Talk:Jaws (film)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've just done a big restructure that included adding a discussion of the cultural impact of the movie - it seems that this should be covered, as it should be a major reason for listing the film in the first place. I've tried to keep everyone's previous contributions and limit the changes to what was needed to incorporate the new content. --Cinephobia 07:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template

Hi folks, Max Terry has reverted the Spielberg template back to the vertical format, which I think gives too much white space on either side of the box. Could we please reach a consensus at Template talk:Steven Spielberg's films? Cheers, The JPS 21:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The ride

Hi folks, could you please take a look at Jaws Attraction (Orlando). Its tone is odd, added by an IP, and I suspect it's a copyvio from somewhere. I brief google search doesn't reveal anything, though. The JPS 08:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same... The attraction "synoposis" looks almost word-for-word from the background information the attraction employees are given in the SOP. As for some of the attraction "fast facts" at the bottom of the page, such as the names of business on the ride's "island", they have just been copied straight from http://www.amityboattours.com . Hope this has been some help! --UD75 21:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Extraneous detail, a plea

Before you add more information to this article, especially the synopsis, please ask yourself if that detail is important to the plot. Here are some thoughts:

The names of the victims are of no importance; they play no part at all in the plot except to die
The number of rounds that Brody fires is of no importance; no one is counting
Detail about what line was ad-libbed or what scene was added later is trivia that belongs in the production history section, if anywhere, not in the synopsis
The phrase "geyser of blood" is not encyclopedic

I love the movie as much as anyone, but the article should be concise, not comprehensive. --Tysto 20:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate what Tysto said, the synopsis should not include a count of the bullets. It could well be that six is invariably the maximum number that can be loaded into that variety of rifle, but the film never establishes the point (Quint shoots at the shark three times earlier in the film), and so we shouldn't be drawing attention to it. --Geoduck 19:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Tragic coincidence

I removed this new section added by an anon user:

On Saturday 7 January 2006, a woman died after being attacked by sharks while she was swimming near Rainbow Channel at Amity Point on North Stradbroke Island, Queensland, Australia. Three bull sharks are suspected in the fatal attack. Wikinews:Woman killed in shark attack at Amity Point, Australia.

A movie about shark attacks at a place called "Amity" was made in 1975 and 30 years later, there is a shark attack at a real place called Amity thousands of miles away. I can see that Jaws may be relevant to the news story but the news story is not relevant to Jaws. --Tysto 06:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Martha's Vineyard

Someone wrote: "Many locals from Martha's Vinyard played uncredited speaking roles, for example, Polly (Brody's secretary) was played by Peggy Scott."

While I think that many locals playing in the film is useful Trivia, I don't know how mentionig one of them by name proves it, or belongs in an article, unless that person is of some significance. For example, if it said "Peggy Scott, the towns mayor," that might seem understandable. A random citizen does not merit a mention when it contributes nothing to the article.

I am going to make changes accoridngly. I will move this, and the thing about Shark footage, to the end of the production history, so they will not make the Production History disjointed by including them as pertinent parts of the filming. Thsi way they look more like the ranodm trivia they actually are.

--L.A.F.

dangerous?

"a voracious predator known to be dangerous to humans," as if! I know no one here wants me to start spouting shark facts that everybody allready knows, but the great white is a voracious predator, and one of the most dangerous sharks, but hardly "known to be dangerous to humans". (in case somebody doesn't know, more people are killed by lightning, car crashes bee stings and falling coconuts (seperatly) than sharks).Jedi of redwall 23:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Memorable quotes

Do we really need this section? I really dislike this type of thing, which tends to be on IMDb anyway. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bordering Megaladon size

In the book, Hooper said he was just exagerating when he said that. it should be deleted. KdogDS 19:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Jaws Remake

If this is true, please cite a source and bring it up to the standards stated in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style

