CGI Sharks Don't Break Down

[Richmond Clements]

Fucking hell- Timson's going to have my hide for this, but yup- fair points, Tips!

Are you seriously trying to suggest that if it had been anything other than a shark in the movie (say, a serial killer, or  a disease) , it would have been the global, iconic film it is today? I don't think so.

No, it certainly would not have been iconic, but I do think that the shark, in this respect, is incidental- perhaps plot device would be a better way of putting it that McGuffin? Although I fully concede your point that Bruce is a character.

[Michaelvk]

Now if we're looking at god-awful sharks, where they completely took the piss, Deep blue sea has my vote.. The animatronic sharks, whilst dodgily painted at times, were remarkable feats of engineering, the CGI ones were horrid..

By the by.. A year or so ago I read the script to a sequel to it.. Entertaining.. But still crap..

[Tiplodocus]

They seemed to change size as well according to the needs of the plot.

Still, one of them got to eat [spoiler]Saffron Burrows[/spoiler]. I'll admit the thought has crossed my mind once or twice.

[Michaelvk]

It probably needed a toothpick..

[Mikey]

"it is not a movie about a big killer fish- it is a movie about three men on a boat together and the fish is merely there as a plot mcguffin"

I have to disagree with this. Jaws is a movie about a killer shark and how it affects the community and the three men on the boat.  Are you seriously trying to suggest that if it had been anything other than a shark in the movie (say, a serial killer, or  a disease) , it would have been the global, iconic film it is today? I don't think so.

And the shark is definitely not a MacGuffin. It kills one of the main characters.  MacGuffins don't actually have any effect on the plot.

I just watched Jaws again last night, so this thread is serendipitous!

I'll still say it's the three men in a boat that brings the film up from a shark hunt. The interrelationships of the crew are what makes it such a memorable film. The shark, character or not, is a plot device to have an extreme situation viewed on human terms. The film's surely yer old man vs nature, isn't it? No control, all that malarkey. Without the shark as the icon the audience wouldn't have the same emotional response to the predicament the men are in, but it's the isolation of the ocean, something vast and dangerous in human terms, that hits the buttons.

But Jaws is a magnificent film, no matter who eats what for why!

Now if we're looking at god-awful sharks, where they completely took the piss, Deep blue sea has my vote..

*shudder* That was piss alright.

M..

[WhizzBang]

But Jaws is a magnificent film, no matter who eats what for why!

Yes. I think it is the best thing Spielberg has ever done.

[Peter Wolf]

Plastic and unreal or not, this would have me out of the water as if I were attached to a massive bungee.. And where this pic was taken is about 40 minutes from where I live. Needless to say, swimming in the ocean is low on my list of things to do..

The vast majority of sharks are harmless so there is very little to be concerned about but i guess that the very low probability of an attack is still enough of a worry to put off wanting to swim with them but i have done a couple of times.As for Deep Blue Sea some of the shark effects were very very good but others not and the makers of the effects seemed to have a problem with scale as the charges seemed to be huge and then small as there was no consistency with their size.The shark in Jaws was completely convincing.

Your sea is blue while the only sea of Britains coast's are an ugly grey. Amazing picture. Let's hope the shark was merely curious and not hungry.

Not in Cornwall its not as its clear and blue there.Not sure where that photo was taken but that water is murky compared to the sea around New Guinea and the Soloman Islands.
An example of very convincing CGI is the plane crash scene in The Knowing along with plenty of other examples but CGI is a tool that is only ever going to be as good as whoever is using it to create effects.

[Tiplodocus]

The shark, character or not, is a plot device

Agreed but I was pointing out that it wasn't a Macguffin which Richmond conceded. 

Yeah, that's right. He conceded!!  He's rubbish at this internet malarkey.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

"it is not a movie about a big killer fish- it is a movie about three men on a boat together and the fish is merely there as a plot mcguffin"

I have to disagree with this. Jaws is a movie about a killer shark and how it affects the community and the three men on the boat.  Are you seriously trying to suggest that if it had been anything other than a shark in the movie (say, a serial killer, or  a disease) , it would have been the global, iconic film it is today? I don't think so.

