Talk:Jaws (film)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Desilet, Gregory (2005). "The Creature Feature: Jaws versus Moby Dick". Our Faith in Evil: Melodrama and the Effects of Entertainment Violence. McFarland. pp. 306–309. ISBN 078642348X. 

Unclear?

"More than a few times the sea-sled model would get caught in the seaweed forests prompting effects divers to search for the lost shark, scaring a few in the process.[6]"

Scaring what/who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.44.133 (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Improvised scene?

I've often heard that the scene in the boat's cabin, where Shaw shows off to Dreyfuss, was largely or entirely improvised. If anyone has verification of this, it would be a great addition to the production section. Barnabypage 01:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC) its not improvised, the uss indianapolis monologue is in the novel. Janemansfield74 04:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the scar trade scenes. I'll contact Carl Gottlieb, and see if I can get a definitive answer. Fred-stine 10:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that is just a legend, the boat cabin scene was written as just good writing that was part of the screenplay.--68.51.72.144 (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The only improvised part in that scene was when Shaw suggested to Spielberg if he would be able to show his missing tooth that was covered by a protective nub, I heard Spielberg say it on the Jaws 30th anniversary DVD. (Esb94) 18:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge reco for Orca (Jaws boat)

It has also been suggested that article Orca (Jaws boat) be merged with the parent's production section. I have to disagree with this proposal. For example, the existance of article Quint (Jaws character) alone validates the existance of Orca (Jaws boat) as a stand alone piece. In fact there are several sub-articles existing including Amity Island. The extent of detail involved in the history of Orca (Jaws boat) would deviate from the generalization of parent article and it's purpose were it merged. Furthermore, it can be argued to a degree that the "ORCA" is a character in the film in so much as Quint is. Deleting or merging this article without a substantiated rationale would appear to be incorrect. So far the validity of my rationale has still not yet been logically argued. Therefore, I steadfastly disagree with any merge.

I also will do everything in my ability (time allowing) to further strengthen the article so that it will meet requisite criteria. I appreciate any feedback and suggestions in doing so (as I'm still a newbie) and encourage additions and edits that improve upon said article. I firmly believe this article deserves to be a stand alone piece subjugated to parent article being that it would deviate from the general purpose of parent article (the film itelf) were it merged.Fred-stine 10:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, definitely, merge. There's no need whatsoever for a separate article about the boat. Vidor 07:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vidor. Also, be cautious that contacting Mr Gottlieb would be inadequate for a Wikipedia article as it would violate WP:OR. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Vidors statement lacks any substantiating merit. There are several sub-articles existing with like or lesser significance by comparison. Amity Island is one. Alternately, the boat in of itself (Orca (Jaws boat)) has already been established as a cultural icon by way of English phraseology "We're gonna need a bigger boat". Throughout Wikipedia, there are articles about films such as Batman which maintain sub-articles focusing on the vehicle(s). See batmobile. Case in point, Planet of the Apes as a parent article, points to a sub-article Icarus. This spacecraft was featured in the film for a mere brief opening sequence, yet 'ORCA' is a primary core set piece and figures into better than one third of the film. Without a defining arguement, it is my sincere opinion that precendent points clearly to this article remaining as a stand alone piece.

