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

I could watch the USS Indianapolis scene once a day, every day, for the rest of my life. Perfection.
 
propnoob74 said:
It looks so crappy now, and the acting is awful!!!, shark looks good, but wow how movies have changed!!!!
Click to expand...
SpockNotsure001sm.jpg
 
Flagg said:
When Jaws came out they said it was so unrealistic and the part with the shark jumping on the boat was the worst part... During Shark Week on one of the Air jaws episodes they mentioned how one of the jumping great whites hit one of the boats and nearly sunk it. Not so unrealistic if you want to stretch things a bit...
Click to expand...

The feat and physiological 'mechanics' involved with propelling a Great White shark into the air with such power is mind blowing. Taking into account that a full sized and mature GW shark can weigh between 2000-5,000lbs - I can totally see that ruining some fisherman's day!!

...Marty says "whoa...that's heavy"...

...Doc says "weight's got everything to do with it!"
 
madmartian said:
I haven't seen Jaws since it was originally in the theater, so I will have to check it out now. Perhaps a Jaws 1-2-3 marathon is in order.
Click to expand...
I'll save you some time. Watch Jaws, then stop. Jaws 2 has it's moments, but overall isn't a particularly good movie. Jaws 3-D and Jaws: The Revenge are simply laughable; more parodies than sequels, they should never be mentioned in a serious conversation about Jaws.
 
I cannot disagree more with this...

I'm 33 and I've shown this movie to younger people and they've loved it. The only thing that can be snickered at is the clothing... but that's going to be the case with any movie made in '70s or '80s. In those days, gaudy clothing was king.

I mean, would you rather watch Deep Blue Sea or maybe some Syfy channel shark movie, where the shark is shown prominently?

Personally, I feel like things look fake when you show too much.

Besides... in the event of a shark attack, how much of the shark do you think you see when your head is above water? The movie takes place in New England, not Australia. The water up there isn't exactly crystal clear.
 
It always cracks me up when people whip out the ol' back in my day things were better. Quick point: If you think this your not only getting old, your also too lazy to connect with whats going on. Obviously only half of this is is a problem and your own fault. See if you can figure out which bit.

I find, in the case of film, time has an affect. Pacing is the first thing I notice when I check out an old movie. This is a huge element and like most other aspects of film production simply follows trends. The best examples of this can be found in comedy. Any film made for laugh out loud audiences will be a slower pace just so everyone can keep up but not only that a shocking or laugh out loud joke of yesteryear could be very dry today. It's the same with action movies, a shocking scene will be slow and violence will most likely be fast but the definition of these things changes. Eraserhead is a great example of ignoring all trendy or traditional pacing and in this respect will be forever timeless.
The second thing I think has the biggest impact is sound. A lot of stuff gets recycled. Say a sound effect or synth has been used to death or worse sold on to cheap productions or tv it can dilute the feel of the original or in some cases improve a terrible movie. For example check out and action from 1985-1988, especially the bad ones. As soon as you hear that tune from commando the movie will be twice as good. I think Aliens and Terminator shared some music too somewhere didn't they? This is also true for suspense scenes. Those kind of synth sounds lose their power so quickly because they are shared like nobody's business and also date. Case in point 8bit,16bit,32bit not to mention hertz.
Anyway my point is the movies don't change we do. We remember and grow accustom. I think learning from shock is in-fact biological necessity. Personally I think there are only a handful of good movies made a years and out of that maybe one or two true "FILMS". It's always gonna be different re-visiting anything really but context is everything.
 
Chaank said:
It always cracks me up when people whip out the ol' back in my day things were better. Quick point: If you think this your not only getting old, your also too lazy to connect with whats going on. Obviously only half of this is is a problem and your own fault. See if you can figure out which bit.

I find, in the case of film, time has an affect. Pacing is the first thing I notice when I check out an old movie. This is a huge element and like most other aspects of film production simply follows trends. The best examples of this can be found in comedy. Any film made for laugh out loud audiences will be a slower pace just so everyone can keep up but not only that a shocking or laugh out loud joke of yesteryear could be very dry today. It's the same with action movies, a shocking scene will be slow and violence will most likely be fast but the definition of these things changes. Eraserhead is a great example of ignoring all trendy or traditional pacing and in this respect will be forever timeless.
The second thing I think has the biggest impact is sound. A lot of stuff gets recycled. Say a sound effect or synth has been used to death or worse sold on to cheap productions or tv it can dilute the feel of the original or in some cases improve a terrible movie. For example check out and action from 1985-1988, especially the bad ones. As soon as you hear that tune from commando the movie will be twice as good. I think Aliens and Terminator shared some music too somewhere didn't they? This is also true for suspense scenes. Those kind of synth sounds lose their power so quickly because they are shared like nobody's business and also date. Case in point 8bit,16bit,32bit not to mention hertz.
Anyway my point is the movies don't change we do. We remember and grow accustom. I think learning from shock is in-fact biological necessity. Personally I think there are only a handful of good movies made a years and out of that maybe one or two true "FILMS". It's always gonna be different re-visiting anything really but context is everything.
Click to expand...

