Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Jaws


NipkowDisc
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm going to go see it.  It came out 9 years before I was born, so I never had the chance to see it in the theater, I think it'd be really exciting to see it on the big screen with that music.  Even if "Bruce" the shark is a little hokey now, it'll still be fun in the theater. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

     I figure it's not likely you're going to see 'JAWS' screened in 2015 from an actual film print.  With JAWS being 'restored' in 2012 for its Blu-Ray release (see the 8½-minute segment posted to YouTube by 'Universal Pictures Home Entertainment') I figure that's the version you'll see in theaters.  It won't ever look like a film shot in 1974/released in '75 again with all the technical limitations that came with the time.  I don't particularly care for the digital alterations with the 'color matching' seen on the featurette.  If it was good enough for theatergoers 40 yrs ago what makes it necessary to manipulate the "imperfect" shots to now look 'perfect' with Roy on the beach and Shaw, Scheider and Dreyfuss inside the boat cabin?  Ultimately, movies are just 'products' and whatever helps them 'sell' to a new generation of people is what the studios will do (unless it costs too much!), but how much digital fixing is really necessary?  (Spielberg said on the clip the original negative of JAWS was in 'pretty crummy' condition so it needed some attention, but how much?).  They got rid of the scratches and dirt.  Ok.      

 

           

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, I be a not goin' to see a film in theatres that is constantly shown on TV.

that female great white (whatshername?) that's been in the news of late. maybe she oughta be caught and put up by some org like the sierra club until she delivers then they can hold a baby shower for all her little ones with a big swim-in for the sierra club and other orgs like greenpeace or anyone who wants to go swimming with momma carcharias and her little ones. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

     I figure it's not likely you're going to see 'JAWS' screened in 2015 from an actual film print.  With JAWS being 'restored' in 2012 for its Blu-Ray release (see the 8½-minute segment posted to YouTube by 'Universal Pictures Home Entertainment') I figure that's the version you'll see in theaters.  It won't ever look like a film shot in 1974/released in '75 again with all the technical limitations that came with the time.  I don't particularly care for the digital alterations with the 'color matching' seen on the featurette.  If it was good enough for theatergoers 40 yrs ago what makes it necessary to manipulate the "imperfect" shots to now look 'perfect' with Roy on the beach and Shaw, Scheider and Dreyfuss inside the boat cabin?  Ultimately, movies are just 'products' and whatever helps them 'sell' to a new generation of people is what the studios will do (unless it costs too much!), but how much digital fixing is really necessary?  (Spielberg said on the clip the original negative of JAWS was in 'pretty crummy' condition so it needed some attention, but how much?).  They got rid of the scratches and dirt.  Ok.      

I just watched that YouTuber.. WOW!  Thanks for the heads up.

 

The visual experience will be terrific. The enhanced audio will be booming 7.x digital surround sound which I, to this day after seeing a dozen or so contemporary films, do not like. I like the nuances the new surround sound systems bring out, but it's those booming, thundering, blasting sounds I dislike so much. I feel as if there's an earthquake happening while I'm trying to watch a film movie.

 

Just think... not too many years from now, people will no longer use the word "film" in relation to movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just watched that YouTuber.. WOW!  Thanks for the heads up.

 

The visual experience will be terrific. The enhanced audio will be booming 7.x digital surround sound which I, to this day after seeing a dozen or so contemporary films, do not like. I like the nuances the new surround sound systems bring out, but it's those booming, thundering, blasting sounds I dislike so much. I feel as if there's an earthquake happening while I'm trying to watch a film movie.

 

Just think... not too many years from now, people will no longer use the word "film" in relation to movies.

 

Yes, I think the visual experience will be amazing.

 

Interesting comment about the word "film."

I know a few people who use the word "taping" when tallking about recording a TV program when they really mean "DVRing"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think the visual experience will be amazing.

 

Interesting comment about the word "film."

I know a few people who use the word "taping" when tallking about recording a TV program when they really mean "DVRing"

Your comment is interesting as well. The word "recording" will probably live on because it's a generic term which may be applied to any medium. "Taping" should follow "film", though it's difficult to predict that one as many people still have tape machines of some sort (audio or VCR), whereas most people do not have film equipment. "Taping" will be part of our lexicons for some time.
 