JPS, thanks for pointing out WP:OR but I was going to contact Gottlieb to answer the preceding question for the individual asking here in talk, rather than directly add any answer gained to the production section. None the less, I would assume that would be the same as heresay. Alternately, There is a published article whereby Gottlieb answers that specific question for an interview done by Bill Baer. Page 56/57, May/June 2001 issue of Creative Scriptwriting, Volume 8, Number 3. Fred-stine 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: Apprently the merge issue is still under discussion, that's good. If this issue is discussed here, the talk page for Talk:Orca_(Jaws_boat) should include an indication as well, since there may be other interested parties who may not see the discussion on this page (thanks to User:The JPS for steering me to this page). Also note, there are several articles already listed under Category:Fictional ships, an established WP category applicable to Orca. (See Talk:Orca_(Jaws_boat) for more details and additional points). Regards. dr.ef.tymac 15:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this, and thanks to JPS for steering you here. Category:Fictional ships, certainly appears relevant.Fred-stine 11:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So, is this discussion still ongoing or is the issue decided? There hasn't been an edit or post on this issue or the Orca article itself for nearly a month. Personally, I don't think the Orca article should exist (neither should Amity Island, or Quint) and that it should it be deleted, but my mind is still open, although the article does contain some useful information that could be merged into this article.--Mjolnir78 00:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Although no one seems to be responding, I'll still add my two cents on this. I think the Orca article should be deleted; really, the boat has next to no significance outside of the film. It's just a set! To argue against Fred-Stine's reasons, I also believe Amity Island and Quint (Jaws character) articles should be deleted as well. Also, the Batmobile is definitely significant enough to have its own article: it has many appearances in comic books, films, and TV series relating to Batman. As for the Icarus article, you seem to overlook the fact that the article covers the ship's appearances in all of the Planet of the Apes films, not just one. Plus, the Orca is not an important part of English phraseology; it does not make any difference in the line "We're gonna need a bigger boat". The boat could have been called The Flying Pink Unicorn, and the line would not change in meaning at all. However, it seems you've added some interesting and relevant information with references to the article, and I complement you on your work. This information could easily be incorporated into the Jaws article here. Anyway, I doubt if anyone is still paying attention to this, but there ya go. If no one responds or at least objects in a week, I'm going to remove the merge tag, merge the relevant information to the article, and put up Orca for deletion.--Dark Kubrick 00:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Legendary Ranger has merged the article into Jaws, but I was thinking that some of the article goes into Production, and the rest is removed. The information should also have references, which I would be glad to make up myself if someone tells me what information came from what source. Until then, I've removed the text, which can be easily regained using the history tab (I thought of putting it here, but it's too big.)--Dark Kubrick 18:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

After a long lull of no responses to my previous arguement I assumed the merge had become a pointless debate as logic had clearly prevailed with the group consensus. I also was on vacation and didn't see the latest replies. To reiterate my opinion within the context of fact, the Orca, is very much significant outside the film, and while the line "We're gonna need a bigger boat" does not specifically reference ORCA it does refer to THAT specific boat in the publics perception if for no other reason this is not derived from merely a literary work but a visual representation where no mistake can be made as to what the Orca is or appears as. Conversely, The 'icarus' changed appearance significantly in the three sequels it was briefly featured in (due to a time travel disruptions?) much like Marty's time machine in the BTTF series. Which notably also has separate pages dedicated to it ( see: De Lorean DMC-12 and a homemade time machine ). Whereas the ORCA was featured in a JAWS sequel and was meant to be THE same craft. To make sure the audience knew it was the same boat, a closeup in the film reading 'ORCA' is clearly visible. Orca, has also been seen in several Televison shows including the feature film 'The nude bomb' and is talked about in great length by Steven Spielberg in the upcoming documentry 'The shark is still working'. One story he tells describes his many solo trips to the boat to meditate while it was still on the back lot. To say the ORCA is just a set (quoting you) "It's just a set!" is by far undervaluing its significance and in any case helps further strengthen my arguement by virtue of the fact everything in Planet of the apes WAS a set based on a science fiction concept. The Orca however was built over a real boat (warlock) and continued to be used as a real boat for some time after the production wrapped.

I'll repost the case in point made by JPS in case anyone missed it. Unless a substantiated oposing arguement is posted, I'll maintain that JPS has made the case for a non-merge and maintain the page deserves a permanent non-merge. (see below)

Unfortunately, Vidors statement lacks any substantiating merit. There are several sub-articles existing with like or lesser significance by comparison. Amity Island is one. Alternately, the boat in of itself (Orca (Jaws boat)) has already been established as a cultural icon by way of English phraseology "We're gonna need a bigger boat". Throughout Wikipedia, there are articles about films such as Batman which maintain sub-articles focusing on the vehicle(s). See batmobile. Case in point, Planet of the Apes as a parent article, points to a sub-article Icarus. This spacecraft was featured in the film for a mere brief opening sequence, yet 'ORCA' is a primary core set piece and figures into better than one third of the film. Without a defining arguement, it is my sincere opinion that precendent points clearly to this article remaining as a stand alone piece.

In short, I really never imagined Orca (Jaws boat) would aquire this much controversy. On a side note, if anyone wants to see a page that actually deserves to be scrutinized and desirous of a merge, see this one:

Cruel Jaws

Why it has been allowed to remain unmerged to for over a year without scrutiny makes one wonder...

Plot pruning

Recent editors have suggested the plot summary subhead is too long. Geoduck made some changes in good faith, but one of those changes in the opening paragraph changes the plot description significantly enough to make it incorrect. Specifically, the reason why Brody decided to close the beach. The edited section read:

Assuming it was a shark attack, Brody prepares to close the beach, but he is intercepted and overruled by town mayor Larry Vaughn (Hamilton).

