Jaws - What’s the Difference?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Before it was the original summer blockbuster, Jaws was a novel by Peter Benchley that sold like gangbusters. You guys have been asking for it, so here we are: Jaws - What’s the Difference? Subscribe: goo.gl/9AGRm
Steven Spielberg called dibs on adapting the book before it was released, but on the road from page to screen, a lot of things got changed. It’s still the tale of a killer great white shark terrorizing a small island community, and the three men who set sail to vanquish it… but a lot of details (and huge plot points) changed along the way. Some for creative reasons, and some to suit the realities of film production… we’ll tell you about all the differences we could find.
Have you read Peter Benchley’s book? Have you watched (or re-watched) Jaws recently? Which do you think is better: the book or the movie? Are you hearing the Jaws theme…. *Duh-DUM…)? Did we make you feel like it’s safe to go back in the water?
What other works would you like to see us explore on What’s The Difference?
Want to know what's going on with Cinefix in the future?
Follow us Twitter for updates: / cinefixnetwork
Oh, and we're on The Facebook: / cinefixnetwork
Welcome to What's The Difference, where CineFix takes you step-by-step and page-by-page through all the differences between your favorite movies & shows and their source material. Adaptations are a tricky game, something always gets changed, added, or omitted in the process. Come back every other Wednesday for more What's the Difference!
The fact that Robert Shaw delivered the whole story about Quint surviving the USS Indianapolis drunk, is a testament to his acting abilities, especially when the next day he remembered nothing of his performance and asked Spielberg apologetically "How Drunk was I?"
He actually re-shot it that next day sober.
Apparently Jaws 2 was meant to be a prequel revolving around Quint and the U.S.S. Indianapolis. Obviously, we didn't get that for a number of reasons. Steven Spielberg was busy directing another movie and I believe Robert Shaw passed away after Jaws released
Was Robert Shaw actually on the Indianapolis??
@@bigkyle5767 Nope, he's british and was only a teenager when the ship went down.
@@chelsthegameruiner8669
that other movie was Close Encounters.
And Shaw had a heart attack cause of his drinking, no doubt.
I saw the Mythbusters Jaws Special, and while I agree that the myth got busted, I still think that the tank taking off like a rocket would still have killed the shark.
Especially if it shoots into the shark's stomach and damages its organs. Internal bleeding like that can kill in seconds!
That might have injured or killed the shark, but that's not what they show in the movie. The tank explodes like a bomb, and pieces of the shark blast into the sky and are scattered all over the water. Definitely not what happens when you shoot an air tank.
@@flyboy152 We know that but if it happened in real life it still would have killed the shark.
To this day I still wanted them to try that test underwater. The tank is very clearly in the water when it blows, and I want to see what that would do. Sure, the film took film liberties, and this particular one is one of my all time favourites, but I wanted to see if the tank might have ripped the head to bits if there was the added water pressure.
The only way you'd get anything like that kind of explosion from a compressed air tank would be if the metal came apart all at once when hit by the rifle shot. The seams would have to entirely fail....instantly. ive seen it happen with a smaller tank on a job site. Still wouldnt generate the explosion we see in the film, but it'd be catastrophic to the shark nonetheless
This is a movie I could watch everyday for the rest of my life and I would die a happy death.
Agreed. Who is your favorite character?
@@alainabilow I guess it would be Hooper (massive fan of Richard Dreyfuss and I love his style in this movie), but the whole holy trinity thing the main cast has going on is just so perfectly balanced I just couldn't say honestly.
More than just the shark and the story, what made Jaws so lovable was the actors in the movie, and their personalities. All of them, from Roy Scheider, to Robert Shaw, and even down to Murray Hamilton. All of them did a terrific job of keeping the interest of the viewer.
I remember reading the book before the movie came and out and went to see it, was a bit upset that it didn't keep true to the book, but it was and still is a great movie.
Peter Benchley felt real bad about how he made the Great White seem like a evil monster, when sharks aren't as bad as the public believes. Many so called "attacks" are more of a shark mistaking a human for something else, taking a nibble and that nibble is deadly to humans.
Yes, sharks will kill and eat humans, but it is more of certain species than all sharks. Bull Sharks are deadly and Great Whites have been blamed for deaths when it was a bull shark, They can live in brackish water, sea and fresh water mixed, go up rivers and attack humans when hungry. In some parts of the world, it is as if the bull shark waits for when the humans will enter the water to fish, or wash clothes and go get a easy meal. They are seen as the most dangerous and deadly shark.
What a lot of people want to ignore is we are entering their home and raiding their kitchen. We go spear fishing, giving them the taste of blood and then get mad when they come to get their food back (the fish) and bite the human, who got in the way. Throw trash overboard, food scraps and then wonder why they hang around the boats.
Benchley has written several other books, one call Beast, which was made into a movie also, and like the first one, the movie is nothing like the book, and I think the book was much better. He also wrote The Deep and that was made into a movie, haven't read the book or seen the movie, I don't think.
Yes, Beast was a terrifying read and the 2 part mini series was not good.
presumably a dog was killed in the film right before the boy, Alex Kitner. But it doesnt actually show that happening. So we're kind of left to assume. The black dog was playing fetch with his owner in the water, and just before Kitner is attacked, the owner is calling for his dog and we see the stick floating abandoned in the water.
jonescalypso Pippit! Pippin!
