PDA

View Full Version : Jaws and Jurassic Park


HPL
07-02-2005, 03:25 AM
Tonight I was reading about Jaws and realized that I could not remember the scene in question, in fact, I can't remember much of anything between the beginning and the ending. That's probably because I've never been able to really get into JAWS. I've seen it once and I've never really wanted to see it again, frankly.

But then something else comes to mind, the fact that I rather like Jurassic Park and enjoy watching it. Both Jaws and Jarassic park are Special Effect popcorn monster movies, but I think one is entertaining and the other is rather dull.

So I'm wondering, is Jurassic Park really a better movie or is it because I came of age in the 1990's and thus Jurassic park is part of my Generation?

Do people who saw Jaws going up think it's a better movie?

Revtim
07-02-2005, 09:00 AM
Jurassic Park's scenes where you first see the T. Rex, and it's threatening the children, are goddamn amazing scenes. IMHO, those scenes alone make the film better and more tense than damn near any film I can think of, let alone Jaws.

I liked Jaws a lot, but there's still no comparison.

MovieMogul
07-02-2005, 09:08 AM
I think Jaws is a far better movie. It has real characters that are better acted, significantly better dialogue, effective emotional and humorous scenes, a better score, and kids that you don't want to have eaten. The only thing JP has is CG, but the shark, generally speaking, isn't bad so that's a wash. Aside from the technology aspect and a few tense moments, I find JP tedious; I think Jaws remains in the Top 5 of SS's films.

For me, there's no comparison.

foxymoron
07-02-2005, 09:38 AM
I agree with everything ArchiveGuy said. (Except I find the fake shark very scary. I have a shark phobia.)

Cuckoorex
07-02-2005, 10:22 AM
I love dinosaurs.

I agree with Revtim.

Moirai
07-02-2005, 10:46 AM
Jaws. Period.

Because of technical difficulties with Bruce, Jaws is much more a movie about people. Jurassic Park is about "hey, look at all the cool stuff I can do with my computer!"

Zebra
07-02-2005, 10:56 AM
It is a tough call for me. I really like both movies. But I think Jaws is a slightly better movie. With the exception of the Richard Dreyfus character, I can connect with the people in Jaws far more than the people in JP. In JP, everyone is either really really rich or really really smart or they are that big game hunter dude. Jaws is filled with ordinary everyday people.


I also think Jurrassic Park the book, is basically Jaws with dinosaurs.

Ike Witt
07-02-2005, 11:09 AM
Jurassic Park is an action movie where Jaws is a suspense movie. The manner that they go about to get to the payoff is different.

SnakesCatLady
07-02-2005, 11:57 AM
[small hijack] I have always wanted to see Jaws in a movie theater with a balcony. With a warm can of some sort of chunky soup. I am so sick. [/small hijack]

Sam Stone
07-02-2005, 11:58 AM
Jaws is far superior. The acting, the pacing, the suspense... It's all better. Jurassic Park had cute kids, a smart-alec math professor, a fat clownish bad guy, and other cartoon caricatures of characters. But it had way cool CGI stuff in it.

Both of them are good movies, but Jaws is the one people will still remember 50 years from now.

Tarrsk
07-02-2005, 12:19 PM
[j]Jurassic Park[/i] is a fun movie, while Jaws is a brilliant film. It's sort of like comparing Return of the Jedi and Empire Strikes Back- both movies are fun to watch, but only one of them has characters that feel realistic, memorable dialogue, and good acting.

Plus, Jaws has Quint's monologue about the Lusitania, one of film history's most chilling and well-written scenes (even if, as a shark buff, it pains me to see how it paints sharks as mindless killers :)).

wonder9
07-02-2005, 12:27 PM
Plus, Jaws has Quint's monologue about the Lusitania, one of film history's most chilling and well-written scenes (even if, as a shark buff, it pains me to see how it paints sharks as mindless killers :)).

Wasn't that the USS Indianapolis---sunk in 1945, not the Luistania, a casualty of the first world war?

Just1Lurk
07-02-2005, 12:29 PM
It was the Indianapolis.

rexnervous
07-02-2005, 12:39 PM
Both of them are good movies, but Jaws is the one people will still remember 50 years from now.


Agree with everything else you said - however, at least for me, I'll always remember Jurassic Park because it was the first time that I saw the power of CGI incorporated into the fabric of a movie. I mean, I sat there going "Holy Crap, those dinosaurs look real!"