The previous version read:

The town's medical examiner tells Brody that it was a shark attack, prompting Brody to close the beach.

In the film, Brody is typing the death certificate in his office. Polly, his receptionist, answers the phone for him and tells Brody it is the medical examiner. Brody takes the call, and fills in the form's "Cause of Death" field based on what he's hearing on the phone call: "shark attack". This is when he then rushes to the store to get the paint and supplies for the Beach Closed signs he wants made.

Brody did not assume it was a shark attack; he was told it was. Later, when Mayor Vaughn and the others talk to Brody on the ferry and the examiner says it was a boating accident, Brody expresses surprise and says (paraphrased) "That's not what you told me on the phone!".

I did revert it back to the original form, while leaving the rest of the pruning. Although I did unintentionally revert some other good edits by this editor, so I will put those back. In future, we should all be careful with such edits, as it's possible to change the entire context if we're not paying attention.

McDoobAU93 21:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Show Me the Way to Go Home

Anyone forget to mention this is one movie that brought this song back into notice? Zchris87v 01:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Did it? It may have been in the film, but was its impact worthy of a mention? Do you have reliable sources? The JPS^{talk to me} 09:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Amityisland.net

Why is this link being removed all the time? What does Hu12 have against the site? Can another admin help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostshark (talk • contribs) 12:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote amityisland.net. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Lostshark and IP's 60.234.215.101, 86.146.6.106, 58.108.161.195, 81.151.117.95, 86.151.253.216, consist entirely of adding external links to amityisland.net and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be amityisland.net related only. Please do not create articles or continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia. It has become apparent that your account and IP's are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see the welcome page Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote amityisland.net right? --Hu12 (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes like you said on your talk page, but can I have another admin's view on this as it's not only been me putting this link back. Seeing as the link was put up like a year ago something you can't just get rid of it now because it's on other relevant articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostshark (talk • contribs) 16:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed this. You say others placed the link - indeed they did but only IPs recently and that placement was about the sum total of their contributions so that is not persuasive. The link has been removed by users other than Hu12, that is more persuasive. Finally I am the admin who added the site to the blacklist so I guess you have had your requested "other" opinion, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok well I still think there is something dodgey about this, it is blatently NOT spam. Spam is when you link with unrelevant sites, my amityisland.net was relevant to all articles. You classed it as spam because one admin deleted it becuase he/she has something against the site and then it kept getting reposted. It's unfair and not going by the rules Lostshark (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway there is no way that you can say all my contributions have been amityisland.net related because they haven't. I haven't always signned in with this user to edit articles. This is a great example of admins buddying up together. If this wasn't an American website it would be democratic (democracy works by the way). Lostshark (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

OR

The influences section needs stronger sourcing, specifically a source for the assertion of aresemblance to the Ibsen play. Otto4711 17:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mechashark.JPG

Image:Mechashark.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Brody

I vote to leave the picture of Brody in the article since he was the star of the first 2 movies, the only main star form the first to be in the second and it's the role that made Scheider famous Dr. Stantz (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess part of the motivation to have this picture is sentimental, considering the sad news. Trouble is, that non-free image does not enhance understanding the article. Therefore it does not qualify as fair use. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Alientraveller (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Quint hardware store scene?

The scene where Quint is at the store buying piano wire and annoying that kid. I have a VHS print of the movie, and I could swear this isn't in it. When AMC (yuck) plays the movie, its there. AMC was the first place I saw it, as I recall. Anybody else noticed this? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's Some Bad Hat, Harry

So yeah I see an animated parody of this as the production company bumper at the end of some sitcom currently running on TV. What was that? It ought to be mentioned in the article. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's Bryan Singer's production company. —Wildroot (talk) 18

24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Poster

User:EclipseSSD has replaced the poster. I'm not sure why he's done that, so I haven't reverted. I asked him a couple of days ago to at least copy the fair use rationale from the other file into this. (I could have done it, but I'd rather he'd do it himself so that he's aware of the implications of his actions.) I suspect the best option is to go back to the version that was there before. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• I replaced it because I thought it could do with a better quality poster, since it's a FA. And I did copy the fair-use rationale into the new image. --EclipseSSD (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ending

