Talk:Jaws (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

I've just done a big restructure that included adding a discussion of the cultural impact of the movie - it seems that this should be covered, as it should be a major reason for listing the film in the first place. I've tried to keep everyone's previous contributions and limit the changes to what was needed to incorporate the new content. --Cinephobia 07:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template

Hi folks, Max Terry has reverted the Spielberg template back to the vertical format, which I think gives too much white space on either side of the box. Could we please reach a consensus at Template talk:Steven Spielberg's films? Cheers, The JPS 21:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The ride

Hi folks, could you please take a look at Jaws Attraction (Orlando). Its tone is odd, added by an IP, and I suspect it's a copyvio from somewhere. I brief google search doesn't reveal anything, though. The JPS 08:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same... The attraction "synoposis" looks almost word-for-word from the background information the attraction employees are given in the SOP. As for some of the attraction "fast facts" at the bottom of the page, such as the names of business on the ride's "island", they have just been copied straight from http://www.amityboattours.com . Hope this has been some help! --UD75 21:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Extraneous detail, a plea

Before you add more information to this article, especially the synopsis, please ask yourself if that detail is important to the plot. Here are some thoughts:

• The names of the victims are of no importance; they play no part at all in the plot except to die
• The number of rounds that Brody fires is of no importance; no one is counting
• Detail about what line was ad-libbed or what scene was added later is trivia that belongs in the production history section, if anywhere, not in the synopsis
• The phrase "geyser of blood" is not encyclopedic

I love the movie as much as anyone, but the article should be concise, not comprehensive. --Tysto 20:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate what Tysto said, the synopsis should not include a count of the bullets. It could well be that six is invariably the maximum number that can be loaded into that variety of rifle, but the film never establishes the point (Quint shoots at the shark three times earlier in the film), and so we shouldn't be drawing attention to it. --Geoduck 19:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Tragic coincidence

I removed this new section added by an anon user:

On Saturday 7 January 2006, a woman died after being attacked by sharks while she was swimming near Rainbow Channel at Amity Point on North Stradbroke Island, Queensland, Australia. Three bull sharks are suspected in the fatal attack. Wikinews:Woman killed in shark attack at Amity Point, Australia.

A movie about shark attacks at a place called "Amity" was made in 1975 and 30 years later, there is a shark attack at a real place called Amity thousands of miles away. I can see that Jaws may be relevant to the news story but the news story is not relevant to Jaws. --Tysto 06:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Martha's Vineyard

Someone wrote: "Many locals from Martha's Vinyard played uncredited speaking roles, for example, Polly (Brody's secretary) was played by Peggy Scott."

While I think that many locals playing in the film is useful Trivia, I don't know how mentionig one of them by name proves it, or belongs in an article, unless that person is of some significance. For example, if it said "Peggy Scott, the towns mayor," that might seem understandable. A random citizen does not merit a mention when it contributes nothing to the article.

I am going to make changes accoridngly. I will move this, and the thing about Shark footage, to the end of the production history, so they will not make the Production History disjointed by including them as pertinent parts of the filming. Thsi way they look more like the ranodm trivia they actually are.

--L.A.F.

dangerous?

"a voracious predator known to be dangerous to humans," as if! I know no one here wants me to start spouting shark facts that everybody allready knows, but the great white is a voracious predator, and one of the most dangerous sharks, but hardly "known to be dangerous to humans". (in case somebody doesn't know, more people are killed by lightning, car crashes bee stings and falling coconuts (seperatly) than sharks).Jedi of redwall 23:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Memorable quotes

Do we really need this section? I really dislike this type of thing, which tends to be on IMDb anyway. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bordering Megaladon size

In the book, Hooper said he was just exagerating when he said that. it should be deleted. KdogDS 19:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Jaws Remake

If this is true, please cite a source and bring it up to the standards stated in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style

JAWS:THE REMAKE?-(SUMMER 2007)its UNCONFIRM but theres hope for a new "JAWS" feature film out there,somewhere in the works.Wut I have found out is it there are plans for a new "JAWS" movie.JAMES CAMERON will be the director for this remake.Its tag-line is "THEY ARE GOING TO NEED A BIGGER BOAT,FROM THE DIRECTOR OF TITIANC COMES THE LEGEND RE-BORN".Iam not really sure if this news was post to be leak,but it has.Warner Brothers is going to produced this version of the killer shark.IAM SERIOUS.I have seen the "teaser trailer" so they call it and it looks really amazing!Its looks already finish!My guess they need to do some editing,theres no mention of cast members yet but theres 2 guys and one woman on the boat.It could be the Brody family from the orginal but with younger stars to play them of course.This *POSSIBLE*could be a fluke but i think it is not.The trailer is floating out there somewhere,you just have to know where to go to find it.From the looks of wut I've saw,we all better think twice (AGAIN)to even think about getting into the water.

There is a teaser trailer at iFilm. Is it bogus or not? I dunno. Says it's comin' summer 2007. KdogDS 19:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool trailer, but a fake, I'm sure--didn't anyone notice "The LegAnd reborn"? If it weren't for that lame mistake, the trailer would have been a great "teaser." Willerror 22:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Rip-Offs

Isn't "Rip-Offs" unnecessarily POV? FAL 05:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Change it. Atlant 12:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

New images

I've added some new images to synopsis section. Hope everyone finds them useful, and I hope I did the fair use part right. If anyone finds any better pictures, feel free to change them. -Dark Kubrick 02:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mythbusters Section and Redundancy

I think the Mythbusters section could be moved to a different, or entirely new, article, as it isn't really pertinent to the film itself. A one or two-line paragraph mentioning the episode could be included, along with a link to it, but otherwise I don't think it really belongs in the article.

Also, it's mentioned twice in the article that Jaws has a couple of honors on the AFI's lists, and I think we could do with only one mention of that. We could delete the first one and shorten what is already an overlong lead.-Dark Kubrick 22:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No one seems to care, so I've removed the section.-Dark Kubrick 23:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

Seeing as how the lead has drastically changed multiple times during the past few days, I think we should have a discussion for what should and should not go in it on this talk page. If anyone has a problem with the current version as it is, then post what you think should go there on this page. If you significantly change the lead, please post here so that we know why you changed it as it is.-Dark Kubrick 18:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit tag

I've removed the copyedit tag -- I went through the whole article and didn't find more than a comma or so to fix. The copyedit tag can also apply to tone and cohesion, but I think the article is reasonably clean in that area too. If anyone thinks it should be re-added, please add a note here with more specifics and I'll take another look. Mike Christie 02:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

I've realized that the article does not cite several phrases that could be a problem for it in GA and FA candidacy. I realize those statements came from the books listed, but unless people can cite which statements came from their respective books (I'm not going to buy these books solely to update Wikipedia) we'll either have to delete them or find online sources, and Wiki no likey articles with only online references. If anyone can do this, it would be a tremendous help. -Dark Kubrick 05:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I wholehearteely agree with this concern. I just finished analyzing the article, and decided to fail it as a good article since there is not a single inline citation under the subheading "Production history." But probably much of this information can be found online, and I doubt any books need to be purchased. This is a very popular film, and boatloads of credible information exist about it on the net.--Esprit15d 15:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 10, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Great.

2. Factually accurate?: Good. But (per above) inline citations are needed, especially in the subheading "Production history." Special attention should be given to quotes, statistics and very specific details (ie - the Bruce thing).

3. Broad in coverage?: Great.

4. Neutral point of view?: Great job.

5. Article stability? Good.

6. Images?: Good here also.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Esprit15d 15:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: the article is severely overlinked per WP:MOS. Many common words and year links which add no relevant information for the reader should be removed. -- Slowmover 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Slowmover and Esprit15d. I'll definitely get to work on those points. Most of the Production history section can be cited with the DVD, but I'll find a couple of online sources to back it up. -Dark Kubrick 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gotten rid of a ton of wikilinks, I now see what you mean. -Dark Kubrick 20:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple more comments for the editors, following up on the GA review. I should start by saying that I think the article is in pretty good shape and close to GA status.