Saddest death in the movie for me :'(
fenton! FENTOOOON!
Additionally a 'Black Dog' symbolises death :)
The black lab belonged to Spielberg, so the story goes.
I would also love to see a presentation on the differences between the graphic novel and cinematic versions of "The Crow"! :D
gaelmist22 just ordered those graphic novels!
CineFix Awesome!! :D Hope you got the Special Edition, which is expanded and meets more the vision O'Barr intended. And be prepared for some seriously gorgeous artwork that leaves a lasting impression! Enjoy!!
gaelmist22 Hopefully the remake that keeps getting talked about actually follows the original graphic novel more this time around versus the film.
alucard624
Agreed! I loved what they did with Brandon Lee, but it changed he whole tone. James O'Barr is reportedly working in tandem with the filmmakers, so that gives me a lot of hope! Apparently the film will be adapting directly from the graphic novel (might as well; comics are basically storyboards). O'Barr also stated, as of March, Jack Huston "has definitely been cast" and that he is "really happy with that choice." O'Barr reportedly also had a say in hand picking bands for the soundtrack, which will include Joy Division (and possibly the very songs referenced in 'The Crow'). WAY more goth, a lot less grunge. O'Barr also re-released an Author's Edition of the graphic novel (the publisher released it as a "special edition"), which is expanded with lost sequences, a new scene, and a new closing segment. I'm curious as to whether the Author's Edition is the basis for the film, as I've read interviews with O'Barr where he revealed the expanded version is a lot more in line with his philosophy now as opposed to the vitriol of his former self. It will be interesting to see the cinematic interpretation this time around.
gaelmist22 j
You guys should do American Psycho. I love the movie and I love the book. Fight Club would be cool too.
:)
Yes do American Psycho!
Done and done
I remember that Mythbusters. I thought no explosion. there's still no way it survives the botte erocketing down its throat. Even the air escaping would cause catastrophic damage
Movie is definitely better than the book. The stupid affair between Mrs. Brody and Hooper takes up like 50 freaking pages in a book that is supposed to be a about a shark! Anyway, great video. But, you mention Carl Gottlieb as the newpaper reporter and instead show Benchly as the TV reporter in his cameo in the film. Gottlieb is the heavier set guy with the mustache.
Yep, he totally blew that one. Gottlieb was also a co-writer and in the "making of" video talks about "one of the hardest things I ever had to do was to write my character out of the story."
Unlike the film, the book's main focus is not the shark. So, no, the book is not "supposed to be about a shark". The novel's story is much more focused on the history and problems of the Brody family, as well as the history and issues of the town itself. The shark is most definitely not the main plot point of the book, despite the book's title being "Jaws".
With that said, I think Peter Benchley should have titled the book something else rather than "Jaws". It would be more logical and appropriate if the book was called "Amity" or "Amity Island" or something like that.
If he would have named the book any of those title suggestions you listed it would not have sold as well as it did. And the Shark is definitely the main plot point of the book since it not only affects the town, it affects every character in the book. Without the Shark the beaches would still be open and the Mayor would be able to pay off his dept, without the shark Matt Hooper would've never shown up, so no affair would take place, let alone Brody ever meeting Quint. Saying the Shark is not the main plot point is beyond silly when every other plot point revolves around it. He did indeed "logically" and "appropriately" named it 'Jaws' since the shark had the town and its people in its mouth figuratively and literally.
Zach Link exactly
Glad that the producers stayed with their decision to make this movie. I saw this movie in the theater back in 1975. It took my brothers and I a while to go rafting again in the waves (like Michael Kintner did). I understand that Steven Spielberg and others, including Carl Gotlieb, were adjusting the script as they were making the film and quickly running out of time to meet their production deadline. Incredible that they made their deadline with all of the re-writes and technical difficulties and came away with a blockbuster! By the way, it's Peter Benchley doing a cameo as the beach reporter in the movie. Carl Gotlieb is the Amity Newspaper Editor-in-Chief who buries Ms. Kintner's ad for bounty hunters in the back of the newspaper and runs the story about the capture and killing of the tiger shark.
In the book business actually boomed in Amity because tourists were flocking over from far and wide to catch a glimpse of the shark, although swimming still wasn't allowed. The book also contained subplots illustrating how the shark had affected people's lives, like the black man who refused to read a story about sharks to his sin, and his son asked if sharks killed black people.
I wonder if the dinner party scene would have worked in the movie?
In the book there was only ONE baby dolphin...although I guess it suggests that he does it more than Hooper could ever approve of...
Small point, fellas, but that badly-acted bit-part TV reporter isn't Carl Gottlieb -- it's in fact author Peter Benchley.
Oh, and the shark doesn't die "from its injuries" at the end of the book -- the harpoons piercing it are still tied to the cleats of the boat, and when the boat sinks, it drags the shark into the depths to die. To my mind, waaay more appropriate than the dumb (and yes, unbelieveable) blowing-shit-up ending of the film.
STOP SPOILING RAHHH
***gets Donald trump******
Haha! Was that comment directed at me?
I have no idea what it means ...
How am I spoiling anything the video hasn't already?!
so in the book the shark "drowned"?