RikWriter
07-02-2005, 12:40 PM
Jaws was the better movie by far...in fact, I would go so far as to say that Jaws is perhaps the best monster movie ever made. It works 30 years later as well as it did when it opened, and the acting, pacing, music and plot are awesome.
Jurassic Park had landmark SFX and a great score but that's about it.

Tamerlane
07-02-2005, 01:03 PM
Both Jaws and Jarassic park are Special Effect popcorn monster movies, but I think one is entertaining and the other is rather dull.

I agree Jurassic Park is a popcorn movie and an adequate one IMO, nothing more ( I agree with Sam Stone that some of the characters are little more than caricatures ). I also agree that one is entertaining and the other a bit dull, but I'd reverse your order :).

Jaws is a vastly superior film for reasons already enumerated.

- Tamerlane

clairobscur
07-02-2005, 01:08 PM
I saw Jaws for the firs time, on TV, three days ago. And I was completely unimpressed. I thought : "Why on earth is this movie famous?", and considered opening a thread about it.

The special effects in Jaws seemed fine to me. The acting is OK. But the characters are boring stereotypes, there's no much suspense, no memorable dialogue (I didn't find the Indianapolis dialogue memorable), no much surprise. Essentially, I didn't feel anything while watching the movie. I wasn't moved, I wasn't affraid, I didn't care for the characters. The best I could think was a detached : "it's a well done movie".

LittleSable
07-02-2005, 01:23 PM
Jaws is superior, without a doubt. Jurassic Park may have better special effects; but that's a given considering the about twenty years of technological advances.

I can't remember which movie I saw first; Jaws was made eleven years before I was born, and I was too young to see Jurassic Park on it's first release. But Jaws still makes me jump everytime I see it; Jurassic Park never had that effect. And as others have said, Jaws has more fully realized characters. The relationship between the three men is fantastic, and there isn't a character moment in Jurassic Park that can match Quint's USS Indianapolis monologue.

I've also read both of the original novels, and Jaws is on my very, very short list of movies that are better than their original books (Silence of the Lambs is the other, I suspect the Da Vinci Code will be added when it is released; anything would be an improvement of that piece of crap book). Peter Benchley's book is poorly written, the characters aren't as sympathetic, and the ending is anti-clamactic. And while I like Jeff Goldblum's performance is JP, I could never get over how different his Ian Malcolm was from my mental image from the book.

Tarrsk
07-02-2005, 03:23 PM
It was the Indianapolis.

Err... whoops. Next time I'll look this stuff up before I make a fool of myself. :)

HPL
07-02-2005, 03:27 PM
It was the Indianapolis.

Ironically, that's what started the whole thing. I read that they mention the Indianapolis in Jaws and thought........"Wait, I don't remember that at all". Then I realized I couldn't remember much of the actual movie except the girl getting killed at the beginning, the shark blowing up at the end, and a montage of stills from the rest of the film.

Sam Stone
07-02-2005, 03:42 PM
Here's Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" Review of Jaws (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20000820/REVIEWS08/8200301/1023)


You're going to need a bigger boat."

So the police chief famously informs the shark hunter, right after the first brief appearance of the man-eater in "Jaws." It's not simply a splendid line of dialogue, it's an example of Steven Spielberg's strategy all through the film, where the shark is more talked about than seen, and seen more in terms of its actions than in the flesh. There is a story that when producers Richard Zanuck and David Brown first approached Spielberg with an offer to direct the film of Peter Benchley's best seller, he said he would do it on one condition: that the shark not be seen for the first hour. Viewing the movie's 25th anniversary DVD, I was surprised to realize how little the shark is seen at all.

In keeping the Great White offscreen, Spielberg was employing a strategy used by Alfred Hitchcock throughout his career. "A bomb is under the table, and it explodes: That is surprise," said Hitchcock. "The bomb is under the table but it does not explode: That is suspense." Spielberg leaves the shark under the table for most of the movie. And many of its manifestations in the later part of the film are at second hand: We don't see the shark but the results of his actions. The payoff is one of the most effective thrillers ever made.


And his original Four star review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19750101/REVIEWS/501010332/1023).

And his Much less enthusiastic review of Jurassic Park (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19930611/REVIEWS/306110302/1023)


When young Steven Spielberg was first offered the screenplay for "Jaws," he said he would direct the movie on one condition: That he didn't have to show the shark for the first hour. By slowly building the audience's apprehension, he felt, the shark would be much more impressive when it finally arrived.

He was right. I wish he had remembered that lesson when he was preparing "Jurassic Park," his new thriller set in a remote island theme park where real dinosaurs have been grown from long-dormant DNA molecules. The movie delivers all too well on its promise to show us dinosaurs. We see them early and often, and they are indeed a triumph of special effects artistry, but the movie is lacking other qualities that it needs even more, such as a sense of awe and wonderment, and strong human story values.