• I think the differences section could use some clarification as to which version has which event -- this seems to have been improved since I first looked at it, but for example "The harbormaster is killed by the shark while cleaning out his coffeepot in the ocean" doesn't tell me whether that's the film or screenplay version being described. (I know that the plot synopsis above would tell me, but it would be nice if it were clear here too.)
• The inline citations thing: I agree more cites would be good. This problem is almost entirely restricted to the "Production History" section. To give some specific cases to go after, if you have the sources:
  • "purchased the film rights to Peter Benchley's novel in 1973"; do you have a source for the date?
  • Next para: you have a pretty detailed description of which writer did what; can you source this?
  • The paragraph starting "Location shooting" has several items that might beneficially be sourced: the use of locals, the malfunctioning mechanical shark, the use of "Bruce" as a name, the trivia references, the "turd" name, and the "Flaws" nickname.

I don't have sources for any of this so I can't help, but I hope this is useful. If you'd like more specifics on other paragraphs let me know. Mike Christie 02:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll get to work on finding some references for that section. Meanwhile, can you tell me what needs citation outside of the Production history section? -Dark Kubrick 03:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a couple:

• "It is thought to be the movie that first boosted Steven Spielberg's directorial career." in the intro. This is so well-known that it probably doesn't need citation, but on the other hand it should be a piece of cake to find a source. An ideal source would be a movie history; someone like Tom Schatz or another film historian.
• "many beaches reported business as being down in the summer of 1975" would be good to source.

Those are the only things I see in a quick scan. This is looking very good; great job. Mike Christie 04:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the "many beaches reported business as being down in the summer of 1975", do you think reliable movie critics can cite this? I've tried to find actual news reports in 1975 but none exist on the web. However, a lot of critics always mention how beaches were empty due to Jaws, so maybe just a rewording of the sentence would be fine?

I think a rewording and a ref to a review that makes the claim would do fine. Also, with ref to the Cape Fear sentence you eliminated, couldn't you leave in the fact that Cape Fear had a similar scene? I understand that the relevance largely comes from the influence claim, but the scene itself doesn't need a cite (it's verifiable by viewing the film). Then perhaps a rewording might allow the reference. I'm not sure about this, but it seems like it might be salvageable. Mike Christie 15:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I put back the Cape Fear reference, but I don't know how to prove Peck is the rights owner, or that Jaws couldn't get the license from him. -Dark Kubrick 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Peck's production company was called Melville Productions - that might help you track some down. I'll have a look later if you haven't found anything. Yomangani^talk 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ez-entertainment.net/features/Gregory_Peck.htm - not sure that counts as a reliable source, but it does state it. Yomangani^talk 16:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that counts. -Dark Kubrick 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a couple of refs, mostly the DVD, but a couple other websites too. I ws thinking that maybe a picture of the mechanical shark would improve the production history section, as the photo of Quint delivering his monologue just doesn't have any purpose. I might get a screenshot of the shark on display, or maybe malfunctioning during shooting. -Dark Kubrick 02:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've cited everything I can. The "summer blockbuster" claim and some other stuff can be easily cited with websites, but I think we need some books to give the article a little more credibility. I've asked someone who owns a few of the books to help cite some of this stuff. -Dark Kubrick 04:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Great job on this. Let me know when you have more of the cites in place and I'll be happy to renominate this for GA, if you'd like a third party to do the nomination. Mike Christie 13:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you still need any citations from my resources? Do you reckon Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope should be a piped link, displaying Star Wars, since I'm sure that's what it was known as in 1977? The JPS^{talk to me} 09:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Any citations you can provide from the books would be greatly appreciated. I managed to find "The Films of Steven Spielberg" on googlebooks, but everything else is unlisted. I'll change the Star Wars link as you said, as that would make more sense. --Dark Kubrick 10:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Good article again?

I think this article is clearly ready for GA review again; let me know if you disagree. I can nominate it if you'd like me to. Frankly I think it is approaching FA, though I'd suggest getting through GA first -- FA is much more rigorous. The cites are much better now, so I would expect it to get through GA fairly easily. Mike Christie (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There were two references that bothered me, but I know they came from the same book, and although I don't own the book I'm just putting it in anyway. Go ahead and put it up for GA. --Dark Kubrick 19:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that before it goes up for FAC, I want to add a cast section and a soundtrack section. I'm not adding them until it passes GA, as that will make the article more than 32 KB, and I'll have to label it LONG. It will probably be longer on the list then. --Dark Kubrick 19:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

GA nom - Passed

After another examination, this article has really improved. Even though most of the citations added one from one source, the DVD is very definitive, so that's OK. I would also reference this section:

Roy Scheider became interested in the project after overhearing a screenwriter and Spielberg at a party talking about having the shark jump up onto a boat. Richard Dreyfuss initially passed on the role of Matt Hooper, but after seeing a screening of a film he had just done called The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, he thought his performance in that film was awful. He immediately called Spielberg back and accepted the Matt Hooper role (fearing that no one would want to hire him once Kravitz was released.) The first person actually cast for the movie was Lorraine Gary.

But otherwise, this article looks good. Great job folks all around!--Esprit15d 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Congratulations to everyone; especially Dark Kubrick, who I know has worked really hard on this. Mike Christie (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you Esprit15d and Mike Christie. Now on for FA! --Dark Kubrick 19:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem in "Inspirations and influences"

But I don't know how to straighten it out. In Paragraph 4, there's a sentence that shows up in the editing window, but is not displayed in the article itself. The problem is with a munged reference which I don't know how to straighten out. Help please? Cactus Wren 05:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it; you can do a diff and see what I did. I also took out the quotes around the ref name -- you can use quotes there, but they're not necessary, as you'll see from the diff. Mike Christie (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I just found out that my previous edit trashed some non-ASCII characters, so I've self-reverted and re-done the fix. This time I left the quotes in -- I realized from looking at the rest of the article that that's the standard used here, so there's no reason to change it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

JAMES CAMERON IS MAKING A JAWS REMAKE

I found the link to the teaser trailer on iFilm on the discussion page of James Cameron's wikipedia page. It's not a fan film or anything, the quality of the film is too high. Take a look at this link:

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2705402?htv=12&htv=12

Interesting. But...it might simply be the teaser trailer for the adaptation of Steve Alten's book Meg, re-edited by some mischievious fan. The shark looks quite big, and I saw that in the end it looked like it was leaping out of the water about to chomp down on a helicopter, which is a similar (you could even say iconic) scene from the book. Besides, 'Legend' is misspelled as 'Legand', although the quality and slickness of the film is hard to dispute.--Dark Kubrick 01:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There's also the fact that the URL listed at the end of the trailer leads to a some sort of low-rent spam site. But I agree with DK that the quality of the footage indicates that someone is making a movie about a giant shark... --Geoduck 22:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I watched the footage again, and I think some of it was spliced from other movies - the boat scenes look like The Perfect Storm and that one shot where the guy's swimming under the fire-laced water looks exactly like a scene from the new Poseidon. Besides, if there WAS going to be a Jaws remake for 2007, we'd have heard about it LONG before now.

Agreed. I think that the shark footage is actual trailer footage from Alten's book/movie, but those fishing boat shots ARE from "The Perfect Storm". I was, at first, going to suggest that the shark shots were from other (poorly done) movies which have used the Megaladon concept before, but the CGI is FAR superior than what I've seen from those other movies. Alten's movie idea has been on the burner for a while, so I'm not surprised that some footage of a trailer was leaked. However, Alten's web site promoting the movie and the books hasn't been updated (to my knowledge)to say whether or not they've begun shooting the film. In the end, this could just be a promo or something like a pilot to get the studios interested, crappy Jaws fanboi additions takced on aside... Just a thought.

Very unconvinced about "echoes of New World Symphony"

See my remarks at Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Dvořák)#"Jaws".

It's about as convincing as saying that the Tuileries section of Pictures at an Exhibition "echoes" the song of the black-capped chickadee [1] .

