CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › The Biology of B-Movie Monsters
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Biology of B-Movie Monsters

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 
http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/2/21701757/

A long, but interesting, article examining the biology of B-movie monsters. For instance, in The Incredible Shrinking Man,

Quote:
When the Incredible Shrinking Man stops shrinking, he is about an inch tall, down by a factor of about 70 in linear dimensions. Thus, the surface area of his body, through which he loses heat, has decreased by a factor of 70 x 70 or about 5,000 times, but the mass of his body, which generates the heat, has decreased by 70 x 70 x 70 or 350,000 times. He's clearly going to have a hard time maintaining his body temperature (even though his clothes are now conveniently shrinking with him) unless his metabolic rate increases drastically.

Luckily, his lung area has only decreased by 5,000-fold, so he can get the relatively larger supply of oxygen he needs, but he's going to have to supply his body with much more fuel; like a shrew, he'll probably have to eat his own weight daily just to stay alive. He'll also have to give up sleeping and eat 24 hours a day or risk starving before he wakes up in the morning (unless he can learn the trick used by hummingbirds of lowering their body temperatures while they sleep).

Because of these relatively larger surface areas, he'll be losing water at a proportionally larger rate, so he'll have to drink a lot, too. We see him drink once in the movie--he dips his hand into a puddle and sips from his cupped palm. The image is unremarkable and natural, but unfortunately wrong for his dimensions: at his size surface tension becomes a force comparable to gravity. More likely, he'd immerse his hand in the pool and withdraw it coated with a drop of water the size of his head. When he put his lips to the drop, the surface tension would force the drop down his throat whether or not he chooses to swallow.

As for the contest with the spider, the battle is indeed biased, but not the way the movie would have you believe. Certainly the spider has a wicked set of poison fangs and some advantage because it wears its skeleton on the outside, where it can function as armor. But our hero, because of his increased metabolic rate, will be bouncing around like a mouse on amphetamines. He wouldn't struggle to lift the sewing needle--he'd wield it like a rapier because his relative strength has increased about 70 fold. The forces that a muscle can produce are proportional to its cross-sectional area (length squared), while body mass is proportional to volume (length cubed). The ratio of an animal's ability to generate force to its body mass scales approximately as 1/length; smaller animals are proportionally stronger. This geometric truth explains why an ant can famously life 50 times its body weight, while we can barely get the groceries up the stairs; were we the size of ants, we could lift 50 times our body weight, too. As for the Shrinking Man, pity the poor spider.
I particularly like the image of bouncing around like a mouse on amphetamines.
post #2 of 6
Thanks for posting that, a great (if disappointing) read. There go my dreams of seeing giant-size creatures conquer the world.
post #3 of 6
Quote:
even though his clothes are now conveniently shrinking with him
Not true. Just watch the scenes when he first starts shrinking and his clothes appear larger.
Quote:
...but the best are clearly the original (1933) with Fay Wray, the 1976 remake with Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange, and a 1949 clone entitled Mighty Joe Young (whose special effects, by Ray Harryhausen, are breathtaking)...
The remake doesn't deserve mention here, especially not before the un-mentioned Son of Kong.
Quote:
What if that chipmunk got bigger, either through evolution or the effects of consuming radioactive tomatoes, as in so many of these movies?
I'd see that movie.

Overall, an interesting article. Thanks for posting it.
post #4 of 6
A physicist friend and I have had similar real science vs. hollywood debates for years, but never anything close to this extensive of an anaylsis.

Fascinating and yet always dishearteining conversations, especially the ones about super-hero films.
post #5 of 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel Williams
I particularly like the image of bouncing around like a mouse on amphetamines.
post #6 of 6
Great article. Reminds me of the stupid physics page.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Creature Corner Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › The Biology of B-Movie Monsters