Kodiak Island Alaska Blacktail Deer Hunt
The Hunter’s Quest
1 Episode 32:30

Movies, films and books start with some level of exposition or flashback. Not many hunting films use this method though it’s the standard in those other genres. Some hunting shows start with a montage of clips that reveal the expertise of the hunter. In this case, since Hunter is a new hunter, from Virginia, he misses on a prime opportunity to introduce the most compelling aspect of his story. He’s not just the latest Western hunter to go to the trendy Alaska blacktail spot to make the typical video filled with all the right catch phrases from the big industry names. Knowing that angle makes the story so much better. The backstory of a protagonist is always vital. Why would hunting be any different?

The competence of filming is clearly there. It is obvious that this team knows what it’s doing and did homework regarding what makes a good hunting film. While this might be his first film, Hunter is clearly not new to a camera.

I am glad that errors and mistakes were included. Attempting to scrub a film of anything that might make the protagonist look bad, dumb or unprepared, isn’t accurate. Insulating yourself from potential criticism on YouTube scares most people into not creating content at all. Your 20th video (like your 20th hunt) will be better than your first, but you have to get there and learn from mistakes. We expect mistakes in rugged country, even from experts. Not too many of course, but enough to make it real. The fact that Hunter is willing to admit that in the first film clearly shows that he’s not the type who is aiming to dethrone Steve Rinella in the next six months.

There are some nit-picky things like adding subtitles when the CC will probably do a good enough job and I’d be way more interested in what bipods are being used rather than trekking poles, but that’s the thing with gear, once you decide to add details, where do you stop? I think part of the temptation is to add a bunch of details to fill space but it’s about adding the right details, not just more. I can recognize brand logos. That’s enough for me so I glaze over gear stuff unless it is truly something remarkable. The vast majority of gear is interchangeable. Mystery Ranch or Stone Glacier? Who cares, they are both awesome. I want to know what pack Tommy had if he had to sling the meat from his buck over his shoulder like a freshman headed to the basement of his dorm to do laundry. That may have been my favorite clip of the whole thing. Talk about original. That resonates with the common hunter and shows the film’s intended audience is fellow hunters, not just potential sponsors.

Adding subtitles also competes with notes that fill in gaps about what’s happening in the hunt. That’s a lot of graphics that pop up. The Wild Fact graphic looks clean, which makes the subtitles and hunt notes look very plain. That’s why I like a voiceover or a recap filmed later to help tell the story.

That’s not to say pop-up information is bad or distracting. Gear facts, or habitat facts are best when they fill in gaps about things I might be curious about so they don’t seem like filler from a quick Google search which can lead to misleading geographical or historical errors. I like the appreciation and willingness to know more about the ecology, but ultimately it is a hunting story so it’s better if it’s plot related. B-roll can stay b-roll.

The story of a newbie hunter from Virginia on Kodiak Island is stated too subtly. That’s the angle that separates him from everyone else who goes to Kodiak. As the hunt gets closer to the last hours, you’re reminded that this guy isn’t a big name on a sponsored hunt. This is the type of guy you want to make it happen. The reality of frustration starts to show which is good because that resonates with us. If it didn’t come out then the viewer would assume it’s been edited out. Talking to the camera shots work best when they are in that honest, “Man, this might not happen” tone which he captures well. Then, it all comes together and I will again mention the difference between when an industry name makes a kill, and when a regular guy makes it happen.

As hunters all we can do is tell our story whether that be on social media, in films or with the written word. We may hunt the same animals but the variables are never the same and our stories aren’t either. There is no question Hunter is willing to do what it takes to make hunts happen. That makes his story unique and compelling and worth watching as he evolves as a hunter.