• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

"The Big Year" (1 Viewer)

I read the book, which I really liked.
I bought the dvd years ago after reading about it on here, I was very disappointed in the film.
Watched it only the once.
 
Uh, perhaps because this sub-forum demographically represents what the movie is about to some degree?

You can do better than that. The book, which I read when published, primarily dealt with the crazy, costly and lunacy of two main individuals dedicated and desperate attempts to outdo each other to claim the title. Very apt at the time with Lee Evans and others doing the same in the UK. Much subterfuge and claims of cheating both sides of the pond.
The binocular geeks, here on BF, ran a thread to se what makes and models we're portrayed in the film and it they were indeed the models used by the main characters during " The Big Year ".

I enjoyed the read, as I was a fairly keen twitcher around that time and it did replicate some of the shenanigans that were taking place ( and still do ) both sides of The Pond.

Bushnell, Bausch and Lomb and Leica from what I can recollect.....I donated the book to a charity shop, never saw the film, only Utoob clips.
 
Last edited:
...If folks didn't twig to it, perhaps they could give it another viewing now that they're older and wiser .....

Chosun 🙅‍♀️
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.

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 who 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
 
Last edited:
Cornell had a few comments on the movie...

and a critique...
 
I today's polite world, where outside the world of politics everyone is afraid to be truly critical (and even inside the political sphere, criticism may not qualify as truly critical since it is so often about partisan fictions and not hard hitting facts about the world, and thus is often easy to ignore for having zero information content), I'm afraid that the folks at Cornell are part of too mainstream an institution to risk alienating anyone and thus may not dare be harsh when perhaps they should. Cornell may also wish to model forgiveness for egregious errors pertaining to birding given their own major error in 2005.

--AP
 
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
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.

I suspect the so called “apologists” you refer to have many, varied and valid reasons to cut the movie some slack with very little grovelling in the mix. They may even be indulging in the healthy habit of not taking themselves (or movies) too seriously.
I personally have other intense interests alongside birding and every movie ever done on any of those topics has been as bad as the birding movies. I’d be wasting a lot of energy getting worked up about even one. Its fun pointing out and debating the flaws but flaws there will be and that will never change.

.
Also its just a movie.
Cheers,
Bryan
 
Mission
 
Well, 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
 
Last edited:
Seeing Kowa binoculars in the movie reminded me that Kowa made binoculars, which I had forgotten. I was looking for a new pair so looked up the specs, read reviews, etc.

I find the movie funny. Yes, there are lots of inaccuracies in the movie, but I think that's what helps make it funny. Most of the people I know have no interest in birding, and I think the movie captures the non-birding person's reactions pretty well. "Hey, we just had a county first record of a "blah blah blah" yesterday afteroon!" "...um, that's nice? Good for you?"

For decades my spouse had no interest in birding. Then one day while sitting on the back porch they saw a Western Tanager. Then something else colorful. Then they came to me and said, "I want to try birding." I knew that to make this successful they absolutely needed binoculars that would work with their eyeglass prescription. It took time to research and try different pairs, to understand what they were and were not seeing, etc. Getting the binoculars right was crucial. They initially baulked at the price, but after trying different brands, models, and price points, they understood the difference of what worked for them and what did not.

Now they love birding and can't wait to go out - even if we are seeing the same things. They love the walks, the sightings, the research, etc. They used to not understand why I enjoyed it. Now they say, "I get it."

Both of us have read the book, and we own the movie. We both find the movie very funny because we can see both sides of our experiences in how the movie portrays the non-technical aspects of the story.
 
Last edited:
Well, 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
Hi Alexis
For the record I wasn’t offended by your statements. Blunt expression is good (as my German friends are fond of telling me)
I’m also all over having high expectations. Art, books, writing and movies are all fair game for those expectations. Just don’t get me started on science fiction writing, just don’t because it won’t end well. 😉

Taking a topic or interest very seriously is also very cool and I get the intensity. When I cross that fuzzy line and am suddenly taking myself more seriously than the subject (or others) my audience’s eyes always glaze over and they suddenly remember their drinks need refreshing and they wander off.
I still agree with your general assessment of the movie itself. For better or worse I just manage my expectations differently due to having been in the business long enough to not take it too personally.
It did teach me a little trick for coming to grips with any movie’s flaws, just pretend its a cartoon and suddenly its not so bad! If its already a cartoon and still bad then all bets are off.
I of course make these cartoon comments with apologies to some of the brilliant slice of life anime that Hollywood in their dreams can only hope someday to aspire to.
You had me rushing to look at clips of Moonrise Kingdom for binoculars (were you able to id any?) and lo and behold there they are. When I watched the movie originally I was so focused on Wes Anderson’s story telling and magic that I never noticed the binoculars. Time to give it another go.




To sum up, I own the Big Year and do like the movie. I’m guessing I’ve watched it at least 5 times and am always happy when in that fallout scene in Texas Cleese announces our little Ruby-throated Female is alive after its harrowing migration. Nice moment and its lead up, decent CG work on the hummer and the background music underlines the moment nicely.
Cheers,
Bryan
 
No, in my case I'm committed to settling into the role of grumpy curmudgeon ....

Whoa ! You realise you create your own reality right ? 🤔 Be careful what you wish for - you will get it .......

Perhaps back away from the scope and try something with an extra-wide Fov ..... 😄

What if it's not about birding at all ?
What if it's just about universal themes ?
What if the big year is just a quirky ride to get ya there ?