JAWS:THE REMAKE?-(SUMMER 2007)its UNCONFIRM but theres hope for a new "JAWS" feature film out there,somewhere in the works.Wut I have found out is it there are plans for a new "JAWS" movie.JAMES CAMERON will be the director for this remake.Its tag-line is "THEY ARE GOING TO NEED A BIGGER BOAT,FROM THE DIRECTOR OF TITIANC COMES THE LEGEND RE-BORN".Iam not really sure if this news was post to be leak,but it has.Warner Brothers is going to produced this version of the killer shark.IAM SERIOUS.I have seen the "teaser trailer" so they call it and it looks really amazing!Its looks already finish!My guess they need to do some editing,theres no mention of cast members yet but theres 2 guys and one woman on the boat.It could be the Brody family from the orginal but with younger stars to play them of course.This *POSSIBLE*could be a fluke but i think it is not.The trailer is floating out there somewhere,you just have to know where to go to find it.From the looks of wut I've saw,we all better think twice (AGAIN)to even think about getting into the water.

There is a teaser trailer at iFilm. Is it bogus or not? I dunno. Says it's comin' summer 2007. KdogDS 19:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool trailer, but a fake, I'm sure--didn't anyone notice "The LegAnd reborn"? If it weren't for that lame mistake, the trailer would have been a great "teaser." Willerror 22:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Rip-Offs

Isn't "Rip-Offs" unnecessarily POV? FAL 05:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Change it. Atlant 12:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

New images

I've added some new images to synopsis section. Hope everyone finds them useful, and I hope I did the fair use part right. If anyone finds any better pictures, feel free to change them. -Dark Kubrick 02:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mythbusters Section and Redundancy

I think the Mythbusters section could be moved to a different, or entirely new, article, as it isn't really pertinent to the film itself. A one or two-line paragraph mentioning the episode could be included, along with a link to it, but otherwise I don't think it really belongs in the article.

Also, it's mentioned twice in the article that Jaws has a couple of honors on the AFI's lists, and I think we could do with only one mention of that. We could delete the first one and shorten what is already an overlong lead.-Dark Kubrick 22:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No one seems to care, so I've removed the section.-Dark Kubrick 23:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

Seeing as how the lead has drastically changed multiple times during the past few days, I think we should have a discussion for what should and should not go in it on this talk page. If anyone has a problem with the current version as it is, then post what you think should go there on this page. If you significantly change the lead, please post here so that we know why you changed it as it is.-Dark Kubrick 18:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit tag

I've removed the copyedit tag -- I went through the whole article and didn't find more than a comma or so to fix. The copyedit tag can also apply to tone and cohesion, but I think the article is reasonably clean in that area too. If anyone thinks it should be re-added, please add a note here with more specifics and I'll take another look. Mike Christie 02:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

I've realized that the article does not cite several phrases that could be a problem for it in GA and FA candidacy. I realize those statements came from the books listed, but unless people can cite which statements came from their respective books (I'm not going to buy these books solely to update Wikipedia) we'll either have to delete them or find online sources, and Wiki no likey articles with only online references. If anyone can do this, it would be a tremendous help. -Dark Kubrick 05:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I wholehearteely agree with this concern. I just finished analyzing the article, and decided to fail it as a good article since there is not a single inline citation under the subheading "Production history." But probably much of this information can be found online, and I doubt any books need to be purchased. This is a very popular film, and boatloads of credible information exist about it on the net.--Esprit15d 15:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 10, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Great.

2. Factually accurate?: Good. But (per above) inline citations are needed, especially in the subheading "Production history." Special attention should be given to quotes, statistics and very specific details (ie - the Bruce thing).

3. Broad in coverage?: Great.

4. Neutral point of view?: Great job.

5. Article stability? Good.

6. Images?: Good here also.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Esprit15d 15:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: the article is severely overlinked per WP:MOS. Many common words and year links which add no relevant information for the reader should be removed. -- Slowmover 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Slowmover and Esprit15d. I'll definitely get to work on those points. Most of the Production history section can be cited with the DVD, but I'll find a couple of online sources to back it up. -Dark Kubrick 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gotten rid of a ton of wikilinks, I now see what you mean. -Dark Kubrick 20:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple more comments for the editors, following up on the GA review. I should start by saying that I think the article is in pretty good shape and close to GA status.

