This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: British / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

The entire cast listed is wrong. Was someone on drugs when they wrote this? Was it a troll? You can look at the picture of the video box and literally see who the people in the video are. --Blue Tie (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at history and saw someone made edits that did this. So I reverted - I hope. --Blue Tie (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say that the plot is about people competing to see the rarest birds, but I suspect that this is a misreading of the plot. The book upon which the movie is based is a competition to see who can see the most species. However, since all of the competitors will see all of the more common birds, the winner is determined by who is able to see the most rare birds, hence the confusion. Of course Hollywood may well have mucked it up. Dsmdgold (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a source that says that the movie has the goal of the big year correct. Dsmdgold (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a separate page for the book? And a disambiguation? YLlama (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Jack Black's fall was unscripted seems doubtful. There are at least two (possibly three) different angles of the fall; a single-camera film such as this would have required re-staging the shot multiple times for multiple angles. Granted, it's possible that he fell once and then they did additional falls to get coverage, but that's just speculation. The link to the source is dead and I don't see any others. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to note that when putting the given URL in the Wayback Machine, it gives an article which has nothing to do with the claim (at least of what I see): link here --Gray Catbird (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past year-and-a-half many editors have worked on this article to improve the introduction and plot summary and add references. Recently two anonymous editors (probably the same person with a dynamic IP address) have reverted the article to the version as it was a year and a half ago. At first I thought this was a copyright violation, because the version the IP is adding can be found at multiple other sites on the internet - but I think those other sites may just have copied what Wikipedia used to have. In any case, it violates WP:CONSENSUS to undo the work of multiple editors like this. I am going to revert again to the version that was here until recently, since it was the result of collaborative editing by multiple editors over a long period. I will ask the IP to come here and explain why they keep trying to paste in an old version, but I may not be able to communicate with them because their IP address changes. I don't want to get involved in a revert war, so if they do it a third time, can someone else restore the consensus version? It may not be possible to 3RR warn this person because the address keeps changing; if they persist we may need to ask for semi-protection. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They did it again. I warned them about edit warring and asked them to come here and explain why they prefer their version. I'm not going to revert a third time, so the version currently in the article is the one preferred by the IP - unless someone else has reverted. Please take a look at the two versions, and see if you can see any reason why the IP's version should be preferred to the version it replaced, which has references and is the product of a year and a half worth of editing of the lead and plot sections by multiple people. The version they prefer does not explain what a Big Year is and does not introduce the characters. Also, the version they prefer omits all the music. --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No response from the IP editor. I am going to restore the long-standing version of the article that they removed. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think characterizing the film as just a comedy is entirely correct; it's not really much of a comedy. Maybe "comedy-drama" should be the way to go? Kumagoro-42 04:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. If I remember correctly it was advertised as a comedy. That's probably why it didn't do well at the box office; people saw "comedy" and Steve Martin and Jack Black, and they expected a thigh-slapper, and they were disappointed when it was something much more gentle. I'll see if I can find a source for a better genre. --MelanieN (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in the lead that says it was a "box office bomb", and quotes figures, is not supported by the reference listed. Can anyone find a better source? If not we should modify or remove that sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]