If this is to be mentioned in the article, I think I want to see a source citation mentioning the similarity... from a musicologically-sophisticated source. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted that bit from the article. I see that your points on the talk page of Symphony No. 9 make sense.--Dark Kubrick 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Themes

I'm glad this is now an FA, but nonetheless is anyone willing to reference anything about the themes, like Brody's aquaphobia. Or should we write this into a cast section? Wiki-newbie 12:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm kinda opposed to a whole new section dealing with Themes or Cast. Brody's aquaphobia is simply unimportant at all to the Wikipedia article. How would you do a section like Themes? It's kinda already covered in the "Inspirations and Influences" section. As for a Cast section, the cast is so small that it's unnecessary.--Dark Kubrick 14:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Jaws in other languages

It would be interesting to include the film title in other languages (E.g. in French it's called "Dents dans la mer" (Teeth in the see) - a lousy title for a film (as you'd expect, it is in French). Maybe "dents dans la mer" has an idiomatic meaning. --Dangherous 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I say go ahead and add something like that (but not a whole new section). Just be sure to put its title in several different languages, not just French.--Dark Kubrick 00:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1. In accordance with Wikipedia:Piped link, links such as [[1975 in film|1975]] should be avoided; this is because it is confusing for the reader, who is expecting to be taken to the 1975 article, but instead 1975 in film. See the manual for more information.
2. Horror/thriller (or horror thriller) doesn't make sense and states that it could be either of the two; if one chose to type Horror thriller in the search box, they'd be redirected to Horror film. Because of this, the en rule (–) should be placed between the two.
3. The lead explicity describes the Mayor's personality, but not the others; this is unbalanced.

Never Mystic (tc) 20:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• 1.How confusing could it be? If the reader is in a film article and clicks on the date, they can expect the article on the date to relate to the content of the article. In this case, it does. Plenty of other articles do this as well.
• 2.Agreed, though common sense could avoid your example...
• 3.That's more of a personal preference. Using the greedy adjective on Vaughan links him to the earlier statement, "...by the money-grubbing town council". Describing him as greedy is important to the general plot; describing Brody as "aquaphobic" or Hooper as "energetic" is unnecessary.--Dark Kubrick 22:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• With regard to point 1:Wikipedia:Piped link makes no definitive statement one way or the other, only states: 'There is disagreement about whether it is appropriate to pipe year numbers to "year-in-x" articles...' In this case I'd say it is more appropriate to put it in the context of other 1975 films than 1975 in general (but there may be disagreement about that too). Yomangani^talk 22:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it could link to regular 1975 as well, since this was a big film at that time, but 1975 in film is more appropriate for this article.--Dark Kubrick 22:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of the piped link; perhaps the link can be removed? The (–) should be replaced. Never Mystic (tc) 01:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I still don't completely understand why you don't like the piped link. It's perfectly fine and really isn't that confusing to a reader: we're still linking to an article about some aspect of 1975, in this case, about its films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Kubrick (talk • contribs)

It's misleading to the reader who clicks on the link, expecting to be taken to 1975, but instead 1975 in film. One of these readers included me. Never Mystic (tc) 22:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, well is it is misleading it's not exactly a criminal instance of it, tho'. Persoanlly, when I pipe a link to y in film, it is "x is a [[y in film|y film]]". The reader really wanted an article on 1975, they can very eaily achieve that with an additional click. Seems a lot of fuss over something with absolutely no ideological implications, and based on what a reader might want to do. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

JPS said what I wanted to say. Feel free to suggest a compromise, as long as it's not something like, "(see 1975 in film)" as that kinda disrupts the flow of the article.--Dark Kubrick 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't suggest that because I don't particularly like it either. Never Mystic (tc) 01:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Because? What makes it useful rather than misleading? Never Mystic (tc) 20:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me why an article about a 1975 film should not be linked to an article about that year in film? And I still don't see how it could be that misleading.--Dark Kubrick 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the article is about a significant film of that year so it puts it within the context of other events relating to cinema. Should the reader want to put it in the coontext of the year, they can eaily then go there... '1975' is easier to find than '1975 in film', if the reader doesn't know our naming conventions. I still don't think 'misleading' is an issue: we're not disguising truth. Piping a link from the Conservative Party (UK) to Racism might be misleading, but I think the reader might forgive us for sending them to 1975 in film from an article about a huge 1975 film. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Jaws was definitely a big hit across the world, so maybe they would forgive us in this case. I still think it's a bit irrelevant, but seeing how its success paved the way for other monster motion pictures, I'm okay with the explicit [[1975 in film|1975]]. Never Mystic (tc) 02:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of the terms "money-grubbing" and "greedy" as used here, actually; while they're certainly irresponsible, I'm not sure protecting your livelihood qualifies as greed. MisfitToys 00:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What adjectives do you suggest?--Dark Kubrick 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the colorful language because it fits the tone of the film--if written for a journal or any other audience, it would be superb. However, other users may be more correct that it's hardly neutral, how about fiscally concerned?

"In the film, the police chief of fictitious Amity Island, a summer resort town, tries to protect beachgoers from the predations of a huge great white shark by closing the beach, only to be overruled by the money-grubbing town council."

--->"In the film, the police chief of fictitious Amity Island, a summer resort town, tries to protect beachgoers from the predations of a huge great white shark by closing the beach, only to be overruled by the more fiscally concerned town council."

"... and Murray Hamilton as the greedy Mayor Vaughn.:

"... and Murray Hamilton as the Mayor Vaughn, fully supporting the town council's concerns."

No punch, and not really my suggestions, but there are more neutral ways to say it. Still, love the article, and glad to see the slightly less neutral version. KP Botany 01:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A Question

Hi, I'd just like to say that this is a fantastic article, but I have a small question. I read that Steven Spielberg originally agreed to do the movie only if the shark wasn't shown until halfway through the movie. I didn't see this mentioned here, and I'm curious if there is a reason why. -- Scorpion0422 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, quite the opposite. The delays in making the shark operational forced Speilberg to take creative liberties to avoid showing the shark. He didn't want to - he was forced to. Raul654 03:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I realize the article says that, but the part it cites - the thing with the barrels - is well over halfway through the movie, but who knows. -- Scorpion0422 06:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that statement too, and if you can find a reliable source, feel free to add it.--Dark Kubrick 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Film/book comparisons

I am a little concerned with this section — most of it is unsourced, and it is in the form of a bulleted list. I recommend trimming it by about 1/3 and converting it to two paragraphs of prose.

Also, perhaps the releases and sequels sections could be merged into "Releases and sequels"? — Deckiller 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns, and for posting your opinions on the talk page before editing the article to your heart's content (as many others did). If I were to source the section, would I just cite the book Jaws or have to find people who mention these differences. If I convert it to prose, the second paragraph would jump around quite a bit.

Do you mean "Reaction" when you say "Releases"?--Dark Kubrick 11:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The book would definitely be good enough; perhaps specific pages for precision. I meant the releases section; this could probably be merged with the sequels section, just like on the ANH page. I'll edit the page to show you an example. — Deckiller 15:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll add those citations today, as I'm sick and taking off from school.--Dark Kubrick 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all taken care of now.--Dark Kubrick 16:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

stolen?

some film maker once told me the idea of the film was stolen from another film, does it have any basis?

No.--Dark Kubrick 11:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What does "stolen" mean? How much of the story do we want to analyze at once? Obsession with a large sea-going animal? Yes, see Moby Dick and doubtless stories before that. Small-town mayor more concerned with preserving town's income from tourists than preserving a few tourists' lives? Sure -- a common theme. The overall gestalt of the story? Probably first put together by Benchley.

What's the old saying? "There are only 14 plots in all of fictiondom" or something like that.

