Uh, perhaps because this sub-forum demographically represents what the movie is about to some degree?
Coz OP Jerry has staked a claim in the binoculars sub-forum, and he ain't movin' ! This ol' dawg ain't gonna be learnin' no new trix ....... ! 😄More splitting of hairs........why is this thread under the Binoculars sub forum?
No, in my case I'm committed to settling into the role of grumpy curmudgeon who isn't willing to give the movie a break, motivated to that hard line position in large measure by my sense of duty in trying to provide a counterbalance to the large number of birders or birdwatchers who are apparently so desperate to see birding in the mainstream that they are willing apologists for what I consider to be inexcusable errors. Seriously, consider my daughter's "favorite" error in the movie (that I previously mentioned), when (near the beginning of the movie) Jack Black's character is stuck at work looking at birds out the window, we are shown what he sees, we clearly see three species of gulls, but the movie shows him tallying only one! What??? This error shows complete disregard for the foundational concern of birding. It shows that the folks who made the movie were so dismissive of birders and birding that they didn't care to include a birder to review the final cut (or didn't care to make adjustments subsequent to such a review. Why couldn't Jack Black's character have been shown seeing only a Rock Pigeon, or European Starling, or House Sparrow just outside the window? Such an edit would have been a win-win--it would have made the point better to-nonbirders than does a confusing mixed-species mass of gulls, and the few birders in the theater would have immediately appreciated and been sympathetic to his predicament. I wish I could see three species of gulls from my office!). My daughter, who isn't a birder, remembers that scene because when we watched the movie together after it came out when she was 8 years old, she could see there were at least two species and was shocked when the counter rang up only one. Cognitive dissonance. Never mind the slightly more arcane error of the character in southern Arizona ending that same day with only something like 30 species--a number so low for the Patagonia State Park area as to be ridiculously inconceivable given the level of birding ineptitude it would reflect. Oh well....If folks didn't twig to it, perhaps they could give it another viewing now that they're older and wiser .....
Chosun 🙅♀️
Wow, just wow! “grovelling apologists, Lack of regard, Willful ignorance”, Hyperbole much? Or perhaps just trying to offend? You’re actually not criticizing the movie anymore you’re criticizing others for not being as angry as you are about flaws in a movie.To all you groveling apologists for what I judge to be lack of regard for birding and birders to the point of willful ignorance, please consider the following. If this were a movie that used cricket, or baseball, or polo, or rugby, or golf as a similar vehicle to motivate the plot, I doubt that comparable errors would be forgiven by those constituencies. Even movie critics that didn't care about those sports would be scratching their heads as to why the producers/director/etc would devote so much energy and money to making such a movie and yet not bother to do the research or hire (and listen to) the consultants needed to get those basic details right.
--AP
Hi AlexisWell, I have to admit that I have an unusual expectation around movies. I didn't grow up with television or the internet, and I only saw a very few movies (ones that were considered superb) before college. In college, I saw quite a few, but all were curated as the best from the present to very old. It has left me with high expectations for what a movie should be. Actually, I have high (some would say unreasonable) expectations for most things, including binoculars! I've never used the line "it's just a ___" to excuse anything, as far as I know. I take everything, and nothing, seriously. In a senseless world without inherent purpose, as a sentient being with a will, I prefer to strive for excellence and intense engagement even if I fail often. I read a lot of reviews back when the movie came out. My comments about apologists were based on my memories of those, not so much the comments in this thread. And they were a bit tongue-in-cheek, if it wasn't clear, just like my own description of myself as a grumpy curmudgeon. Sorry. I wasn't intending to offend. I just enjoy blunt expression. Some would say dramatic expression. But not hyperbole.
On another note, my favorite binocular movie (given their prominence in it and my poor stomach for war and crime movies) is Moonrise Kingdom.
--AP
No, in my case I'm committed to settling into the role of grumpy curmudgeon ....
'Twas ever thus.The book is much, much better than the movie.
I never say the movie, but liked the book,The book is much, much better than the movie.
Three other birding movies are The BIrder (with Tom Cavannah) - humour, A Birder's Guide to Everything (with Ben Kingsley) - more like a teen drama and Pelican Blood (with Harry Treadway) - definitely not a teen drama. There is also Birders: The Central Park Effect which is more a documentary. Also Rare Birds (with William Hurt), filmed in Newfoundland, which isn't really about birding but some guys faking a rare bird sighting to bring people to his seaside restaurant.It seems the discussion of probably the only birding movie ever produced is being criticized by a few.
It is just a movie for entertainment, and that is all. Most all movies are not really accurate to those experts in
the field.
So, I will say, just relax and enjoy the movie..........I will just sit back and enjoy the popcorn.
Jerry