How, in all the differences from the novel mentioned, is the ending not on that list? I'm going to add it. Capeo (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That section will be removed shortly anyway. Some of it can be rewritten with real-world context. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Adaptations and have rewritten some of it within the production section to incorporate real-world context. It was very listy and not befitting a FA. In list form, it was trivial. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Film genre

Instead of multiple reverts, please discuss here why you feel horror film should/should not be included so that editors can come to a consensus. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Because this movie is a flat out horror film? Why do you think thriller should be the genre? There was no controversy over this until Lennox started to remove the horror citation, but he has changed genres all the time. Horror thriller is a sub-genre of both horror and thriller films. Horror films are movies that are meant to scare the audience. I would say that Jaws does just that. It might not scare you, but no movie can scare every viewer. --PlasmaTwa2 18:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd also like to add that I'm not the one who is technically changing the article; I am the one returning it to what it was before Lennox began to remove the horror part of the genre. You are not going to find any citations that say that jaws is mearly a thriller or horror film, so why not have both on there? Many other pages do. --PlasmaTwa2 18:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? The JPS^{talk to me} 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lennox has quoted IMDb as his source. The best source I have found is Rotten Tomatoes, which classifies Jaws as a horror/suspense. --PlasmaTwa2 22:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Are there any sources for either argument a little more substantial? For example, Halliwell's, Ebert, academic film books, etc.? IMDb is not a reliable source per FA standards, and Rotten Tomotoes doesn't particular impress me. Any books? The JPS^{talk to me} 18:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Halliwell (Film & Video Guide, 1998 edn.) calls it a "thriller".

On the other hand ed. Prince, The Horror Film (Rutgers UP 2004) implicitly treats it as horror (there is no sentence therein directly equivalent to saying "Jaws is a horror film" but it's clearly being taken as such in the contexts where it is referred to).

Is Jaws a horror film? Is The Silence of the Lambs? Yes. And they've elevated the genre. - George A. Romero, quoted in the British Film Institute journal Sight & Sound (Top Ten Poll 2002).

Jaws is a horror film'' - http://www.filmreference.com/Directors-Sc-St/Spielberg-Steven.html - article by Charles Derry, who I hadn't heard of but appears to be a legit film academic (http://www.geocities.com/charlesderry/pagenonf). Barnabypage (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Ebert calls it an action picture. I think the horror thriller that we have it classified is a good compromise? Lennox was the one to change it to that, and I don't object to it, so I think we should keep it like that. --PlasmaTwa2 21:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert this anymore. Lennox has gone back to reverting the changes, and he's not talking. If they can come to a conclusion on the Silence of the Lambs page, why can't we here? This is stupid, and I'm done arguing with him if he's not going to listen to anyone. --PlasmaTwa2 21:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If Jaws is a horror movie, Jurassic Park is a horror movie too, because instead of a shark it's a bunch of velociraptors. Horror is supernatural (the exorcist, the shining) or slasher (nightmare, jason). Jaws doesn't scare you, it thrills you. Tom Lennox (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a list of Wikipedia-acceptable genres? I would have thought it is pretty obviously a monster movie. Barnabypage (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We can go on like this forever. Please -- start citing sources. Tom, your last message sounds like original research. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've always been of the opinion that we could do without identifying the genre. Many times it is subjective, unless a film is specifically noted for being in a certain genre, and other times we have films with like 5 different genre's attached to them. I find that there is nothing wrong with just identifying a film like, "Jaws is a 1975 American film...".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, though the relevant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines does advise including genre - in which case horror thriller is probably as good as we're going to get. Alternatively, we could just be upfront about the issue: The film is variously seen as belonging to the horror and thriller genres. Barnabypage (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bounty on Jaws by Kinter

I think there is an error on the page. I think the boy's name is Alex Kitner, not Alex Smith, and the bounty placed on the shark is $3000 not $10.

Here is my suggestion:

A week later, a young boy named Alex Kitner is attacked and eaten by a shark while swimming off a crowded beach. Mrs. Kitner places a $3000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svogt (talk • contribs) 05:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. There were a few errors, thanks to some silly little kiddies. The JPS^{talk to me} 08:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Film genre, again

Why are we doing this again? It was agreed upon above that horror/thriller was a good compromise for the genre, so why do I have to revert edits changing it? --PlasmaTwa2 20:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Music

The following sentences is incomprehensible: "Others have stated that the music at first sounds like the creaking and groaning of a boat, and therefore is inaudible when it begins so that it never seems to start, but simply rises out of the sounds of the film." It sounds like a creaking boat but "therefore is inaudible"? What does that mean? It's also a run-on sentence. It was fixed in editing but the owner reverted to the previous poorly written version. If you don't want your article improved by copyediting, don't post it on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.179.209 (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Plot & Music too long

I am doing a group project for my english class.