...

The plot to steal the embryos is handled on the level of a TV sitcom. The Knight character, an overwritten and overplayed blubbering fool, drives his Jeep madly through the storm and thrashes about in the forest. If this subplot had been handled cleverly - with skill and subtlety, as in a caper movie - it might have added to the film's effect. Instead, it's as if one of the Three Stooges wandered into the story.

...

"Jurassic Park" throws a lot of dinosaurs at us, and because they look terrific (and indeed they do), we're supposed to be grateful. I have the uneasy feeling that if Spielberg had made "Close Encounters" today, we would have seen the aliens in the first 10 minutes, and by the halfway mark they'd be attacking Manhattan with death rays.

Because the movie delivers on the bottom line, I'm giving it three stars. You want great dinosaurs, you got great dinosaurs.


That pretty much sums it up for me.

rexnervous
07-02-2005, 04:19 PM
"Jurassic Park" throws a lot of dinosaurs at us, and because they look terrific (and indeed they do), we're supposed to be grateful. I have the uneasy feeling that if Spielberg had made "Close Encounters" today, we would have seen the aliens in the first 10 minutes, and by the halfway mark they'd be attacking Manhattan with death rays.

OMG! Is Ebert the new Nostradamus? That's amazingly prescient.


And I liked War of the Worlds :)

pinkfreud
07-02-2005, 04:46 PM
I love both these movies. But given the choice between a movie with Robert Shaw and a movie without Robert Shaw, I'll take the "with" any day. So I'd give "Jaws" the edge.

Arwin
07-02-2005, 05:04 PM
Jaws is the better movie, by far. Nice and dark, and people aren't as clearly identified with the 'I'm-a-good-guy-mark-of-invulnerability'

Plus, it has the "Tuuuh-nuh. Tuuuh-nuh. Etc. :D"

Nevertheless, I love dinosaurs too, and the greatness of the CG almost makes up for the difference. Almost.

Zebra
07-02-2005, 05:57 PM
The reason that the shark was kept off-screen through much of the movie was because the damn thing didn't work. They built and tested it in a fresh water tank but the salt water was bit tougher on the gaskets and such.

So really the genius there is that Speilberg was able to adapt and continue making the movie without the shark as much as possible. It wasn't planned from the start not to show the shark. It just worked out that way.

Moirai
07-02-2005, 06:39 PM
Exactly, Zebra. I watched a (usually) silly show on Animal Planet called "Animal Icons" when it dealt with Jaws.

When you hear how many days Bruce sank, broke down, etc, you are SHOCKED that Spielberg could get the movie done at all. Even he specualted during filming that he would never be trusted with another picture.

They went weeks over schedule and way over budget. IIRC they were filming on Martha's Vineyard through three seasons!

Cartooniverse
07-02-2005, 06:47 PM
I've got a lot under my belt about Jaws. I own two books on the making of the film. I dunno why, but the process gone through to create that movie is important to me. A few things to start off with.

Arwin, that theme you quoted? John Williams won the Academy Award for the score to Jaws. ( His first Oscar ) It's a little-known fact that if you watch the frozen lake battle sequence from the 1938 film by Sergei Eisenstein entitled Alekandr Nevsky ( yes, that is the correct spelling according to IMDB ), you will hear the title theme from Jaws. Note for note. It was written by Prokofiev, 37 years before John Williams "created" it. Homage is one thing. Theft is another. But I digress.

Despite the remarks about Bruce The Shark ( so named because at the time, Bruce was Steven Spielberg's attorney's first name ), there is some real-live shark footage included in the movie. More than one dive was done off the Great Barrier Reef in Australia by Ron and Valerie Taylor. They had quite the rep as shark divers/hunters/photographers. There is real shark footage. There is real shark footage with a cage in the frame. Even at the time, the quality of graininess of that real footage didn't quite cut perfectly with the staged shots of Bruce ( and, there were....4 Bruces IIRC ), but in the flow of the scenes and the energy of the moment, I think most audience members bought it as whole cloth. Only cynics or cameramen sat there going, " Shit, that's either stock footage or live shark footage made for this film, cleverly intercut". Nevertheless, some of the shots are of genuine sharks.

