I was with an acquaintance and he was pontificating that Benchley always regretted writing Jaws, due to the back-lash it created and the shark hunts. According to him, Benchley always wished he had written “Creature” first (or instead.)
I dunno if this is true and don’t care. My question is, would it have had the same impact? Would it have been as scary? Would it have taken off like it did?
My feeling is, the thing that made it creepy was the underlying feeling that it could happen. If it had been a fictitious monster, I wouldn’t have had he creeps every time I went in the ocean.
I’ve always suspected that ninety percent of what made Jaws go as hogwild as it did was that utterly insane illustration on the cover… that megalodon-sized shark head ascending straight up to snack down on the naked swimmer just below the JAWS logo.
I suspect a lot of people realized this, since they reused the book’s cover illo on the movie posters. Even in the book… hell, even in the MOVIE, the shark wasn’t THAT big.
I would therefore think that if Benchley had written Creature first, it would have sunk without a trace, if you’ll pardon the pun; the cover illo for Creature just wasn’t anywhere near as scary, or as attention-grabbing.
It would not have been as scary with a mythological creature. People fear most what they know best… ::resists urge to go into political rant:: …The idea of a huge shark swimming below you and considering which bit to chomp first is plausible. The notion of Mothra doing the same is just laughable.
A number of the “real world” aspects which gave the film depth and helped create suspense would not have worked with a sea monster, IMO. Hooper’s scientific details, Quint’s Naval disaster story, and the Mayor choosing tourist dollars over public saftey are examples. I suppose it is possible such things could be reworked or replaced for a fantasy creature, but I doubt they would have had the same resonance with the audience.