A shsrk can't drown if it can keep water moving through its gills. More likely starved, since it was leashed to the boat and couldn't hunt for food.
+Shadow in a Cave Great White sharks need to constantly swim to be able to pass water through their gills and collect the oxygen, if it stops swimming then yes, technically it will drown as it is starved of oxygen. If a shark is unable to swim it will starve of oxygen long before it would die of hunger.
Any reason why you show a clip of Peter Benchley's cameo as the TV reporter when you're talking about Carl Gottlieb's minor role as Meadows?
Peter Benchley Wrote another book about another hungry ocean beast. It was called beast about a giant squid eat humans when there are no more fish.This was made into a made for TV movie called The Beast which was also better then the book.
Honestly, I like the story in the book *as a book* and the story in the movie *as a movie* . Yeah that doesn’t really make sense but the details in the book feel like they belong on paper. The movie details make sense to be on screen. It makes sense to change many things in order to add the horror to the movie. Reading about the characters and the town from the book fit perfectly in my mind. I don’t think either the book or movie is better than the other. I just like the book as a book and the movie as a movie
My dad read the book decades ago and insisted for the longest time that it was better than the movie. Couple years back, I bought him a copy. After rereading it, he promptly changed his opinion.
Speilberg said he regretted having the jump scare when the man's head pops out at Hooper. He said that took away from when you first see the shark.
ET? Wizard of Oz? Clockwork Orange? 2001?The Shining? Dune?...
DO 'EM
Ethan Bensinger OKAY ETHAN!!!!!!
2001 had a massive difference, its set around Saturn, the books sequels though followed the film. Never understood how though as acclark wrote the book during filming.
Thank you, Spielberg..for Making this Story Become Iconic and better
i wrote a novel called "Jaws: Zero", which is the same story as JAWS but from the shark's point of view. it describes how due to its massive unnatural size, the shark couldn't subsist in its natural feeding grounds of South Africa. she (yes, "Bruce" is a she in my novel) was forced to turn rogue looking for better food sources. it then tells how the shark finds a place with an ample food supply, but she's then hunted tirelessly by these murderous hateful beings who seek to kill her just for following her natural instincts to hunt and eat.
she just can't understand why these beings are so bent on hunting her down and killing her, when all she just wants to be left alone to "swim and eat and make little sharks".
finally she grows exhausted from being pursued night and day, and she succumbs to exhaustion and injuries. she tries to eliminate her hunters, but the final hunter manages to throw something into her mouth, and while she's making a last desperate attempt to get this thing out of her mouth and do away with her attacker, she explodes. story over.
"Jaws: Zero" is my take on how people claim to desire peace with animals and preserve the planet...but the moment someone is threatened, animals and nature become vile enemies that must be destroyed. it's my way of pointing out human hypocrisy, and how intent we are on killing creatures that are doing nothing but living out their basic animal instincts to survive. yet we brand them as "killers" and "man-eaters", as if their actions are somehow evil and intentional....while at the same time glorifying serial killers and mass murderers and violence in our own society, awarding fame, recognition, and awards to those who use violence as a means to creative ends.
of course it'll never get published because i don't own the rights to JAWS, but hey, it's 185 pages of fun and good times and a new perspective on the old "monster movie" version of the story, and i had a lot of fun writing it ;)
Question: Does this have literally _anything_ to do with the video, or are you just promoting your novel?
The TV reporter in "Jaws" is played by the novelist, Peter Benchley, and not the screenwriter. Screenwriter Carl Gottlieb plays one of the Amity residents.
Just finished reading Jaws (never watched the movie), and I'm interested in re-watching this video again.
I love this duo, don't ever change them
One of the bigger differences that I know of is the actual size of the shark, I heard that in the book the shark was about 35 to 40 feet long.
I actually didn't know that Jaws was a book. This is the first time that's happened to me since I was in middle school.
It was a book but it wasnt good at all.
@@ethankleinman1067 Yeah, I actually found it and read it, wasn't really impressed. I love the movie forever tho
01:44 H20Delirious 2014 - Look at this shark eating a cheeseburger.
The sub plot of "working class Quinn" and "upper class Hooper" growing a respect for eachother throughout the voyage was so much better than that afair shit.
Very late to the show, I know, but The tv reporter you showed is actually Peter Benchley who wrote the book. Carl Gottlieb is in the movie, but that isn't him. He's in several scenes with the mayor and townspeople.
I recall the first time I read the book how disappointed I was that they returned at night from shark hunting. It's so much better having them out on the boat at night.
I think both the book and film are good in their own rights.
And I'm glad that Benchley had a say in the film's writing. More often than not, a film adaptation works so much more when the writer of the original source material has a hand in writing the screenplay, since it basically has the author's stamp of approval on it and it allows for the author to make alterations that he or she feels can make the story better in the adaptation.
And, of course, Spielberg's Jurassic Park would have the same benefit years later with Michael Crichton co-writing that film's screenplay. :)
best Jaws fanficiton? Bigger Jaws by Peter Griffin
Bob Miplace oh that gives ours a run for our money
You just HAD to add the quint scratching the chalkboard scene huh
hahaha I love it! I can tell you guys had so much fun with this one.