In this project we will be editing wikipedia pages to what we feel meets the standards of the assignment. In this article the plot is too detailed, telling more than is needed about the movie. Our group will re-write this to make it more to the point, making it more of a small summary. The music section of this article also needs change. There needs to be more of what the music is in the movie rather than what someone feels the music means. We will replace this with a link to another website that talks about the subject. The cast list for this article also needs to have more detail behind each character. Any advice or comments are appreciated (Wtoleary (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

My initial advice would be that 'English' begins with a capital letter. Secondly, it is important to research a publication's manual of style prior to submission. I hope that your teacher was responsible enough to tell you this and guide your class through Wikipedia's style guidelines. As your contribution significantly deviates from our guidelines for writing about film plots, it has been reverted. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The name of the shark

I was looking at the tv tropes article for this movie, and they made a very good point: the shark is never named, and it certainly isn't named Jaws. It might be a bit cumbersome to change every reference from 'Jaws' to 'the shark' under the Plot section, but wouldn't that be more accurate. Perhaps an addendum stating that the name of the shark is a common misconception could be added. Just looking for some additional verification that this is the case before I go change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glassdragon2 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You're correct -- some bright spark changed the nouns on the 9th Jan. We can only add a note about any common misconception if we have a verifiable reliable source to prove that it is indeed a common misconception. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy

Out of curiosity how authentic are some elements in the film?

Do people really hunt sharks with barrels of compressed gas? How realistic are their methods? What is the best way to hunt a shark from a boat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z o l t a r (talk • contribs) 23:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Not much. Not only would a shark not behave in that manner, but The Discovery Channel had a show where they shot about ten compressed air cylinders, and none exploded - just decompressed violently. It's just a fun suspense/thriller - don't look to the film for facts. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

References to use

References to use. Erik (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Baer, Bill. Carl Gottlieb. Creative Screenwriting 8 n3 (2001): 54-61.

Buchsbaum, Tony. "Jaws." Soundtrack!: the Collector�s Quarterly 19 Summer (2000): 12-13.

Bond, Jeff and A.K. Benjamin. "Jaws" (Joel McNeely re-recording). Film Score Monthly 5 n9/10 (2000): 58+ [2p].

Stephens, Shane. DVD. Cinema Papers n135 Oct/Nov (2000): 49.

Bodey, Michael. Reading [Book Reviews]. Cinema Papers n134 Aug/Sep (2000): 39.

Bond, Jeff. The head, the tail, the whole damn thing. Film Score Monthly 5 n5 (2000): 32-35.

Dursin, Andy. The laserphile. Film Score Monthly n76 Dec (1996): 6.

Dursin, Andy. The laserphile. Film Score Monthly n76 Dec (1996): 6.

Griffin, Nancy. In the grip of "Jaws." Premiere 9 Oct (1995): 88-94+ [11p].

Torry, Robert. Therapeutic narrative: "The Wild Bunch," "Jaws," and Vietnam. Velvet Light Trap: a Critical Journal of Film and Television n31 Spring (1993): 27-38.

Sheehan, Henry. The panning of Steven Spielberg. Film Comment 28 May/Jun (1992): 54-60.

Auty, Chris. The complete Spielberg? Sight & Sound 51 n4 n/a (1982): 275-9.

Fox, Jordan. Roy Arbogast. Cinefex n5 Jul (1981): 42-53.

Petersen, Art. Grendel and the heritage of evil in contemporary American cinema. Classic Images n77 Sep (1981): 61-2.

Brown, Les. "Jaws" played to 80 million on ABC. The New York Times 129 Nov 7 (1979): C29.

Cardell, K. Readers' forum [Response to J.E. Caputi, "'Jaws' as patriarchal myth," "Journal of Popular Film and Television" 6:305-26 n4 1978]. Journal of Popular Film and Television 7 n2 (1979): 202-9.

Caputi, Jane E. "Jaws" as patriarchal myth. Journal of Popular Film and Television 6 n4 n/a (1978): 305-26.

Lukk, Tiiu. Interview: Joe Alves-production designer. Super-8 Filmaker 5 Mar/Apr (1977): 36-43.