Atlant 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

citation from other media

This is in reference to ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  citation here:

In retrospect, Spielberg has acknowledged that the added scene actually diminished the audience response to initial view of the shark later in the movie when Brody is tossing chum over the stern.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

I can provide the reference somewhat. Spielberg says that in the 30th anniversary DVD of Jaws. Its in the "making of" documentary included in the DVD. So how do I put that fact into this wikipedia? --Eqdoktor 17:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

S Protection

This should not be S-protected per the protection policy for featured articles on the main page. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Very very annoying,,,

As of 4:06am November 30 Philippine time, the whol article's "the"s are turned into "da"s. I have also seen that the word "Jaws" has been replaced by the word "Paws". When I try to edit this on the edit page, it is still the word "the". But on the article itself, it is "da". It's really really creepy you know >.<

(edit) Ok,, it is 4:11am November 30 Philippine time right now,, and weirdly enough, everything seems corrected. Can anyone explain what happened? Is it a virus from us or something else?

Being featured on the main page is supposed to be the highest accolade an article can get. But what a pain in the bloody arse it is. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

When woodwork squeaks, out come the freaks. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The sound you can hear is that reference whooshing over my head. (I guess it's just a lyric.) The JPS^{talk to me} 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps at all, but someone replaced the film production and writing credits to "my buttoxs and my friend's buttoxs" or something similar. Hilarious, but this ain't uncyclopedia. Just bringing that to your attention.

I thought it would be cool to be featured on the main page. I had no idea what a hornet's nest it would become. Huge thanks to all the editors who have done countless reverts and corrections.--Dark Kubrick 20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nicely written pop culture article

What fun to have on the Main Page. KP Botany 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No cast section

The manual of style for film articles includes a cast section, and nearly every other featured film article has a class section, Jaws should too. Made of people 18:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Cast sections are not required of film articles. Nearly half of the other featured film articles do not have cast sections. The reason I think this article doesn't need one is because it's unnecessary: there are five main characters in the film (not counting Mrs. Kintner or some other small part), and two of those five are supporting roles, so I don't think it's enough to warrant a whole new section. On films like Star Wars, for example, where the cast of characters is large and diverse, I can understand where a cast section would be essential, but I don't think Jaws warrants one.--Dark Kubrick 19:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, a cast sectin would be very useful. And most of the featured articles do include a cast section.Made of people 21:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, most of them do have a cast section but not all. Take a look at Gremlins, the three Halloween films, The Witchfinder General, Summer of '42, and more. These films do not have a cast section, and it does not hurt the article at all. I would like you to post your reasons why you think a cast section would be useful.--Dark Kubrick 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Those articles need to be fixed to, and the cast section is in the manual of style and should be required in all articles. If someone is looking to see the cast members of any film article, they should be able to find it. That is the purpose of manuals of style, so that all information is presented in the same format, making it easier to find by readers.Made of people 21:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Manuals of style are not written in cement (or at least they shouldn't be). Here's from the actual Manual of Style: "This manual, along with the supplemental manuals linked from it, provides guidance for those seeking it, but does not prescribe rigid rules that must always be followed." In Jaws, the cast members are mentioned in the infobox, the lead, and a couple other places, so readers can easily find out who the actors are and what roles they play.--Dark Kubrick 01:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not meant to substitute a cast section. The cast section goes into more detail. And information that is presented in other places that gives detailed information about the cast, should go to the cast section.Made of people 03:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How much more (non-extraneous) detail could be added to a cast section? The lead establishes that Brody's the town's chief of police, Quint's the shark hunter, etc. Having a cast section would just be repeating information that has already been established earlier in the article.--Dark Kubrick 03:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dark Kubrick. A cast section is not a necessity. Every wikipedia article I've seen with a cast section seems to have it sloppily inserted into the main text w/out any regard to the flow of the article. And most of them seem to be simply "cut and paste" jobs from IMDB. I broke down and added one to my Witchfinder General article when another editor repeatedly insisted that it was absolutely required. Although I attempted to make mine a little different/informative than others I had seen, after adding the section it definitely confirmed my belief that cast sections are almost completely irrelevant in a comprehensive article. The infobox and a fully detailed plot synopsis will include enough character names and associated actors to suffice. This article is fine as is and doesn't need to be "fixed" (and neither do any of the many Featured Articles that don't have cast sections).-Hal Raglan 02:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The major players are typically listed in the infobox, along with a link to IMDB which in recent times has developed cast lists so lengthy they include the guys who went for coffee and donuts. The wiki article's cast info doesn't need to be blindly copied into a wikipedia film article. Wahkeenah 02:49, 27 December 2006 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[2][3][4] 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)

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)

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

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)

Everything about this discussion, up to the final "beneath us" is everything that is wrong with Wikipedia.

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 [5]. 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)

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)

Congratulations everyone

Especially to igordebraga and DocKino who worked hard on the article. It's great to get an article about such an important film up to FA standard. Betty Logan (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2012 (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)

In my opinion, the Academy is a legitimate source of reference. In 2010, the 82nd Academy Awards honored Jaws in their horror genre tribute.] To be respectful, Jaws has been widely referenced as a horror and thriller film. Sacha99 (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Brain damage

There has been some concern about the recent edit warring in the plot section. A user has added the fact that sharks suffer brain damage after being stabbed in the head, as with Quint in the film. Does this count as a violation of WP:OR? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How does he even know that the knife struck that deep? Quint stabbed it from the front, and the brain was way over, behind the shark's eyes. Claiming it to be a brain damage requires deep analysis, and we are NOT supposed to synthesize statements from materials we have and form our own conclusion. Even an expert like doctors with everyday tools can misdiagnose humans, how can he watch a movie and diagnose a non-existent shark? He said he was an expert? Good, but I'm afraid anyone can say that.

To say that Quint fought the shark after he slid down there is a big stretch of the truth as well, as it was like a flailing of a pray before getting killed. Did it hurt the shark? Probably. Was it a fight? Nah. Anthonydraco (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

With regards to this ten seconds(?) or so of the movie, all that seems significant enough for inclusion IMO is that Quint falls into the shark's mouth and is killed. I don't know why this is being over-complicated. Doniago (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Anthonydraco (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2013 @Doniago True, anyone can say they are, no just anyone can prove it and I have spen many years of my life studying sharks and any kind of animal capable of being a man-eater. Quint drove his machete all the way into its head and at least struck some part of the inner eye back in its head. He may have it the brain given the length of the dagger. Quint went out with a fight factually. He was kicking, pounding, and stabbing the shark as it was trying to kill him. He was fighting. (STCooper1 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC))

STCooper, did you even watch the vid Doc provided on your talk page? The length of the machete doesn't even matter, look at 0:44, and you'll see that it barely even hit the upper lip, and the blade sank like... what? 5 inches when the brain is way up behind the eyes? Unless the machete is about three feet long, it had no chance to reach the brain. All you've said is that you are an expert, but all you have is your claim, and not evidence to prove it. Not that it matters even if you are an expert here, because even an expert needs reliable source to add materials on Wikipedia. What you DON'T explicitly see in the movie/DVD of it is an original research and speculation, and has no place here. If you truly are an expert, perhaps you can provide a book or a thesis you've published as a source? The book has to be reviewed by respectable mainstream reviewers, mind, and the thesis has to have been peer reviewed by the academic mainstream in order to be considered reliable. Anthonydraco (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps more importantly, we're talking about the Plot section, where what we should include should be limited to the most pertinent information that a reader needs to understand the film's story. Whether or not the shark is brain damaged doesn't appear to matter, as even if it was (and we have no way of determining that based on the evidence presented AFAIK) it doesn't affect how the story develops. Similarly, whether or not Quint puts up a fight might be "flavor text" but it in no way influences what happens to him. Unless multiple other editors feel that it's important to understanding the plot I don't feel it's appropriate to mention that Quint fights, and unless an RS has made note of it I definitely don't feel we should be speculating as to what kind of damage Quint may have dealt to the shark. Doniago (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