Peter Parker thanks peter!
CineFix
Think about my suggestion of "Old boy"!
Peter Parker oh that's def on the list!
4:45 If book Quint only cares about getting the best prey then he's not like Captain Ahab at all.
I thought the book was okay, easy reading. The movie though, a masterpiece
I'm 50/50 on which was better. Robert Shaw really elevated Quint. On the other hand, the lack of motive for the mayor really made that character ridiculous in the movie. I loved the movie when I first saw it - because I was a child. Revisiting it, well, only Robert Shaw's performance triggers my awe.
Heather Spoonheim Thank God Sterling Hayden turned down the role, he had been Spielberg's original choice for Quint after Lee Marvin. Shaw wrote most of the Indianapolis monologue himself.
The mayor had enough motivation in the movie. The town made a lot of money from summer time, so he didn't want to close down the beach and lose all that money, especially since hunters had already killed a shark that was in the waters, so it seemed the threat was over. That is motivation enough in of itself. The Mafia subplot is just un-necessary, and pretty much a waste of time.
6:58 - so he disliked the change, but in the other ten things about the movie he liked the change. Got it.
Excellent video, except for two boo-boos: Hooper and Mrs, Brody only have ONE assignation, and I'm not sure that they did more than simply FANTASIZE about having an affair. Second, the harpoons are attached to the barrels in the novel, as well.
They left out the part that Brody and Hooper always got along great and enjoyed each other's company (in the film) - probably because they had to go through the same struggles, were on the same page, and dealt with the same adversaries (the mayor, the shark, and to some extent Quint); but it never turned into the early hippie-gay-porn that they mentioned in the last part of the clip. I wonder what the name of the porn would be?
They left out the part about Hooper’s death. The shark surfaced with Hooper in it’s mouth. Brody fires a shot from quint’s m1 Rifle and the shot hits hooper in the neck.
Well Hopper was already dead in the sharks mouth before quint shot him.
Have you done this yet for the Halloween movie/book? I've always wanted to read the book....
Felicia Haughn Halloween is not based on a book
They change the dead of Hooper because they had some really good footage of the shark destroying the cage.
The reporter shown was played by Jaws author Peter Benchley and not Carl Gottlieb.
The Movie was better.
All the mafia stuff actually might have made for a more in-depth story...if it wasn't for the completely unlikable characters
No, it would have made for a lousy movie. The story is about a killer shark terrorizing a town. Anything that distracts from that central theme is wasted. The movie focused on that, and kept the story tight, and the suspense high.
I think the changes from the book to the movie were definitely for the best. While the novel was good and well written, the subplots of the Hooper-Ellen affair and the mafia were distracting. The ending of the book was a letdown as well. While it might have been more plausible, the high-tension ending just wasn't there. The movie also seemed to have more tension to it than the book. In the movie when the story is on land, you're constantly wondering how they're going to keep people safe and what is going to happen next. In the book there was the unnecessary drama of the affair and mob stuff.
I didn't read the book until maybe 15 years later. I thought "this was a mega-best seller for 40 weeks?" Geez, literary tastes sucked in the early '70s. IIRC Benchley wrote a sequel to Jaws that bombed, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
4:33 - That's not Carl Gottlieb, that's Peter Benchley who wrote the novel.
Do What's the Difference between the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea book and 1954 film.
When mentioning that Carl Gottlieb portrayed Harry Meadows, why do you show Peter Benchley portraying a nameless television reporter?
Spot on. I was SO disappointed in the book. Thank God for Spielberg, and thank God for rewrites!
If it weren't for Jaws then we wouldn't have Sharknado.
I saw the movie as a kid, then years later read the book. Surprised how different it was. Movie way better
I wish they kept the Meadows character, I enjoyed the character..the Hooper/Ellen side story dragged IMO, kudos to the screenplay writers for fine tuning the story
Bruce death book: 👎
Bruce death movie: 👍
In a twist of irony, Peter Benchley was horrified when he saw the negative impact the film adaptation had, and said he'd never have written the book had he known what sharks were actually like at the time. He wrote a number of other books trying to correct the misconceptions about sharks that he'd help spread, even going so far as to harshly criticize his own bestseller.
Holy shit :/
Bit of a sook. Just a movie. Besides, it’s a known fact that a shark can and will eat you.
ridge meister
Except sharks don't eat humans.
Do you really want to believe that? There was one known case where a Great White had chopped someone in half and had returned to eat the other half. Then there's the USS Indianapolis where hundreds were attacked and eaten by sharks. These big sharks just don't attack many humans because they prefer higher fatty foods like seals and whales but I guess if a shark is hungry enough they'd eat anything to survive.
John Cornell however sharks for the most part do not attack humans keep in mind also that every different shark has a different personality and behavior there not all just the same thing.
I'm so glad they didn't have the wife cheat in the movie. It would have been awful.
+Tandy p That was literally a subplot for half the book. Probably the biggest disappointment I've ever read, and the biggest of kudos to Carl Gottlieb and John Milius for making so much out of what is basically pulp.
For me, the affair subplot lead to one of the funniest scenes in the novel when Brody confronted Hooper and Hooper lied about being with Daisy Wicker. And Brody went: Daisy Wicker is a goddamn LESBIAN! What were you two doing, KNITTING???!!!