Willson, Robert. "Jaws" as submarine movie. Jump Cut: a Review of Contemporary Media n15 n/a (1977): 32-3.

Dworkin, Martin S. "Jaws" in retrospect. Society 14 May/Jun (1977): 78-81.

"Jaws" Hong Kong's no.1 foreign film grosser last year. Variety 286 Feb 23 (1977): 37.

"Jaws" hits record 137G in 20 spots at eight Arg. cities. Variety 285 Jan 12 (1977): 64.

Heat wave sizzles Arg., but "Jaws" bites record 703G at 20 situations. Variety 285 Feb 2 (1977): 44.

Come Thanksgiving, "Wars" seen equal to "Jaws" grosses. Variety 288 Oct 12 (1977): 3.

Turner, Adrian. Myth and malevolence: the films of Steven Spielberg. Films Illustrated 5 May (1976): 332-7.

"Jaws" $21.2-mil,Japan. Variety 282 Mar 17 (1976): 38.

"Jaws" breaks b.o. mark in Singapore. Variety 285 Dec 8 (1976): 34.

"Jaws" chomps into new b.o. marks at N. Zealand, Japan. Variety 281 Jan 28 (1976): 33.

"Jaws" grosses $6.6-mil in UK on 90-10 deals. Variety 285 n/a (1976): 3+ Dec 22.

"Jaws" gulps $14.2-mil in 26 Japan theatres. Variety 283 May 26 (1976): 3.

"Jaws" in Spain: record $3.3-mil. Variety 282 Feb 18 (1976): 3.

"Jaws" Mexican b.o.: 22 marts, $1.8-mil. Variety 282 Apr 28 (1976): 36.

"Jaws" named best film in People's Choice poll. Boxoffice 108 Mar 1 (1976): 9.

"Jaws" openings break all Mexican records. Boxoffice 109 May 3 (1976): 8.

"Jaws" pair honored. Variety 282 Feb 11 (1976): 32.

"Jaws" saturation(France). Variety 281 Jan 28 (1976): 28.

"Jaws" takes $4,400,000 bite at Spain boxoffice. Variety 282 Apr 21 (1976): 34.

Producers of "Deep Jaws" refuse to change title. Boxoffice 109 Apr 26 (1976): 15.

Zanuck and Brown win MP Showman Award for "Jaws." Boxoffice 108 Feb 23 197 (1976): 11.

Cumbow, Robert C. The great American eating machine. Movietone News n52 Oct 11 (1976): 2-8.

Castell, D. "Jaws". Films Illustrated 5 Jan (1976): 164-5.

Bowles, Stephen E. "The Exorcist" and "Jaws." Literature/Film Quarterly 4 n3 n/a (1976): 196-214.

Britton, A. American cinema in the 70's: "Jaws." Movie (Great Britain) n23 Winter (1976): 27-32.

Heath, Stephen. "Jaws," ideology and film theory. Framework n4 Autumn (1976): 25-7.

Gans, Herbert J. "Jaws": urban hero saves small town. Social Policy 6 Jan/Feb (1976): 51-2.

Thompson, Kenneth. Why "Jaws" scores. Films Illustrated 5 Apr (1976): 318.

Thompson, Kenneth. Why "Jaws" scores. Films Illustrated 5 Feb;278 Mar (1976): 238.

The file on "Jaws". Films Illustrated 5 n/a (1976): 174+ Jan.

Talvat, Henri. "Les dents de la mer." Jeune Cinema n94 Apr (1976): 43.

Rubey, Dan. "Jaws": the jaws in the mirror. Jump Cut: a Review of Contemporary Media n10/11 Summer (1976): 20-23.

Monaco, James. "Jaws". Sight & Sound 45 n1 n/a (1976): 56-7.

Eder, K. "Der weisse Hai." Medium 6 Feb (1976): 38.

Gow, G. "Jaws". Films and Filming 22 Jan (1976): 30-31.

Griffin-beale, Christopher. Are children tougher? The Times Educational Supplement n3165 Jan 30 (1976): 86.

