rmsgrey wrote:The trouble with unfamiliar yet amazing real things is that taking the time to explain them to the audience takes away from the rest of the movie, while saying an unexpected supernova threatened to wipe out an inhabited planet leaves most of the audience thinking they understand, and those who have any clue about astronomy spluttering in total disbelief (either help has less than 10 minutes to get there between the star exploding and the planet getting blasted, or it would take years for the wavefront to arrive, and you'd barely notice the effects when it did anyway); on the other hand, explaining about a more exotic, but more plot relevant phenomenon would leave most of the audience thinking "they made that up!" and the few astronomers grinning, and mean you could spend less time running away from bigger ice monsters...
I'm not talking about those specific moments where conventional wisdom and reality are directly at odds with each other, just the idea of modeling things based on real, biological creatures and processes.
I mean, the critters in these movies are BORING compared to parasitic wasps, snuffbox clams, vinegaroons, portia spiders, robber flies, twisties (Strepsiptera), mad hatterpillars, epomis beetles, Pseudacteon (decapitating phorid flies), tiger beetles, mantidflies, horsehair worms, spitting spiders, siphonophores, crawling crinoids, beroid comb jellies, red lipped batfish, stargazers, bobbit worms, box jellies, sacculina Labidiaster annulatus, pigbutt worms, cordyceps, sea elephants, mimic octopi, ant-mimic jumpers, pangolins, uloborid spiders, vampire finches, velvet worms, hellbenders, sidegill slugs, Cymothoa Exigua, wolbachia, and so on.
Movie monsters could be both more realistic AND more interesting. You don't have to just absurdly extrapolate with a single creature, just understand how amazingly fucked up nature really is.