@Anthonydraco I haven't focused much on publication. I know that was my mistake. I focus more on the learning and getting out there and doing. The action, no the writing. I have however, been acclaimed by many experts and have trained with them and learned with them. I am a specialist of man-eaters. Thats a fact, even if I can't prove it due to my afformentioned mistake. Even experts can make mistakes. Nothing you have said proves that I am not an expert, it only proves that I made a mistake. @Doniago The way the article was written before made it seem like he just slid right into its mouth and Quint didn't. He resisted and fought till his end. The way I have it now minimizes his demise description and only says that he was killed fighting, which he was. The filmed showed that. Trying to picture in your head what was there before can lead readers to an inaccurate sumation. I just wanted to porevent that. (STCooper1 (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC))

And nothing you have said exempt you from No Original Research policy. If you want to add the brain damage part, cite sources, or add no speculation. If you want to use the film itself as reference, add the things seen explicitly in the film if it's important, or no speculation. I don't care if you are acclaimed by 100 experts or get a Nobel doing it. Proof your statement by adding sources. No respectable editors will believe you otherwise. And nothing you have said so far warrant why Quint's fight was needed. It was barely a fight. In the end, he died all the same. Did it affect how the story ends how he twisted this way and that and poked the shark once or twice? No. The shark exploded; a shark with some wounds and a perfectly healthy shark would die all the same if blown into pieces. If Quint's struggle made the shark bleed its last 10 cc. of blood and die before reaching Brody, then that's a different story. Does the reader gain anything in knowing that he died fighting? No. Was the way he went down made people honor him a hero like Batman in The Dark Knight Rises? No. Did even affect the shark in a significant way? No, and even if it does, you can never prove a brain damage on a non-existent shark. Do you know that the mechanism for the shark animatronic didn't work, and that was why Spielberg minimize its appearence? The shark going sideways could've been the way the mechanism didn't work properly. Not to mention that Spielberg didn't strictly go for realism. What you've added falls into WP:Fancruft, and therefore, not needed. Anthonydraco (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had this article on my watchlist for as long as I can remember. The "brain damage" idea is food for thought but doesn't belong in this article, certainly not in the Plot section, which should only describe stuff readily apparent from viewing the film without any inside knowledge. I see that things have been watered down to mention the "fight" between Quint and the shark but even that's not necessary (I'd call it a "struggle" at best). The earlier phrasing, "Quint slides down the deck into the shark's jaws and is killed", is straightforward, correct, and still reads the best for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the last paragraph to try to clean it up a bit. I've removed discussion of the "fight" since I see no clear consensus to include it; if and when multiple editors feel it's appropriate to mention that, it can always be added back in. STCooper, if you're dissatisfied with this removal, you're welcome to solicit additional opinions at WP:FILM or pursue other means of dispute resolution. Doniago (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the "fight" bit - its more of a once sided struggle to avoid the shark's jaws. Incidentally, with all due respect to STCooper1, any expert should know better than to refer to sharks as man-eaters. There are very few species on this planet that actively hunt humans, and none of them are sharks. For the record, I'm a marine biology graduate from Portsmouth University. douts (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC) @Douts I never said they were well-known man-eaters, I used man-eater as a word to describe sharks as something known to have eaten people period, even if rarely. I have studied all species, even snakes, that have been known to eat people. Thats all. @Anthonydraco I merely pointed out that the shark in the film did something similar to some sharks I've studied when it swam sideways. I have seen that when sharks do that in real life in those situations, there was always something wrong with it and the one in the film mirrored that, which I found strange. You're right about one thing though, it shouldn't be in the article since it can't be proven. P.S. I said I made a mistake, as can any expert. No reason to get rude about your answer. @Ian Rose Saying that about Quint is not correct as he didn't slide into its mouth, he resisted and started kicking it and when he stopped and put his legs straight to reach for the side of his boat, it bit down on him. He didn't slide into its mouth. @Doniago I will edit it again, but not like before to make it more accurate as thats not what happens to Quint. He doesn't just slide into its mouth and get killed, he resists and when he stopped kicking to reach for the side of the boat, he laid straight and it bite down on him. (STCooper1 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)) I hope my new edit will please everyone, as I didn't use my word, but rather Ian Rose's. (STCooper1 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC))

I don't feel the fact that he resists is pertinent, especially as it doesn't change the outcome of the situation, and I don't believe that Ian Rose meant to suggest the change you've implemented, but I'll leave it to them to address that. In short, I oppose the current wording. I'm pretty sure anyone in Quint's position would be struggling; this doesn't give the reader any information that will help them understand the plot of the film.

On a separate note, I would find your posts much easier to read if you'd use indents and line breaks, especially when addressing multiple editors. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

@Doniago I did some changing around. Now how does its suit you? Its accurate and short. P.S. I tried hitting enter on the others and it didn't work, so this time, I hit it twice. Hope it did. (STCooper1 (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC))

Much happier with the current version. BTW, you can insert "tabs" using the colon (:). Two colons would be two tabs. It's generally considered best pratice to indent replies under what's being replied to. Doniago (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll remember that.(STCooper1 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC))

And I thought I was quite patient about a new editor. WP:Edit War is not allowed here. Just click the word to see the policy. I find it very hard to believe that you've been here since April 2011, but didn't know these rules. I also find it very hard to believe that you don't see all those messages regarding WP:Original research on your talk page. There are glaring alerts when messages come in. You've reverted six times, this, excluding consecutive edits, and several users have told you off. There are also "reason for editing" on history page as well, where we told you not to re-added it. I even added links to several Wikipedia policies to guide you to where the rules are written, and seeing how you replied me with the similar message in the reason box, I refuse to believe that you've never seen the messages, yet you somehow managed to ignore all above and re-add this many times. Many users have been blocked for less, so kindly consider what you've done. We let you come this far without reporting you, so it's only fair that one (or two) editor have a little right to express our frustration. Anthonydraco (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@Anthonydraco I told you off because your word choice could have been better. I admitted I made a mistake. What you said was not necessary. (STCooper1 (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC))

I will not be more explosive; however, I refuse to take the responsibility for the frustration you caused. You brought us here, not me. My message had always been better before that point, and that wasn't particularly rude either. I had tried to tell you how it worked more subtly, but you hadn't listened, so the only thing left was to be blunt, and that was what you got. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Not that. What you said about me being an expert. Your word choicing on that could have been better. Thats what I'm talking about. (STCooper1 (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC))

May I humbly suggest that this discussion appears to be drifting away from improving this article and may be more appropriate elsewhere? Thanks. Doniago (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Don, I'm aware we're drifting off Jaws, but we're still on editing Wikipedia. Cooper, about you being expert was a part of saying how Wikipedia works. The message was this "Wikipedia doesn't care if anyone say he's an expert, because a 10 yo claiming it and a real expert claiming it read the same here. What matters was sources." The wording could've been better, no doubt, but it was caused by frustration and I am not responsible for that frustration. I will not participate more of this discussion unless it's about Jaws. Say whatever you want if you must. Anthonydraco (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your sentence didn't say Wikipedia, it said I, in reference to yourself. You disrespected my years of study,research, and experience on man-eaters. I didn't like that. All I'll say about that (STCooper1 (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC))

James Bond character

Should it be mentioned in the Legacy section that the iconic James Bond movie character Jaws was named in honour of this film? 68.146.70.124 (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No, since it's not true unless you have a reliable source that says otherwise. Jaws (James Bond). DonIago (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Naked swim

A girl named Chrissie Watkins leaves a beach party at dusk on Amity Island and goes skinny dipping.
I'm trying to use the right words here. Would using the idioms "goes for a dip" or "swimming naked" be better for the reader? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 08:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I question whether it really matters whether she's naked. The point is she gets eaten. That said, swimming naked is most clear. Failing that, I believe skinny dipping is more clear than goes for a dip. DonIago (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yuck! It's horrifying to imagine a shark eating a naked woman, but that's why Hollywood gave it an R rating. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 13:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