I think Jaws is a better film on most levels. ( obviously I'm a wee bit prejudiced ) I do tend to let my cynicism go when I sit down. I love movies, and go to them begging to be immersed into another world. The shots where Sam Neill and Laura Dern first see the large dinosaurs in the flesh and just a few hundred yards away is remarkable. It requires the leap of faith that all fantasy films require. I get goosebumps every time I see that- because if you buy the story, and buy their characters, then the moment of realization is very gratifying to witness. It is a dream come true- and how many adults toil their lives driven by a belief in something they know in their heart they can never prove absolutely......... only to have it handed to them live?

Performances aside, people get killed by sharks. Happened just last week, right? People don't get killed by dinosaurs. The visceral response to the novel- and the film- are based on real life fears. I know I read the book when it came out. I did not go in the ocean for a few years after that. As of last summer, when I was swimming every day off the Jersey coastline around Seaside Heights, I looked for the telltale fin. I swear. It gets to ya.

The script to Jaws doesn't feel as sloppy as the script to Jurassic Park. The entire picture has a good classic rhythm to it. ( Verna Fields, no slouch of an editor...... cut while they shot on location in Martha's Vineyard . )

The film ran badly over budget. There was very serious talk of shutting it down and firing young Steven. Good thing they let it ride and waited to see how it went in previews. People screamed. People laughed. People screamed more. The rest, as they say, is history.

Cartooniverse

Cartooniverse
07-02-2005, 06:51 PM
One other neato tidbit from the books I've got on Jaws.

The scene where the townsfolk go out in their boats and kill what they think is "the Shark" and the Chief, Hooper and Quint are on the dock as little Alex Kintner's mom walks up and slaps the Chief in the face? That is not a prop. That is a real shark, hunted down off the Florida coast and hand-escorted back on a chartered plane by a fellow named Teddy. It reeked and reeked, and was digusting to shoot around since the shark's guts were piled up into it's throat. ( The shark was hooked and hung at a sharp angle with the mouth tilted upwards, so the innards really did pile up just out of view of the cameras, but not the actors ).

Teddy got his though. He was a stunt man, and is the man who is killed by The Shark in the inlet and dragged through the water screaming as the Chief's young son watches in shocked horror. Fake blood gushing out of his mouth and all. :D

( God. Maybe I should watch it again tonight. Hmmm...... )

Otto
07-02-2005, 07:20 PM
(I didn't find the Indianapolis dialogue memorable)
Then there is no hope for you.

I did not see Jurassic Park (I stopped seeing Spielberg movies after the loathesome E.T. and the horrible The Color Purple, with lapses for the Raiders movies, until Catch Me If You Can). so I can't comment on it, but Jaws was and is a brilliant film. That's part of why E.T. was such a disappointment. Jaws, Close Encounters and Raiders are all so good, and then the shitstain that is E.T. comes along.

And of course, Quint didn't have to die (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=86045).

HPL
07-02-2005, 07:24 PM
I must be really screwed then. I saw Close Encounters as a Kid and didn't like it either.

Moirai
07-02-2005, 07:51 PM
Cartooniverse, you had me at hello... :D

Seriously, if I wasn't already happily married, those two posts would have gotten you half way to home plate! ;)

Sam Stone
07-02-2005, 07:56 PM
Then there is no hope for you.

I did not see Jurassic Park (I stopped seeing Spielberg movies after the loathesome E.T. and the horrible The Color Purple, with lapses for the Raiders movies, until Catch Me If You Can). so I can't comment on it, but Jaws was and is a brilliant film. That's part of why E.T. was such a disappointment. Jaws, Close Encounters and Raiders are all so good, and then the shitstain that is E.T. comes along.

And of course, Quint didn't have to die (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=86045).

I didn't want to re-open that old thread, but I must say I have no idea why you'd say this. Quint was hired to bring in the shark. Brody and Hooper went along as deck hands. At the time they left they dock, they had no idea whatsoever that Quint's boat wouldn't be sufficient. Two boats are not better than one, when it would mean that both boats are under-staffed. And of course, two boats are twice as expensive to operate as one. Plus, the reason Brody wanted to go along was because he felt it was his duty to be with Quint. I see no plot hole here whatsoever.

Otto
07-02-2005, 08:25 PM
Brody and Hooper were along as the charter party. Hooper was competent to serve as a deckhand; Brody wasn't (he didn't even know how to tie basic knots). They should have known that Quint's boats wasn't going to cut it because Hooper should've known from the bite radius how large the shark was. Hooper's boat was already set up for a shark hunt; had they taken his boat they wouldn't have had to transfer all of his equipment over, they wouldn't have been stranded when Orca got attacked, they have multiple radios so when Quint has his temper tantrum they're not stuck, etc. Cost doesn't really enter into it since Hooper owned his own boat.

