Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 04:26:51 PM

Login with username, password and session length

JAWS (shark film)

Started by Ballad of Ballard Berkley, August 21, 2018, 03:06:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Blumf

Quote from: Thomas on August 22, 2018, 10:52:47 AM
Famously, Steven Spielberg kept sinking and malfunctioning as they were filming Jaws, so they had to direct around him and the film was much better for it.

What's even more surprising is that Spielberg himself would opt to use the giant shark props after all the problems he had in the film Duel (truck film) with the full sized mechanical rubber lorry props. Endless faults and glitches resulting in the thing correctly observing the national and state road rules, allowing Dennis Weaver to overtake safely, and leaving phone booths intact.

Thomas

That reminds me of the problems he had with Jurassic Park - whenever the Tyrannosaurus animatronic got wet in the rain, it would evolve into a a sub-aquatic creature and swim away from the set. No wonder the sequels are so CG heavy.

The scene in E.T. where E.T.'s chest glows a heavenly red was improvised after his internal mechanisms set on fire. His gown is actually a disguised fire blanket.

kalowski

Steven Spielberg is still sinking today. There's a charity set up to support him.

Kelvin

Let's hope you all get bored of this before you reach Schindler's List.

mothman

Too late!

Steven Spielberg originally had Chuck Norris in mind for the role of Oskar Schindler, but nobody believed he'd merely save 1100 Jews through bribery when he could just end the war by punching Hitler into space instead.

madhair60

Spielberg famously became lost in the project, to the point where his "method" approach to the film actually instigated a second, far worse real life holocaust.

the science eel

Quote from: Shit Good Nose on August 22, 2018, 10:14:34 AM
Not improvised, written.  Several times.

I won't argue with you thinking it's shit - it's all subjective - but please explain how the Indianapolis speech is borderline incomprehensible?

I meant literally incomprehensible. I couldn't understand what he was saying half the time. Mumbling, slurring. But I guess that's just me.

I could say more on this subject but I'd just get abuse - which I don't mind, actually, it's just that there's no motivation to say any more when that happens. And of course it's always tricky trying to take down respected canon music/books/films 'cos you're flying in the face of conformity. The weight of consensus, you know? You don't have much in the way of support.

But I thought it was utter rubbish.

One more thing - I remember reading some slightly-pretentious article that talked about how little the shark was used in the film, and how the threat was built up from the reactions of the people and the tense direction etc. etc. etc. This is patently untrue! the fucking shark is everywhere!

kalowski

I assume that article meant that the shark's face and teeth - is the supposed threatening part of it. From memory you don't see that until just before, "You're gonna need a bigger boat" which must be well into the last forty minutes.
Perhaps you see a flash when the Kittner boy is taken. Obviously this arose because if the problems with the mechanical shark, but Spielberg used it to his advantage so we see a fin, a shadow, a jetty on the end of a chain but not the whole shark.

St_Eddie

Quote from: kalowski on August 22, 2018, 02:33:09 PM
I assume that article meant that the shark's face and teeth - is the supposed threatening part of it. From memory you don't see that until just before, "You're gonna need a bigger boat" which must be well into the last forty minutes.
Perhaps you see a flash when the Kittner boy is taken. Obviously this arose because if the problems with the mechanical shark, but Spielberg used it to his advantage so we see a fin, a shadow, a jetty on the end of a chain but not the whole shark.

Yes, Speilberg originally filmed a model of the Kintner boy being eaten by the animatronic shark but ultimately decided to cut the shot because, depending on the source, it was either deemed too phony looking, or too grizzly.  Yet another case of the (shooting) stars aligning for Spielberg's shark film, as the brief flash of a fin is far more effective.  The only surviving still of the original shot is pretty fucking scary though, to be fair...


kalowski

No way Alex is coming back after that!!

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: the science eel on August 22, 2018, 01:45:42 PM
I meant literally incomprehensible. I couldn't understand what he was saying half the time. Mumbling, slurring. But I guess that's just me.

I suggest you are either hard of hearing/deaf, have shit speakers, didn't have it turned up enough, or you were watching a version with VERY poor audio quality.  You are the only person I've ever seen or heard ever make that complaint.

And, yes, kalowski and Eddie are right - you rarely see the whole shark in the film due to the continuous problems with it breaking down - prior to shooting, the script basically had us see the shark in full at every possible opportunity.  Otherwise, for most of the film, all we see is an impression or a small part of it.

AsparagusTrevor

Quote from: St_Eddie on August 22, 2018, 03:22:35 PM
Yes, Speilberg originally filmed a model of the Kintner boy being eaten by the animatronic shark but ultimately decided to cut the shot because, depending on the source, it was either deemed too phony looking, or too grizzly.  Yet another case of the (shooting) stars aligning for Spielberg's shark film, as the brief flash of a fin is far more effective.  The only surviving still of the original shot is pretty fucking scary though, to be fair...

That picture is so fucking chilling.

I can't fathom the original scene being too grisly because, well, look at the scene in the film!

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: AsparagusTrevor on August 22, 2018, 03:50:31 PM
I can't fathom the original scene being too grisly because, well, look at the scene in the film!