When I'm speaking to someone in person, I use "taping" in lieu of "recording" mainly due to my having been involved in two (analog) home recording studios, and made use of several others in various bands. Everything was tape for 98% of home studios while digital was in commercial use when I moved away from the medium.
 
The history of digital recording is fascinating. There is a great deal of irony in it's beginnings - i.e., (better-than-digital) analog first, analog next, back to digital (now).
 
Sorry to ramble on.. you got me to thinking..
:)
 
 
 
Amended
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The history of digital recording is fascinating. There is a great deal of irony in it's beginnings - i.e., (better-than-digital) analog first, analog next, back to digital (now).
 
Sorry to ramble on.. you got me to thinking..
 
 
 

 

 

No apology necessary.

 

I agree and appreciate your comments on the history of digital recording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had mentioned in another thread that my local theater is attempting to go digital. This theater is a historical landmark, as well as our only source for classic film presentations on the big screen (outside of the rare classic sci-fi presentation at our one remaining drive-in).

 

Without checking, it's a pretty sure bet the 40th Anniversary Jaws will be in digital format. Our theater has been screening many of these anniversary and special presentation "films" over the years, but this restoration doesn't look like it's going to make it here due to the lack of proper equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had mentioned in another thread that my local theater is attempting to go digital. This theater is a historical landmark, as well as our only source for classic film presentations on the big screen (outside of the rare classic sci-fi presentation at our one remaining drive-in).

 

Without checking, it's a pretty sure bet the 40th Anniversary Jaws will be in digital format. Our theater has been screening many of these anniversary and special presentation "films" over the years, but this restoration doesn't look like it's going to make it here due to the lack of proper equipment.

 

I just checked the Fathom events website and was happy to see that the movie will be playing in 3 theaters in the city and in a few suburban theaters in my area.

 

I am excited to see this movie on the "big screen."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think the visual experience will be amazing.

 

Interesting comment about the word "film."

I know a few people who use the word "taping" when tallking about recording a TV program when they really mean "DVRing"

 

40 years ago, this was being used. Now you know we're getting OLD!

 

portapack.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just checked the Fathom events website and was happy to see that the movie will be playing in 3 theaters in the city and in a few suburban theaters in my area.

 

I am excited to see this movie on the "big screen."

 

Be sure to let us know how it was when you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This happened today, sounds kind of like something in a movie.

 

"Two teenagers enjoying a day at the beach were badly mauled in separate shark attacks less than two hours apart on Sunday in coastal waters off Oak Island, North Carolina, casting a pall over the start of that tiny resort town's summer tourist season.

 

The beach at Oak Island, a town of about 7,000 year-round residents, was crowded on Sunday, and "the weather was beautiful," the mayor said. The twin attacks came two weeks before the July 4th holiday weekend, when Oak Island's population typically swells with 30,000 to 40,000 visitors."

 

Chief Brody was seen high-tailing it out of town with a bottle of bourbon mumbling something about being afraid of the water.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it bad that I find the scene where Jaws eats the little kid on the raft to be really funny? It's one of my favorite parts of the movie.  I know that this is a little morbid, but for whatever reason, that scene cracks me up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned in another thread (called "I just love" or something) that JAWS has one of my favorite scenes in it.

 

It's where Roy Schieder, "chumming" the water and griping about it, and the shark is seen lungeing at him from out of the sea, mouth wide open, and when Brody notices him, the scene shifts to Schieder, "quick as a wink" standing upright in surprise!

 

I've tried that and STILL can't manage it as fast!  How DID he DO that? Was it a camera trick?  HAD to be!

 

But, I have to disagree a bit with Dark about the book.

 

I liked it too, but it DID have a bit too much "soap opera" in it.  That the chief's wife had a sexual affair with the described as a "surfer boy" Hooper wasn't neccessary to the story.  Also, in the book, Hooper does get eaten.

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hooper was not a surfer boy in the novel. He was a seriously obsessed scientist. There was nothing funny about him. All the characters in the novel were much more intriguing than those in the movie.

 

The novel was serious and scary. The movie was a comedy - it was decided to make Hooper silly - possibly because that's the way Dreyfuss was able to play him - or, more probably, to make the movie more child-friendly so kids would flock to it repeatedly.

 

But people were entertained by the movie - they got to laugh a lot. It was just a big disappointment to those of us who read the book first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...