I know that the movie Jaws is a classic, but!!!

[mtpalin]

I was there and saw it then too. Here's my Jaws experience from the summer of 1975....

I was clamming in the bay in NJ with my best friend's family. Our method was to suspend a metal basket in an inner tube and tread the bottom with bare feet until you felt a clam, pull it loose, and throw it in the basket. Because of the method we basically stayed in waist deep water.

This particular day, the bay was crystal clear. You could see the bottom very clearly. There were sand sharks roaming about here and there. My basket was nearly full, and the water was so clear that I worked my way into deeper water. I was singing the Jaws theme to myself, DA DA DA DA (you know it).

By the time I got to about chest deep, I was well away from the rest of the group. About that time I looked out over the surface of the water and saw what I least expected. Two dorsal fins broke the surface of the water about 10 yards out and began to circle one another.

Now I was really into Jaws and knew the worst thing that I could do was to make a lot of noise and to thrash about. But actually being in the water with live sharks is a lot different from what I expected. I yelled out "SHARKS" and began literally running for the boat through chest deep water - about the worst thing I could possibly do. But visions of Jaws were running through my head and all I knew was that I had to get out of there!

I made the boat and clambered into it. By this point the fins had submerged and the rest of our party thought I was insane. I was still shaking when the sharks reappeared off the stern of the boat. I yelled, "SHARKS" again. This time everyone else caught site of them and everyone hurried into the boat.

While I was in the boat I caught a good look and I estimate that the sharks were in the 6 - 8 foot range. Not Jaws by a long shot, but large enough to scare the bejesus out of all of us.

 

[joker-scar]

Re: I know that the movie Jaws is a classic, but!!!
I haven't seen the film in some time, but I remember watching it as a teenager in the '90s and still finding it freaky. Like "Do I really want to go swimming again?" freaky.

That said, I tend to judge older films by different standards. I don't expect them to match the production values of today, nor to hew to modern styles in, well, anything (clothing, dialogue, camera work, editing, even the film stock). I try to judge them more in their own context. Sometimes they still hold up when compared to more modern stuff. Sometimes they're BETTER than modern stuff. But even when they aren't, when compared to other films of their time, they usually work.


For example, try going back and watching the old Buster Crabbe Flash Gordon serials from the mid 30s and 40s. Holy GOD the f/x look clunky! If you thought 1960s Doctor Who had wobbly sets...you ain't seen nothin' yet. BUT if you consider when they came out and take them in that context, they're pretty fun. But there's a lot of stuff that doesn't match modern sensibilities. Shots are usually from a static angle, often just straight on, rather than, say, a low or high angle shot. The editing is very...stale. You'll get much longer shots, rather than dramatic cuts. The music -- and this is true of many older films from that era -- is not a constant companion for the viewer. It cuts in for particularly dramatic sequences, but a lot of times it'll either be nonexistent or seem so bland that it might as well be nonexistent. So, it can be jarring to the modern viewer, even one who fancies themselves a cinemaphile.

But that said, I still think you have to consider it in its context. I mean, if you heard Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" today, you might think "Huh. Good song. Nothin' special. Sounds a lot like the stuff you hear on the radio today. What's all the fuss about?" But if you consider the context in which it came out back in '91 -- coming out of almost a decade chock-a-block full of overproduced hair metal bands (which still have their charms, don't get me wrong), it BLEW PEOPLE AWAY.

It was raw, it was loud, it was basic. Obviously, if you grew up in the 70s and were a fan of the punk scene, you'd instantly hear how indebted Nirvana's sound was to that era, but even so, it completely set the rock music world on its ear (no pun intended) at the time. It spawned legions of imitators and also-rans, and it fundamentally changed music overnight.

Is the song itself all that revolutionary? Nah, not really. Not if you listen to it out of its context. It's a catchy, cool tune, but it's not Bach or Louis Armstrong or whathaveyou. But in its context? Earth-shattering. Absolutely earth-shattering. Music changed basically overnight and NOBODY saw it coming. To me, that's the role that films like Jaws and Star Wars play. You can see how they're indebted to previous films, you can watch them today and think "Ok, decent flick, but what's all the fuss about?" if you've never seen them before. But you won't get "The fuss" unless you put yourself in the mindset of the 1970s viewer.

perfectly said. it all "context." you can't judge anything in the past by todays standards cause at some point todays standards will be out dated too.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

perfectly said. it all "context." you can't judge anything in the past by todays standards cause at some point todays standards will be out dated too.

Ridiculous. You can't judge it by today's standards because it's way better than the stuff out today. There's a reality to it that's missing from 90% of what's released in theatres now.

I was born in 81 and I fully appreciate and love it. You didn't have to be around in 75 to see the monumental step it was and it stands up today.

 

[joker-scar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by joker-scar
perfectly said. it all "context." you can't judge anything in the past by todays standards cause at some point todays standards will be out dated too.
Ridiculous. You can't judge it by today's standards because it's way better than the stuff out today. There's a reality to it that's missing from 90% of what's released in theatres now.

I was born in 81 and I fully appreciate and love it. You didn't have to be around in 75 to see the monumental step it was and it stands up today.
__________________

ridiculous???? I'm saying the same thing.....

 

[Michael Bergeron]

ridiculous???? I'm saying the same thing.....

No, you were saying you couldn't judge it by today's standards. I'm saying that you absolutely can and it's better.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Jaws is timeless both in it's film making and it's story. Look at the blockbusters of today and what they'll look like in 35 years. Jaws will look just as good whereas Avengers, or Hobbit, etc. will be very dated with their CG.

 

[joker-scar]

No, you were saying you couldn't judge it by today's standards. I'm saying that you absolutely can and it's better.

