Jaws - What’s the Difference? 

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.

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.

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

@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

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.

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.

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.

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

It’s sad the book has more details then the movie

Became Jarred from Subway.

Unfortunately he founded miramax.

8:07

+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.

Excuse me chief.

'You've got city hands, Mr. Hooper'

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'.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

+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.

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

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"!!

Not if it costs lots of money

@@insertwittynamehere1411 as long as you make the money back there's no problem

That is true

+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

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.

:)

Yes do American Psycho!

Done and done

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.

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._

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.

Right. The mistake in this video is when they talk about the character played by Carl Gottlieb they show a different character (a TV reporter) played by Peter Benchley.

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.

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.

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.

I met Roy Schieder at a restaurant (Pinks Hot dogs) I asked fora selfie and if he could say Smile u sonabitch ! he said Sorry i dont cuss : (

Jaws in one of my favorite movies, second only to Anaconda

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

+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"!!

Yes, Beast was a terrifying read and the 2 part mini series was not good.

+SharkBytes Apps Bourne Identity was the same. The movie was far better. it feels horrible to say things like that.

+Nunziohotpants Don't be It is the exception to the rule that the book is always better than the movie.

Before actually seeing the movie, I read the book first. While it was a good read, I didn't understand what all the fuss was about! Years later, I finally saw it on television and was blown away! And this was the edited for T.V. version at that!

get the directors cut on streaming or rent from your local library. The impact of uninterrupted suspense is amazing

Listened to the audiobook version once, it was something of a slog. Benchley kept writing long, boring descriptions of utterly mundane things, like the noir novel based fantasies of the police officer on the night shift, or the way Brody makes a disappointing sandwich with some leftover brisket. Or, worst of all, the drawn out way that Ellen goes about getting ready for her fling with Hooper. Seriously, he doesn't seem to skip a thing in that sequence, it's ridiculous.

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.

The Thought Criminal yes, I too loved the friendship between Brody and Hooper, and love how Quint was portrayed.. like the book but more personality. Thou not as tough and sarcastic, Brody was still a good likable character. Hooper’s character in the movie was both cool and smart, unlike his book counterpart which was a spoiled rich-kid college boy that talked a great deal, was annoying af, yet with all his learning still had no substance, and was egotistical and arrogant as all Hell. But I regret Meadows character in the movie.. so short and so unimportant! And the close friendship Meadows and Brody had in the book.. gone too! That’s the only part I hate about the film, what they did to Meadows.

The actor who played Mrs Kintner died a few months ago from coronavirus complications. She was in a high-risk group.

@@fbnflaviusbroadcastingnetw6786 I agree that Meadows was underused, but one thing I did like about Jaws 2 was you can tell the Meadows didn't want to "fire" Brody about the shooting on the beach.

@@fbnflaviusbroadcastingnetw6786 One more thing about Meadows and adaptations: in the case of a monster thriller like _Jaws,_ less is more. The decision to streamline the novel and get rid of anything not directly related to the shark-along with redundant characters-was undeniably wise. It’s all a question of time, structure and proportion. By creating a friendship between Brody and Meadows in the movie, you unwisely add time to a redundant theme and ruin the proportions. Meadows is in league with the mayor. He stands politically and physically against Brody on the ferry where the town fathers isolate the chief, driving him further and further towards the edge of the frame visually-they are making their case that Brody doesn’t speak for the town, doesn’t know what is best for the town and that he was outnumbered. It’s a gorgeous sequence that reduces pages and pages of Benchley’s novel into one single shot. It tells us everything we need to know. If Meadows was a close friend of Brody’s, what would that accomplish as part of a movie adaptation? So let’s add a friendship between Brody and Meadows. That would have to be established prior to or during the tense ferry sequence when Brody learns his place as Chief of Police. So Meadows is established as a friend...only to take sides against him? Or would you change Meadows’ decision from the novel, having him side with Brody against the mayor and publish the story of the attack? That compromises two things: It gives Brody a powerful alliance. If the editor of the town paper is on your side, that’s a good thing. In fact, in this case, I can’t think of a better friend to have! But clearly, this ruins the theme and proportion of Brody’s arc. We are supposed to sympathize with him. What is the _very_ next scene after the ferry confrontation? That’s right-Alex Kintner’s death. The boy is taken practically a dozen or so yards away from Brody on the beach. And who is between the shark and Brody? Also right-his kids, the town’s kids. Now we have the makings of a pleasant tragedy. Brody capitulated to more powerful people who claimed they knew more and knew better. He was alone. If you put Meadows on his side, Brody’s acceptance of the mayor, et al’s decision is _less_ sympathetic. And if you make Meadows a close friend, then Hooper’s role in the movie would be redundant if you didn’t alter it and awkward, maybe just plain bad, if you did. Brody and Hooper’s friendship is one of the best parts of the movie, one of the best departures from the novel. It’s special because it is the only real alliance and friendship Brody has in the movie. It also carries right through to the end. If they did make Meadows a close friend, too, it would have to be dropped when they got to sea. Instead, the plot focuses attention on these two men, their growing friendship, and then all the adventure, tension and horror they undergo together in the second half of the movie. The movie comes full circle when Hooper disappears (Brody is certain he is dead) and then Quint is eaten-Brody is left to confront the shark, alone. There are no other options. He must make his last stand and probably die, or do nothing and surely die. The movie is so natural but its plot has been constructed like Mattey’s mechanical monsters. To see how ingenious and well-thought it is, you need only change one or two basic elements to see it fall apart and become something inferior.