Since I posted that thread I've softened on it a little but I still think not taking Hooper's boat along with them, while it makes for greater drama, would be a mistake IRL and is a plot hole in the movie.

Sam Stone
07-02-2005, 10:16 PM
Brody and Hooper were along as the charter party. Hooper was competent to serve as a deckhand; Brody wasn't (he didn't even know how to tie basic knots). They should have known that Quint's boats wasn't going to cut it because Hooper should've known from the bite radius how large the shark was. Hooper's boat was already set up for a shark hunt; had they taken his boat they wouldn't have had to transfer all of his equipment over, they wouldn't have been stranded when Orca got attacked, they have multiple radios so when Quint has his temper tantrum they're not stuck, etc. Cost doesn't really enter into it since Hooper owned his own boat.

Since I posted that thread I've softened on it a little but I still think not taking Hooper's boat along with them, while it makes for greater drama, would be a mistake IRL and is a plot hole in the movie.

They didn't take Hooper's boat because they hired Quint to do the hunt because of his experience. He's not about to take another man's boat. So given that, why would Hooper want to tag along in a second boat? It makes no sense. They'd just all pile into the same boat.

If Quint had caught the shark, just what was Hooper supposed to be able to do from a second boat?

DeadlyAccurate
07-02-2005, 10:25 PM
Wasn't that the USS Indianapolis---sunk in 1945, not the Luistania, a casualty of the first world war?

There's a book my husband really liked, called In Harm's Way, that tells the story of the U.S.S. Indianapolis and the fate of the men Quint referred to.

RickJay
07-02-2005, 11:28 PM
Jaws is far superior. The acting, the pacing, the suspense... It's all better. Jurassic Park had cute kids, a smart-alec math professor, a fat clownish bad guy, and other cartoon caricatures of characters. But it had way cool CGI stuff in it.
Jurassic Park has great SCENES:

- The velociraptors hunting the children in the kitchen
- T-Rex's first appearance
- The dinosaur stampede
- The brachiasaurus "reveal"

Those scenes match the very best Jaws scenes.

However, Jaws really has no weak points as a movie, and has a better structure of characters, with the three main protagonists providing a dramatic triangle of characterization. Jurassic Park is, by comparison, something of a mess in terms of characters, and while they're all competent thespians nobody matches the triumvirate of Scheider, Dreyfuss, and Shaw.

I also though the other weakness of Jurassic Park was that the body count wasn't nearly high enough. I mean, let's be honest; the reason you go to see a dinosaur movie is to see dinosaurs eat people. But the dinosaurs only ate five people in Jurassic Park - Nedry, the game warden, the lawyer, Samuel L. Jackson, and the hapless worker at the beginning.

Why did B.D. Wong the Scientist (the shrink from Law and Order) survive? He was eaten in the book; would it have been that hard to have T-Rex gobble him up? Why did Richard Attenborough's character, also eaten in the book, survive? The guy who was working on the sick triceratops could have been eaten, too. Five dino-meals was a shamefully low level of carnage.

Zebra
07-02-2005, 11:57 PM
I don't think Hoopers boat had the barrels and the whole you go into the cage/cage goes into the water/sharks in the water/our shark plan didn't work out so well.

Also since Quint is a copy of Captain Ahab, I think that, yes, he does have to die.

Zebra
07-02-2005, 11:58 PM
And one more thing


Jaws has a naked girl.

Jurrassic Park? No naked girls!

Advatage Jaws.

The Hook
07-03-2005, 12:42 AM
I also though the other weakness of Jurassic Park was that the body count wasn't nearly high enough. I mean, let's be honest; the reason you go to see a dinosaur movie is to see dinosaurs eat people. But the dinosaurs only ate five people in Jurassic Park - Nedry, the game warden, the lawyer, Samuel L. Jackson, and the hapless worker at the beginning.


Oh, come on. Jaws has an even smaller amount of deaths. Chrissy, the kid, Shaw, and the dog. :p I may be forgetting one, but just one.

I agree with the naked chick though.

RickJay
07-03-2005, 12:48 AM
But in Jaws,

1. The shark eats one of the main characters, which counts extra.

2. There's only one shark. I mean, even a big ol' fish can only be asked to do so much. In Jurassic Park, there are hundreds of dinosaurs, at least a dozen or two of which are dangerous. The dinosaurs are much lazier than the shark.

3. The shark's handiwork is prominently displayed in Jaws. There's lots of blood, and Quint's death in particular is fantastically gruesome. Jurassic Park is comparatively bloodless.