First DVD release

The first DVD release of "Jaws" was well before 2000 It was first released on double-sided disc - one side containing "R" rated version and another side containing the "PG" rated version. You won't find this information anywhere other than having ownership of the DVD. Dickie birdie (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be a rather serious issue from the standpoint of verifiability then. DonIago (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Found a source for a single-sided PG in 1998.[6] - SummerPhD (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Jaws was originally released as an "R" rated film. Spielberg was not a high-profile director at the time. When "Jaws" became popular it was modified into "PG", with adult themes removed from the film. Dickie birdie (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Provided you have sources, why not be bold and add this information? DonIago (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources cannot be provided because they don't exist anywhere in print. The DVD release containing "R" and "PG" versions and ownership of the DVD is the only source currently in existence (as well as being one of the few who actually watched the original version of the film in 1975). Dickie birdie (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Douglas Brode, The Films of Steven Spielberg, Citadel 1996 could contain this information but I don't see any online previews of the book anywhere, so you'd need to buy it. Dickie birdie (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I would be surprised if it did, since the first DVDs only came out in 97/98 IIRC. I have two questions: i) do you own a copy of this version of the DVD; ii) if not, is it possible—and I really am not patronizing you here—you could be confusing the DVD with the laserdisc? Betty Logan (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Or (gasp!) go to a library. Also, we have the fact that new media (CD, DVD, HD DVD, Blu-ray, etc.) often bring about sources focused on conversions of older media to the newer medium ("OMG! They used a horrible print/the original master!") I wouldn't be at all surprised if such sources exist for this case. The claim that there simply aren't any sources is unfounded. Yes, sources on the web might be few (or, perhaps, non-existent), but there would certainly be sources somewhere for this. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

An easy way to settle this is to run a check on the barcode on the reverse of the case. This says that all authentic Universal releases carry a barcode. Betty Logan (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Quint's boat

Can someone provide some info on the real "Orca"? According to the IMDB, a boat was purchased locally and built into the "Orca". Maybe the boat still exists somewhere? Elsquared (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, but I disagree that this is just a "general discussion". Since so much of the film takes place on the boat, it becomes an important part of the story. Filming locations are routinely discussed in articles on films and TV shows, and I believe this qualifies. Elsquared (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume the original question involved adding information about the Orca to the article, though I think that was a bit unclear from the phrasing. In any case, IMDb isn't a reliable source. Perhaps it would be worth checking around to see whether there's any behind-the-scenes info regarding the Orca. Couldn't hurt to look anyway. DonIago (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes to the article

There have been a spate of alterations by IP editors (possibly the same person?) that I do not consider in the best interests of the article:

1. The first problem alteration is the change of "young woman" to "girl" in the plot summary. The character who this refers to is clearly at least upper high-school, possibly college age. As I stated in my edit summary "girl" implies the character is pre-pubescent or in early adolescence. It is a misleading.
2. The second change is the addition that the film was the "highest grossing film of 1975" right after the article states it became the highest-grossing film of all-time. It is a redundant adidtion, since it obviously follows it was the highest-grosisng film of the year.

This is a featured article and I do not regard these changes as improvements. Editors should discuss these changes here before restoring them again. Betty Logan (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Genre changes

Currently the article identifies the film as a "thriller" but recent edits have been adding "horror" to the lead.

It is worth noting what various sources say on the issue of genre. The American Film Institute consider it an "adventure" and "drama" film (with "sea" and "suspense" listed as sub-genres) while the British Film Institute do consider it a "horror"; the New York Times regard it as "action" and "horror"; Allmovie regard it as a "thriller" and "adventure" film (with "creature film", "sea adventure" and "natural horror" lists as sub-genres); Rotten Tomatoes has it under "Drama", "Action & Adventure" and "Mystery & Suspense"; the British Board of film Censors has it simply down as "drama".

However, it is not just a case of being able to source a genre, since the article also needs to observe WP:WEIGHT. In this case there seems to be no clear consensus among the sources as to what the dominant genre is! If we restrict to primary genre listings, the most common genres from the sources listed above are "drama" and "adventure". It is no more regarded a horror film by legitimate sources than it is an adventure film, or action film. On the subject of genre itself, the inspirations and themes section states "Scholars such as Thomas Schatz noted how Jaws melds various genres while being basically a thriller film. Most is taken from horror, with the core of a nature-based monster movie while adding elements of a slasher film. The second half of the movie provides a buddy film in the interaction between the crew of the Orca, and a supernatural horror based on the shark's depiction of a nearly Satanic menace." sourced to Schatz (2003). Schatz concludes: "Jaws was essentially an action film and a thriller, of course, though it effectively melded various genres and story types."

It is not appropriate to list it as a "horror" film when the bulk of the sources don't regard it as one. Per WP:FILMLEAD the lead should "identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". In view of that I think the quote by Schatz above best summarises the poistion on genre by notionally identifying it as a "thriller". Action films and horrors are types of thriller anyway, so it works as a good umbrella term in the absence of a dominant genre classification. Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

So basically only one of the six reliable sources classifies it as thriller, while two (+ one with a "natural horror" subgenre) classifies it as horror, and four have it classified as an adventure drama, and all that makes it predominantly a thriller? 2+2=6? To add some sources: Ebert categorized it under "Horror" and "Thriller", and Andrew Gordon's Empire of Dreams describes it as a horror film Link, since we're looking at googlebooks as the most superior sources apparently (but only when it fits out opinions right?). So "horror thriller" would be more than fitting, and it IS a subgenre, so "primary subgenre" is not violated. In fact, adventure horror or horror drama would be even more fitting, but I digress.