@@darkprose I disagree, one of the things the film did compared to the novel, is it humanized the characters and made them more likeable. You can even sympathize with Meadows about his protection of the town. In the case of the novels you have him meddling in organized crime, which was interesting, and you had Hooper screwing Brody's wife....very nihilistic behavior...it made the characters unlikable, I didn't even really like Brody in the novel. Benchley was trying to make the novel more interesting, but the characters come off as "scummy" more than anything. Mind you, I haven't read the novel in over twenty years and I was young and very opinionated....oh wait, I still am, but I am also a little more sympatric. I've always been drawn toward more stoic and inspirational characters, rather then overly flawed characters. I like Brody in the film because he discovers the type of man he truly is, and he doesn't like what he sees and he works to change it. After being slapped by Mrs.Kintner, Brody changes as a character, he begins challenging himself and fighting back against the shark and the bureaucratic of the town. In the novels, he spends more time dealing with Hooper and his wife's infidelity...that's the part I remember more than anything, including the shark...it's distracting as a subplot.

forgetta bout it

Richard Dreyfuss and Robert Shaw--ooh la la LA!.....not.

Demonetization: HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHM

if you read the book first you would feel disrespected.

@@lampad4549 Oh no, not someone- *gasps* -liking a movie you hate! Someone call the police.

This is probably the most popular misconception about any movie, ever. The sharks took a long time to troubleshoot in the Vineyard waters. Characterization and dialogue may have benefited from these delays. But the shark attack and action sequences were conceptualized and decided on prior to the production arriving on the island-that includes the use of the shark’s POV and the gradual revelation of the monster. These were not invented ad hoc to make up for disappointing effects. The sharks Mattey and Alves and their crew built and operated were, and remain, the most ambitious series of movie effects ever attempted. Spielberg (eventually) got all the shark footage he wanted. _That’s_ why troubleshooting the sharks and their performance _delayed_ production-Spielberg and Alves just wouldn’t compromise and the effects team was resolved not to disappoint them. The truism you quote is backwards in the case of _Jaws:_ Spielberg, et al’s unyielding inspiration caused the entire crew’s desperation to finish the movie.

Before you ask how I dare to contradict Spielberg and the producers (but not Alves or Bill Butler), I ask you to consider this observation by Carl Gottlieb and the 2001 edition of his book: “Over the years, _Jaws_ has attracted fanatic fans, fierce critics, and more than its share of rumor and conjecture. Journalists recycle old and inaccurate material, participants suffer from selective memories... The information available is still fragmentary and occasionally contradictory.” This is a true description of the popular folklore you have passed on without question.

@@darkprose Huh. I was unaware of this. Thank you for your insight. Also, just so you are aware. Your messages sound somewhat hostile. Please try to be more aware of that next time you reply to someone's comments. Have a nice day.

@@TheOtherSideoftheLookingGlass To add to what has already been said, the beach scenes were designed to keep the shark hidden. They were only a few days behind filming schedule when they moved out to sea. The sharks were meant to be used and shown more for the Orca based scenes but not for the beach scenes. Cheers.

@@lyndoncmp5751 Okay.

Something like that might be cooking.

CineFix omg yes

Just play the entire movie.

VERY few differences between book and film, the film followed the comic almost to a T, it just omitted a few things here and there, and made a slight change to the ending.

A thousand times yeessss

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

>> 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?

Yep. I view the book as almost like a Noir or a thriller where the killer happens to be a shark. I think that the movie is better, but it's not like the book is shit. I have read worse books that get more love.

yeah, we'll definitely have to do those in parts!!!

Please do Watchmen!!

+CineFix do you guys think you could do a clockwork orange?

he killed baby dolphins 😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😟😟😟😡😟😟😟😟😟😟😖😖😖😖😖😖😖😖😖😖😖😖😖😖😖😖😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😾😾😾😾😾😾😾😾🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀

+Adam Miller 😅😂😈😇😩😨

+Adam Miller 😰😩😨😧

Yeah I noticed this too! But Carl Gottlieb was also in the film near the beginning on the car ferry.

Yeah - Carl Gottlieb played Meadows in the movie; Peter Benchley was just a random reporter there as nothing more than a cameo.

Yeah, all poor Brody has to show is his appendix scar!!

THANK YOU!!

Same.

Garzanberg nice!

You read my mind.

+Flo-Ryan Honestly, very little. The movie stayed pretty true to the novel.

+07foxmulder The Watchmen movie and graphic novel had very little differences but CineFix still managed to make a video about that

Anthony Hopkins version of Hannibal is the most accurate to the book, storyline wise. There are still few differences, such as changing the wordplay "Billy Rubin" to "Louis Friend" and the fact that Hannibal sent a letter to Clarice in the book ending instead of gave a phone call.