And the whole subplot gets pretty "in detail" if you know what I mean. For a while I thought to myself. "Jeez am I reading jaws or am erotic fan fiction."
Spielberg is way too clean and prude for such scenes.
Tittyana Nothing wrong with nudity and sex, violence is what we can do without more.
Not gonna lie the book ending feels way more horrifying than the films Action climax. Imagine a shark that has tore through everyone in your crew heading right for you and all you can see is it’s fin, you know it’s the end and you know it’s gonna murder you viciously.
Then it starts slowing down and as soon as it gets to you, you see it’s just died from it’s wounds.
I would be crying in fear.
Agreed. I feel it's almost the better climax compared to the oxygen tank explosion seen in the film. Also the book has the shark still dragging Quint's body, and as the shark sinks into the deep, it drags Quint with it.
I thought the ending of the book was a huge let down.
Instead we get to cheer with joy and relief. A little over-the-top, but so satisfying.
torn not tore Fix it! Why would you lie?
you know the shark novel is shitty when the readers wanted the shark to win 😂👎
Big Kudos to Spielberg for fixing the plot in the movie
One big difference I noticed is during the scene where they discuss opening the beaches for the 4th.
In the book, Hooper sides with the mayor for opening the beaches.
In the film, He sides with Brody in keeping them closed. And it leads to one of, if not THE, greatest line delivery in the movie.
Larry: “I don’t think you’re familiar with our problems!”
Hooper: “Um, I THINK I am familiar with the fact that you are going to ignore this Particular Problem until it swims up And BITES YOU IN THE ASS!!”
Love to prove that woundnt you?
Get your name in the national geographic
Now wait a second wait a second!!! Now there are two ways you can handle this problem. You’re either going to kill this animal or you’re gonna cut off it’s food supplies
I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with a man who's lining up to be a hot lunch!
@@b2themc Mr. Vaughn, what we are dealing with here is a perfect engine, an eating machine. It's really a miracle of evolution. All this machine does is swim and eat and make little sharks. And that's all. Now why don't you take a long close look at this sign. Those proportions are correct.
@@patrickmccarthy3421
At least the movie is better than the book.
Jaws is a rare example of the film being better than the book itself.
Agreed, The Godfather is another one
+Philip Sheppard the godfather was a book?!
Annoying Nerd Yeah, but not a very good one
+Philip Sheppard oh, ok
I read the book in hi-school in the 80's but I don't remember the affair. I am glad the movie left that out.
I think that with both Jaws and Jurassic Park, Spielberg is an example of a director who brings a warmer, more sympathetic and meaningful Human Element to the stories he takes from... I read both Jaws and Jurassic Park as a child and I remember thinking the same thing... Benchley and Crichton both created fantastic stories, but it took Spielberg to breathe life into them which made them the cultural classics they are as films today!
@Mark Douglas The movie had a great build-up and some truly awe-inspiring moments with the dinosaurs. If the movie had stayed truer to the book the movie would have become way more cynical and less charming. It may have turned into a great movie all the same but it wouldn't have defined a generation like it did.
@@Psycho3418 The Jurassic Park movie still sucks
How do you read both as a child? Jaws was released in 1974 and JP in 1990. That's 16 years. Your comment is great but it makes no sense.
Cadet 74 Maybe he read them when they were both already out and he happened to be a child at the time of reading.
There’s also a little thing called the public library that would’ve likely had both books there at the time this person was a child
Jaws remains to be my favorite movie. The fact that the book had such unlikeable characters and an anticlimactic ending merely strengthens my love of the film.
yeah cause you saw the movie first and no the book, most people who read the book like the book more.
@@lampad4549 👏People👏are👏allowed👏to👏have👏different👏opinions👏than👏you👏
@@lampad4549o. Most people even after seeing the movie first like the book more idiot. Jaws the movie is better. You just a d rider for a Moby Dick rip off. Jaws the movie equals classic. Jaws the book equals trash
8.07: 'Spielberg, you'll never work again!' I wonder what fast-food restaurant that producer ended up at?
Became Jarred from Subway.
Unfortunately he founded miramax.
8:07
I love the exploding oxygen tank Theory, it would have been funny if the shark shot up into the air and whizzed around like in a Tom and Jerry cartoon.
Or Rodger Rabbit
HAHAHAHAHAHA ! I LIKE THAT IDEA !
Air tank, not oxygen tank.
It was compressed Co2 or oxygen which is the same thing as air. It's what we breath.
@@ghostchaser1631 We breathe air, which contains oxygen. Normal SCUBA diving is done with atmospheric air. (If we breathed _in_ Co2--we'd be dead. Just sayin'.
Hooper was actually supposed to be eaten in the film, just like in the book. The scene of the shark attacking the cage was to be intercut with footage of a real shark attacking a cage off the coast of Australia, courtesy of Ron and Valerie Taylor. The couple had been filming small sharks that necessitated using midget divers to give the appearance that the sharks were much bigger by contrast. However, just before filming the cage scene, the Taylors attracted a 20-foot Great White that went for bait and got tangled up in the line holding the cage to the side of the boat. It was excellent footage, except that there was no one in the cage at the time.