"Action films and horrors are types of thriller anyway" this is also entirely false, and nobody ever said this. --FollowTheSigns (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The WP:WEIGHT of sources do not support the claim that it is a horror film or a "horror-thriller". What the sources above demonstrate is that there is little consensus among sources about the genre, so in vie of that we should rely on only high qaulity sources. The source we use in the article (Schatz) is a scholarly one that dissects the genre of the film rather than merely labelling it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• The genre has just been changed yet again. I will reiterate: As Schatz notes (see my quote of him above) Jaws is not a conventional genre film. It draws on the horror genre. It draws on the adventure genre. It draws on the action genre. In some ways it is also a drama as well as being a creature feature. As a result it has been labelled as many things down the years, but to quote Schatz "Jaws was essentially an action film and a thriller". We do not arbitrarily assign genres to the lead. WP:FILMLEAD states that the lead should identify "primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". If there are any other high quality sources that discuss the genre more thoroughly than Schatz then bring them to this discussion and we can take a look at them, but genre-warring is not acceptable. Betty Logan (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree with Betty that the Schatz source is appropriate to reference here. The "Inspirations and themes" section discusses how the film relates to horror, but I would not be opposed to more coverage in the article body about how Jaws relates to other genres, like for example starting the so-called "shark film" genre (see this as one potential source). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  The other thing I forgot to mention is that we should be cautious in using databases' genre classifications for running text. Databases tend to stick multiple genres to a film regardless of how relevant they are. Per WP:DUE, it is a matter of looking at secondary sources, which engage in actual analysis, to see what genre the film can fall under. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think database listings are acceptable when the genre is straightforward and the sources are consistent with each other, but once we get to films which are difficult to categorize we have to look at the substance of the source, and its authority. I have no vested in interest in this: if Schatz had called it "essentially a horror film" then I would be happy to support such wording. What elevates the Schatz source above the others IMO is its analysis of the genre. If there are other authoritative sources that offer similar analysis and draw to different conclusions then we should consider what they say too. Betty Logan (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Schatz is ONE source. He is not superior to the British or American film institutes or Roger Ebert, who is arguably one of the most notable film critics of all time. Tomas Schatz is not even that notable of a source, he is a mere professor of communication at a Texas university. Ebert's classifications are clearly by far superior. The Googlebooks source by Andrew M Gordon I linked is also scholarly one, and includes analysis, so there's that. This is an obvious case of the lack of objectivity and editing Wikipedia according to opinions. And if we're not supposed to be using databases' genre classifications then why is Allmovie commonly used as the go-to source for genre classifications Wikipedia-wide? When did this change? And yes "there is little consensus among sources about the genre" because films are rarely a single genre, especially films like these. But very little of these sources reefer to Jaws as a thriller, and so many more reefer to is as adventure and horror, or even something else. Vincent Canby (who is also more notable and relevant than Schatz) said that Jaws is, at heart, the old standby, a science-fiction film. So should the lead say it's a sci-fi film? No. It is a sci-fi film in a way, but Jaws is not predominantly a sci-fi film, even though Canby thinks of it as one. So since various critics and scholars have different opinions about this film, we should indeed be looking at database classifications or just look at the MOST reliable critic, who would be Ebert. And by the way, I'd say that the British film institute, the Ameircan film institute, The NY Times and Rovi are better "high quality sources" than an obscure googlebook by an obscure author.--FollowTheSigns (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, scholarly sources are regarded as more reliable than non-scholarly sources per WP:RELIABLE, so as a professor of communications who has written extensively on film and its form I think we can safely assume that Schatz is a superior source to the likes of Rovi and the NY Times databases. You are missing the larger point though; this isn't just about the quality of source, it is also about the context of the claim. Labelling is not the same as analyzing, so a source that presents analysis of the film's genre is more eminent than a source that simply labels the film because our ultimate goal is to provide encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Betty Logan (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The NY Times is not a database, it reviews ("analyses") the films and THEN labels the films with the appropriate genre(s) in the "overview" section. Rovi (Allmovie) is also not a mere database, every single film entry features a review of the film in the review section by the author who assigns the genres. So it's pretty obvious that the films are analyzed before they are labeled. And as you've seen, there are scholarly sources that do reefer to Jaws as a horror film, therefore we're about 50/50 - So, again, "Horror thriller" is appropriate as it is a subgenre.--FollowTheSigns (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:FILMLEAD states to include "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified", which means that it needs to be directly supported by a source, and the article does not source "horror thriller" at all. We cannot synthesize genres into our own mash-up since it is original research. The problem with databases is that if we consolidate all of them, we will have a half dozen genres batched together, separated by dashes or slashes, which is poor writing. The goal of WP:FILMLEAD is to keep the genre straightforward in the opening sentence. We can elaborate on how the film relates to certain genres in the article body. I saw it being called a monster movie, a killer shark film, and a natural horror film (and not in databases, but in running text of secondary sources). We cannot pack all of these upfront. The introduction needs to be generalistic. I find "thriller" suitable because nobody is saying that it is not a thriller. Something like this says, "Jaws was essentially an action film and a thriller, of course, though it effectively melded various genres and story types," going on to mention monster movies, supernatural elements, high-gore "slasher" films, buddy films, chase films, etc. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are we so stuck on that same old source? Why are we ignoring countless other ones, that acknowledge it being a horror film? Databases (Allmovie in particular) are indeed reliable, and Allmovie is what is used for the lists of films by genre here on Wikipedia. So I really am not sure when this changed. "Databases is that if we consolidate all of them, we will have a half dozen genres batched together, separated by dashes or slashes, which is poor writing." Or we can just use the genre that is repeated in all of these databases? That seems fairly logical. If five out of five databases list horror as one of the genres (for example), even if the additional genres (if there are any) differ from site to site, it's clear all of them agree that it's a horror film, therefore it's safe to say it's a horror film - the additional genres do not have to be necessarily included in the lead (all of the genres of a film are usually in the categories anyways, rather than the lead). And why are we choosing to ignore that Schatz also called it "essentially" an action film? Why not put action in the lead? The synthesis of genres into a subgenre is, in a way, necessary when sources differ or always list both genres, instead of just putting one in the lead based off of personal opinion. See WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I have provided numerous reliable sources so far that have been ignored and have only seen one.--FollowTheSigns (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"The synthesis of genres into a subgenre is, in a way, necessary..." No, it violates the Wikipedia:No original research policy to engage in synthesis. The goal is to be singular in introducing the film. Pluralizing is a slippery slope because there can be unsourced mashing-up to lead to some amalgamation that is not seen elsewhere. In essence, we have to go as high-level as possible, and "thriller" verifiably fits the bill here. The alternative is to not state the genre at all, as Doniago stated below. If that has to be done, I think the premise should be moved more upfront to state what happens in the film and let the readers decide what kind of film it is. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The synthesis of genres is not really original research-y if it's based off of sources that list it as "Horror, Thriller" separately. I still feel we should be looking at the likes of Roger Ebert for such classifications, instead of obscure googlebooks that could only be used to source this one film in particular. But I guess not stating the genre works.--FollowTheSigns (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

As I point out in my first post in this discussion any number of sources can be supplied calling it many other things too, and as Erik points out we cannot stick half a dozen genres in the lead. Let's just take your Allmovie source which categorizes it as a "thriller, aventure" film and lists the sub-genres as "Creature Film, Sea Adventure, Natural Horror". Why are you ignoring all the other listed sub-genres if you consider it so reliable? I will tell you why: calling it a "natural horror creature feature sea adventure thriller film" would be nonsensical. It is not really an issue of sourcing, it is an issue of information integration. The genre needs to go in the opening sentence so we are extremely limited in how much exposition we can give over to it. The Schatz source is convenient because it qualifies many genre influences in a very concise manner. If you look at what it says it is remarkably consistent with what Allmovie says, but presents the information to us in a way that is suited to prose, unlike Allmovie. Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the sub genres. The subgenres should be in the categories, not the lead. IF it is decided to base the decisions off of Allmovie then sure, Jaws is an adventure thriller. It's pretty clear we are not doing that and are instead searching the depths of Googlebooks for an obscure citation. What I'm saying is finding a different vague source for every single film is not consistent, and we should find a single site, or a few sites that will be used as sources for film genres. And I never suggested sticking half a dozen genres in the lead, I said to put the one(s) that are repeated, that's only logical.--FollowTheSigns (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Consider this a daring, defeatist, or both suggestion, but I feel that if providing a genre for the lead is going to be such a contentious matter (I grant that other editors' feelings regarding when a matter has become "contentious" may vary), then little harm is done in omitting the genre altogether. People curious about the film can read the plot summary (or the briefer synopsis included in the lead) and draw their own conclusions. What would be more interesting would be if there'd been an open debate regarding what genre of film Jaws is such that we could discuss that within the article. DonIago (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary edits on Jaws (film) and Jaws 2

These articles are FA and GA rated respectively and in the last month or so have seen numerous revisions to the plot summaries by anonymous IP editors. The problem has been going for some time at this article but I see the disruption has spread to the sequel article too. IMO, the numerous revisions—at least on the FA rated Jaws article—have seen a gradual degradation of the plot summary with the introduction of unencyclopedic language (changing "gigantic" to "monstrous", "determines the death was a fatal shark attack" to "determines she was indeed killed by a shark" are some examples). This morning I had resolved to restore the version of the plot that was passed at the FA review only to discover that PNW Raven had copy-edited the summary and addressed most of its deficiencies and getting it back more or less to the quality it was at the FA review. However, the disruption has begun yet again.