I tried, to read hard this, but hurdle first i fell :lol.

lee
 
Lee, you've commented on this thread twice and not once added to it, instead choosing to attack my writing (yes I know it's not the best) and I'm guessing the dude who started it. I think that makes you a troll. Worse than that, the fact you are a premium member and yet so obviously don't care about the quality of this community speaks volumes of you. In the short time I've been in the uk I heard many things about Birmingham. You confirm most of them. Shouldn't you be spray painting walls.
 
Monster Dave said:
I recently saw a Jaws documentary on the history channel. It's neat to hear how the absence of the shark started out as a result of mechanical problems. At first this seems aweful and Speilberg was convinced that it would ruin the film. Ironically though the focus of the film (the part that scared the crap out of us) became the suspense of what you couldn't see. So in truth, what made Jaws great was the depths of fear that the unknown elicited and the physical shark took a back seat.
Click to expand...

It was the same deal with Robert Shaw. He wasn't the first of second pick, and it was just due to some off the wall issues with other actors that he got the part of Quint, but can even imagine the movie with someone else in that role?
 
Flagg said:
When Jaws came out they said it was so unrealistic and the part with the shark jumping on the boat was the worst part... During Shark Week on one of the Air jaws episodes they mentioned how one of the jumping great whites hit one of the boats and nearly sunk it. Not so unrealistic if you want to stretch things a bit...
Click to expand...

I remember those comments, with most of them coming from Jacques Cousteau who was always on one show or another saying Great Whites weren't a threat to anybody. Then he and his son Phillipe almost became lunch while filming a TV special and that was the end of that crazy talk. :)
 
I agree that you have to be slightly "off" to not like Jaws. BUT, because Spielberg had to use local actors in some of the scenes, it can look a little awkward in spots. The real actors are great, with many stunning scenes to choose from. Most of the crappy shark footage they shot was, mercifully, removed by Verna Fields, the editor (who really "made" the film), so I think the shark even holds up reasonably well today.
 
I watched this recently again and the shark effects as a whole really are fair at best but there was one scene with the fake shark that still gets me every time.

The guy who fell off his boat and was trying to get back in and you see the shark cruise by under him dragging him down. This is followed by his severed leg floating to the bottom. Something about the way the shark looked as it snagged him creeps me the hell out every time. It's probably that you see the shark but you don't really see the shark that does it.
 
Both Sterling Hayden and Lee Marvin were approached to play Quint. As much as I like both of them, I can't picture anyone but Shaw in the role.
 
Flagg said:
I watched this recently again and the shark effects as a whole really are fair at best but there was one scene with the fake shark that still gets me every time.

The guy who fell off his boat and was trying to get back in and you see the shark cruise by under him dragging him down. This is followed by his severed leg floating to the bottom. Something about the way the shark looked as it snagged him creeps me the hell out every time. It's probably that you see the shark but you don't really see the shark that does it.
Click to expand...

I agree, that moment is nightmarish. Just looked it up on the Jaws wiki and Spielberg had even made the boat that the victim falls from red as a little psychological prompt. People always say that the first appearance of the shark disappoints, but they forget this scene. The shark comes up like an angel of death and just...gnaws on this guy. :eek
 
Chaank said:
Lee, you've commented on this thread twice and not once added to it, instead choosing to attack my writing (yes I know it's not the best) and I'm guessing the dude who started it. I think that makes you a troll. Worse than that, the fact you are a premium member and yet so obviously don't care about the quality of this community speaks volumes of you. In the short time I've been in the uk I heard many things about Birmingham. You confirm most of them. Shouldn't you be spray painting walls.
Click to expand...

You dont know me personally do you? :lol Anyway, ive a wall to tag :behave

Bests...... Lee
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wakeem
Is Star Trek Dying?
5 6 7
Replies
121
Views
10,686
publiusr
P
mach7
Mickey 17
Replies
6
Views
1,172
mach7
mach7
JediG60racer
Paradise (Hulu Show)
Replies
0
Views
215
JediG60racer
JediG60racer
DarkHelmet
Help me understand the constant Superhero movie reboots.
2
Replies
34
Views
977
RedCircle
RedCircle
Too Much Garlic
Scream Factory Friday the 13th Box Set
Replies
2
Views
377
Too Much Garlic
Too Much Garlic
Back
Top