Monday, May 05, 2008

Bad Biology in Cloverfield

Mad Biologist Carlo Artieri has an interesting post about the bad biology in recent monster movie Cloverfield. The biggest problem: "the monster violates the rules of rules of allometric scaling." Go read his post to find out what that means.

If that's not enough for you, Michael LaBarbera's Biology of B-Movie Monsters has a more detailed analysis of the biological problems with very big (and very small) creatures.



SOBrien said...

It's too bad that the "fiction" piece of science fiction is not taken more literally. Does it really make a difference whether or not the monster meets our current theories of biology? Would Cloverfield be a better story if the monster were more real ?

Peggy said...

I disagree with you that "fiction" necessarily means that the story elements don't have to be consistent with what we know about physics, biology and chemistry - science fiction that has plausible science is still literally "fiction".

Would a more "realistic" monster make Cloverfield a better story, though? Probably not. But would it be worse? Probably not either. So why not have a monster that could plausibly exist?

And I can't speak for Carlo, but the reason why I write about the biology in SF is that I find the topic interesting, not because I think that every story necessarily should be based on good science.