Fisherman's Head

Ben Gardner's head wasn't severed. It was still attached to his body. --Juicefani11 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

SCUBA tank

Mythbusters verified the original tank used in the movie was an aluminum tank. What they didn't verify was whether it was 6351-T6 alloy or 6061-T6. 6351-T6 was the main aluminum alloy used for SCUBA tanks in the 1970's and continued to be used at least into the late 1980's for SCUBA and other breathing gas tanks as well as other uses such as CO2 tanks for paintball guns. 6351-T6 tanks may still be used but it is highly recommended that they be inspected very often. The tanks Mythbusters tested were most likely made of 6061-T6. That alloy is harder and very resistant to fatigue cracking. When it does crack, it doesn't break catastrophically like 6351-T6. Google scuba tank 6351-T6 and scuba tank explode, there's plenty of info on 6351-T6 tank explosions and ruptures causing injury or death. I don't know if anyone has done a comparison test of shooting holes in pressurized tanks of both alloys to see if the 6351-T6 type will rupture. Bizzybody (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Original "Bruce" shark found in junkyard.

The only surviving shark model made from the molds used to produce the "Bruce" mechanical sharks for "JAWS" was recently discovered in a junkyard. It was made for display at Universal Studios theme park, where it hung by its tail for fifteen years. http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-jaws-shark-hunted-down.html Bizzybody (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Category

User:Chigurgh has seen fit to remove Category:Films about fishing. Opinions? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the main deal of the movie is to fish. Chigurgh (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know why that category exists. It only features Category:Seafaring films, and none of those films are really "about fishing" but feature fishing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to both your comments, I'm not alone in my opinion.[1][2][3] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

summer blockbuster and Star Wars

Star Wars didn't follow suit from the Studio. In fact, it was the opposite. The release was moved up to May, a month before summer fearing the upcoming Smokey and the Bandit. And 20th Century would only realease on a handfull of theaters fearing Star Wars was a total bomb. It was expanded only after all 39 screenings sold out. Jaws was released on a bunch of screens becauase the prescreen went extremely well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.81.109 (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you confirm the information with a reliable source? Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Differences between the book and the movie

I don't see any discussion in the entry as it is today regarding the differences between the original story in the novel and the film version. It would seem appropriate to mention some of the obvious differences. For instance, Hooper dies in the book but survives in the movie. The shark dies of its wounds in the book but is blown up by Brody in the movie. Fans and Jaws fanatics can probably add others. It seems reasonable to include this information in a separate section in the entry. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC))

I agree if and only if there's reliable third-party discussion regarding the differences. Doniago (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the point of that would be - it's pretty obvious when viewing the film and reading the book what differences there are; this wouldn't be OR, in my opinion. I suppose one could footnote the novel and the film? HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

The point is to have it be a list of differences that actually garnered attention from third-party sources instead of just a cruft-y list. The Harry Potter film articles have had this as an ongoing problem. Listing differences which merited attention is one thing, listing every item where the film and novel differ is just trivial. Doniago (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Doniago is correct. Any 'differences' should be discussed only with reference to a reliable source talking about it. Hooper surviving at the end of the film in itself should not be listed, unless a comment could be found from a producer or critic about, for example, the filmmakers wanting a rosier ending (I think Brown said it in one of the docs?). If you can find any references, add such a comment to the writing or production section ("The way the shark dies was changed because Spielberg wanted ... [reference]"). Please don't create a 'differences' section because that gets very trivial, and is beneath us. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Some vandalism noted

The plot summary, 2nd-to-last paragraph, has been vandalized by (someone with the sense of humor of) a 6-year-old. 68.173.53.167 (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Already dealt with -- tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Network Television

Missing from the article is a section discussing the film's airing on network television at a time when it was actually a very big deal for relatively recent blockbusters to be shown for free. Jaws was one of the last "event" airings, as the VHS explosion was about to render them moot. To fill in time, many deleted scenes were restored to give it an even running time. RoyBatty42 (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Spielberg talks about Jaws

Here's the transcript of an hour long telephone interview Spielberg recently gave about Jaws [4]. Enjoy! 81.129.134.12 (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit?

Hi. I'm "Things That Will Bite", a new Wikipedia user. I just saw some grammar errors in this article about Jaws. Maybe "tentpole pictures" shouldn't be in italic text. The paragraph that includes "an unexpected quarter — conversationists" could be rewritten. There are two apostrophes (') after Moby Dick also. Does this article needs to be copyedited? Things That Will Bite (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Durban, South Africa, 1956 Shark Attacks

It's Shark Week 2011 and I'm watching a "documentary" on the shark attacks in Durban, South Africa in 1956 and am amazed at the similarities between this event and the Jaws plot lines. Is anyone aware of the movie plot (or books) being motivated by these accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.8.192 (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)