The Hook
07-03-2005, 12:50 AM
I see your point. I concede. :D

Otto
07-03-2005, 01:01 AM
So given that, why would Hooper want to tag along in a second boat?
Given the choice of a rust bucket like Orca and a modern boat stuffed with state of the art equipment, which would you take?I don't think Hoopers boat had the barrels and the whole you go into the cage/cage goes into the water/sharks in the water/our shark plan didn't work out so well.

Also since Quint is a copy of Captain Ahab, I think that, yes, he does have to die. Thematically he had to die, I'm talking about situationally.

The barrels were aboard Quint's boat already but the shark cage and all of the other modern equipment were aboard Hooper's boat initially.
Jaws has an even smaller amount of deaths. Chrissy, the kid, Shaw, and the dog.
Not a confirmed kill but he also took off the guy's leg in the pond.

Sam Stone
07-03-2005, 03:15 AM
This is turning into too much of a hijack, and I didn't mean for this to get contentious in any way, so I hope you're not getting that vibe.

Given the choice of a rust bucket like Orca and a modern boat stuffed with state of the art equipment, which would you take?


I'd take my own boat. Since this was Quint's show, they took Quint's boat. Since when does the government contract out a fishing job, then ask the fisherman if he'd like to take a government boat? Or in this case, Hooper's private oceanographic vessel?

Quin't an old-style seaman, he's not about to take some whippersnapper's fiberglass boat out on a shark hunt.


The barrels were aboard Quint's boat already but the shark cage and all of the other modern equipment were aboard Hooper's boat initially.


And Quint made it clear that he didn't care about that stuff. He was an arrogant, half crazy old seaman. I still see absolutely no plot problem with them using Quint's boat.

Otto
07-03-2005, 04:06 AM
Well then, there's no hope for you either.

Cartooniverse
07-03-2005, 10:56 AM
And one more thing


Jaws has a naked girl.

Jurrassic Park? No naked girls!

Advatage Jaws.

The man's wise beyond his years, people. Wise beyond his years.


The character of the naked woman was named Chrissie Watkins. She was played by a young lady named Susan Blacklinie, who according to IMDB started and finished her film career by being Victim # 1 in Jaws. Jonathan Filley played the drunken boyfriend who was also seen on the beach with the Chief and his deputy the next morning, puking unromantically over what was left of dear departed Chrissie.

....................rounding third........................... ;)

Cartooniverse
07-03-2005, 11:01 AM
Oh, this is too damned good not to pass along !!

Here is a quote from one of the two books, regarding the man who played Chrissie's boyfriend"


...As for his charm and good looks, Barbara Bass, the 2nd Assistand Director out of New York, stayed on Martha's Vineyard as Jonathan's friend for 4 months after the picture wrapped.

According to IMDB, this young man made the most of the opportunity.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0277204/

I think that's kinda cool. Everyone starts somewhere, this guy started with Jaws.

( slid into third, standing, dusting off pants. )

mobo85
07-03-2005, 03:12 PM
OMG! Is Ebert the new Nostradamus? That's amazingly prescient.

The aliens in Speilberg's War of the Worlds were never shown attacking Manhattan, however.

Moirai
07-06-2005, 03:23 PM
( slid into third, standing, dusting off pants. )

Yeah, but you'd better come up with one I don't know next time!

Or are you planning on stealing home? ;)

UncleRojelio
07-06-2005, 04:55 PM
Given the choice of a rust bucket like Orca and a modern boat stuffed with state of the art equipment, which would you take? Thematically he had to die, I'm talking about situationally.

The barrels were aboard Quint's boat already but the shark cage and all of the other modern equipment were aboard Hooper's boat initially.

Not a confirmed kill but he also took off the guy's leg in the pond.

What about the guy in the wrecked boat whose head makes an appearance. I would think that would be considered confirmed.

parthenokinesis
07-06-2005, 06:16 PM
At this point I think a much more intriguing question is which is a better film, Jurassic Park III or Jaws 3D?

he-he-he

Jack

Clothahump
07-06-2005, 06:35 PM
[small hijack] I have always wanted to see Jaws in a movie theater with a balcony. With a warm can of some sort of chunky soup. I am so sick. [/small hijack]

Heh. I did that many moons ago, when I was about 13 or so. Except I used a can of applesauce. Got the same results, though. Yelled over the balcony "Oh, God, I'm gonna be sick...UUURRRPPPP!" and poured the applesauce on the folks below. Chain reaction vomiting all over the main floor.

