap incredible distances compared to their size. The bigger you get, the more muscles you need just to stand up.
August 7th, 2006 at 8:48 am
Ah – now I see it has been mentioned. Sorry about that. Good old Isaac – I wonder what he’d make of the current war on science if he were still with us. Him and Richard Feynman, two of my heroes since they could explain complex science ideas to laymen like me. We really could do with them now!
August 7th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Anybody have any idea what the armospheric percentages were 100 million years ago and what the atmospheric pressure was? Current partial pressure of O2 at sea level and standard temp. is about 2.7 PSI. With a somewhat higher percentage of O2 in the atmospheric mix in those days, plus higher sea level pressure we can see how large insects could have “breathed”.
I considered writing a SciFi novel years ago in which the “explanation” for giant critters was that earth had a larger radius in those days, with a consequent lower surface gravity. As the planet cooled, it shrank,,resulting in our current surface acceleration of G of 9.8 m/sec. Of course, I have no idea if that would be even theoretically possible, but that’s the fun fo fantasy,,,anything goes.
Gary 7