I think the differences section could use some clarification as to which version has which event -- this seems to have been improved since I first looked at it, but for example "The harbormaster is killed by the shark while cleaning out his coffeepot in the ocean" doesn't tell me whether that's the film or screenplay version being described. (I know that the plot synopsis above would tell me, but it would be nice if it were clear here too.)
The inline citations thing: I agree more cites would be good. This problem is almost entirely restricted to the "Production History" section. To give some specific cases to go after, if you have the sources:
- "purchased the film rights to Peter Benchley's novel in 1973"; do you have a source for the date?
- Next para: you have a pretty detailed description of which writer did what; can you source this?
- The paragraph starting "Location shooting" has several items that might beneficially be sourced: the use of locals, the malfunctioning mechanical shark, the use of "Bruce" as a name, the trivia references, the "turd" name, and the "Flaws" nickname.

I don't have sources for any of this so I can't help, but I hope this is useful. If you'd like more specifics on other paragraphs let me know. Mike Christie 02:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll get to work on finding some references for that section. Meanwhile, can you tell me what needs citation outside of the Production history section? -Dark Kubrick 03:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a couple:

"It is thought to be the movie that first boosted Steven Spielberg's directorial career." in the intro. This is so well-known that it probably doesn't need citation, but on the other hand it should be a piece of cake to find a source. An ideal source would be a movie history; someone like Tom Schatz or another film historian.
"many beaches reported business as being down in the summer of 1975" would be good to source.

Those are the only things I see in a quick scan. This is looking very good; great job. Mike Christie 04:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the "many beaches reported business as being down in the summer of 1975", do you think reliable movie critics can cite this? I've tried to find actual news reports in 1975 but none exist on the web. However, a lot of critics always mention how beaches were empty due to Jaws, so maybe just a rewording of the sentence would be fine?

I think a rewording and a ref to a review that makes the claim would do fine. Also, with ref to the Cape Fear sentence you eliminated, couldn't you leave in the fact that Cape Fear had a similar scene? I understand that the relevance largely comes from the influence claim, but the scene itself doesn't need a cite (it's verifiable by viewing the film). Then perhaps a rewording might allow the reference. I'm not sure about this, but it seems like it might be salvageable. Mike Christie 15:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I put back the Cape Fear reference, but I don't know how to prove Peck is the rights owner, or that Jaws couldn't get the license from him. -Dark Kubrick 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Peck's production company was called Melville Productions - that might help you track some down. I'll have a look later if you haven't found anything. Yomangani ^talk 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ez-entertainment.net/features/Gregory_Peck.htm - not sure that counts as a reliable source, but it does state it. Yomangani ^talk 16:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that counts. -Dark Kubrick 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a couple of refs, mostly the DVD, but a couple other websites too. I ws thinking that maybe a picture of the mechanical shark would improve the production history section, as the photo of Quint delivering his monologue just doesn't have any purpose. I might get a screenshot of the shark on display, or maybe malfunctioning during shooting. -Dark Kubrick 02:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've cited everything I can. The "summer blockbuster" claim and some other stuff can be easily cited with websites, but I think we need some books to give the article a little more credibility. I've asked someone who owns a few of the books to help cite some of this stuff. -Dark Kubrick 04:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Great job on this. Let me know when you have more of the cites in place and I'll be happy to renominate this for GA, if you'd like a third party to do the nomination. Mike Christie 13:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you still need any citations from my resources? Do you reckon Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope should be a piped link, displaying Star Wars, since I'm sure that's what it was known as in 1977? The JPS^{talk to me} 09:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Any citations you can provide from the books would be greatly appreciated. I managed to find "The Films of Steven Spielberg" on googlebooks, but everything else is unlisted. I'll change the Star Wars link as you said, as that would make more sense. --Dark Kubrick 10:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Good article again?

