Robert Bakker says that King Kong wouldn't be able to get enough to eat.

There are more serious issues than that. Even if he could get enough to eat, for a body with that much mass to move that fast, the heat generated would be much greater than could be radiated out through the skin (mass goes up as the cube of the major dimension, whereas surface area only goes up as the square), particularly through that fur coat, so he'd cook from the inside if he maintained the kind of activity levels presumably depicted. Also, he wouldn't be able to maintain his own weight on those (relatively) spindly legs, once scaled up to that size--they'd splinter like toothpicks.

No point in seeing the movie, folks--it's just not realistic...

[Via Mark Whittington]

There have been similar arguments made against the existence of Dragons. Even if they existed, there is no way their wings would have been able to carry them. Though, in the case of dragons, the release of excess heat created by their metabolic processes could at least be explained by the fire breath.

Yeah Hollywood, don't make unrealistic movies. They are never successful. More Hobbits please!

Kong legs kick hard and full of beef power!! More then strong enough to destroy notion of plot inconsistency.

Kong get hot *whew*, but hot blast furnace farts erupt from red butt to keep cool.

The same can be said of ancient mega fauna. Look how relatively slowly and carefully and elephant moves, with very little impact.

Some of the dino's were much bigger.

In whimsical moments, I wonder if somehow, changes in universal constants resulted in reduced gravity in the distance past.

Kong and other hyperfauna are able to survive and move due to a speciaized organ within their bodies. This organ, called the antiballast, contains a complex of picoscopic fullerene molecules within which a series of nested Van er Waals force fields exists. These force fields act in combination to produce a curvature of negative value in the spacetime metric within and immediately surrounding the animal. The effect of this curvature in the metric is to effect an apparent lessening of the inertal mass of the animal. In the case of Kong, for example, the animal's inertial mass (measured postmortem) of some seven thousand tons -- the mass of a guided missile destroyer -- was reduced during its life by a factor of approximately 99.9%; thus, Kong's "weight" while living amounted to roughly seven tons. (A typical African elephant masses approximately 7.5 tons as an adult.) The antiballast also serves to absorb and radiate away much of Kong's body heat, apparently into the same medium in which his mass is "submerged". This mass/energy submergence effect, coupled with Kong's immense musculature, enabled the fabled ape to move in the astounding ways depicted in the recent film.

Dragons, giant insects, and the Godzilla organism of the Western Pacific walk and "fly" by means of a similar antiballast organ; however, these creatures seem to lack much of Kong's ability to radiate body heat. It is speculated that the wings, tail, and dorsal fins exhibited by these animals serve primarily as radiators, not as aerodynamic surfaces.

I wonder if all of these arguments could also be used to refute everything Bakker's ever said about mammalian dinosaurs. If King Kong couldn't get enough to eat to sustain himself how could a duck-billed dinosaur or tyrranosaurus rex do the same thing?

The largest dinosaurs has a molecular bone structure quite unlike any other creature. They evolved a mechanism by which their bones were longer & stronger, but no heavier. They were like a honeycomb matrix.

Why did no other species evolve this? No need to I suppose.

Life finds a way.