I'm not saying that Jaws isn't a good film, sir, I think it is. you're taking what i wrote a step too far, i made a statement that some people who try to compare films from the past to films nowadays is not a fair argument. you have to appreciate a film for what it is. Frankenstein was/is a HORROR film and back in the day it made people faint in the aisles but there are few who would say it has the same effect now. Doesn't mean it isn't a great film. i made a blanket comment that everything is a product of its time. Flash Gordon is lame compared to 2001 but to say it is lame in general insults people who love it. I would argue that Jaws IS better than most "horror" films made today but that is not the point i was making. i went beyond the main focus of the thread which was one member thought the acting in Jaws was crappy and saying the member was judging Jaws by his standards of today, and still saying that you should appreciate films/music/art/etc for their own sake and not compare them to anything else.....

 

[propfan666]

Recently bought the blu-ray. Quality is good. I really don't think it holds up like it should. Not really much action. Sort of slow paced. Not as good as I remembered.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Lol. I never said you said it wasn't good.

I'm saying that you absolutely can judge it based on modern standards, ie: the standards of today, and it would surpass them.

Jaws is a beautifully crafted film and stands up to anything today.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Not really much action. Sort of slow paced.

:facepalm

:behave:behave:behave

"stuff didn't explode every scene so I didn't like it"

OMFG.

 

[joker-scar]

I'm saying that you absolutely can judge it based on modern standards, ie: the standards of today, and it would surpass them.

for just this particular film...or any film? Is the 31' version of Dracula BETTER than the 91' version TO YOU? i would say no. But thats not the argument here, but you want it to be about that and only that...

 

[Michael Bergeron]

for just this particular film...or any film?

For this particular film. There are others but we're talking about Jaws.

 

[joker-scar]

For this particular film. There are others but we're talking about Jaws.

so then you think that not everything from the past can stand up to todays standard? Is that right???

 

[Michael Bergeron]

so then you think that not everything from the past can stand up to todays standard? Is that right???

Standard for film is storytelling and cinematography. That standard has never changed so absolutely every film can be held to the same "bar" or standard, yes. Some will "stand up" to it, others won't. But the bar doesn't change just because it's easier to make CG explosions now.

However, there are some films from the past that blow the standard out of the water. Jaws is one of them.

At no point did I say that any old film is better than any new film, that would be nonsense. I said that THIS film is. You do not have to look at it as "well it was good in it's day" when put side by side with modern films. It surpasses the bar.

Why is the OT better than the PT? Because it's a simpler and better crafted story in all regards. It's the PT that fails to stand up to the bar.

Yes, there are classic films which you do have to appreciate as products of their time. Jaws is not one of them. It's one of the ones that SET the bar.

 

[joker-scar]

Standard for film is storytelling and cinematography. That standard has never changed so absolutely every film can be held to the same "bar" or standard, yes. Some will "stand up" to it, others won't. But the bar doesn't change just because it's easier to make CG explosions now.

i agree and never said otherwise.

However, there are some films from the past that blow the standard out of the water. Jaws is one of them.

i agree and never said otherwise.

At no point did I say that any old film is better than any new film, that would be nonsense. I said that THIS film is. You do not have to look at it as "well it was good in it's day" when put side by side with modern films. It surpasses the bar.

I agree with that but i never said that about Jaws. But you made it seem like I was talking about Jaws. i went beyond Jaws and was talking in general terms but you were too busy holding your torch and stabbing with a pitch fork to realize that i wasn't talking about Jaws in particular.

Yes, there are classic films which you do have to appreciate as products of their time.

that was the point I was trying to make in the first place and NOW you are saying the same thing just in your own words...

Jaws is not one of them. It's one of the ones that SET the bar.

at no time did i say anything differant about JAWS but you thought I was and jumped on me...I wasn't bothered by reiterating what most members had been saying in the past 5 pages, I was talking about

you do have to appreciate as products of their time.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

i agree and never said otherwise.

Dude. You said:

you can't judge anything in the past by todays standards cause at some point todays standards will be out dated too.

My point was YES YOU CAN BECAUSE THE STANDARDS ARE THE SAME.

In film there is no such thing as "outdated standards". The standards on which a film is judged have always been quality of story telling and quality of cinematography.

You got butt hurt because I said "ridiculous". I apologize for the word but it's true. Standards of story telling are the same now that they were then. I used Jaws as my example because this is the Jaws thread.

 

[joker-scar]

In film there is no such thing as "outdated standards".

Really, so you're saying an iris fade to black is not an "outdated standard"? still in use in 2013...?
silent films are not an "outdated standard"? still in use in 2013...?
no such thing....stupid.

you can't judge anything in the past by todays standards cause at some point todays standards will be out dated too.

you want to use this statement in its most minimal terms applied only to ******* Jaws just to not lose an argument.
I'm bored with this disscussion and you....

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Really, so you're saying an iris fade to black is not an "outdated standard"? still in use in 2013...?
silent films are not an "outdated standard"? still in use in 2013...?
no such thing....stupid.

STORYTELLING and CINEMATOGRAPHY...

Quote the entire comment for context. :rolleyes

And if I recall "The Artist" was a very well accepted silent film in 2011... Also had the odd fade to black. That's a stylistic choice.

you want to use this statement in its most minimal terms applied only to F--kin Jaws just to not lose an argument.

No, I want to clarify what I just mentioned.

I'm bored with this disscussion and you....

rolleyes:rolleyes

lol:lol

 

[Apollo]

Some get it some don't! :lol

:facepalm

:behave:behave:behave

"stuff didn't explode every scene so I didn't like it"

OMFG.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Some get it some don't! :lol

I know right??? :lol