I think this article is clearly ready for GA review again; let me know if you disagree. I can nominate it if you'd like me to. Frankly I think it is approaching FA, though I'd suggest getting through GA first -- FA is much more rigorous. The cites are much better now, so I would expect it to get through GA fairly easily. Mike Christie (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There were two references that bothered me, but I know they came from the same book, and although I don't own the book I'm just putting it in anyway. Go ahead and put it up for GA. --Dark Kubrick 19:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that before it goes up for FAC, I want to add a cast section and a soundtrack section. I'm not adding them until it passes GA, as that will make the article more than 32 KB, and I'll have to label it LONG. It will probably be longer on the list then. --Dark Kubrick 19:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

GA nom - Passed

After another examination, this article has really improved. Even though most of the citations added one from one source, the DVD is very definitive, so that's OK. I would also reference this section:

Roy Scheider became interested in the project after overhearing a screenwriter and Spielberg at a party talking about having the shark jump up onto a boat. Richard Dreyfuss initially passed on the role of Matt Hooper, but after seeing a screening of a film he had just done called The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, he thought his performance in that film was awful. He immediately called Spielberg back and accepted the Matt Hooper role (fearing that no one would want to hire him once Kravitz was released.) The first person actually cast for the movie was Lorraine Gary.

But otherwise, this article looks good. Great job folks all around!--Esprit15d 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Congratulations to everyone; especially Dark Kubrick, who I know has worked really hard on this. Mike Christie (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you Esprit15d and Mike Christie. Now on for FA! --Dark Kubrick 19:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem in "Inspirations and influences"

But I don't know how to straighten it out. In Paragraph 4, there's a sentence that shows up in the editing window, but is not displayed in the article itself. The problem is with a munged reference which I don't know how to straighten out. Help please? Cactus Wren 05:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it; you can do a diff and see what I did. I also took out the quotes around the ref name -- you can use quotes there, but they're not necessary, as you'll see from the diff. Mike Christie (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I just found out that my previous edit trashed some non-ASCII characters, so I've self-reverted and re-done the fix. This time I left the quotes in -- I realized from looking at the rest of the article that that's the standard used here, so there's no reason to change it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

JAMES CAMERON IS MAKING A JAWS REMAKE

I found the link to the teaser trailer on iFilm on the discussion page of James Cameron's wikipedia page. It's not a fan film or anything, the quality of the film is too high. Take a look at this link:

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2705402?htv=12&htv=12

Interesting. But...it might simply be the teaser trailer for the adaptation of Steve Alten's book Meg, re-edited by some mischievious fan. The shark looks quite big, and I saw that in the end it looked like it was leaping out of the water about to chomp down on a helicopter, which is a similar (you could even say iconic) scene from the book. Besides, 'Legend' is misspelled as 'Legand', although the quality and slickness of the film is hard to dispute.--Dark Kubrick 01:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There's also the fact that the URL listed at the end of the trailer leads to a some sort of low-rent spam site. But I agree with DK that the quality of the footage indicates that someone is making a movie about a giant shark... --Geoduck 22:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I watched the footage again, and I think some of it was spliced from other movies - the boat scenes look like The Perfect Storm and that one shot where the guy's swimming under the fire-laced water looks exactly like a scene from the new Poseidon. Besides, if there WAS going to be a Jaws remake for 2007, we'd have heard about it LONG before now.

Agreed. I think that the shark footage is actual trailer footage from Alten's book/movie, but those fishing boat shots ARE from "The Perfect Storm". I was, at first, going to suggest that the shark shots were from other (poorly done) movies which have used the Megaladon concept before, but the CGI is FAR superior than what I've seen from those other movies. Alten's movie idea has been on the burner for a while, so I'm not surprised that some footage of a trailer was leaked. However, Alten's web site promoting the movie and the books hasn't been updated (to my knowledge)to say whether or not they've begun shooting the film. In the end, this could just be a promo or something like a pilot to get the studios interested, crappy Jaws fanboi additions takced on aside... Just a thought.

Very unconvinced about "echoes of New World Symphony"

See my remarks at Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Dvořák)#"Jaws".

It's about as convincing as saying that the Tuileries section of Pictures at an Exhibition "echoes" the song of the black-capped chickadee [1] .