Can't argue with that

And the shark is definitely not a MacGuffin. It kills one of the main characters.  MacGuffins don't actually have any effect on the plot.

I understand a Maguffin to be something that only exists to drive the plot. But that's just a semiotic arguement.

That aside, I'm in agreement. If a lesser director did Jaws and had access to CGI, it would be just another monster movie.  But I wouldn't be averse for a scene for scene tidy up of Jaws where the rubber shark is replaced with a slightly more realistic one. Every shot exactly the same, no new fotage of the shark, just a more realistic one. 

I don't think that's necessary. That's kind of my original point

Like they did with the Star Trek DVDs. Just replaced the sometimes ropey effects shots with nice shiney up to date ones so that the planets looked like planets instead of painted ping pong balls.

In this case, yes, it probably was better that they polished it a wee bit. That's not to say the original FX team didn't do the best job they could. Even with the dodgy effects, episodes like Balance of Terror still managed to convey what was going on in deep space.

Interesting that Weta are quoted a lot as masters of this - and I think everyone is right. The bits where LOTR falls down is where they bung in loads of daft CGI for a gag (e.g. Legolas taking down a Mumakil on his own) rather than for the sake of the story telling (the utterly gob smackingly Cave Troll in Moria or the ride of the rohirim).

Weta are miles ahead of the competition as far as I'm concerned. Their depiction of Gollum/ Smeagol was a triumph.

Star Wars is dead.

It's my opinion that a good director should facilitate his actors. That's not to say that actor's shouldn't be challenged, but expecting them to react to a weird alien world, when in fact they're just standing in front of a green curtain, is a dick move of such collossal magnitude, that it has forced me to write this unwieldy, run-on sentence. I bought the remastered original trilogy when it originally came out. One of the things that vexed me was the 15 minute mini-documentary prefacing the films. They talked about the original fx in such a disparaging tone, as if they way they did it originally was a ridiculous way to make a movie. I reckon they way they originally did was more inventive and clever.

[SmallBlueThing]

The trouble with posting on my phone is that i have no 'quote' function. This has the unfortunate effect of making my messages sometimes seem like generalising pronouncements, without any reference to particular parts of the conversation.

So, with that in mind, i'd just like to say that i have absolutely no problem with the original effects in Star Trek, either. When i watch proper Trek (sadly not as often as i'd like, as my kids just dont connect with it in any way) i accept and believe all the models and hand-animated phasers and explosions and whatnot. The matte paintings are still sumptuous after 45 years, and the model Enterprise orbiting a randomly coloured planet is such an ingrained part of my life that i had a violent and immediate searing dislike to the revamped and remastered episodes. It just seemed to me massively disrespectful to the team who put blood, sweat and tears into painting such images into the shared experience of millions.

For me, it's no less than art forgery.

SBT

[Tiplodocus]

I have no problem with the effects in the original Star Trek or the rubbery shark in Jaws.

But if someone comes along and offers to give me shiny new ones, that don't detract from the original by changing it into something it wasn't, then I'm perfectly happy to accept those as well.  Surely it would be daft not to?

I'm pretty sure a MacGuffin and a plot device are different things.  The MacGuffin just sets things going and then has no part in the plot thereafter; normally something like a suitcase of money that people are chasing but nobody actually spends or uses (or even gets their hands on) during the course of the film.

That shark definitely has a bearing on the plot and the outcome for one of the main characters.

Hey, maybe we should be on the pedants thread.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

I the way I understand, a Macguffin is a type of plot device. But you're right, that sort of talk should be confined to the pedants thread.

The matte paintings are still sumptuous after 45 years

Too right. Those sort of back grounds are a lost art. Surely they could still be employed? I'm not up to speed on cutting edge imaging and FX, but I think ye could use a painted back-drop, to give the actors something to (figuratively) bounce off. Then in post production, they could take the image, tweak it a bit to make the lighting more dynamic and create the illusion of depth, and matt that over the painted back-ground image on the master.

[Peter Wolf]

I the way I understand, a Macguffin is a type of plot device. But you're right, that sort of talk should be confined to the pedants thread.

There isnt a pedants thread so how can it belong in a non-existent thread ?