One of (but not the only) reasons it was trimmed is because at one point the top two thirds of Bruce's entire body rise above the water level.  It still looks pretty terrifying, but is also, obviously, physically impossible - I'm not in a position to post a still, but if you Google image search jaws alex kintner deleted scene, you'll see it.  You'll also see a still from 8mm footage of a side view of Bruce near Alex's feet, jaws agape.

EDIT - someone's spliced in that 8mm footage - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTaxZJ-ksiw

the science eel

Quote from: Shit Good Nose on August 22, 2018, 03:43:47 PM
I suggest you are either hard of hearing/deaf, have shit speakers, didn't have it turned up enough, or you were watching a version with VERY poor audio quality.  You are the only person I've ever seen or heard ever make that complaint.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO60RohuARY



Shit Good Nose

Posting that only further backs up what I suggest above - I don't have any problem hearing or understanding any of that.

kalowski

What an amazing scene. Didn't Milius dictate it to Spielberg over the phone the night before filming?

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: kalowski on August 22, 2018, 04:20:24 PM
What an amazing scene. Didn't Milius dictate it to Spielberg over the phone the night before filming?

The accepted version of events is that Howard Sackler came up with the idea and wrote a first version that was too short, Milius then asked Spielberg if he could have a go and wrote an amazing but way too long speech (I can't remember how long, but it was pages and pages), so it was given to several other writers to have a crack at (including Carl Gottlieb, and I believe Spielberg himself had a go), and no one could quite get it.  Robert Shaw, who was also a writer, took the Sackler, Milius and Gottlieb versions and edited them together and down and is responsible for the speech in its final form in the film.  Spielberg officially credits Sackler, Milius and Shaw.

St_Eddie

Quote from: the science eel on August 22, 2018, 04:07:22 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO60RohuARY

That dialogue's not difficult to understand.  There's a drunken drawl, appropriate to the character (and let's face it, the actor) but not incomprehensibly so.  I'm not denying that you personally have a hard time hearing the words but like Shit Good Nose said, you're literally the only person that I've ever come across whom has this issue.  Perhaps a hearing test or new speakers are in order (hopefully the latter)?

kalowski

QuoteAt noon on the fifth day, a Lockheed Ventura swung in low and he spotted us, a young pilot, lot younger than Mr. Hooper here, anyway he spotted us and a few hours later a big ol' fat PBY come down and started to pick us up. You know that was the time I was most frightened. Waitin' for my turn. I'll never put on a lifejacket again. So, eleven hundred men went into the water. 316 men come out, the sharks took the rest, June the 29th, 1945.

Anyway, we delivered the bomb.

the science eel

Quote from: St_Eddie on August 22, 2018, 04:38:33 PM
That dialogue's not difficult to understand.  There's a drunken drawl, appropriate to the character (and let's face it, the actor) but not incomprehensibly so.  I'm not denying that you personally have a hard time hearing the words but like Shit Good Nose said, you're literally the only person that I've ever come across whom has this issue.  Perhaps a hearing test or new speakers are in order (hopefully the latter)?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe.

I had similar issues with The Godfather. Lots of mumbling - it's an effort to make out what's being said. I don't want to work at it! But nobody has any problem understanding Brando, apparently.

kalowski

Quote from: the science eel on August 22, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Oh, I don't know. Maybe.

I had similar issues with The Godfather. Lots of mumbling - it's an effort to make out what's being said. I don't want to work at it! But nobody has any problem understanding Brando, apparently.
He "weeps with the dishes"?

the science eel


the science eel


Shit Good Nose

Quote from: the science eel on August 22, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Oh, I don't know. Maybe.

I had similar issues with The Godfather. Lots of mumbling - it's an effort to make out what's being said. I don't want to work at it! But nobody has any problem understanding Brando, apparently.

You sound just like my dad - "can't understand a word of what people say in films and TV shows these days - they all mutter and mumble."

Try subs - they were a lifesaver for him when DVD came along.  Well, until he died anyway.

And also, yeah - maybe get your hearing tested.

Replies From View

Quote from: St_Eddie on August 22, 2018, 02:29:38 AM
A long but great post, Ballad of Ballard Berkley.  However, at the risk of sounding like a cunt...

...I feel that I should point out that I was the one whom first mentioned the fake looking shark from Jaws (shark film) as being far more effective than a realistic CGI shark. 

I think you should get points deducted for constantly using "whom" in this way though.

St_Eddie

Quote from: Replies From View on August 22, 2018, 05:23:56 PM
I think you should get points deducted for constantly using "whom" in this way though.

Whom do you think that you are exactly?  Whomer fucking Simpson?!

Joking aside, I'm not going to apologise for utilising the correct grammar.  Sorry (but not sorry).

the science eel


St_Eddie

Quote from: the science eel on August 22, 2018, 05:44:04 PM
It's not correct.

Neither are you, to be fair.

And also, yes, it is correct.

kalowski

Quote from: St_Eddie on August 22, 2018, 05:55:38 PM
Neither are you, to be fair.

And also, yes, it is correct.
It's not.

St_Eddie

Quote from: kalowski on August 22, 2018, 06:01:34 PM
It's not.

Prove it.

Or don't.  Personally, I'd sooner that people just mind their own business.  'Objective', 'subjective', 'whom'.  If I choose to use these words, then of what concern is that to anybody else?  At least I'm not typing in 'txt spk'.