If this is to be mentioned in the article, I think I want to see a source citation mentioning the similarity... from a musicologically-sophisticated source. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted that bit from the article. I see that your points on the talk page of Symphony No. 9 make sense.--Dark Kubrick 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Themes

I'm glad this is now an FA, but nonetheless is anyone willing to reference anything about the themes, like Brody's aquaphobia. Or should we write this into a cast section? Wiki-newbie 12:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm kinda opposed to a whole new section dealing with Themes or Cast. Brody's aquaphobia is simply unimportant at all to the Wikipedia article. How would you do a section like Themes? It's kinda already covered in the "Inspirations and Influences" section. As for a Cast section, the cast is so small that it's unnecessary.--Dark Kubrick 14:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Jaws in other languages

It would be interesting to include the film title in other languages (E.g. in French it's called "Dents dans la mer" (Teeth in the see) - a lousy title for a film (as you'd expect, it is in French). Maybe "dents dans la mer" has an idiomatic meaning. --Dangherous 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I say go ahead and add something like that (but not a whole new section). Just be sure to put its title in several different languages, not just French.--Dark Kubrick 00:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

In accordance with Wikipedia:Piped link, links such as [[1975 in film|1975]] should be avoided; this is because it is confusing for the reader, who is expecting to be taken to the 1975 article, but instead 1975 in film. See the manual for more information.
Horror/thriller (or horror thriller) doesn't make sense and states that it could be either of the two; if one chose to type Horror thriller in the search box, they'd be redirected to Horror film. Because of this, the en rule (–) should be placed between the two.
The lead explicity describes the Mayor's personality, but not the others; this is unbalanced.

Never Mystic (t c) 20:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

1.How confusing could it be? If the reader is in a film article and clicks on the date, they can expect the article on the date to relate to the content of the article. In this case, it does. Plenty of other articles do this as well.
2.Agreed, though common sense could avoid your example...
3.That's more of a personal preference. Using the greedy adjective on Vaughan links him to the earlier statement, "...by the money-grubbing town council". Describing him as greedy is important to the general plot; describing Brody as "aquaphobic" or Hooper as "energetic" is unnecessary.--Dark Kubrick 22:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

With regard to point 1:Wikipedia:Piped link makes no definitive statement one way or the other, only states: 'There is disagreement about whether it is appropriate to pipe year numbers to "year-in-x" articles...' In this case I'd say it is more appropriate to put it in the context of other 1975 films than 1975 in general (but there may be disagreement about that too). Yomangani ^talk 22:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it could link to regular 1975 as well, since this was a big film at that time, but 1975 in film is more appropriate for this article.--Dark Kubrick 22:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of the piped link; perhaps the link can be removed? The (–) should be replaced. Never Mystic (t c) 01:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I still don't completely understand why you don't like the piped link. It's perfectly fine and really isn't that confusing to a reader: we're still linking to an article about some aspect of 1975, in this case, about its films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Kubrick (talk • contribs)

It's misleading to the reader who clicks on the link, expecting to be taken to 1975, but instead 1975 in film. One of these readers included me. Never Mystic (t c) 22:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, well is it is misleading it's not exactly a criminal instance of it, tho'. Persoanlly, when I pipe a link to y in film, it is "x is a [[y in film|y film]]". The reader really wanted an article on 1975, they can very eaily achieve that with an additional click. Seems a lot of fuss over something with absolutely no ideological implications, and based on what a reader might want to do. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

JPS said what I wanted to say. Feel free to suggest a compromise, as long as it's not something like, "(see 1975 in film)" as that kinda disrupts the flow of the article.--Dark Kubrick 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't suggest that because I don't particularly like it either. Never Mystic (t c) 01:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Because? What makes it useful rather than misleading? Never Mystic (t c) 20:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me why an article about a 1975 film should not be linked to an article about that year in film? And I still don't see how it could be that misleading.--Dark Kubrick 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the article is about a significant film of that year so it puts it within the context of other events relating to cinema. Should the reader want to put it in the coontext of the year, they can eaily then go there... '1975' is easier to find than '1975 in film', if the reader doesn't know our naming conventions. I still don't think 'misleading' is an issue: we're not disguising truth. Piping a link from the Conservative Party (UK) to Racism might be misleading, but I think the reader might forgive us for sending them to 1975 in film from an article about a huge 1975 film. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Jaws was definitely a big hit across the world, so maybe they would forgive us in this case. I still think it's a bit irrelevant, but seeing how its success paved the way for other monster motion pictures, I'm okay with the explicit [[1975 in film|1975]]. Never Mystic (t c) 02:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the terms "money-grubbing" and "greedy" as used here, actually; while they're certainly irresponsible, I'm not sure protecting your livelihood qualifies as greed. MisfitToys 00:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What adjectives do you suggest?--Dark Kubrick 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the colorful language because it fits the tone of the film--if written for a journal or any other audience, it would be superb. However, other users may be more correct that it's hardly neutral, how about fiscally concerned?