Spielberg had already filmed Hooper's scene when he got the Taylors' footage. He liked that footage so much that, instead of being disappointed that his scene was messed up, he changed the script so that Hooper survives.
Just found this video so sorry for so late of a reply, but I had too. (Jaws fanatic! Lol) its is amazing that such a movie with so so many issues is one of the best movies ever in Cinema History! This mishap is just one of many examples of how this was made into such a amazing movie!
You're cool :)
I honestly think that the movie would have been slightly less good if hooper had died and Quint had just drowned and the shark just randomly die. So GOOD JOB PRODUCERS!!!! The movie is better than the book!
Hooper had to die in the book because of what he got up to with Ellen. Hooper surviving in the film is just pure Hollywood.
@@stubones That was what I thought was the stupid part in the book. Hooper had lunch with Ellen as I think she wanted to find out about the old neighborhood and the life she thought she had missed out on. Why Hooper would lie about it was puzzling. Of course, I have never been a fan of the fiction trope about a stranger coming to help who turns out to be an old flame of one of the characters.
I remember reading the book in high school and was incredibly bored by it. And I agree with Mr Spielberg, halfway through the book I was definitely rooting for the shark.
you should do the actual events vs the movie
What do you mean by "actual events?" Do you mean like events in the book that are almost identical to the film or real life events that inspired the movie?
@@jacksprofessionalproductio9403 look up shark attacks of 1916 New Jersey
@@wampa81 yeah but theyve bounced back and forth if it was a Juvenile GWS or a Bullshark. It's honestly more characteristic of a Bull, but Juvenile GWS attack more people than large adults do, typically 7-13' GW Juveniles. I think in Jersey only 1 was eaten. Like most shark attacks, they fast loss of blood killed the victims.
@@wampa81 These were chronicled in the Michael Capuzzo book Close To Shore
@@robertzastrow4648 yeah exactly
Movie was better, hands down.
+wolfjedisamuel If you are brain damaged, maybe.
+OroborusFMA
Huh? Everyone with a brain knows the movie was much better. The movie Jaws is a cinema classic. The book Jaws is not a classic of literature.
+OroborusFMA oh burn
+Hope oh another burn
+OroborusFMA Watch out. We have a Kubrick/Gilliam fanboy here.
"Here's to swimmin' with bow-legged women!"
Excuse me chief.
'You've got city hands, Mr. Hooper'
I suspect that Steven Spielberg will be forever grateful that 'Bruce' the mechanical shark didn't work as well as it should. That meant he had to inject suspense into what would have turned into a bigger budgeted Tintorera.
I think that that's Peter Benchley at 4:33 actually...
Definitely. Funny that they haven't corrected themselves.
Definitely. Funny that they haven't corrected themselves.
it's Benchley for sure. not Gottlieb
Yes, it is Peter Benchley as the TV news reporter on the beach. Carl Gottlieb was the local reporter during the town hall meeting where he says he'll bury Mrs. Kintner's ad in the back of the paper.
Actually, you're right!! I love the part where dumb-ass mayor Vaughn says to the reporter, "Amity, as you know, means friendship"!!
better to be over due then rushed
Not if it costs lots of money
@@insertwittynamehere1411 as long as you make the money back there's no problem
That is true
The book sounds more of a Drama then a thriller
You haven’t read Christie’s death scene...
@@mightybitchy what happens
@@treycooper2036 is it really graphic and gruesome?
@@elijahtheprophet2202 yes. Dear god
@@clbarton21 Damn, is there anywhere I can read about that part of the book online? My bookstores don't have it in stock right now.
The USS Indianapolis scene is one of the greatest few minutes of film ive ever seen
One of those rare cases where the movie far exceeded the book. I remember as a kid being on a beach in Florida reading the novel when it first came out. It was scary, but then the next summer, my grandma took my sister and me to see the movie and I've never been back in the ocean since.
Me too Mary. My family was on vacation in Miami when I saw Jaws the first time and I haven't been in the ocean since even though I lived in Miami for a while. I went to the beach but not in the water. I like it at the top of the food chain.
I can't afford to go into the ocean as the Jews charge way too much for summer rental housing.
People laugh now when I mention how this movie still makes me scared to go into the ocean. They point to the dated special effects and shake their heads. However, it's never been the shark scenes that scared the crap out of me; it was the brilliant way (and yes, I know it was b/c of issues with Bruce) Spielberg filmed the scenes to show the shark without showing the shark. Because it's what's hinted at being under all that glassy water that has me shivering and keeping to the swimming pools.
5:26
It's Hooper who's outraged by Quint using the baby porpoise as prize bait. Brody pretty much doesn't give a shit, as he's too busy revelling in schadenfreude.
Actually, Meadows was played by Carl Gottlieb who was also one of the screenwriters for the film. He did initially have a bigger part in the film but it was cut down significantly because it did not add much to the plot and slowed down the pacing. Poor guy had to virtually write himself out of the picture. Peter Benchley had a cameo as an unnamed TV interviewer.
I know one of the reasons that Hooper lived. They were filming real shark footage for the movie in Australia and one of the sharks got tangled in the mini cage that was in the water and he struggled like crazy to get free. The only problem was the cage was empty when the footage was captured, so they changed the script so Hooper could live and use the impactful footage in the film
That's interesting
Star Child also a test audience hated that scene people wanted Hoover to live
And I’m glad it happened too. In the book you don’t care for any of the characters (not that you want them to die) but they feel more human in the movie and you want them to live because you DO care about them.
@Ned Kelly Ron and Valerie Taylor filmed all of the live shark footage in Australia. They filmed their cage footage using a half scale cage with a little person in it to give the appearance of a 25 foot shark while actually filming normal size Great Whites. The story of the little actor's fear and refusal to go back in the cage is well known.
You can find this info in any making of Jaws video, the best one being the one included on the Blu-ray or the 40th anniversary DVD.
@@jeffanders5263 They're credited at the end of the film as well.
I think I can see why the film doesn't include the Larry Vaughn/Mafia side story. It would have slowed the film down when we know what the more interesting story is.
Agreed, but it would have helped the second one A LOT!
They should have included it in one of the duller sequels.
It was originally planned to be the plot for the sequel with the shark stuff being more of a subplot. They started filming it and even featured the mafioso type NYC character that Ellen works for but they changed directors and just made it a teen slasher horror instead.
Everything they cut from the film was perfectly reasonable. They jettisoned all the subplots which weren't absolutely necessary to move the story forward.
yeah plus when he said "secret partners" i thought it was his ex and then oh wait its the mafia and what if he like dated the leader
Hey, Cinefix. Major error on your part. At 4:34 you're talking about Carl Gottlieb but the actor you show is Peter Benchley.
+07foxmulder I thought it was only me who noticed it.
+07foxmulder You're right. It was Peter Benchley.
I also remember Hooper being the one outraged over the baby dolphins, not Brody.
Peter Benchley, I can confirm.
That's right!! The Jaws movie credits clearly list "Jaws" writer Peter Benchley as "The Reporter"!!
3:20
Ellen and Hooper only have the one fling at the motel in the book. Granted, they do it twice, but it's the same session.
Exactly.
_SHE STILL CHEATED ON HER HUSBAND, AND THAT'S NOT OKAY. IT DOESN'T MATTER _*_HOW_*_ MUCH SHE HATED HIM, IT'S STILL NOT OKAY._
I do think that Jaws is the best example of what a book to film movie should be making it better than the book not trying to recreate it
too bad it failed, it reduced all the characters complexities.
@@lampad4549 Yeah, no, movie had more interesting and _likeable_ characters than the cardboard cutouts of the book.
@@lampad4549objectively incorrect statement unfortunately
I'm glad Jaws didn't shy away from killing a kid. It seems like they can never die in movies.
+Spartan Operater
And a dog too.
Karl Karlos dog didn’t die cuz there was a deleted scene of the dog running out of the water and also the people would have noticed the dog getting ate
AHEM GO WATCH FRANKENSTEIN (1931) BEFORE YOU COMMENT THIS
@@Drw357 wait what? ten why did the original scene make it seem like it was eaten? the guy calls to his dog then all you see if the stick floating in the water with no dog.
Malonze Productions to toy with peoples minds I think
I actually really liked the book's ending. It smashes the hunters' hubris to pieces, and Brody is saved only by circumstance rather than his own actions. I feel like the book tells us that our mastery over the world is an illusion, whereas the film says the human spirit can overcome any adversity. Whilst these endings are at total odds with each other, I like them both a lot.
That being said, I watched the film first of course, so that theme tune was in my head during both endings xD
I for one would love to see you guys do a vid on Forrest Gump. I'm sure you'll could get at least 25 mins out of that one.
oh yeah, at LEAST!
I would love to see that too. I didn't even know it was a book until a year ago. Same with Jaws. There are soooo many movies based off of books.
Another super book waaay ruined by Hollywood.
I'm reading Gump and Co. right now.
I'm reading Gump and Co. right now.
I feel that this is one of these rare occurances when the movie is better than the book.
no its not, its just an occurances of you watching the movie first over the book.
@@lampad4549 Dude, let people love what they love. You need to calm down on hating the movie.
Another correction: In the book, the shark doesn't just suddently die of his wounds. Benchley makes much of the idea that a shark must be constantly in motion or it drowns. He takes it to be metaphorical of something. So he emphasizes that this is what kills the shark -- it stops.
Wow! If that's all accurate, I'll stick with the movie! Besides, Dreyfuss' performance in the movie is gold!
Now I would love to see a video on the difference(s) between the novel and cinematic versions of "Interview with a Vampire"!
gaelmist22 just started reading that one! :) though i'm a few eps ahead lol
CineFix Again, enjoy! One of those few books that made me feel as though I was right there with the characters! Holy sham wow! lol
Yup. We all love Dreyfuss in just about anything.
+gaelmist22 The entire movie did gel pretty well, and often words and phrases have a greater impact on READERS, but the action scenes are far more impressive to VIEWERS.
What are the differences between the Frank L Baum novel version, and the movie: The wizard of Oz? - Too many to mention!
+Arthur Cabral Starting with the racism, of course.
I was hooked(no pun) on Sharks right after that movie. One of the greatest movies ever. The father of the summer blockbuster.
Good book, great film, awesome soundtrack, spot on casting. Classic.
It's amazing when you realize how many classic movies were originally books
Jason Armstrong A lot of people are completely unaware that many of the movies they watch are adaptations. Whether it's a novel, a comic book, or a video game. The average movie-goer is so ignorant, it's not even funny.
SlasherIncorporated And then they complain that Hollywood has run out of original ideas even though everything your average movie-goer is complaining about (book-to-film adaptations, remakes, reboots, prequels, and sequels) has been in the film industry since the beginning. And of course they fail to realize that of the 100+ films released a year, the ones they're complaining about are in the minority. There's still a lot of original films being made today.
twmcgraw303 That's very true. It's quite ironic when people complain about Hollywood being out of ideas, when they've produced MANY films that were adaptations of something that already existed from the beginning and sequels/prequels. Reboots and remakes are perhaps more prevalent today, but they've been done before in the past. Honestly, though, there's no such thing as an original idea anymore. EVERYTHING has been done. All you can do at this point, is just put your own spin on an existing thing.
yep
i think you should do one for Christine. you have the killer shark done, so how about a killer car
second that
+Sailor Swifty and Cujo
+Sailor Swifty Love Halloween and The Thing but I have to say that Carpenter's 'Christine' was crap. Christine is one of my favorite King novels and the movie just killed the whole feel and tone that the book sets (especially the characters).
+guibox3 What did you think of "The Fog"?
peter krug
It has been probably over 35 years since I've seen it to be honest and I don't remember too much about it. I'll have to watch it again sometime.
Okay, in the book, the affair between Hooper and Brody's wife is just a one-time thing. She's all torn up by guilt afterwards. Also, Quint doesn't chop up baby dolphins. What it is, is an unborn baby dolphin that was pulled from a dead pregnant dolphin. (Also, Quint brutally kills a couple of blue sharks just for fun. (Really just not a likable dude at all in the book. Did I mention that he's bald?)) The part/scene with the barrels is totally in the book though, btw.
Also, didn't you mention in a separate video that the reporter in the movie is actually a cameo by the author, Peter Benchley? But in this one you're saying that it's the co-producer. What's up with that?
Not nitpicking out of spite or anything. I just read the book not too long ago and couldn't agree with you guys more about the movie being better.
One more thing: in the book, there's a slight subtext that the shark might actually be some kind of divine retribution sent to the town by God in order to punish the townsfolk for their sins. Personally, I'm not at all upset that they chose to leave that part out of the film.
Love the videos and keep up the good work guys!
>> One more thing: in the book, there's a slight subtext that the shark might actually be some kind of divine retribution sent to the town by God in order to punish the townsfolk for their sins.
That's really just the ravings of the elderly, slightly crazy postmistress. It does get discussed by other characters in the book because they are just bewildered by the appearance of the shark, but it's never taken seriously by anyone.
Yep I just finished the novel about 30 mins ago. I came here to say that exact thing.
@@flyboy152 they actually discussed that part in the trailer briefly. There was a part which said “It’s as if God created the devil and gave him, JAWS.” So while it isn’t fully religiously discussed it is briefly mentioned.
I think if they took a more environmental turn to the shark’s aspect, it would definitely be more interesting. The shark has probably witnessed its brothers and sisters get killed by humans for sport or by pollution, and out of despair it wants to make the humans wary of their actions.
That still doesn't make it okay. If it was Brody who cheated on Ellen _one time_ would you say the same thing, or will you be really pissed off at Brody?
One minor correction: this video says that Carl Gottlieb, the film's screenwriter, plays the bit part of Harry Meadows. Fine and dandy. He is credited that way. But the clip they show is of novelist Peter Benchley is credited as an "interviewer."
Hey guys, nice video all the way through, but instead of showing Carl Gottlieb at 04:32, it is Peter Benchley, the writer of Jaws.
Carl Gottlieb is the man standing behind the Mayor at 03:52.
These are fantastic
Please do one on A Clockwork Orange
McMagic15 It's a preety faithful adaptation. There are not many differences between the novel and the film.
Agustín Magallanes SPOILER!*********
Well there is the ending, Alex getting tired of being a Droog, and becoming a father, raising a son and worrying about the effects of violence on his child when he gets older is a key difference between the novel and the film.
And as I recall both Anthony Burgess and Stanley Kubrick had somewhat different takes on Alex as a character.
cha5 I think Burguess himself said it was not Kubrick's fault, as the American edition of ACO lacked the true final chapter.
Agustín Magallanes No. Kubrick knew of the ending (albeit after he wrote the script, but that doesn't matter because he was known to rewrite scenes the day they were to be shot) but ignored it because he thought it was unrealistic. I do too, so Kubrick made the correct decision.
cha5 I read that Kubrick based his film on a version of the book with the last chapter missing, can't say I can verify that one though.
Great vid but when you mentioned Gotlieb you showed Benchley.
Having just finished the book yesterday, I have to say the part about Brody seeing the corpse of Quint dangling in the twilight sun underwater would’ve made a haunting shot if they’d decided to make it that way. Not that I would change the getting eaten alive moment if I had a choice; that’s a raw and gut-wrenching scene done so damn well. Just reading Quint's dialogue in the book made me cringe with how un-Robert Shaw it sounded. Thank goodness the movie made him a consistently deranged eccentric with that Indianapolis backstory. Jaws for life.