The Alabama Theater has been a bookstore for nearly 20 years, but I think I'm still banned from there. :D

MovieMogul
07-06-2005, 06:46 PM
At this point I think a much more intriguing question is which is a better film, Jurassic Park III or Jaws 3D?

he-he-he

JackNo contest (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4892364&postcount=42).

kelly5078
07-06-2005, 06:57 PM
Jaws is the better movie even leaving aside that they're two completely different kinds of film. But I'd like to put in a few plugs for JP anyway.

When I walked out of JP, it actually seemed possible that there might be dinosaurs walking around. I'd never seen, and have still never seen, effects so convincing. Jaws didn't need to be all that convincing, since sharks are still around.

I'll take a movie with Wayne Knight over one with Richard Dreyfuss any day. [That said, it's the worst use of Samuel L. Jackson until Lucas got his hands on him.]

The line "At least we're out of the tree" is damn near as good as "You're gonna need a bigger boat."

MaxTheVool
07-06-2005, 07:11 PM
First of all, I hope we can all agree that Jurassic Park, while perhaps not a perfect triumph of film-making, is WAY better than any of dozens of other high-budget action SF CGI spectaculars, such as Armageddon.


Anyhow, I'm 31, and I first saw Jaws 2 or 3 years ago, and, quite frankly, I wasn't very impressed. I think it's one of those things where it established a genre, and once you've seen enough moves in the genre, the original leaves you cold. I had the same reaction to Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

Johnny L.A.
07-06-2005, 08:40 PM
The reasons for preferring one film or the other have already been enumerated. I fall on the Jaws-is-the-better-film side.

The main reason I was underwhelmed by Jurassic Park is that I'd read the book. When the film was released, I eagerly looked forward to seeing it. I was disappointed. One of the major plot points in the book -- skip the rest of this paragraph if you haven't read it yet but want to -- is how they discover that the dinosaurs are breeding and some have escaped. They expectged 300 dinosaurs, and every day the computer counted them there were 300 dinosaurs. Except that computers are subject to GIGO. Poor programming meant that the computer counted 300 dinosaurs and then stopped counting! The build-up to that, and the realisation, were great. They didn't do it in the film -- even though it was a pivotal point.

I also agree that Jeff Goldblum did not match the image I had of the character.

And Laura Dern didn't get naked. :D

Moirai
07-06-2005, 08:50 PM
[That said, it's the worst use of Samuel L. Jackson until Lucas got his hands on him.]



Oh, I don't know. I though his work in the smart shark movie was pretty bad. But his last scene was hysterical! ;)

Cartooniverse
07-06-2005, 11:00 PM
Yeah, but you'd better come up with one I don't know next time!

Or are you planning on stealing home? ;)

Never steal what might otherwise be gladly offered. What kind of a gentleman do you take me for ???

Here ya go :

One week before the start of principal photography, the role of Matt Hooper had still not been cast. Richard Dreyfuss was convinced to hightail up to Boston. He was touring the USA, promoting his latest starmaking turn in " The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz". During a story and character-developing session that concluded with Dreyfuss agreeing to play Hooper, they ordered room service. When it arrived, they came up with one of the biggest belly laughs in the movie. The scene where Quint crushes the beercan vertically against his forehead- and Hooper answers by crushing a styrofoam cup against his- was invented in a hotel room in Boston. In attendance were Spielberg, Dreyfuss, Dreyfuss' pal who he was touring with, Carl Gottlieb ( the screenwriter of Jaws ) and various and sundry other folk.

Also: Sterling Hayden was their prime choice to play Quint. He was, because of I.R.S. heartaches, living on a barge in Paris on the river, unable to work in the U.S. as an actor but allowed to work here as a writer. They went with Robert Shaw who at the time was appearing on Broadway. He had- at the start of principal photography- 55 days left on his visa.

They figured they'd shoot him out in less than 55 days. They were terribly, terribly wrong. :)

And, just to finish,

There was the boat owned by Quint, called Orca. ( The name for killer whales ). The boat that sank at the end was not Orca. It was in fact Orca II, a complete copy made in fiberglas by Joe Alves, the special effects man who designed and built the shark mechanisms nicknamed " Bruce ". Orca II was sunk on cue while cameras rolled, and raised again 24 times during the filming of the climactic attack as the shark explodes.

How's that? ;)

Jonathan Chance
07-06-2005, 11:23 PM
Just don't try to get into MY pants, film-boy.

Jaws, all the way. I liked JP (but thought it was infinitely weaker than the book for reasons of my own) but it by comparison it fell into the same sentimentality that Spielberg has become famous for in his later years.

Example that spells it out:

JP: Kids are cute and resourceful. The work to help overcome the problems in the movie.

Jaws: Spielberg effectively throws a 10-year-old kid down a shark's throat in one of the more terrifying (to a parent, at least, Lady Chance will no longer watch the movie with me) long-distance shots ever. Brr!

Moirai
07-06-2005, 11:56 PM
Wasn't the beer can crushed in Quint's hand, as was Hooper's styrofoam cup (is styrofoam a proper noun? Anyway...)?

Eh, it wasn't fair to ask for a stumper, I own multiple copies of Jaws including several docs about the making of it! But a valiant effort! I love anyone who is as big a movie geek as I am! ;)

Cartooniverse
07-07-2005, 07:27 AM
Hmmm. Yes, they were both crushed in hand.

You have documentaries on the making of the film ????? You've been holding out on me??? -Sniffle- I thought you cared !

Don't worry, Jonathan. It's EJsGirl all the way. :)

( Did you really already know about Sterling Hayden? I thought I had you with that. )

Sauron
07-07-2005, 10:44 AM
Thoroughly enjoyed both movies. Jaws, to me, is vastly superior.

Others have touched on the reason I like it better -- character development. There are dozens of wonderful character moments in the film, while Jurassic Park focuses more on special effects. Scenes like Martin making faces with his son; Hooper getting mad at Quint and acting juvenile, even as he's climbing a ladder out of the scene; the aforementioned dialogue around the table which culminates in the Indianapolis monologue; Martin researching sharks at his house while his wife tells him he's overreacting, then when she sees a drawing of a shark attacking a boat in one of the books, she yells at the kids to get out of the boat like their father told them to; the shark-cage discussion between Quint and Hooper; Hooper's interruption of the town meeting; crushing the can and the cup; the brief dialogue between Hooper and Quint when they both realize they're up against something they've never experienced before; Hooper exhorting Martin to go out on the bow of the boat so he can have some scale in his photo, and Martin adamantly refusing in disbelief ...

And the dialogue! Geez, there are multiple classic lines in that film. The aforementioned (and iconic) "You're gonna need a bigger boat." But so many others:

Martin: "I can do anything. I'm the chief of police."
(Hooper, trying to show off a scar, unbuttons his shirt, exposing a hairy chest.) Martin, offcamera: "You're wearing a sweater."
The Mayor (to Hooper, as they talk about the size of the shark): "You'd love to prove that, wouldn'cha? Get your name in the National Geographic?"
Quint: (paraphrased) "You all know me. Know what I do for a livin'. This shark ... swallow ya whole. Three thousand dollars, chief? I value my hide a lot more than three thousand dollars. I'll find your shark for three. But I'll catch him -- and kill him -- for ten."
Quint (to Hooper): "You go in the cage ... cage goes in the water ... shark's in the water. Our shark." Slow smile, then singing: "Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies ..."
Hooper: "Mayor, we're talking about a miracle of evolution ... an eating machine. All this thing does, is swim, and eat, and make baby sharks."
The Mayor (to Martin, after the shark attacks on the Fourth of July): "MY kids were on that beach, too."

Man. How can you not love that movie?

Cartooniverse
07-07-2005, 08:55 PM
Someone up there posted to the effect that Jaws works so well because of what we cannot see, not because of what we are shown.

I'll extrapolate that good thought a bit, and blend it with something I hinted at already. Jaws is about that which we cannot see but know absolutely to be real-life. Jurassic Park is about that which we wish was real but are shown anyway, in the hopes that we buy into it- even though we patently know it is not real-life.

There is no leap of faith that can reproduce primal fear of death from a creature that you know full well can kill you. And, a few times a year ( 14 year old girl, just a few weeks ago...... ) does kill humans.

There's verisimilatude. Then there's Jaws.

Moirai
07-08-2005, 05:39 PM
And there is the primal fear of the water. I mean, while we're swimming, just what the hell IS down there? Could be anything.

I have heard that damn music in my head while wreck-diving, believe me...

Scared the shit out of myself! :D

Then again, there are at least two great white sharks that live off the beaches I swim & bodysurf at, and neither has ever attacked a swimmer. One did come into the mouth of Newport Harbor to gnaw on a whale corpse but that was a few years ago. I am not afraid of being bitten.

Icerigger
07-08-2005, 06:16 PM
Two great reviews for Jaws, mentions all the little details.

http://www.jabootu.com/jaws.htm
http://twtd.bluemountains.net.au/Rick/liz_jaws.htm

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.