"In the film, the police chief of fictitious Amity Island, a summer resort town, tries to protect beachgoers from the predations of a huge great white shark by closing the beach, only to be overruled by the money-grubbing town council."

--->"In the film, the police chief of fictitious Amity Island, a summer resort town, tries to protect beachgoers from the predations of a huge great white shark by closing the beach, only to be overruled by the more fiscally concerned town council."

"... and Murray Hamilton as the greedy Mayor Vaughn.:

"... and Murray Hamilton as the Mayor Vaughn, fully supporting the town council's concerns."

No punch, and not really my suggestions, but there are more neutral ways to say it. Still, love the article, and glad to see the slightly less neutral version. KP Botany 01:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A Question

Hi, I'd just like to say that this is a fantastic article, but I have a small question. I read that Steven Spielberg originally agreed to do the movie only if the shark wasn't shown until halfway through the movie. I didn't see this mentioned here, and I'm curious if there is a reason why. -- Scorpion0422 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, quite the opposite. The delays in making the shark operational forced Speilberg to take creative liberties to avoid showing the shark. He didn't want to - he was forced to. Raul654 03:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I realize the article says that, but the part it cites - the thing with the barrels - is well over halfway through the movie, but who knows. -- Scorpion0422 06:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that statement too, and if you can find a reliable source, feel free to add it.--Dark Kubrick 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Film/book comparisons

I am a little concerned with this section — most of it is unsourced, and it is in the form of a bulleted list. I recommend trimming it by about 1/3 and converting it to two paragraphs of prose.

Also, perhaps the releases and sequels sections could be merged into "Releases and sequels"? — Deckill e r 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns, and for posting your opinions on the talk page before editing the article to your heart's content (as many others did). If I were to source the section, would I just cite the book Jaws or have to find people who mention these differences. If I convert it to prose, the second paragraph would jump around quite a bit.

Do you mean "Reaction" when you say "Releases"?--Dark Kubrick 11:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The book would definitely be good enough; perhaps specific pages for precision. I meant the releases section; this could probably be merged with the sequels section, just like on the ANH page. I'll edit the page to show you an example. — Deckill e r 15:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll add those citations today, as I'm sick and taking off from school.--Dark Kubrick 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all taken care of now.--Dark Kubrick 16:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

stolen?

some film maker once told me the idea of the film was stolen from another film, does it have any basis?

No.--Dark Kubrick 11:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What does "stolen" mean? How much of the story do we want to analyze at once? Obsession with a large sea-going animal? Yes, see Moby Dick and doubtless stories before that. Small-town mayor more concerned with preserving town's income from tourists than preserving a few tourists' lives? Sure -- a common theme. The overall gestalt of the story? Probably first put together by Benchley.

What's the old saying? "There are only 14 plots in all of fictiondom" or something like that.

Atlant 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

citation from other media

This is in reference to ^{[citation needed]} citation here:

In retrospect, Spielberg has acknowledged that the added scene actually diminished the audience response to initial view of the shark later in the movie when Brody is tossing chum over the stern.^[^{citation needed]}

I can provide the reference somewhat. Spielberg says that in the 30th anniversary DVD of Jaws. Its in the "making of" documentary included in the DVD. So how do I put that fact into this wikipedia? --Eqdoktor 17:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

S Protection

This should not be S-protected per the protection policy for featured articles on the main page. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Very very annoying,,,

As of 4:06am November 30 Philippine time, the whol article's "the"s are turned into "da"s. I have also seen that the word "Jaws" has been replaced by the word "Paws". When I try to edit this on the edit page, it is still the word "the". But on the article itself, it is "da". It's really really creepy you know >.<

(edit) Ok,, it is 4:11am November 30 Philippine time right now,, and weirdly enough, everything seems corrected. Can anyone explain what happened? Is it a virus from us or something else?