The problem we face here is that the anonymous editor who keeps making these revisions is an inferior writer to the editor who wrote the original plot summary and also the editor who copy-edited it this morning. I don't like reverting nearly every single edit an editor makes, but when the revisions are at worst inferior, or at best only a comparable quality but just another way of saying the same thing then the edits are not tangible improvements to the article. It is getting to the point where I think we have to consider semi-protection to maintain stability on both articles. Before doing that though, I would like to have a version in place that enjoys the support of the editors involved with the articles. For the first film we have three choices as I see: i) restore the version passed by FA review; ii) restore the copy-edited version by PNW Raven; iii) compare the two versions and take the best phrasing from both. What I don't want to see is another cycle of this gradual degradation we have seen in the last month or so. The third option seems in the best interests of the article IMO. In the case of the sequel the plot summary passed by the GA assessment was nothing special and there was room for improvement so the edits have not been so damaging, but I think it would be in the best interests of both articles to get the plot summaries sorted out. Betty Logan (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I also support the third option as explained above. That way it will make reading the summary a lot easier. Unless someone objects, I'm going to post an WP:RFPP request on the Jaws film due to the ongoing disruption. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, and then we can harmonize the peer reviewed and copy-edited versions of the plot without the constant interference by the IP. Betty Logan (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't stopped here earlier -- tks Betty for your thoughts and Sjones for organising the RFPP so everyone has time to think about what's best for the plot section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• NeilN just beat me to it by protecting. I'll revert. Sjames, I think you should take the "mammoth" out, but that's just me. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've been looking at this and it's now clear to me that it's one editor doing the same type of edits on film articles, especially those in the Jaws and Harry Potter franchises. Other articles may have to be protected as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Betty. I did not intend for my edits to create such disruption. I happened to swing by the "Jaws" page and thought it needed some work. I mostly work on streamlining wordy, overwritten plots on books and movies. I didn't expect to have a rather stubborn anonymous editor continually reverting every minor point. If he/she had improved it, I would have been happy to leave it alone, but the changes were not bettering the article. I'm not sure why this editor was so adamant about using "monstrous" or including unnecessary and incorrect info about Brody's son.PNW Raven (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• It appears the disruptive alterations to the plot that plagued the article through the summer have started up again in the last month. Ian Rose has had to carry out two reverts (that I fully support) in the last 24 hours alone. We may have to consider semi-protection again if it continues. Betty Logan (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Plot Issues

The previous version of the plot was better, as it was more detailed. For the shark, "humongous" or "monstrous" sound like more appropriate descriptions, as "large" is a relative term. Pointing out who plays who in the plot isn't really necessary, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.112.97.73 (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"Monstrous" is discussed in the section immediately above this one. DonIago (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

To be honest most of these edits are not improvements. Why do we need to know that the first victim is called "Chrissie Watkins"? How is "cripples" an improvement over "stalls" in describing what has happened to the engine? The plot summary is fine as it stands. This article has been passed at Wikipedia's highest level and the plot summary was copy-edited by PNW Raven over the summer. These changes are not improvements. I am restoring the last stable version of the plot summary which all the principle editors are happy with. Betty Logan (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I will note that this IP was reported for edit warring at Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (film), resulting in that article being protected, and appears to be engaging in the same behavior here (though I appreciate that they started a Talk page discussion). I have notified the editor who protected that page, and there is an outstanding report at AIV as well.

I would recommend that the IP revert their changes, apologize for edit-warring, and await a consensus here before making further changes. DonIago (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP has now been blocked for six months due to current and prior edit-warring, so this is probably a dead issue. DonIago (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That's an optimistic outlook given the obsession with this film's plot summary. Betty Logan (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Peace on Wikipedia and Good Will Towards My Fellow Editors? :p DonIago (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Second-highest grossing "franchise" film

An editor is persisting with removing the following claim on the basis the "source is wrong":

Adjusted for inflation, Jaws has earned almost $2 billion worldwide at 2011 prices and is the second most successful franchise film after Star Wars.

References

I believe this edit is unjustified for the following reasons:

1. The claim discusses the adjusted worldwide figure for Jaws and I see no rationale for removing it. The subsequent commentary only discusses the adjusted domestic gross for Jaws, which is roughly half the sum of the global figure.
2. The editor argues that it is not the second-highest grossing franchise film because Gone with the Wind is technically a "franchise" film too. First of all, Scarlett was not a direct sequel to the film, it is an adaptation of a sequel to the book. This may count as a franchise by some definitions but Scarlett did not have a theatrical release which is clearly the criteria applied by the source. This is textbook WP:Original research: an editor is applying their own interpretation of the facts to disagree with a source, and this is not how claims are challenged on Wikipedia. If you want to pass off Gone with the Wind as a franchise movie then please provide a source which discusses it in those terms.
3. Finally, regardless of whether we consider Gone with the Wind to be a franchise film, that makes Jaws either the second or third-highest-grossing franchise film, and the claim helps to contextualise the success of Jaws for readers who may not be familiar with box office metrics.

I do not believe that removing this facet of information is beneficial to readers. If there is a legitimate case for considering Gone with the Wind to be a fracnhise film then this should be be appropriately sourced and the claim refined to incorporate the new information, but an editor should not be removing sourced content simply because they disagree with it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Betty,

this website states, that Gone with the Wind is a franchise. http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-sequels-you-didnt-know-existed.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Vinci Nanjing (talk • contribs) 15:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, that is a blog posting which isn't a WP:Reliable source. Second of all, it backs up what I stated above: the TV miniseries was based on book which was a sequel to the original book, not a sequel to the film. It seems to me you are stretching the definition beyond how it is usually applied, and certainly beyond the context of the claim in the source. Are there any articles or books about film franchising which consider Gone with the Wind in these terms? In the context of film, sources seems to draw a distinction between adaptations and "franchises": The Numbers - Movie Franchises, Box Office Mojo Franchise index and Filmsite All-Time Top Film Franchises all have fairly comprehensive lists of film franchises but none include Gone with the Wind. Betty Logan (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Igordebraga for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What genre should go in the lead?

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. There is a unanimous consensus in this discussion that thriller is the primary genre of Jaws so belongs in the opening sentence of the article. It should be the only genre listed in the opening sentence until and unless consensus changes to include another genre.

There was also support among editors that other genres could be discussed past the opening sentence if appropriate.

Cunard (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The genre has been a bone of contention for years, so I would prefer to settle this question for once and for all. I will list some points to consider and then invite comment from third parties.

• When the article was promoted to FA status, the genre in the opening sentence was simply given as "thriller".
• On the issue of genre, WP:FILMLEAD states "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". In practice this usually means limiting the lead to one or two genres and would rule out "adventure horror thriller".
• While there are plenty of sources that classify the film each as a thriller, a horror film, and adventure film, an action film and so on there is little unanimous consensus between them. Usually, film genres in Wikipedia articles are drawn from the IMDb (despite not being a reliable source), and in this case the IMDb lists the films as "adventure/drama/thriller". The American Film Institute lists the genre as "adventure/drama".
• Doniago recommends an alternative solution of not listing a genre at all in the discussion above at #Genre changes.

Hopefully we can attract enough participation to resolve this issue and all future editors should respect the result however it turns out. I think it would be in the article's interests if we are able to determine a genre for the lead, but if there is ultimately no consensus then perhaps we should default to Doniago's suggestion and not have one. Betty Logan (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Thriller Thomas Schatz, a professor at the University of Texas wrote "Jaws was essentially an action film and a thriller, of course, though it effectively melded various genres and story types" (sourced to Schatz (2003)). The reason I have a preference for choosing Schatz's breakdown over others is that rather than just ticking off the genres he actually analyzes the issue: he correctly identifies that Jaws is a genre mash and identifies what he considers the primary genre. In this respect the genre would be "action-thriller", but I think we can relax this slightly and just go with "thriller", since the film can be justifiably described as an "adventure-thriller" and "horror-thriller" too. "Thriller" is a broad encompassing genre, and by narrowing it down further we would place too much emphasis on some genre elements at the expense of the others. Betty Logan (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Thriller best sums up the primary genre, and it's preferable to use that in the lead rather than no genre. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• I'd probably just go with thriller. Though there's support in reliable sources for including other genres, this article was stable as "thriller" for a long time, and that seems good enough. We can discuss additional details outside of the opening sentence if there's something interesting to say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• I'm a bit late to this party, but while I find the genre of adventure to be understandable for Jaws, I agree that thriller is more applicable. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 21:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• I concur with using "thriller" and agree with NinjaRobotPirate that additional details can be discussed past the opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

• @Erik, Ian Rose, Doniago, and Mazza Centanni: The lead has been subject to further disruption today but this edit caught my eye. That looks like an elegant compromise and certainly in the spirit of how Schatz frames his comments. I can certainly live with that if it means we finally get some peace on this article. What do the other primary editors here think? Betty Logan (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  I think it is a little upfront. What about relegating it to the second sentence? I think it is more important to identify the director first. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)