For me as a 'non-competitive birder' (whatever that is) - I took it as an interesting eye opener into a world that I have no interest in. The fact that it was pleasant, amusing, insightful, and heart-warming, was a bonus (in a world filled with movies offering a violent stroboscopic assault on the senses and more explosions than a warzone !)

I think the teaser poster with a bird peering down through the objectives of Steve Martin's bins says it all ! 😄

big-year-2.jpg

922192882e3b20e980d254d7597e0a0d.jpg

This behind the scenes interview is about as exciting as watching paint dry - but Owen Wilson let's slip something that in my view if it translates to the audience, is an important accomplishment of the movie ....
"One of the nice things on this movie that we were able to take away was probably just an appreciation for the friendship and also sort of maybe an awareness of nature that um, maybe you didn't have before"


I also quite like this well played scene between Jack Black and Brian Dennehy ... a touching dawning for a "grumpy curmudgeon" 😉



Apparently there's an Extended version of the movie which is the one to watch ??


Chosun 🙅‍♀️
 
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. :cool:

Jerry
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.
 
Some commenters are confusing criticism of some of the birding elements of the film with dislike of the film. That is usually NOT the case. The movie is a fun movie that I show to anyone who wants to know why I like birding. I buy it whenever I find it in delete bins or used stores and I give it to people often. I'm sure I've seen it 20 times with people and have given away at least 10 DVD's. The movie captures the excitement of birding. If people have a problem with the movie, it is that they expect it to be more humourous than it is.

Having said that there are major problems with the movie from a birding perspective that not only insult birders but anyone with even a casual interest in details in a movie. There are many but here are some of the key ones, often noted by the non-birder:

*Day 1. Stu in the Colorado Rockies end his day with only 29 species which is very low while Bostick in Arizona ends with 31. I watched this with a complete non-birder and they said “wouldn’t he have gotten more in AZ?” Of course he would have. He was off and running before daybreak. Also he got the Nutting’s Flycatcher early so would never have stayed at Patagonia State Park all day.

*The big laugh is that Brad ends the day with 1 species. If that had been some lone pigeon on a pipe at work then that still wouldn’t have made sense but would have been funny to birder and non-birder alike. Instead the Director uses an image that contains at least 3 species. Several non-birders who have seen that have said “There's way more than one there." They are right. Not only is this sloppy but it is even more confusing for the non-birder who already thinks some birds are different species based on age and seasonal molt patterns.

*Day 44. Stu and Bostick are close at 158 to 159. Brad is at 132. Again these numbers are very low for Day 44..

*The Snowy Owl as Bostick’s jinx bird does not make sense. In the book it was a Long-Eared Owl which makes more sense. When watching this with my daughter, who, sadly, is not a birder, she turned to me and said “Why would he have not seen a snowy owl?” That’s because she, an urban dweller in Saskatchewan, sees snowy owls every winter without even trying.

*When they are at High Island, Texas, we see the tallies increasing for all three: Brad (296 to 329), Stu (289 to 320), Bostick (270 to 310). Bostick is the leader and he starts and ends that day with the least birds? Not only is this just poor editing but it destroys the core of the story that Brad is the underdog trying to keep pace.

*On the pelagic cruise Brad’s friend (Crane) looks at Stu’s book and reports in his blog that my May 8, Stu has 497 species. Yet we see the book too and the list is at #498 Pacific Loon. Just bad continuity.

*Also if this is Stu’s Big Year list then #496 is a Northern Shoveler while #497 is a Fox Sparrow. While it could be possible to have missed a Fox Sparrow until May, he would have seen Northern Shoveler back in January.

*If Icabod Crane was a good birder and saw that some guy was recording a Northern Shoveler at #496 then he'd never assume this was a big year list. Maybe a California list but not a Big Year.

*On Attu Brad is at 534 and Bostick is at 537 and when they leave Brad has 627 to Bostick’s 629. Again this hurts the sense that Brad is the underdog and struggling with work and finances to do this. We see that he’s actually doing a good job getting his birds.

*There is a great scene on Attu where they are travelling across the island with Coldplay’s “Viva la Vida” is playing and we see different birds names appear. It really is an uplifting part of the storyline. They don’t say these are birds are FOY but we are left to assume that. Indeed there are some birds that likely were the first birds of the year. However several birds listed like Bufflehead, Northern Shoveler and Semi-palmated Plover would have been seen back on the mainland months earlier than this.

*Also another example of poor editing is that in the above scene, “Spectacled Eider” is written in two different spots.

*Later near Lake Tahoe when all three have over 700 birds, Brad and Stu are at their car and Stu says he is too tired to go on. Brad hears sandhill cranes and off they run. Again my daughter, the non-birder, asked “Wouldn’t they have gotten sandhill cranes much earlier?” Of course. Again she sees them in thousands flying overhead even in urban area. This one is also bad for anyone doing a big year would go to Aransas NWA in Texas in January to get Whopping Cranes so would get Sandhill Crane in their first weeks of a Big Year.

*Bostick arrives home in Montclair, NJ maybe late summer but the trees are still looking very green. His buddy calls him and we see the friend with a snowy owl in Buffalo, NY (360 miles away) and the landscape if full winter.

These are only some of the examples were poor directing insults not just the birder but the general audience as well. Yet having said that, I still recommend the movie and I'm sure will be watching it again in the near future. Again there is nothing wrong with criticizing something that you like. If you think this is criticism, then don't get me going on Star Trek and I've seen every episode of every series.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 1 year ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top