Being featured on the main page is supposed to be the highest accolade an article can get. But what a pain in the bloody arse it is. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

When woodwork squeaks, out come the freaks. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The sound you can hear is that reference whooshing over my head. (I guess it's just a lyric.) The JPS^{talk to me} 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps at all, but someone replaced the film production and writing credits to "my buttoxs and my friend's buttoxs" or something similar. Hilarious, but this ain't uncyclopedia. Just bringing that to your attention.

I thought it would be cool to be featured on the main page. I had no idea what a hornet's nest it would become. Huge thanks to all the editors who have done countless reverts and corrections.--Dark Kubrick 20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nicely written pop culture article

What fun to have on the Main Page. KP Botany 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No cast section

The manual of style for film articles includes a cast section, and nearly every other featured film article has a class section, Jaws should too. Made of people 18:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Cast sections are not required of film articles. Nearly half of the other featured film articles do not have cast sections. The reason I think this article doesn't need one is because it's unnecessary: there are five main characters in the film (not counting Mrs. Kintner or some other small part), and two of those five are supporting roles, so I don't think it's enough to warrant a whole new section. On films like Star Wars, for example, where the cast of characters is large and diverse, I can understand where a cast section would be essential, but I don't think Jaws warrants one.--Dark Kubrick 19:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, a cast sectin would be very useful. And most of the featured articles do include a cast section.Made of people 21:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, most of them do have a cast section but not all. Take a look at Gremlins, the three Halloween films, The Witchfinder General, Summer of '42, and more. These films do not have a cast section, and it does not hurt the article at all. I would like you to post your reasons why you think a cast section would be useful.--Dark Kubrick 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Those articles need to be fixed to, and the cast section is in the manual of style and should be required in all articles. If someone is looking to see the cast members of any film article, they should be able to find it. That is the purpose of manuals of style, so that all information is presented in the same format, making it easier to find by readers.Made of people 21:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Manuals of style are not written in cement (or at least they shouldn't be). Here's from the actual Manual of Style: "This manual, along with the supplemental manuals linked from it, provides guidance for those seeking it, but does not prescribe rigid rules that must always be followed." In Jaws, the cast members are mentioned in the infobox, the lead, and a couple other places, so readers can easily find out who the actors are and what roles they play.--Dark Kubrick 01:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not meant to substitute a cast section. The cast section goes into more detail. And information that is presented in other places that gives detailed information about the cast, should go to the cast section.Made of people 03:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How much more (non-extraneous) detail could be added to a cast section? The lead establishes that Brody's the town's chief of police, Quint's the shark hunter, etc. Having a cast section would just be repeating information that has already been established earlier in the article.--Dark Kubrick 03:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dark Kubrick. A cast section is not a necessity. Every wikipedia article I've seen with a cast section seems to have it sloppily inserted into the main text w/out any regard to the flow of the article. And most of them seem to be simply "cut and paste" jobs from IMDB. I broke down and added one to my Witchfinder General article when another editor repeatedly insisted that it was absolutely required. Although I attempted to make mine a little different/informative than others I had seen, after adding the section it definitely confirmed my belief that cast sections are almost completely irrelevant in a comprehensive article. The infobox and a fully detailed plot synopsis will include enough character names and associated actors to suffice. This article is fine as is and doesn't need to be "fixed" (and neither do any of the many Featured Articles that don't have cast sections).-Hal Raglan 02:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The major players are typically listed in the infobox, along with a link to IMDB which in recent times has developed cast lists so lengthy they include the guys who went for coffee and donuts. The wiki article's cast info doesn't need to be blindly copied into a wikipedia film article. Wahkeenah 02:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives