MovieChat Forums > A Birder's Guide to Everything (2013) Discussion > For once, a CGI-generated bird would hav...

For once, a CGI-generated bird would have been a +

posted 10 years ago by feodoric
1 reply | jump to latest

I don't want to look picky or to split hairs here, but given that a sizable portion of the population is now likely familiar with what the Labrador Duck looked like, the specimen they show as a potential Labrador Duck (an extinct species) in its winter plumage (or a female one) is obviously a VERY poorly disguised Mallard. Of course, that's what it turns out to be in the end, but how the guys, including a professional birdwatcher and nature guide, could be fooled by the sight of that Mallard is beyond understanding and undermines the credibility of the film all of a sudden, after brilliant beginnings. A Labrador Duck silhouette immediately gives away its identity as a seashore diving duck (the base of its bill has the typical bump of eiders and scoters), not a marsh/pond-inhabiting wading species such as the Mallard!

If bird watching was not a major element in the storyline and in the activities of the main characters, this would certainly be less irritating. But more importantly, the sudden quest for the Labrador Duck is like the Holy Graal for the main characters, making it a central element of the utmost importance. It's really sad, because the movie includes nice shots of numerous bird species of Northeastern USA. Moreover, there are numerous mentions or short discussions on various bird species, and as an ornithologist, I can certify that all information relative to birds is very accurate, and even surprisingly well researched.

That's why I was expecting to see a better impression of a Labrador Duck, something which would have been easy. Just compare with the excellent CGI-supported Tasmanian tiger (or Thylacine) seen in The Hunter, a recently extinct species known from stuffed specimens (and old cinematographic documents). That artificially created Tasmanian tiger is so good that the final confrontation between the poacher/mercenary (played by Wilhelm Dafoe) has an incredible emotional tension and sadness.

And please don't tell me it's just a MacGuffin (which the Labrador Duck is indeed), that's not the point. A non-believable MacGuffin is worse than none altogether.

[–] schwatime 9 years ago

I think you're falling victim to the everybody should know and care as much about my narrow area of expertise as I do annoyance. Happens to me all the time, except it only truly bugs me if there was a really easy fix that the filmmakers for some reason refused to use.

I think your expertise is clouding your judgment. For example,

...a sizable portion of the population is now likely familiar with what the Labrador Duck looked like...

I really, really doubt that, and not just because almost nobody watched this movie. I've probably seen the movie four times now, if you include watching with the commentary on, and each time they showed a drawing of the duck, my mind said something like, yup, looks like a duck, then promptly forgot what it looked like. Mainly what I remember about the duck is that I was surprised they chose a duck to be the object of the holy quest, since ducks seem so waddly, familiar, bland-colored, unfragile, and inexotic. When I first saw that duck going down the road I definitely did not hear an angelic choir. It seemed very much like suburban New York.

In the comments they did mention that they used a cgi duck briefly a couple of times. But keep in mind that this was a low budget movie. And I don't see this as essentially a birding film. If I had, I wouldn't like it so much, because birding bores the living snot out of me.